From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #28
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/28
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 28
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to ramble)
Re: [B7L] Fan Q eligibles
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
RE: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn
't mean to ramble)
[B7L] Re: Animals
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two
[B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to
ramble)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to ramble)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)
Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I
didn't mean to ramble)
Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
[B7L] WuNames
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 06:51:11 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to ramble)
Message-ID: <3892FE5F.C64E167@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Una McCormack wrote:
> > > > I mean normal
> > > > as in sane, healthy, knowing the difference between right and
> > > > wrong.
> > >
> > > Ooh, so much to pull apart in that one sentence, I'm practically
> frothing at
> > > the mouth!
> >
> > I guess then when you have absolute power, that will be normal?
>
> Now we're talking the same language!
Nein, ich kann Sie nicht verstehen ;-)
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 15:36:06 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: freedom-city@blakes-7.org, Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Fan Q eligibles
Message-ID: <EkEhsGAmjwk4EwaU@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <011001bf6892$7d2bce40$a7abcdcf@y1i7s9>, Sarah Thompson
<sthompson162@mindspring.com> writes
>Here's everything that I know of that is eligible for a gen B7 Fan Q this
>year. If anyone knows of anything else, please let us all know.
>
Thanks for the work you've put into compiling the lists, Sarah. It makes
it a lot easier:-)
There's a typo in Sarah's post, it should be aol.com, not ao.com. The
address for the FanQ page is
http://members.aol.com/mdiawstcon/fanq.htm
Some wibble for non-Americans:
For the FanQ (not the STIFfies) you need to either be a member of the
Mediawest con, or send them a dollar bill. One dollar covers both
initial nominations and voting in the final ballot. To make life easier
for the British contingent, Judith Proctor is offering a cheap exchange
rate for single dollar bills:
"Anyone who sends me 3 1st class stamps or 4 2nd class ones, with an SAE
can have a dollar bill (or if ordering a zine published by me, they can
skip the SAE). Alternatively, add 60p to a zine order."
I should point out she was talking about UK stamps, since she can't use
anything else.
The date given is the date the organisers must *receive* the nominations
by, so allow for postage times to the US. I got caught last year,
because on one part of the FanQ form it said "postmarked by", and only
later did I notice that a different part of the form said "received by".
There is also an online nomination form at the website.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 14:00:22 +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] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <o7AarfA2Jvk4Ewu6@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <3892D2F2.BB6B331B@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes
>
>
>Sally Manton wrote:
>
>Last time I checked, putting yourself first (ego) and putting others
>first (altruism) were mutually exclusive.
They're not. "Altruistic" behaviour usually involves benefits for the
person engaged in it. Frequently the benefit is that you feel good if
you obey the moral code programmed into you by the society you live in,
and bad if you disobey that code.
Example. I have ten pounds of disposable income. I can use it to buy a
zine, which will give me a good deal of pleasure, or I can be altruistic
and give it to my favourite charity. Since my upbringing was such that I
feel obliged to give part of my disposable income to those with no
disposable income, I will also get pleasure from donating that money to
charity. There is also another form of self-interest in the "altruistic"
act of giving to charity - I would prefer to live in a society where
people feel an obligation to do so, because there is a small chance that
I might one day need charity myself. Public acts of donation put
pressure on others to conform.
>As far as Avon goes, I've said elsewhere that I think his treatment
>of Shrinker is wrong; but apart from Rumors, I cannot think of any
>time that he killed or threatened to kill someone unless it was
>self-defense or defense of someone he felt responsible for, or
>else the person was a legitimate target. I consider all of those
>acceptable motivations under the circumstances he was in.
Quite acceptable to kill a guard whose job is to protect the gold that
Avon's trying to steal?
I agree, Avon never went in for gratuitous violence or killing. It's one
of the things that I think put him on the good side of the line between
good and evil. And personally I'd say that Shrinker *was* a legitimate
target - he's a top interrogator, after all. But someone guarding money
that Avon appears to be stealing for his own benefit is not a legitimate
target, IMO.
>
>I don't actually expect you to agree with me, but I do wish you'd
>try to *understand* what my concern is: when you start interfering
>in other people's free will 'for their own good', it's just a matter of
>time and degree before someone decides it's acceptable to run their
>entire lives. That's precisely the sort of justification that some
>extremely oppressive regimes have and do use. It's probably the
>very justification the Federation uses. If Blake does it, he's become
>no better than the system he's fighting. On a smaller scale, yes; but
>the very same evil, and any victory he wins will carry the seeds of
>its own destruction.
The difference between Blake and the Federation is that the Federation
has ensured that its property does not *have* free will, and that Blake
is trying to give them back the opportunity to choose for themselves.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:44:37 +0100
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn
't mean to ramble)
Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99FB5E960@NL-ARN-MAIL01>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Alison wrote:
> C'mon Mistral .. anyone on this list think that they are
> 'normal' (a.k.a. average)?
I'll have you know that I'm perfectly normal. Everyone should be exactly
like me.
Jacqueline
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 18:15:31 +0000
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Animals
Message-ID: <38932E3B.9A950FAF@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally wrote: "The acting throughout by all Our Heroes is noteworthy, for
all the wrong reasons"
But surely you have to agree this was more than made up for by David
Boyce's excellent performance. Such character acting is a rare treat
indeed.
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
"In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like
ponies"
The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:34:27 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two
Message-ID: <389324A4.394@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Agreed as far as the crew and general practice goes (though not when they're
> > threatened, when emotion tends to take over), and he never denied it, or
> > forced them to stay. Anyone who wanted could have left (probably taking a
> > hefty share of the treasure room funds with them.) Yes, Gan and Jenna are of
> > the opinion that there's nowhere safe to go (Breakdown would indicate that
> > they're wrong - there are places if they cared to look).
>
> Again, I wasn't specifically referring to the crew, but people like
> Sarkoff as well. I'll point out that Avon had special skills to trade
> for safety on XK-72; that's not necessarily true of the others. And
> I'd be absolutely *stunned* if Blake parted with a 'hefty share' of
> the treasure--it's another weapon against the Federation to him. He
> wouldn't even let Avon *hold* those jewels until they got back to
> the Liberator in 'Shadow'.
>
Re: the jewels... not to mention, this is one thing where the majority
would side with Blake. Say Vila wanted to opt out. I can picture Gan
saying, "Well, he's worked with us for a while and deserves some money
to get going." Do you think Jenna and Avon would agree to him getting a
full share? Perhaps a handful, just so they can point to the example if
they want to opt out later (He got 9000 credits worth after 2 months,
I've been here 6, so obviously I should get at least 3 times that
amount), but certainly he wouldn't be getting a full share.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 10:43:21 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to
ramble)
Message-ID: <389326B9.51BF@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >That's perfectly normal, BTW. The brain is self-referencing; we
> >all think of ourselves as normal. To refer back to Kathryn's and
> >your democrat/autocrat conversation; one reason that people are
> >so fond of democracy is because they assume that most people
> >think the way they do, so they'll be always or mostly in the majority,
> >so they'll be content.
>
> C'mon Mistral .. anyone on this list think that they are 'normal' (a.k.a.
> average)? Anyone out there assuming that your fellow citizens are likely to
> agree with you on most important issues?
>
> I like democracy because it provides a few minimum limits on power. Pretty
> inadequate limits admittedly.
Well, Alison, having constitutional rights and being a democracy is NOT
the same. Without the rights, democracy becomes tyranny of the majority.
I agree with you that it's the *rights* that make me feel safe, (and the
reason I will vote is frequently a matter of guarding my rights). You
can have a democracy without built in rights, and I presume the opposite
is possible, although, then, the preservation of the rights becomes
pretty shakey.
I think that democracy is a flawed system, but preferrable to others
known. Nonetheless, a majority can be narrow-minded and is by nature
short-sighted.
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:22:43 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I didn't mean to ramble)
Message-ID: <002e01bf6a98$023ba5e0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Avona said -
>You
>can have a democracy without built in rights,
Tell me about it - the UK is one such (you could say). Because the British
parliamentary system evolved rather than being set in place via a formal
constitution. FWIW I don't think it makes any difference.
> and I presume the opposite
>is possible, although, then, the preservation of the rights becomes
>pretty shakey
That's an interesting idea for an SF list though - because you could
theoretically have rights preserved by artifical intelligences or something
like that, without the recourse to democracy. I feel safer protected by
humans though.
I wonder if there will still be anything resembling democracy in the future,
or if there will be something more like the Federation? Some people think we
are there already in all but superficial appearance, but I don't think so
yet.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:09:22 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)
Message-ID: <19990129.132843.9790.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
>Then I suspect we have very different notions of what "doing good"
>means. "Doing good" includes destroying what you see as evil. Whether
>or
>not others agree with you that what you are destroying is evil is
>another matter...
>--
>Julia Jones
Hmm, this is a tricky one since there are times when it's a greater evil
to destroy a particular evil. It's not just that people have the right to
make certain mistakes in life, it's that tyranny--even in a good
cause--is tyranny.
Take a look at Iran in the 70's. Americans, understandably, had major
problems with certain, sexist issues there and pressured the Shah to make
changes (at the same time not pressuring him to ease up on certain
governmental abuses of power or pressuring certain U.S. companies in the
area to be a little fairer and less greedey...). That these changes
offended many of the WOMEN they were supposed to help and actually made
many of them supporters of the Shah's overthrow was beside the point. It
made Americans feel they'd done something for democracy. And the whole
thing ended so well, didn't it?
Ah, well, one of my pet peeves is people who jump on cultures they know
_nothing_ about and start telling them how, why, and where they should
change. And maybe these cultures should--but not because some
self-centered, deliberately ignorant, blind on their own ethnocentric ego
trip yahoos say they should.
So, is Blake a self-centered, deliberately ignorant, blind on his own ego
trip yahoo? Well, the Federation is evil. There are a lot of its own
people who are against it--and a lot who are for it. Is he liberating
people against their will and throwing them into a democracy they are
neither equipped nor eager to deal with? Seasons 1 & 2, I'd say no.
There seems to be a lot of support among Federation citizens for change.
Season 3, probably yes. The Federation has not only been badly wounded
and lost large amounts of territory, its people seem to have responded to
the war by becoming more supportive of it. Season 4, we're back to no
since the Federation is now violently expanding into new territory.
Guess that's why they had to write Blake out in the 3rd season.
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: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:28:41 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Message-ID: <19990129.132843.9790.1.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 05:14:25 -0800 mistral@ptinet.net writes:
>
>
>Ellynne G. wrote:
>
>> 2) The Andromedan invasion was already a given. If Travis hadn't
>helped
>> them, Blake wouldn't have known till he destroyed Star One, possibly
>> turning off the defenses. Also, Servalan wouldn't have been ready to
>> bring every Federation ship she could get her hands on as a result
>of a
>> message from Blake without a lot more proof (i.e., once it was too
>late).
>
>Will you please explain this a little, Ellynne? I don't quite
>understand, and I'd like to. My impression was that the
>Andromedans needed Travis's help to stage the invasion;
>are you saying you believe they could have gotten that
>help elsewhere? And also, I don't understand what sparing
>Travis would have to do with Servalan and the fleet; or are
>you referring to sparing Servalan here?
>
Sorry, I wasn't being clear.
I never bought the argument the Andromedans had a drive making short hops
between their galaxy and ours easy. For one thing, they would have just
gone around the Star One defense zone if that was the case. Therefore, I
assumed those were colony ships that had been in transit a LONG time and
were not about to turn around and go back at the first sign of
difficulty. If necessary, I suppose they would have gone around the
defense zone, but that time and possibly dwindling resources made a
direct approach preferable.
For this reason alone, I would say the invasion was a foregone
conclusion. Although Blake couldn't have known he was doing it, by
sparing Travis, he made sure the Andromedans would attack at Star One,
where several important things happened.
1) The Andromedans were concentrated at a single point at the beginning
of the war.
2) They made their first attack at Star One through the computers,
alerting people like Servalan that something was wrong and getting her
prepared to move out and counterattack. Without this preparation, she
would probably not have listened to a message from Blake requesting her
to send all the fleet to the far corner of nowhere.
3) By coming through the one opening in the zone, the Andromedans were
facing a classic attack problem of coming through a pass. Had the zone
gone down when Blake destroyed Star One (as he would have without Travis'
betrayal), the Liberator would not have been able to hold them off till
reinforcements arrived. Had it not been destroyed, the Andromedans would
have been forced to go around and might have been undiscovered till they
attacked. They also would have been going up against a fleet either in
chaos or under a lot of new management--or possibly found a Federation
involved in a full scale civil war, a much easier enemy for them to
fight.
So, sparing Travis was dumb (unless Orac was back into oracle mode and
constantly warned Blake not to[or Blake had some other way of seeing the
future]), but it still may have saved the galaxy.
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: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:59:36 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I
didn't mean to ramble)
Message-ID: <19990129.135941.9790.2.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 20:22:43 -0000 "Alison Page"
<alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Avona said -
>
>>You
>>can have a democracy without built in rights,
>
>Tell me about it - the UK is one such (you could say). Because the
>British
>parliamentary system evolved rather than being set in place via a
>formal
>constitution. FWIW I don't think it makes any difference.
The point is, you can give everyone a vote and abide by majority rule and
still have abuses. Revolutionary France had an extensive list of rights,
but no system to protect them. Juries could stop the trial whenever they
reached a decision--as in before-the-
defense-has-a-chance-to-say-anything. Athens could--and did--decide the
community would be better served if someone took poison. Without certain
protections, democracy is nothing but mob rule.
The problem is majorities often don't realize they are stepping on a
minority's toes. For example, since certain court decisions weakening
religious protections in the constitution, studies have shown minority
faiths have been disproporionately effected (refused building permits
where more accepted faiths aren't, etc). But majorities may _think_ they
are being accomodating, not realizing they're being anything but simply
because they don't recognize the minority's needs. If, for example, you
knew nothing about religious circumcision and lived in an area where it
was not otherwise practiced, how easy would it be to get you to vote for
a law outlawing it except in cases deemed 'medically necessary' ("No
taking knives to little boys' private parts unless a doctor says there's
no other choice")? Think of all the things that can come under religious
headings--food, clothes, days off work, words you won't use--or feel you
must--marriage, reproduction, burials (Zoroastrians can be buried in lead
lined coffins or cremated by electricity--NOT fire. They _cannot_ be
buried at sea). Without protections, how easy would it be to trample all
over these?
Or take Jim Crow laws from the south. Many of these didn't mention race
and could sound reasonable. Everyone has to pay a poll tax to
vote--except people who had, say, five generations of voters behind them
(meaning none of their ancestors were slaves). Everyone has to pass a
literacy test before voting--but the law doesn't say you have to give the
same test to people of one race that you give to another. And so on.
It was democracy--the voters supported these laws. Maybe the _majority_
supported them. It still didn't protect the minority.
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, 29 Jan 2000 23:43:05 +0200 (EET)
From: Kai V Karmanheimo <karmanhe@cc.helsinki.fi>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0001292339000.26683-100000@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mistral wrote:
<Will you please explain this a little, Ellynne? I don't quite
understand, and I'd like to. My impression was that the
Andromedans needed Travis's help to stage the invasion;
are you saying you believe they could have gotten that
help elsewhere? And also, I don't understand what sparing
Travis would have to do with Servalan and the fleet; or are
you referring to sparing Servalan here?>
Actually this is one issue I've never been sure of, though everyone else
seems to be. What does Travis give the Andromedans that justifies him
being treated like royalty? The Andromedans are out to conquer and destroy
the human race. There has to be something that makes him valuable to
them. "Why have you given us the means to eradicate your species?" I see
three possible scenarios:
1) Travis Reveals the Location of Star One to the Andromedans. In this
scenario the Andromedan fleet arrives for a jolly nice day of conquest and
eradication, but find their way blocked by the anti-matter
minefields. Their big battleships can't get past them, but they can slip a
scoutship or two through the cracks. They go looking for a way to clear
the fields. This of course isn't easy when you don't know what you're
looking for; there's a lot of emptiness out there and one planet is easy
to miss.
Enter Travis, fresh from Goth, hellbent on taking over Star One,
singlehandedly if necessary. But before he gets there, he comes across an
Andromedan scoutship ("Oi! What galaxy are you from!? You're driving on
the wrong side of the bleeding asteroid belt!!"). The Andromedans insist
(rather forcefully) that they exchange insurance and registration
information, and during this little "discussion" Travis realises who they
are and what they are up to it. Seeing an opening (and being pretty sure
he will be killed if he is not useful), Travis makes the classic
diplomatic request: "Take me to your leader, slimey". He is taken to the
alien flagship on the other side of the minefield where he strikes a
deal: he tells them about Star One and in exchange he gets to do "the
final act". Oh, and a couple of solar systems after the Andromedans have
done their thing. The Andromedan team is inserted in Star One and Travis
patiently waits on the flagship while they take over and start meddling
with the controls, then comes in to do his bit.
The problem with this model is the time factor. The interference with
computer control had begun sixty days before the Liberator reached the
edge of the galaxy at the beginning of "Star One". If the interference to
Star One's systems was all caused by the Andromedans, then there must be
at least sixty days between Travis meeting them and the beginning of "Star
One". Judging by "The Keeper", Travis had no more than a six hours head
start on the Liberator, which is a faster ship. True, they may have had to
evade pursuit ships first, but it still seems unlikely that the gap could
be so long.
2) Travis Reveals a Few Military Secrets. This is basically the same
scenario, only in this case the Andromedans have found about Star One by
themselves. Travis still blunders into them or is intercepted and for the
same reasons, reveals them all he knows about the Federation defences and
Space Command equipment, tactics, force levels etc. As an ex-officer he
would know quite a lot of handy secrets ("This is a Starburst class
hunter-killer ship. It has one major weak spot. All you have to do is
shoot off these supporting wires and it will crash on the studio floor.").
The problem here is whether this qualifies as "the means to eradicate your
species". If the Andromedans were going to attack, they must have been
pretty sure of victory. Of course, perhaps intelligence was exactly what
they were still looking for and Travis's information assured their
victory.
3) Travis Runs an Errand. In this scenario Travis comes to contact with
the Andromedans prior to "The Keeper". This would probably be right after
"Gambit" because there he was just looking for a way to kill Blake; he
would have had plenty of time to squeeze the information out of Docholli
if that was what he was after. Perhaps there is an Andromedan advance
scouting team disguised as humans in Freedom City, testing out all the
things they can do with their new bodily extensions. Travis seizes the
opportunity and promises to deliver the location of Star One. Once out of
Goth, he rendezvous with an Andromedan scoutship, which transmits the
information to others waiting in intergalactic space. Finally Travis
departs for Star One on that ship. This would give enough time lapse for
the Liberator to take the lead and so Travis reaches Star One only after
Blake&Co.
Problems: There is very little time between "Gambit" and "The Keeper" for
anything; in fact, if Blake left for Goth immediately after teleporting
back to the Liberator, he should've been there long before Travis and
Servalan. It's would also be quite a coincidence if the Andromedans
happened to come Travis's way right at this minute (but then all options
seem to rely on coincidence). Unless the Andromedan scouts have been there
for a long time already, seeking information on Star One just like Blake.
Then again, there's a fourth reason as well, and having just complained
about the writers' clumsy handling of the war between Blake and Travis, I
guess I should say note this one too:
4) A Very Tired Chris Boucher Looks at the Various Scripts before Him and
Says: "Sod It, It'll All Hang Together!"
And now this pretty tired writer is going to call it a day, before he
loses it completely.
Kai
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:49:52 EST
From: Tigerm1019@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <e1.a4cd29.25c4ba80@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 01/29/2000 5:55:05 AM Central Standard Time,
mistral@ptinet.net writes:
> Blake has decided that everybody *should* want what he wants,
> and that this justifies his making decisions *for* them. I don't agree.
> Blake's violation of people's right to choose is no better than the
> Federation's misuse of its power.
Not necessarily. The Federation has already deprived its citizens of the
right to choose through its totalitarian practices. I think Blake wants to
give that right back to the people.
> As far as Avon goes, I've said elsewhere that I think his treatment
> of Shrinker is wrong; but apart from Rumors, I cannot think of any
> time that he killed or threatened to kill someone unless it was
> self-defense or defense of someone he felt responsible for, or
> else the person was a legitimate target. I consider all of those
> acceptable motivations under the circumstances he was in.
In Gambit, he was the ringleader in his and Vila's abandoning the Liberator
to go to the casino, thus endangering his crewmates by leaving them in a
dangerous situation without emergency teleport. Later in the same episode he
forces Vila to play speed chess against the Klute over Vila's protests, thus
wagering Vila's life rather than forfeit the five million credits. Others
have also pointed out the guards he killed in "Gold."
Is greed an acceptable motive for risking another's life?
> I accept that sometimes people get hurt as a result of people
> tending to their own, proper sphere of influence. All life is linked.
> I don't accept that a total stranger has any business deciding that
> my life isn't worth living unless I live it on his terms. So, yes, as
> incomprehensible as you may find it, I think Avon's behaviour is
> the more ethical.
I definitely disagree here. Blake is trying to make things better for
everyone; Avon is trying to feather his own nest. I see no evidence that
Blake intends to force others to live their lives on his terms once the
Federation is gone.
> I don't actually expect you to agree with me, but I do wish you'd
> try to *understand* what my concern is: when you start interfering
> in other people's free will 'for their own good', it's just a matter of
> time and degree before someone decides it's acceptable to run their
> entire lives. That's precisely the sort of justification that some
> extremely oppressive regimes have and do use. It's probably the
> very justification the Federation uses. If Blake does it, he's become
> no better than the system he's fighting. On a smaller scale, yes; but
> the very same evil, and any victory he wins will carry the seeds of
> its own destruction.
I see where you're coming from, but I'd really like to see some solid
evidence of this.
Tiger M
0% human
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:49:56 EST
From: Tigerm1019@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)
Message-ID: <a0.7717cb.25c4ba84@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 01/29/2000 5:58:21 AM Central Standard Time,
mistral@ptinet.net writes:
> Again, I wasn't specifically referring to the crew, but people like
> Sarkoff as well. I'll point out that Avon had special skills to trade
> for safety on XK-72; that's not necessarily true of the others.
Isn't it? Let's see, Jenna is a skilled pilot and could probably get work
anywhere. Vila's chosen profession can be practiced about anywhere, and he
proves numerous times that he's one of the best at what he does. If he ever
wanted to go straight, he could make a bundle as a security specialist, I
think. Cally would most likely hook up with another rebel group, and I think
they would be glad to have her. Gan is hardworking, pleasant, and has his
skill as a medic and the piloting that Jenna has been teaching him.
I think the Federation would probably give up looking for anyone besides
Blake after a year or so. It's what happens in RL when fugitives escape. If
they laid low for a while, the hunt would die down. It might not be easy,
but I think any one of them could make a go of it if they decided to leave,
particularly with a share of the treasure.
> And
> I'd be absolutely *stunned* if Blake parted with a 'hefty share' of
> the treasure--it's another weapon against the Federation to him. He
> wouldn't even let Avon *hold* those jewels until they got back to
> the Liberator in 'Shadow'.
I suspect that's because he knew Avon and knew that there was a good
possibility that those jewels would "disappear" unless he somehow managed to
extract Avon's given word. At this point in the series, Avon is still in his
obnoxiously spoiled brat phase. It might be possible to trust Avon with
lives (although there's evidence that Blake is unsure of him in Horizon and
Trial), but not necessarily with large sums of money. He *is* a convicted
embezzler, after all. ;-)
I don't see any evidence that Blake would part with the treasure, but I also
don't see any evidence that he wouldn't, if one of the crew honestly wanted
to leave and start a new life.
> Materially the rest of what you've said about this
> is true; are you aware, however, that your argument essentially
> reduces to 'being able to lead people makes one not responsible
> for the direction in which one chooses to lead?' I'd have said rather
> the reverse is the case. A gift for leadership should (and in my
> mind, does) bring with it the responsibility not to use it to further
> one's owns ends at the expense of those being led.
But I don't believe he was furthering his own ends at the expense of those he
led. They all chose to stay on the Liberator, and they chose to follow him.
Avon, Jenna, Cally, Vila and Gan all have their own reasons to dislike the
Federation.
Tiger M
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 16:49:49 EST
From: Tigerm1019@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Message-ID: <c7.166610c.25c4ba7d@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 01/29/2000 5:48:38 AM Central Standard Time,
mistral@ptinet.net writes:
> Yes, but I wasn't talking about 'I, Blake' as opposed to 'I and
> my crew'; rather 'I, Blake' as opposed to 'we the oppressed
> citizens of the Federation'. I get the impression he'd fight on
> even if he were the *only* person who thought the Federation
> should be brought down; that's my meaning.
This is possible, but I certainly think he has cause. The Federation commits
atrocities like killing the entire population of Saurian Major, the massacre
on Auros and the mass drugging of the populace on Earth to keep itself in
power. It routinely uses torture. It converts humans into mutoids. It
framed an innocent man as a child molester as a way of getting him out to the
way and destroying his reputation and psychologically damaged three boys in
the process. It massacres peaceful protesters who surrender. I think there
is a point at which a line does need to be drawn, even if only one person
draws it.
Also, there's considerable evidence that many others *did* believe that the
Federation deserved to be brought down (The Way Back, Time Squad,Project
Avalon, Pressure Point, Horizon, Countdown, Voice from the Past, Rumours of
Death, Traitor, Warlord, etc.). It's also clear that peaceful protests and
working within the system are not going to work.
> So Blake genuinely thinks of himself as an
> egalitarian; he thinks he wants freedom for everyone, because he
> expects them to want to do with it the same things he would. In
> practice, however, what he really wants is things to be run the way
> *he* believes they should. He's no qualms about enforcing his will on
> others (Sarkoff, the natives in Horizon) when he believes he's right,
> even when the freedom he's fighting for says they have the right
> to choose otherwise.
I honestly don't think this is the case. In Bounty, Sarkoff had abandoned
his people to the Federation, and even his own daughter was of the opinion
that he was remiss in doing so.
In Horizon, Ro was very obviously a puppet of the Federation, and ignorant of
a lot of the things that really went on. His mentor was the one really
calling the shots. From the number of Horizonites slaving in the mines, it
would seem that they disagreed with the state of things. As for Blake
putting a stop to the free-for-all at the food pot and making sure everyone
got a fair share (and reminding Selma of her responsibilities), that looks
like a good thing to me. Blake awakens Ro up to the realities of the
situation and *Ro* decides to get rid of the Federation.
> Mm. I get the impression from this, and also from Sondra's and
> Kathryn's posts, that I'm being interpreted as saying Blake just
> doesn't care about people. That's a ludicrous statement which
> I'd never make; he obviously cares quite a lot. What I'm saying
> is that it isn't the essential underlying motivation for his actions
> against the Federation.
Why can't his motivations be both personal and altruistic? If the Federation
violates its own laws to strike at him, and kills his family and friends,
there's nothing to prevent them from doing it to anyone else. I don't see
the two as being necessarily mutually exclusive.
> Blake is fighting for Blake's ideals; he very nearly admits it directly
> to Sinofar in Duel ('But would numbers change the nature of the
> dispute?' 'Probably not.') Therefore his willingness to make decisions
> that affect other people's lives is no more 'morally courageous' than
> Avon's. *In this* they are essentially the same; the only difference is
> that Blake has that soft 'cushy-feelie' veneer over his knife-edged
> determination to get what he wants.
Except that if Blake succeeds, large numbers of people will benefit. And
Blake is willing to make, and has made, a lot more personal sacrifices for
the sake of his cause. I don't think it's the same at all.
Tiger M
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 01:01:10 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] WuNames
Message-ID: <04dd01bf6abd$82001570$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Go here to find out your WuName:
http://www.recordstore.com/cgi-bin/wuname/wuname.pl
Roj Blake: Alarmingly-Named Wolfman
Kerr Avon: Budget Nudist
Vila Restal: Inebriated Assistant (honest)
Una (Promiscuous Protestah!)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:00:18 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Message-ID: <20000130010018.89714.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mistral wrote:
<Mm. I get the impression from this, and also from Sondra's and Kathryn's
posts, that I'm being interpreted as saying Blake just doesn't care about
people. That's a ludicrous statement which I'd never make; he obviously
cares quite a lot.>
The impression I *do* get is that you feel his compassion and caring is
rather artificial, a convenient excuse for doing what suits *him* rather
than the driving force behind his actions. Whereas I see it the other way
around - he is driven *by* that compassion to do what he does, even though
it actually cuts straight across his own self-interest (twice now he's
learned how much resisting can hurt him personally. Twice he's picked his
abused self up and headed back into the fight. And it's fairly clear from
'Blake' that he's suffered even more in the two years we don't see him.) If
I have misunderstood, I apologise...
<What I'm saying is that it isn't the essential underlying motivation for
his actions against the Federation.>
Ah...and I think it is overwhelmingly so. Blake is wounded and angry about
those wounds, but they are IMO of secondary importance to the fact that he
sees other people suffering, sees what to him *is* the only way to stop that
suffering, and literally *cannot* give up trying to end the suffering. He
could have - like Avon - focused on the actual people who hurt *him*
(Travis, Dev Tarrant etc), but revenge against them never seems to enter his
mind (his behaviour towards Travis veers from cold hatred laced with
contempt, to black, unadorned contempt, but the mere fact that he *lets* the
man go shows how unimportant personal revenge is to him. As far as we know,
the thought of getting even with individuals like Dev Tarrant never occurs.
*If* he was more personally driven, I firmly believe such thoughts would
have occurred in droves.)
Blake's drive is not against those who hurt him, but the system that allowed
them to; because (IMHO) the individuals hurt *him*, and the system is
hurting others as well.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000 17:02:22 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <20000130010222.5489.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
After I wrote:
<This is actually out of character for him (see in Part One - also The Web
and his concern for the Decimas), so I had a think about it. This time, it's
a pragmatic decision.>
Mistral objected:
<That's a really terrific idea and I'd happily accept it if it weren't for
the fact that we actually see him head resolutely off for Earth sector at
the end of the ep without so much as an 'I wish we could
help them'.>
<grin> As I've mentioned beforehand, he's a bloody fast thinker (Duel,
Avalon...) We just missed the 3 1/2 seconds it took him to go over *all* the
arguments that took me twenty minutes to write down.
<Last time I checked, putting yourself first (ego) and putting others first
(altruism) were mutually exclusive. There's only one first.>
In Psych classes, maybe (I work with Pysch teachers). In real life, there
are actually precious few things that are mutually exclusive in the
irrational, messy, going-twelve-ways-at-one human brain. That is another
thing that history teaches us....
Actually, that isn't what I meant by ego (duelling dictionaries?) - I meant
his arrogance, but I thought that word was getting overused (specially by
me). He doesn't put himself first, he puts the cause he's fighting for
there, but even then not constantly. The first point is illustrated in
Horizon, where he is prepared to let both Jenna and himself be tortured (and
everyone sent to the mines) rather than give the Federation the Liberator,
knowing how devastating it could be in Servalan's hands - but then offers to
surrender himself to the Kommissar in order to let the others go (and he
knows with the sickening certainty of memory what will happen to him.)
<I don't actually expect you to agree with me, but I do wish you'd try to
*understand* what my concern is: when you start interfering in other
people's free will 'for their own good', it's just a matter of time and
degree before someone decides it's acceptable to run their entire lives.>
Actually, I do understand your argument, and were we talking about a
democracy, even one as flawed as our own (I'm in Australia. It's far from
perfect, but probably as good as it gets) I'd probably agree. The problem is
I see it as something of a policy of perfection, and has to be measured and
qualified in every individual case to take into account the circumstances of
the case. (this is what studying history does to certainties, BTW, and
possibly Judith brought that in as a point of reference).The fact as I see
it is Blake is *not* interfering in the free will of the majority of the
people he's fighting for - because they simply don't have any. It's been
taken away years ago. (Some few people have free will, true. They're mostly
the opressors, or people like Sarkoff who are pretending to themselves that
their lack of free will is imaginary).
Blake is trying to *give* them free will, but he can't do that by deferring
to something that doesn't exist. So, while your argument would work for me
in some cases, it just doesn't *apply* for me in the case of the Federation.
One of the men I most admire in history is Lord Shaftesbury, the 19th
century British reformer. His methods were simple - go out, look at the
factories and slums, work out what had to be done...then pull every string
and use every bit of nepotistic and class influence he could scrape together
(and he was a nobleman, extraordinarily rich and well connected) to push
through laws restricting the rights of industrialists to run their business
as they saw fit, to have children banned from and women restricted factory
and mine work (and it could be and was argued that this deprived poor
families of desperately needed income) etc etc. Again it could be and was
argued that he and other reformers was interfering with the cherished
freedoms of English law ('free will'), and using decidedly less-than-pure
methods to do it by blatantly exploiting his rank and wealth.
His methods, of course, wouldn't work against the Federation (Bran Foster,
Sarkoff and Governer Le Grande all tried the moral route. Got them
nowhere.) But the fact remains that Shaftesbury was interfering. And it's
justified because again the people whom he cared about were those whose free
will was non-existent anyway. Same with Blake.
<If you substitute 'crosses his well-being' for 'suits him', I don't
disagree a bit. So what exactly are we arguing about again?>
Yes, but I won't substitute it <g>. Spacefall, Pressure Point, Killer,
Children of Auron, Rumours and Traitor won't let me.
From another post:
<Materially the rest of what you've said about this is true; are you aware,
however, that your argument essentially reduces to 'being able to lead
people makes one not responsible for the direction in which one chooses to
lead?' I'd have said rather the reverse is the case. A gift for leadership
should (and in my mind, does) bring with it the responsibility not to use it
to further one's owns ends at the expense of those being led. >
No, what it reduces to is that *they* were also responsible for where they
were going and what they were doing - and what happened to them along the
way. They agreed to his leadership, knowing full well what he was proposing
to do with it, and that they *could* have said no at any time. As I said,
the principle responsibility was his, because he was the leader, but they
all had their share.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #28
*************************************