From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #293 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/293 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 293 Today's Topics: [B7L] Horizon policy Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Lightergate [B7L] How Do You Spell Relief? Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #290 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #291 [B7L] Sorry I'm always making so many posts in a row... [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #292 [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Re: [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:03:58 +0100 From: Ruth Saunders To: "Blake's 7 List" Subject: [B7L] Horizon policy Message-ID: <38060CFE.954B6D77@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi! to everyone who will remember me from my days in active B7 fandom. I've rejoined the list (at least temporarily) because someone forwarded Diane's letter to me feeling that as a B7 fan, slash fan, zine dealer and conrunner, I'd be interested in seeing it. I've been following the debate through the archive, so though I've read a lot of what's already been said, though I have a few comments to add. > recently I've been more and more unhappy about how easy > it is to find fan-porn on the internet, & how easy it is to stumble over > adult zines at guest-conventions. These are actually two completely different topics, rather unfairly strung together. The first relates to a wider social debate about internet freedom of speech and control or censorship issues and policing of such within an international age with a gender boundary free regime, and the second point relates to fan guest-convention practices that, obviously, depend upon the fan convention organizer and their own policies. I'll come to the implications of that later. > B7 was always a PG show and whilst I've no objection to fans wanting to > write adult stuff and sell it to other consenting adults in private, I > don't think the vast industry in fan-porn is healthy. Two things here. To say slash is a 'vast industry' is untrue in my opinion, at least in Blake's 7 is concerned. A quick search on All the Web , IMO one of the best search engines, for "Blake's 7" throws up over 11,000 pages. That's a lot of pages for a small fandom, B7 fandom should be proud! A search for "Blake's 7" and "slash" throws up 470 pages. That's around 4.2% slash pages among the mainstream. Hardly a 'vast industry', unless Diane's looking at slash pages that are not B7, in which case she needs to be clearer. There are also several pages giving links for various kinds of fanfiction on the net, if you go to one of these and look up Blake's 7, you'll find that B7 is hardly the fandom with the largest exposure on the net, slash or gen. There are more B7 slash stories in zines than on the net, but even that isn't a 'vast industry' compared with the amount of gen about, or even compared with the amount of slash - and fanfiction generally - in other fandoms, for instance the grandaddy of all fandoms, original Trek. TOS also has a large amount of slash, probably in the same proportion as B7. > It is promoted as > a mainstream interest and as something new fans should be told about as > soon as they are told about 'regular' stuff, It's also studied as part of media studies classes in some places (like MIT, hardly some hole-in-corner college!) I recommend the work of Henry Jenkins he studies fandom, and is very interesting on the whole phenomenon of fannish interaction, including but not exclusively slash fandom. You don't need to go to a con to find out about slash. These days, you could pick up a book about fandom off the shelves of your local bookshop. /irony mode/ See that horse galloping over the hills? It's time to lock the stable door! /irony mode off/ > The idea of our own Ultra 1 was to have adult stories, with non-PG rated > sex scenes as part of a proper dramatic story (plus humorous little > romps) > but some of what's out there is so far removed from anything resembling > B7 as we > know it that I don't believe it should be so easily accessible. Quite apart from the "Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" language, what is being advocated here is censorship. Even if I were a non-slasher I couldn't support it, and I take heart from the fact that people on the list who are non-slashers don't. Thank you. We're being asked here to accept Diane's ideas of what is and isn't 'real' or 'acceptable' Blake's 7. There are some stories out there, slash and gen, which don't accord with my ideas about the characters, but I accept that they're someone's. I know, too, that my ideas sometimes don't chime with other people's, but I think there's room in a fandom for all shades and points of view. I remember also an old friend putting forward the view that actually there's little to choose between slash and gen, it's all pastiche at best and breach of copyright at worst. He didn't agree with fanfiction of any shape or form, he said it was *all* theft. I confess it was a new idea to me. The only time I've ever heard of anyone getting a "cease and desist" notice about fanfiction on a website and in zines (it wasn't B7, but another fandom) the C&D notice was directed at the publisher of all stories on the site and in the zines she sold, *all* of which were gen. Where holders of copyrights get difficult, they don't seem to differentiate between the two. > Therefore, I would > like to implement a new advertising policy which would broadly encompass > the following points: > Advertising of fanzine Dealers in Orac's Oddments. Up till now we've > been advertising, for free, stuff sold by any club member, whilst asking > them to reciprocally advertise us. We have no way of knowing whether > these people DO advertise us and I've discovered for sure that Judith > Proctor certainly doesn't in any of her printed literature though she > does on her website. This is totally unfair, and actually untrue. Judith doesn't put the flyer in her zines any more as part of the text (though I think she did at one time) but she does include one with orders, and possibly with her catalogue too, it's been a long time since I sent for one. I think that's reciprocal enough, it would be for me. I don't think she'd waste a flyer on someone she knew was already a Horizon member, either. > The new policy would be that free for sale ads would only cover 'one > off' sales (selling off a collection, or one item) rather than for > people who trade as fan or pro dealers. We could then have an > advertising fee for any dealers still wanting to advertise up to a > maximum of xxxx words [snip] > Further, they would be required to sign something to confirm that they > did not produce, or agent for others, any B7 fan fiction containing > 'adult' artwork. If they want to sell adult fiction, that's up to them, > but the majority of the cast hate the idea of explicit artwork and so do > I, as you all know. Horizon can of course refuse what advertising it chooses (indeed they have the freedom they have so thoughtfully allowed others!) but I'm a bit concerned about the 'something' that advertisers are going to be expected to sign. What 'something'? And who signs it? The dealer? Would someone acting on their behalf be enough (for instance in the case of someone who has left the country)? What about families selling the belongings of someone who has died and who don't know or care what is in the zines? What action do Horizon propose to take if their stipulations prove not to be adhered to? If they're only accepting one-offs from some people, the sanction would surely not in these cases be to refuse further ads - but there would surely have to be a sanction of some kind? In the case of other advertisers, how do they propose to enforce their rules? Read all the zines before they're sold? That would involve the Horizon committee in a *lot* of unnecessary work! All this needs to be considered before the 'policy' comes into practice. There is a basic clarification needed here: who is injured and who benefits are the first questions to be asked in any arbitration. If any legal or civil case were ever to come to court, this would be the first point to be considered. > Conventions - I don't believe that guests and adult artwork mix. I'd agree with that. More for my peace of mind than the guests' they are after all grownups, but *I'd* be embarrassed to have them see it. However, if they do catch sight of something they don't like they are hardly little children, conventions cannot be responsible for everything someone who is after all an adult might see and be offended by. They are not the ITC or the BBFC. > I don't > want Horizon to advertise any convention that has a B7 guest unless they > confirm in writing that there will be a ban on dealers selling adult B7 > fiction with explicit art content [snipped] > will be hidden away behind and anyone wanting to view it will have > to ask for it, rather than having it in a box on the table marked > 'adult' - thus creating a knowledge that such things exist in the person > passing > by. Lots of questions here because as it stands, this 'policy' is almost laughable. Presumably "adult B7 fiction with explicit art content" includes zines with pictures on the inside, not just on the outside. How is this to be enforced? Is someone from Horizon going to check through the entire contents of every zine dealer table at every con they advertise? Or are they going to picket the ops room of a convention until the convention organizers do this? Heavens, I don't look through the contents of my own stock, and I'm a zine dealer - and though most zines say if they're slash on the title page not absolutely every one does. Another question: would the ban apply to non-B7 slash zines? That's far from clear, and they too can have 'questionable' covers. Surely these would be nearly as bad for the unwary actor with a sensitive disposition? What if a zine dealer didn't obey the rules, was asked to leave and wanted their table money back to go quietly? Would the convention have to pay and deprive the charity, or would Horizon stump up the cash, as its their policy? Again, who benefits? I have to say, convention organizers have more important things to do with their time than policing the contents of the dealers room. When I was running a convention I wouldn't (and come to think of it didn't) appreciate it when some person rushed up to me to tell me that one of the zines in the dealer room had a picture of a bum in it. At any stage of conrunning my reaction would be (and was): "Big deal. Get a life." Added to which, if Diane wishes to protect the innocent from the /ironic mode on/ Evil That is Slash /end ironic mode/ surely the best thing is that if these supposed innocents are warned and can avoid it? Poison bottles are clearly labelled 'poison' to protect the unwary. Those allergic to peanuts now have labels on products to warn them that the enclosed product "may have peanuts in it," but they don't demand - and don't have the right to demand - that all products containing peanuts are banned from the shelves. Likewise, the Spider House at London Zoo is labelled "Spider House" in big letters so that arachnophobics won't walk in without knowing what they are letting themselves in for, and the arachnophobics aren't picketing the zoo demanding that the Spider House be closed down. The principle of 'caveat lector' applies here. I don't demand that smoking is banned in public places, though I'm allergic to cigarette smoke and I have very little control over where people do it. > If they don't have a B7 guest, fine, > let them do what they like. That's fine and big...though the wording doesn't exactly Win Friends and Influence People. But...what about cons where a B7 guest wasn't expected and turns up at the last minute? Say Horizon were at A Random Con - who hadn't advertised a B7 guest - but at the last minute Mr. B7 Actor accepted an invitation to attend? I'm not entirely putting this forward as an unlikely event, I was at a Trek con at the Adelphi in Liverpool a good few years ago when Michael Keating came in and bought a registration. If this policy is approved and that happened again, would any Horizon committee members be obliged to ask the con - who would be following their own agreed policy - ask for slash to be removed from the dealers room? I can't imagine that would go down well with a concom! Would they carry con reports if it wasn't? Current conventions with B7 guests seem to be managing quite well with limited advertising from Horizon, I know that the conventions I was involved with had a comparatively small number of registrations from direct advertising in the Horizon newsletter. I know this, I'm not just supposing it, because I did registrations. However, that wasn't the case though with the first B7 con I was involved with, that one was heavily reliant on them for registrations - but we were *not* a Horizon con. We were entitled to make our own policy with regard to slash - and smoking - and guest invitations - and all the other things that cons have to think about. We took that entitlement very seriously, and though I can't speak for every member of all the committees I've been involved with, I for one didn't take kindly to someone external to our committee trying to make our policies for us. I know some or most of the others agreed with me. Should another new con committee step forward, with Horizon's blackmail held over them (I know this is strong language, I'm using it advisedly) they wouldn't have the luxury of thinking through the issues for themselves. I think they'd be the poorer for it. > Those of you who were with me at Cult TV 2 > weeks ago will know how upset I was to find that Judith Proctor was > blatantly selling such stuff, including a quite disgusting zine with > graphic sexual artwork, from her table top, whilst sitting selling > photos & together again tapes next to Paul at his autograph session This sounds as if Judith was selling slash from a table where Paul could see it. I don't believe that this was the case, and I'm told by people who were at Cult TV that it was categorically *not* the case. > Websites - from Horizon's links section, you only effectively > need to do 3 quick 'clicks' through Proctor's site to get into reading > X-rated excerpts from zines on her own site. This sounds as if Judith has X rated stuff on her web site. As I know, she moved heaven and earth to find bits of one particular story that were clean enough to put on a website - and I've looked at Judith's site and couldn't find anything that would be considered rude. And I don't think it's what Diane meant, it's just poor phrasing. She's allowing her dislike of Judith to take her to extremes. I have to say, I found this aspect of her letter - the real venom she has for Judith - most disquieting. As someone said to me: "I do not know Judith particularly well, but having seen her at several conventions I have noted the following as undeniable facts - This is a woman who is always sociable and pleasant, and ready to share her enthusiasm for B7 with all comers, irrespective of colour/creed/shape/size/opinions/etc." > It's one thing > for people to go and buy these zines, where they have to make some > effort and conscious decision to buy, but if it's just sitting there on > the internet, I think this is awful and there seems to be so much of it. As someone has already said on the list, this doesn't address the problem of the person looking for slash and not finding it. Often I've had new slash fans say, "Where has this *been* all my life?" It occurs to me that surely the disclaimer the BBC site has that they don't have any control over the content of sites they link to would be adequate warning? It seems to be the standard wording on company and government sites. > Proctor's site links to several others which have the most unbelievably > disgusting porn stories, without even any warnings in some cases Not in my experience, I haven't seen any which don't have warnings. > (though > others say "Hey, if you're not over 18, go away now" which is really > going to deter the average 13/14 year old playing with dad's computer, > isn't it?) Caveat lector applies here. All the site owner *can* do is warn, or in extreme cases have a password - I know one site that does this - which people have to ask for. But I'm not sure that Diane would agree that this is enough even, because the site owner can't really check all applications for the password. > I'll leave Edna out of it as she doesn't have any > idea this even exists and at 70+ years I don't think she needs to. It may surprise people to discover that some of my oldest friends in slash fandom are just that - elderly. One beloved old friend, an ex teacher, is 75. There are others. And my slash friends also include several mother and daughters. > Obviously Andy and Alan won't be asked!! Why not? I feel like others that if a committee is making a decision those considered too old - or too male - should not be excluded. I know, however, that Horizon isn't exactly what one might call democratic. It isn't true, though, that large organizations can't consult their membership. Trade Unions in the UK seem to manage OK, I should know, the first thing I did tonight, after getting home and making myself a drink, was to complete a ballot paper from my Union asking me if I was prepared to go on strike! -- Ruth S. lexin@redrose76.freeserve.co.uk Red Rose Convention (multi-media slash convention) 4-6 August 2000, Telford. Webpage: http://members.aol.com/hbrown9628/britslash.htm ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 18:48:25 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-ID: <027801bf166c$5d3d7110$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit William Merlock wrote: > In other words, Horizon has Authority only over those who wish to belong to > the club or to use its services. I wondered who was going to make the connection between these two threads... Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:41:17 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <000201bf1675$2c4a1320$081cac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russ wrote: >You're saying that fanfic may well be such a small part >of fandom as a whole that it is essentially irrelevant to the majority. >That may well be true. If Horizon has a three figure membership and >decent sales of a zine (world-wide) are only two figures then you have >a point. My copy of The Web (a two-story zine by Sharon Eckman and Gies/Jackie Ophir) was the 477th to be sold when I bought it - at Diane's house, handed to me by the Great Gies Herself - perhaps as far back as 1992. The zine first appeared in 1987, so it was averaging up to 90-100 sales a year. Assuming this rate has continued (unlikely) it would now be something like 1200 sales, which would be less than half the number of people who have passed through Horizon's membership ranks. And not all sales would have been to members. So I think we can assume that zine readers are a minority, but a sizable one. Somewhere between 20 and 40 per cent, perhaps, but without numbers to crunch that's little more than a guess. The proportion of adult-zine readers is even harder to estimate. Maybe Judith can offer some comparative sales figures for various zines. >I think it's fair to say though that the producers and >consumers of fanfic are the _quality_ members of fandom in terms of >non-dormicedom (to mangle one of your own neologisms). Mainstream >fandom is essentially passive. Now now, there's no need for elitism:) Yes, twas I who coined the term 'dormouse' for the passive fans, those who do little more than watch the videos and maybe buy the occasional B7 table mat or golfing brolly (or whatever paraphernalia Horizon's flogging these days). I don't know what that makes us active fans - Mad Hatters, perhaps? But seriously, I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in being a dormouse - fandom is large enough and diverse enough to accomodate a wide spectrum of approaches. Everyone should feel free to pick the one that best fits their level of interest and their desire to get involved. Having said that, Mad Hatters and Dormice do not necessarily mix well together. In which case they should probably just keep a bit of distance and leave each other alone. >>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 > >I have to disagree here, though from a practical rather than a moral >angle. If the cast are upset then they will stop providing their support >and presence to fandom. I do think that would be a bad thing, since >there are a lot of people who want to see and listen to cast members >and (probably) would not attend cons if they could no longer do so. True, but it would be useful to know which cast members are offended by what and to what degree. Do they want certain types of material not to exist at all, or are they prepared to be tolerant so long as it isn't shoved under their noses? I would agree that the wishes of cast members should be borne in mind, insofar as those wishes are known at all (and I don't think a great deal -is- known in this field), but they shouldn't become a straitjacket. I certainly don't think there's anything to be gained from producing or distributing material with the express intention of offending certain members of the cast, though I believe it may have happened. >> ; (b) No > >No, but there's also the legal aspect to consider. It might be >defamatory to depict actors in certain ways. It might constitute theft of >their image for personal gain (or whatever - I'm no lawyer). This might be a problem with artwork (of Jenna at any rate, given Sally Knyvette's apparent attitude at Deliverance), but I don't see it as a problem with written material. Bear in mind that all fanfic constitutes a breach of copyright anyway. >>; (c) Sometimes. >> >I think a court would be looking at the mind of any potential >viewer/reader rather than the actual artist/writer. Surely not? A work of art has only one producer (normally) but potentially many consumers, and the state of mind of each and every one of them can hardly be taken into account. The kindof conflation I was thinking of was the deliberate injection of certain aspects of an actor into his/er character (eg; suggestions that Blake was Welsh simply because Gareth Thomas is). I think this is a slippery road to walk down - somewhere along the line a piece of B/A slash could end up as Darrow/Thomas slash, which would probably fail to impress either of the real people concerned. I'm concerned that there are occasions when some fans fail to maintain a rigid segregation of real actor and fictional character. I further suspect that on this point at least Gies and I might be in agreement, but I do not believe in decapitation as an appropriate cure for nits. >>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. > >Unreasonable? In whose eyes? Mein ... erm ... mine. No, I think it is unreasonable. It would mean that Horizon, by attempting to broaden the extent of its influence, would be trying to assert itself as the one definitive voice of fandom, the 'official' voice even. It would indicate a desire to dominate and control fandom. Quite aside from the practicality of doing so, even in just the UK, I don't think this would be reasonable. One of the most attractive features of fandom to many of those involved in it is the level of creative freedom it offers. Limiting that freedom could effectively sterilise fandom. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:32:58 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Thu 14 Oct, Judith Rolls wrote: > > I stated at the beginning of this debate that despite being one of the > recipients of the original email I had no intention of getting involved in > a public shouting match, and I still feel the same. > However, I feel it necessary at this point to categorically state that in > my experience, homophobia simply isn't at the root of any antipathy Diane > (and thus, Horizon) may have towards slash. Diane's objections to slash are > well-known to everyone, and none of them are based on the alleged > homophobia she has been unfairly accused of by some people. In support of what Judith says, there have certainly been several gay people on the Horizon committee at various times, and David Walsh was invited to appear in the Deliverance cabaret. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:49:57 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <380641F4.2D094EB6@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sarah T wrote: > Mistral, I think you misunderstood my post rather badly. Please > reread the section that you yourself just quoted. I am most > certainly not saying that Horizon (or anyone else) should publish > slash whether they like it or not. In fact, ironically enough, I > had a private discussion a few years ago with an irate slash fan in > which I vigorously defended their right not to. There is no > earthly reason for anyone to do any kind of fan activity that they > disapprove of or don't enjoy, as I have said over and over in various > contexts. (You might, for instance, look at the quote from me in the > Generic Slash Defense Form Letter on the Lysator web site.) > > What I =am= saying is that Horizon has no business complaining > about "fan porn" if they are producing any kind of erotica > themselves. They should either stop publishing adult material, or > stop harassing the other people besides themselves who do, or both. > (IOW, I am saying that they should publish less erotica, not more, > and I can't understand how you managed to get it backwards.) No, I think I must not have been clear. I did understand you were saying less erotica, not more. I tried to be clear that I thought your position was logical, reasonable, equitable. Obviously I didn't emphasize that enough. Quite apart from that, I didn't mean to be commenting on what Horizon should or shouldn't publish. Furthermore, it occurs to me that I haven't said elsewhere that I consider the attack on Judith P. to be mean-spirited and unwarranted. I support Judith's right to write, publish, and sell whatever is allowed by freedom of speech. Diane Gies could (and should) have made all her points without ever mentioning Judith directly or indirectly. The only thing I was objecting to in your post was the word homophobic. A phobia is an irrational, unthinking fear. It cannot be accurately applied to persons who have a _considered_ moral, philosophical, or religious objection to homosexuality but still want to live in harmony with persons of all sexual orientations. (Thus it follows that a person objecting to slash but not objecting to het *might or might not* be homophobic--that's not enough information to tell.) Common usage notwithstanding, to use the word that broadly is -IMHO- nothing short of inflammatory and divisive name-calling, and *aggravates and perpetuates the very problem it appears to denounce*. I'd be extremely surprised if that's what you intended to do, which is why I brought it up. 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: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 13:56:37 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <38064383.D351010@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil Faulkner wrote: > I don't know what > that makes us active fans - Mad Hatters, perhaps? Oh, Neil, that's priceless! > But seriously, I don't > see anything intrinsically wrong in being a dormouse Apart from being shoved in a teapot, of course. Mistral (off to go search for hats) -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 09:17:21 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <19991014231721.74536.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Neil and Mistral drawing pictures of a muchness: > > But seriously, I don't > > see anything intrinsically wrong in being a dormouse >Apart from being shoved in a teapot, of course. >Mistral (off to go search for hats) Twinkle, twinkle, little bats, Even those in search of hats, Fly above your dormouse kin, Talking of the state we're in. Twinkle, twinkle, little bats, Even those in search of hats. Regards Joanne (sleeping while she breathes, and breathing while she sleeps...) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:16:06 -0400 From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: [B7L] How Do You Spell Relief? Message-ID: <199910142116_MC2-8915-706@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Penny wrote: >The Flat Robin (the earth-shaking paradigm-shifting > heart-stopping last chapter of which Arkaroo *elbow >elbow* is rumoured to be hard at work upon even as >we speak...) Oh yes, I'd been meaning to ask when it was going to turn up, as the end seemed to be in sight some time ago... thanks for elbowing me into prodding you back... Harriet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:15:56 -0400 From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: Re: [B7L] Authority and obedience Message-ID: <199910142116_MC2-8915-704@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mistral wrote: >If authority and legality are equivalent, then >Blake has no authority on Liberator because he > is an *illegally* escaped *Federation* convict, >and has no permission from his *legal* government >to be on Liberator, let alone to be the authority on it. Yes he has, they told him to go on board. Well, Leylan said they had a choice, but Avon said it wasn't a very good one. Harriet ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:01:43 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #290 Message-ID: <380698A4.4A8A@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I tried to give the > Letterzine a distinct character of its own, believing I was an editor rather > than a copy typist. Whether or not I succeeded is not for me to say. > > And then I got stomped on for breaking rules I didn't even know existed. > > Neil Believe me, you are not the only newletter editor to experience this. And actually, my personal observatons, and the information I've received from others, indicates that clubs that are actually responsive to the members, rather than being run as an egotistical extension of a few officers, is the common practice, rather than the exception in fandom. I've been lied to and manipulated by people who then confessed that they had twisted the democratic process of the group to force out members and so on. Having grown disgusted with this sort of behavior, I dropped out of fandom of any kind for a few years, aside from occaisionally attending conventions. Once I went on line, a new world opened up for me, that I hadn't even been informed of. So, I guess my own strong reactions to the email that was forwarded here is based on my own direct experience-- that once the leaders of a club start deciding they are the arbiters of truth and justice, truth and justice soon go out the window. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:32:13 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #291 Message-ID: <3806A03C.1E9@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm ready to split some more hairs... Mistral said this is why the bully is not an authority (whitout it being a moral judgement on her part) > Because the bully down the street is *not* 1) God 2) head of family > 3) the government 4) employer, which are the only authorities I > personally recognize. The bully down the street is on an equal > level with me except by force, which I don't consider a basis > for authority. And yet, there have been factory fires which killed hundreds of people who were locked in by their employers and sweatshops where children work twelve-hour days; did(do) those employers have authority by your personal definition? When a parent beats a child bloody, does he/she lose the authority you believe is inherent in their position? Likewise, have you not had a favorite teacher or respected colleague who you ever looked at as an authority? What about the phrase 'an authority on...' which indicates a mastery of knowlege, not of power? Seems the more we look into authority, the broader the definition seems to become. It includes many definitions; but I am not convinced it excludes legal power. The courts have authority over child-custody cases, although in some cases their decisions are so wrong-headed, I appluad those who defy authority and hide thier children. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:36:49 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Sorry I'm always making so many posts in a row... Message-ID: <3806A151.1322@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > To which David replied: > > > I wish somebody would tell the BBFC and David Alton that... > > This doesn't mean that there aren't people who still try to restrict the > reading matter of the adult community to material suitable for children. > There will always be people who try to limit other's accessibility to > materials that they themselves find distressing, unpleasant, or morally > reprehensible. Once thing that those who try to limit access find > happening is that as soon as they say something shouldn't be read, > viewed, or listened to, demand for that item goes up. > > I wouldn't be surprised to find that demend for "The Tin Drum" has gone > up since the "raid" in Oklahoma City. > > Susan M. I know for a fact that since Mayor Guilliano has been suing the Brooklyn Museum and denying them funding over their controversial exhibit, travel agents have been getting calls to have the museum including in the packages tourists are buying for New York. "No publicity is bad publicity". As I've said, I've never bought an adult zine... but I might now, just to see what all the fuss is about! --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 21:09:10 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #292 Message-ID: <3806A8E5.2AA5@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > Assuming that I've interpreted this correctly, that the behavior of the > Horizon club leadership is being linked to that of the Federation, I'd just > like to point out the tremendous difference between the two: Horizon club > members who don't like the policy can leave, an option not particularly > available to Federation citizens. But if the policy is kept secret, until someone violates it, and only then they are told of the rule they have borken? How can you leave if you dislike a policy you don't know about? The idea of the ban is to keep poeple from finding out adult zines, except for Horizon's own, exists. At least, that's how I understood the letter and comments following have indicated the same. How can I dislike a policy I don't know I'm living under? --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 99 04:51:00 GMT From: s.thompson8@genie.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-Id: <199910150510.FAA24659@rock103.genie.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" William Merlock said: >Mistral, > >You have put my own feelings into words far more eloquently that >I could ever have hoped to. > >Bill Sigh. All right, I'll quote myself. Here's what I actually said in my original post: >About the proposed Horizon policy-- I would have no problem with >a flat ban on all erotic material in Horizon publications and >advertisements. Indeed, I think that is the most appropriate >policy for an official fan club with strong ties to the actors and >other personnel from the original show. But I object STRONGLY to >Horizon publishing its own erotic zine, while denouncing all >others (many of which are far better written, BTW) as "fan porn." >This is at best hypocritical; and if the thinking behind it is >that heterosexual erotica is acceptable while homosexual erotica >is not, then it is also homophobic and, by the standards of many >of us, morally reprehensible. Mistral and Bill, where, specifically, did you two get the idea that I said that Horizon ought to publish slash??? Seems to me that I am saying almost the exact opposite-- that they should not publish any erotica at all, at least not if they are going to attack other people for doing the same. I feel that I really have to ask both of you to correct your misunderstanding publicly, here on the Lyst. I think your mistake was probably an honest one and was not intended maliciously, but with an overheated topic like the present one it is important to be very, very clear about who actually said what. (By the way, if you have already made the correction, my apologies. I get the Lyst in digest form, so I sometimes have a time lag in replying.) Mistral, in a further comment on your post: it's one thing to say that a certain type of fiction is not to your taste, or even that you consider it immoral, and quite another thing to try to launch a campaign against those who do enjoy it, even going so far as to spread falsehoods about them. That's hardly a "live and let live" attitude, and anyone who might be the target of a dishonest attack, as Judith Proctor has been, has every right to feel alarmed, dismayed, and yes, disgusted by such behavior. Judith Rolls, despite your blanket defense of Diane's motives, I still haven't seen any very convincing explanation of why, exactly, Horizon's own adult zine is considered acceptable for sale at guest cons when no other such zine is. Ruth Saunders, thank you for your thoughtful post giving us the viewpoint of someone with much experience in con organizing and zine publishing. I enjoyed those Who's 7 cons enormously. Xna, I love your post about Xltraworld! I agree, such filth should be banned! Sarah T. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:26:44 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <000801bf16d5$f3916360$3c15ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith Rolls wrote: >However, I feel it necessary at this point to categorically state that in >my experience, homophobia simply isn't at the root of any antipathy Diane >(and thus, Horizon) may have towards slash. Diane's objections to slash are >well-known to everyone, and none of them are based on the alleged >homophobia she has been unfairly accused of by some people. Agreed. I'd be extremely wary of accusing Gies of homophobia. What Sarah is describing is closer to what I would describe as heterosexism, and in Gies' case it would appear to be confined to B7 fanfic. Why there and there alone I wouldn't like to say. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999 20:42:06 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-ID: <000901bf16d5$f46b96c0$3c15ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bill Merlock wrote: >Assuming that I've interpreted this correctly, that the behavior of the >Horizon club leadership is being linked to that of the Federation, I'd just >like to point out the tremendous difference between the two: Horizon club >members who don't like the policy can leave, an option not particularly >available to Federation citizens. Horizon/Federation? I don't recall anyone making such a frivolous suggestion. Horizon members who don't like the club can indeed leave, but where else can they go? Not everyone's online, not everyone has a local group of fans to meet up with (I don't know of any other active fans in my neck of the woods, namely east Kent). Horizon has a virtual monopoly on organised fandom, at least in the UK and immediate periphery. Shouldn't the Co-ordinator let the membership determine the nature of the club, rather than try and squeeze said members into her own (narrow-minded) definition of what is and is not acceptable? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 19:42:11 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: <000201bf160c$8120eae0$32428cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Iain wrote: >> Can't you make it a flogging offence. Please, Iain. Pretty please. With >> sugar on top... > >Oh, all right, then, since you ask so nicely. The classic >cat-o'-nine-tails, or the stern Jesuit ferule? I leave it to your discretion, sir. Ooh yes, that one looks promising. OUHH! OWW! AGHH!! Steady on, Iain. Not in front of the Bishop, eh? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 10:40:48 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <043401bf16f1$629e3c90$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > Furthermore, it occurs to me that I haven't said elsewhere that I > consider the attack on Judith P. to be mean-spirited and unwarranted. > I support Judith's right to write, publish, and sell whatever is allowed > by freedom of speech. Diane Gies could (and should) have made > all her points without ever mentioning Judith directly or indirectly. Can I agree with this wholeheartedly? It seems to me that this whole fracas is not really a debate over slash or forwarding private mail, and even not so much about how fanclubs should be run. The point, at least to me, is that someone has mounted an unpleasant personal attack on someone else, for whatever reason - and, without having seen that attack, the person concerned would not have been able to defend herself. Since we have been given assurances that Diane is not homophobic, will we now also be given an explanation for her vindictiveness towards Judith? Una -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #293 **************************************