From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #13
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/13
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------"
To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
------------------------------
Content-Type: text/plain
blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 13
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
[B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] Star One
Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains
Re: [B7L] Star One
Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
[B7L] Star One
Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
[B7L] Great Big Sale
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
[B7L] Avon club news
[B7L] Many, many people...
[B7L] socks
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Re: [B7L] the netcop strikes again
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Re: [B7L] Too quiet
[B7L] Idle curiosity prompted by last night's episode of The Bill...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:32:26 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <388076E9.1191D97B@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> >we might as well all agree to hate each other
>
> Sounds good. I'll let you start:)
No, after you, I insist.
> Not everyone who criticises Blake is a 'Blake-basher', but there *are*
> people out there who hunt down every excuse they can find to stick the boot
> in. I never said you were one of them.
I never thought you did. I was objecting in general terms. It's
equally true that every time certain issues come up--for example
Star One, and whether or not Blake is manipulative--somebody
complains about Blake-bashing; but in the past year, I don't think
I've *seen* any actual Blake-bashing. Just a lot of complaining
about it.
> (I know *I* lay into Avon, but not because I'm
> pro-Blake. I just do it to annoy people.)
Gilding the lily.
> > > Blake was smart. And ruthless.
> > > And manipulative. But that's alright because it was all in a good
> cause.
> >
> > Rubbish.
>
> Oh. You mean I should have put the smiley in at the end after all?
<g> No, dear, I mean that you had the shockingly bad taste to
make a joke out of one of my pet peeves; I was annoyed enough
that I didn't care it was a joke. That's a risk you take with irony.
Said peeve:
> >'The end justifies the means' is just a cop-out for those
> > who don't have the patience or the backbone or the intelligence to
> > persevere against the odds, without caving in to the temptation
> > to take the easier, less ethical path.
>
> Rubbish yourself. This is the whining rhetoric of bourgeois cowards who
> endlessly argue the case for change but live in perpetual dread of anything
> ever really changing.
etc..... No, Neil, you really don't know me well enough to
assume that I'm spouting empty platitudes.
> Why should the 'less ethical' path be 'easier'?
It isn't always; but then, there's no temptation to cave in,
ergo no caving in, ergo no need to justify the means.
> In my experience, such
> supposedly high-minded homilies against the 'less ethical' are really
> referring to the illegal, to the breaching of laws that have been written by
> the perpetrators of perceived injustices to facilitate their continued
> perpetration. This kind of sermonising is a sham. It is fear of the law
> masquerading as respect for the law, because it dare not admit its own fear.
> Who, then, really lacks the backbone? Or the intelligence, for that matter?
You must have severely limited experience, then. Personally,
I don't care two pins for the law for its own sake. Sometimes
doing the right thing means breaking the law. Sometimes not.
The trick is in knowing where you are comfortable believing
that point to be--preferably before you come up against it.
<snip>
> He has
> committed himself to the ends, which in turn binds him to what appears to be
> the only effective means. He is not setting out to destroy Control for the
> sake of doing so, so this is not a case of ends justifying means. It is a
> case of ends determining means. (Largely because Nation/Boucher rigged it
> that way.)
Disagree. It is exactly a case of Blake saying the ends
(overthrow of the Federation) justify the means (the losses
caused by the destruction of Star One.) It isn't the only
method; his dialogue in 'Voice' (?) is more supportive of the
idea that it simply wasn't happening fast enough for him.
> However, this is a digression from your objection to my endorsement of
> Blake's less savoury aspects, which go back more or less right to the
> beginning (the ruthlessness, the manipulativeness). I've already noted that
> you seemed to miss the ironic dimension of that endorsement.
No, actually.
> But looking at
> these qualities seriously, I don't think Blake would have stood much chance
> without them.
Of course, we agree. No rebel can succeed without at
least ruthlessness; and good leadership and manipulativeness
are two faces of the same gift.
<snip>
> All those not against Blake are for him.
Hmm. But I thought you objected to my characterization
of Blake as a messiah-type?
TTFN,
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:53:54 +0100
From: Angria@t-online.de (Tanja Kinkel)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <129UaQ-18dMtkC@fwd04.sul.t-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
>
> Well, the polling is your idea; I've never suggested it. I think that
> you're probably right, he can't get such authority. But your take
> seems to be, since he can't get authority, he should do it anyway.
> My take is, since he can't get authority, he shouldn't do it.
Okay, let's take another historical situation: there were some German resistance
groups during the Third Reich. Sadly, very few, and in small numbers, but they
existed. They, too, had no way to gain authority from the people, and moreover,
until the last years of the War, they could be reasonably sure the majority of
the people supported the government or at least went along with it. At
the same time, they were utterly convinced the government was completely evil.
(Bearing in mind the actions of the Federation (look it up at Judith's site),
and the fact that Terry Nation had Nazi Germany in mind when creating the whole
B7 premise, I think the comparison is more viable than the one with the American
Civil War.)
To give you some specific examples: In 1939, carpenter Georg Elser tried to kill
Hitler with a self constructed bomb. He didn't even belong to a group, he was
alone in making this decision. Since Hitler unfortunately left the inn half an
hour earlier than planned, he missed the bomb which went off eight minutes after
he had gone and killed quite a lot of civilians (and SA members) who were in
that inn. As Elser had known it would, but he was prepared to sacrifice those
lives if it meant Hitler would die as well. In making this decision, he wasn't
supported by anyone, he took that right much in the same way as Blake did. Was
he wrong?
The White Rose, a small group mainly consisting of students, called in their
leaflets mainly for civil disobedience as a means to bring down the Nazi
Government. However, they also called for sabotage of the production not just
of weapons but also food and clothes. If they had been successful, it would have
meant death for "many, many people". (They weren't. Instead, they were caught
and executed.) Was their attempt wrong?
Then there were the conspirators who made the last attempt to assassinate
Hitler, on July 20th, 1944. They, too, had no possibilty to get authority in a
legitimate way, and not only did they plan to kill Hitler, they also planned to
arrest and execute quite a number of officials and to form a totally unelected
interim government. Were they wrong?
Tanja
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:09:04 -0500
From: Susan Beth <susanbeth33@mindspring.com>
To: blake7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.20000115100904.007065a8@mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I've been thinking that that "many, many" is unusual phrasing for B7. It's
sloppy, almost baby-talkish, while usually the dialog tends to be more
specific and exact. So I've been wondering if that was possibly a slip of
the tongue by the actress that was Close Enough to be ignored.
More specifically, has anyone ever seen the script for the episode? Is
that how the line was written?
Susan Beth
(susanbeth33@mindspring.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:23:22 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Star One
Message-ID: <kPeKYPAaqEg4EwcV@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <387FF977.902@jps.net>, Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
writes
>>
>> What interests me is the way Star One is quoted, but not Pressure Point.
>> It will somehow kill fewer people if the control system is located on
>> Earth when it's destroyed?
>> --
>None of us saw the *sort* of control the central computer was used for
>(traffic control, weather control) until after Pressure Point, during
>the Star One episode. So we didn't have any idea what there might be to
>object to. We assumed, on the basis of trusting Blake, that he was
>choosing a military target rather than what might be no more than a
>thing for building order out of chaos.
But most of us (I can't say all because we keep picking up recruits)
have seen the episodes now. Certainly most of those who misquote Cally's
speech in order to point the boot into Blake, as opposed to simply
disagreeing with him, have seen the episode. It seems to slip their mind
that Cally was enthusiastic about the project in Pressure Point. Somehow
I doubt that Cally was unaware of the full implications at the time. The
Auronar were isolationist, but one of the reasons they were isolationist
was that they were well aware of what the Federation was like, and they
thought that absolute neutrality would protect them should the
Federation think of expanding their way.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:25:14 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains
Message-ID: <lPKKYSAKsEg4Ewcy@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <20000114.223606.8670.1.Rilliara@juno.com>, Ellynne G.
<rilliara@juno.com> writes
>So, was Avon a hero (or anti-hero) in the making from day one or was he
>another case of the fans seeing something good and pushing it? And would
>he have worked better with a vain female, a spineless sidekick (male),
>and a . . . . Oops. He had those, didn't he? Does Orac count as a dog?
>
Well, if K9 does...
>At least he didn't have a baby sister working the computer.
You just haven't read the right fanfic.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:13:31 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Star One
Message-ID: <tfKIcGALhEg4Ew8l@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <387FF16C.6384@jps.net>, Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
writes
>What if the destruction of Star One had ended up having the opposite
>effect of the intended one? Enough chaos ensued that, rather than
>weakening the Federation for overthrow by groups such as those led by
>Avalon or Kashabi, the people, frightened by the loss of controlled
>climates, reliable transportation and communication, and such, ended up
>backing the existing government because they wanted the emergencies
>dealt with?
I think one of the biggest problems with Blake's plan is that there
actually are worse things than the Federation (the Andromedans being an
obvious example), and the destruction of Star One could open the door
for a hundred planets run by people like Vargas. The scenario quoted by
Helen is a very plausible one, and could be exploited either by local
warlords, or by the remnants of the Federation itself. The Federation
might be seen as a better choice in some quarters. The classic example
of this (risking Godwinating the thread) is "Well, at least Hitler made
the trains run on time". And of course, the communists had a strong
resurgence in the polls in much of the former communist bloc in the
1990s for precisely this reason.
We know that the Federation contracted sharply after Star One, because
in series 3 and 4 there are planets that have regained their freedom,
and are being left alone for the moment - and the pacification programme
is initially being used to grab back territory that was previously part
of the Federation. But it clearly didn't fall apart altogether, and the
above may well be one contributing factor.
>The alternative, of course, which is what I think Julia and others
>suggest indirectly, is that Star One's destructiion is more like the Y2K
>bug. A lot was expected, but not much happened.
More that you can work around it, as long as you know what's actually
happening and have other methods to fall back on.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:36:26 -0700
From: Penny Dreadful <pennydreadful@powersurfr.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains
Message-Id: <4.1.20000115092921.00935300@mail.powersurfr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:35 PM 14/01/00 -0700, Ellynne G. wrote:
>So, was Avon a hero (or anti-hero) in the making from day one or was he
>another case of the fans seeing something good and pushing it?
He was forced into the hero role by the departure of Blake. I personally
prefer him as snarky Spocky second-in-command.
--
For A Dread Time, Call Penny:
http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:26:24 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: b7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <+i0cz1Aw+Jg4EwMm@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <000801bf5f47$0041eb20$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner
<N.Faulkner@tesco.net> writes
>(c) it's by Chris
>Boucher and therefore better than anything Terry Nation could write.
There is that:-)
I think this actually has a lot to do with it - Boucher does a very good
job of ramming home the point that what these people are doing is
terrorism from the point of view of the people they're fighting. This is
actually part of what I was asking - why does killing and destruction
suddenly become wrong at Star One, when it's what they've been doing all
along? Because only now is the audience made to take a long, hard look
at exactly what these people they've been cheering on are doing?
Go back through the archives, and you'll find me arguing just as
enthusiastically against the case: Blake is a Hero, and therefore
obviously right to kill people in the name of freedom. After all, the
dead guys were bad guys, dressed in black and with faceless masks.
Except, in B7 they're not. We've been dissecting _Rumours of Death_ on
The other List this week. One of the things I like about that episode is
that we are shown the faces of the little people on the other side.
Grenlee and Forres are typical soldiers, not people I would necessarily
want to meet in a pub, but not bad people who deserve to die.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:12:18 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: b7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Message-ID: <wCQf7wAixJg4EwuX@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <000901bf5f47$012b60c0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner
<N.Faulkner@tesco.net> writes
>Another way of fighting crime is to put up video cameras in public places to
>monitor who goes where. Like in that opening shot of 'The Way Back' that
>shows us how nasty and oppressive the Federation is. You don't see anything
>like that in your local shopping centre, do you? In a free society like
>ours, nobody would stand for such a thing.
Of course not. And they certainly wouldn't stand for those cameras being
linked to computers running software with automatic face recognition
that can track individuals from one camera to another, even if they're
wearing a balaclava.
As for those Trafficmaster cameras fitted every three miles or so along
the most amazing selection of roads, the ones that tell how well the
traffic is flowing by reading number plates and doing calculations as to
how fast individual cars are travelling between cars - well,
Trafficmaster assure us that there are no civil liberties implications,
since the processing power and disk size couldn't cope with reading more
than the central three digits. Besides, even when the numbercrunching
capability becomes available in a few years time, the only crimefighting
it would be used for is automatically sending out notices informing
people they've been fined for speeding.
>
>The GSP thing can be taken even further - fit everyone with a locator chip
>(they can be injected under the skin), so our kind protectors can tell where
>anyone is, at any time.
But given the growth in mobile phone use, this might not even be
necessary. All those people (including me), voluntarily carrying around
their electronic tags. And in many cases, paying some pounds per month
for the privilege.
One thing that strikes me about those cameras in _The Way Back_, and
aboard the London - some six or seven years ago, my car was broken into
when it was parked in a camera-monitored car park at the university. I
went to see the security guard about it, in the hope that he'd have a
useful bit of video tape. No such luck. But he did tell me that the
*visible* camera was provided as a target for thieves to attack, and the
real camera was a carefully hidden miniature one. "See if you can spot
it." I couldn't, even though I knew where it had to be from the view I'd
seen on the monitor.
What if the cameras we see on screen are *meant* to be seen? Yes, they
have to be big things for dramatic purposes, otherwise how would we the
audience at home know they were there? But maybe in that other universe
where the Federation is real, they're made big and visible so that the
intended audience knows that they're there.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:30:37 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <BxDjH4AtCKg4Ew7h@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <16ce01bf5f57$26902e80$0d01a8c0@hedge>, Una McCormack <una@q-
research.connectfree.co.uk> writes
>What about rebel leaders with overwhelming popular support? I'm thinking of
>Ireland after 1916 here.
>
Una, Una, Una, I've been trying not to open that can of worms, remember
what happened the last time...
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:25:43 -0700
From: Penny Dreadful <pennydreadful@powersurfr.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Message-Id: <4.1.20000115102306.00917ca0@mail.powersurfr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:51 PM 14/01/00 +0000, Neil Faulkner wrote:
>And my socks have perfected
>teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have...
I'm pretty sure that particular futuristic phenomenon was in existence even
23 years ago.
--
"Why would anybody eat snails on purpose?" -Angela Anaconda
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:30:30 -0600
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: blake7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000115112944.00afd7a0@mail.dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Susan Beth wrote:
>More specifically, has anyone ever seen the script for the episode? Is
>that how the line was written?
I've got a copy of it. Her line in the script is, "A lot of people will die
without Star One."
- Lisa
--
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
From Eroica With Love: http://eroica.simplenet.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:20:43 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Star One
Message-ID: <20000115.102044.9022.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
Besides Boucher making a point, there's another way in which things have
changed in Star One since Pressure Point. In Pressure Point, the plan
apparently went something like this--
1) Make initial contact with the main rebel leader on Earth (presumeably
having all the underground groups in readiness for Something Big, even if
they don't know what)
2) Destroy the Federation's central computer
3)Overthrow the government and move immediately into the power vacuum.
In Star One, the scenario now seems to be
1) Don't make contact with any rebel groups. It's anyone's guess when
we'll find this thing, and we saw what a few leaks did the last couple
times. Besides, given our track record, who knows how much of this plan
we'll carry off. They can just improvise.
2) Blow up Star One
3) Race back to Earth as fast as possible, keeping fingers crossed that
there won't be so much chaos that we can't successfully unite these
groups and move into the power vacuum. Sure, there'll probably be lots
more dead at either Federation or rebel hands, and a few warlords are
bound to break off and set up their own nasty regimes, but, hey, it beats
the alternative, right?
I said 'right'?
I can't heeeaaaar you . . . .
Ellynne
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:38:36 EST
From: Tigerm1019@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression
Message-ID: <b0.44c382.25b20a9c@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 01/15/2000 11:23:51 AM Central Standard Time,
pennydreadful@powersurfr.com writes:
> >And my socks have perfected
> >teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have...
>
> I'm pretty sure that particular futuristic phenomenon was in existence even
> 23 years ago.
Nah, that's just demons stealing them from the dryer. I'll leave it to you
to figure out what the forces of darkness want with all those unmatched
socks.
Tiger M
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:49:48 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <183b01bf5f80$ee0bda30$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia:
> In message <16ce01bf5f57$26902e80$0d01a8c0@hedge>, Una McCormack <una@q-
> research.connectfree.co.uk> writes
> >What about rebel leaders with overwhelming popular support? I'm thinking
of
> >Ireland after 1916 here.
> >
> Una, Una, Una, I've been trying not to open that can of worms, remember
> what happened the last time...
Sorry. You're quite right. I'm not sure I can be arsed to go through that
one again. I retract that last statement completely and don't expect an
answer at all.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:53:00 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Cc: "Freedom City" <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Great Big Sale
Message-ID: <000901bf5f89$c0da8d50$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
At the risk of cementing a reputation as most tedious person on two lists,
may I let people know that there have been more additions to our Great Big
January Sale?
Matthew forgot to mention that there were some extra special annuals which
he'd tucked away in a safe place, so these are added to the coffee
books/annuals section (1960s and 1970s ones).
Also, I've catalogued the back issues of the magazines which we're selling
off, including issues of DWM, DWB, TV Zone and a bunch of others, and there
is also a list of the audio tapes we are getting rid of, including the BBC
science fiction special effects tape with the Liberator on (ObB7). These can
all be accessed through the magazines/tapes etc. link.
The sale front page is: http://www.qresearch.org.uk/personal/jansale.htm
Thanks for your patience. Normal levels of tediousness will now be resumed.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:10:35 -0500
From: Susan Beth <susanbeth33@mindspring.com>
To: blake7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.20000115141035.01386e6c@mindspring.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lisa Williams wrote:
>Susan Beth wrote:
>
>>More specifically, has anyone ever seen the script for the episode? Is
>>that how the line was written?
>
>I've got a copy of it. Her line in the script is, "A lot of people will die
>without Star One."
>
Oh, well, *that's* so much more usefully definitive then.
Susan Beth
(susanbeth33@mindspring.com)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:08:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Avon club news
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0115160819-bc8Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
> AVON: PDS
> Latest News+++ Latest News +++ Latest News
> 13th January 2000
>
> This week Paul was near the Millennium Dome filming an advert for Channel 5's
> Sci-fi film weekend. A spoof Avon in black making out the Dome was his space
> ship!
This sounds like great fun. If anyone manages to tape the ad, I'd love a copy!
>
> He has also been doing the voice over for the Film 4 ads.
>
> *
>
> At last, after a couple of false starts Sky TV will be broadcasting episode
> one of THE STRANGERERS on Tuesday 15th February at 9pm. Each episode will be
> repeated on the following day - Wednesday - at 10pm........ANN
sounds like the date has been chopping and changing a lot, so keep a close eye
on the listings magazines.
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: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:13:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Sondra Sweigman <sweigman@world.std.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Many, many people...
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.3.95.1000115171206.6452A-100000@world.std.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Susan Beth wondered if Jan Chappell may have misdelivered Cally's
line about "Many, many people" and asked if the script for "Star One"
actually uses that phrase. I have the script, and the line there reads:
"A lot of people will die without Star One." Hardly "more specific and
exact" than "Many, many" so whether the actress botched the line or
whether it was deliberately changed by the director, it's clear that it
was never intended to read "millions" or "billions."
Sondra
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:14:17 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] socks
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0115221417-7dfRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sat 15 Jan, Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 01/15/2000 11:23:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> pennydreadful@powersurfr.com writes:
>
> > >And my socks have perfected
> > >teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have...
> >
> > I'm pretty sure that particular futuristic phenomenon was in existence even
> > 23 years ago.
>
> Nah, that's just demons stealing them from the dryer. I'll leave it to you
> to figure out what the forces of darkness want with all those unmatched
> socks.
For goodness sake, hasn't anyone here heard of conservation of odd-sock parity?
It's *physics*, not demons.
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: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:21:05 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <20000116082105.B7850@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Mistral! Glad to see you're back. I'm back too. (well, mostly)
(If anyone sent me any important mail from Nov 20 onwards, can you
send it again, because I no longer have a copy of my correspondence
from that point onwards, Nov 20 was when I did my last backup)
On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 04:05:09AM -0800, mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
>
> Well, the polling is your idea; I've never suggested it. I think that
> you're probably right, he can't get such authority. But your take
> seems to be, since he can't get authority, he should do it anyway.
> My take is, since he can't get authority, he shouldn't do it. He
> ought to take a deep breath and try another method that doesn't
> overstep his authority. And another, and another, and another,
> if necessary. Yes, I realize it's more difficult, takes longer, and
> people will suffer under Federation rule in the meantime. But
> Blake won't have paid for his dream of freedom with lives that
> aren't his to spend.
[big snip]
> I'm afraid I can't agree that rebel leaders, however righteous
> their causes may be, have the same range of options open to
> them that legitimate governments do, with regard to civilian
> populations.
And yet you said elsewhere (in another post) that the *legality* of
something is not a factor in deciding whether or not it is right to
do. (When you were responding to Neil's response to the argument about
the-end-justifies-the-means).
Yet, with the example you state of a civil war, you state that a
civilian-killing decision is taken with authority. But (coincidentally)
it is also a decision that is done legally, too. Even though the
legality of a decision is putatively not something about which you are
concerned.
I'm just beginning to wonder if the difference between a "civil war"
and a "rebellion" is just as semantically slippery as the difference
between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist", as we've discussed here
many a time before. That it depends which side you're on.
After all, if a "civil war" is lost by the side that was not part of
the original establishment, surely the history books (written by the
winners) would write it down as a failed rebellion? No, I guess not,
cuz I've just thought of one example - the English civil war.
But where do the parties in a civil war get their authority, their
legitimacy? In a case where it's a battle for two different
contenders for a throne, then both sides get their legitimacy from
whichever heir they're backing. But what about other cases? I'm
afraid I'm not a student of history, so I don't know.
But, fundamentally, rebels can never have authority (not until they
win), so complaining that they don't is just a moot point.
I do not see that there's much difference between the rightness of a
civilian-killing decision when made by a war cabinet and made by a
rebel - all those people would be dead anyway, wouldn't they?
Darn, as soon as I said that, I saw the difference. The people
where there is a government making that decision, have already
implicitly granted their consent, wheras with a rebel, they have no
way of doing so. So we have an implicit consent, versus an unknown.
But even so, surely an action has a rightness or wrongness in itself?
The end does not justify the means, no, I agree with Mistral there,
but sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils.
The problem with Star One is that we don't have enough data to know
whether it was the lesser of two evils or not. Blake seemed to think
so.
(gee, I am rambling today!)
As for alternatives, Blake had *already* taken the peaceful protest,
civil disobedience route, *and it didn't work*. Surely it is even
more wrong to kill your followers and achieve *nothing*, making all
those deaths a pointless waste? I think that is one thing that was
knawing at Blake - that he didn't want it all to have been for
nothing.
KJA
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
/ \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat
\_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
v |
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:30:10 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <01b201bf5fa7$921b40e0$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Firstly an apology. I've been out for a while and I'm posting replies as I
get to them. They may appear out of date when you receive them. Sorry.
Star One.
I'm in the camp that asserts that the catastrophic deaths weird climates etc
were caused by, if you like, a malicious Star One. In this case the
destruction of Star One would actually be a mercy (Not that Blake knew
that), no more ships exploding just above major population centres etc..
Ships happening to be landing at the time however, would be in trouble etc
etc. So we get some deaths from the sudden loss of control, but not once
people realise what has happened and switch over to back up systems.
If they have back up systems. The Federation is greedy, Star One is perfect.
Why pay for back up systems that will never be used (because the perfect
Star One is at no risk what so ever) ? Just a thought. Of course, before
anybody else pulls me up for it, the Federation did build an anti matter
minefield, "just in case", so they could very well have back up systems
capable of taking over in the event of a loss of Star One.
But at best (assuming back up systems), we now have economies that are
entrenched in a system where all data bases are synchronised via Star One,
and they are no held locally on back up systems, and because of the finite
speed of communication (OK FTL, but still finite, eg messages sent in
Horizon) data is now out of synchronisation. Communication networks would be
disrupted, especially when people try new routes to swap all this data
about, with all the disastrous consequences that has when people learn to
rely on it. After all, we know (Aftermath) that the eventual loss of Star
One was a big set back. We also know that, under martial law, it was not a
disaster, because the human alliance won in the end, even without Star One.
My estimate of "many many people" would probably be a few planets worth. The
odd nuclear disaster, the loss of emergency services (999 / 911 type things)
for a few hours, the destruction of the economy. A number that would
resonate strongly with a character who has recently seen her planet
decimated, feeling alone and lashing out against the world by taking the
moral high ground. But also a number that could well be smaller than the
losses caused by rebellions on all planets such as the one in Countdown
should they take place with the Star One able to co-ordinate the Federation
response.
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:49:33 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <01b401bf5fa7$97ee0980$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>> Also on Orbit--Avon's other actions seem suspicious. Vila was obviously
>> the wrong choice to bring down. Tarrant was better in a fight, as were
>> Dayna and Soolin.
>
>But Robert Holmes liked writing for A and V (and be fair, he did make a
good
>double act out of them). Maybe Avon wanted someone he could be sure of
>calling the shots with. Tarrant etc might argue against him in such
>uncertain circumstances. Vila might argue too, but ineffectually.
>
Vila was the only character who could do something Avon couldn't. Vila was
also good at hiding his true intelligence, and so could find things out
whilst playing the fool. Tarant, Soolin and Dayna were all just gun hands
with particular faults (impetuous, inexperienced, full of anger). Avon was
not expecting a war, but subterfuge. And remember, Avon has a huge respect
for Vila, he just doesn't see the need to show it. (OK OK, at then end of
the episode, we learn that he has MORE respect for himself and Orac but
that's nothing new)
Before Tarant fans lynch me, he was also a first rate pilot and had
leadership skills but Avon didn't need these skills.
So basically Avon takes his top team, Vila and Orac.
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:06:41 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <01b601bf5fa7$9980de80$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Re. "we get the governements we deserve" - I'd say that this has a lot of
>weight on its side in the case of the Russians. But not for the Poles,
>Bulgarians, Czechs and other East Europeans who had communism forced on
them
>at the point of a tank barrel.
>
Brings to mind
From Strength to Unity
or do I misquote ?
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:40:29 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny
Message-ID: <01b301bf5fa7$95502d20$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> 3) Is
>> there anyone who doesn't think either the alphabet or handwriting would
>> have had to change considerably for _Avon_ to take that long figuring out
>> the one clue? Or has he been going through a great deal of effort to hide
>> his mild dyslexia and this one slipped past him?
>
>The obvious is always obvious in retrospect, never necessarily so before
you
>realise how obvious it is.
>
Indeed, the viewers all get to see it several times during the show, and I
don't remember guessing it was Sara from that clue first time around (or
even second time, 15 years later, or third time, 2 years after that !). Once
you fixated with one approach to a problem, it takes a jolt to get into
another way of looking at the problem. In fact, even during Avon's
explanation, I didn't register letters (rather than numbers) when he was
talking about LCD displays. I think Avon's insight was in this case more
like hindsight. He worked out it was Sara from other clues, and then looked
at the blood and went... Of course ....
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:19:11 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people...
Message-ID: <01b801bf5fa7$9b1b54a0$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----Original Message-----
From: Julia Jones
>I am not aware that there was large scale compulsory use of pacifying
>drugs in the Soviet Union. Vodka doesn't count, as its use was merely
>state-subsidised rather than mandatory.
>>
And the Soviet Union didn't last as long as the Federation. (But I also
disagree on the WIDESPREAD use of pacifying drugs pre season four).
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:15:46 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] the netcop strikes again
Message-ID: <01b701bf5fa7$9a28b740$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You all remember the message.
Just want to say. Hear hear.
And I apologise if I am guilty.
Andrew
p.s.
Of course this message has also cost .......
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:16:09 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <01fa01bf5fae$83d6bda0$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kathryn wrote:
> I'm just beginning to wonder if the difference between a "civil war"
> and a "rebellion" is just as semantically slippery as the difference
> between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist", as we've discussed here
> many a time before. That it depends which side you're on.
> After all, if a "civil war" is lost by the side that was not part of
> the original establishment, surely the history books (written by the
> winners) would write it down as a failed rebellion? No, I guess not,
> cuz I've just thought of one example - the English civil war.
Well, I would have argued rather that the two sides in that war were just
two factions within the same establishment - the monarchists and the
parliamentarians. I think the English Civil War is a better example for
elucidating the question you ask next...
> But where do the parties in a civil war get their authority, their
> legitimacy?
Easy in this case: one side claims from parliament (and, by implication) the
'people'; the other from having the divine right of monarchs. Both perfectly
acceptable traditions in political theory at that point - the civil war
comes in because they're incompatible.
> In a case where it's a battle for two different
> contenders for a throne, then both sides get their legitimacy from
> whichever heir they're backing. But what about other cases? I'm
> afraid I'm not a student of history, so I don't know.
In most other cases, I should imagine it's usually one of two things:
popular support or (to paraphrase a .sig Tom Forsyth used to have) 'bigger
fucking guns'.
If there isn't a *legal* case for authority, then I'm sure it can easily be
justified in terms of moral 'rightness'.
And here we get back to B7, I think.
I remember this discussion about authority, power, legitimacy and
justification theory nearly killing me last time round.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:04:29 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet
Message-ID: <01b501bf5fa7$98afd2e0$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral said, of Avon chosing Vila in Orbit....
>For
>that reason, he would need someone whose reactions he could
>predict, and control if necessary.
>
I don't think that Vila was that subservient. He thought before he acted. He
thought well. And he looked out for his own back (unlike some other rash,
impetuous characters).
I agree broadly with everything else.
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:23:15 EST
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Idle curiosity prompted by last night's episode of The Bill...
Message-ID: <20000115232315.65104.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Anyone have an idea of just how tall Stephen Greif is? I ask, because I
don't imagine that Simon Rouse, at the very least, and Christopher Ellison
are all that short, yet Greif seemed to tower above everyone. Somehow B7 has
not left me with any impression of imposing height. Wonder (idly) why?
The GITHOG people will be overjoyed to know he was extremely recognisable!
Regards
Joanne
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #13
*************************************