From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #30
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/30
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 30
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] WuNames
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One - well, I
didn't mean to ramble)
[B7L] Re: Fan Types
Re: [B7L] WuNames
Re: [B7L] WuNames
[B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #29
[B7L] Wu Names
Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta?
[B7L] from the social pages?
[B7L] Re: Animals
Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Re: FC: [B7L] review of 12th Night
Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Re: [B7L] from the social pages?
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
[B7L] News from Horizon
Re: [B7L] News from Horizon (spoiler for play)
Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Re: [B7L] Wu Names
[B7L] Gareth
Re: [B7L] WuNames
[B7L] Wu Names
[B7L] farscape / duel / etc
[B7L] Animals... me too.
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] WuNames
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:22:37 EST
From: KKrause658@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] WuNames
Message-ID: <7e.85750d.25c63ddd@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Oh, compared to the rest of you, mine doesn't sound very rebellious
Big Wicker Ventriloquist
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 18:42:13 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Message-ID: <19990130.185716.14558.1.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:07:59 -0500 Harriet Monkhouse
>And as for killing Servalan - I have begun to wonder whether his
>argument
>"as long as he's alive, he'll be the one chasing me. And I know I can
>beat
>him." applies to her, too. I haven't worked through their encounters
>episode by episode, but it's my impression that she was far less
>successful
>against Blake than she was against Avon (Federation forces captured
>the
>Liberator three times after Blake had left).
>
Yes, but how many times did it happen while Tarrant was driving? You just
can't trust that kid with the keys.
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, 30 Jan 1999 15:40:04 -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: <19990130.185716.14558.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 03:26:14 -0800 mistral@ptinet.net writes:
>> The problem is majorities often don't realize they are stepping on a
>> minority's toes.
>
>Worse, IMHO, is the fact that majorities often do realize
>it--and simply do not care because they think they know better
>than the minorities.
>
Good point. Both are major pains, but there's something so upsetting
about people who walk all over you and never realize they're doing it
(and might not believe you if you told them) even though they aren't the
kind of people who would _knowingly_ walk all over someone. At least with
the one's who know they're doing it and don't care, you know whether to
kick them or not (of course, there's also the issue of thin skinned
people like me who may assume attempted assault before the first volley
has actually been launched, but let's keep this simple).
Actually, I have a great deal of sympathy for Cally in the series, since
I see her as being the minority dealing with a less than considerate
majority. When she spoke her mind, she got criticized for moralizing.
When she let the matter drop (possibly out of shere frustation) she was
criticized for having a lazy conscience.
Maybe she faked her death on Terminal just to get away from it all . . .
.
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: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 18:17:59 -0800
From: Susie Wright <piscescat@home.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Fan Types
Message-ID: <3894F0D7.87DBF418@home.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil,
All these animal stereotypes is making me visualize the members of the mail list as a bunch of
cartoon characters in front of their respective computers typing merrily away. Perhaps for
some, it isn't far from the truth! :)
Susie
So much to read, so little time...
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 20:23:14 -0600 (CST)
From: Susan.Moore@uni.edu
To: BLAKES7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] WuNames
Message-id: <01JLBU0TNGEA8Y9W3I@uni.edu>
I'm not sure about this a'tall.
I'm Asthmatic Enemy of God.
So, should I pay more attention to the inhaler adverts?
Susan M.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 13:49:25 EST
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] WuNames
Message-ID: <20000131024925.26996.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
>Go here to find out your WuName:
>http://www.recordstore.com/cgi-bin/wuname/wuname.pl
Putting just my first initial in the first name box produces "Optimistic
Lyricist".
Makes some sense on this list...
Regards
Joanne
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:36:40 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #29
Message-ID: <3894F538.6CBC@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Helen wrote:
>
> > Una, I tried the site. I am:
> >
> > Flailing Fanatical Killer
> >
> > Sounds like Cally in her first ep.
>
> Excellent one! Unfortunately, it won't let you do only single names, so I
> couldn't get it to do many of the crew or the computers. Or the baddies :(
>
>
> Una
I did Servalan last night simply by putting Servalan in both name slots.
I can't remember what she came out as, though. I also ran Dayna
Mellanby, which was Gratuitious (something). The adjective stuck in my
mind because there were certainly episodes where she seemed like a
gratuitious character.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 19:41:53 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-ID: <3894F671.5ABB@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Nicola wrote:
>
> > Anna Grant: Spunky Misunderstood Genius
>
> You made that one up!
>
>
> Una
Nope. I remember, I ran that too. I thought, "A-ha! Proof she did
genuinely convert to sincere rebel leader."
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:19:56 -0700
From: Penny Dreadful <pennydreadful@powersurfr.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Message-Id: <4.1.20000130213529.009b01c0@mail.powersurfr.com>
Message-Id: <4.1.20000130213529.009b01c0@mail.powersurfr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:43 PM 29/01/00 +0200, Kai V Karmanheimo wrote:
>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?
I have pondered this question at *great* length, but try to avoid delving
into it for fear of appearing monomaniacal (;-p)...
>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".
Except for the time-discrepancy you mention, this seems to be the most
plausible explanation. His bid to share power with Servalan in 'The Keeper'
did seem to be genuine, which would indicate he hadn't met the Andromedans
yet. In addition it explains Travis being on an unknown type of ship.
Anyhow, I like to try and work around temporal inconsistencies in B7 by
invoking relativity, or rather lack thereof.
>4) A Very Tired Chris Boucher Looks at the Various Scripts before Him and
>Says: "Sod It, It'll All Hang Together!"
Okay, I stand corrected -- *that* is the most plausible explanation...but
the other three were *much* more entertaining to read.
--
For A Dread Time, Call Penny:
http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 00:50:51 -0700
From: Penny Dreadful <pennydreadful@powersurfr.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Toying with Travis
Message-Id: <4.1.20000131002038.0096e610@mail.powersurfr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 07:59 PM 28/01/00 -0700, Ellynne G. wrote:
>1) I assume, in Gambit, Servalan's set up of Travis and the not so
>functional explosive involved an explosive that _would_ have gone off if
>Blake shot him (everyone else wanted him alive [for a little while, at
>least])
Another thing I've always wondered about. Presumably Servalan was
prevaricating for the benefit of Krantor's bug while doing whatever it was
they did with Travis' arm, but still, her overall plan leaves me scratching
my head like the estimable Jarriere.
--
For A Dread Time, Call Penny:
http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/
------------------------------
Date: 31 Jan 2000 10:04:53 +0100
From: Calle Dybedahl <calle@lysator.liu.se>
To: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
Cc: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Was Blake motivated by personal vendetta?
Message-ID: <86oga2628a.fsf@tezcatlipoca.algonet.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Ellis <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com> writes:
> My answer is ..... Yes, but so what.
You also sent a 63-line message, _one_ of which you had added
yourself. To make it even worse, you quoted upside-down. Don't do
either of that in the future.
--
Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se
Hello? Brain? What do we want for breakfast?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:08:00 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: freedom-city@blakes-7.org, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] from the social pages?
Message-ID: <20000131100800.7100.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
A small piece of news I felt I had to share with you all... I'm going to a
wake in February, for Gan.
('Tis actually the truly-and-for-real name of our old and obsolete computer
system at work, which is being turned off on about 25th, and the IT guys had
the idea. I just got an email inviting our office to the wake, and *just*
managed not to fall over laughing in front of everyone...)
If I wear black, does it need to be leather?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:09:37 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Animals
Message-ID: <20000131100937.18998.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Steve wrote:
<But surely you have to agree this was more than made up for by David
Boyce's excellent performance.>
<pained look> Oh, do I really, *really* have to?
Oh, well, if it's somehow obligatory...
David Boye's performance is - ummm - unique and - errr - quite without
parrallel. Good enough?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:42:59 +0000 (GMT)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000131104233.13100A-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
'Greasy Choirboy'
Hmmm.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 05:50:36 EST
From: Mac4781@aol.com
To: freedom-city@blakes-7.org, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: FC: [B7L] review of 12th Night
Message-ID: <20.17115f2.25c6c2fc@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There's also a review of Twelfth Night at:
http://www.edinburghnews.com/cgi-bin/t3.cgi/taf/se1.taf?_function=detail&Eveni
ng_uid1=EN00004245&_UserReference=C23D310546515CD9B1C6AD84B6043895674C
Carol Mc
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 11:04:26 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-ID: <0c3e01bf6be4$08542130$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Iain wrote:
> 'Greasy Choirboy'
>
> Hmmm.
D'you know, I was so convinced you'd made that up I went and checked it out.
And it's true! This thing is clearly clairvoyant.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 01:50:53 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <38955AFC.625960D5@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Julia Jones 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.
Well, yes. If you subscribe to the idea of psychological egoism
(I do), a person will always choose that course of action that best
reinforces the self-image; all decisions are ultimately about what
is best for the self. In which case altruism (when defined as putting
others ahead of self) doesn't actually exist. In which case Blake's
motives can't be altruistic; he sees himself as a man who cares
about freedom and justice, so he acts like a man who cares about
freedom and justice. That's not being phony, that's being true to self.
If, however, one presupposes true altruism can exist, then your
statement above is true; but so is the reverse--an egocentric action
can have benefits for others. Either way the benefits can coincide.
This is a case where I believe the motives are tangled together--
and all I've really said is that I think personal motivation has the
edge, and the reason I believe that is because under stress, which
is generally agreed as the time people are least likely to maintain
postures--under stress, it's the *I* motivations which come to the fore.
> >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.
Gold has been mentioned by a couple of people; if you just think of
it as piracy, then I can see why that would be disturbing. I've never
seen it in that light at all, however. It's always struck me as being
on a par with the Kairopan, the Feldon crystals, the ore ships they
kept missing at the beginning of Deathwatch--striking at the enemy
by 'liberating' Federation assets, a perfectly valid tactical maneuver.
Shrinker, I agree would be a valid target insofar as he is an agent
of the enemy; however it's clear that Avon's motivation there is
revenge. Targeting Shrinker alone serves no other purpose; and
while I can certainly understand the motivation and might even be
tempted to help him carry out his plan, I can't objectively call it moral.
> >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.
He's still making the same peremptory assumptions the Federation
is, however. At some point in the past, those people or their ancestors
gave an implied consent to Federation rule. They've never given it to
Blake. He has a right to fight the Federation; he doesn't have a right
to assume authority over all those lives he's planning to sacrifice at
Star One. You're making the same assumption Blake is--that you
know what those people would want. If you absolutely *knew* that
the majority didn't want to be 'freed', would you still think he has a
right to kill 'many, many people'? Where's your cutoff point? 70/30,
60/40, 50/50? He can't give them a choice if he's already killed them.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 02:20:44 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Message-ID: <389561FB.40C1DCF0@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly; I was talking about
motivations, not disputing the basis of their validity.
> > 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.
Do you really think that merits depriving Sarkoff of his right
to choose? If that's the case, then let's all take votes on who
should be assigned which job, who should marry who, etc.
Blake's treatment of Sarkoff is, for me, his most disturbing
action in the entire series.
> 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.
Why? Because you think the natives should behave in a way
*you* find desirable? None of them seemed particularly inclined
to agitate for change until Blake enforced his ideals on them. Not
very nice, IMO. He wasn't brought in at the ruler's request to
'civilize' a bunch of 'savages'. That's very nearly racist. That's
what the Federation tried to do to Horizon's culture.
I find it peculiar that people should find the Federation's coercion
of it's citizens so horrifying and Blake's coercion of people so
easily justifiable. That's scary. That's how things like the Federation
come about in the first place. IMHO we can only protect our own
freedoms by protecting other people's--including their right to make
*wrong* choices (and suffer the consequences when necessary.)
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:23:14 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <389570A1.E1C110CB@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote:
> > 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.
Vila raises the question of the teleport, and Avon says that Orac
can handle it. I don't see how that's appreciably riskier than them
sitting there in orbit. Possibly you may see it as irresponsible, and
I can accept that; however, it's neither killing nor threatening to
kill someone, which was what I was referring to.
But I think we've talked about Gambit before, with regard to
bullying. This is, I suspect, one of those cases where two people
can look at the same thing and say 'how could anyone not see it?'
As far as Vila playing speed chess, I don't see *any* indication
of Avon coercing Vila. None at all. I see Avon thinking very
hard about a way around the problem; that in itself indicates a
reluctance to sacrifice Vila. Vila's expression clears up and he
loses his drunken/drugged demeanour; and if you'll check the
archived script, you'll see that it says Vila: [suddenly sober], so
I'm not the only one who sees it. Avon asks him what happens,
and he tells him that he was drugged, so he's aware of what's
going on--and aware enough to point out that the Klute's not a
computer. Vila is a career criminal, accustomed to taking risks
for big gains; my interpretation of this whole thing is that Vila
made a choice to trust Avon's judgment that Orac could pull it
off. Of course he was scared (wouldn't you be?) but I certainly
don't think he was more scared of Avon than of being electrocuted.
IMHO, Avon was certain enough about the outcome that he'd have
played if he'd been the one stuck in the chair, and Vila sensed that.
> > 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.
I can respect looking at evidence, but of what exactly? Evidence
that little corruptions turn into big ones? That once a precedent
is set it will be used? That sort of evidence is all around us.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:39:10 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)
Message-ID: <3895745D.67329956@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote:
> > 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 didn't say no skills; I said skills that could be *traded for safety*.
XK-72 is a neutral base that it would not be in the Federation's
interest to attack. They can't any of them get legitimate jobs on
Federation worlds, or worlds likely to become Federation worlds.
Gan in particular has nothing special to trade. They will always
be fugitives; staying on Liberator gives them something to fight
back with. You'll notice that even Avon realized he was safer
on Liberator.
> > 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.
<g> Oh, be realistic. Where are they gonna go with Avon right
there in front of his eyes? It's Vila who's good at sleight-of-hand.
I always feel bad for Avon in that scene--how insulting and humiliating.
> 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.
But they didn't all stay because they wanted to fight the Federation.
That's very clear, from Time Squad, Breakdown, Trial. That was
Blake's goal--not Avon's, not Vila's, and only marginally Jenna's.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 03:51:35 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Message-ID: <38957746.7CA77A27@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> 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.
Mm. You're half right. I think his compassion is completely
genuine; I do not see it as an 'excuse' at all. I don't see it as
the driving force, however, as I explained in my reply to Julia.
> 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.
Whereas I think he is not nearly that naive; the system isn't
hurting anybody. It's the people that have corrupted the use
of the system for their own selfish motives. The system has
no will of its own. Therefore the enemy is the *people* in
power; that includes Servalan, Travis, the President, and many
others. His reluctance to remove them when he has the
opportunity to do so is disingenuous.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:10:09 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] from the social pages?
Message-ID: <389597C0.78F85269@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> If I wear black, does it need to be leather?
Gan strikes me as more the imitation suede type. Floor-length, with boots.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:08:26 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Message-ID: <38959759.58243E7E@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> <Morals are absolute. Facts change.>
>
> But our own morals are based on the truth as we know it. If
> *we've* got it all wrong, how do we know?
<g> If you really believe that morals are relative to their time,
then what's the point in judging the Federation by the morals
of our own? Why assume that slavery and drugged populations
are bad things? Perhaps Blake and the other rebels are really
a small minority of an otherwise contented population, and our
identification with them has been manipulated by the story
being told by their point of view.
I'll have to agree with Kathryn, morals do not change. It's
our understanding of them that ebbs and flows. And a great
challenge and responsibility to understand their mystery.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 06:01:03 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <3895959E.9E0318FF@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> <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.
Eh? Rumors I've already mentioned as an exception; however
Killer, Children of Auron and Traitor are clear cases of 'crosses
his well-being'. I've no idea what you're referring to re Spacefall
and Pressure Point. Will you enlighten 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.
I'll agree that they're all responsible for their own actions;
so were all the citizens of Nazi Germany. It doesn't make
Hitler any *less* responsible for the fact that he led Germany
in a direction that it (hopefully) wouldn't otherwise have gone.
You cannot excuse Blake for pushing people into doing things
they didn't want to do, simply because they gave in. That's
devolving into 'might makes right'.
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:10:12 EST
From: Mac4781@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, freedom-city@blakes-7.org
Subject: [B7L] News from Horizon
Message-ID: <cb.16d39e9.25c6f1c4@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Horizon asked me to pass along the following news:
Gareth Thomas is to play the Psychiatrist in 'Equus' at the Playhouse
Theatre, Salisbury (Box Office 01722 320333) from 24 March/08 April. Anyone
wanting to join the Horizon group outing (which will probably be on Sat. 1st
April) should contact Pauline Tucker at tuckers@easynet.co.uk or drop her a
line at 230 Lucey Way, Bermondsey, London SE16 3UG.
Stephen Greif will be appearing in 'The Last Sortie' at the New End Theatre,
Hampstead, 11 February/05 March. Box Office 020 7794 0022. It's an
American piece about a group of ex-bomber pilots who return for a reunion
and an enquiry.
Carol Mc
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 09:26:39 EST
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, freedom-city@blakes-7.org
Subject: Re: [B7L] News from Horizon (spoiler for play)
Message-ID: <ac.b19812.25c6f59f@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/31/00 9:15:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, Mac4781@aol.com
writes:
<< Gareth Thomas is to play the Psychiatrist in 'Equus' at the Playhouse
Theatre, Salisbury (Box Office 01722 320333) from 24 March/08 April. Anyone
wanting to join the Horizon group outing (which will probably be on Sat. 1st
April) should contact Pauline Tucker at tuckers@easynet.co.uk or drop her a
line at 230 Lucey Way, Bermondsey, London SE16 3UG. >>
Huh! I saw this play during its original run on Broadway, and that role was
played by Leonard Nimoy. It was disturbing to see him onstage, fully clothed,
during he full nudity scene, but he played it with complete dignity and
professionalism.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 08:48:15 -0600
From: Susan Moore <Susan.Moore@uni.edu>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-id: <3895A0AF.62F7B68B@uni.edu>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Una McCormack wrote:
> Iain wrote:
>
> > 'Greasy Choirboy'
> >
> > Hmmm.
>
> D'you know, I was so convinced you'd made that up I went and checked it out.
> And it's true! This thing is clearly clairvoyant.
Though not perfect. I'm not asmathic. But the site has obviously been told
about Iain.
Susan M.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 15:11:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000131151103.13100E-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Susan Moore wrote:
>
>
> Una McCormack wrote:
>
> > Iain wrote:
> >
> > > 'Greasy Choirboy'
> > >
> > > Hmmm.
> >
> > D'you know, I was so convinced you'd made that up I went and checked it out.
> > And it's true! This thing is clearly clairvoyant.
>
> Though not perfect. I'm not asmathic. But the site has obviously been told
> about Iain.
My reputation precedes me.
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 10:29:12 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Gareth
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0131102912-313Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Gareth Thomas will be appearing in Equus at Salisbury Playhouse from 24th March
to 8th April. He's playing the psychiatrist. box office is 01722 320333
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: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 19:51:16 -0000
From: "Julie Horner" <jihorner@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] WuNames
Message-ID: <00c201bf6c24$8a1f6900$4e8abc3e@orac>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Nicola said:
>Anna Grant: Spunky Misunderstood Genius
Hey, that's exactly what I get!
I always *knew* I had a special affinity
with Avon now that just proves it.
Julie Horner
P.S. But my real-life other half is
a "Dependable Skeleton"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:42:15 -0000
From: "Deborah Day" <d.day@ukgateway.net>
To: "blakes7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Wu Names
Message-ID: <000201bf6c2c$22eecf20$3a4795c1@oemcomputer>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There seems to be a lot of duplication going on, but am I the only Asthmatic
Enemy of God?
Debbie.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:59:17 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] farscape / duel / etc
Message-ID: <001b01bf6c2e$27b482a0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Anybody see Farscape on BBC2 this evening? This episode was based on the
'Duel' eopisodes of Trek and B7. I thought it was a bit more plausible, but
not as gripping as 'Duel'.
I quite like the way that SF has its own super-canon, and the way that TV
writers draw on it. I know other people might find it dull to have the same
motifs and plots recycled. I suppose originality is best, but second best is
for the writers to at least understand the tradition in which they operate.
I think B7 did this quite well, it nodded to the canon and then shoved it a
bit off-centre. Farscape too, to give it its due.
I was reading a review of a famous old SF story - 'the Cold Equations' - and
thinking about 'Orbit'. They never really get the science quite right.
Interestingly the reviewer said there was a lot of criticism of 'Cold
Equations' along the lines of 'why didn't they strip all the stuff out of
the shuttle and dump it out the airlock'. I guess Holmes (was it him?) must
have read not only the story but the criticisms of it.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:41:33 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Animals... me too.
Message-ID: <000101bf6c30$e18541e0$428a01d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton said...
>My package with Stardrive/Animals arrived yesterday. Stardrive I remembered
>rather too well from some years back (and it gave me no pleasure) but
>Animals had been wiped from my memory as if by sheer force of will. So I
sat
>down to remember...oh wow. I remember why I forgot.
>
I saw it last night too. Cosmic coincidence ?
Now Una has not paid me anything, but really, it wasn't as bad as all that.
Not really it wasn't.
OK
Yes it was.
But only after Servalan captures Dayna. And then the poor acting and gushy
behaviour can be put down to the brainwashing. Now the real point is this.
Given that Servalan had top Federation mind altering equipment with her,
does anybody believe she would not take the opportunity to plant some
subliminal suggestion into her mind to betray Avon's base. Such delayed
action worked well with Blake, in response to oscillating pulse tones
(although I thought all tones oscillated, but I'm a techy).
Come to think of it, she had all of that stuff on Terminal as well, and
could have got to Avon. So did the master puppet master herself slip up. Or
was it all a plot all along. The real coup would be to get Blake, and
perhaps Servalan planted a seed of distrust into Avon, and got Dayna to send
messages related to Blake to Central Control. So when Avon goes after Blake,
Dayna secretly tells Servalan (and what a mental struggle that would be !),
who promptly briefs the local agents. They get close to Blake (hence the
coincidental timing). When Avon meets Blake, his conditioning from Terminal
kicks in, prompted by Tarrant. The rest, is ........... the new film ?
Any other theories for what other things Servalan could have done / did with
that mind control equipment ?
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:25:47 +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: <m73KFRArvgl4EwWf@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <38955AFC.625960D5@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes
>He's still making the same peremptory assumptions the Federation
>is, however. At some point in the past, those people or their ancestors
>gave an implied consent to Federation rule.
They did? Where in the series does it say that? Or do you think that
forced consent is still consent? It's quite possible that the "consent",
implied or otherwise, was that of people who found themselves in a
situation where they were too scared to say no. Or who didn't realise
what was going on, until it was too late to say no.
The UK government is trying to pass legislation which will create a new
offence *and* reverse the long-standing presumption of innocent until
proven guilty - and which will increase the penalty for the "crime" from
two years to five years if you tell anyone that you've been charged with
the offence in question. Another part of the legislation involves
forcing ISPs to pay for installing equipment to allow the police to tap
1 in 500 calls to those ISPs. *Without* having to get a full warrant of
the type required to tap someone's telephone. I doubt if many in the UK
are aware of this. Go look at my ISP's website, http://www.demon.net,
and look in the press releases. It has very serious implications for
civil liberties. Since we live in something vaguely approximating a
democracy (albeit one without a secret ballot), presumably you'd argue
that the UK voters consented to this - even though only a minority of
them will have heard of this, let alone understood the implications.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 23:36:09 -0000
From: "David A McIntee" <Master@allisurvey.freeserve.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] WuNames
Message-Id: <E12FQQ7-00021L-00.2000-01-31-23-39-47@cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
> From: Una McCormack <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
> To: lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
> Subject: [B7L] WuNames
> Date: 30 January 2000 01:01
>
> Go here to find out your WuName:
>
> http://www.recordstore.com/cgi-bin/wuname/wuname.pl
At first "David McIntee" came up as "Ol' Mucky Terrahawk" - but then I
thought, hang on, maybe that's my dad, who has the same name! So I typed in
"David Andrew McIntee" and got... "Excitable Misunderstood Genius!". Just
to confirm the theory, I then put "David Ritchie McIntee" (my dad's full
name) and got O'l Mucky Terrahawk.
So obviously the real me is Excitable Misunderstood Genius (exactly the
same as Lesley)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 23:17:31 -0500
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One)
Message-ID: <200001312317_MC2-9728-C662@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
If I can challenge myself:
>And as for killing Servalan - I have begun to wonder
> whether his argument "as long as he's alive, he'll be
>the one chasing me. And I know I can beat him."
> applies to her, too.
Of course, that undermines my previous argument that removing individuals
has no significant effect. So I really meant that removing individuals
didn't change the nature of the regime but might affect his own chances of
surviving (and thus beating it).
Harriet
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #30
*************************************