From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #101
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/101
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 101
Today's Topics:
[B7L] Re: First Impressions: "Mission to Destiny"
Re: [B7L] Anna's attempted coup
Re: [B7L] First impressions: "Mission to Destiny"
Re: [B7L] Anna's attempted coup
Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican activities
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
[B7L] Re: blakes7 action figures.
[B7L] UnAmerican activities
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
[B7L] Re: UnAmerican TV
Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
[B7L] B7 action figures legal firm
[B7L] More dolls
Re: [B7L] First impressions: "Mission to Destiny"
[B7L] next Dorset meet
Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
[B7L] B5 & B7 (was UnAmerican . . . )
Re: [B7L] Avon's Skills
[B7L] respond to a survey
Re: [B7L] More dolls
Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
[B7L] call the BBC
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican activities
Re: [B7L] UnAmerican activities
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:19:28 +0000
From: Murray Smith <mjsmith@tcd.ie>
To: Lysator <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re: First Impressions: "Mission to Destiny"
Message-Id: <l03110701b5123f2a5e30@[134.226.96.44]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Judith,
>Well, they did appear to be people who had no qualms about letting an entire
>planet starve to death. That makes them ruthless and potentially
>extremely dangerous in anyone's book.
>
>I always wonder if Blake was trying to avoid getting into a fight that he
>might
>lose. Remember that Liberator's weapons had yet to be tried in an acutal
>battle. His crew (apart possibly from Jenna) were inexperienced in space
>combat.
>
>Once these people realised he had the neutrotope, there was no way they were
>just going to let Liberator go lightly. The energy banks were virtually
>exhausted after two passages through the asteroid field. Liberator was in no
>condition to fight or run away.
>
>Is it so surprising that Blake chose to mine the entry lock?
It's not surprising; it's just that a lot of fans accuse Avon of being
ruthless, while ignoring the fact that Blake was also ruthless, this
episode being early evidence of this.
Murray
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:40:24 +0000
From: Murray Smith <mjsmith@tcd.ie>
To: Lysator <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna's attempted coup
Message-Id: <l03110704b51244298ab7@[134.226.96.44]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Pat,
>The outside world would never know Servalan was being held prisoner. The
>state dinner would have gone forth as planned, without its guest of
>honor, who had become briefly 'indisposed'. Meanwhile, political wife
>and Federation socialite, Sula Chesku would preside in her place,
>graciously greeting guests.
You're forgetting that Major Grenlee raised the alarm before he died,
ensuring that Servalan was soon rescued by loyal troops.
>Servalan had this palace built exclusively for her. Sula and her cohorts
>planned to hold Servalan prisoner, alive, chained in the cellar, while
>they ruled in her name. With just a few weeks of cleverly executed
>commands the rebels could have accomplished a lot: freed political
>prisoners (presidential pardon), appointed their candidates to positions
>of authority, veoted pending legislation, passed new laws, repealed old
>laws. Perhaps they even planned some brain refurbishing for Servalan to
>make her more - cooperative.
As mentioned before, the outside world _knew_ that Servalan was being held
prisoner, therefore any orders proporting to come from her would be ignored.
Murray
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 12:45:44 GMT
From: "Mat Shayde" <dorian17@hotmail.com>
To: ariana@ndirect.co.uk, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] First impressions: "Mission to Destiny"
Message-ID: <20000406124545.33803.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: "Ariana" <ariana@ndirect.co.uk>
>To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
>Subject: Re: [B7L] First impressions: "Mission to Destiny"
>Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 21:29:39 +0100
> > explosive device that Blake placed on the entry hatch was quite
>powerful,
> > or else the ship that came to pick Sara up was quite small.
>
>Also, why did he want to *blow up* their ship? He didn't even know who
>Sara's contacts were. Maybe they didn't deserve to be summarily blown into
>oblivion.
>Ariana
Exactly my thought Ariana. Blake had no information about Sara's buyers at
all, he simply *assumed* that they were nasty and blew them up. They might
have been people every bit as desperate as the Destiny people, who were only
too glad to get their hands on a rare and expensive neutrotope 'no questions
asked'. He simply appointed himself as judge, jury and executioner. Boom!
Would you really want a man like that running the Government? :)
Dorian - "You mean you're here by choice?"
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 13:57:59 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: Lysator <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Anna's attempted coup
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000406135700.24333C-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000, Murray Smith wrote:
> Pat,
>
> >The outside world would never know Servalan was being held prisoner. The
> >state dinner would have gone forth as planned, without its guest of
> >honor, who had become briefly 'indisposed'. Meanwhile, political wife
> >and Federation socialite, Sula Chesku would preside in her place,
> >graciously greeting guests.
>
> You're forgetting that Major Grenlee raised the alarm before he died,
> ensuring that Servalan was soon rescued by loyal troops.
Sula's plan assumed that wouldn't happen. A classic case of failure due to
a plan which has to work perfectly, or not at all.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 05:11:09 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <38EC7EDC.C9ECC57@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Alison wrote:
> Does the definition of a word matter? If enough people use the word the
> 'wrong' way does that mean it becomes the 'right' way?
(1) Yes. (2) Sadly, yes. Definitions historically follow usage.
> Am I pedantic git?
Aren't we all? But surely being careful about definitions
preserves our ability to communicate.
> Regardless, it seems to me that people are using the word 'capitalism'
> wrongly. Perhaps this is a cultural difference.
I rather think it must be cultural. Trish's definition is much closer
to both what I was taught and what's in my dictionary and
encyclopedia than your definition is.
> What 'Capitalism' means is that people who own 'capital' (ie the means of
> producing goods) do not have to work, but get income by taking a proportion
> of the value generated by the each person using that capital (ie the mine
> owner takes part of the value generated by the miner).
I've never heard this before. The definition I'm familiar with is
that capitalism means that the wealth is privately controlled by
those who produce it, rather than by the state.
> Now here are some quotes from Trish (not picking on you Trish, your post was
> very eloquent so it is good to quote from).
>
> >>Capitalism offers everyone the same opportunity to succeed but offers no
> illusion that everyone is equal.
>
> Capitalism by definition does not offer everyone the same opportunity. It
> directs social benefits according to inherited or acquired ownership. That's
> what it means. I'm not making a moral point, just a linguistic one.
But linguistically it depends on the definition of capital. Your
'the means of producing goods' is the last of the goods-related
definitions I found, after 'accumulated goods (as opposed to
income)' and 'the value of accumulated goods'. In other words,
assets. In the U.S., capitalism means that people are entitled to
accumulate and control whatever wealth they can earn; and it's
deeply rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage that was mentioned
in another thread: 'the workman is worthy of his hire', 'thou shalt
not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn', etc.
> >>any country with social security, income tax, Medicaid, Medicare, welfare,
> unemployment, etc., is not a true capitalistic society
>
> Not at all. As long as you can get rich by owning capital, then it is a
> capitalist society
I shall have to chime in with Trish for it being a blend; these
programs are based on socialist notions of equality (as opposed
to traditional American notions of equality as expressed in our
Declaration of Independence and Constitution) because they
allow and require the government to control and redistribute
the wealth.
> >>(quoting Avon )'Wealth is the only reality. And the only way to obtain
> wealth is to take it away from somebody else'....not the old fashioned way
> of EARNING it. So much for Avon the capitalist.
>
> But, as I say, what Avon is describing is exactly capitalism. Earnings are a
> subsidiary form of income in capitalism, income from capital (ie money taken
> by people who do not work from those who do) is the main source of wealth in
> a capitalist economy. That's why it's called 'capitalism'.
Actually, 'money taken by people who do not work from those
who do' is what I was taught to call socialism. Everyone feeds
at the communal trough, which is filled only by those who work.
Avon's attitude is extremely capitalistic if you consider that the
'work' of a thief is to steal ;-) whether said work is moral is a
different question.
I've often suspected that most of the arguments in the world
are caused by people misunderstanding each other's terminology.
Mistral
--
"Consider it an adventure."--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 05:41:01 -0700
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican activities
Message-ID: <38EC85DC.1941B657@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Trish wrote:
A fascinating post (with which I mostly agree).
> Capitalism offers everyone the same opportunity to succeed but offers no
> illusion that everyone is equal.
For 'equal' I'd like to substitute 'entitled to the same wealth',
and note that the following:
> It is fundamental to capitalism that not
> everyone can win. A true understanding of that philosophy is to see it as
> more Darwinian and in line with my earlier comments about Nature's essential
> savagery.
is dependent on the view of life (and economics) as a zero-sum
game. There is another school of thought that true wealth is not
a fixed, finite value, but can be increased. Under this model,
everyone (assuming a certain minimal physical and mental capability)
*can* win. Some can win more.
> Probably many watch B7 and see Avon as an archetype of capitalism: an
> out-for-himself, completely selfish bastard. Actually he is more truly
> representative of this socialistic capitalism in that he doesn't believe
> creating wealth, he just wants wealth, and will take it to satisfy his hunger
> for it. Certainly Avon has the brains and ability to create wealth - he
> could make a fortune with Avon Computer Consulting, Inc. for example -- but
> prefers to steal it from the Federation Bank.
Hm. Never thought about Avon's economic stance. However,
I'm sure he believes in keeping whatever wealth he can get his
hands on, not having it redistributed it for him. In fact, I've always
thought that his society would not *allow* him to create wealth.
My view of the Federation is that you are slotted into your class,
then your job, and thus your economic position. Cozer's comments
in Weapon and Vila's in Volcano tend to support this, IMHO.
My impression is that it was Avon's dissatisfaction with being thus
pigeon-holed by his society and having no socially acceptable means
to achieve the advancement and recognition he craved, coupled with
a vague distaste for the oppressive social order itself that led him to
turn to crime.
Mistral
--
"Consider it an adventure."--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 11:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Claudia Mastroianni <cmastr@fas.harvard.edu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Message-Id: <200004061516.LAA19329@is06.fas.harvard.edu>
B7 content at the bottom, honest!
"Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> wrote:
: Claudia:
[Londo]
: > Without him, it's excellent space opera. With him, I think it's
: > literature. If B5 is a novel, he's the main character.
: But Londo is nothing without G'Kar operating as a comparison. The different
: paths that patriotism takes. The eternal cycle of enmity. That scene in
: which G'Kar buys Londo a drink and talks about the possibility of peace and
: friendship, not knowing that Londo has already screwed Narn, and Londo
: *regrets what he's done before it's even started* is a B5 pivot.
If we're disagreeing about anything at all (and I'm not sure that we are),
it's terminology. I agree with every word you've said above, but I don't
think that being a foil for someone, however crucial, makes someone the
_main character_.
Nor do I mean to dismiss G'Kar's own transformation over the course of
the series. However, we don't get quite as intimate a look at his
struggles as we do at Londo's.
: If I was going to pick a single character, it would be Sinclair. If only for
: aesthetic reasons.
:) Who, like Blake, starts things off and then vanishes.
If the show ended after War Without End I would even agree with you.
[Damn Claudia Christian anyway. I want to see season 5 as it would have
been with her there. My feeling is that her character's arc was to come
to the fore then, and would have ended up at least as strong as Delenn's.]
I like Sinclair a lot, and Sheridan gets on my nerves (damned boyscout).
I wish we'd seen more of Sinclair.
: > No, if you have to pick a central character, I don't really see how
: > it can be anyone but Avon. And yet, I feel that it does the series
: > a disservice to look at it in those terms. It wasn't conceived as
: > a narrative whole, and Gareth Thomas's departure keeps the later
: > seasons from behaving as one might originally have expected. It is
: > often the case that the ensemble stars, rather than any one actor.
: > So I'd rather not answer the question at all. ;-)
: Again, Avon and Blake are mutually dependent. It doesn't matter that Blake
: isn't there, in fact, it's only his absence that makes the end so damn good!
Absolutely. :) But again, I don't feel that an absent character, however
crucial the loss of him is, can really be said to be the main character.
Avon would be nothing dramatically without Blake, but... well, I suppose
I think of Avon as subject and Blake as theme.
Claudia
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 07:46:32 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <38ECA349.6B96@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Now getting back to expectations of happy endings for a moment, I think
> that we often see these kinds of endings where the narrative ends at the
> victory of the baddies (with no supernatural balancing of the scales
> implied), but still there is the triumph of the good through their
> martyrdom. As westerns have often been mentioned as an influence on
> Blake's 7 (see, I finally got there) and considering the final episode's
> bounty hunter theme, I came to think about the classic Italian western "Il
> grande silenzio" (The Great Silence). This very unorthodox western ends
> with the hero and his black girlfriend getting shot by a group of evil
> bounty hunters who then proceed to slaughter their helpless hostages and
> finally ride off to collect the bounty from their killing. Now this is
> certainly a downbeat ending, but just before the end titles we get a text
> explaining how this massacre caused such uproar that the whole bounty
> hunter system was finally abolished. So the idea is that things got better
> outside the story, and people didn't die in vain. Victory in defeat.
>
Ah! So What we don't see is this, a week later:
Federation official #1: So, Blake was posing as a bounty hunter for all
those years?
Federation Official #2: I've always thought the bounty hunter system was
outmoded. We transmitted the records of criminals to any liscenced
bounty hunter. We ended up telling him exactly who to recruit.
Federation Official #1: Well, he did a good job of it. Even fooled his
own people, so they say.
Federation Official #3: Can't have it happening again. What if someone
here on Earth started going through the lists and putting together a
terrorist group. I'm going to introduce a bill in the senate to do away
with the bounty hunter system. We'll just send all those clones we had
the Clonemasters make of Travis after people. He's really got the
obsessive-policeman instinct we want for that sort of work.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 07:49:37 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7 action figures.
Message-ID: <38ECA402.4CB8@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Say, is anyone collecting the info on the 'dolls', the legal and
marketing memos, etc?
It seems like with editing it would make a good addition to someone's
website.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:08:43 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] UnAmerican activities
Message-ID: <38ECA87B.55F0@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
(much comments in favor of capitalism made)
> AVON: Listen to me. Wealth is the only reality. And the only way to obtain
> wealth is to take it away from somebody else. (Space Fall, as if you didn't
> know)
>
> Ahh, not the old fashioned way of EARNING it. So much for Avon the
> capitalist.
>
A farmer takes wealth from nature by clearing the land of 'pests'
(native animals), 'weeds' (native plants) and growing what he can sell
(taking other people's money in exchange for something they need. And if
he has the only farm who's produce is available, he can charge what he
likes). Of ocurse, he did put in sweat equity to clear the land, etc.
But what he has, the native plants & animals no longer have, nor can
another human lay legal claim to. And this is the CLEANEST form of
'earning' wealth. More likely, the man that owns the farm employs
temporary immigrants (migrant farmworkers) who aren't getting good pay
and are kept in substandard housing. The workers' children are toiling
in the fields beside them because the government won't allow them to be
schooled alongside citizens. The farmer may in fact be a corporate
entity that bought out the small farmers.
The migrant workers and other employees of the corporation get payment,
but live from paycheck to paycheck. Meanwhile, they work ten hours a
day. The reason migrant workers are used is because NO Americans are
willing to subject themselves to the working conditions for the pay.
Meanwhile, people with easy jobs invest in the farming corporation and
get good money without lifting a finger.
You may call that earning wealth, but (you're right) apparently Avon
doesn't. Good for him.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:57:41 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <01c401bf9fe0$e8c41b00$0d01a8c0@codex>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Claudia wrote:
> B7 content at the bottom, honest!
Give up now ;) The only place I *don't* talk about B7 is on my B7 mailing
lists! <g>
> [Londo]
> If we're disagreeing about anything at all (and I'm not sure that we are),
> it's terminology. I agree with every word you've said above, but I don't
> think that being a foil for someone, however crucial, makes someone the
> _main character_.
I was deliberately moving away from thinking of a main character to a main
interaction. I don't just see G'Kar as a foil for Londo, or vice versa. But
they only get their full resonance as characters when the other is around,
or is considered.
> : If I was going to pick a single character, it would be Sinclair. If only
for
> : aesthetic reasons.
>
> :) Who, like Blake, starts things off and then vanishes.
If only Blake had turned out to be the Virgin Mary or some such...
> I like Sinclair a lot, and Sheridan gets on my nerves (damned boyscout).
Ee-uw, yes. Wretched man.
> I wish we'd seen more of Sinclair.
Arms, legs, torso... I'll stop there.
> : Again, Avon and Blake are mutually dependent. It doesn't matter that
Blake
> : isn't there, in fact, it's only his absence that makes the end so damn
good!
>
> Absolutely. :) But again, I don't feel that an absent character, however
> crucial the loss of him is, can really be said to be the main character.
> Avon would be nothing dramatically without Blake, but... well, I suppose
> I think of Avon as subject and Blake as theme.
Oh, I do like that, however!
Una
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:03:55 +0000
From: Murray Smith <mjsmith@tcd.ie>
To: Lysator <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican TV
Message-Id: <l03110709b51250eb8a14@[134.226.96.44]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Helen,
>And then there's Buffy and Angel. Sure, the baddest guys get killed, but
>sometimes it's hard to tell bad from good.
>And the conventional love story is constantly getting turned upside
>down. Season one, the main characters agreed they would probably none of
>them ever have a normal or happy love life, and they are living up to
>it.
As an ardent 'Buffy' fan, I agree. There are a number of characters who are
morally ambiguous. Also, the 'good' characters make bad decisions; and many
lead, as you say, unusual love lives. One character fell in love with a
vampire, another with a werewolf, while a third, surviving near-fatal
attractions to a praying mantis and an Incan mummy, got involved with a
demon in a woman's body. Almost all the relationships in the show appear to
end tragically.
In short, while the really bad guys get killed, there _is_ a lot of grey in
the show, which is probably the reason why this B7 fan has become so
interested in it.
Murray
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:03:29 +0100 (BST)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000406163438.24333D-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
>
>
> Alison wrote:
>
> > Regardless, it seems to me that people are using the word 'capitalism'
> > wrongly. Perhaps this is a cultural difference.
>
> I rather think it must be cultural. Trish's definition is much closer
> to both what I was taught and what's in my dictionary and
> encyclopedia than your definition is.
>
> > What 'Capitalism' means is that people who own 'capital' (ie the means of
> > producing goods) do not have to work, but get income by taking a proportion
> > of the value generated by the each person using that capital (ie the mine
> > owner takes part of the value generated by the miner).
>
> I've never heard this before. The definition I'm familiar with is
> that capitalism means that the wealth is privately controlled by
> those who produce it, rather than by the state.
I'd always learned that the classic definition of capitalism is 'private
ownership of the means of production'. The OED seems to bear me out on
this one.
The issue of who owns the means of production is very relevant in
industrial societies; less so in pre- or post- industrial societies. If
I'm a blacksmith, I can own my tools and forge, and am thus able to pursue
my livelihood however I wish, hard work being justly rewarded by wealth.
If I'm a freelance web designer, I can own a computer and again be free to
make money. If I'm a factory worker on a large production line, I can't
own my means of production. So who does? In a capitalist system, the
factory will be in private hands: in a socialist system it will be owned
by the government. Both these schemes have advantages and disadvantages -
that's politics for you.
> > Capitalism by definition does not offer everyone the same opportunity. It
> > directs social benefits according to inherited or acquired ownership. That's
> > what it means. I'm not making a moral point, just a linguistic one.
>
> But linguistically it depends on the definition of capital. Your
> 'the means of producing goods' is the last of the goods-related
> definitions I found,
It is, however, the crucial one in defining 'capitalism'.
One might also define capitalism as a system in which millionaires and
paupers have equal rights to sleep under bridges.
after 'accumulated goods (as opposed to
> income)' and 'the value of accumulated goods'. In other words,
> assets. In the U.S., capitalism means that people are entitled to
> accumulate and control whatever wealth they can earn;
A definition which implies there are no capitalist societies on Earth.
and it's
> deeply rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage that was mentioned
> in another thread: 'the workman is worthy of his hire', 'thou shalt
> not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn', etc.
>
I find this a little odd. For all the great virtues of capitalism, it is
manifestly inconsistent with some of the most famous sayings of Jesus.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:17:39 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] B7 action figures legal firm
Message-ID: <38ECAA93.1B64@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> C/O Wolfram and Hart
>
> Oh, and completely unrelated issue, but I'm hopin I'm not the only one
> whose noticed the names of the favorite, corrupt lawyer team on Angel?
> Wolf (not a well represented animal in western literature even if you
> disregard eating of carrion and, hence, it's association with Ares, the
> war god. Then there are werewolves, etc), Ram (probably meant for goat,
> an animal also associated with evil),
Those are called Billies. But, Ram is the sign of Aries, which sounds
like Ares, god of war. Also, if you aren't paying close attention,
sounds like they are saying Wolfman.
and Hart (as in stag, probably
> connecting to certain pagan gods, often associated with death, not to
> mention one of its more popular remnants, the Wild Hunt).
Or as a homophone for heart, the organ that pumps blood through the
human circulatory system, and is the main point of weakness on a
vampire.
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 08:37:20 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] More dolls
Message-ID: <38ECAF30.63D8@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Klute:
Comes with play-along chess set with built in joy-buzzer action for when
you lose.
Self-destructs if you beat the chess program. (repurchases very likely)
Obnoxious laugh
(Seperately available conversion kits to turn Klute doll into Moloch or
Tharn.)
Decima figures:
come with spears
Frilly lettuce-skin that shakes when dolls are moved.
High-pitched angry warbling sounds.
Ensor doll:
Comes with miniature fish tank. Miniature ORAC sold seperately for 100
million redemption points from packages of other dolls and accesories.
However, advise making fish tank with fish molded in to prevent
imaginative children from using fish tank in lieu of real ORAC toy.
Floating camera toy also packaged with doll: elevator available by
seperate purchase.
Ensor doll has batteries in chest to control compatible accessories--
these wear out and need replacemnt with the Ensor's heart surgery repair
kit.
Dr. Plaxton doll comes with marking pens for turning non B7 dolls (such
as Barbies) into Space Rats. Comes with Star Drive unit for Scorpio
action toy. Sculpted with perpetually worried look.
When Plaxton doll inserts Star Drive unit into Scorpio action toy, speed
of Scorpio is increased but power surge tends to melt Plaxton doll.
Memo: why does Avon doll's memory feature keep losing track of Plaxton
in play-testing? Possible flaw in Avon doll's leadership circuit.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 09:29:50 PDT
From: "Hellen Paskaleva" <hellen_pas@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] First impressions: "Mission to Destiny"
Message-ID: <20000406162950.84008.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Mat and Ariana:
>> > explosive device that Blake placed on the entry hatch...
>>Also, why did he want to *blow up* their ship? He didn't even know who
>>Sara's contacts were. Maybe they didn't deserve to be summarily blown into
>>oblivion.
>
>Exactly my thought Ariana. Blake had no information about Sara's buyers at
>all, he simply *assumed* that they were nasty and blew them up.
*We* have no information who they were. Blake obviously had.
Myself, I am convinced, that the whole situation easily could be a
Federation's plot against an independent planet, which continuously denies
to obey to the Federation authority. The plot could be, as follows:
Step a) They contaminate the whole surface of Destiny, forcing it's
government to put the whole planet resources in one single valuable item -
the neutrotope;
Step b) They steal the neutrotope (or hire somebody to do that for them).
This way achieves two goals - Destiny loses it's independence and Federation
puts hands over the most expensive technology existing. For free.
>Would you really want a man like that running the Government? :)
If it were up to me, I would undoubtedly answer with "yes", because extreme
situations need desperate measures and a person, brave enough to take the
responsibility for them. (Moreover, people, who are ready to doom a whole
planet to starvation, death and Federal yoke, *deserve* their fate.) But as
we will see later, in "Voice from the past", Blake himself is not very eager
to run for the job - even when he was tranquilized, he refused LeGrand's
proposal.
Hellen
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 12:52:57 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] next Dorset meet
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0406115257-9eeRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
The next B7 meet in Dorset is in Corfe Mullen, near Wimborne/Poole this
Saturday (8th April).
All welcome. We usually start around 2pm though anyone turning up between 12 and
1 can share a video.
A couple of us are going onto see Equus in Salisbury in the evening (about 40
minutes drive) and the theatre still has some seats available if anyone
else wants to come along.
So, if anyone fancies a B7 afternoon and an evening seeing Gareth, drop me a
line and I'll give you directions.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs,
pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth
Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:23:48 +0100
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <01fb01bf9fec$e713b570$0d01a8c0@codex>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral / Iain:
> and it's
> > deeply rooted in our Judeo-Christian heritage that was mentioned
> > in another thread: 'the workman is worthy of his hire', 'thou shalt
> > not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn', etc.
> >
>
> I find this a little odd. For all the great virtues of capitalism, it is
> manifestly inconsistent with some of the most famous sayings of Jesus.
One of the nice things about the most famous sayings of Jesus is that one
can usually be found to support whatever particular axe one has to grind.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 10:58:19 -0700
From: "Ann Basart" <abasart@dnai.com>
To: "Blake's7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] B5 & B7 (was UnAmerican . . . )
Message-ID: <001d01bf9ff1$b2ebdd40$28edb5cf@flp1>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Claudia wrote:
>>> I like Sinclair a lot, and Sheridan gets on my nerves (damned boyscout).
Yes, but he (Sheridan) suffers so beautifully in "Intersections in Real
Time."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 19:29:50 +0100
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon's Skills
Message-ID: <005101bf9ff7$0e3424a0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Catlyn wrote
> andrew and Gnog-- can't see it as colonization. Since there is only one
female there and no signs of any others or any children, must be another
reason or else that is one busy follower!!!
Vargas referred to a population of about 500 at most. We only saw about a
dozen. So there could well have been other women (and children) among the
other 488 or so.
If the London's shipment was typical, then female prisoners would be a
rarity, making women on Cygnus Alpha a precious commodity. They might all
have ended up in Vargas' harem.
Neil
"I am not a man, I am a free number."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 14:22:16 EDT
From: JEB31538@cs.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] respond to a survey
Message-ID: <77.2c92a0e.261e2fd8@cs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Horizon latest newsflash asks people to fill out a survey found at this
site:
http://www.aerospacepbl.co.uk
Horizon said that someone was looking to produce a magazine and an
interactive website and might be including Blake's 7 if enough people
expressed an interest in it.
The survey isn't that long and can be done anonymously, if you wish.
Joyce Bowen JEB31538@cs.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 18:41:34 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.com>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] More dolls
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0406174134-0e8Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Thu 06 Apr, Helen Krummenacker wrote:
> The Klute:
> Comes with play-along chess set with built in joy-buzzer action for when
> you lose.
> Self-destructs if you beat the chess program. (repurchases very likely)
> Obnoxious laugh
> (Seperately available conversion kits to turn Klute doll into Moloch or
> Tharn.)
What about the Link and Decima options? (the Tharn is cheating <grin> -
different actor)
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs,
pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth
Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:26:11 +0100
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <00ac01bfa008$4fdb0700$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain said -
>If I'm a factory worker on a large production line, I can't
>own my means of production. So who does? In a capitalist system, the
>factory will be in private hands: in a socialist system it will be owned
>by the government.
One alternative - which I like and which I suspect Blake would like - is
called I think 'Syndicalism'. It was practised in parts of Spain before the
Civil War. In this system the means of production are owned by those who use
them: so farmers own the land they work, car factory workers own the
machinery they operate, sailors own the ships etc. The anarchists in the
Spanish Civil War actually ran battleships on this principal, without
military hierarchy. And they were surprisingly effective against the much
better equipped .. ummm... other side(falangists? I forget)
Interestingly many 17th and 18th century pirate ships were also run like
this, with the spoils of their dastardly deeds being divided among the crew
on a (relatively) egalitarian basis - probably because many of them were
escaped slaves, indentured workers, and press-ganged sailors, so they had
had enough of being pushed around. In a way the Liberator crew are organised
like a syndicalist battleship or a pirate band rather than on conventional
military lines.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:39:15 +0100
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>,
"freedom city" <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] call the BBC
Message-ID: <00ad01bfa008$53392620$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi gang,
I just this minute phoned the BBC duty log on
08700 100 222
and told them that I loved Blakes 7, that they had to show all four series
in order, and that it was the only thing I watched on BBC on a Saturday (hem
hem - well I had to rub it in)
Anyway the guy on the other end was really sweet, and we had a bit of a
chat, and he said he liked B7 too, and he was going to pass on my message,
and also add one in his own name too. So that's two more than there were ten
minutes ago.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:43:50 EDT
From: Prmolloy@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <ac.36a1a13.261e5106@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Una wrote:
> Again, Avon and Blake are mutually dependent. It doesn't matter that Blake
> isn't there, in fact, it's only his absence that makes the end so damn good!
I suppose this counts as a me too. I'll add in my two cents that Avon's
search for Blake in the latter part of the show never struck me as something
he wanted to do, but something he was compelled to do. I've read theories
explaining Avon and Blake as yin-yang, dopplegangers, etc. and there is some
truth to those ideas. I also think that the presence of the other forces
each of them to acknowledge dormant aspects of his own character, whether he
deliberately chose not to develop that aspect or was unable to do so.
Blake didn't even have to be physically present in the last two seasons. He
was a dominant force, and may have been even more so without exposure to the
real human falliable Blake. It was enough that Avon believed Blake was out
there, until of course they very very end when Avon ended the search rather
abruptly.
IMHO, Avon's expressions in Volcano and elsewhere, previously discussed, were
more a sign of resignation to his compelling need to find Blake, whether or
not he really wanted it.
Trish
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 16:46:53 EDT
From: Prmolloy@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <dd.2d117e7.261e51bd@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Una wrote:
> > I'll take it the wedding's off <sniff>
>
Neil replied:
> Sometimes, my dear, one must be cruel to be kind. That's cruel to you and
> kind to me, of course:)
Una countered:
But Neil, think of the genetic mix. With your brains, *my* brains, and the
looks of an entirely separate person, we could create a GOD!
I just thought it important to acknowledge this for those of who were
wondering about Avon's genetic lineage.
Trish
<g>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:07:19 EDT
From: Prmolloy@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: UnAmerican Activities
Message-ID: <c.372d221.261e5687@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Responding to Alison and Mistral's posts, which I really enjoyed.
I wonder also if some of the difference is cultural as Mistral explained, or
a difference between capitalism perceived solely as an economic system or
capitalism perceived as a philosophy.
Mistral wrote
>In the US, capitalism means that people are entitled to accumulate and
control >whatever wealth they can earn; and it's deeply rooted in our
Judeo-Christian heritage >that was mentioned in another thread: 'the workman
is worthy of his hire', 'thou shalt
>not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn', etc
which expressed more clearly the point I had hoped to make. The basic
philosophical underpinnings of the formation of the US was to protect
property, ensure it remained in private hands, the assumption being that
those hands had created the property or had created enough wealth to acquire
that property.
The introduction of social security, income tax, etc., did not occur until
approximately the latter part of the 19th century/early part of the 20th
century, when the introduction of socialism into US universities had a
tremendous impact upon the nation's thinkers and leaders. That is why I see
a blend when I look at today's US. It is definitely not a version the
founding fathers would recognize.
My point about capitalism offering every one the same chance to succeed
without being equal obviously recognizes that inherited wealth is one of the
inequalities, along with ability, and perseverance. However, someone willing
to work to acquire capital, invest or reinvest it, can continue to grow that
capital and reach levels equal or greater than those with inherited wealth.
The essential nature of capitalism is based on the belief that wealth comes
from work, and that what the individual creates through his own work belongs
to him. And while Mistral has a point that stealing is work, it is not
moral, and therefore violates the Judeo-Christian foundation for capitalism.
I won't argue against the fact that there are many who make wealth based on
income from capital, which is certainly a depiction of today's Wall Street
paper wealth economy, uncomfortably reminiscent of a house of cards. But
then again, I don't see the US as a strictly capitalist country anymore. It
hasn't been for seventy or eighty years.
Trish
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 22:05:58 +0100
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican activities
Message-ID: <iM9$a$A2wP74Ew1V@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <38EC85DC.1941B657@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes
>Hm. Never thought about Avon's economic stance. However,
>I'm sure he believes in keeping whatever wealth he can get his
>hands on, not having it redistributed it for him. In fact, I've always
>thought that his society would not *allow* him to create wealth.
>My view of the Federation is that you are slotted into your class,
>then your job, and thus your economic position. Cozer's comments
>in Weapon and Vila's in Volcano tend to support this, IMHO.
>My impression is that it was Avon's dissatisfaction with being thus
>pigeon-holed by his society and having no socially acceptable means
>to achieve the advancement and recognition he craved, coupled with
>a vague distaste for the oppressive social order itself that led him to
>turn to crime.
Good god, this time it's Mistral's post I can append "me too!" to.
(Don't all faint in shock.) Although I'm with the OED on definition of
capitalism (reaches out and strokes same possessively).
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:27:12 EDT
From: Prmolloy@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] UnAmerican activities
Message-ID: <b8.40db16b.261e5b30@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Helen presents an argument ad misericordiam, which appeals to our better
natures, as it is so designed. I, too, am careful which grapes I buy.
But I could offer thousands of examples out there of capitalism that exists
as its fundamental level: work creates wealth, which belongs to the worker.
The point I wished to make was how Avon seemingly rejects the part about
work, and just desires the wealth. I don't perceive Avon as lazy at all. I
see him as someone who wants wealth and believes he deserves it because he
has the ability to take large quantities of it away from the Central Bank.
Of course there is the debated point about whether Avon is moral, immoral, or
amoral.
Mistral made a good point about his ability to do create his own wealth
within the Federation, but I wonder how confined he really was in an
expanding empire. For an example, I look to the British Empire of lore, not
because it compares to the Federation (maybe in its treatment of its
colonies. Oh did I say that?) but because of the ability of individuals to
leave England and go to new countries/planets and create their own economic
realities whether in cattle ranching, farming, or industry. I'm sure we
could come up with thousands of examples.
Trish
Helen's comments:
A farmer takes wealth from nature by clearing the land of 'pests'
(native animals), 'weeds' (native plants) and growing what he can sell
(taking other people's money in exchange for something they need. And if
he has the only farm who's produce is available, he can charge what he
likes). Of course, he did put in sweat equity to clear the land, etc.
But what he has, the native plants & animals no longer have, nor can
another human lay legal claim to. And this is the CLEANEST form of
'earning' wealth. More likely, the man that owns the farm employs
temporary immigrants (migrant farmworkers) who aren't getting good pay
and are kept in substandard housing. The workers' children are toiling
in the fields beside them because the government won't allow them to be
schooled alongside citizens. The farmer may in fact be a corporate
entity that bought out the small farmers.
The migrant workers and other employees of the corporation get payment,
but live from paycheck to paycheck. Meanwhile, they work ten hours a
day. The reason migrant workers are used is because NO Americans are
willing to subject themselves to the working conditions for the pay.
Meanwhile, people with easy jobs invest in the farming corporation and
get good money without lifting a finger.
You may call that earning wealth, but (you're right) apparently Avon
doesn't. Good for him.
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #101
**************************************