From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #33 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/33 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 33 Today's Topics: Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Re: FC: from the social pages? Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) [B7L] from the social pages? [B7L] Animals... me too. [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names) [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Name) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names) Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different [B7L] from the social pages? Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' Egoism? (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)) Beatles 7? (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)) [B7L] ["David A McIntee" ] Blake's 7 on BBC2 from February 12th... Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Re: [B7L] Beatles7 Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different [B7L] Repeat!!!! Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 20:56:37 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins Message-ID: In message <4.1.20000202003432.00947d00@mail.powersurfr.com>, Penny Dreadful writes >At 07:28 PM 01/02/00 +0000, Neil Faulkner wrote: > >>BBC publicity material refers to the Federation emerging from the aftermath >>of the 'Atomic Wars', to which there is no reference within the aired canon. > >Rumours of Death: > >"TARRANT: Place feels old. Do you suppose this part's original? Genuinely >pre-Atomic?" > Pre-Atomic, as in pre-Atomic Age. Several centuries hence, harnessing nuclear power, whether for good or ill, may well be a convenient date marker. I always took it as meaning pre-1945, although it could certainly be interpreted as pre-World War 3 rather than pre-WW2. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:43:07 EST From: "J MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <20000202224307.7665.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: mistral@ptinet.net >I was channel-surfing a few weeks ago and ran across the >end of a documentary about gun rights. It did show statistics for >several types of violent crimes that had increased in Australia since >the last laws were passed; I don't know that I'd trust even a documentary as an information source these days. I would've hoped that Mistral wouldn't have taken it at face value either. But then, I think possession of a gun should be a privilege, not a right*. Mistral will have to take that into account. *Where, of course, it isn't vocationally necessary. And while the majority of individuals in the British police forces remain unarmed, that leaves even fewer people who *really* need a gun. >The actual text: >Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the >security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, >shall not be infringed. >Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, >shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. >Source: >http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html Having looked at the same site, I'm with those who come down on the side of "well-regulated militia" as the most important bit. Ultra-right-wing loonies, individual madmen and unco-ordinated members of the general public do not a well-regulated militia make. Worse still, it is not a right that people should be armed, nor even a need. It is, purely and simply, a want. Especially now. The British are supremely unlikely to come back to take statehood away from a small group of former colonies - they've had their own problems over the last couple of centuries. >At any rate, the B7-related point I was trying to make was that >people will differ about how much infringement of their rights >they will accept before they think it's worth rebelling. Is it rights, or is it autonomy? The American colonies rebelled because they didn't want their taxes to go into British revenues any longer, they didn't want to be a dumping ground for convicts any longer, they no longer wanted whatever had a negative bearing upon the desire for self-government. All British colonies went through this, but most fought with words rather than guns. What is Blake fighting for? Rights, or autonomy? So, then, is autonomy a right? Is he, and those like him, simply ahead of his time and others, where not drugged into compliance, will come to realise that they want self-government too? Regards Joanne (wishing that "right to bear arms" also invoked Godwin, as it seems to do similar damage to arguments as the H-word) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 11:48:19 EST From: "J MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: FC: from the social pages? Message-ID: <20000203004819.19172.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: "Sally Manton" >Given the way said expression would look (my nose is not nearly as >impressive as his. Or as big. Sneers just look comical on my lips, and the >usual cloud of amiable absent-mindedness does not quite fit the snarly >image) I think not...maybe I should imitate Vila instead (thinking back to >what *he* was wearing then? Um. No.) Jenna. Long dark blue dress. Tasteful, and relatively sombre. The shoes are up to you, though. Which reminds me... I have to look for more. Painful at the moment. Square toed shoes in size 10. Yuck. Regards The Anti-Imelda Marcos ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 11:53:06 EST From: "J MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Federation origins Message-ID: <20000203005306.92703.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: "Sally Manton" >pre-Atomic Tea Famine... Atomic Tea? Has there ever been much call for that? Regards Joanne (better than thinking about shoes...oops, here I go again) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 08:26:03 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <20000203082603.A11811@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 06:14:59AM -0800, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > Due to the vagaries of e-mail, I haven't seen either Kathryn's > or Tiger's post about this, so I'm answering this all of a piece. Well, that was because we put them on the Spin list, which, for the sake of this reply, I won't do this time. > Jacqueline Thijsen wrote: > > > Tiger M wrote: > > > > > In a message dated 02/01/2000 8:51:35 PM Central Standard Time, > > > kat@welkin.apana.org.au writes: > > > > > >> On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 06:20:36AM -0800, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > > >> > > > >> > is done about it. Our constitutional right to bear arms is being > > >> > slowly but methodically dismantled in the name of lowering the > > >> > crime rate, even though statistics from Australia and Canada > > >> > demonstrate that crimes will actually increase. > > >> > > >> *WHAT*?!!!! > > >> > > >> Lies, damned lies, and statistics. > > > > > >I'm beginning to wonder just where Mistral is getting her information and > > >whether it's reliable. > > > > Same here. From what I've heard, violent crime rates are lower in those > > countries where guns are not readily available, but a quick search on yahoo > > didn't provide me with any statistics to back that up, so all I have to back > > up that claim is an article in a magazine I read several years ago. > > Well, if they are lies, damned lies, and statistics, they aren't > mine. I was channel-surfing a few weeks ago and ran across the > end of a documentary about gun rights. It did show statistics for > several types of violent crimes that had increased in Australia since > the last laws were passed; from burglary through murder with rises > as high as 19%, plus listing home invasions as becoming a problem > whereas they were previously nearly unheard of. There were also > interviews with several citizens, including one police officer who > said that police were against the laws because they'd made their > job more dangerous and difficult. It all depends what you decide to correlate with, don't it? Having consulted with a savvy person who listens to the news more than I do, such increases in crime have nothing to do with guns, but have to do with the increase in drug traffic which has plagued us of recent years. As for personal interviews, well, all you need is to keep looking until you find the right person. Nobody I personally know has complained about laws banning the use of automatic weapons like machine guns. You don't need machine guns to shoot roos or deer, and something that makes it more difficult for nutcases to commit massacres like happened at Port Arthur is a good thing. The only argument that I've actually heard against gun laws here is the militia one, not the reduction-in-crime one. That is, that if Australia were to be invaded (and you must admit, there's millions of Indonesians and Chinese who would be *able* to do so, if the political climate changed) then it would be a Good Thing if citizens were armed. Mind you, I would expect the same people to be arguing that it would be a Good Thing to bring back National Service. And I can see their point. But we simply don't have the attitude here that you gotta be ready to defend yourself against fellow citizens. Followups to the Spin list, please. -- _--_|\ | 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: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:55:51 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: B7 Lysator Subject: [B7L] from the social pages? Message-ID: <38990A57.54968B73@netzero.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: re: Sally wrote: >> If I wear black, does it need to be leather? >Gan strikes me as more the imitation suede type. Floor-length, with boots. Ah, but Gan is the dead guy, so the attendees wouldn't have to look like that. Besides, Avon would be unlikely to attend the funeral, as he does not believe it necessary to show that one cares - or cared. Blake would attend, of course. So the proper attire for Sally would be basic green & brown Robin Hood get-up. Retro fashion was obviously all the rage in the post-atomic era. (It could be wrose: can you just see Tarrant decked out in John Travolta disco leisure suit? Deeta was already headed down that road to fashion disaster: the hair!) Cally would also attend Gan's funeral. As would Jenna. So Sally might consider wearing tall, high heeled red boots - just the 'life affirming' statement for a funeral, eh wot? And Vila would attend, for Gan's would obviously be an *Irish* funeral and so Vila would feel compelled to help with the *refreshments*. Some to think of it, this would make a zine story: after abandoning Gan in the fake control central, they (remaining) crew hold a funeral for him (sans corpse) on board Liberator... Everyone would stand and say something nice about Gan - and then when Avon's turn comes... Pat P __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:48:17 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: B7 Lysator Subject: [B7L] Animals... me too. Message-ID: <38990891.40EAA74E@netzero.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew wrote: >Any other theories for what other things Servalan could have done > / did with that mind control equipment ? Assuming the mind games she engineered on Terminal were similar to those used on Dayna in Animals: It would certainly explain Avon's out of character behavior all of 4th season. What if there were certain 'embarassments' Servalan/Sleer wanted to be rid of? Federation citizens that she could not have (legally) eliminated. People who knew things about her. How convenient if she could program Avon to visit these folks. How even more convenient if such encounters resulted in the untimely demise of those persons? Persons such as: Dr. Mueller, Dr. Plaxton, the rotund Space Princess Purser (Gold), the crooked miner (Games), Dr. Egrorian, Zukan, (the list of 4th season fatalities is a long one) ... Blake! Pat P __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 21:20:27 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: B7 Lysator Subject: [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names) Message-ID: <3899101B.D5CF298B@netzero.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nicola wrote: >Neil Faulkner is a >>> Chocolatey Nazi >This information induced Mistral to reply: >>Careful, Neil. Somebody will bite off your ears. >Me, I start with the feet. And gratuitous cruelty season is coming up! Fen writers, prick up your ears! >Ob B7: How do Blake et al eat their Creme Eggs? Or chocolate bunnies, Since chocolate is 'the female aphrodesiac' I'll answer for the women of Blakes 7: Cally would be too kind to bite her bunnies. She would tuck her bunny in the box with her pet blob, to keep it company. Jenna would melt hers in a small silver pot, smear the chocolate on strategic body parts, then invite Blake to lick it off... Dayna would find a way to convert her choco-bunny into an ingenious hand-held weapon, and her creme egg into a bomb, both easy to smuggle past airport security systems. Soolin would perch her bunny on a fence post, step back 50 feet, then taking aim ... neatly pop off its ears, paws, tail, etc. Servalan would poison hers and set it out as bait in a trap for a certain black snarly wolf... --------- Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Julia wrote: >I should perhaps explain for those not on The Other List that I've >damaged my hands, ... Vell Duktur, If you'd gone ahead and operated on Gan's malfunctioning limiter, Blake wouldn't have had to do that. And Sally wouldn't be wondering what to wear to Gan's funeral. Pat P __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 20:38:34 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: B7 Lysator Subject: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) Message-ID: <3899064A.F8B6475E@netzero.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: re: [Blake] > >> wouldn't even let Avon *hold* those jewels until they got back to > >> the Liberator in 'Shadow'. > >> I suspect that's because he knew Avon and knew that there was a good >> possibility that those jewels would "disappear" unless he somehow managed to >> extract Avon's given word. > Oh, be realistic. Where are they gonna go with Avon right >there in front of his eyes? It's Vila who's good at sleight-of-hand. >I always feel bad for Avon in that scene--how insulting and humiliating. Insulting and humiliating - ooooh - gist for a possible "/" story? ':-) Seriously: well said. Why did Blake so deliberately yank the teeth out of Avon's wonderful line: "I'm just sentimental about *money*" ? Was his urge to publicly yank Avon's chain stronger than his usual iron self control? A most queer moment in the continuity. Reminds me of a recent review for a new movie, Just The Two of Us, about one evening after the break up of The Beatles, when Paul McCartney pops in unannounced at reclusive John Lennon's New York apartment and says, "Hope you don't mind me just dropping by." Lennon, with his typical acerbic bluntness, replies: "Too soon to tell." The review went on to say that few people know how long and hard Paul worked to keep the Beatles together. It sounds so much like how hard Blake (Paul) worked to keep the crew together, putting up with Avon's (John's) acerbic insults. And, of course, how opposites seem to attract. And then create the fire of creativity from conflict. The Lennon-McCartney compositions 'worked' because of the 'sweet-sour' mix. Again, neither Blake nor Avon seemed to operate with any spark of joy after their split. Avon's crusade was as edgy and cheerless as Lennon's solo compositions (dare I compare Dayna's whining with Yoko's yowling?) while Blake's rebel band - specifically Deva and the rebel woman played by Ms. Darrow - were as sweet and mushy as Paul's sappy 'Wings' era love songs. While I'm on this tangent: Vila would play Ringo, of course (the comic relief) while Tarrant would be George (the good looking youngster). Gan could be the [dead] Stu Sutcliffe. Alas, that leaves Jenna, Cally, Soolin and Dayna to be groupies. Oh! sic. Never mind. Pat P __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 22:01:19 -0800 From: Pat Patera To: B7 Lysator Subject: [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Name) Message-ID: <389919AF.F8CD8C0B@netzero.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: >Vila cleverly siphons out the creme filling with his thief's tools-- >from everyone else's eggs. Just because he can! :-D Or - perhaps the choco eggs are filled with creme soma? > Dayna if the arrow skewers the egg without breaking it, > she nibbles the egg from the shaft of the arrow. snort! I can better see her doing this with Sarran barbarian balls Pat P __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 01:27:38 EST From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/31/00 5:19:27 AM Mountain Standard Time, mistral@ptinet.net writes: << I always feel bad for Avon in that scene--how insulting and humiliating. >> Somewhat so, but not entirely unexpected, I think. I love the way Avon rolls his eyes and slaps the bag into Blake's hand - you can almost hear him snort in irritation at Fearless Leader. Nina ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 22:38:39 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: <19990202.234123.8742.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000 22:05:17 +0000 Julia Jones . Avon refuses to believe (at least to begin >with) >that Zen is self-aware, which suggests that it's something very >unusual. >But it's not impossible to create with technology available in the >Federation - Belkov does so with Gambit, who certainly looks >self-aware >to me. Thoughts? >-- Zen--probably self-aware and eventually into first person pronouns (now, if only he'd met Lister and Kryten). However, being alien technology, Zen doesn't say anything about Federation computers. Orac--definitly aware it was useful to melt down for parts. What else it was aware of is open to debate. Still, a one of a kind, unique toy (yes, I said toy. Does anyone really doubt Avon was thinking "Thanks for the nice present Blake. _Now, get out and let me play with it_"?). Again, not reflecting normally available Federation tech. Slave--self-aware? More like self-conscious to the point of emotional impairment. Made by Dorian, so not to be considered normal, but possibly reflecting what could be done with enough pennies and time (or a side effect of having a a weird basement and neighbors who specialized in at least one kind of psi tech). Gambit--this is the one Orac _claimed _ was too weird for him to effectively push around. Maybe it couldn't? Possibly because it _was_ self-aware? Or possibly not of just Federation origin? Other than these, were there any computers in the series that spoke? I don't remember any, so I'm voting for Avon knowing what he was talking about when it came to Federation computers. Ellynne >Julia Jones >"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" > The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. > ________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 19:42:48 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <000201bf6e17$5da71f40$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > Well, if they are lies, damned lies, and statistics, they aren't > mine. I was channel-surfing a few weeks ago and ran across the > end of a documentary about gun rights. It did show statistics for > several types of violent crimes that had increased in Australia since > the last laws were passed; from burglary through murder with rises > as high as 19%, plus listing home invasions as becoming a problem > whereas they were previously nearly unheard of. There were also > interviews with several citizens, including one police officer who > said that police were against the laws because they'd made their > job more dangerous and difficult. That sounds like tabloid-level false association to me. Gun control is tightened, violent crime increases, ergo gun control provokes violent crime? Only if all other factors remain the same. Crime and the causes of crime are complex, subject to subtle shifts in economic and cultural conditions. The way in which statistics are compiled and collated can also make a huge difference (as has happened here in the UK recently). The willingness of victims to report a crime can change over time as cultural attitudes shift (I believe rapes are more frequently reported now than they were in the past). With a television broadcast you also have to consider the programme's undeclared agenda, which decides what information it chooses to focus on, who gets interviewed etc. And I would never trust a copper's opinion about anything as a matter of principle. Neil "...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an orange)." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 00:58:02 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' Message-ID: <20000203085802.76260.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed After I wrote: Oh, I didn't mean that as a criticism of Avon - they were both under emotional pressure at that minute (and Avon's clearly worried about Blake - it's his oblique way of saying "are you damn well trying to get yourself killed?"). But what I meant was it *was* untrue and they both knew it (Blake has trusted his cause and his life to Avon over and over) so Blake came back with something that, if a little doubtful as to the precise date, was more essentially true (let no one mention Horizon. He had a headache, Avon had a backache, and they were both behaving very badly. Once that eased off on the planet itself, Blake clearly trusted Avon *not* to leave them.) And I for one love it. The whole scene would have to be among the best bits in the whole series. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 01:01:09 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names) Message-ID: <20000203090109.41305.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Mistral wrote: In accordance with the rules of Avonish Suffering (Beautiful or otherwise,) he has found out the hard way that he *does* love chocolate, but it doesn't love him - he's allergic to cocoa. This would of course fully and inreservedly justify ten thousand times more snarliness than we get. Poor darling... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 02:08:31 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: <20000203100831.79480.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Ellynne wrote: Agreed absolutely...mind you, I think he's also thinking that way round about The Web, re the Liberator (damn that Fearless Leader, keeps turning up these fabulous toys and then interrupting Avon's fun with dull, boring Fighting for Freedom...) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 02:11:26 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] from the social pages? Message-ID: <20000203101126.66128.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Pat P wrote: Did I mention that I also get airsick at a heel-height of two inches? Another reason I wouldn't fit on the Liberator, of course - not even as a Anti-MarySue (Sally's Fourth Rule - You Cannot Fight for Freedom in Sensible Flat Shoes.) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 03:41:06 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] 'Always Trusted You....' Message-ID: <38996951.C53F309D@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > >IMHO that question popped out because Avon was hurt. > > Oh, I didn't mean that as a criticism of Avon - they > were both under emotional pressure at that minute (and > Avon's clearly worried about Blake - it's his oblique > way of saying "are you damn well trying to get yourself > killed?"). But what I meant was it *was* untrue and > they both knew it (Blake has trusted his cause and his > life to Avon over and over) so Blake came back with > something that, if a little doubtful as to the precise > date, was more essentially true Yes. And when viewed in that way, nicely bookends with Blake's earlier 'You really do hate me, don't you?' and Avon's very pointed refusal to answer such a stupid question. Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 04:21:44 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Egoism? (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)) Message-ID: <389972D7.844DF83@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison Page wrote: > >Mm, I'm confused. I don't think it assumes that as a fact; that *is* > >the theory. Not that people are selfish, but that when they are what > >we think of as unselfish, they are, as always, simply doing what > >will make them feel best. As in, helping others at risk to myself > >actually makes me feel better than watching their suffering without > >doing anything about it. > > What has happened here is that you have extended the definition of 'egoism' > so that it covers people who love helping other people, who feel good when > they help other people, and go out of their way to help other people no > matter what the damage to their own personal interests. Interesting that you should see it as an extension. I deliberately chose the term 'psychological egoism' for the *narrowness* of its definition, which more closely represented the concept I was trying to express; a subset, in fact, of the various shades of meaning of egoism. Neither the concept, nor the term, nor the definition are of my own invention. > The term has been redefined so broadly that it no longer has the meaning > that it has in common currency. Yet multiple definitions are acceptable surely, else I'd be tempted to suspect you're referring to pence and pounds. Surely the use of the narrower term 'chocolate cake' doesn't devalue the term 'cake'. > It has become self-reductive, and it no > longer helps us to predict anything about how anyone would behave. The word or the concept? The concept is AFAIK intended to explain motives, not predict behaviour. It seemed perfectly appropriate to a discussion about Blake's motives. Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 05:01:53 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Beatles 7? (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)) Message-ID: <38997C40.EA8D1E7E@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Insanely Funny Pat Patera wrote: > Avon's crusade was as > edgy and cheerless as Lennon's solo compositions (dare I compare Dayna's > whining with Yoko's yowling?) while Blake's rebel band - specifically > Deva and the rebel woman played by Ms. Darrow - were as sweet and mushy > as Paul's sappy 'Wings' era love songs. > > While I'm on this tangent: Vila would play Ringo, of course (the comic > relief) while Tarrant would be George (the good looking youngster). Gan > could be the [dead] Stu Sutcliffe. Alas, that leaves Jenna, Cally, > Soolin and Dayna to be groupies. Oh! sic. Never mind. Ooh, we can do better than that. Make 'em wives and girlfriends, at least, which in some cases have some historic significance. Plus you've not accounted for Brian Epstein and Pete Best. Travis for Pete Best, I think, as he doesn't play well with the others. Tynus as Brian Epstein (possible other list subtext). Dayna gets Maureen (?) Starkey, for her (I've read) boldness (in pursuit of Ringo). Stereotypically, Cally gets the 'greenie' Paul-booster, Linda McCartney, and for the early Jenna-Cally dynamic, Jenna can be Jane Asher. Hmm. The coolly beautiful Soolin (who, BTW, wears her chocolate bunnies as hair ornaments) can be Patti Harrison, who inspired some of Clapton's best work. Servalan could yowl with aplomb, plus has more than enough of Yoko Ono's early (perceived) threat--and that also means we can slot Anna Grant into Cynthia Lennon; so now we know-- there really *is* a little Julian, er, Avon, out there somewhere! Cheers, Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: 03 Feb 2000 17:07:15 +0100 From: Calle Dybedahl To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] ["David A McIntee" ] Blake's 7 on BBC2 from February 12th... Message-ID: <86emaue0cs.fsf@tezcatlipoca.algonet.se> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=-=-=" --=-=-= --=-=-= Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline X-From-Line: blakes7-request@lysator.liu.se Thu Feb 03 15:59:33 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: calle@tezcatlipoca.algonet.se Received: (qmail 11551 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2000 15:59:32 -0000 Received: from samantha.lysator.liu.se (list@130.236.254.202) by tezcatlipoca.algonet.se with SMTP; 3 Feb 2000 15:59:32 -0000 Received: by samantha.lysator.liu.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA27180 for calle@lysator.liu.se; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:59:27 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:59:27 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: samantha.lysator.liu.se: list set sender to blakes7-request@lysator.liu.se using -f X-Envelope-From: blakes7-request@samantha.lysator.liu.se Thu Feb 3 16:59:15 2000 Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by samantha.lysator.liu.se (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA27161 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:59:13 +0100 (MET) Received: from modem-67.amitriptyline.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.77.195] helo=lgwujvnl) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 12GOf0-0006HN-00 for blakes7@lysator.liu.se; Thu, 03 Feb 2000 15:59:10 +0000 From: "David A McIntee" To: Subject: Blake's 7 on BBC2 from February 12th... Old-Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 15:55:28 -0000 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Gnus-Mail-Source: file:/home/calle/Mailbox Message-Id: X-Diagnostic: Not on the accept list X-Diagnostic: Mail coming from a daemon, ignored X-Envelope-To: blakes7 Lines: 8 Xref: tezcatlipoca mail.misc:573 At 4:05pm. They're rerunning the complete series, though we can look forward to frequent postponements for whatever sport they still have the rights to. Just thought you'd all like to know! --=-=-= -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se Please pay no attention to the panda in the fridge. --=-=-=-- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:15:33 EST From: Tigerm1019@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: <20.192d0ed.25cb03a5@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 02/03/2000 1:06:40 AM Central Standard Time, rilliara@juno.com writes: > Other than these, were there any computers in the series that spoke? I > don't remember any, so I'm voting for Avon knowing what he was talking > about when it came to Federation computers. The android Vinni seemed to be self-aware in Death-watch. Opinions differ on whether or not he was entirely mechanical. Tiger M ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:36:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Iain Coleman To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 02/03/2000 1:06:40 AM Central Standard Time, > rilliara@juno.com writes: > > > Other than these, were there any computers in the series that spoke? I > > don't remember any, so I'm voting for Avon knowing what he was talking > > about when it came to Federation computers. > > The android Vinni seemed to be self-aware in Death-watch. Opinions differ on > whether or not he was entirely mechanical. Perhaps Avon had some spiritual convictions which meant he refused toconsider a Turing machine truly sentient. Another data point for the "Jesuit Avon" theory. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 18:58:31 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Beatles7 Message-ID: <000e01bf6e78$da0a4420$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pat P wrote: > Seriously: well said. Why did Blake so deliberately yank the teeth out > of Avon's wonderful line: "I'm just sentimental about *money*" ? Was his > urge to publicly yank Avon's chain stronger than his usual iron self > control? A most queer moment in the continuity. Blake was playing the tough gangster role to impress Largo. Avon was playing the part of ambitious but ultimately obedient 2inC, which would reinforce the impression of Blake's authority still further. A good example of how they could and did (when they had to) work as a team, from a position of mutual understanding. > It sounds so much like how hard Blake (Paul) worked to keep the crew > together, putting up with Avon's (John's) acerbic insults. And, of > course, how opposites seem to attract. And then create the fire of > creativity from conflict. The Lennon-McCartney compositions 'worked' > because of the 'sweet-sour' mix. Except that by the time the Beatles were producing songs with any substance to them, they were written by either Lennon *or* McCartney, though both were credited. And of the two, give me Lennon any day of the week. >Alas, that leaves Jenna, Cally, > Soolin and Dayna to be groupies. Oh! sic. Never mind. They could always get together as Goldie and the Gingerbreads... Neil "...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an orange)." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 07:44:44 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: <000d01bf6e78$d9055740$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ellynne wrote: > Other than these, were there any computers in the series that spoke? I > don't remember any, so I'm voting for Avon knowing what he was talking > about when it came to Federation computers. Practor (in Traitor) had a 'house computer' that spoke. For some unfathomable reason it sounded awfully like Peter Tuddenham. Neil "...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an orange)." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:42:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Repeat!!!! Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I got the following from Andy Hopkinson who confirmed it with the BBC. Blake's 7 is being repeated on BBC 2 starting on Saturday Feb 12th at 4.05 YIPEE!!! (and I'm still staying off list until my fingers have recovered, because what this will do to the traffic hardly bears thinking...) 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: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 20:10:28 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: In message <19990202.234123.8742.0.Rilliara@juno.com>, Ellynne G. writes >Other than these, were there any computers in the series that spoke? I >don't remember any, so I'm voting for Avon knowing what he was talking >about when it came to Federation computers. Not that I was doubting Avon - canonical that he's a computer expert, BBC background material that he's a genius in the field. Going by his reaction to Zen, genuine self-awareness is rare or unheard of in Federation technology. Not just computers, of course - robots and androids are effectively computers. The Avalon android I'd say was clever programming rather than genuinely self-aware, although I could be convinced either way. It's also possible that if it was self-aware, it was because it used a mental pattern from a human. Note that androids seem to be a standard (if probably expensive) item. The Altas are human appendages of the System. I'd say the System is probably self-aware, although we only ever hear it through the Altas. Alien technology. That robot in Volcano seems to be an example of "intelligent but not self-aware", although since it never says anything it's difficult to tell. Federation derived society. Ultraworld? Don't know what to make of that one. Probably self-aware, simply because it falls for the old "This statement is false" trick, albeit dressed up in riddles. Alien technology. Vinnie was certainly self-aware, and I'd say thought himself to be human. After all, there were a lot of people sharing his thoughts. Human but not Federation technology, and again possibly a case of imprinting a human mental pattern onto an android - in fact, since he was supposed to pass as human while connected to the sensor net, that may have been the easiest way of providing him with the appropriate reactions. Muller's android - now that one *was* self-aware, as a very frightened Orac realised. Orac's reaction is interesting - for all his waffle about being superior, he sides with the humans when he comes up against an "organics are vermin" mindset. Gambit - self-aware, in my book. I love the scene with Vila sweet- talking yet another pretty lady, only this one's composed of circuit boards:-) Interesting, this one - did Belkov intend her to be self- aware, or it did it just happen? If you accept Heinlein's rational for self-aware machines, it's possible that Gambit's self-awareness resulted from her being put together over the years from a collection of disparate hardware, and Belkov needing someone to talk to. Of course, the example of Zen and Orac, which the Federation military knew something about, may have pushed development in that field. There's nothing like knowing that something *can* be done for helping you to do it yourself. This was what I was wondering about - is there significant scientific development within the time frame of the series? -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 20:13:33 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: In message <20000203100831.79480.qmail@hotmail.com>, Sally Manton writes >Ellynne wrote: >doubt Avon was thinking "Thanks for the nice present Blake. _Now, get out >and let me play with it_"?).> > >Agreed absolutely...mind you, I think he's also thinking that way round >about The Web, re the Liberator (damn that Fearless Leader, keeps turning up >these fabulous toys and then interrupting Avon's fun with dull, boring >Fighting for Freedom...) > Oh, *yes*... And it's reminded me of one I left off the list of "is it sentient?" That flying thing of Ensor's that Blake wants to catch to give to Avon as a pet:-) -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 20:39:08 +0000 From: Nicola Collie To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julia said: >After *that* topic arose on alt.fan.blakes7 a couple of days ago, I >suggested that it would be simpler if people there came and read our >archives rather than we took the argum^debate over there. Someone asked >me how far back. The answer appears to be "three weeks". Eek. Eek, indeed. So that's how long this particular thread of "banter" (was that what "Dissatisfied of Dulwich", or whoever it was, called our conversations?) has been going on. I've been lurking in afb7 for a few weeks now - is it quite low-traffic? I just checked my newsreader - I have 7 messages over the last week or so. Is that what others are seeing, or is my newsfeed missing posts? Nicola -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #33 *************************************