From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #37
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/37
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 99 : Issue 37
Today's Topics:
Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Re: [B7L] Re: African explorers
Re: [B7L] Re: African explorers
[B7L] Cally's family
Re: [B7L] Power - on topic
[B7L] Re: Mutoids
Re: [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC...
Re: [B7L]Social Engineering
Re: [B7L] Ref Power
Re: [B7L] African Explorers
Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive
Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Re: [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC...
[B7L] New B7 season
[B7L] Power
Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts)
Re: [B7L] New B7 season
Re:[B7L] bringing up children
Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive
Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts)
[B7L] Re: Animals
Re:[B7L]Social Engineering
Re[B7L]African Explorers
Re[B7L]Animals
[B7L] In defence of Sarcophagus
Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Re: [B7L] Responding to the Message
[B7L] Re: Wome, B7 and Avon
Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive
Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts)
Re: [B7L] Re: Wome, B7 and Avon
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 19:11:08 -0500
From: Jane MacDonald <cylanmaster@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Message-ID: <199901191911_MC2-6745-E5C3@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Kathryn Andersen said: -
>> But would Cally have any experience of a "normal" family to draw on?
>> Wasn't she a clone? She mentions her sister but never her parents.
>Actually, she does mention her parents - in Harvest of Kairos! When
>Avon has her telepathically probe the Sopron, she says that she senses
>her father/her mother -- she is rather confused, because, as Avon
>points out, what she actually sensed was the Sopron's amplified
>reflection of herself. But it *is* evidence that she knew her
>parents.
I thought that clones are made from the cells of their parent and therefore
only have one parent. In that case Cally could not have had a mother and
a father, only one or the other.
Cylan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:26:21 -0600
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Message-Id: <199901200024.SAA17368@mail.dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Jane MacDonald wrote:
>I thought that clones are made from the cells of their parent and therefore
>only have one parent. In that case Cally could not have had a mother and
>a father, only one or the other.
The fact that she was a clone does not say where the original cloned cell
came from. The easiest method of cloning, after all, is to take a
fertilized egg cell and get it to divide completely during the first cell
divisions; that's how identical twins occur in nature. If Cally, Zelda, and
any others in the litter were the result of this kind of cloning, they
would have had a mother and father -- the parents of the original cell.
- Lisa
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@rsc.raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
New Riders of the Golden Age: http://www.warhorse.com/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:39:46 +1000
From: Gina Sartore <ginaa@psych.usyd.edu.au>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: African explorers
Message-Id: <v03007801b2cae35d9769@[129.78.82.186]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Neil spake thusly (quoting Pat along the way):
>Pat wrote:
>
>>Dayna hunting Sarrans is a great analogy to the colonists hunting tigers
>>in Africa. Just assumed it was their right. And how could the primitves
>>protest? Spears against elephant guns? No contest!
>
>They may have assumed the right to hunt _tigers_ in Africa, but they'd have
>been bloody lucky to find one!
>
At the risk of going even further off topic (who, _us_?):
- A tiger? In Africa?
-Shtum, shtum...
Sorry, sorry, couldn't help it. Days of forcibly not responding to His
Spudliness have taken their toll.
gina
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:52:22 PST
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: African explorers
Message-ID: <19990120005223.2729.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
>At the risk of going even further off topic (who, _us_?):
>- A tiger? In Africa?
>-Shtum, shtum...
>Sorry, sorry, couldn't help it. Days of forcibly not responding to His
>Spudliness have taken their toll.
>gina
Is that from an episode of The Goon Show? (It triggered a memory.) If it
is, Spike Milligan's imagination is a fantastic way of going off-topic,
at least in my grinning opinion.
Regards
Joanne
"My name is Count Valentine Dyall, and I have one boy."
Eccles: "Oh, he must be your son Dyall!"
<groan>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:04:39 EST
From: Tigerm1019@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Cally's family
Message-ID: <cb8e95f8.36a52ba7@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-01-19 19:39:59 EST, Lisa wrote:
<< Jane MacDonald wrote:
>I thought that clones are made from the cells of their parent and therefore
>only have one parent. In that case Cally could not have had a mother and
>a father, only one or the other.
The fact that she was a clone does not say where the original cloned cell
came from. The easiest method of cloning, after all, is to take a
fertilized egg cell and get it to divide completely during the first cell
divisions; that's how identical twins occur in nature. If Cally, Zelda, and
any others in the litter were the result of this kind of cloning, they
would have had a mother and father -- the parents of the original cell.
>>
There's a third possibility. If the clones were adopted into families once
they were born, they would have had mothers and fathers in the social sense,
if not necessarily the biological sense. I think this might have been what
she was referring to in "Harvest of Kairos." Perhaps there were many couples
eager to adopt, as there are in our society.
Tiger M
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 20:11:46 EST
From: Tigerm1019@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Power - on topic
Message-ID: <22f6a500.36a52d52@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-01-19 14:27:46 EST, Judith wrote:
<< The point I find interesting is that Nina was obviously about to take over
the
Hommicks at the end. She had the determination. She'd been a leader among
the
Seska and every woman there had been a Seska. She was GunnSar's widow and
probably had some authority as a result of that.
I often wonder how she managed.
>>
Someone should write this story.
Tiger M
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 22:04:26 -0500
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re: Mutoids
Message-ID: <199901192204_MC2-673D-6EDA@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Taina wrote:
>Of course, the non-mutoid pilots are all male.
Jenna would be rather distressed to hear this... I hope you meant Feds
only.
Harriet
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 17:02:08 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC...
Message-ID: <36A52B10.3F2D@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Penny Dreadful wrote:
> GITHOG
Githog?
Pat the Unenlightened
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:00:13 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L]Social Engineering
Message-ID: <36A538AD.3F47@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julie Horner wrote:
> Considering the parenting qualities of the rest of the crew I would
> have thought that several would have something to offer but, as is often
> the case in RL, they would each be better at different stages of childhood.
While reading your post, I received "visions" of the characters doing
kiddie tv shows.
> Blake
Captain Kangaroo: large and <snort> beefy, kind and considerate, a bit
disheveled and needing a trim.
>Cally
Gentle Sherrilee: the gal with Lambchops, the shy and sheepish (and
curly!) hand puppet
> Gan would be perfect for infants or young children
A regular Mr. Rogers: slow, calm, and giving the greatest piggy back
rides this side of Andre the Giant.
>
> Vila on the whole would be too irresponsible and careless ... Consequently kids adore
Bozo the Clown
when tanked on red wine: Red Skeleton
>
> Avon would have no interest in children until they were at least
> old enough to understand the Pythagoras theorem.
"The Science Guy" on PBS
> My vote for best potential parent is Jenna.
As cool as Annette Funnichello of the 1950s Mickey Mouse Show.
Pat P
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:37:49 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Ref Power
Message-ID: <36A5417D.63E4@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Helen Krummenacker wrote:
> But the gems converted _body mass_ to telekinetic strength, didn't they?
Correct! And contestant no. 4 wins: A DIANYMON CRYSTAL TORQUE!
Teleprompter cue: Applause! Cheers!
> Using the potential energy of the physical matter. What Avon said was
> short for, "On average, men have more body mass, so even your technology
> doesn't change men's superior strength."
Yes, this is why Avon had to persevere against the pain,
(ah, but he suffers so beautifully)
knowing that when Pela had used up her 120 pounds of mass, he would have
80 pounds remaining. Avon was fairly beefy by 4th season, lucky for him
at this point. Even if the fashion police are not pleased and cite him
for porkiness.
> Obviously, however, this isn't true in all cases. I've known men smaller
> than me and I'm only average sized.
Right. If stacked Nina and skinny Vila were to contest, lightweight Vila
would lose.
Pat P
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:53:31 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] African Explorers
Message-ID: <36A5452B.1B86@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julie Horner wrote:
> >Dayna hunting Sarrans is a great analogy to the colonists hunting tigers
> >in Africa.
oops, Neil: quite right. Tigers are in India. Lions, then.
>
> I don't think she actually "hunted" them did she? I mean in the sense
> that she tracked them down to kill them for sport. Hal Mellanby
> would never have tolerated that -
What parent doesn't even suspect all the naughty things their wild
teenagers do? My mum didn't! And she wasn't even blind.
It's not so much what Dayna says as how she says it. Listen to the deep
personal satisfaction in her voice when she brags to Avon: "They're
afraid of *me*."
And think: why are the Sarrans so bent on killing peaceable reclusive
out of sight - out of mind Hal Mellanby? Could it be because his spawn
is out surreptitiously zapping them for sport?
An aside on the Lauren thread:
Perhaps Dayna's sister was rescued from some unspeakable primitive rite?
The annual sacrifice of a child virgin, perhaps? This would provide just
the right incentive to launch Dayna's reign of terror on the Sarran
warrior caste. In time, it just became sport. Seesh! Wouldn't you be a
bored teen, stuck on that backwater dirtball?
Also, when Dayna protests to dad about (paraphrase) "What's the point of
creating these killing weapons if we don't use them?"
The Moral:
One could look upon this situation as a curious turn about of the early
slavery situation in the US. Animals with black skin were considered
"not human" and therefore killable (it was no crime to kill your slave).
On Sarran, animals with white skin (i.e. not Dayna and Dad) were
considered "not human" and therefore killable. Today, in Africa and
elsewhere, animals with striped skin are considered "not human" and
therefore killable.
I honestly don't think Dayna would feel a shred of remorse about hunting
Sarrans. Or Hommiks. She is a curious, curious character. How did she
become so amoralistic, being raised by such a kind and doting dad?
Pat P
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 18:12:15 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive
Message-ID: <36A53B7F.4A7D@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain Coleman wrote:
> I suggest that this is another aspect of the Federation class system.
> Officers are taken from the higher grades: ... In this class there is full sexual equality.
> This class also provides the scientists, artists, white-collar workers and
> so on.
>
> The lower grades are strongly sexually segregated, and confined to
> relatively menial tasks. Men are either labourers or squaddies, and women
> are either ...<snip>
cashiers or kiddie caregivers
(er, what's a squaddie?) oh! Trooper Parr?
This scenario already exists in our present day society. Those from good
families who earn advanced degrees find few obstacles when pursuing any
career, regardless of sex (yes, women still earn less, but are not shut
out). Among the lower classes, male laborers cruelly harass females when
and if they manage to get a manual labor position. Oddly, women don't
harass men who infiltrate their minimum wage ranks (day care aide, etc.)
It just doesn't occur to women to be mean and exclusive. Men might call
those traits competitive.
A male acquaintence who is a US Civil War history buff just told me
about the many women who, disguised as men, fought in that war. One
woman, who achieved officer status, and won a chestful of medals, was
invited, along with the other surviving soldiers, to a post-war reunion.
She chose to attend in her true nature: dressed as a woman, and proudly
wearing all her war medals. The men, who had greatly admired her/his
courage and strategy in war, and obeyed this "officer" without question,
then set upon her and literally stripped her of all her medals! I
mean: how petty of those men! WHY do men behave so badly?
Pat P
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 1999 05:58:31 +0100
From: Calle Dybedahl <calle@lysator.liu.se>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Message-ID: <usd84afslk.fsf@sara.lysator.liu.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Jane MacDonald <cylanmaster@compuserve.com> writes:
> I thought that clones are made from the cells of their parent and
> therefore only have one parent. In that case Cally could not have
> had a mother and a father, only one or the other.
If you're doing large-scale cloning, you can probably do some fancy
stuff with the genes of the clones as well. Such as mixing the
chromosomes from two people to get some genetic diversity in the clones.
Anyway, nothing says that Cally is talking about her biological
parents. She might as well be talking about the pair who ran the
creche where she grew up.
--
Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se
This posting is protected by a Whizzo Brand Fnord Filter (TM).
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 00:18:20 PST
From: "Penny Dreadful" <pdreadful@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC...
Message-ID: <19990120081820.21305.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Pat puzzled:
>Githog?
A wretched nest of vipers, the meaning of whose acronym need not concern
the pure of heart. Suffice only to say they oppose FINALACT ("Foundation
Invalidating Numerous Accusations Leveled At Croucher's Travis")and
therefore deserve no mercy.
-- Penny "Spreadin' The Word -- The Word -- The WORD" Dreadful
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:33:09 +1030
From: "Dunne, Martin Lydon - DUNML001" <DUNML001@students.unisa.edu.au>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] New B7 season
Message-ID: <AE6AF4DBBDA8D111B1D200AA00DD6129015E92EA@EXSTUDENT4.Magill.UniSA.Edu.Au>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
BBC press release reveals long term plan to start producing "Blakes 7" in 1999.
It quotes Michael Grade in 1981- "We think a good 18 year pause will be good
for the show".
The format is believed to be that of survivors of the shoot out on Gauda Prime
(not Tarrant, Dayna, Soolin or Slave) on the run from the Federation, and
attempting to outfit their new ship, the "Rust Bucket" with a second chair,
windows and a door. Space Commander Travis returns as the principle villain,
with no explanation as to how he survived "Star One", or why other characters
recognise him as the same Travis despite being played by different actors
(Glynis Barber, Kevin Stoney and Peter Tuddenham [voice over only]).
The figure of 7 crew is reached by giving names and personalities to inanimate
objects on the ship. The pilot chair becomes "Dangerous Dev", explosives
expert.
Suggested plots are:
Re-Tread by Chris Boucher
The survivors flee Gauda Prime in the "Rust Bucket", perused by Travis (Deep
Roy).
Aftertaste by Tony Attwood
The Federation is rocked by a 60-way civil war between Old Federation, New
Federation, Borrowed and Blue Federations, all the various incarnations of
Travis, five guys named Moe and a cast of thousands which we never see. Tarrant
returns only to perish on Terminal in a tacked on scene.
Bloody Hurts, Doesn't It? by Ben Steed
Avon pierces his privates with a large hook and Villa shuts his repeatedly in a
door. We're not sure if this is a story breakdown, or just some stuff Ben likes
to write. In a note of continuity, Tarrant-returns-only-to-perish-on-Terminal
no less than eight times.
This is a real document and not sardonic comment.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 02:15:47 PST
From: "Stephen Date" <stephendate@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Power
Message-ID: <19990120101551.7477.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Aaargh !
I've just realised that in my previous post I referred to the Homminks
having no central heating or running water. I'd completely forgotten
about the secret control room. Which brings me to a gaping plot hole.
Xenon, years before our heroes arrive. The Council of Survivors have
recently decreed the destruction of all technology. The hated and feared
Technopolice have gone from house to house confiscating personal
computers and 2 Unlimited CDs (remember them ?). Now the Council meet in
stately conclave. It is night and a howling blizzard rages outside.
Councillor 1: Warm in here isn't it ?
Councillor 2: Yeah, and light, funny that.
Incidentally, Cato refers to the control room lasting forever and in
Moloch there was a machine that converted rocks to highly advanced
technological devices. Not a great one for the second law of
thermodynamics our Ben.
Stephen.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:34:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts)
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990120101934.17493A-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Stephen Date wrote:
> I am never quite sure what to make of Steed's scripts, there seems to be
> an ambiguity there. I am unsure if this is intentional or due to
> stylistic ineptitude.
>
> 1/ Power - This could be seen as a tract demonstrating the futility of a
> war between the sexes.
The closing lines of the script support this interpretation.
After all, Gunn Sar is slain by Dayna (with help
> from Kate and Pella), Nina takes over the tribe, thus undermining the
> ethic of macho male dominance. I don't think that Alison is correct in
> viewing it as a male sexual fantasy. (Puts on manly voice "I am Gunn
> Sar, Lord of the Homminks" Nope sorry, doesn't do a thing for me.
> Hopelessly compromised by the lack of running water and central heating
> and the overt presence of force majeure).
I'm with you on this one. I think there is an element of male fantasy, but
it's a quaffing ale, eating fistfuls of meat, fighting and singing
boisterous songs fantasy, rather than a sexual domination fantasy.
I think the subjugation of women is a far, far less common element of
men's fantasies than most women imagine.
I think Deborah is right in
> seeing Nina's "Once I was a Seska, now I am a woman" speech as an
> example of the Stockholm syndrome. I am unsure whether Steed saw it this
> way or whether he thought that to be truly fulfilled a woman should
> renounce telekinesis and independence and act as slave/quisling/brood
> unit to Mr Macho.
The latter, I reckon. I get the strong impression he sincerely believed
women would be happier if they stopped all this silly feminist stuff and
got back into the kitchen.
> plaigiarism intended). The problem with this is Avon's behaviour to
> Pella halfway through the episode (i.e. when he tells her that men are
> biologically stronger than women and kisses her) isn't our old friend
> Avon the intelligent, he gratuitously alienates a potential ally. I
> think Blake would certainly have offered Pella a chance to leave Xenon
> or to join the team in exchange for the Dynanon crystal. I suspect
> Avon's sudden rush of testosterone to the head was merely a plot device.
>
This, to me, is the worst part of the script. I can overlook or give the
benefit of the doubt to a lot of objectionable elements in the subtext,
but this out-of-character behaviour just kills it for me.
> 2/ Harvest of Kairos - I don't know if Steed was on Jarvik's side (in
> which case he, or someone advocating his viewpoint should have won) or
> whether Jarvik was being set up to be brought down. His undoing is
> Avon's artificial Sopron. If Avon had hit him over the head with a rock,
> that would have been a defeat Jarvik would have appreciated. If Avon had
> bodged together something from Kairos to defeat him, it would have been
> vaguely boy-scoutish on Avon's behalf. But being defeated by an
> anal-retentive computer programmer and his synthetic rock is, I think,
> probably not how an advocate of the natural life would have chosen to go
> down. Steed, therefore, subverts his mcp argument. Intentionally ?
>
Here I disagree entirely. Jarvik is not fooled by the sopron, and insists
that Servalan attacks. If she had listened to him (the Natural Man) rather
than to the computers then she would have won. It is the fact that
Servalan is so out of touch with Nature that leads to her defeat. Then
Jarvik is killed in a silly incident to clear the decks for the next
episode.
> 3/ Moloch - I can live with the likes of Vila or Arthur Daley (ie petty
> thieves and fences) being turned into loveable villains. When sadists
> like Doran suddenly become likeable types
I rather liked this bit of the episode. Doran at first seems likeable, and
then we find out what a nasty piece of work he is. It all works because of
Michael Keating's reaction to Doran's nastiness (but then, MK is the best
actor on the show).
and the unemployed villains
> from Kalkos are seen as saving the Sardoans from the perils of social
> snobbery (note: we don't see any male Sardoans) I begin to wonder. I
> also wonder why an advanced life form like Moloch would a) encourage
> Grose and Lector's men to molest the local women and b) teleport over to
> the Liberator without wondering whether his mechanical bits would follow
> intact.
>
> In short, what was Steed trying to say ?
>
He hadn't thought it through?
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 10:49:47 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] New B7 season
Message-ID: <004e01be4462$e42eaae0$ca8edec2@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bwa ha ha
I love it when my email makes me laugh out loud.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 03:00:28 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re:[B7L] bringing up children
Message-ID: <19990120110028.10906.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Julie:
>Rob suggested Servalan would make a good parent. I agree with
>that for when the child gets to an age of reason, i.e. with an older
>child, but I would have thought her style would be to leave the
>offspring entirely in the care of trained child minders or some
>such until it was about eleven or twelve.
Absolutely! But then, for many of us, it's our teenage and young adult
experiences that shape us into the people we are, rather than the
mundane stuff that goes before.
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:22:38 +0000 (GMT)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.990120105735.17493C-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Pat Patera wrote:
> Iain Coleman wrote:
> > I suggest that this is another aspect of the Federation class system.
> > Officers are taken from the higher grades: ... In this class there is full sexual equality.
> > This class also provides the scientists, artists, white-collar workers and
> > so on.
> >
> > The lower grades are strongly sexually segregated, and confined to
> > relatively menial tasks. Men are either labourers or squaddies, and women
> > are either ...<snip>
> cashiers or kiddie caregivers
>
> (er, what's a squaddie?) oh! Trooper Parr?
Yep. Privates, NCOs.
>
> This scenario already exists in our present day society.
I was imagining a more rigid imposed form of our own rough-and-ready
social stratifications.
Those from good
> families who earn advanced degrees find few obstacles when pursuing any
> career, regardless of sex (yes, women still earn less, but are not shut
> out). Among the lower classes, male laborers cruelly harass females when
> and if they manage to get a manual labor position. Oddly, women don't
> harass men who infiltrate their minimum wage ranks (day care aide, etc.)
>
Oh yes they do. Men working in traditionally-female manual jobs (such as
cleaners) have suffered considerable harrassment, largely of a sexual
nature, from their female colleagues. Men working with young children are
routinely assumed to be pedophiles, and single fathers are often greeted
with hostility by mothers when they invade female territory.
> It just doesn't occur to women to be mean and exclusive.
Clearly we know different women.
Women I know span the full range from kind, gentle and caring to
mean-sprited, bullying and vengeful.
Men might call
> those traits competitive.
>
They might call those traits "being an arsehole".
> A male acquaintence who is a US Civil War history buff just told me
> about the many women who, disguised as men, fought in that war. One
> woman, who achieved officer status, and won a chestful of medals, was
> invited, along with the other surviving soldiers, to a post-war reunion.
> She chose to attend in her true nature: dressed as a woman, and proudly
> wearing all her war medals. The men, who had greatly admired her/his
> courage and strategy in war, and obeyed this "officer" without question,
> then set upon her and literally stripped her of all her medals! I
> mean: how petty of those men!
Petty indeed, and entirely contemptible.
Nineteenth century military not bastion of progressive liberal thought!
Shock horror bonk exclusive! Pictures on page 94!
> WHY do men behave so badly?
WHY are women such petty, control-freak, narcissistic grasping whores?
It's fashionable these days to make sweeping sexist statements about the
contemptibility of men as a whole, which would be entirely unacceptable if
made about women. Heroin chic was also fashionable, until people realised
it's nasty, destructive and ugly. Maybe the same will happen in this case.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 06:52:33 EST
From: AChevron@aol.com
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Message-ID: <7cb54404.36a5c381@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/19/99 7:27:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cylanmaster@compuserve.com writes:
<< In that case Cally could not have had a mother and
a father, only one or the other. >>
Two possiblities. Cally was not concieved via the "new" method, which was
at most 30 years old, and thus probably not in full use when she was born.
Thus Zelda would be an identical twin. Or she and Zelda were designed via the
new method, and then placed into a nuclear family for rearing. Again, with a
new process, the infants were probably produced in small batches, and changing
the social structure to deal with the new method was just beginning to get
underway.
If the cloning method was utilized widely, why? Had the men, or the women
for that matter, become sterile? There had to be some benefit to the process
for an entire planet to embrace such a drastic change in the method of
reproduction. d. Rose
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 11:42:01 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts)
Message-ID: <009801be446d$c91b82e0$ca8edec2@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain said -
>I think the subjugation of women is a far, far less common element of
>men's fantasies than most women imagine.
>
It's the same as what various people have been saying about childcare.
People vary a lot. And whatever happens to be one's own preference, it is
tempting to believe that is 'natural'. So to me (and probably lots of other
men and women on this list) it seems natural to have a relationship which is
basically egalitarian and playful (and to be honest in my case a bit
competitive). But we have seen that to other people a relationship which is
very unequal, where the woman does not compete, seems equally natural.
I'm guessing that Steed is of this second type, and it's a bit intrusive.
The trouble is that the second type of man, even if they are quite rare,
they make a lot of noise and get on your wick. For instance I can't imagine
the 'egalitarian' men on the list following a woman down the street going
'Oy darlin' I value you as an independent being'. he he.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:18:29 +0100
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@MCR1.poptel.org.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Animals
Message-ID: <36A5BB83.9A6684EE@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rob said: "Whoosh! Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick,
but are you
trying to tell us, Una, that you're an "Animals" lover?"
Well I know Una is a fan of Animals, but I have to say I think the
episode gets a bad press, far worse than it deserves. It's not all bad
and not all good. A fairly middling episode, I'd say. And I think it's
far better than stuff like Sarcophagus.
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
Redemption 99: The Blakes 7 and Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Ashford, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
"Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care what you smell"
Star Wars
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 04:31:16 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re:[B7L]Social Engineering
Message-ID: <19990120123116.2113.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
>Blake I see as being one of those people who are mildly terrified of
>very young children but would come into his own with intelligent
>teenagers.
Having had more sprog-tutoring experience than I would wish on anyone, I
can certainly identify with that. Sometimes I think little kiddies are
aliens from Planet Tharg.
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:24:19 -0000
From: "Julie Horner" <julie.horner@lincolnsoftware.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re[B7L]African Explorers
Message-ID: <01be4478$2f542300$170201c0@pc23.Fishnet>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pat said:
>One could look upon this situation as a curious turn about of the early
>slavery situation in the US. Animals with black skin were considered
>"not human" and therefore killable (it was no crime to kill your slave).
>On Sarran, animals with white skin (i.e. not Dayna and Dad) were
>considered "not human" and therefore killable.
I think you must be forgetting creepy, greasy Justin (was that his name?)
who tutored her on Sarran. Dayna clearly had a high regard for him.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 13:29:01 -0000
From: "Julie Horner" <julie.horner@lincolnsoftware.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re[B7L]Animals
Message-ID: <01be4478$d73854b0$170201c0@pc23.Fishnet>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Steve said (about Animals)
>A fairly middling episode, I'd say. And I think it's
>far better than stuff like Sarcophagus.
Thank goodness - someone else who didn't like Sarcophagus.
It had a few nice Avon / Cally moments (and I wasn't just thinking
about the kiss) but all that mystic messing about at the start
just did nothing for me and went on far too long.
Is this one of the episodes Bary Letts saw before he wrote
The Sevenfold Crown? It wouldn't surprise me.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 05:54:17 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] In defence of Sarcophagus
Message-ID: <19990120135418.4770.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Steve and Julie:
>We hate it!! (sic)
Sarcophagus is one of my favourite episodes. It's the spookiest TV SF
I've seen -- which is gratifying indeed, considering it cost 25 pence to
make.
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:23:34 EST
From: Tigerm1019@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering)
Message-ID: <7ab31a9a.36a5e6e6@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 99-01-20 06:55:22 EST, AChevron wrote:
<< If the cloning method was utilized widely, why? Had the men, or the women
for that matter, become sterile? There had to be some benefit to the process
for an entire planet to embrace such a drastic change in the method of
reproduction. >>
This is very possible; I've wondered about it as well. Given Auron's
isolationism and the comments about disease, perhaps this was a result of a
disease brought from offworld. Also, if large numbers of people had become
sterile, there would probably have been large numbers of eager adoptive
families.
Tiger M
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:29:00 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Responding to the Message
Message-ID: <1849f11b.36a5e82c@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/19/1999 8:30:56 AM Central Standard Time,
julie.horner@lincolnsoftware.com writes:
<<
Supestud said:
>You are correct in your assessment. I believe that the degadation of
society
>is rooted in the loss of the nuclear family. As far as selfish, I think men
>and women who do not want children for purely reasons dealing with
themselves,
>are selfish. Not just women, couples.
<< My understanding of a nuclear family is one which has both parents
living together (and with their children). The fact that the Mother works
outside the home does not make that a non-nuclear family.>>
I agree....
<>
I believe it is selfish in regard to the prospective children and their
potential.
<<Do you mean society would suffer? Again I don't see this either. With
over-population a major problem in many societies it could be
considered socially responsible to choose not to have a family.>>
But not to the human society as a whole.
<<Child-rearing is an essential and very valuable service to society -
but so are many other activities for which a woman's skills or talents
may fit her - mother or not. Society might be better served by a woman
exploiting her most developed talents. There are many competent
people who can provide basic child care while she is doing this.>>
I don't think any person can fully replace the love and care provided by a
mother. as I have stated before, its spiritual as well as physical and
emotional.
<<To get vaguely back to B7 here - I can't see the Federation being
wasteful enough of talent to consign half its population to a purely
"domestic" role. I think the most likely scenario would be that women
in positions of some significance - e.g. scientists, would be actively
discouraged or prevented from adopting a nurturing role - or at
least would need to obtain special permission to start a family. >>
I can see the Feds doing so, especially in light of the other atrocities they
have visited upon their people.....(drugs, etc.) If it helps to make society
more efficient they might indulge in it.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:55:29 +0100
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@MCR1.poptel.org.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Wome, B7 and Avon
Message-ID: <36A5E04A.151ED70A@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathryn Andersen said: "The important
thing, IMHO, is that a child needs *two* parents, and only one of them
should work, or at least, their work should be such (say, part-time
work) that one or the other or both of them have the time to dedicate
to the care of the child(ren). Single parenting (whether because of
divorce or carelessness or desertion) is fragmenting society. The
nuclear family is being destroyed, let alone the extended family. A
Bad Thing. (Kathryn refrains from going on about how large families
are a Good Thing, not to mention extended families with single Aunts.)"
I think this is deeply insulting to all the single parents who by choice
or necessity do a perfectly good job of raising their children. There is
no sociological reason why the so-called nuclear family is better or
worse than other forms of parenting. And in what way is the growth of
single parenthood somehow fragmenting society? It might be changing
society, but society is always changing, sometime for the better,
sometimes for the worse. Single parenthood in itself does not damage
society. Far more damging are those that seek to stigmatise single
parents, as we have seen the right in the UK doing for many years. What
is needed is for society to adapt to this change in social structure
with, for example, more company or state provided child care provision
to allow more single parents to work and an adequate benefit system to
provide for them when this isn't available or practical.
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
Redemption 99: The Blakes 7 and Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Ashford, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
"Get in there you big furry oaf, I don't care what you smell"
Star Wars
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:44:48 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive
Message-ID: <36A60800.306F@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pat said:
> Among the lower classes, male laborers cruelly harass females when
> and if they manage to get a manual labor position. Oddly, women don't
> harass men who infiltrate their minimum wage ranks (day care aide, etc.)
>
> It just doesn't occur to women to be mean and exclusive. Men might call
> those traits competitive.
I beg to differ, although I can't be sure it holds true for true
minimuymu wage fields such as daycare.
Women _do_ harrass men at work when men are in the minority. It takes a
different form however. "He doesn't dare meet any of us outside work
because his wife gets jealous." Jokes about it being 'his time of the
month' when he's grouchy."Wooo-hooo, sexy!" if he shows up on casual day
in a t-shirt thats too tight.I even saw an incident where at a gift
exchange, a man was given very naught Fredrick's of Hollywood men's
briefs. I can't imagine, in a modern workplace, that the same thing
could happen to a woman withut complaint.
My observation has been; men _do_ get harrassed, but they are much
better sports.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 08:29:35 PST
From: "Stephen Date" <stephendate@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts)
Message-ID: <19990120162936.11189.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Iain wrote:
>
>The latter, I reckon. I get the strong impression he sincerely believed
women would be happier if they stopped all this silly feminist stuff and
got back into the kitchen.
>
Has Steed ever expressed his views on relations between the sexes in an
interview ? (Forgive me, I'm comparatively new to this)
>
>
>Here I disagree entirely. Jarvik is not fooled by the sopron, and
insists
>that Servalan attacks. If she had listened to him (the Natural Man)
rather
>than to the computers then she would have won. It is the fact that
>Servalan is so out of touch with Nature that leads to her defeat. Then
>Jarvik is killed in a silly incident to clear the decks for the next
>episode.
>
That's probably as good a reading of the situation as my own. Harvest
and Moloch tend to tidy themselves up rather too quickly at the end, as
if he'd realised his 50 minutes were nearly up. Power, for all it's
faults, is the only Steed episode that seems to be structurally well put
together.
>
>He hadn't thought it through?
I fear so. There are good elements in all three scripts but they are
marred by philosophic and stylistic incoherence.
Stephen.
P.S. On the subject of Kairos, I watched it for the first time ever a
couple of months ago with a friend of mine. We are both Doctor Who fans
and therefore hardened to dodgy BBC special effects and practiced in the
suspension of disbelief. Still when that spider appeared we were unable
to restrain ourselves from hysterical laughter.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:20:52 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Wome, B7 and Avon
Message-ID: <fa746e3c.36a61074@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/20/1999 8:58:41 AM Central Standard Time,
steve.rogerson@MCR1.poptel.org.uk writes:
<<
Kathryn Andersen said: "The important
thing, IMHO, is that a child needs *two* parents, and only one of them
should work, or at least, their work should be such (say, part-time
work) that one or the other or both of them have the time to dedicate
to the care of the child(ren). Single parenting (whether because of
divorce or carelessness or desertion) is fragmenting society. The
nuclear family is being destroyed, let alone the extended family. A
Bad Thing. (Kathryn refrains from going on about how large families
are a Good Thing, not to mention extended families with single Aunts.)"
<< I think this is deeply insulting to all the single parents who by choice
or necessity do a perfectly good job of raising their children. There is
no sociological reason why the so-called nuclear family is better or
worse than other forms of parenting. And in what way is the growth of
single parenthood somehow fragmenting society? It might be changing
society, but society is always changing, sometime for the better,
sometimes for the worse. Single parenthood in itself does not damage
society.>>
I believe single parenting does damage society. While I applaud parents who
are faced with the necessity of raisng a child alone, I feel that each parent
brings an element to that child's rearing that is unique to his/her sex.
Fathers bring a perspective and mothers bring a perspective that, together,
make a more balanced and productive individual. As I've stated, I applaud
parents who are faced with the necessity to raise children alone, but I
applaud, even more strongly, those parents that stay together to give their
children complete families, even when those parents no longer have a vested
personal interest in raising children. I believe that boys who do not see a
strong father who loves and protects his family and who serves as a true head
of his family, suffer deficiencies and have problems leading their own
families. the same can be said of girls who do not see a mother who is
supportive of the father and who efficiently manages the home. Very often
they grow into women who are unable to find suitable mates, because they don't
know what a truly suitable mate is.
<< Far more damging are those that seek to stigmatise single
parents, as we have seen the right in the UK doing for many years. What
is needed is for society to adapt to this change in social structure
with, for example, more company or state provided child care provision
to allow more single parents to work and an adequate benefit system to
provide for them when this isn't available or practical. >>
I agree that single parents should not be stigmitized, but I feel that it
should not be encouraged either.
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #37
*************************************