From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/289 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 289 Today's Topics: [B7L] Witch's Daughter Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Lightergate Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Re: [B7L] Horizon [B7L] Horizon policy Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Re: [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Horizon policy Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:41:41 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Witch's Daughter Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I got this from a US friend > > I i do not know how SHOWTIME works across the US but Witch's Daughtre is > playing THIS week in California on SHOWTIME so it's probably playing > everywhere in the US on SHOWTIME this week. She's not able to tape it for me as she doesn't get the channel. Can anyone else please tape it for me? I'd like to have the whole of it. > > Fins out one of your American friends who gets SHOWTIME (I don't) and have > them tape the show for you. here it's on this Tuesday and I think Saturday. > They can check their TV Guides for the week. 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: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:50:09 +0100 From: Russ Massey To: Neil Faulkner Cc: lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: In message <008e01bf1355$3fe9d460$6d1cac3e@default>, Neil Faulkner writes > >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? > I'm going to act as devil's advocate on this. The leaked message seems to have the main points: 1) DG, while having no objection to fans writing and selling adult material privately, believes that it should not be promoted as if it were a 'mainstream' part of B7 fandom. I can't say that I disagree here, assuming that DG's assumption that it IS so promoted is correct. Does that mean that Ultra will no longer be advertised in Horizon, or does that zine fall outside the definition? 2) She sees a great difference between a 'proper dramatic (adult) story' as she sees the content of Ultra 1 and 'some of what's out there', implying that some adult fiction is too extreme/non-B7 in form. Well some of it undoubtedly IS too extreme, and there's something out there to make anyone queasy, no matter how inured one might think oneself to be. But if Ultra is going to be the definition of acceptable smut then there's a lot out there that would be equally acceptable. 3) She wouldn't want to do anything about what people sell, and as part of that aloof, hands-off approach intends that Horizon ban adverts from sellers of B7 adult artwork on the grounds that the majority of the cast hate it. Sorry - couldn't resist a touch of sarcasm there. I tend to agree with Diane here as well. I believe that using an actor's image in adult art oversteps the bounds of good taste. 4) She would ban the advertising of conventions with B7 guests unless there is a ban on sales of explicit B7 art and on the open display of adult fiction. Fairly difficult to enforce this I would have thought, but certainly not unreasonable for the Horizon committee to attempt. 5) She would refuse net links to Horizon's site to any site that has X- rated material anywhere on it, 'or that links to a site that does'. Well that's the entire Internet written off then:) Someone showed that no site is more than a dozen clicks from any other. I'd say that prohibiting direct links to X-rated sites would be perfectly reasonable though. Overall, I have to say that none of the above intentions seem that unreasonable. It's possible for those favouring freer distribution of such material to organise their own conventions, their own zines and their own links with the actors. It's just extremely inconvenient that they won't be able to use the pre-existing Horizon structure, but it isn't as though they have any particular right to do so. As far as I'm aware membership of Horizon entitles you to a certain number of copies of the magazine and that's all. -- Russ Massey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:18:26 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Message-ID: <006a01bf13f3$82b7fda0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > Una McCormack wrote: > > > > > I assumed that a dictionary definition would be more useful than just making > > one up, e.g. 'authority', n. 1. Whatever Una says ;) > > 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 :) :) > > > 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. > > 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? What, then, is the basis of your claim that the bully down the street has no authority to coerce you? > > 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? That's exactly my point! Law, might, consensus... It can be any of those things. But arguing which is the *right* one is a different issue. Description vs. prescription. > 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. Unless the System have very precise laws concerning the rights of salvage teams - in which case he *does* have the weight of law behind him! Of course, this is fallacious, since we know that the System try to take the Liberator back! But that's an issue of ownership rather than authority. Blake has authority on the Liberator because no-one seriously attempts to usurp that authority. And I shouldn't imagine that the society on the Liberator was run according to Federation law... > 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? But, again, that's bringing in the *morality* of the issue! I've not said that at all! The ability to conquer people *can* give you authority over them should you choose to exercise it. Whether they *want* that authority, or consider that authority unacceptable is an entirely different matter! > > 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. > > You see, now I am confused; as if we've swapped sides. Ah - you're foolishly assuming my arguments are internally consistent ;) > 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? No. The nature of authority isn't fixed, as we've said. What I was describing there was how I could imagine that the Federation might have had the rule of law behind from the outset, rather than seizing power and legalizing it after the act. Your own interpretation of it being an illegal coup is just as possible - we don't have those details. In your case, it's easy for its authority to be challenged by recourse to law (assuming they'd foolishly not made their authority legal). Once that authority has legal status, then the nature of the language used to justify not recognizing that authority has to alter. Blake and his colleagues would no doubt call upon concepts of natural justice, or human rights: these are concepts which take the argument *out* of the sphere of legality, and into a debate over *morality*, and hence can challenge the authority of the Federation. > Perhaps the problem is that I am associating authority with > legitimacy and you are associating it with control? I think that's fair or, at least, I'm associating it with power. But then, as I think I've probably made clear, I think that equating authority primarily with legitimacy doesn't capture some of the issues surrounding claims and challenges to authority. > 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. I'm not sure that I see why this is inconsistent with what I've been saying... In a *legal* sense, the bully doesn't have authority over you (in our legal system). In a *de facto* sense, if you give in to him, then you *have* given him authority over you. I have the distinct impression that I'm arguing myself round in circles, but it's all very interesting, so who cares?!? Una ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:37:35 -0700 From: "Kinkade, Carol A" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Subject: Lightergate Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" << Neil Faulkner wrote: Horizon might not be the government, but the principle is the same - the Danni Lighter post is a leak, pure and simple, and we should be thankful to Danni (whoever s/he really is) for leaking it and Calle for forwarding it. It is only through people doing such things that we can be made aware of what is being proposed. Being forewarned allows us to be forearmed, if we wish to be. Any attempt to suppress adult/slash material is of great concern to a lot of people within fandom, and I believe they have the right to be informed, regardless of etiquette. >> I'm appalled that anyone on this list could think this way. This is equivalent to those of you on Freedom City who (rightfully so) fret over your stories being forwarded without permission. This situation is no different. Some of you will say "but, it's a good thing we know about this, we have a right to know about this." What right?!! We've ALWAYS known Diane's feelings. There is nothing in this message we haven't heard her say and try before. When and if it becomes a public issue, THEN it should be debated. This is obviously a private message sent to a select group. Also obvious is that Diane Gies is asking for advice/opinions of the other Horizon committee members BEFORE she announces these new policies to fandom at large. It's possible that the committee will disagree with Diane, that these new rules will never be initiated...the whole thing would die a slow death and we would never have heard about it. If "Danni" wanted to be "helpful" s/he could have sent this only to Judith P (who certainly DOES have a right to defend herself, Judith doesn't deserve the comments made, but these comments WERE made in private). I don't agree with anything Diane said and I strongly resent her comments about Judith. BUT, sending a private message to an elist is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It's in extremely poor taste. Carol K ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:45:31 +1000 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <19991011194530.A10449@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sun, Oct 10, 1999 at 07:43:23PM +0100, Neil Faulkner wrote: > Kathryn wrote: > >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. I was thinking about this comment, and comparing it with the short period in which I, myself, was running a Blake's 7 club, that shortlived thing, Liberator Australis. I would have been appalled if I had had to ask the membership about every single club policy, it would have been ridiculous. But then, something occurred to me. I became President of Liberator Australis because I was voted in. I was the one who'd actually organized the preliminary meeting to form the club, and, well, I was nominated and the vote was unanimous. But with Horizon, there's no vote at all. Absolutely no say whatsoever. Now, with most of the club positions, like "zine editor" or "little fiddly bits person", it does actually make sense that someone is simply appointed, because the problem is actually in getting someone to volunteer to do the job. But with most clubs I know, things like President, Secretary, Treasurer and so on, well, they get voted on. Of course, what usually happens is that there's only one nomination, because there's only one volunteer, and the person gets in unopposed, but people still go through the motions. They have the option. But as far as I can see, Horizon doesn't even have the option. > online then, and now I'm no longer a member of Horizon. Do current Horizon > members on the Lyst have any opinion on this? Current Horizon member, moi. And I've stated a number of opinions already. (-8 Will not repeat them, for the sake of those who wish to put heads in sand. But I will watch how it unfolds with interest, and react to results when the time comes. -- _--_|\ | 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: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 13:34:20 EDT From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <0.4af54c0.2533799c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol K wrote: > BUT, sending a private message to an elist is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It's in > extremely poor taste. Agreed. Carol Mc (a slash fan) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 07:49:26 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <000201bf1410$bcaf4aa0$c24b8cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una wrote: >Hey! Citation! It's almost like being a proper academic! My apologies for creating such a misleading impression. I'll try not to do it again in future. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 08:56:57 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: <000301bf1410$bdab0fc0$c24b8cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ellynne wrote: >So, what's the question here? Legal or technical definitions of porn? >Not so far. Gies has apparently cited the Obscene Publications Act, though probably with reference to artwork rather than the written word. It would also seem (though I cannot confirm this) that her understanding of 'obscene' includes the depiction of bare breasts. Perhaps certain tabloid newspapers ought to be informed. I don't know what the UK law has to say on written material. Virgin's Black Lace line of erotic novels -recommend- that the books be sold only to adults. Many many mainstream novels include graphic sex in their pages with no age statement anywhere on the cover or inside. As I understand it, even paedophile literature is legal. One problem with the Lightergate post is what exactly Gies is intending to take action against. At times she seems to be singling out explicit artwork, at other times all adult material would seem to be her target, such as X-rated stuff supposedly on Judith's website. (Judith denies it is there. However, it occurs to me that those 'three quick clicks' Gies cites can take you to the debate on slash that Judith and I had in the pages of AltaZine. Since Gies seems to want to suppress wider awareness of slash's very existence, this page would probably fall within the scope of her objections, whether it is this page she is referring to or not.) >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. And I have to agree, albeit reluctantly. Horizon has no obligation to advertise anything. But the proposals would hit some of the biggest dealers in fandom, dealers in gen material - and quality gen at that - as well as adult. This would be detrimental to fandom, or at least the proportion that reads fanfic. (Query: Just how large a proportion is that? And is it relevant. The way I see it, if a lot of fans read fanfic, then the Gies proposals will have serious impact and should be dropped or at least modified for that reason. If, on the other hand, an insignificant minority of fans are fiction readers, then there is little point in introducing the proposals in the first place.) >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. I can only speak for the brief time when I was a committee member, when Gies' decisions were handed down from on high with no consultation of the membership. Certainly no voting. Discussions of various issues took place with those committee members living in or near London (which I wasn't) and I'm not aware of any formal procedure or even the need for a quorum. Since Gies' intent is by her own admission to stifle awareness of certain aspects of fandom, the idea of putting club policy to the vote is probably out of the question. To my mind, this is no way to run a society with a four-figure international membership, and all the more so when it is -the- B7 club, with the widest range of merchandise available and unparalleled levels of liaison with members of the cast/production crew and the BBC. Horizon is powerful. It is the hub around which the rest of fandom revolves. It can brings fans together, but it can also isolate and ostracise factions it chooses to disapprove of. Even as a committee member (responsible for editing the Letterzine) I was not informed of club policy until I or someone else breached it. ('There are other rules. You'll find out what they are when you break them'...). It wasn't until I was ordered to remove all references to Ashton Press from one of Judith's LOCs that I realised why a review of Hellhound I'd submitted to Horizon never appeared in their Newsletter. (You can gather from that that Horizon never wrote back to say why this review would not be printed.) An indication of the extent to which Gies appears to control club policy and direct it along the lines of her own prejudices might be gleaned from Horizon's ban on references to smoking in fanfic. Gies herself is a fanatical anti-smoker. Fair enough. Even I, Mr Chimney, will concede she has a point. But does this warrant the deletion of all smoking references from fanfic submitted to Horizon? I've run into this, and I know at least one other person has too. Gies personally told me that smoking was not permitted because it was non-canonical. This is a ridiculous argument on two grounds - (a) it simply isn't true, since the Federation general in Traitor had a cigar, and (b) Horizon themselves have printed plenty of material with non-canonical content (and not just off-the-wall humour either). Thank you, Ellynne, for this excellent and thought-provoking post. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:07:53 +0100 From: "Deborah Day" To: "blakes7" Subject: [B7L] Horizon policy Message-ID: <007101bf1414$0a0d2bc0$3589bc3e@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Further to all the recent furore, let me add my pennyworth. Firstly, the question of whether it should have been posted is a bit academic as it _was_ posted, for whatever reasons on the part of Danni and Calle. As regards the content, certainly Horizon is entitled to have its own rules, and if it wants to have nothing to do with slash, then that is their affair. However, to try to force all its members to agree is doomed to failure - not everybody will even agree as to what is an adult story - a bit of hanky panky, kissing, or full blooded sex with graphic descriptions and pictures on every page - where do you draw the line? And I certainly do not see that they can say that they will not have anything to do with sites that you can link from to get to porn - you can click on links from ANY site and get something adult in just a few minutes. And finally, as regards the copying of private email without the senders knowledge - when I first started with email, I was told to treat email as though it was a postcard, which could be read by anybody. Obviously if you are going to say something potentially libellous then you should check that you have the facts correct from the beginning, rather than just repeat gossip from somebody who might have an axe to grind about a particular subject. The more things like this get sent around, the worse it is for the person who feels they have been unjustly wronged. My personal view of slash is that I don't mind a bit of it now and then, but don't want it shoved down my throat, if you see what I mean. But I would not like to think that my choices were being made for me by somebody with different tastes. Debbie Day. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:31:20 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Message-ID: <00ff01bf1416$f604a9c0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew said - >But seriously, all SCIENTIFIC theories build on prior theories, that is >after all the nature of science. Blimey, I'm going to be disagreeable on every list soon (oh, no, not freedom city yet). The nature of science is just to test theory against observation. There is no reason why it should build on previous theory. Newton > Einstein > Quantum mechanics is just a special case. But another example would be phlogiston theory, for example, which was completely exploded (ha). Or the idea that the heavenly bodies moved in perfect circles, which just got more and more complicated as observations built up, with lots of interlocking circles, until it was easier to chuck that idea out and invent a more 'elegant' theory built on the elipse. The name for that kind of wholescale revision is a paradigm shift - moving the goalposts. I personally think physics is due for some kind of paradigm shift before it gets a unified theory. But that's just a hunch, or prejudice if you like. Alison ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 14:44:17 -0400 From: Susan Beth To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19991011144417.00779a98@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Neil Faulkner wrote: > It is the hub around which the rest of fandom >revolves. It can brings fans together, but it can also isolate and >ostracise factions it chooses to disapprove of. > Um... In point of fact, I became a fan, bought zines, corresponded with other fans and went to my first con BEFORE I even knew that such a thing as Horizon existed. To this day I've never belonged to the club, seen an issue of their newsletter, visited their website, or had any other contact with them. So Horizon may be a "powerful" club -- most especially in England where it apparently runs Cons -- but involvement with it isn't essential to being a fan. For *me*, this very list was and is the "hub" of fandom. I'm not disputing your numbers: Horizon may have a four figure membership, and this list may only number around 200 (guessing, based on a vague memory) but access to the Net is growing by leaps and bounds. And the more people "empowered" by having access to the net with its search engines and dozens of web pages devoted to all aspects of B7 and varied mailing lists, the less and less impact any decision made by one club will have. Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:20:16 -0400 From: Meredith Dixon To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon policy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:07:53 +0100, you wrote: >And finally, as regards the copying of private email without the senders >knowledge - when I first started with email, I was told to treat email as >though it was a postcard, which could be read by anybody. Certainly it is possible for private e-mail to be read by other people than the sender. So, insofar as that's a warning to be careful what you put in e-mail, that's good advice. But it shouldn't be taken to mean that private e-mail *ought* to be read by others than the recipient, or that it is right for other people to make it easier for that private e-mail to be read by redistributing it. It's possible to do all sorts of things that are rude, ill-advised or both. When you're waiting in a line and the area for the line is marked by a flimsy barrier, it's quite possible to go over, under or even through the barrier and cut to the head of the line. It's rude, and it may get you in trouble, but it's quite possible. Getting more to the point, it's possible to pick up an extension phone and listen to a conversation someone else is having elsewhere in the house. It's rude, and it may get you in trouble, but it's quite possible. Now, sometimes it may be in your interests to be rude and listen in, for instance if your parents are trying to decide whether to send you to a military academy or not and you're planning to run away from home if they decide they will. And that seems to be the attitude the people who're saying that this is all right are taking -- they seem to think that the situation justifies "listening in." I don't. I agree with Carol Kinkade. This was a private memo sent for private feedback to other Horizon officials. If not for "Danni", it might very well have hit the cutting room floor, really fast, with no further ado. I was one of ~twenty sysops managing a BBS from 1994 to 1997, and well over eighty percent of the suggestions we made to one another never made it anywhere close to becoming BBS rules. Surely *if* Horizon decides to do any of these things which Diane has proposed, there will be time enough to react to them then. I don't see that any of them require any sort of preemptive strike. Fwiw, since everyone else posting on this thread is stating their personal position on the matter, I am much more upset by the violation of the privacy of e-mail than by any of the issues raised in the post itself. As Carol Kinkade said, seems to me that Horizon, as a private organization, would be within its rights to adopt any of these proposals, though I don't think any of them would have the effect Diane is hoping for if they did. I am not and have never been a member of Horizon; I have no plans to become a member of Horizon; I'd never heard of Diane Gies before I read "Danni's" letter. As most people reading this know by now, I don't like explicit sex scenes of any sort, whether homosexual or heterosexual, and I greatly appreciate warnings about explicit content. I have no problem with the fact that other people do like such things. I also don't think it does teenagers any harm to know that such things exist; I certainly learned what K/S meant within a year of my joining Trek fandom (i.e., around age 14), and I don't recall that it blighted my life or even my enjoyment of Star Trek. I simply avoided any stories marked K/S like the plague. I assume most present-day teens who share my tastes would have the sense to do likewise; kids' allowances are too small to spend on boring stuff about people sleeping with each other when you can buy a good story about planetary politics, or space battles, with the same money. :> -- Meredith Dixon Check out *Raven Days*, for victims and survivors of bullying. And for those who want to help. http://web.mountain.net/~dixonm/raven.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 19:55:23 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <006001bf141f$8620c720$c24b8cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol Kinkade wrote: >I'm appalled that anyone on this list could think this way. This is >equivalent to those of you on Freedom City who (rightfully so) fret over >your stories being forwarded without permission. This situation is no >different. Since when have authors had control over who buys and reads their books? Or artists over who views their paintings? If you don't want your work falling into 'the wrong hands', don't produce it in the first place. However, I think there is a difference, in that stories are artistic product aimed at an unspecified audience (ie; a story might be written for, say, slash fans, but without listing each and every slash fan expected to read the story). The Lightergate post was a communique addressed to a restricted number of named individuals. It contains information of immediate interest to a large number of people outside of that restricted group, in that it has implications for their future activities. On consideration, I would agree that no one has a 'right' to know the contents of that communique, but by the same token DG has no right to expect it not to be leaked. Kathryn was spot on, I think, in differentiating between the personal and political aspects of Lightergate. Personally, I don't give a damn about the personal - the political is all that matters, and the only etiquette worthy of consideration is the pragmatism of realpolitik. Lightergate was an act of espionage, and espionage by its very nature legitimises every dirty trick in the book. (It follows from that that Horizon is perfectly legitimate in operating the way it does, providing one acknowledges the political dimension of its operations.) >BUT, sending a private message to an elist is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! It's in >extremely poor taste. 'Poor taste' is nothing more than a transgression of what popular consensus deems acceptable behaviour. I don't see how that makes it 'wrong'. A pickled sheep or a handprint portrait of Myra Hindley are in pretty poor taste, though I couldn't ever describe either of them as 'wrong', whatever my personal reaction to either of them. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:28:22 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <006101bf141f$87bcc3e0$c24b8cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ wrote: >I'm going to act as devil's advocate on this. About time someone did. >The leaked message seems to have the main points: > >1) DG, while having no objection to fans writing and selling adult >material privately, believes that it should not be promoted as if it were >a 'mainstream' part of B7 fandom. > > I can't say that I disagree here, assuming that DG's >assumption that it IS so promoted is correct. Does that mean that >Ultra will no longer be advertised in Horizon, or does that zine fall >outside the definition? I think there's enough adult material out there to warrant its recognition as a serious aspect of fan-fic-. Whether that makes it a serious aspect of fan-dom- depends on how important fanfic as a whole is within fandom. To promote gen as 'mainstream' simply because it isn't adult is, to my mind, very spurious reasoning. To label an identified mainstream you would have to develop a workable and all-inclusive system of fanfic classification. I've tried it and I can say now that it ain't easy. >2) She sees a great difference between a 'proper dramatic (adult) >story' as she sees the content of Ultra 1 and 'some of what's out there', >implying that some adult fiction is too extreme/non-B7 in form. > > Well some of it undoubtedly IS too extreme, and there's >something out there to make anyone queasy, no matter how inured >one might think oneself to be. But if Ultra is going to be the definition >of acceptable smut then there's a lot out there that would be equally >acceptable. Some of it is undoubtedly extreme, but who's to say that it's TOO extreme. And what is wrong with making people feel queasy. That's their problem, not the authors'. I don't see any grounds for setting Ultra up as a definition of 'acceptable' simply because DG says so. >3) She wouldn't want to do anything about what people sell, and as >part of that aloof, hands-off approach intends that Horizon ban >adverts from sellers of B7 adult artwork on the grounds that the >majority of the cast hate it. > > Sorry - couldn't resist a touch of sarcasm there. I tend to agree >with Diane here as well. I believe that using an actor's image in adult >art oversteps the bounds of good taste. Which begs several questions. (a) Should artists and writers be guided by the wishes of the cast, who are not the actual characters they portrayed? (b) Do artists and writers have any obligation to remain within the bounds of 'good taste'? (c) Is there a conscious or subconscious conflation of actor and character within the mind of the artist/writer to the point where the two become indistinguishable? My own impressions are (a) No ; (b) No ; (c) Sometimes. >4) She would ban the advertising of conventions with B7 guests unless >there is a ban on sales of explicit B7 art and on the open display of >adult fiction. > > Fairly difficult to enforce this I would have thought, but >certainly not unreasonable for the Horizon committee to attempt. But isn't it unreasonable for Horizon to try and exert an influence on conventions that have nothing to do with Horizon? It would mean either that concoms would be forced to bow to Horizon's arbitrary standards, or that Horizon members would be seriously underinformed about the convention scene. How would you feel if you found out that there'd been a convention just down the road that you hadn't been told about because it sold artwork you yourself didn't object to (that's a generic 'you', Russ, since I don't actually know your personal attitude to adult art)? I would feel pretty pissed off. > >5) She would refuse net links to Horizon's site to any site that has X- >rated material anywhere on it, 'or that links to a site that does'. > > Well that's the entire Internet written off then:) Someone >showed that no site is more than a dozen clicks from any other. I'd say >that prohibiting direct links to X-rated sites would be perfectly >reasonable though. Nineteen clicks, I believe:) There is still the problem of deciding what constitutes X-Rated, and who makes that decision. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 15:38:27 -0400 From: Meredith Dixon To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Susan Beth wrote, in response to Neil's statement that "Horizon is the hub around which the rest of fandom revolves", >For *me*, this very list was and is the "hub" of fandom. Same here. In fact, I first heard about Horizon on this list. In further fact, I'd never really paid much attention to Horizon until now. So there's a fan club by that name 3000 miles away from me, across a wide ocean. Mildly interesting fact, but nothing that makes any difference whatsoever to me, or to my appreciation of Blake's 7. The "hub of fandom"? The darned thing's so far from being my fannish hub, it doesn't even make my star charts. The person who got me started watching B7 back in 1992 may very well never even have heard of Horizon; I've certainly never heard her mention it. Of course, maybe it's some sort of fannish Star One, but that's not at all obvious from here. And, besides, look what happened to Star One. -- Meredith Dixon Check out *Raven Days*, for victims and survivors of bullying. And for those who want to help. http://web.mountain.net/~dixonm/raven.html ------------------------------ Date: 11 Oct 1999 23:12:00 +0200 From: Calle Dybedahl To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >>>>> "Susan" == Susan Beth writes: > this list may only number around 200 (guessing, based on a vague memory) 300, based on counting subscribed addresses :-) Still a fair bit from four figures. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se "Such a pretty day for a bloodbath." -- Callisto, "Xena: Warrior Princess" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:02:44 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <015201bf142f$827fdf60$343dac3e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil you said some things that deserve comment. > 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. >What I would prefer to see is the Horizon committee accountable to the >membership - but it isn't. ..... I fled Horizon and started up AltaZine. > Horizon is therefore very accountable to its membership. If I like the service Horizon provides, I pay my dues and receive the service. If I didn't like it, I would go elsewhere. You didn't like it and left. Fine. I actually think that the Horizon team do a sterling job. Lets all remember that you can't run something like that with all the members having a say. If you want to change something, why not join Horizon, pop along to one of the regular meetings, and get involved. Now, of your telling me that they don't let you get involved, thats another thing. I'm new, but I was "allowed" to organise an official Horizon trip to see and meet Michael. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 22:27:13 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <015301bf142f$8361b3e0$343dac3e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >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 > Nicely put Kai. Can I suggest my game again. A Blakes 7 episode squash ladder. Here is a random order of episodes. Please pick on an adjacent pair, and argue why they are the wrong way around (best at the top). I'm not expecting the definitive list, just something to stimulate discussion of the old ground for us newbies. Looking at some other postings in the past few days, its important to establish a constitution for this. I'll make the rest of the rules up unilateraly as we go along. Space Fall Blake PowerPlay Time Squad Animals Duel Weapon Trial Killer Power Sarcophagus Volcano The Way Back The Web The City at the Edge of the World The Keeper Star One Gold Orbit Sand Terminal Games Ultraworld Stardrive Assasin Dawn of the Gods Headhunter The Harvest of Kairos Aftermath Duel Mission to Destiny Rescue Children of Auron Bounty Shadow Death Watch Rumours of Death Project Avalon Breakdown Seek Locate Destroy Warlord Deliverance Horizon Orac Presure Point Hostage Voice from the Past Redemption Countdown Gambit Aftermath Moloch ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 23:09:20 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: <031001bf1435$48e36eb0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew Ellis wrote: > Can I suggest my game again. A Blakes 7 episode squash ladder. Here is a > random order of episodes. Please pick on an adjacent pair, and argue why > they are the wrong way around (best at the top). > Power > Sarcophagus OK, well 'Sarcophagus' should be above 'Power' because 'Power' is sexist tripe and 'Sarcophagus' is atmospheric and clever. Is that the sort of thing you mean? Una -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #289 **************************************