From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #34
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume00/34
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 34
Today's Topics:
[B7L] Beatles7
[B7L] News on the Q study
Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three))
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7
Re: [B7L] Beatles7
Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different
[B7L] Cult TV
[B7L] Muir's book
[B7L] Zine review: Avon Millennium Special
Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7
Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two)
[B7L] Reviews
Re: Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three))
Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7
[B7L] Re-Introduction and Muir's Book
RE: [B7L] Reviews
[B7L] Cult TV 2000
[B7L] Missing mail
[B7L] B7 related quote
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 22:45:42 +0100
From: Angria@t-online.de (Tanja Kinkel)
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Beatles7
Message-ID: <12GU4M-01QonRC@fwd06.sul.t-online.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Except that by the time the Beatles were producing songs with any substance
> to them, they were written by either Lennon *or* McCartney, though both were
> credited. And of the two, give me Lennon any day of the week.
Except that George Martin - who certainly was in the best position to know -
said that Lennon was naturally lazy and without the constant challenge and
competition with McCartney wouldn't have written much (he also said McCartney,
on the other hand, would have written as much, but not as well); they were each
the other's best critics.
Tanja
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:53:31 -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] News on the Q study
Message-ID: <056101bf6e91$1e9afbd0$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I'm delighted to be able to say that my article:
'Reality is a dangerous concept': Accounts of appreciation amongst an online
fan community
which is based on the Q study in which so many of you so generously
participated, has been accepted for publication in a special edition on
audience research in 'Diegesis', a cultural studies journal.
Many, many thanks to everyone who did a Q sort, and then to everyone who
responded to the write-ups. To put it mildly, I'm dead chuffed!
Una
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 13:42:38 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three))
Message-ID: <3899F64E.F8C94D3@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> Mistral wrote:
> > <sigh> Well, if they are lies, damned lies, and statistics, they aren't
> > mine. I was channel-surfing a few weeks ago and ran across the
> > end of a documentary about gun rights. It did show statistics for
> > several types of violent crimes that had increased in Australia since
> > the last laws were passed; from burglary through murder with rises
> > as high as 19%, plus listing home invasions as becoming a problem
> > whereas they were previously nearly unheard of. There were also
> > interviews with several citizens, including one police officer who
> > said that police were against the laws because they'd made their
> > job more dangerous and difficult.
>
> That sounds like tabloid-level false association to me. Gun control is
> tightened, violent crime increases, ergo gun control provokes violent crime?
> Only if all other factors remain the same. Crime and the causes of crime
> are complex, subject to subtle shifts in economic and cultural conditions.
> The way in which statistics are compiled and collated can also make a huge
> difference (as has happened here in the UK recently). The willingness of
> victims to report a crime can change over time as cultural attitudes shift
> (I believe rapes are more frequently reported now than they were in the
> past).
You are of course completely correct (surprised?); OTOH, all
other factors *never* remain the same in this sort of situation,
which means not only that it would be equally invalid to suggest
that gun control lowers crime, but invalid to draw any sort of
cause-and-effect relationship between laws (or other artificial
or natural stimuli) and results on the general population. Yet it's
done all the time, including here on lysator.
When you say 'tabloid-level false association' are you referring to
an actual disregard for accuracy of facts, or are you jumping to
the conclusion that a media conclusion that differs from the
majority opinion must necessarily be either based on faulty data or
biased? All reporting is inevitably biased; based simply on the law
of averages, the majority of (free) media reporting should therefore
be biased in favour of majority opinion (and thus reinforce trends,
whether good or ill, true or false), wouldn't you say? [ObB7: in a
culture such as the Federation, of course, media reporting is 'biased'
in favour of official policy, which doesn't make it true.]
If we had the raw data, we could perhaps discuss how it could
best be interpreted; but we'd probably have an equal disagreement
about that, and in any case, we don't have the raw data, and are
restricted to interpretative sources.
> With a television broadcast you also have to consider the
> programme's undeclared agenda, which decides what information it chooses to
> focus on, who gets interviewed etc.
Again, I agree completely. However, you'll have surely noticed
that a source supporting the majority opinion is subjected to far
less severe scrutiny than one supporting an annoying minority
opinion. Case in point, surely my documentary is *potentially* as
valid as Jacqueline's magazine article or Kathryn's 'savvy person
who listens to the news' [see note]. We know nothing about either,
and yet neither I nor anybody else has criticized them for relying
on those sources as evidence. (Please know that I am not accusing
you of criticizing me.) Since my topic was not, in fact, gun-control,
but a demonstration of the differences in how far people will allow
themselves to be pushed in the matter of deprivation of (perceived)
rights, I did not consider that I needed to be concerned about whether
the source was *unimpeachable* on the matter of gun-control. It
was in the nature of a throwaway remark (which of course is the kind
most rabidly seized on and run with in a disagreement around here.)
(And since, unlike B7, we have no official canon of sources, no two
people will likely agree entirely on what sources are valid.)
> And I would never trust a copper's
> opinion about anything as a matter of principle.
Yet another thing about which we agree; I admit it was a little
naive of me to think better of an Australian copper's opinion
than I would of an American copper's. (And I'm pleased to see
that you do have at least one principle <eg>.) [ObB7: Does it
strike others, as it strikes me, that the job of Federation Trooper
attracts bullies? Does the screening process hunt for this trait
or is it a result of the training? Is that a commentary on modern
law-enforcement types?]
I'd like to publicly thank you for the carefully neutral tone
(intentional or not) of your last couple of posts on these matters
(particularly considering how rarely we do agree), something
for which I generally strive but often fail. 'I must try to emulate
your clarity of thought'.
Elsewhere, the Chocolatey Nazi said:
> in the ongoing debate of Mistral v Rest of the World,
<pout> Oh, do let's call it Mistral v Rest of the Lyst, else
I shall have to buy computers for all my Luddite friends, so
they can come and convince you that I am not alone.
Mistral
[Note re 'savvy persons': this is perhaps somewhat similar to
the way in which I handle topics in which I have no interest
or background (such as history). I consult my own collection
of 'experts': professional or otherwise, people who have vastly
more interest and background than I ever could. My niece with
the law degree for constitutional law and US history; an English
professor friend for Lit; a friend with seven kids, a passionate
interest in parental rights, and good research skills for those issues;
etc. Some might accuse me of laziness and apathy; I consider it
good use of resources. On my own, I could never duplicate their
knowledge; there are too many subjects and too little time. No,
I don't check their sources. I trust them to do that.][ObB7: How
thoroughly do you suppose Blake checked Jenna's pilot's license
before accepting her word that she could pilot the London? Was
he remiss in not studying piloting himself before trying to take
over the ship? Or should he have gotten a degree in computing
and sabotaged the computer himself rather than trusting Avon?
And what level degree did Cally have in rebelling?]
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 15:06:37 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)
Message-ID: <389A09FD.334E5DA4@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Mom: I'm off to spin-land, after this note to Joanne, who
I'm not sure I shall see there.
--Misty
J MacQueen wrote:
> I don't know that I'd trust even a documentary as an information source
> these days. I would've hoped that Mistral wouldn't have taken it at face
> value either.
I don't take anything at face value. OTOH, I didn't consider that
what was only intended to be a peripheral comment which was
*not* about B7 and only intended to *illustrate* a point *about*
B7 needed to be thoroughly backed with hard data. Please see
my post to Neil.
> >http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
>
> Having looked at the same site, I'm with those who come down on the side of
> "well-regulated militia" as the most important bit.
Again, my intent was not to discuss gun control. However, until
the US Supreme Court rules, anything on either side is merely
opinion. That said, it might be worth pointing out that according
to several 'real-live old people' I know, this idea that the second
amendment refers to only a militia is fairly recent; about 30-35
years. And, per my dad who started work as a deliveryman in
his teens, virtually every home he entered during the thirties and
early forties had at least one rifle or shotgun hanging on the wall
or propped up in the corner of the living room. The 'right to bear
arms' was widely understood to be unassailable in those days.
> Ultra-right-wing
> loonies, individual madmen and unco-ordinated members of the general public
> do not a well-regulated militia make.
As I understand it, (verified by my source, quote from the
100 Yale Law Journal available upon request,) when the Constitution
was written, the militia would have been understood to mean every
adult male citizen (co-ordination, madness, lunacy notwithstanding.)
Presumably if they'd had the idea of equality, it would have meant
females over sixteen, as well. The term 'militia' would have been
considered synonymous with 'the people', which in the Constitution
*never* is used to refer to the states or the nation.
Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed;
everyone who is able may have a gun."
James Madison: "The advantage that Americans have over every
other nation is that they are armed."
> Worse still, it is not a right that
> people should be armed, nor even a need. It is, purely and simply, a want.
It might perhaps be useful to distinguish between 'basic human
rights' (which I suspect you mean) and 'rights guaranteed by a
government to its citizens', to which I was referring.
> Especially now. The British are supremely unlikely to come back to take
> statehood away from a small group of former colonies - they've had their own
> problems over the last couple of centuries.
As Ellynne's already noted, in those days, there was as much or
more concern about protecting citizens from the Federal government
as from invaders. And you'll note that Americans *were* attacked
on their own soil during the century just ended. Not by foot soldiers,
I'll grant you; but the suggestion that we're somehow impervious to
attack is erroneous. [ObB7: How would you expect Teal and Vandor
to defend themselves against the Federation? Having done away
with war, should they outlaw armaments as well?]
I know 'many, many people' (<g> well, okay, just many people)
who are concerned about maintaining gun rights for a *variety*
of reasons. None of us are in a militia; very few of us are gun
owners (I'm not); and only a couple of us are ultra-right-wing
loonies (that one depends on your definition). Perhaps I am the
only person on the lyst that feels that way (although I suspect
I'm just the only one simple enough to say so) but the pro- and
anti-gun groups are fairly well balanced, which is why the public
debate is still ongoing.
>From the Feb. 4 issue of Human Events: "Between 1980 and
1995, of 39 law review articles, 35 noted the Supreme Court's
prior acknowledgment of the *individual* right of the 2nd
Amendment, and only four claimed the right is a collective right
of the states (three of these four were authored or co-authored
by employees of the gun-control lobby)."
> >At any rate, the B7-related point I was trying to make was that
> >people will differ about how much infringement of their rights
> >they will accept before they think it's worth rebelling.
>
> Is it rights, or is it autonomy? The American colonies rebelled because they
> didn't want their taxes to go into British revenues any longer, they didn't
> want to be a dumping ground for convicts any longer, they no longer wanted
> whatever had a negative bearing upon the desire for self-government. All
> British colonies went through this, but most fought with words rather than
> guns.
That implies you're criticizing the American Revolution? To what
end? You've *never* seen me defend the American Revolution
on any grounds, for the simple fact that I consider it unjustifiable.
> What is Blake fighting for? Rights, or autonomy? So, then, is autonomy a
> right? Is he, and those like him, simply ahead of his time and others, where
> not drugged into compliance, will come to realise that they want
> self-government too?
My operating assumption has always been that the Federation
has at least a pretense of being a nation of laws, else why the
need to operate covertly in at least several instances? I don't in
fact consider autonomy a right. Closer to a want.
Quite *apart* from that, I am firmly of the opinion that what
scant canonical clues there are point to the Federation having
begun as some form of self-government, and having gone wrong
from there.
> Regards
> Joanne
> (wishing that "right to bear arms" also invoked Godwin, as it seems to do
> similar damage to arguments as the H-word)
And on that note, I'd like to apologize to anyone who feels
I've been monopolizing the bandwidth; it certainly seems
that way even to me. When I joined lysator, a fellow lystian
(who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty--and because
I don't remember who it was) told me that folks shouldn't write
to you if they don't want a reply. So...I'm never quite sure when
it's more polite to reply or not. And every time I've thought this
was winding down someone else joined in. I do *try* to be polite.
Hard to believe it was all because I objected to the implication
that disagreeing with one of Blake's actions is Blake-bashing.
(No! Noooooo! Not again.....................)
Mistral
--
"Who do you serve? And who do you trust?"
--Galen, 'Crusade'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 22:17:51 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7
Message-ID: <$Et8qjAP6fm4Eweu@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <l03130301b4bf92e6c7f4@[212.159.73.161]>, Nicola Collie
<nicola@dunedinite.free-online.co.uk> writes
>I've been lurking in afb7 for a few weeks now - is it quite low-traffic? I
>just checked my newsreader - I have 7 messages over the last week or so. Is
>that what others are seeing, or is my newsfeed missing posts?
I'm seeing very low traffic through the Demon newsserver. Since one of
the lurkers is a Demon newsbod, I think we can probably assume that the
feed through Demon is working reasonably well:^)
This also means that the person who used a Demon account to post a
binary in a non-binary group earlier this evening may regret doing so...
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:21:31 +1030
From: "Martin Dunn" <Martindunne@bigpond.com>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Beatles7
Message-Id: <23533928135592@domain2.bigpond.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----------
> From: Neil Faulkner <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
>
> Except that by the time the Beatles were producing songs with any
substance
> to them, they were written by either Lennon *or* McCartney, though both
were
> credited. And of the two, give me Lennon any day of the week.
Yesterday I encountered a local government phone waiting music tape that
was plastic chimes of Paul's special catalogue.
Has anyone else ever heard of such a thing?
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:08:41 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different
Message-ID: <000201bf6edb$0e504ce0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
TigerM wrote:
> > Other than these, were there any computers in the series that spoke? I
> > don't remember any, so I'm voting for Avon knowing what he was talking
> > about when it came to Federation computers.
>
> The android Vinni seemed to be self-aware in Death-watch. Opinions differ
on
> whether or not he was entirely mechanical.
If we're counting androids as well (and I suppose we ought to) then the
android Avalon said quite a bit. Muller's creation got a bit vocal too.
Neil
"...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of
evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an
orange)."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:06:58 +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] Cult TV
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0203210658-339Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
I recieved the following yesterday from the guest liaison for Cult TV.
>
> Judith
>
> Bad news I am afraid, I received a letter yesterday advising that Paul Darrow
> will be unable to attend this year's Cult TV due to work commitments. This is
> obviously a bit of a blow to our guest list and I will be making a suitable
> announcement to our e-mail list later tonight. AS you have promoted our events
> on your site I thought it polite to let you know before hand.
>
> WE are obviously aware of the large number of Blake's Seven fans that have
> registered for the event and it will be a priority to ensure that they are
> catered for in addition to the presence of Stephen Greif.
>
> It is not all doom and gloom as I have several other big guest names in the
> pipeline, I can't really say who they are yet as the ink is not yet dry on
> contacts etc.
>
> Anyway, Watch out for a more positive guest announcement in the next few
> weeks.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul J
> Cult TV
I'll be updating my web site tomorrow to show the change in the guest list.
Cult TV is an enjoyable weekend run by an experienced team and those who went
last year will tell you it's fun (apart from Pontins' food and beds, but they'll
be at a better site next year which should solve that).
They're obviously trying to get another B7 guest - let's wish them luck.
Judith
PS. Two guests down at different conventions in less than a week! Such is life
- work always has to come first for actors.
Gareth Thomas is still a confirmed guest for Redemption '01. Fingers crossed
<grin>
PPS. If you've never been to a convention and wonder what it's like, there's
lots of convention reports on my web site from many conventions on three
different continents. I also try and post news on any future conventions with a
Blake's 7 guest or of particular interest to fans. (eg. Eclecticon is a
non-guest con but always has Blake's 7 discussions in the programme. Bats has
Gareth Thomas as a guest.)
--
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: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 07:37:56 +0000
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Muir's book
Message-ID: <389A818A.491ADEED@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My copy of John Kenneth Muir's B7 book arrived yesterday. However, it
didn't have a dust cover. Are other people's copies the same?
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
"In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like
ponies"
The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:37:49 -0800
From: "Sarah Thompson" <sthompson162@mindspring.com>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Cc: <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>, <annbown@aol.com>,
"Judith Proctor" <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Subject: [B7L] Zine review: Avon Millennium Special
Message-ID: <000801bf6eea$50fb1ca0$67aacdcf@y1i7s9>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Zine review: =Millennium Special=
In the field of B7 zines, 1999 went out in style, with the
publication of this gorgeous new edition of some old favorites.
The Avon Club's =Millennium Special= is a must for Tarrant fans,
and highly recommended for fans of Avon and Servalan as well.
This genzine reprints a novella and story by Gillian Marsden, "The
Chameleons," from 1986, and "Deadly Night Shades," from 1983. I
searched literally for years for these zines and never did find
originals; I'd been making do with blurry multi-generation
photocopies, so I'm thrilled with the neat, legible new edition.
Many thanks to author Gillian Marsden for giving permission for the
new edition, and to editor Ann Bown for doing such a good job of
producing it. The zine is A4 size, with comb binding, and has a
full-color cover with a very nice composite photo of Avon and
Tarrant against a background of a colorful planet (which rather
reminded me of Wendy Duffield's encaustic paintings).
According to the editor's introduction, the author was anxious that
the stories, written so long ago, might now seem dated. She need
not have worried. If anything, "The Chameleons" in particular is
even more enjoyable now, since we can imagine it being enacted by
the actors as they are today.
The story is set nine years after GP (but it could just as well
have been 15 to 20 years, and that was how I imagined it myself as
I read). I very much like the original science-fictional details,
reminiscent of the work of such writers as Judith Seaman and
Lillian Shepherd. The story maintains interest by cutting back and
forth between scenes with various different characters, including
some very believable original ones, much as the show itself did.
The author has a good ear for dialogue, too; Avon gets some snappy
lines that I can just hear him saying.
It is hard to describe this story without spoilers as there are so
many plot twists throughout-- the reader is surprised every few
pages. I'll try to give some idea of it without giving too much
away.
Just around the time of GP, we gradually learn, the Federation
encountered a humanoid alien civilization of comparable size and
power, the Nine Dynasties of Rhak. Following years of war, the two
were united in the Federated Rhakian Alliance. As the story opens,
we meet the elderly Rhakian who is currently President of the
Alliance, and the seductive Federation Commissioner who has
enthralled him; but she is not who you might think, although this
does not become clear until later. The two of them meet a
surprising fate which puts a serious crimp in certain Federation
plans.
We then meet Federation Squadron Commander Lash of the famed 98th
Squadron, and he is not exactly what he seems either. Avon,
however, is immediately recognizable. He escaped the Federation
when a prison ship crashed on a distant planet, and he is now
engaging in massive computer thefts with the help of his beautiful
alien lover. This happy life is brought to an end when he is
captured by the 98th and recognizes the tall, thin, scarred
Squadron Commander as someone he used to know.
Avon and Tarrant become enmeshed in Federation plots against the
Rhak and Servalan's plot to regain power within the Federation. As
the two of them try to work out what to do, Tarrant must struggle
against deeply ingrained conditioning and serious medical problems,
and Avon must cope with Servalan's lingering passion for him. The
ending is a tragic one, but it is highly satisfying, at least to
this wallow addict.
My one complaint: I disliked the inaccurate use of the term
"galaxies" for the respective territories of the Federation and the
Rhak; I'd prefer "galactic sectors" or some such thing. I mentally
changed it as I read, and it didn't actually bother me all that
much.
"Deadly Night Shades," the second story in the zine, is set in an
alternate fourth series that actually manages to be even bleaker
than the original. It opens with the death of Tarrant's lover (not
Zeeona but an original character), leading to his separation from
the rest of the Scorpio crew as Soolin and Avon head back to Xenon
without him. On the way, Soolin is badly injured in an accident,
and Avon must leave her in a hospital. Meanwhile, Dayna is back on
Xenon guarding a Federation prisoner, and Vila is stranded with
local rebels on a planet where the Federation is running a nasty
little scam involving the drug known as Deadly Night Shades. Avon,
temporarily alone, confronts Servalan over the drugs; but their
perverse attraction to each other takes its steamy course during an
eventful night, and once again they pass up opportunities to kill
each other. By the end of the story the remaining Scorpio crew are
reunited, but two of them are now dead and it doesn't look good for
the others; Avon, especially, is clearly in bad shape
psychologically. The aura of doom and gloom is very much in
keeping with the fourth season as it was aired, even though the
specific events are a bit different.
In the case of this story, I found it a little hard to follow the
plot because it was so complex and so obliquely written, with clues
dropped only very subtly. I think the author was trying hard not
to be too obvious and spell everything out in a boring way, and she
overdid it just a bit. In the slightly later "Chameleons,"
however, she gets the balance of suspense and plot exposition
exactly right, in my opinion. I enjoyed both stories very much
indeed and recommend them highly.
The zine is 104 pp. and about 52,000 words. It's available from
the Avon Club at the following prices, including postage: UK #7.50
- EUR #8.50 - AUS/NZ #11.00 - USA/CAN #10.50 or $18.00 CASH.
The club website is: <http://members.aol.com/avonpds>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 01:39:30 -0700
From: Penny Dreadful <pennydreadful@powersurfr.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7
Message-Id: <4.1.20000204013651.0093fe00@mail.powersurfr.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 10:17 PM 03/02/00 +0000, Julia Jones wrote:
>This also means that the person who used a Demon account to post a
>binary in a non-binary group earlier this evening may regret doing so...
And didn't even give me credit as the original source of said Copyright
Violation! The swine. ;-p
______________________________
"No rules, no naps, no shoes!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:40:12 -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 Two)
Message-ID: <200002040540_MC2-97AA-3A9C@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Pat P wrote:
>Avon's crusade was as edgy and cheerless as Lennon's solo compositions
If edgy and cheerless means Plastic Ono Band, I'm all for it.
I'd have to check out their ankles to decide which of the girls could have
the honour of being Patti Boyd.
Harriet
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 07:18:30 EST
From: Mac4781@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, freedom-city@blakes-7.org
Subject: [B7L] Reviews
Message-ID: <44.17b8e57.25cc1d96@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
There's a review of DON CARLOS, with Josette Simon, at:
http://www.whatson.com/wos/reviews/
Also, there is a review of Gareth's TWELFTH NIGHT listed for the current
edition (February 3, 2000) of THE STAGE. It doesn't appear to be included in
their on-line version, so you'll have to pick up a paper copy.
Carol Mc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:10:28 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three))
Message-ID: <000b01bf6f3b$40a25fc0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mistral wrote:
> When you say 'tabloid-level false association' are you referring to
> an actual disregard for accuracy of facts, or are you jumping to
> the conclusion that a media conclusion that differs from the
> majority opinion must necessarily be either based on faulty data or
> biased?
Neither, really. The tabloids (at least in the UK) have an irritating habit
of using the facts (their accuracy is not, AFAIK, disregarded) to tell the
readers what they want to read, through shallow analysis and
misinterpretation. The result hardly 'differs from the majority opinion',
if anything it reinforces it (at least, the majority opinion of the
readership is reinforced). This systematic eradication of all complexity
from complex issues has been parodied by, amongst others, Viz (which was in
turn the inspiration for the 'Fascinating Facts' section of my Avon Tribute
Page - Viz readers will no doubt recognise the style).
>All reporting is inevitably biased; based simply on the law
> of averages, the majority of (free) media reporting should therefore
> be biased in favour of majority opinion (and thus reinforce trends,
> whether good or ill, true or false), wouldn't you say?
The oft-touted myth of the objective journalist has, IMO, provoked a
countermyth, namely the myth of the myth of the objective journalist. IOW,
exactly the kind of simplistic black-and-white view of the world that the
tabloids like to peddle. Journalism can strive towards objectivity, even if
it can never attain it. When shifting copies by the truckload is more
important than a rigorous assessment of the facts, striving tends to take a
back seat. Yes, reporting is biased, but is it biased by what the writer
wants to say or what the readers want to hear? (Getting slightly back on
topic, I would note that the level of discussion on the Lyst is way above
the two-dimensional drivel that fills the SF prozines like TV Zone - if
that's still actually alive - and their ilk. Is that because the writers
can't do any better, or because there is no demand for (or indeed, an active
rejection of) anything more than the tentatively intellectual by the SF zine
readers?)
> I'd like to publicly thank you for the carefully neutral tone
> (intentional or not) of your last couple of posts on these matters
> (particularly considering how rarely we do agree), something
> for which I generally strive but often fail.
The tone was definitely intentional, and mainly because I found myself
disagreeing with you even more than usual:) I also stayed out of the thread
because -even more so than usual - it got bogged down in particularities
based on undeclared assumptions. And since there was unlikely to be any
consensus on the implied fundamentals, there was little chance of the thread
reaching any kind of meaningful conclusion. Which it hasn't.
Neil
"...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of
evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an
orange)."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:07:37 +0000
From: Nicola Collie <nicola@dunedinite.free-online.co.uk>
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7
Message-Id: <l03130300b4c0c4be7582@[212.159.73.161]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Julia:
>>This also means that the person who used a Demon account to post a
>>binary in a non-binary group earlier this evening may regret doing so...
Penny:
>And didn't even give me credit as the original source of said Copyright
>Violation! The swine. ;-p
Well, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with a suitably painful and
humiliating punishment. Somehow, just cutting off hir net access doesn't
seem enough.
<pauses, contemplates own reliance on net access>
Well, maybe not *quite* enough.
I'd suggest hog-tieing the miscreant and shutting hir in a room with Orac,
but that's just my pathological tendency to try to stay on topic :)
Nicola
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:24:50 -0500
From: pcarter@pccc.cc.nj.us (Patricia Carter)
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Re-Introduction and Muir's Book
Message-ID: <01BF6F1B.99AE4B80@Patricia.pccc.cc.nj.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hello Everyone,
I'm Pat C., a US B7 fan who joined the list a while back under the email address off Sestina2. Due to instabilities in work and living situations, I've had to retire from the list about five months ago and have thus missed all of your enthusiastic posts. I now have a new email address and I'm looking forward to being back in your midst once again
Re: Steve's query about the Muir book: I received my copy of Muir's book from Amazon before last Christmas. It, like yours, did not have a dust jacket probably due to the fact that it was listed as a "library binding" edition as it seems intended for a university library somewhere. Still, I honestly found Muir's work to be quite analytical superficial. He seems not to have consulted any of the myriad B7 resources on the net and just re-used his old notes from previous books he's written about Space 1999 and Battlestar Galactica. It didn't take me long to regret that $43 I spent on it through Amazon.
Fond memories of meeting you at E-Con last November!
Pat C.
----------
From: Steve Rogerson[SMTP:steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 2:37 AM
To: Lysator
Subject: [B7L] Muir's book
My copy of John Kenneth Muir's B7 book arrived yesterday. However, it
didn't have a dust cover. Are other people's copies the same?
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
"In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like
ponies"
The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:32:21 -0500
From: pcarter@pccc.cc.nj.us (Patricia Carter)
To: "blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] Reviews
Message-ID: <01BF6F1C.A67F6F00@Patricia.pccc.cc.nj.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Thanks for the info, Carol. Any US fans other than me planning on seeing the production of Don Carlos with Josette Simon when the RSC comes to the Brooklyn Academy of Music in May? (I'm going to the May 20th performance.)
Pat C.
----------
From: Mac4781@aol.com[SMTP:Mac4781@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 7:18 AM
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se; freedom-city@blakes-7.org
Subject: [B7L] Reviews
There's a review of DON CARLOS, with Josette Simon, at:
http://www.whatson.com/wos/reviews/
Also, there is a review of Gareth's TWELFTH NIGHT listed for the current
edition (February 3, 2000) of THE STAGE. It doesn't appear to be included in
their on-line version, so you'll have to pick up a paper copy.
Carol Mc
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:14:09 -0800 (PST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Carolan?= <carolan7@yahoo.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: freedom-city@blakes-7.org
Subject: [B7L] Cult TV 2000
Message-ID: <20000204191409.12282.qmail@web1703.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
News for anyone going to (or thinking of going to)
CULT TV in Torquay 27-30 0ct 2000....They have just
announced that Paul Darrow won't be a guest after all,
as he's working that weekend.
But don't let that put you off going... I booked again
*before* I knew that PD had been invited again.
Carolan
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:43:59 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Missing mail
Message-ID: <0a2f01bf6f48$2facb780$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If anyone has addressed e-mail to me recently and I haven't responded, my
apologies. My ISP appears to be sending some messages to Guildford and
bypassing me here in Cambridge, and as I'm only there part-time, I fall
behind on messages. Sorry - I'm not being rude, it's just the damn
technology.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 20:56:03 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] B7 related quote
Message-ID: <20000204.210716.11438.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
Been reading "The Rediscovery of Man: the Complete Short Science Fiction
of Cordwainer Smith" and came across a few quotes that made me think of
B7.
"(Perhaps, if she had been a sympathetic person, she would have let them
die. But it was the nature of Dr. Kraus not to be sympathetic--just
brilliant, remorseless, implacable against the universe which had tried
to destroy her.)"
Remind anyone of favorite computer fiends?
And, thinking of self-aware computers, and how maybe they had a way to
imprint a living personality onto one--
"The computer in which the bodiless image of the Lady Panc Ashash
survived for a few days after the trial was, of course, found and
disassembled. Nobody thought at the time to get her opinions and last
words. A lot of historians have gnashed their teeth over that."
And, just because it's a good line (and reflects the mental tricks I
sometimes have to resort to to get anyone to watch B7)--
"Do not read this story: turn the page quickly. The story may upset you.
Anyhow, you probably know it already. . . . Don't let yourself realize
that the story is the truth.
"It isn't. Not at all. There's not a bit of truth to it. . . . These are
all just imaginary, they didn't happen, forget about it, go away and read
something else."
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.
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #34
*************************************