From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/288
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 288

Today's Topics:
	 Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" <danlite@hotmail.com>] New Horizon Policy
	 Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
	 Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
	 Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
	 [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
	 Re: [B7L] Lightergate
	 Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
	 RE: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
	 [B7L] Re: Horizon policy
	 Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285
	 [B7L] Re:  New Horizon Policy
	 Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity
	 Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
	 [B7L] Horizon
	 Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:05:42 PDT
From: "Hellen Paskaleva" <hellen_pas@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" <danlite@hotmail.com>] New Horizon Policy
Message-ID: <19991010090543.33426.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

> >Calle wrote, RE anti-slash message:
> >
> >> This got stuck in the spamtrap...

You should let it stay there...

Hellen

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 13:06:38 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Message-ID: <00c001bf1317$edfa1b70$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mistral wrote:

> Una McCormack wrote:
> > Hmm, not sure I totally agree. Surely you can take authority by force
and
> > coercion, like the Federation. You could argue that acting obediently
> > through fear is tantamount to complicity (in that *Blake* chose to
fight),
> > but when you act obediently because you've been drugged or brainwashed
is
> > another matter. Sometimes the choice isn't there.
>
> There's a difference between rule and authority.
>
> You can rule by force. Authority's given, and has more of
> responsibilities in it than of rights.
>
> Mistral, charter member of hair-splitters anonymous

God preserve me from people who are precise with their terminology! ;)

<Una trots off for her dictionary...>

OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce laws,
exact obedience, determine, or judge.

The Federation were an authoritarian regime, and I suspect they were also
(mostly) acting legally - note Soolin's exchange with Vila in 'Blake'.

There is a superb story in Neil's new zine 'Pressure Point' which deals with
these issues: 'Drug-Induced Tranquillity' by Christine Lacey. Hugely
recommended, as is the whole zine.


Una

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 06:15:12 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Message-ID: <3800915F.DDBCC27D@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Una McCormack wrote:

> Mistral wrote:
>
> > Una McCormack wrote:
> > > Hmm, not sure I totally agree. Surely you can take authority by force and
> > > coercion, like the Federation. You could argue that acting obediently
> > > through fear is tantamount to complicity (in that *Blake* chose to fight),
>
> > > but when you act obediently because you've been drugged or brainwashed is
> > > another matter. Sometimes the choice isn't there.
> >
> > There's a difference between rule and authority.
> >
> > You can rule by force. Authority's given, and has more of
> > responsibilities in it than of rights.
> >
> > Mistral, charter member of hair-splitters anonymous
>
> God preserve me from people who are precise with their terminology! ;)
>
> <Una trots off for her dictionary...>

You do realize if we check five different dictionaries, we'll get
five different definitions? ;-)

> OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce laws,
> exact obedience, determine, or judge.

I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted
power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would
imply that any group who can seize control of a government
would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea
of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate,
because the ability to take power is its own justification.

The bully down the street may have the power to force me
to do his will, but he has no real authority to do so, would
you say?

> The Federation were an authoritarian regime, and I suspect they were also
> (mostly) acting legally - note Soolin's exchange with Vila in 'Blake'.

The Federation gives me the impression, however, of being a
legitimate government that became corrupted, rather than a
conquering or usurping force. The people had indeed given it
the authority, and the government depended to a certain extent
on the people continuing to do so, else there wouldn't have been
so much bother about what to do with Blake. If the masses were
drugged *into insensibility*, they could have just executed him.
Probably the 'ins' depended primarily on giving the impression
of being a benign or even a benevolent government, in order to
retain their authority.

Just a thought,
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
                              --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:54:38 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Message-ID: <00ec01bf1340$2ae7eb20$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mistral wrote:

> Una wrote:
>
> > <Una trots off for her dictionary...>
>
> You do realize if we check five different dictionaries, we'll get
> five different definitions? ;-)

Yes, I know, but as we were struggling with terminology it seemed sensible
to provide one baseline from which we could operate.

I assumed that a dictionary definition would be more useful than just making
one up, e.g. 'authority', n. 1. Whatever Una says ;)


> > OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce
laws,
> > exact obedience, determine, or judge.
>
> I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted
> power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would
> imply that any group who can seize control of a government
> would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea
> of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate,
> because the ability to take power is its own justification.
>
> The bully down the street may have the power to force me
> to do his will, but he has no real authority to do so, would
> you say?

But he or she does *not* have that authority because there are *laws in our
country to prevent it*. But if there were laws which encouraged it or did
not prevent it, then she or he *would* have the authority.

This is my point about legal and illegal activities. You're making a *moral*
judgement about what you consider legitimate authority based on the status
quo in our own society. The whole point is that that legitimate authority is
contingent.

In an authoritarian regime, it's legal to commit many acts which would be
illegal under other systems. Whether it's *right* or not is another debate
entirely!



> > The Federation were an authoritarian regime, and I suspect they were
also
> > (mostly) acting legally - note Soolin's exchange with Vila in 'Blake'.
>
> The Federation gives me the impression, however, of being a
> legitimate government that became corrupted, rather than a
> conquering or usurping force. The people had indeed given it
> the authority, and the government depended to a certain extent
> on the people continuing to do so, else there wouldn't have been
> so much bother about what to do with Blake. If the masses were
> drugged *into insensibility*, they could have just executed him.
> Probably the 'ins' depended primarily on giving the impression
> of being a benign or even a benevolent government, in order to
> retain their authority.

I tend to assume that the Federation emerged after some great disaster (the
Atomic Wars) and a dictatorship or strong government was easy to justify or
welcome in the face of extreme pressures. We see this society at a stage
when humanity is back on its feet and it can no longer be so easily
justified; unfortunately, those in command are not keen to give up power. I
find Servalan a much more interesting character when she's portrayed as
seeing strong government as a necessity rather than just being plain
bonkers.


Una

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:58:45 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Kai V Karmanheimo <karmanhe@cc.helsinki.fi>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.991010195344.23550A-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Hello

This is my first posting, delayed because of some technical difficulties,
so excuse me if everything I am saying is old news. I just wanted to
contribute to the recent discussion on which Blake's 7 episodes are
considered "bad" and why. 

I find something interesting in just about every episode in the series,
and even some of the more pedestrian examples can be pleasing in their own
way. For example, "Ultrawold" is a collection of space opera cliches (a
mind-absorbing computer, the we-want-to-observe-human-mating-rituals gag,
relying on FX to pad out the story and the importance-of-being-illogical
moral - even if it is treated with irony) with little of the character
complexity and moral ambiguity that is central in B7's attempt to
transcend the limits of that subgenre. Still I find it holds together and
moves along nicely. It's inoffensive, easily digestible, even entertaining
(bubblegum B7), just so far from the best of what B7 has to offer.
Uninspired, not bad. 

In contrast, "Dawn of the Gods" is even more hampered by comic book
cliches and plot turns, not to mention inconsistencies with the rest of
the series in characterisation, dialogue and concept level. While I think
that overall this is one of the worst episodes in the series, there are
some great small bits here too (Vila's spacesuit scene, Orac's commentary
while Zen zaps the demolition crew), which prompt further screenings. Both
of these episodes feel somewhat out-of-place in the series. Of course in
both cases it was the writer's first script for Blake's 7, though having
read some of Follett's and Hoyle's printed fiction, I notice they
consistently come up with interesting ideas only to mar them with cliched
plots and conservative solutions. 

Then again, "Sarcophagus" was Tanith Lee's first B7 script, and that
episode is also somewhat out-of-place in terms of mood and
characterisation - and I think it's one of the best episodes in the
series. 

Okay, what am I saying? I guess that there are scraps of solid gold even
at the bottom of B7's barrel. But then you knew that already, didn't you? 

Kai Karmanheimo

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 19:43:23 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate
Message-ID: <008e01bf1355$3fe9d460$6d1cac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kathryn wrote:
>Darn, stop confusing me!  That is actually a reasonable point you
>make.  I guess it depends on whether one considers the whole on a
>personal level or on a political one.  On a personal level, it would
>be aiding and abetting a betrayal of trust.  On a political level, it
>would be constituents discussing a leaked cabinet document.

I think the question we ought to ask is, is it in the fandom public's
interest to know?  In this case I would say yes.  This isn't a saucy titbit
of committee gossip, it is a proposal (and we should remember that at this
stage it is still nothing more than a proposal) that if implemented will
have serious repercussions not only for adult/slash writers and readers, but
also many gen writers/readers, since many dealers market both. (For example,
although I don't write adult myself, most of best stuff is in Judith P's
zines, and this proposal could effectively prevent Judith from advertising
through Horizon, and perhaps even from from dealing at some conventions.  So
I - like anyone else who has written for Judith - stand to lose readers.
And as a writer, I want readers.)

>Thing is, what I don't want to see is hysterical and acrimonious
>name-calling in a public forum.

Agreed, that is totally counter-productive.  I make no secret of the fact
that I utterly loathe Diane Gies, but at the same time I have to acknowledge
that her services to fandom are considerable.

>In any dispute, surely the most
>sensible thing to do is to talk to the person with whom one has the
>dispute - in this case, Diane Gies?

What I would prefer to see is the Horizon committee accountable to the
membership - but it isn't.  Policy decisions seem to be formulated and
implemented without any consultation at all.  When I was Letterzine editor
for Horizon, I was instructed to make certain cuts to some LOCs because they
mentioned things that Gies didn't want up for discussion.  I was also told
not to indicate which letters had been cut, or where, or why.  My suggestion
that the subscribers, if not the club members as a whole, be polled on what
they wanted to see was instantly vetoed on the grounds that they would have
to be informed of the issues in question in order to make a decision.  Not
wishing to be an accessory to keeping people in the dark (and quite
needlessly, as I still believe), I fled Horizon and started up AltaZine.

Certainly if I'd been on the net in those days, and got an e-mail from Gies
explicitly stating the secretive way in which club policy was to be
implemented, I'd have leaked it to the Lyst straight off.  But I wasn't
online then, and now I'm no longer a member of Horizon.  Do current Horizon
members on the Lyst have any opinion on this?

Neil

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 20:24:26 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <008f01bf1355$4105a4a0$6d1cac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kai wrote:
>This is my first posting, delayed because of some technical difficulties,
>so excuse me if everything I am saying is old news. I just wanted to
>contribute to the recent discussion on which Blake's 7 episodes are
>considered "bad" and why.

Virtually every newcomer ends up treading old ground sooner rather than
later.  Think of it as an initiation rite to prove your fanhood.  And
welcome to the Lyst.
>
>I find something interesting in just about every episode in the series,
>and even some of the more pedestrian examples can be pleasing in their own
>way.

Guess that's why I like Bounty so much.

>Then again, "Sarcophagus" was Tanith Lee's first B7 script, and that
>episode is also somewhat out-of-place in terms of mood and
>characterisation - and I think it's one of the best episodes in the
>series.

You are not alone.

>Okay, what am I saying? I guess that there are scraps of solid gold even
>at the bottom of B7's barrel. But then you knew that already, didn't you?

Different people rate episodes according to different criteria (as Una
McCormack has analysed in her in-depth study
 http://www.q-research.connectfree.co.uk/personal/blake.htm )).  FWIW, I'm
one of those people who take an episode in its entirety and weigh up the
'good' and the 'bad' before pronouncing judgement - and if the 'bad' heavily
outweighs the 'good', then the good moments do not redeem the episode.  My
least favourites are:

Not Terribly Good:
    Headhunter
    The Keeper
    Volcano
    Harvest of Kairos

Not Really All That Good At All
    Animals
    Stardrive
    The Web
    Assassin

Bloody Awful
    Duel

####ing Awful
    Dawn of the Gods

Nope, Ultraworld doesn't make the worst-ever list.  And neither does Moloch.
(Nor even Power, despite my profound disagreement with the implicit attitude
of the scriptwriter.)

Silliness (of script or visual design), cliche, and a tendency towards
fantasy rather than SF all earn bad marks from me.  Put all three together
(as in DotG) and the episode hasn't a prayer.

Neil

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 23:23:00 +0200
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: RE: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F795910@NL-ARN-MAIL01>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

Kai Karmanheimo wrote:

> For example, "Ultrawold" is a collection of space opera 
> cliches (a mind-absorbing computer, the 
> we-want-to-observe-human-mating-rituals gag,

That may have been cliche, but the line "Was that the bonding ceremony?",
after Dayna's bomb went off still has me giggling.

Jacqueline

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:28:07 +0100
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: "Lysator List" <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re: Horizon policy
Message-ID: <024f01bf1365$4105ff80$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Judith, amidst a long rebuttal of some of Diane Gies' PRIVATE thoughts said,

>
....it always seems to me that people from both sides (if indeed there are
sides) can live together quite happily and share what they both enjoy.  The
Lysator list and Freedom City live happily alongside one another - many of
us are members of both.
>

and what a sensible policy that is.
I don't want the material from Freedom City - so I don't go there, and I
appriaciate the fact that the people who do like that sort of thing have
somewhere to go.

Andrew

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:35:47 +0100
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285
Message-ID: <025001bf1365$578c4b60$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I said,


>> Of course, Quantum Mechanics allows strictly secure key distribution
using a
>> technique called Quantum Cryptography, so all that messing about getting
>> Cally captured, in order to obtain the Federation cyper machine suggests
>> that Blakes 7 isn't a quantum world either.

 and then Avona said...

> If I was a Federation scientist, I think I'd want to
>use my unbreakable cipher to send private messages that Big Brother
>couldn't read. How's that for a reason that technology isn't in official
>use?
>

But all the best scientists are mercenaries (well Avon is at any rate), and
would have sold it to the Federation. But the Federation could very well
reserve its use solely for critical messages only, and keep its existence a
secret, good point.

Andrew

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:49:47 +0100
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re:  New Horizon Policy
Message-ID: <025101bf1365$59a3e0c0$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kathryn said,

>
>Yep.  If and when this thing becomes official Horizon policy, we can
>disuss it then.  Until then, let us politely pretend we haven't seen
>it.  (Apart from Judith P who really does have a right to defend
>herself against slander).  What we may say privately is another
>matter, but we probably shouldn't discuss this in a public forum.
>Give Horizon a chance to discuss it amongst themselves first.
>Who knows, they may change their minds.
>


Hear hear, if you believe in the right to publish slash, you must also
believe in the right to talk about it, in PRIVATE.

One point I will raise before somebody suggests we drop this thread. There
is obviously a line between acceptable and unacceptable. The only problem is
that different people have different views on where the line should be. What
is acceptable to a sun worshipper from the 7 th sector is probably
unacceptable to a veteran trooper from the 5th legion.

Andrew

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:10:46 +0100
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity
Message-ID: <025201bf1365$5dddb9e0$1510063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Neil wrote

>Actually, B7 is so far ahead that relativity and quantum mechanics would
>probably be relegated to the same quaint-but-useless file as Copernicus and
>Aristotle.  Blake and his contemporaries would view the universe as
>described by Squirble's Theory, which states that a ship will be forced to
>flee from hordes of pursuit ships just before one of the two crew members
>down on the planet breaks his ankle.
>


I agree that Squirble's Theory probably applies to sub TD11 travel, but to
get up to TD12 in REAL TIME, well that needs the Jaberwiggle Transform to be
applied.

But seriously, all SCIENTIFIC theories build on prior theories, that is
after all the nature of science. Special Relativity is a refinement of
Newtonian Mechanics. General Relativity is a refinement of Special
Relativity. But within the bounds of their own approximations, each theory
still remains valid. You can calculate the motion of a planet using any of
the three and get a good enough answer (or even of the liberator moving
under the influence of a gravity generator which resembles a black whole).
So Squirble's theory is a refinement of .... which is a refinement of
.......... of the Grand Unified Theory.  For example, chaos theory does not
replace any early 20th century theories, it simply points out, and
formalises, that they are all very susceptible to the boundary conditions in
the limit of a many body problem.

We could thus postulate that squirble's theory describes the way that a
motive force, simultaneously propelling a vehicle and producing a
logarithmic time distortion, could arise when the lines of determinism are
extracted from the fundamental chaos embedded within that 21st century
theory of quantum gravity in a peculiarly "Self Similar" fashion. I put the
last bit in to be trendy and up to date in late 1990's theoretical maths,
rather than late 1980's.

Andrew

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 22:59:34 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes...
Message-ID: <003001bf136a$c6f55050$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Neil wrote:
> Different people rate episodes according to different criteria (as Una
> McCormack has analysed in her in-depth study
>  http://www.q-research.connectfree.co.uk/personal/blake.htm )).  

Hey! Citation! It's almost like being a proper academic!


Una

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:11:21 -0600
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Horizon
Message-ID: <19991010.223102.3318.0.Rilliara@juno.com>

>One point I will raise before somebody suggests we drop this thread. 
>There
>is obviously a line between acceptable and unacceptable. The only 
>problem is
>that different people have different views on where the line should 
>be. What
>is acceptable to a sun worshipper from the 7 th sector is probably
>unacceptable to a veteran trooper from the 5th legion.
>
>Andrew

Just so long as people don't use the difference of opinion to avoid
making the decisions they agree need to be made.  

There was a court case in the US where the jury, to determine guilt, had
to determine community standards (OK, it was more complicated, but I'm
trying to keep this short). They voted not guilty.

The problem?  When polled afterwards, members of the jury said that,
while the actions in question fit their _personal_ standards for
criminal/unethical activity, they didn't feel entitled to make that
judgement for the community.

Apparently, no one explained  the law decided community standards in this
case by getting TWELVE people together and ASKING them.

So, what's the question here?  Legal or technical definitions of porn? 
Not so far.  As I understand it, the question is whether Horizon 1) has a
right to make certain decisions about advertising and 2) whether it is
making this decision in a legitimate fashion.

For number 1, the answer is probably yes.  In the US, at least, certain
standards of fairness have to be kept usually (the usually is generally
covered in the mixed success of various lawsuits), but there's a lot of
leeway.  I know of a magazine that was specifically forbidden to carry
advertising from any local businesses by the owner.  Basically, the law
here agrees that the _right_ to speak does not necessarily mean the right
to a _forum_ to speak.

The internet, being international, may someday rewrite the laws on this. 
At present, it tends to be less regulated than most other public forums. 
I'd give Horizon good odds on this.

The second question is where it gets sticky.  Does Horizon have rules of
debate for this kind of thing?  Voting?  I have to admit not having a
clue how it's run.  What kind of consequences is it likely to deal with
if it offends enough of its fan base?  Horizon may only be liable through
the social-economic consequences of its decision.

So where do I stand personally on all this?  I don't know.  I don't care
for explicit material and I appreciate warnings to help me avoid them.  I
think some people go on about freedom of speech as if it were truly
unlimited, never mind you can't yell fire in a movie theater (unless
there is one).  

On the other hand, I can still vividly remembering being one of only
three people to stand up in a mock senate to defend the rights of a group
who appalled me in every way, shape and form.  Ironically, there were
several people present who had world views a lot similar to this group's
who voted against them.  In fact, the three of us who voted in favor were
all conservative, religious minorities and, like I said, about as far
apart from this bunch as it was possible to get.  But we all said
essentially the same thing.  We cited times from recent history when
people had made similar arguments against our peoples (i.e., they're
weird, get rid of them), and we had suffered the consequences.

Eep, this is long.  OK, summary.  I've got strong feelings against
explicit material and have an obligation to say so.  Beyond that, I'm
unsure what steps I can or should take.

I do know the legal situation on limiting it, however, is murky at best
(unless material is deliberately given to minors or people who don't want
it [or if it can be construed as deliberate threat, although that isn't
much of the stuff in question--unless someone really has a killer mutoid
working for them?]).  However, the same defenses generally apply to
privately owned forums to provide or refuse advertising.  This does not
mean these forums are not subject to checks and balances outside the
legal arena odr that their supporters can, er, cease to support them if
they don't like their decisions.  I should point out this can cut both
ways, with a fan base reacting negatively to material included as well as
material rejected.

Ellynne
Who is Trying to Figure How Her Standards Balance with the Community's

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 05:01:30 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience
Message-ID: <3801D199.C60EDFA4@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Una McCormack wrote:

<snip>

> I assumed that a dictionary definition would be more useful than just making
> one up, e.g. 'authority', n. 1. Whatever Una says ;)

<g> Works for me :)  Actually, although I do tend to be the one
running for the dictionary, dictionaries are supposed to follow
usage, not the other way around (which I often find frustrating.)
The flexibility of the English language is both its beauty and its
curse. Probably why we're having this discussion :)

> > > OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce
> laws,
> > > exact obedience, determine, or judge.
> >
> > I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted
> > power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would
> > imply that any group who can seize control of a government
> > would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea
> > of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate,
> > because the ability to take power is its own justification.
> >
> > The bully down the street may have the power to force me
> > to do his will, but he has no real authority to do so, would
> > you say?
>
> But he or she does *not* have that authority because there are *laws in our
> country to prevent it*. But if there were laws which encouraged it or did
> not prevent it, then she or he *would* have the authority.
>
> This is my point about legal and illegal activities. You're making a *moral*
> judgement about what you consider legitimate authority based on the status
> quo in our own society.

<vbg> Er, the status quo in society is just about the *last* thing
I'd *ever* base a moral judgment on. Unless I've misunderstood
what you're saying?

> The whole point is that that legitimate authority is
> contingent.
>
> In an authoritarian regime, it's legal to commit many acts which would be
> illegal under other systems. Whether it's *right* or not is another debate
> entirely!

Sure, I totally agree with you about legality not equalling morality.
But the question seems to be where does a government *get* its
authority? Contingent on what? I don't think legality and authority
are the same, either. If they were, then Blake could have no
authority on the Liberator, because he's there illegally in the first
place. (Just to be clear, I don't equate authority and morality, either.)

The definition you quoted talked about the right to command as
well as the ability. Surely you don't mean the ability to conquer
people gives one the right to do so? Conquered peoples rarely
accept the *authority* of the invaders anytime soon. That's what
the French resistance was about.

<snip>

> I tend to assume that the Federation emerged after some great disaster (the
> Atomic Wars) and a dictatorship or strong government was easy to justify or
> welcome in the face of extreme pressures. We see this society at a stage
> when humanity is back on its feet and it can no longer be so easily
> justified; unfortunately, those in command are not keen to give up power. I
> find Servalan a much more interesting character when she's portrayed as
> seeing strong government as a necessity rather than just being plain
> bonkers.

<g> You see, now I am confused; as if we've swapped sides. It
sounds to me that you're saying the Federation lost its legitimacy
when the people no longer wanted that type of government; in
other words, its authority was granted?

Perhaps the problem is that I am associating authority with
legitimacy and you are associating it with control? But then I
have to rely on the point you brought up, about obedience being
tantamount to complicity. In which case the bully has authority
over me, legal or not; but only because I cede it to him.

About Servalan, I totally agree.

Mistral (whose brain is beginning to ache)
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
                              --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.

--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #288
**************************************