From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #148 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/148 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 148 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) [B7L] Test [B7L] To Mistral especially - re Curious things in Star One (long) Re: [B7L] To Mistral especially - re Curious things in Star One (long) [B7L] Who's 7 pix Fwd: [B7L] Test Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Re: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? [B7L] Re: Videos Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? [B7L] New zines? Conventions? RE: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:16:03 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <19990427091618.97128.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Mistral writes: Again, I don't see it. Avon is certainly the most intelligent member of the crew, I agree would be well read (about anything that *interests* him) and believes, as you say 'all *knowledge* is valuable'. Knowledge being facts (remember, we're talking about a computer expert, a pragmatic, mechanically minded man). Historical theorising, no matter how well grounded, wouldn't interest him. Also, given we're talking about a totalitarian dictatorship here, any study of history would be fairly warped, so neither Blake nor Avon could trust even the facts as they knew it. On my understanding of both characters, Blake would try to *get* at the truth (no easy matter with the sliding, subjective, interpretive complications of historical study), and Avon would quickly realise that (a) it was warped and untrustworthy and (b) therefore of no practical value, and therefore ignore it. Again, no proof whatsover that he *doesn't* grasp the consequences. I think he does, and also the consequences of *not* doing anything. Which IMO are *on the internal evidence* considerably worse than you seem to think. The alternative is a continuation of drugged slavery (you're surely not suggesting that people in that position have any *ability* to choose freely?) brutal oppression (like the people of Albion had the choice between being ground into total poverty or genocide), enslavement as a political weapon, abuse of people's minds, both the rebellious and the innocent (those children whose minds were tampered with) systematic murder (as I said, the Federation's doing a fine job killing off everyone and anyone who wants to put forward any ideas at all about their *own* freedom). I think Cally's being a hypocrite. She accepted his right to kill in the pursuit of freedom for two years - she's been first and foremost behind every single mission, bloody or not. She is and always has been as if not more fanatical than he was. And Blake shows *enormous* restraint by not reminding her rather pointedly of this. He should send out for a postal ballot? After all, these five people are the only ones *in* a position to do anything. And by *not* destroying Star One, he would be equally making a decision, that none of those people have the right to their own lives anyway. Because *that is what the Federatation -like any totalitarian dictatorship - is about. And make no mistake, plenty of lives are being lost or ground into nothing as it stands. It's not *his* idea of freedom that Blake is pursuing, it's *any* idea. What freedom do you see as acceptable under the Federation? The evidence in the series is that the *majority* of people were oppressed (for example, see Earth in The Way Back, Saurian Major in Time Squad, Albion in Countdown). The tactics used in all of these places are efficient and very clearly smack of experience, so we can assume that there are a lot of worlds with drug programs, with the equivalent of solium bombs enforcing savage exploitation, with massacres great and small. And the evidence of the series is that there are a huge number of people unable even to make that simple decision, and a great number *for*, who can do absolutely nothing about it. They're helpless. Star One is a large part of the reason they're helpless. Star One is an instrument of oppression. You are assuming that all these people should have a choice. Sure they should. But they *don't* under the present government, they don't even have the right to think about a choice. Destroying the Federation is the only way they are going to *have* that choice. I'm not saying what Blake decides to do isn't ruthless. He knows what he's doing. He knows people are going to get hurt, are going to die. He knows if he *doesn't* destroy Star One, "many, many people" will die at the hands of the Federation anyway. Possibly more. Certainly millions will suffer. I see the difference here as Blake, knowing that there is going to be bloodshed and misery - and with no proof that it will be worse or better whichever way he goes - is prepared to take the responsibilty, the blame, on himself in order to at least try to make things better for the majority. He's got far more raw courage than Cally, who knows all this just as well as he does, but is suddenly hit with qualms about having blood on *her* hands rather than Servalan's. But in the Federation, you would not be given the luxury of deciding what freedoms you would like to sacrifice your life or anything else for. You seem to be assuming that luxury is available in the Federation, and that Blake is taking it away. *No* such luxury is available (ask the Albians), you can't even be guaranteed survival if you collaborate. Blake is trying to give them the only choice they *can* have. Some. Not as much as you think he should, but more than they have now. So the people who want to be slaves (or are happy for others to be enslaved - or murdered - for their benefit) should take precedence over those who are suffering? Because if you say that rebellion against the Federation - the destruction of a brutal totalitarian dictatorship - is only justified if everyone who benefits from the oppression agrees, then that appears to be the case. Nope. See Sargophagus. "Make me die. There's nothing else you can make me do." The one person who he's granted that privilege to (ironically in view of this discussion) is Blake. He's argued about methods and dangers. About the possibility of success. Not about the goal in itself. And he *has* followed, and admitted it openly. He thinks very highly of Blake. That's part of the problem. Proof, please? They don't know about what’s happening on planets that is due to Star One breaking down - they don't know that Star One *is* breaking down. And by the discussion between Servalan and Durkim, it is the faulty computer signals coming from Star One that are causing havoc. The weather problems don't appear to me to be a reversion to natural conditions, but massive unnatural disasters - caused presumably by mixed signals. It's quite arguable that, now that it's starting to get out of control, the galaxy will suffer less if it's put out of commission. Sorry, but IMO the only justification for this idea of 'further evidence' is that it will make Blake look bad. Not good enough without proof. ); he was *never* for it; he was just interested in staying alive and staying on Liberator till he could get control of it (apart from having become rather comfy there, sort of like a home and family).> Oh, he was all for it *because* he'd get the Liberator. And he's all for it now because he will get shot of 'it'. "I will continue to follow"...and he does, right up until the last minute. So she thinks that governments should be allowed to oppress, murder, abuse etc? I don't think for one minute that's what she meant. I think what you are both doing is (again) assuming that the Federation is somehow a far more benign or popularly supported dictatorship than the evidence from the series allows, that you and she would have more chance of being allowed that freedom of choice than I think at all warranted. Are you saying you believe that people have the ability to make these decisions for themselves better under the rule of Space Command and Star One? *No one has it*. They have drugs, they have murders, they have extortion based on the threat of genocide, they have *real* enslavement if they step out of line or get in the way of the powers-that-be (Marriott). Let me ask you a question. In the Federation (as I've said) there's not a skerrick of proof that the oppressors had any popular support outside their own ranks (I think it's just assumed by people who want to think that Avon has turned bleeding heart all of a sudden, or want to bash Blake). In Nazi Germany the oppressors had a *lot* of support from the average citizen, who could ignore the ugly realities of what was happening to a huge number of innocents because he was happy. Their comfort and happiness was built on the concentration camps. And there was *no way* to help the suffering except by destroying the average citizen's comfortable dictatorship. By your friend's arguments, the people who supported Hitler because they were comfortable had as much - no, more - right to *keep* their dictatorship (and to hell with the consequences for the rest) as the resisters had to try and destroy it. I cannot agree. I think the rights of the oppressed do have to have weight. Revolution is not always justified, but sometimes it's the only way to destroy something evil. (And BTW, the right to make those decisions that you and your friend rightly feel is important were born in other revolutions. It's fatally easy to discount what you've never had to live without.) The Federation is evil, and there is *no* other way to remove it but destruction. Even the reluctant rebel Avon works that last one out in the end. I find your thinking muddled. Of course Avon has ideals, they just don't come into this question, because what Blake is doing is trying to free a huge number of people - each an individual, each suffering - that Avon couldn't give a damn about. Blake at least acknowledges that the general population - the hoi polloi, "people he doesn’t even know", people who are you and me, whether we want to admit it or not - should have some rights over their own lives. That *they* are individuals, and he should care about them. Avon may agree with that - if he was pushed - but he doesn't care. Really. He can only care about people he knows, and only a few of them. Blake cares both about individuals (like his crew - he compromised his attempt to bargain for the Decima's lives when it endangered Avon) *and* groups. (What is a group but a number, small or large, of individuals, whether you know them or not? And because you treasure your own individuality, does that mean it has precedence over their suffering?) That's fine in a stable and comfortable democracy like our own. In a vicious and murderous totalitarian democracy (and I think I've given you enough examples) it is something of a cop-out (which I admit I would probably use myself - I do not have Blake's ruthlessness, courage or heart), and Avon is far too intelligent and honest to think for one moment that the powers-that-be are going to show him or anyone else such respect. He knows that there *is* no such thing in a dictatorship as 'your own business'. Both Blake and Avon are more than aware that that being an individual is a luxury. A luxury they can indulge because they lucked out and found the Liberator. A luxury that far too many people, for far too many years, have not been allowed to even dream of, let alone have. Ermmm...JMHO??? Hopping off the soap-box now (BTW, I've recently been reading diaries of people from 1930s Stalinist Russia, which may explain a lot of the above...) Sally ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 02:27:34 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990427092735.33388.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain I really have to stop maundering in epic length, and at the minute I can't think of much else *I* should say (of course, that never stopped me before)...but just one point Mistral made: Avon? A git? Bite your tongue...no, he is (of course)totally wonderful in his own (cough) unique way. But he doesn't care about humanity. He cares about a few individuals. Blake is one of them. And the reason he fights the Andromedans because Blake asked him to. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:34:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Peter Borg To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990427103437.424.rocketmail@web608.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Here's something to think on... Cally's line "That you were right?" - the emphasis was on the 'you'. Maybe she was questioning Blake taking the responsibility for all they had done together upon himself, rather than questioning his motive for destroying Star One..... Peter. === -- Peter Borg peter_borg@yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 11:32:45 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <003101be9099$668f0e80$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral writes: The cyclic nature of history is a very tendentious theory. It's not a piece 'knowledge'. There's quite a big difference. You imply that 'there is no point in fighting the system' is a fact. I think 'progress' is a myth if you take it to mean 'things must improve whatever happens'. The passage of time doesn't mean that things must improve. But 'progress' is a valid concept if you take it to mean 'things can be improved from how they are now'. How far it is valid to use force to bring about these improvements, and in what circumstances, I have no idea. I don't believe a moral consensus is even on the horizon. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:35:45 PDT From: "Stephen Date" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Test Message-ID: <19990427103546.64331.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Hi to those of you who read the tests ! Just checking as my posts seem not to be turning up. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:48:14 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: mistral@ptinet.net Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] To Mistral especially - re Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <19990427104814.13029.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Mistral - In my opus-length last posting, I hope I didn't offend you when I said I found a part of your argument (well, I did use the word 'thinking') muddled. I *did* think the argument was muddled, but then so are some of mine (so are *lots* of mine) and I’ve realised that the way I put that sentence could be seen as patronising at best and possibly hurtful. Please take it from me that I usually find your arguments very good (even when I disagree with them, as in this instance) and I *did not* mean to disparage in any way. Friends? Please? Sally ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:14:30 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: Sally Manton CC: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] To Mistral especially - re Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <37259C16.1DD478E0@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > Mistral - > I *did not* > mean to disparage in any way. > > Friends? Please? Sally, you are my good friend and I have always enjoyed chatting with you on- and off-list. I have not been offended by anything at all that you said; I simply infer that the subject is near to your heart (as it is to mine). I am not, as a rule, easily offended by spirited debate; and I quite like to have my errors corrected and learn new things; for example, today I have (thanx to Iain) had to go and look up the word epicycles. Besides which, my thinking frequently appears (and sometimes is) muddled; I am constantly frustrated by my own inability to express my ideas clearly. It is a wonder to be holding said discussion at all! E-mail is a tricksy medium, is it not? Grins, Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 12:18:08 +0100 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator , Space City CC: Diane Gies , Paula Robinson , Redemption Subject: [B7L] Who's 7 pix Message-ID: <37259CEF.EAD40107@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There are now some pix from Who's 7 in 1996 up on my web page. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson "What is it with you and holes?" Xena to Gabrielle, Paradise Found ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:37:09 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Fwd: [B7L] Test Message-ID: <19990427113713.76036.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Stephen wrote: You'd think after Neil's earlier effort (that suckered me good and proper) I'd learn... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:47:46 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <3725A3E2.7CB669E9@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison wrote: > Mistral writes: > valuable'; and the cyclic nature of history is one of that subject's > basics. He'd have to be a fool to have forgotten it; and he and Blake > have probably discussed that very subject.> > > The cyclic nature of history is a very tendentious theory. It's not a piece > 'knowledge'. There's quite a big difference. You imply that 'there is no > point in fighting the system' is a fact. I suppose I'll have to take it from everybody else as atheory. When I was in school it was simply accepted as reality. It certainly looks logical on the evidence. I also suppose I must have been taking for granted that Avon, Liberator's resident cynic, would of course take the rather usual cynic's view of 'it doesn't really matter because nothing ever changes.' I really do think that's a view he's fairly likely to hold. > I think 'progress' is a myth if you take it to mean 'things must improve > whatever happens'. The passage of time doesn't mean that things must > improve. But 'progress' is a valid concept if you take it to mean 'things > can be improved from how they are now'. You're right, of course.I must be too cynical to thinkof this. > How far it is valid to use force to bring about these improvements, and in > what circumstances, I have no idea. I don't believe a moral consensus is > even on the horizon. In the B7 universe, on the list, or in reality? Goodness, Alison, I wish you'd said this sooner. As we on the list and in reality can't all agree, why should Blake's crew? It's funny, though. Neil says Avon's willing to shoulder the moral responsibility; Sally says he doesn't care about the moral responsibility; I suggest that he might have a different idea of what's moral, and Blam! I do seem to have an unwished-for talent of stimulating controversy. I think we'll have to get you a gavel, Alison. Salud, Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:44:29 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <004c01be90ab$e1dfcae0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Me and Mistral >> The cyclic nature of history is a very tendentious theory. It's not a piece >> 'knowledge'. There's quite a big difference. You imply that 'there is no >> point in fighting the system' is a fact. > >I suppose I'll have to take it from everybody else as atheory. When I was in >school it was simply accepted as >reality That's what I thought from how you said it. But then the question arises - who sets up education so that kids are taught 'there's no point in trying to change things'? This cynicism thing just gets deeper and deeper :-) > >How far it is valid to use force to bring about these improvements, and in > >what circumstances, I have no idea. I don't believe a moral consensus is > >even on the horizon. >In the B7 universe, on the list, or in reality? Well, there seems to be a certain amount of debate about this exact question in the real world just at the moment doesn't there? All the columnists I read are fighting madly amongst themselves about just wars and justified rebellions. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 06:24:40 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <3725BA97.94F304D4@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison wrote: > Me and Mistral > > >> The cyclic nature of history is a very tendentious theory. It's not a > piece > >> 'knowledge'. There's quite a big difference. You imply that 'there is no > >> point in fighting the system' is a fact. > > > >I suppose I'll have to take it from everybody else as atheory. When I was > in > >school it was simply accepted as > >reality > > That's what I thought from how you said it. But then the question arises - > who sets up education so that kids are taught 'there's no point in trying to > change things'? > > This cynicism thing just gets deeper and deeper :-) Oh, you'll have to blame me for the cynicism, not the educational system. I'm quite sure they never meant to imply any such thing. It's probably due to the fact that every time I read a news story I see more and more parallels between the Federation and what the US is becoming. But I'm not joining any rebellions . Cheers, Mistral -- "And for my next trick, I shall swallow my other foot."--Vila ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:42:56 EDT From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] The Keeper and controlling Star One Message-ID: <4a3555f8.245718e0@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/26/99 8:07:58 AM Mountain Daylight Time, mistral@ptinet.net writes: > My humble suggestion -- perhaps he thought it might be saferand less messy > than wading in blood -- and while Blake was > controlling Star One, Avon could play with the Liberator. I'm more inclined to think he was just probing the limits of Blake's idealism, testing to find out if Blake would succumb to the temptation of power. After all, if Blake *did* want to control Star One he would need Avon immediately at hand more than ever, and would be far more likely to give the Liberator to Jenna (who would not be so directly useful in controlling a large computer complex). Nina ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 09:42:55 EDT From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <89a8752e.245718df@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/26/99 7:59:05 AM Mountain Daylight Time, mistral@ptinet.net writes: > It really does > depend on whether you find Blake's ideals or Avon's > ideals more appealing; and Avon *does* have ideals, > although it might not look it to a person more inclined > to put the group above the individual, as Blake is. Avon > is an individualist; he wants to determine his own future; > he's willing to let other people do the same, as long as > they don't interfere with *his* freedom. Well put, Mistral. My reaction to Blake is frequently "Who died and left YOU in charge?", and sometimes I think Avon might see him that way too. Nina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 01:42:10 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Message-ID: <19980314.015056.10030.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Mon, 26 Apr 1999 04:03:12 -0700 mistral@ptinet.net writes: > > >Neil Faulkner wrote: > >> >Mistral wrote: >> >Have just gone back and run this in slow-motion to be sure; >> >when Cally gives her warning, we are looking at Avon's >> >face; but when the shot cuts out to Avon and Anna, Anna >> >definitely going for her gun, bringing it out and up to firing >> >position. >> >> Which suggests that it was Cally's shout that impelled Anna to draw, >which >> has always been my impression. But I don't think we can be sure >that she >> was planning to draw before Cally shouted. > >I'll concede that's remotely possible, but it's too big a >stretch for me to find it believable. That's not Cally's style; >apart from which, Anna's gun is concealed in her pocket >(which is, inconveniently, well down the leg of her trousers), >while Avon's is in a holster ready to be drawn. To me, it >simply looks as if she's having difficulty getting her gun out, >and Cally's taken advantage of that difficulty. > It may also be that, as Cally's a telepath who can occassionally pick up on flashes of emotion or thought from nontelepath's, she didn't see Anna trying to draw (in which case she should have pulled her own gun [what can I say? I'm tired of those movie 'heroines' who stand around and scream while the hero fights to stay alive, especially when there's a gun in reach]) but if she had only felt sudden, deadly intent, she might have naturally cried out a warning without shooting. After all, intent isn't action, and Anna could have had a back up plan where killing her would percipitate events (deadman's switch, etc.). Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:22:23 +0100 From: Steve Rogerson To: Harriet Monkhouse CC: Space City , Lysator Subject: [B7L] Re: Videos Message-ID: <3726005C.6EC80148@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Harriet, you wrote: > Do you happen to know when the next tape (ie Children of Auron) is due > out? According to TV Zone, the next two tapes both come out on 3 May (vol 17: Children & Rumours, and vol 18: Sarcophagus & Ultraworld). Vols 19 & 20 are due on 20 June, vol 21 on 5 July, vols 22 & 23 on 6 Sept, vols 24 & 25 on 4 October and no date yet for vol 26. I've copied this to the lists cos others might like that info. TV Zone also says the Lexx videos are coming out soon in the UK, yippee!!!! -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson "What is it with you and holes?" Xena to Gabrielle, Paradise Found ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:40:25 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue 27 Apr, Peter Borg wrote: > Here's something to think on... Cally's line "That you > were right?" - the emphasis was on the 'you'. > > Maybe she was questioning Blake taking the > responsibility for all they had done together upon > himself, rather than questioning his motive for > destroying Star One..... Anyone who has authority and does not accept responsibility is a moral coward. If you give orders, surely you have to be prepared to accept responsibility for the results? Which isn't to say that those who obey orders are not also responsible. Responsibility applies at all levels, but if psychology tells us nothing else, it tells us that people have an innate tendency to follow orders from anyone who seems to be in authority. Judith PS. Avon is one of those rare people who have enough independence of mind to be able to question authority. Surprisingly few people do. -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 21:42:11 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue 27 Apr, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > > > Judith Proctor wrote: > > > Well, I certainly don't see history as cyclic. Ancient Egyptian > > civilisation lasted 3,000 years. I don't see British history as cyclic > > either. The last fall to barbarism was when the Romans departed and that > > was an awfully long time ago. > > Cycles don't have to be short; and they don't have to involve complete > collapse of the civilization, either. Occasionally, it's just a matter of > left-right pendulum swings, or successive rulers or parties having > diametrically opposing policies. What you actually mean is that it's essentially random within a general set of bounds. Political parties may look diametrically opposed, but to an outsider they can look almost identical. I remember my reaction on visiting America once when I discovered that by American standards I was probably far more left wing than either of your main parties, wheras at home, I'm a moderate. > > > Anyway, from Sarkof's surprise that Blake knew any natural history, it would > > seem that most people were not educated about the past. > > Good point; but Blake had this knowledge; could it be it was just Alphas who > had a broad-based general education? And the others were only educated in > whatever field they slotted into? I wonder what (if any) legitimate trade Vila > might be trained in? I suspect Blake had an natural interest in the past. It's an interesting sign of the time when Blake's 7 was written that that was almost the only environmental reference I can recall. If it had been written now, there woudl probably be far more on that score. I have a gut feeling that most people had a narrow based education except for some of he elite alphas. Maybe Vila could be a locksmith... > > While you have a valid point, how is it possible to conduct a referrendum > > among a populace who are permenantly drugged? > > It wouldn't be, of course; but I never get the impression that *all*, or even > most Federation citizens are permanently drugged to the point of > insensibility. There wouldn't be anyone left to handle the work needed to keep > society going; and if it was only the drugs keeping the population suppressed, > the rebels would have made short work of the drug manufacturing and > distribution systems, but we never hear of anything like that until Traitor > and Warlord. There are certainly rebels on many of the worlds we are shown; > surely that means that either not everybody is drugged, or that the drugs > don't seriously hamper thought? Perhaps it was just at-risk individuals were > drugged, and the food and water dispensers were programmed to recognized them > by DNA or voice-print? It's pretty clear from the first episode that everyone is drugged en masse, except the higher grades like people working for the Justice Department. Most people were drugged to the point where they just didn't care about anything. They were capable of doing mundane jobs, but contemplating rebellion would have been beyond them. Active rebel groups were aware of the drugs and found ways round them, either by going without food and drink at times when they needed to think (like Ravella tod Blake to do) or finding their own supplies of uncontamianted food. Scientists and the like would not have been drugged because they would need to be altert for their work. I imagine the high grade alpahs got their food and water from different sources to the lower grades, though they may not have been aware of why. They may just have taken it for granted that the lower grades were stupid (a bit like the attitude to Polish immigrants who did badly on IQ tests. It wasn't because they were doing tests that depended on knowledge of a foreign culture, it was because they were naturally stupid.) > > Anyway, it would be a little difficult to conduct a galaxy-wide referendum. > I think the point that I was trying to make is that it's one thing to > choose rebellion for yourself and those following you, but it is a whole other > order of magnitude to knowingly cause the deaths of innocents who may not > support your cause, and who haven't been given a choice. But surely the whole point is that they hadn't been given a choice? I think Blake saw imself as trying to create a situation where they did have a choice. > That's what Blake is contemplating doing by destroying Star One. And the other > point that I was trying to make is that refusing to be involved in the whole > messy thing doesn't make Avon a complete git; nor does it mean he doesn't care > about humanity; he was willing enough to fight the Andromedans. I was simply > trying to show how it *is* possible for sane, intelligent people to have > different ideas over what is appropriate to fight and die for. There *are* > certain people and ideals that I would hope that I would be willing to > sacrifice my own life for; but I would definitely resent being asked to risk > my life for somebody else's ideals, that aren't mine (what Blake is expecting > of Avon), and the list of things I would be prepared to sacrifice innocent, > unsuspecting lives for is very short indeed. I don't think Avon was being a git at all. I don't think he cares greatly about humanity though. Not to say that he doesn't care at all, but I never saw it as a major motivation of his. Intelligent people frequently have different ideas over what is right/appropriate. Defining 'right' is virtually impossible. Even when people agree on that, they can't agree on what to do about it. We're probably all agreed that the massacre of civilians in Kosovo is wrong, but what we will donate to help them or what we consider should be done militarily will probably vary widely. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:29:06 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: Re [B7L] Who killed Anna Grant? Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sat 14 Mar, Ellynne G. wrote: > It may also be that, as Cally's a telepath who can occassionally pick up > on flashes of emotion or thought from nontelepath's, she didn't see Anna > trying to draw (in which case she should have pulled her own gun [what > can I say? I'm tired of those movie 'heroines' who stand around and > scream while the hero fights to stay alive, especially when there's a gun > in reach]) but if she had only felt sudden, deadly intent, she might have > naturally cried out a warning without shooting. After all, intent isn't > action, and Anna could have had a back up plan where killing her would > percipitate events (deadman's switch, etc.). Oh, I like that one! I do so love it when someone comes up with an interpretation that I've never thought of before, especially when it makes sense. It not only explains why she warned Avon rather than drawing her own gun, it also makes consistent use of her telepathy as we know she can pick up strong emotions on occasion. It even explains how she anticipated Anna's draw rather than Anna's gun sticking in the holster. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 19:03:51 EDT From: Mac4781@aol.com To: space-city@world.std.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] New zines? Conventions? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm working on the next issue of ON THE WING, the Tarrant APA. If anyone has anything they'd like listed in the information column (upcoming zines, zines seeking submissions, conventions, etc.), please let me know by Friday. Thanks. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 07:20:05 +0200 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: Lysator List Subject: RE: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F10FBB5@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain Judith wrote: > Scientists and the like would not have been drugged because they would > need to > be altert for their work. I imagine the high grade alpahs got their food > and water from different sources to the lower grades, though they may not > have > been aware of why. They may just have taken it for granted that the lower > grades were stupid (a bit like the attitude to Polish immigrants who did > badly > on IQ tests. It wasn't because they were doing tests that depended on > knowledge > of a foreign culture, it was because they were naturally stupid.) > In Weapon, Avon says something about the guy who invented Imipak being unusually bright for a Beta. And said guy (don't remember his name just now) is very resentful all the time because he's so often looked down on by the alpha's. So this makes very good sense to me. Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:30:12 PDT From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990428053012.56749.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Humble apologies to Sally, who will receive this twice by mistake... Sally: >I really have to stop maundering in epic length, and at the minute I >can't think of much else *I* should say (of course, that never stopped >me before)...but just one point Mistral made: No, I'm not commenting, I'm complaining The both of you have triggered a filking fit on the subject of a certain unhappy couple's differences in attitude to life and liberty, and I'm not happy! And at work, too, aarrgghh!! I hope you are ashamed of yourselves. Never start with the second verse, ever... Tormented, (until I get this out of my head) Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 22:42:38 PDT From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990428054242.36371.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Joanne complained: The both of you have triggered a filking fit on the subject of a certain unhappy couple's differences in attitude to life and liberty, and I'm not happy! And at work, too, aarrgghh!! Ooooh. Hey Mistral we've turned into Joanne's Muses or something!!! Utterly and grovellingly. Now tell more. Like when do we all get to hear it?? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 23:02:40 PDT From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19990428060240.93451.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain Sally wrote: >Ooooh. Hey Mistral we've turned into Joanne's Muses or something!!! It's a thankless task >Utterly and grovellingly. Now tell more. Like when do we all get >to hear it?? Like the Sistine Chapel, when it is finished. Regards Distracted ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 01:16:39 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <3726C3E7.B285339D@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally wrote: > Ooooh. Hey Mistral we've turned into Joanne's Muses or something!!! Dibs on Erato. Joanne wrote: > Sorry, no. As an individualist, I stand by my conviction that you are responsible for your own actions, even those influenced by Muses and other supernatural creatures. Mistral the Erratic, er... Erotic, er... Ersomething -- "Anything's possible when you're as insane as I obviously am."--Soolin -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #148 **************************************