From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #21
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/21
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 21
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Avon & Friends
Re: [B7L] History
Re: [B7L] History
Re: [B7L] History
[B7L] story review
RE: [B7L] History
[B7L] Great Big Sale
[B7L] Re: capchered agane
Good ol' Frank [Re: [B7L] Mental health & Governments]
Re: [B7L] brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments)
Re: [B7L] Re: capchered agane
Re: [B7L] History
Re: [B7L] brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments)
[B7L] The TRUTH abaout Travis
[B7L] Re: Killer
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 19:21:30 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Avon & Friends
Message-ID: <20000123192130.C4473@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 10:16:42PM -0800, Sally Manton wrote:
> Kathryn wrote:
> <I agree, Avon would be a pain to live with, because unless
> I could develop a "he's just being a bear, he doesn't really
> mean it" filter...>
>
> If you do, I'm sure there are several people on the
> Liberator who would pay for a copy.
'tis an internal psychological filter. Not transferrable.
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
/ \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat
\_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
v |
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:24:02 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "B7 List" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] History
Message-ID: <065501bf659c$be2bfa80$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral wrote:
> I've already said I know a great deal less history than you;
> and as for media, I completely agree; which is why the only
> news I ever bother to watch (albeit rarely) is ITN world news,
> which as I understand is imported from Britain.
Can I then recommend the BBC World Service website? I don't know the radio
frequency - it's probably on the site.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/index.shtml
> I suspect the reason we disagree is far more basic; the fact
> that you seem to think more knowledge of history could, or
> *should* change my mind is a clear indication that we have
> basically incompatible perspectives. I'd be ashamed of myself
> if such a thing did change my mind; history tells us what
> happened, but it's not a yardstick for right and wrong.
How else can we come to know about the past and be in a position to judge it
without *studying* the past? Changing one's mind in the light of evidence
is not, I think, something to be ashamed of, nor is it an abandonment of
one's principles. At the very least, understanding a past situation better
might throw new light on the issues of legitimacy which you hold so dear.
> But you've gone back to taking
> a body count again, as many times as I've tried to make clear that
> I don't consider that a valid basis for making moral/ethical decisions.
> I quite understand if you feel that's the bottom line, many people do;
> I don't. I believe right and wrong are absolutes, and are not changed
> by numbers or historical perspectives. In this much, at least, I think
> that both Blake and Travis would agree with me. (Duel)
I think, although I may be miscasting Judith's POV here and I hope she'll
correct me if I'm wrong, that a moral judgement is *not* being made on the
basis of a body count, but that a profound horror is being expressed at the
particular *monstrousness* of the crimes committed in (here) Russia. I
suspect the moral judgement comes from a basic sense that it is wrong to use
one's power to brutalize and kill innocent and defenceless people.
In this sense, there is no difference if the crime is, for example, a parent
who brutalizes and kills their small baby or a government systematically
eradicates millions of its population. But one wants to understand the
psychology of the first crime (how could a parent do or be brought to doing
such a thing?), whereas I think I would want to understand the sociology of
the second (how can the members of a society be gulled / twisted into such a
situation that it enables such acts to be commonplace and have the veneer of
legitimacy?). I don't think that casting these situations in this way I'm
necessarily saying that one is worse than the other: people may feel that
perhaps I should make that sort of judgement, I don't know.
I'm snipping a lot of your message, I'm afraid, because I can recall very
little American history and can't pass judgement on the statements either
you or Judith are making:
> I find it more than a little baffling (and amusing, in a twisted sort of
> way) the apparent discontinuity in the attitudes towards the events
> in Star One and those in Stardrive. Avon clearly has the authority
> to sacrifice Dr. Plaxton to save the others; and yet when I've said I
> believe he did the right thing, I get an argument. Blake, OTOH, has
> no authority over either the 'many, many' who will die, or over the
> equally vague number he wants to free, and yet this is somehow a
> noble and heroic decision in many people's estimation. IMHO, that
> is completely backwards. Can it possibly be that it's easier to accept
> the death of the faceless 'many, many' than a character with a face
> and a name and a few lines? Or is it just because Blake is a more
> traditional heroic type who seems warm where Avon seems cold?
I'd be interested to know where you believe Avon's authority came to
sacrifice Dr Plaxton. Are you saying it comes down to a simple equation of
survival of individuals, or are you arguing that Avon et al. had removed
themselves from the chain of legality that existed within the Federation and
therefore could ignore most laws?
One *could* argue that Avon's decision is the more courageous one in terms
of the personal cost (I should imagine it *is* harder deliberately to kill a
single person whose name you know than faceless millions - but that's part
of the whole problem) and that it is pragmatically defensible. Avon is able
to make hard decisions when it comes to the crunch. Yet Avon never manages
to develop the intellectual courage to enable him to make decisions that
will affect 'many, many people' in order to counter a perceived evil, as
Blake did.
Regardless of whether Blake was right or wrong, whether he fought an evil
enemy with the only weapons that were at his disposal, or made decisions
which he had no right to take, at least he tried to negotiate a way through
the moral minefield.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 05:15:19 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] History
Message-ID: <20000123131519.34679.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Now *this* is a heading I can't resist...
Mistral wrote:
<I suspect the reason we disagree is far more basic; the fact that you seem
to think more knowledge of history could, or *should* change my mind is a
clear indication that we have basically incompatible perspectives. I'd be
ashamed of myself if such a thing did change my mind; history tells us what
happened, but it's not a yardstick for right and wrong.>
No. What it *is* however, to me at least, is a reminder and a warning of how
that yardstick can be used, misused and misconstrued, without anyone being
aware they're doing it...a reminder to be very very cautious when advocating
absolutes of right and wrong, or policies of perfection. History is one of
the messier sciences, reminding us that where human beings are concerned,
absolutes are deceiving and dangerous, and right and wrong can become so
grey and entangled in practice that it's impossible to tell one from the
other.
As someone who has studied history (including a number of the uglier periods
thereof, and there've been a lot of them) I'd have to say I *have* changed
my mind sometimes on what I believed, simply by becoming aware of the actual
results of beliefs that in themselves seemed right and good. They are often
quite horrible when put into practice (an awful lot of the nastier episodes
in recent history started with or involved people with awfully good
intentions - moral absolutes as pure and seemingly right as any you or I can
come up with). I'd be ashamed if clear evidence *didn't* make me change my
mind.
Studying history taught me to judge my own moral yardstick more humbly than
before.
<I believe right and wrong are absolutes, and are not changed by numbers or
historical perspectives.>
Here I do think we disagree, again because absolutes are very dangerous (and
often appalling in practice) when applied to human beings. The word
'democracy' comes from a city-state that practiced slavery and conquest. The
nightmare that was the Stalinist Soviet Union was based on very high ideals,
such as the rights of the common man. 'Liberty, egality and fraternity' was
born in a welter of blood and corruption. The peace movements in Britain in
the 1930s - devoted as they were to preventing a bloodbath like the First
World War - quite unconsciously (and sometimes consciously) acted as
propagandists for the dictatorships of both right *and* left. Policies of
moral perfection simply *don't work*.
Just about *all* of the rights and ideals of the western world were born in
violence (the English Civil War, the French Revolution, the American
Revolution, the American Civil War, World War II etc) and a lot of moral
absolutes came from violence born of grubbier motives than we'd like to
believe. What used to be the highest moral standards are now considered
appalling, and our standards will almost certainly in their turn be savaged
as not just outmoded but plain wrong, possibly even wicked.
<Which is why I prefer decisions made on basic principles, instead of
flip-flopping every time some new detail comes to light.>
You sometimes have to (when you're studying history, you have to quite a
lot) because those new details can sometimes shine an unexpected and very
unpleasant light on what those basic principles mean in practice...
<I find it more than a little baffling (and amusing, in a twisted sort of
way) the apparent discontinuity in the attitudes towards the events in Star
One and those in Stardrive.>
I actually think Avon was right in what he did, and Blake would have done
the same (it's the cold 'who?' at the end that IMO causes a lot of the flak
- unfairly, because being Avon what else could he do?)
It doesn't change my argument on Star One - that [a] given both his and my
belief that what he was fighting was utterly evil, [b] given that 'many,
many' people clearly wanted freedom, and were forcibly prevented from
fighting for it (or were being and would continue to be killed in that
fight), [c] peaceful methods, as well as those less violent than this, had
been tried and failed, [d] he clearly believes (IMHO) - after weighing up an
awful lot of evidence that we simply don't have - that the misery of
Federation violence/oppression was greater than the misery of the violent
end of the Federation would be, and finally and *very importantly* [e] he
could do something about it *that no one else could*...
Standing back because it's morally wrong for the blood to be on his hands
rather than the President's would be as much a decision to take 'authority'
over other citizens as going ahead. And a far worse one. He had to do, not
what he thought was 'right', but what he thought was best. And it's at least
partly the historian in me that values the humbler 'best' far more.
Enough of the pontificating, anyway (I should be saving this for my
Masters).
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 05:19:00 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] History
Message-ID: <20000123131900.5277.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Una wrote:
<Regardless of whether Blake was right or wrong, whether he fought an evil
enemy with the only weapons that were at his disposal, or made decisions
which he had no right to take, at least he tried to negotiate a way through
the moral minefield.>
I really liked this...thanks, Una.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 09:35:21 EST
From: Mac4781@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] story review
Message-ID: <c6.8e1cf7.25bc6ba9@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It belatedly occurred to me that as this story is gen I should have sent the
review here as well as to Freedom City. (I'd also been reviewing an
in-progress adult story on FC.)
Escape Velocity by Alison Glover. (Chronicles 64, August 1999)
SPOILER WARNING!!! This review contains information that will reveal the
plot and ending.
Escape Velocity is a short gem that packs a remarkable amount of character
insight and Federation insight into less than three pages of text. The story
focuses on Tarrant's desertion, and tells the why and how of his leaving
Space Command. I was particularly impressed with how adroitly the author
slipped into Tarrant's head. The story isn't just "about" Tarrant, it is
Tarrant. And it's a Tarrant who is very aware of who he is and how he is
perceived by others.
Such as this bit: "That was how he would be expected to behave. Since he had
spent most of his life ensuring that he did behave as we expected of him,
that didn't present any particular difficulty."
Tarrant uses his reputation for loyalty and dependability to set up a
situation where he can steal a ship that will take him to freedom. He does
it with great care, reacting to the ground crew who prepared the ship exactly
as he would if this were a routine test flight, noting that such behavior was
necessary because he couldn't be sure who among the maintenance personnel and
other pilots were also spies whose jobs included reporting suspicious
activities. It's very believable to me that the Federation would recruit
selected military personnel to provide that type of internal covert
monitoring. The Federation wouldn't trust anyone, not even their own
officers. Or maybe their own officers in particular; renegade military can
be even more dangerous than renegade civilians.
The author also carefully couches the characters and situations so that they
are consistent with human behavior patterns, such as Tarrant's observation
that an "exemplary cadet" would not be a popular cadet.
Another lovely moment in the story touches on Tarrant's almost naive optimism
(very apparent in the series) and on his negative view of the current regime
as given in VOLCANO:
"Tarrant hadn't realised, until it evaporated, that he had still held out
some hope that it was going to be possible to change the Federation from
within."
But it's the end of the story that is the kicker, the wallop that hit me in
the solar plexus. In a few short sentences it summarizes, in a most
perceptive and empathic manner, Tarrant's past, present and future. It's
something I'll let future readers of the story discover for themselves. And
I hope it will provide the type of tingling (as in "I must be sure to weave
this element of Tarrant into future stories") for you that it provided for me.
The art for the story by Andrew Williams is also much to be admired. There
are three b&w partial-page illos: a pursuit ship and two Tarrants. The
Tarrant on page 12 is my favorite. The pose very beautifully shows off his
graceful, slender body. And the grim, serious expression on the very young
face is a character study in and of itself. It shows us that the harsh life
he's led has matured Tarrant far beyond his chronological years. My only
teensy quibble with the art--and I wouldn't even have noticed this if the
rest of the drawing hadn't been so perfect-- is that the fingers of Tarrant's
left hand needed to be longer.
Chronicles 64 is A4, cardstock front and back covers with b&w art, spiral
bound, 51 pages. Approximately $6 (plus postage); I paid $6 at Eclecticon.
The zine is available from Linda Knights in the US
(http://www.nas.com/~lknight/index.html), from Judith Proctor in the UK
(Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk) and from the publisher: Susan Batho,
6 Bellevue Road, Faulconbridge, N.S.W. 2776, Australia
Carol Mc
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:56:18 +0100
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] History
Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99FAF11A7@NL-ARN-MAIL01>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Mistral wrote:
> If you are tempted to suspect that I can accept this sort of judgment
> because the effects don't rebound on me personally, please don't;
> as I am certain is true of everyone else on this list, I can and have
> had to make difficult decisions where making the right choice had
> profound negative impact on me personally. Happens to everyone.
Ah, yes, but we're now talking about a situation where making the "right"
(in your opinion) choice has a profound negative impact on lots of *other*
people. Not quite the same.
> > to put the issue in reverse - how does a government retain
> legitimacy? does a
> > non-elected government *have* legitimacy?
>
> I don't think it's reversible. My best guess for how a government
> *loses* legitimacy is when it violates its own laws in turning against
> its own people on a widespread basis; for that reason I'm willing
> to postulate that the Federation has lost its legitimacy, at least
> insofar as Blake is concerned. That *doesn't* automatically confer
> that forfeited legitimacy on Blake. In particular, it doesn't give him
> authority over other citizens who either don't believe the Federation
> has lost its legitimacy, or who prefer (for whatever reason--including
> being drugged) to live under an illegitimate government rather than to
> rebel and risk suffering and death for themselves and their families.
You've both been saying a lot about legitimate vs illegitimate governments.
But what, exactly, is a legitimate government? I'm asking, because the
matter doesn't seem very clear. As a matter of fact, whenever this comes up
IRL, the answer usually seems to be that the guy with the biggest guns who
happens to be calling the shots in a particular area is the legitimate
government, except when we *really* don't like him, in which case we'll wait
a decade or so before calling his government legitimate. Except in those
cases where a bigger government with bigger guns says we shouldn't (like
with China and Taiwan). Quite a few of the extremely legitimate leaders of
today were once rebel leaders (or terrorists, depending on your POV) and in
some cases, such as Mandela, most people seem to think this is a good thing.
In other words, if Blake had succeeded and managed to form a government, he
would have been legitimate and all of his previous actions would suddenly be
considered either legitimate or necessary nastiness.
> No way to tell. We have significantly less information about Cauder's
> authority and responsibility than we do about Blake's. Perhaps he was
> the previous head of government when the Federation took over?
> Or it might be, that the Federation violated its own laws in order to
> prevent Albian from leaving, in which case, rebellion could
> be justified.
Not at all. Two wrongs do not a right make, and "he started it" is only an
acceptable defense when you're six years old. Rebellion is never justified
according to the laws one happens to be living under. That's why it's called
rebellion. Rebellion happens when your personal sense of justice tells you
that following the law would be worse than breaking it.
> In any case, Cauder's people attacked only a Federation base; the
> dialogue makes it quite clear that Cauder did *not* expect the solium
> device to be activated; and in any case, Cauder did not activate it
> himself; it was a brutal Federation response. Significantly different
> than the deaths which would be a *direct* result of destroying
> Star One, which would be Blake's direct action, not a Federation
> response.
That's taking a body count again. It was still a rebellion and even if the
solium device hadn't been activated, they could still have expected some
kind of retaliation from the federation, which was after all their
'legitimate' government. Being bombed later on would have made the
population of Albian just as dead as being killed by this solium thingy.
> I repeat; the difficulty I have with Star One is not the fact that
> people will die; it's Blake's lack of right to make that decision.
>
> I find it more than a little baffling (and amusing, in a twisted sort of
> way) the apparent discontinuity in the attitudes towards the events
> in Star One and those in Stardrive. Avon clearly has the authority
> to sacrifice Dr. Plaxton to save the others; and yet when I've said I
> believe he did the right thing, I get an argument.
Not from me. I completely agree with Avon's decision in that particular
case. Not so much because he has the authority (questionable, since the
others never seem to have gotten around to actually agreeing that he had
authority over them or their ship), but because it was the only thing to do.
There were only a few options open to him: not kill Dr. Plaxton and die at
the same time she did (only a few seconds later), or kill Dr. Plaxton and
save his own life and that of his crewmates (in that order of importance, no
doubt). I haven't been able to come up with a third alternative, and neither
could the bigmouths who second-guessed him until it dawned on them that
pressing the point meant arguing for their own deaths.
> Blake, OTOH, has
> no authority over either the 'many, many' who will die, or over the
> equally vague number he wants to free, and yet this is somehow a
> noble and heroic decision in many people's estimation.
Not in mine. Just a necessary one. There's never anything heroic about
fighting, legitimate or otherwise.
> IMHO, that
> is completely backwards. Can it possibly be that it's easier to accept
> the death of the faceless 'many, many' than a character with a face
> and a name and a few lines? Or is it just because Blake is a more
> traditional heroic type who seems warm where Avon seems cold?
Actually, that's precisely why I would trust Avon more that Blake. I find it
very difficult to predict the behaviour of the 'warm' types, and often don't
understand their decisions (such as the decision not to kill Servalan or
Travis when given the chance).
> > Compare Germany bombing Coventry and London. Coventry was
> a major industrial
> > city - many civilians died in the bombing, but it was a
> militry target. London
> > was bombed deliberately to kill civilians and was thus not
> a valid target (any
> > more than our own bombing of Dresden.)
>
> Obviously we disagree again; all the citizens of two countries
> at war are at war.
Huh? How does this justify randomly killing people? These days such actions
are quite rightly considered war crimes. Although I wonder how the main
powers would react if *they* were called to justice for such actions.
Jacqueline
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:18:44 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Cc: "Freedom City" <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Great Big Sale
Message-ID: <073e01bf65b5$2aaefbe0$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The last page of the Great Big January Sale is up, this time listing a
variety of videos which are being sold off. You can get to it via:
http://www.q-research.connectfree.co.uk/personal/jansale.htm
Do contact me off list if you're interested. Thanks everyone for their
patience as we've sorted out all the stuff and I've been posting across the
past couple of weeks.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:13:40 -0500
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re: capchered agane
Message-ID: <200001231113_MC2-95F3-43B2@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Una wrote:
>Brilliant, Neil.
He won't believe you, it all sounds like part of your cunning plot to me.
Harriet
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:14:18 -0500
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Good ol' Frank [Re: [B7L] Mental health & Governments]
Message-ID: <200001231114_MC2-95F3-43BC@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Penny muttered:
>I'll bet you stopped reading somewhere around the first
>instance of the word 'Zappa'
No, that was where I started paying attention, and trying to remember what
his son was called... Keep thinking Dweezil, but is that weird enough?
I once managed to get a picture of Frank Zappa into Computer Weekly, only a
small one unfortunately. Still brightened my day.
Harriet
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:15:14 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments)
Message-ID: <006901bf65bd$2f0d7a60$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lots of interesting stuff. What I meant when I said it 'couldn't be done'
was quite a narrow assertion - I meant hands-off mechanical intervention
using a machine or drugs to reset someone's thoughts. More human-oriented
methods like persuasion and conditioning clearly do work, to varying
degrees.
There's some stuff in William Burroughs about all this. Conditioning someone
to feel physically attracted to some-one else, and various other gruesome
things. I'm not sure if it ever has been done, but I would imagine you could
do it, but not using a machine in a couple of hours (cf Dayna) and of course
'love' is a different thing again.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:37:12 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: capchered agane
Message-ID: <07dc01bf65c0$2bc992a0$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Harriet,
> Una wrote:
> >Brilliant, Neil.
>
> He won't believe you, it all sounds like part of your cunning plot to me.
Sssshh...
Una
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:32:44 +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] History
Message-ID: <tYF4txA8szi4Ew8t@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <388ACF0C.60FF9B2F@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes
>I find it more than a little baffling (and amusing, in a twisted sort of
>way) the apparent discontinuity in the attitudes towards the events
>in Star One and those in Stardrive. Avon clearly has the authority
>to sacrifice Dr. Plaxton to save the others; and yet when I've said I
>believe he did the right thing, I get an argument.
But who do you get an argument from? Not necessarily the same people who
believe that Blake was right to attempt to destroy Star One. Or that it
was at least the lesser of two evils.
I believe quite firmly that Avon was right to take that decision, and I
don't understand why he's criticised for it (criticism for his attitude
is another matter). He can press the button, and Plaxton dies, or he can
leave it, and they all die. Whatever he does, he is taking the decision
to kill people. Plaxton is dead either way. He took the decision that
killed the fewest.
This is nothing to with him having the authority - it could be argued
that going by the standards you use to judge and condemn Blake, Avon in
fact does not have the authority, as Scorpio is a stolen ship and the
group is in many ways an anarchy. Any of the others could have tried to
stop him - they chose not to, and I don't find their attitude to Avon
particularly endearing.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 17:45:20 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments)
Message-ID: <4YW9d1Aw4zi4Ew+L@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <006901bf65bd$2f0d7a60$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>, Alison Page
<alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk> writes
>There's some stuff in William Burroughs about all this. Conditioning someone
>to feel physically attracted to some-one else, and various other gruesome
>things. I'm not sure if it ever has been done, but I would imagine you could
>do it, but not using a machine in a couple of hours (cf Dayna) and of course
>'love' is a different thing again.
Somebody (can't remember who, sorry) said that it was supposed to be
considerably longer than a couple of hours, but the need for a bit of
dramatic action and pacing meant that the part of the story that made
that clear never ended up on screen. I shall now tempt fate, and say
that dropping that chunk of exposition did not noticeably improve what
we did see.
The bit about love was playing on the fact that Dayna already had a
crush on Justin. Except that of course it was originally meant to be
Cally who had a crush on Justin, and they didn't do that wonderful a job
of rewriting the script - dirty old man...
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 05:24:03 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] The TRUTH abaout Travis
Message-ID: <000301bf65d2$694aa3a0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Time after time we come up aganste our sworen enemy Travis. It hav to be so
fustrating for him we always escape at last min and Servalan giv him clip
round ear. If he hav any sense he get prosthetik ear to go with arm and eye
so when Servalan wack him one she the one who go ooh ow ouch that hurt ect
not him.
But I digress hem-hem it is time for me to spare you no detale as I reveel
the teribble truth abaout this sinister specter in black in whom (grammar)
we liv in perenial dread. You may think when you look at Travis you see a
man with an eyepatch but you are wrong. You are insted looking at an
EYEPATCH with a MAN. This is why Travis is so meen he is in constant
conflict with his okular appendidge. This also explane great unsolved
mistrey of our epic saga, as shall now be reveeled in...
THE ADVENCHERS OF TRAVISES EYEPATCH
It all begin on brite sunny morn on garden planet birds singing bees huming
flufy bunies gambolling thruough the flowers. Then Travis come with three
mutoids in fowl temper (Travis that is not the mutoids they have no temper
at all. Remind me to check on how it is done the proces might do wonders
for Blake.)
TRAVIS: Look at this depraviti it must be stoped at once. Mutoids get to
work shoot birds swat bees stomp on dew-soked blooms and deprive rabits of
their fury paws.
MUTOIDS: Yessiryessiryessir
TRAVIS: Then bring in hairy primitivs to dig up whole valey make it look
like chalk quary plant lots of buddlia. (THORTS: Then Blake will not be
able to resist coming here and I can capcher him agane for the last time.)
NB This is Travises Grand Scheem eg turn whole galaxy into sogy chalkpit
there is deep Froidian reason for this he was shamlessly abused by a
blackbord at a tender age. Hairy Prims are also part of aformenshuned
Scheem he take them everywhere. There is probly deep Froidian reason for
this too but my brane draw a vale over this it mite be more than even a
whizzo computer feend dare contemplait.
Hairy Prims dont mind they get to see galaxy for free and enjoy tuoughing up
daring crusaders aganste Evil Federashun. You will I hope hav noted that we
only ever meet male of the speshees Hairy Prim Women are kept out of way
they only spoil things viz:
HAIRY PRIMITIVE: Strangeres from the stars have dissended among us I must go
tuough them up for defying He Who Hav One Eye One Arm Spit Fire From Finger
And Hav Dubius Fetish For Wet Chalk.
MRS HAIRY PRIMITIVE: Thats nice dere but do remember to pick up a pint of
semiskimed on the way back (she laugh at suptle in-joke that her hursute
spowse do not understand)
HAIRY PRIMITIVE: We dissend upon them on mass waving axis sords speers or if
all else fale throw pollystirene rocks. I must praktiss my inarticulat
grunting.
MRS HAIRY PRIMITIVE: Just so long as yore back in time to rehang kichen door
mend boiler repare leeky tap and tak dead starling out of water tank.
HAIRY PRIMITIVE: Grnnn hnarr nyaroowww
MIRS HAIRY PRIMITIVE: And no capchering the blond one with nice legs dont
think I dont kno wot you reelly get up to. Why cant you capcher a hansome
ruggid witty urbane ect whizzo computer feend instead hed be nice to hav
around the house.
But this is long way off still mutoids hav just begun desekrating happy
valley. Sudenly the Eyepatch hav had enuff.
EYEPATCH: No Travis no this wont do why must you polute all baeutiful things
with which you come into contact? The birds and bees have a rite to life,
and the unikorn-grazed herbidge is perfect for the pixies to danc on. Are
you not moved by nachure in all its innosunt radiance? Do you not wish to
cavort and frolik thruough the verdunt sunlit glades? (I must admit at this
stage that Travis hav a point in his favuour)
TRAVIS: No Eyepatch I dont and its no use you complaning you and I are feted
by destiny to be enjoined until Blake is no more.
EYEPATCH: Thats wot you mite think O uncooth Travisty of humankind (No one
ever sa eyepatches have no sense of humuour)
Befor Travis can act the Eyepatch leap off his head and scury away thruough
the lush foliage.
TRAVIS: Come back heer you rebelius okular apendidge or I will give you six.
EYEPATCH: Hah! Now I am detatched from yor head I see that you hav face
like a squished tomato. No wonder you have no culchur and kno 0 about Lat
Hist Div and the baeuty of the poets tender words. Thus do I now tary forth
to seek my muse.
Eyepatch scutle off saing ''Hello trees, hello clouds'' methinks it was made
on Auron it sound too much like Caly for comfort. Dodge mutoids hitch ride
on freindly buny and scamper scamper over the hills. At last it tak refuge
behind a sympathetic dandelion.
EYEPATCH: Let him seek me high and low (MY THORTS: Mostly low if you ask me
but you hav to giv artistic soles some licens) but I shall neer return to
adorn his tarnished brow. At last I am free to compose my rapturuous
peotry.
As you mite kno peotry is wet and cissy the Federashun have it banned why
sometimes my dear I wonder if they are reely evil at all. I find it paneful
to relate this bit, for Eyepatch begin to declame peom as best it kno how.
''O chatering brook O shady nook
Harf a leag harf a leag harf a leag on
I wandered lonly as an eyepatch
On Westminstre Brij not a drum was heard''
Sudenly Eyepatch is disturbed from its spiritaul revery, a strange oduour
come to its nose (or watever sense of smel it mite poses). Could it be?
Surly not? But yes on the gentul zephar of the breez come unmistakibul
smell of - LADIE EYEPATCH! Strange sensashun come over him, all thorts of
peotry get forsaken as he pursu this new and urgent quesst. He crest brow
of ridge and wot do he see? Helpless ladie eyepatch lie prostrat on ground
her thong is torn she is all raggid round the edges. Over her loom hulking
brute of male eyepatch he intend to hav his wickid way with her.
EYEPATCH: Leave her alon you feend you shall not ravidge her pristeen
baeuty.
HULKING BRUTE OF MALE EYEPATCH: Push off you littel wet you are fit only to
adorn face like squished tomato. Yor insippid peotry count for 0 aganste my
brorny mussles.
These tornts drive Eyepatch to frenzy of riteous anger. For first and only
time he thank Destiny for placing him on Travis he cannot help but hav
learned a trick or two. He scutle down slope at Tim Distort 7 ram Hulking
Brute
dead center and swing him by the thong. Hulking Brute land in fairy
todestule ring where he get majicked away to worst place in all of galaxy
(eg the underware drawer in Vilas cabin) Ladie Eyepatch sidle over to Our
Hero she is all gratitud.
LADIE EYEPATCH: O nobel stranger I thank thee for saving me from Hulking
Brute of Male Eyepatch. I am only dorter of the Eyepatch King and my father
will surly reword you for wot you hav done.
So he go with Eyepatch Princess and all the eyepatches proclame him a hero
polish him giv him nice faces to sit on ect and the King ofer him his
dorters watever passes for eyepatch as hand in maridge. Aha you think then
they all liv happy ever aft oh no you fule that only hapen in fairy tails
reel life is crule. Travis hav not abandoned pursiut he come with mutoids
to reek his revenge and Our Hero is slane. Eyepatch Princess is most
distrort she hav lost her one tru love. This hapen to me once so I kno how
bad it can get. Eyepatch Princess however is not whizzo computer feend she
get carried away by greif (suptle eh?) viz:
PRINCESS: O wo o wo my savier is cruly slane. Come patchlings dissend upon
this barbrus lowt (MY THORTS: 'assend' would be more applicibul) and cure
him of his savidge ways.
And so the eyepatches crorl all over Travis but he swat them off, all except
the Princess who cling on tite. In the prosess he is suptly changed his
face become diferent his hair get shuvved up into quiff he akwire cockny
aksent. He hav to go to psyco therapist to cope with this trormatic
transformashun.
But in the end nothing reely change. His eyepatch is smaller and prittier
but he still fome at mouth in constant conflict with okular apendidge and he
STILL hav face like squished tomato. I tell Blake all this in hope that he
abandon Nobel Cause and tak us all to planet where baeutiful gurls wear
littel or 0 all day and no one hav to pla foopball but he just shake curly
locks in disbeleef. Thats the prob with being whizzo computer feend
everyone expect you hav no imaginashun. Well my dear if I had 0 imaginashun
Id be dead in a week and where would Liberatar be then poor thing? So its
hello chips hello hard driv and wot do PN overides do anyway. I think Ill
take to wearing studed leather that will suit my stern visidge to a T.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:01:54 -0800
From: Susie Wright <piscescat@home.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Killer
Message-ID: <388B5E32.688B0A61@home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thanks, Lisa. Thanks, Steve.
And Kathryn, it was just a simple question. Of course there have been other plagues in human
history and there have been plenty of sci fi stories with plague as a theme. Of course they're
not all tied in to AIDS. How boring and unimaginative that would be! AIDS has affected so many
people in the past couple of decades (I lost a cousin to it) so people are still processing the
loss. It's hardly hysteria.
****
Shellagh Wells says the next B7 interview tape will be availabe in April 2000! Hooray!!
Susie
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #21
*************************************