From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #286 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/286 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 99 : Issue 286 Today's Topics: [B7L] Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Stephen Greif Question Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy [B7L] Re: Horizon policy Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy [B7L] Danni Lighter Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 [B7L] Re: Stephen Greif Question [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Re: [B7L] Manchester Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Re: [B7L] Stephen Greif Question RE: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 RE: [B7L] Stephen Greif Question Re: [B7L] Danni Lighter Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy [B7L] Adult Warnings ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 12:23:25 GMT From: "Danni Lighter" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Message-ID: <19991008122326.26420.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Thought you should all see this. -----Original Message----- From: Diane Gies (Horizon) Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 3:58 PM To: kathy@songbird.nascr.net Cc: tuckers@easynet.co.uk; gillian@mpuddle.freeserve.co.uk; jager@clara.net; paula.robinson@rcn.org.uk; rae@clara.net; sue.cowley@bbc.co.uk; JudithSmith@csl-deloitte.co.uk Subject: Horizon policy decision Dear All, At various times I think I've spoken to you all about my feelings on Fan Porn, particularly relating to 'adult pictures' and accessability to the uninitiated and recently I've been more and more unhappy about how easy it is to find fan-porn on the internet, & how easy it is to stumble over adult zines at guest-conventions. B7 was always a PG show and whilst I've no objection to fans wanting to write adult stuff and sell it to other consenting adults in private, I don't think the vast industry in fan-porn is healthy. It is promoted as a mainstream interest and as something new fans should be told about as soon as they are told about 'regular' stuff, which I don't agree with. The idea of our own Ultra 1 was to have adult stories, with non-PG rated sex scenes as part of a proper dramatic story (plus humorous little romps) but some of what's out there is so far removed from anything resembling B7 as we know it that I don't believe it should be so easily accessible. I can't do anything about what other people sell, and I wouldn't want to try, but I don't see why Horizon should help them. Therefore, I would like to implement a new advertising policy which would broadly encompass the following points: Advertising of fanzine Dealers in Orac's Oddments. Up till now we've been advertising, for free, stuff sold by any club member, whilst asking them to reciprocally advertise us. We have no way of knowing whether these people DO advertise us and I've discovered for sure that Judith Proctor certainly doesn't in any of her printed literature though she does on her website. The new policy would be that free for sale ads would only cover 'one off' sales (selling off a collection, or one item) rather than for people who trade as fan or pro dealers. We could then have an advertising fee for any dealers still wanting to advertise up to a maximum of xxxx words (yet to be decided, but enough to give their name, address and extremely brief description of what they sell - eg. B7/ST/DW fanzines or X Files & other Trading Cards, or B7 audio tapes, etc.) We could waive the fee at our discretion if the items were all being sold for charity (requiring proof) or they guaranteed in writing that they were reciprocally advertising us. Further, they would be required to sign something to confirm that they did not produce, or agent for others, any B7 fan fiction containing 'adult' artwork. If they want to sell adult fiction, that's up to them, but the majority of the cast hate the idea of explicit artwork and so do I, as you all know. We would obviously have to advise them what we considered 'explicit', eg. no nudity, and no portraits that would look out of place in a PG rated zine and cause anyone to think "ey-up... bet they're going to be having a **** any minute now". Conventions - I don't believe that guests and adult artwork mix. I don't want Horizon to advertise any convention that has a B7 guest unless they confirm in writing that there will be a ban on dealers selling adult B7 fiction with explicit art content and, further, that any adult fiction without such pictures will not be openly displayed on the sales table but will be hidden away behind and anyone wanting to view it will have to ask for it, rather than having it in a box on the table marked 'adult' - thus creating a knowledge that such things exist in the person passing by. What happens with other fandoms I can't be bothered to worry about, but since the B7 people are our Honorary Members, I want to at least do something in our own 'universe'. If they don't have a B7 guest, fine, let them do what they like. Those of you who were with me at Cult TV 2 weeks ago will know how upset I was to find that Judith Proctor was blatantly selling such stuff, including a quite disgusting zine with graphic sexual artwork, from her table top, whilst sitting selling photos & together again tapes next to Paul at his autograph session (courtesy of Sheelagh Wells arranging this). She was overheard the next day by someone - who doesn't wish her name mentioned - having a conversation that clearly indicated that she was well aware how he would feel if he knew what she was selling (along the lines of "gosh you were so lucky sitting with him all that time..." "yes, lucky he didn't know what I was selling..." ) That wasn't the exact conversation, but that's what was basically happening. I can't stop her selling this stuff, and to all intents and purposes laughing in his face about it, but I don't see why I should make it easy for her. She was also making the point while she was selling the tapes that "Oh, you can't get these from Horizon any more..." which didn't help to endear her to me, but that's another story. Apart from dealers conditions at a con with a B7 guest, there'd also need to be a condition about the art/model displays at the convention (ie. prohibiting any 'adult' art being displayed, even if it was 'hidden'). Websites - from Horizon's links section, you only effectively need to do 3 quick 'clicks' through Proctor's site to get into reading X-rated excerpts from zines on her own site. In several cases there isn't even any warning and depending on which bits of her site you start off reading, you don't necessarily get an explanation of what slash fiction, for example, means so the non-fan who has done a search for Blake's 7 can come into the Official Fan Club Site (us!), go through to Proctor's site and immediately be told that there's loads of fiction featuring explicit sex scenes between main characters. It's one thing for people to go and buy these zines, where they have to make some effort and conscious decision to buy, but if it's just sitting there on the internet, I think this is awful and there seems to be so much of it. Proctor's site links to several others which have the most unbelievably disgusting porn stories, without even any warnings in some cases (though others say "Hey, if you're not over 18, go away now" which is really going to deter the average 13/14 year old playing with dad's computer, isn't it?) Again, I can't stop them doing this, but I can refuse to link Horizon's site to any site that has X-rated material anywhere on it, or that links to a site that does. So I'd be wanting to email all the sites we currently link with issuing them with an agreement to sign or we can just remove them and refuse to mention they exist in any shape or form. Some of you may agree with me 101% (I know some of you do) but others of you may not agree at all, or think I'm taking this 'crusade' too far. I want to know what ALL of you think, please, as soon as possible because I think this is very important, and I don't want to leave things as they are for much longer. Do you think the conditions I wish to implement are reasonable? If not, what - if anything - do you suggest. I'm sending a non-email copy of this to Margaret, Valerie Guy and to Claire Saunders who I've just co-opted onto the committee to do 'Finding Publicity Photos' . I'll leave Edna out of it as she doesn't have any idea this even exists and at 70+ years I don't think she needs to. Obviously Andy and Alan won't be asked!! I'd appreciate you not discussing this with anyone outside the committee until the issue has been resolved. Have a nice day!! xx Diane ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: 08 Oct 1999 14:25:40 +0200 From: Calle Dybedahl To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >>>>> "Mac4781" == Mac4781 writes: > Is this what I think it is? Is "Danni Lighter" forwarding someone else's > *private* e-mail to the list? As far as I can tell, yes. I thought about throwing it away for a moment, but decided not to. It does fit the subject matter of the list (the TV series "Blake's 7" and its related fandom), and I think it would be wrong of me to censor it on any other grounds than subject matter. If you want to complain about it being posted, take it up with Danni Lighter. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se It is by Perl alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the regex of Larry that the code acquires flexibility, the flexibility enables obscurity, the obscurity generates a warning. It is by Perl alone I set my mind in motion. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:30:00 +0100 From: "Angua" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Stephen Greif Question Message-ID: <017701bf1188$ec448080$d76b989e@demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol wrote, re Citizen Smith : > So, could someone in the know please inform > me if this was a regular spot Mr Greif had in this show or was it > only a one off? It was a regular role, Stephen played Harry Fenning for three seasons of the show. Harry was the local villain who delighted in mildly terrorising Wolfie Smith and his motley crew :-) Citizen Smith was one of my favourite shows at the time, it still is in fact. Louise http://starriders.net - Babylon 5 & Crusade, Blake's 7, SF cult tv and movies, free graphics, and more ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:15:59 EDT From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <0.b4f2e88b.252f488f@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Calle wrote: > As far as I can tell, yes. I thought about throwing it away for a > moment, but decided not to. It does fit the subject matter of the list > (the TV series "Blake's 7" and its related fandom), and I think it > would be wrong of me to censor it on any other grounds than subject > matter. If you want to complain about it being posted, take it up with > Danni Lighter. Actually, what I'd like to know is whether there is a list policy about posting someone else's private email without permission? I don't want to read personal mail and I'd be more than little upset to have private mail I wrote forwarded to a list, even if the subject matter was related to the list. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: 08 Oct 1999 15:46:06 +0200 From: Calle Dybedahl To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >>>>> "Mac4781" == Mac4781 writes: > Actually, what I'd like to know is whether there is a list policy > about posting someone else's private email without permission? There is not. Common netiquette dictates that one does not post private mail without permission, and that is enough. People who violate netiquette will also violate specific list policies. Whether such a violation can be warranted or not is a different question. > I don't want to read personal mail and I'd be more than little upset > to have private mail I wrote forwarded to a list, even if the > subject matter was related to the list. I understand and sympathise, but I have neither the desire nor the ability to do anything about it. This is not a moderated list. As long as a post comes from a known subscriber the listbot will send it on automatically. Danni's posting was a moderately special case, since she(?) was not a subscriber at the time. In the end it boils down to "If you don't trust people to keep private mail private, don't send them mail". It is not a problem specific to this list, or even specific to electronic mail. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se Hello? Brain? What do we want for breakfast? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 10:12:44 -0400 From: Meredith Dixon To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >In the end it boils down to "If you don't trust people to keep private >mail private, don't send them mail". It is not a problem specific to >this list, or even specific to electronic mail. Fwiw, if it had been my list, I wouldn't have forwarded it once I saw that it was private mail. I understand your position that this is not a moderated list, but in this case you went to extra effort to post this mail and I don't think that was the right decision. -- Meredith Dixon Check out *Raven Days*, for victims and survivors of bullying. And for those who want to help. http://web.mountain.net/~dixonm/raven.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 15:57:54 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] Re: Horizon policy Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Fri 08 Oct, Danni Lighter wrote: - Calle, Carol, I would assume 'Danni' is a pseudonym. If I were a Horizon committee member under these circumstances, I think I'd probably want a pseudonym too. Personally I'm glad it was posted. Diane Gies is saying things about me that are untrue and I'm just sending her a note saying that if she doesn't retract one statement in particular, then I'll be seeing a solicitor. > > Advertising of fanzine Dealers in Orac's Oddments. Up till now we've > been advertising, for free, stuff sold by any club member, whilst asking > them to reciprocally advertise us. We have no way of knowing whether these > people DO advertise us and I've discovered for sure that Judith Proctor > certainly doesn't in any of her printed literature though she does on her > website. I used to print Horizon's ad, but the membership secretary changed faster than I reprinted zines - thus the ad in the zines was frequently out of date. Now I mail out Horizon's flyers to new zine readers and I take them to conventions where Horizon are not represented. eg. I had Horizon flyers at Neutral Zone. (Diane's the one I get the flyers from, so she's not unaware that I hand them out.) > Conventions - I don't believe that guests and adult artwork mix. I > don't want Horizon to advertise any convention that has a B7 guest unless > they confirm in writing that there will be a ban on dealers selling adult B7 > fiction with explicit art content and, further, that any adult fiction > without such pictures will not be openly displayed on the sales table but > will be hidden away behind and anyone wanting to view it will have to ask > for it, rather than having it in a box on the table marked 'adult' - thus > creating a knowledge that such things exist in the person passing by. Personally, I've always sold adult zines in a box clearly marked 'Adult' and I expect to continue doing so. People who know me from cons will also know that it's usually my habit to check out anyone looking in the box to be sure that they know what to expect. As for 'creating a knowledge' I suspect other people may answer for themselves, but it's not uncommon to get a reaction of "I wish I'd known this existed years ago." Denying its existence prevents those who would want it from finding it. Note that Diane's dictat would forbid an advert even when the B7 guest in question didn't personally care whether zines were sold above or below the table. I imagne Paul would be happier if it wasn't sold, but the cast (just like fans) are a mixed bunch of individuals and probably have varied feelings on the topic. > Those of you who were with me at Cult TV 2 weeks ago will know how upset I > was to find that Judith Proctor was blatantly selling such stuff, including a > quite disgusting zine with graphic sexual artwork, from her table top, whilst > sitting selling photos & together again tapes next to Paul at his autograph > session (courtesy of Sheelagh Wells arranging this). One person I know read this statement as saying that I was selling adult zines from Paul's table. I don't think Diane's actually implying that, but I'll stress that this most certainly was not the case. All I sold from Paul's table was tapes and photos. > She was overheard the next day by someone - who doesn't wish her name > mentioned - having a conversation that clearly indicated that she was well > aware how he would feel if he knew what she was selling (along the lines of > "gosh you were so lucky sitting with him all that time..." "yes, lucky he > didn't know what I was selling..." ) This is 100% untrue and I'm not surprised that the person invented the fabrication doesn't want their name mentioning - if indeed that person exists anywhere outside Diane's imagination. > That wasn't the exact conversation, but that's what was basically > happening. I can't stop her selling this stuff, and to all intents and > purposes laughing in his face about it, but I don't see why I should make it > easy for her. I prefer Gareth to Paul, always have done. Even Paul knows that - teases me about it. What I have for Paul is respect and liking. He has his faults - just as Gareth does. He also has many aspects that I can admire. One thing I have never done and never will do is to print explicit art in my own zines. (I'll sell other people's zines - I don't pretend to impose my personal ethics on anyone else) The reason I don't is simple. Paul Darrow. A long time ago, he was courteous to a newbie fan who confessed to being a slash writer. (He doesn't like slash - he's entitled to his own feeling on the subject just as everyone else is) My own personal way of appreciating that courtesy is not to publish explicit art. Slash and Paul Darrow is not something that I could ever find amusing. > Websites - from Horizon's links section, you only effectively need to > do 3 quick 'clicks' through Proctor's site to get into reading X-rated > excerpts from zines on her own site. which zines? On the web site, I post non-explicit extracts even from my adult zines. > Some of you may agree with me 101% (I know some of you do) but others > of you may not agree at all, or think I'm taking this 'crusade' too far. I > want to know what ALL of you think, please, as soon as possible because I > think this is very important, and I don't want to leave things as they are > for much longer. Do you think the conditions I wish to implement are > reasonable? If not, what - if anything - do you suggest. Not that I've been asked , but it always seems to me that people from both sides (if indeed there are sides) can live together quite happily and share what they both enjoy. The Lysator list and Freedom City live happily alongside one another - many of us are members of both. I publish both adult and non-adult zines. My two best sellers to date are both zines that don't even have a hint of sex in them. The 3rd best seller is full of explicit homosexual scenes. People read what they want to read. If people who sell adult zines are banned from advertising in Horizon, then that makes the genzines unavailable to those not on the net. > > I'm sending a non-email copy of this to Margaret, Valerie Guy and to > Claire Saunders who I've just co-opted onto the committee to do 'Finding > Publicity Photos' . I'll leave Edna out of it as she doesn't have any idea > this even exists and at 70+ years I don't think she needs to. Obviously > Andy and Alan won't be asked!! sounds like democracy in action... > I'd appreciate you not discussing this with anyone outside the committee > until the issue has been resolved. Thank you to whoever ignored this request. I don't like being libelled behind my back. 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: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:04:49 +0100 From: "Julie Horner" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <003d01bf118d$b4e79500$0f4995c1@orac> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Mac4781@aol.com >Calle wrote: > >> This got stuck in the spamtrap, forwarded since it's B7-related. > >Is this what I think it is? Is "Danni Lighter" forwarding >someone else's *private* e-mail to the list? Looks like it. Isn't that rather poor form? Should we pretend we haven't seen it? Julie Horner ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 17:55:36 +0100 From: Judith Rolls To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Danni Lighter Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 13:23 08/10/99 , Danni Lighter wrote: >Thought you should all see this. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Diane Gies (Horizon) >Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 3:58 PM (snip) Why? It was an unsolicited private message, and the forwarding of it to a public forum can only be considered a malicious act. Not impressed, not interested, not involved. Judith http://home.clara.net/jager/ ------------------------------ Date: 08 Oct 1999 16:19:22 +0200 From: Calle Dybedahl To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >>>>> "Meredith" == Meredith Dixon writes: > I understand your position that this is not a moderated list, but in > this case you went to extra effort to post this mail and I don't > think that was the right decision. I gave my reason earlier. If you want to argue further, take it to private mail or the spin list. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se Hello? Brain? What do we want for breakfast? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 13:34:04 EDT From: Tigerm1019@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <0.a34db57d.252f850c@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/08/1999 6:18:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Mac4781@aol.com writes: > Actually, what I'd like to know is whether there is a list policy about > posting someone else's private email without permission? > > I don't want to read personal mail and I'd be more than little upset to have > private mail I wrote forwarded to a list, even if the subject matter was > related to the list. This was a concern I had too, Carol, and I sympathize. However, I also have to wonder how Danni Lighter got this message in the first place. I think it's likely that Danni Lighter is a pseudonym. Anyway, my feelings are very mixed. I understand the privacy issue, but I also have the feeling that someone on Horizon's committe may be trying to do us a favor, even if they chose a bad way to do it. My other concern, as the owner of the Freedom City list, is that this could be the beginning of a slash witch hunt. At any rate, it convinces me that FC's policy of not advertising to the public is a wise one. At least with some advance warning, I can take steps to protect the list and it's members. Tiger M ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 11:28:47 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 Message-ID: <37FE37DF.6184@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't know. Kerr my sort of like having laryngitis. Then he could just give scathing looks, and save up his witticisms for later, without having to interact much with the others. Of course, what he would LOVE is for all the others to have laryngitis and him not. "At last, nothing but intelligent conversation." --Avona, who had to be silent for a week not long ago due to bronchitis, and found she rather enjoyed the verbal isolation from her coworkers. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 11:44:14 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 Message-ID: <37FE3B7E.EC6@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Of course, Quantum Mechanics allows strictly secure key distribution using a > technique called Quantum Cryptography, so all that messing about getting > Cally captured, in order to obtain the Federation cyper machine suggests > that Blakes 7 isn't a quantum world either. > > I hope this rather techy post hasn't bored anybody to much. > > Andrew No, I love the techy posts. Could it be that the Federation doesn't really understand the possibilities? I'm trying to think of some reasonable cause for this, but failing-- but somehow, drugging their engineers seems likely to be near the root of the problem. We never heard of Avon inventing anything until he went into space and got everything out of his systen, and then, the cloaking device (for sale, cheap, only used once). Mm.... could it be that the transformation from 'geek' to 'space pirate' was a matter of a drug-free system? Whoops, I've managed to totally change the topic. Please, back to Quantum ciphering. If I was a Federation scientist, I think I'd want to use my unbreakable cipher to send private messages that Big Brother couldn't read. How's that for a reason that technology isn't in official use? --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 14:28:09 -0400 From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: [B7L] Re: Stephen Greif Question Message-ID: <199910081428_MC2-8837-DD74@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Carol 'Hondo' asked about Citizen Smith: >So, could someone in the know please inform me if this >was a regular spot Mr Greif had in this show or was it > only a one off? Yes, there were quite a few appearances by Mr [whatever his name was] and his young friends. (What did Shirley's mum call them? His foster children?) Harriet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 12:25:40 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 Message-ID: <37FE4534.145F@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re: Diane's post: I must say, I don't think Paul would be offended at Judith Proctor's adult fanzines sales, and here is why... I like getting autographs from the stars on some of my own fanwork-- a peom, story or drawing that features their character. When I asked him to autograph a poem I'd written, he hadn't time to read it, as there was quite a line, but he asked me if it was racy (not his exact wording, maybe he said porno, I don't remember, but the meaning was clear). I said "No" and he said "Too bad." And then, with Paul and Michael in a panel, they get very silly and a lot of their jokes have sexual content. In short, he's no prude, and I think he gets a kick out of the fan's salacious interests. I'm all for treating the actors with respect, but how about respecting the fact that they have a balanced sense of humor? About 'no adult art' at conventions-- GRRR! There are things I've seen that I considered in poor taste. I can shrug and move on to the next picture, thank you. But my husband is an artist, and in keeping with classical traditions, often does nude or partially nude figures. He cannot display these at many shows already, governments and businesses being so afraid of lawsuits these days. The local science fiction convention is one of the few places he can show his mythological pictures, such as Isis Resurrecting Osiris. It's not sexy, it just shows her bare-breasted, true to Egyptian styles. Now, here in the States, that's unacceptable at a lot of shows. The same way Michaelangelo's David or Botticelli's Aphrodite are unacceptable to a lot of right-wing fools. Please, those of you who actually are where most of these conventions are taking place, I ask that you stand opposed to censorship. It should be enough that adult works are labelled as such and kept out of the way of minors without parental consent. Whether or not you read 'slash', respect freedom of information. Why should we hide the fact it does exist? It amazes me that the fans of a show that is, after all, about opposing the surpression of individual rights, should attempt to surpress rights in the name of respect for the show. "But Blake's 7 is about political rights." Once someone can determine what you read they can determine how you think. Not that what you think of one TV show matters, but the principle is important. The priniciple is important. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 21:25:17 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <018d01bf11d4$413207c0$f711063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol Mc wrote >Calle wrote: > >> This got stuck in the spamtrap, forwarded since it's B7-related. > >Is this what I think it is? Is "Danni Lighter" forwarding someone else's >*private* e-mail to the list? > Just goes to show that the internet is not a secure means of communication. Look at the recent Hotmail scare. Somebody obviously has Orac scanning for interesting snippets. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 21:05:54 +0100 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Manchester Message-ID: <018c01bf11d4$403f6a60$f711063e@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Andrew Ellis wrote: > >> To start things off.... I'm in Suffolk, UK. So Una asked > >Whereabouts, Andrew? There are quite a few of us over in the big city >(i.e. Cambridge) ;) > Ipswich, where we once had a theatre ..... Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 07:40:53 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Message-ID: <000601bf11d9$85417c20$e916ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew wrote >Of course, Quantum Mechanics allows strictly secure key distribution using a >technique called Quantum Cryptography, so all that messing about getting >Cally captured, in order to obtain the Federation cyper machine suggests >that Blakes 7 isn't a quantum world either. Surely quantum mechanics is passe these days. Chaos theory has superceded it. I think we should view B7 as a Chaotic world (various location reports and studio stories in B7: The Inside Story suggest it got extremely chaotic at times). Though I'm not sure which of the crew might best be described as a Strange Attractor... Fanfic, naturally, is woefully behind the times. I only know of one story that contains the word 'fractal' (and I ought to know about it, since I wrote it). I did have a story idea about the Liberator encountering a giant 3-dimensional Mandelbrot set floating around in space, but then that was shortly after I came out from seeing Event Horizon thinking what a load of old bollocks it was. >Perhaps next time we debate the science >behind Blakes 7 we should bear in mind Quantum mechanics, and the scientific >joining of Quantum mechanics and Relativity in a Quantum theory of Gravity. The danger of pitching it at that level is that you might end up debating alone:) Actually, B7 is so far ahead that relativity and quantum mechanics would probably be relegated to the same quaint-but-useless file as Copernicus and Aristotle. Blake and his contemporaries would view the universe as described by Squirble's Theory, which states that a ship will be forced to flee from hordes of pursuit ships just before one of the two crew members down on the planet breaks his ankle. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 07:41:20 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Stephen Greif Question Message-ID: <000701bf11d9$861287c0$e916ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Carol wrote, re Stephen Greif in Citizen Smith >So, could someone in the know please inform > me if this was a regular spot Mr Greif had in this show or was it > only a one off? Ta Very Much.. I think he was semi-regular, ie not in every episode. So you'll have to watch them all:) Last time I saw Citizen Smith was soon after UK Gold was launched. It used to be on either just before or just after It Ain't Half Hot, Mum, I think. Was anyone from B7 ever in that? How about putting Sergeant-Major Shut-Up aboard the Liberator? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 01:06:49 +0200 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: RE: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #285 Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F7958A6@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Avona wrote: > Whether or not you read 'slash', > respect freedom of information. Why should we hide the fact it does > exist? I entirely agree. Freedom of information is a lot more important than the right to stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything outside fits exactly into your worldview. Those who wish to do so can go live on some deserted island for all I care. Yes I know that's not a very nice thing to say, but for one thing, I don't particularly feel like being nice right now and for another, someone who tries to dictate what you can tell people because s/he doesn't like to know that it exists or be reminded of that fact is in fact trying to force you and everyone you talk to to live on such a self-created island. In short: there are and always will be things in this world that a lot of people don't like to know about. Forbidding others to talk about these things is *not* an acceptable solution to that problem. > "But Blake's 7 is about political rights." Exactly, and freedom of speech is one of the most important of those political rights. On the London, when Blake told Avon and Jenna exactly what he was fighting for, that was in fact the very first thing he mentioned. > The principle is important. I couldn't agree more. As for sending private mail on to the list: I'm kinda of two minds about this. I know it's not right and would never have done it myself (Although I most certainly would have sent it on to Judith. Send me something in which you maliciously slander someone the way it happened in that mail and I *will* forward the mail to that person and then let you know that I did this), and the fact that the original sender of the mail didn't come out smelling like roses (more like the stuff used to feed roses, in fact) still doesn't make it right. But I do feel that this is an important subject, and I'm glad I found out about it. For those of you who didn't know it yet: I don't like slash or het. So I just ignore it when I come across it. I believe that that is a far more mature reaction than trying to force everyone around you to change to suit your tastes. Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 01:51:04 +0200 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: lysator Subject: RE: [B7L] Stephen Greif Question Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F7958A7@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Neil wrote: > How about putting Sergeant-Major Shut-Up > aboard the Liberator? I'd like to see Bombardier Beaumont and Gunner Sugden aboard the Liberator. Or the entire cast of It Ain't Half Hot, Mum finding themselves on an abandoned Liberator. Thanks a lot for bringing it up, Neil, I now have this picture in my mind that just won't go away of both of the officers (forgot their names) sitting on the couch having tea, while Bombardier Beaumont is desperately trying to get something to work with Sergeant-Major Shut-Up yelling in his ear to move it already. And Gunner Graham looking pained because they are getting *everything* wrong. And Gunner Sugden accidentally firing one of the 'elaborate toothpicks' at the ceiling. I may have to write this, just to get it out of my head. Aaaarrrggghhh!!!! Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 00:51:39 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Danni Lighter Message-ID: <008101bf11ea$f4a5f6c0$e916ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I don't really care about the rights and wrongs of forwarding private e-mails, I'm just glad that this horrendous information has come to light. 'Danni Lighter' has done the right thing by letting us know. I'm no fan of slash by any stretch of the imagination, but I find Gies' draconian proposals quite appalling. What comes ringing through her letter is her own personal aversion (note her use of 'disgusting') to what she calls porn and her implicit claim to speak for the majority of fandom. Well, from my experience of fandom, the overwhelming majority of fans are intelligent adults who are neither easily shocked nor incapable of making their own minds up about something. Who exactly are these virginal innocents that Gies has opted to protect from the oh so wicked world of fandom-beyond-Horizon? There are 13-year olds out there who know more about sex than I ever will - is there really anyone to 'protect'? As to the cast - well, I only know the opinions of two of them, one not liking it, and one not being terribly bothered. Or so I've been told - the whole slash thing is so emotive that you can't really trust what anyone says. I believe Gies has claimed in the past that most if not all of the regular cast are opposed to adult material ('It is also well known that -none- of our Honorary Members are keen on slash fiction' - Gies enditorial to Horizon Letterzine #14), while pro-slashers make various claims to the contrary. People hear what they want to hear. I really find it hard to fathom exactly where Gies stands. She can't be opposed to adult material as such, since she endorses Horizon's own adult zine ('with non-PG rated sex scenes as part of a proper dramatic story (plus humorous little romps)'). Nor does she seem overly concerned with slash in particular ('What happens with other fandoms I can't be bothered to worry about'). It's the intrusion of slash into B7 that seems to get her riled. As to the suggestion that some fan material 'is so far removed from anything resembling B7 as we know it that I don't believe it should be so easily accessible', I find that absolutely frightening. Granted a significant percentage of fanfic is pretty far removed from the source material, but that just goes to illustrate the very flexibility of that source material. That in itself hardly justifies making it less accessible. Horizon has printed some pretty off-the-wall material in their own zines - such as Ellen A Rufkin's 'Passable Features' - should these be made less accessible? (Though there's a strong case where Rufkin's concerned.) Again, there's more than a whiff of arrogating the right to decide what's good for other people. People who, by and large, are not going to be unduly bothered by what they find or going to be glad they've found it. We can at least give her credit for admitting at the end of her letter that she knows hers is not the only opinion, and for soliciting feedback, albeit from a select group of individuals. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 09:34:21 +1000 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] ["Danni Lighter" ] New Horizon Policy Message-ID: <19991009093421.A4171@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Fri, Oct 08, 1999 at 02:04:49PM +0100, Julie Horner wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mac4781@aol.com > > >Calle wrote: > > > >> This got stuck in the spamtrap, forwarded since it's B7-related. > > > >Is this what I think it is? Is "Danni Lighter" forwarding > >someone else's *private* e-mail to the list? > > Looks like it. Isn't that rather poor form? Should we pretend we > haven't seen it? Yep. If and when this thing becomes official Horizon policy, we can disuss it then. Until then, let us politely pretend we haven't seen it. (Apart from Judith P who really does have a right to defend herself against slander). What we may say privately is another matter, but we probably shouldn't discuss this in a public forum. Give Horizon a chance to discuss it amongst themselves first. Who knows, they may change their minds. -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 08:41:01 +1000 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: [B7L] Adult Warnings Message-ID: <19991009084101.C4056@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Something in that Danni Lighter post that made me think... > disgusting porn stories, without even any warnings in some cases > (though others say "Hey, if you're not over 18, go away now" which is > really going to deter the average 13/14 year old playing with dad's > computer, isn't it?) ...struck me as unreasonable. I mean, *excuse me*, this is the internet, you can't *control* where people click, you can only warn them. Is that not reasonable? Logically, there are three options that I can think of. 1) warn people not to proceed further. This, of course, could be ignored by determined perversion-seekers. 2) Have a password policy which requires people to send an age statement before being given a password. This is about as useful as (1) for deterring those mythical determined 14-year-olds, since they could always lie. 3) don't have the stuff there in the first place. Which is I guess what DG really wanted. Personally, I think putting warnings up is reasonable. Me, I *don't* want to come across pornographic stuff by accident. I want to be warned, so I can avoid it. Whether this be on the internet, or in zines. *Not* warning is wrong. But expecting something more than a warning (*what* more?) is unreasonable. Opinions? -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #286 **************************************