From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #38 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/38 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 38 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive [B7L] Non-bloopers Re:[B7L]Federation not egalitarian:shock exclusive Re: [B7L]Federation not egalitarian:shock exclusive Fw: [B7L] B7 characters and dustbin lids Fw: [B7L] This will be fun-- Blake's 7 and Discworld! Re: [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC... Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering) Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts) Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Re: [B7L] Re: Wome, B7 and Avon [B7L] Moloch Re: [B7L]Federation not egalitarian:shock exclusive Re: [B7L] Moloch Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering) Diseases? (was Re: [B7L] Responding to the Message) Re: Diseases? (was Re: [B7L] Responding to the Message) [B7L] MK sighting [B7L] Awful Wedded Life Re: [B7L] MK sighting Re: [B7L] In defence of Sarcophagus [B7L] Re: b7spin: Re: The infinite variety of human ideas Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:24:30 EST From: SupeStud00@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Message-ID: <7847c3d.36a6114e@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/20/1999 10:12:49 AM Central Standard Time, avona@jps.net writes: << > 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. >> Agreed, as an attorney, I see the same thing happen in our legal system. There is a dangerous double standard of men not being taken seriously, even by judges, when they pursue claims of harassment. However, I also feel that many forms of sexual harassment are not truly sexual harassment though we often recognize them as such socially and legally. For instance, buying a woman a pair of underwear isn't harassment, and I would argue that the woman should be flattered that a guy would like to see her in such an outfit. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 09:59:34 -0800 (PST) From: "S. Kuske" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Non-bloopers Message-ID: <19990120175934.19489.rocketmail@send104.yahoomail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii It occurs that blooper lists which complain of "another upside-down Liberator" are mistaken as there is no up or down in outer space. Just viewer expectation in the TV room. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:08:57 -0000 From: "Julie Horner" To: Subject: Re:[B7L]Federation not egalitarian:shock exclusive Message-ID: <01be449f$f2cca7e0$170201c0@pc23.Fishnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Supestud said> >However, I also feel that many forms of sexual harassment are not truly sexual >harassment though we often recognize them as such socially and legally. For >instance, buying a woman a pair of underwear isn't harassment, and I would >argue that the woman should be flattered that a guy would like to see her in >such an outfit. Oh hang on, I think that depends on whether she is in a serious relationship with the guy. If my husband bought me nice lingerie I would be pleased and flattered but if any other man did I would find it deeply inappropriate. I don't think I would necessarily feel harassed by it - but I would be a bit nonplussed to say the least. ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jan 1999 19:23:22 +0100 From: Calle Dybedahl To: Subject: Re: [B7L]Federation not egalitarian:shock exclusive Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII "Julie Horner" writes: > I don't think I would necessarily feel harassed by it - but I would be a bit > nonplussed to say the least. Take it to the spin list, please? -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se "I think quotes are very dangerous things." -- KaTe Bush ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:24:48 -0000 From: "Fiona Scarlett" To: "B7" Subject: Fw: [B7L] B7 characters and dustbin lids Message-ID: <001501be44aa$af8969e0$ac5e95c1@acer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Tarrant, would, I think, quite likely make a good father. This does NOT >mean I am joining the Tarrant Nostra. > Too late - saying things like this is tantamount to pledging. Wouldn't you say, Godmother ? Fifitrix ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:24:28 -0000 From: "Fiona Scarlett" To: "B7" Subject: Fw: [B7L] This will be fun-- Blake's 7 and Discworld! Message-ID: <001401be44aa$aed9f000$ac5e95c1@acer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >I was thinking about this. Paul Darrow, or course, has played Avon and >Captain Vimes. But if Avon was a Discworld charaacter, I would see him >as one of the young theoretical wizards who work with dangerous, >reality-altering theories. >ORAC has a bit in common with the Librarian (don't call him a computer; >he's a brain. Don't call the Librarian a monkey, he's an oragantang.) >But to me, ORAC as most like the Luggage. A box with exraordinary powers >and a lousy attitde. >Blake is a bit Captain Vimes-ish; neither trusted governmental power too >much, if I recall Vimes well. But he also is like Carrot, because >everyone wants to follow him. No - I'm sorry..... Tarrant is definately Carrot. Think about it - tall, good looking, big grin. >My husband suggested Cally's counterpart would be Magrat. agree. She >seems all mild, 'but sometimes, when cornered, a small furry animal >turns out to be a mongoose'. agreed! >Vila would be one of Nanny Ogg's brood. Drinks scrumpie, steals things, >and talks dirty. >Travis might be Nanny's cat, Greebo. Only interested in things if he can >eat them, have sex with them, or attack them. And in human form, the >swagger. >Any other analogies people might think of? > I think Servalan would have had alot in common with the Patrician. After all....."Never build a jail that you can't get out of" reminds me of her. I think that she would have found a more hygenic way of getting food than by mouse courier though. Fifitrix ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 18:29:13 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] SC, SC, Come In, SC... Message-ID: In message <36A52B10.3F2D@geocities.com>, Pat Patera writes >Penny Dreadful wrote: >> GITHOG > >Githog? > Spillover from Space City. There's a religious war going on between the followers of Travis I and the followers of Travis II. It is all being recorded for posterity, or at least that element of posterity which buys the next volume of _Tales from Space City_. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:03:23 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering) Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed 20 Jan, AChevron@aol.com 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. d. Rose My belief is that cloning allowed them to either clone exclusively from telepathic individuals, or more likely (given that Servalan had a telepathic link with her clones), the gene for telepathy was introduced as part of the cloning process. It was probably difficult and expensive to insert the gene and thus they tended to encourage the resulting cell to divide several times, and split each cell off to become a complete individual. Thus, they produced a batch of telepaths and the cloning was the cheapest way of doing it in quantity. There are suggestions in some epsidoes that telepathy was not widespread in the Auron population until Cally's generation. I imagine that prospective parents would have the egg fertilised in vitro, then the telepathy gene was inserted, then the fertilised egg was cloned. Most mothers might have one set of twins and extra eggs might be given to infertile couples. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:42:51 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts) Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed 20 Jan, Stephen Date wrote: > > 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. I kid you not. My son was genuinely scared of that spider. I think he was six or seven at the time. He refuses to believe me when I tell him about it now. He was though. Judith PS. Remember Sheelagh's anecdote about Brian the Spider? It's on one of her tapes. And if you haven't got Sheelagh's tapes, why not? They're hilarious and informative all at once (as well as listening to Paul and Gareth's voices). -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:16:56 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed 20 Jan, Iain Coleman wrote: (re women sexually harassing men) > 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. The real tragedy of all this paranoia over paedophiles is that the Scout movement is finding it almost impossible to recruit new leaders as the men are afraid of being accused of being paedophiles if they so much as touch one of the boys. I can't blame them either. I find the whole thing ridiculous. I wonder if there were any youth movements in the Federation? I can't see anything encouraging outdoors activities. I've always felt that one reason going outside was forbidden was as a form of social control. Keep the people scared of the world outside the dome and you have a little bit more control over them. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:39:26 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Wome, B7 and Avon Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed 20 Jan, Steve Rogerson wrote: >There is no sociological reason why the so-called nuclear family is better or >worse than other forms of parenting. Oh yes there is. It's because raising a child is bloody hard work and it's a darn sight easier if you have two parents to do it. Not many people are single parents from choice. People don't choose to have marriage breakdowns. There are people who manage to be successful single parents - I suspect they are the ones with close friends or family to help share the load. If I were a single parent, I'd probably team up with another single parent as fast as I possible could (probably another woman because I'd be needing mutual support rater than sex). Two parents, caregivers or whatever allow one to look after the child while the other earns money. It allows you to take turns getting out of bed in the middle of the night. It means there is someone else there to keep you sane when the child screams for three hours without a break. If I'd been a single parent, I strongly suspect that I would either have abused my second son as a baby or else ended up in a mental hospital breaking under the strain. Don't ever pass views on parenting until you've had children of your own because all the theory in the world won't help you cope with a screaming child at 3am. The only thing that ever helped me in that situation was my husband. Sorry to rant, but I hate opinions from people who simply haven't been there. How to make this relevent to B7? Err. Ummm. I know! That's why they never had sex on the Liberator! It had nothing to do with the BBC watershed; they hadn't any contraceptives and couldn't agree on who would change the nappies! Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:11:30 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Moloch Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Wed 20 Jan, Iain Coleman wrote: > > 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. That grates every time I see it. The bloke with he gun takes half a dozen paces backwards (therby allowing Jarvik to get inbetween) when he could have shot Dayna perfectly well where he stood originally. Better actually as it requires less accuracy close up. That is just plain bad scriptwriting or directing. I don't mind the bad guys losing, but I *hate* them being stupid. I also liked Jarvik which seems to put me in a minority in most groups. He was attractive, intelligent, a good military commander who cared for those under his comand and he never reacted from fear. He had a few flaws, but hey, no man's perfect. > > > 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). Indeed. I like characters who show multiple facets. It's more realistic. Doran may be a murderous misogynist, but that doesn't mean that he can't be perfectly relaxed and charming on occasion. All good guys are not loveable and some bad guys can seem wonderful until you discover their nasty layers. I'm sure we can all think of our own examples from real life. > > 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. Moloch wasn't being that daft. He wanted to keep Gorsse and Lector doing what he said. Throwing them the occasional sacrificial victim would incline them to follow his requests. Moloch had no knowledge of the principles the teleport operated under. He would doubtless have assumed it to be similar to the matter replicator in it's workings. However (this is my belief), the matter replicator operated on a basis of what goes in the box gets replicated and worked entirely by mechanical means, wheras the teleport was based on amplifying psychic abilities and thus only transpoted living matter and things carried by it. Moloch was inside the machine - it was too big to be carried by him, physically or mentally. A bit like the Seska really. You probably couldn't teleport more than your body mass could generate mental energy. Actually, if people don't mind waiting a few weeks (because I'm not too well right now), I'd love to go deeper into the principles behind the teleport. It's been quite some time since we discussed that one. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:25:13 EST From: SupeStud00@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L]Federation not egalitarian:shock exclusive Message-ID: <59368b02.36a649b9@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/20/99 1:03:29 PM EST, julie.horner@lincolnsoftware.com writes: << Supestud said> >However, I also feel that many forms of sexual harassment are not truly sexual >harassment though we often recognize them as such socially and legally. For >instance, buying a woman a pair of underwear isn't harassment, and I would >argue that the woman should be flattered that a guy would like to see her in >such an outfit. Oh hang on, I think that depends on whether she is in a serious relationship with the guy. If my husband bought me nice lingerie I would be pleased and flattered but if any other man did I would find it deeply inappropriate. I don't think I would necessarily feel harassed by it - but I would be a bit nonplussed to say the least. >> Well at the very least, we can agree its not harassment. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 16:46:18 EST From: Tigerm1019@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Moloch Message-ID: <384bdc03.36a64eaa@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 99-01-20 16:09:36 EST, Judith wrote: << I also liked Jarvik which seems to put me in a minority in most groups. He was attractive, intelligent, a good military commander who cared for those under his comand and he never reacted from fear. He had a few flaws, but hey, no man's perfect.>> You're not the only one who liked Jarvik. For all his crudeness, he did have the admirable qualities you listed. Also, he and Tarrant seemed to genuinely like and respect one another. Am I the only one who suspects he may have been putting on an act for Servalan's benefit? << > 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).>> For me it's partly the way Doran says "no." <> Very true. Avon is a good example: cynical, nasty, spiteful, but he would come through when his crewmates needed him. Tiger M ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 21:37:31 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Message-ID: <010e01be44c3$5a8798e0$f118ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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.) I've done some temping in factories where I've ended up doing a "woman's job", and any (very mild) harassment I got could be pinned down to individuals rather than some collective monstrous regiment. Women at work, however, do enjoy the opportunity to pass comment on a man's inability to do 'their' job - but then men are hardly better when a woman has a go at a "man's job" (generally, they're downright worse). What seems to matter is whether or you not you can do the job properly. Prove that you can and you're in. >> It just doesn't occur to women to be mean and exclusive. Whatever happened to feminist separatism? Avona continued: >My observation has been; men _do_ get harrassed, but they are much >better sports. Possibly because they continually harass each other in the workplace. Women, in my experience, are far less predilected to practical jokes and winding each other up. (The current fave at my workplace is perforating someone's lemonade bottle so he showers himself next time he takes a swig. And we still get trainees with the good old 'long weight' standby.) Neil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 22:21:08 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: Cally (was Re: [B7L]Social Engineering) Message-ID: <010f01be44c3$5ca0b4e0$f118ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit A Chevron wrote: > 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 My own take on this was covered to some extent in Candle In The Dark (in Deadlier Than The Male) - the impetus behind widespread cloning was political, to create a Brave New Auron, independent, unaligned, and smugly secure in its sense of superiority over the rest of the galactic community. Clones were fostered out after 'birth'. (I've always assumed the parents Cally referred to in HoK were foster parents. Actually I've always assumed that Ben Steed Got It Wrong, but that's a bit unfair since the idea of the Auronar being cloned was only introduced a couple of episodes later - both Steed and Parkes would have been working on their respective scripts independently. Any cock-up is probably Chris Boucher's.) I think CofA is saying that Cally and Zelda _are_ deliberate clones, not natural identical twins. If clones are fostered out, just how drastically would that change the social situation? All that would be missing would be the pregnancy stage, which at nine months is marginal timewise compared to 16+ years of raising the little darlings. So there would be little change in home-vs-work scheduling. I think the main shift would be in attitudes towards children - parents would lose a sense of ownership over the children they raise because they wouldn't be 'theirs', they would be everyone's, and the social responsibilities of good parenting would become more important. This would encourage a trend towards social homogenisation (which in my story was the government's intention - social control through collective agreement, arguably a worse form of tyranny than the Federation), While I'm on the subject of things Auronish, Kathryn Andersen said something about 'contradictory architecture'. Meaning what, exactly? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 14:35:57 -0800 (PST) From: Irvetta To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Diseases? (was Re: [B7L] Responding to the Message) Message-ID: <19990120223557.25576.rocketmail@web4.rocketmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > << > Supestud said: > > I believe it is selfish in regard to the prospective children and their > potential. > Would it, say, be selfish for a couple who were HIV positive to have children knowing that they are very likely to die before their child reaches adulthood - and therefore can't look after it - not to mention the risk of passing on the disease? Them children don't exist. They might not ever exist. They might be several mentally/physically disabled. It is selfish to have them to fufil 'society's expectation' or to satisfy some concept of 'spiritual neediness' if you know they will suffer. More than selfish, -cruel-. Myself, I dont' want my own children. I do however, spend a great deal of time with them as a guide-leader, volunteer working with 'disadvantage' kids. I would much rather adopt the children other parents have carelessly, thoughtlessly created and the -discarded- as worthless. It is incredible selfish of those parents to have those children. They do not care about them or about the burden it places on society, on the people who can not walk away from a child in trouble. They care only for creating this little creature to make them feel 'important' or as a vessel for their only twisted needs. Speaking of that, is there any indication in B7 of disease being a major problem? Aside from created virii etc... It's another form of social control, for instance, if you go 'outside' you might catch something nasty. The reaction of the Auronae to Servies concoction suggests plague was a major headache. What other examples were there? Katrina - remember from way back? My email (kharkess@mail.usyd.edu.au) mucked up so I've been getting mails but unable to send them. PS, someone email me a subscribe instructions for the SC list? I need to resubsubscribe. :( _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 19:26:37 EST From: SupeStud00@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Diseases? (was Re: [B7L] Responding to the Message) Message-ID: <74a4a4cc.36a6743d@aol.com> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/20/99 5:40:06 PM EST, miri_kerr@rocketmail.com writes: << Would it, say, be selfish for a couple who were HIV positive to have children knowing that they are very likely to die before their child reaches adulthood - and therefore can't look after it - not to mention the risk of passing on the disease?>> Of course it wouldn't be selfish. How did you possibly get that from my statement. I refer to healthy couples. << Them children don't exist. They might not ever exist. They might be several mentally/physically disabled. It is selfish to have them to fufil 'society's expectation' or to satisfy some concept of 'spiritual neediness' if you know they will suffer. More than selfish, -cruel-.>> I agree. << Myself, I dont' want my own children. I do however, spend a great deal of time with them as a guide-leader, volunteer working with 'disadvantage' kids. I would much rather adopt the children other parents have carelessly, thoughtlessly created and the -discarded- as worthless.>> I believe you are being selfish to your unborn child and his potential. You don't know what gifts you might be robbing the world of. <> I certainly believe a biological child makes a complete happy woman, and anyone who is unfortunate enough to fail to meet the female duty of child bearing is unfulfilled. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 11:41:47 +1000 From: Gina Sartore To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] MK sighting Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" For those of us in Australia who can only sigh enviously at all the B7 excursions going on in England at the moment, I proffer a small Michael Keating sighting. The ABC in its infinite wisdom is repeating 'Yes Minister'. [Yay! I love that show. It is not possible to see it too many times, even to the point of being able to recite the dialogue]. In last week's episode, who should appear, looking absurdly young and sporting a small mustache....mmm, not sure that was such a great idea....but M. Keating himself. He played a secret service agent/bodyguard of some kind and had about two lines. Oh how the mighty are fallen! Not *really* as good as a trip to Wales, is it. *sigh*. gina ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Gina Sartore ginaa@psych.usyd.edu.au Department of Psychology Building A19 University of Sydney 61 2 9351 5751 A statement of fact cannot be insolent ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:09:45 PST From: "Penny Dreadful" To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Awful Wedded Life Message-ID: <19990121010946.8425.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Judith said: >Two parents, caregivers or whatever allow one to look after >the child while the other earns money. It allows you to take turns getting out >of bed in the middle of the night. It means there is someone else there to keep >you sane when the child screams for three hours without a break. Or alternatively it means there is someone there to tell you to keep the child quiet or take it away somewhere because he/she has to *work* for a living (unlike yourself), and needs his/her sleep and/or relaxation time. Blakes 7 has a bloody optimistic view of human nature, in my not-as-humble-as-it-ought-to-be opinion. There. On-topic. Nyah. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:32:41 PST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] MK sighting Message-ID: <19990121013242.26066.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Gina said: >The ABC in its infinite wisdom is repeating 'Yes Minister'. [Yay! I love >that show. It is not possible to see it too many times, even to the >point of being able to recite the dialogue]. In last week's episode, >who should appear, looking absurdly young and sporting a small >mustache....mmm, not sure that was such a great idea....but M. >Keating himself. He played a secret service agent/bodyguard of >some kind and had about two lines. Oh how the mighty are fallen! Yes, I saw it too ( not that there's any prizes for being the second to say so!). But I wasn't really concentrating (it was MK's voice that made me realise he was on the programme). I know this, because Graham Garden, the Goodie with the strange sideburns, was on too, and I'm sure I don't remember his character at all. Unless he didn't have the sideburns in the "Yes, Minister" episode, of course. John Savident (Samor, Egrorian) was in a few earlier in the repeat screenings. I'm sure I've spotted a few others relevant to B7, but I can't remember who they are now. Pity. Regards Joanne Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property so that they may more perfectly respect it. --G K Chesterton ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:07:59 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] In defence of Sarcophagus Message-ID: <36A6A81F.6AB9@geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Rob Clother wrote: > Sarcophagus is one of my favourite episodes. It's the spookiest TV SF > I've seen ... I, too, like this ep. And yes, I like the long alien bit; especially where Avon appears as the black priest of death: it is so unexpected! The scene exploring the alien ship gets a bit long, probably because it looks like the day after scene of a tawdry New Years Eve party. And Cally's red hair dye job is truly horrible. But I like to see "gentle" Cally play this imperious creature. It's one of her best roles in the series. I even find the end quite touching, when the alien makes her tragic plea for life. It is redolent of the long lived android in Bladerunner. How can we know how precious life may become if you've "owned" it for a millenium? I understand how she could look at short lived humans as white mice suitable for pets. Pat P ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:03:08 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: b7spin: Re: The infinite variety of human ideas Message-ID: <36A6A6FC.739E@geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Debroah Rose wrote: > Show me signs of intellegence, and you get a chance to breed, or at least > reproduce. Signs of intelligence are so hard to define. Math? Music? Spelling? Social dodging? Superb stealing? Devious lying? Then there's always the standard IQ test. And for anyone who hasn't taken one in a while, visit this site: http://www.onlinepsych.com/public/Mind_Games/colors/ There are five or six different tests here. (I took 'em yesterday and apparently am not intelligent enough to remember how many I took! I guess that culls me out of the breeding pool.) Allow about half an hour for the IQ test. I like to attribute my lower than desired score to the fact that I got impatient midway through as it was late and I'd been wading thru thousands (?) of B7 list posts. *sigh* what a life. This test reminded me of how seldom I ever think. My head hurt only halfway through the thing! Pat P ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 20:21:50 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Federation not egalitarian: shock exclusive Message-ID: <36A6AB5E.CA6@geocities.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith Proctor wrote: > The real tragedy of all this paranoia over paedophiles is that the Scout > movement is finding it almost impossible to recruit new leaders as the men are > afraid of being accused of being paedophiles if they so much as touch one of the > boys. Sensible, child loving grandparents I know were long active in the YMCA and always volunteered to work as camp counselors in the summer. Last year, a boy who Steve (a mild mannered accountant, but tall) glowered at while making him shape up and stand in line, was accused of striking/molesting the boy, falsely, by the boy. This caused the couple great defensive trouble and they will never again volunteer for camp counselor duty. It is such a loss for the children. Kids have learned that they have great power over teachers, supervisors, etc. just through false accusation. Hmmmm. Perhaps the Federation didn't frame Blake. Perhaps it was the kiddies leveling false accusations against a jolly Captain Kangaroo character? > I wonder if there were any youth movements in the Federation? I can't see > anything encouraging outdoors activities. OK, then I'll give Dayna, Tarrant and Soolin tv kiddie shows, too!j Dayna will take the girls out on scouting trips. They can hack away at giant man eating plants and fall into pits. Tarrant will take the boys out on orienteering trips. They can pilot their way thru the giant radioactive plants now writhing about outside the domes. Soolin can take the older kids out hunting: rattlesnakes, scorpions and giant radioactive man eating plants. --er, did you say *encouraging* outdoors activities? All of this would be televised via virtual reality to give the dome-bred kids some exciting "tv." Pat P ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1999 15:59:36 +1030 From: "Mallet, Ross" To: "'blakes7@lysator.liu.se'" Subject: Re: [B7L] Power (and other Steed scripts) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Iain Coleman wrote: > 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. > There's another possibility here that you're overlooking: that the ambiguity is due to the script being reworked by other hands. In particular, Chris Boucher rewrote part of Moloch, and even more of Power. > 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. > There's a number of points at which the macho line is undermined, for example, when Gun Sar is shown at his needlepoint. For this, director Mary Ridge seems responsible; indeed, she tries to mitigate Steed's line at every turn. > I don't think that Alison is correct in > > viewing it as a male sexual fantasy. > What the hell is a male sexual fantasy anyhow? > (Puts on manly voice "I am Gunn > > Sar, Lord of the Homminks" Nope sorry, doesn't do a thing for me. > Try avoiding washing for a week beforehand. > 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. > You make it sound like "Deliverance '98" > I think the subjugation of women is a far, far less common element of > men's fantasies than most women imagine. > Oh, absolutely. > 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. > Agreed. Nina rationalises her circumstances by convincing herself that she really wants it this way. > 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. > Agreed. > > 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. > > Avon is already convinced that Pella can't be trusted, so he's not worried > about her as a potential ally. > > > 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. > This scene troubled me too; I saw it as a kind of roleplay between Avon and Pella. Avon is obviously attracted to Pella but we're talking about a guy who kisses Servalan. For me, it's the objectionable elements of the subtext that ruin it. Somehow, I can convince myself that "Harvest of Kairos" is just a joke. But this one is too serious. >I > > think Blake would certainly have offered Pella a chance to leave Xenon > > or to join the team in exchange for the Dynanon crystal. > Dream on. You're talking about the bastard that smashed President Sarkoff's record collection in "Bounty" and threatened to destroy the doctor's hands in "Breakdown". > > 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. > Yes, it's Servalan, not Jarvik who is defeated, and this validates Jarvik's philosophy. However, I thought that it was a nice touch that taking the Liberator is still far more difficult than Jarvik anticipates. I think that the rock *is* what Avon bodged together. If it hadn't been the rock, it would have been something else. > Then Jarvik is killed in a silly incident to clear the decks for the next > episode. > Well yes, and I thought that it was pretty uneccessary. I would have just ended it with Servalan saying "You're in a lot of trouble, Jarvik". > > 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). > I liked this because those types start to make all rogues look loveable, so its nice to have one who's different. Particularly because many real-life misogynists are outwardly otherwise loveable. > 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) > Hey, it worked in Australia. > 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 ? > I just interpretted it as a mistake having been made ie Moloch may be a highly advanced form of life, but instead of being a superior being, he's a certified, card-carrying *nut*. There's of course the subtext that couch potatoes can sit and watch all manner of atrocities as entertainment without stirring their consciences. Ross -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #38 *************************************