From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #153 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/153 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 153 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] History Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: [B7L] History Re: [B7L] History [B7L] History RE: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: [B7L] The Keeper and Star One [B7L] The Keeper and Star One [B7L] search engines [B7L] SC: Fan Q ballot Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Re: [B7L] Drugs ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 14:39:27 +0100 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: In message , Tanja Kinkel writes >Errr... sorry to be pedantic, but as far as I know, that was the description of >the Holy Roman Empire under Charles V. Quite possibly. >Nothing to do with Britain. Except that it was frequently used as a description of the British Empire - because it was the literal truth. At the height of the Empire, the sun never set on the Empire because the Empire covered such a vast expanse of the Earth that some part of it was always in daylight. It may still be technically true, since I'm not sure where the last few remnants of the Empire are - and if they're still legally Empire, as of the recent declaration that the residents are to have full British citizenship rights. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 10:03:28 -0700 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <372B33DF.7FCEC4DB@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathryn Andersen wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 1999 at 10:51:33AM +0100, Alison Page wrote: > > The important questions for me, in relation to Blake in particular, are > > > > - can things get better, or must they inevitably return to some conservative > > default state? > > - is it ever justified to use violence to bring about change? > > - if people are prevented from deciding, can you intervene and make that > > kind of decision for them? > > > > I think these have been very live questions in most human societies, not > > just the modern west. My personal answers are yes they can, yes it is, yes > > you should. But I'm pretty sure that a good proportion of listees would > > disagree. > > No, just the voluble ones. Grr. I may be voluble, but I don't, for the most part, *dis*agree. I was, however, beginning to think that I'd not been clear, given all this talk about consensus. Now I'm sure. a) Things can of course get better from where they are now. (They can also get worse). *Governments*, however, rise and fall (or change; this doesn't mean the civilization has to collapse); and whether you think the new government is an improvement or not depends upon your personal point of view. b) I am not a pacifist. Violence is perfectly acceptable to me in defense of yourself and those for whom you are responsible, including rebellion against certain types of oppression. I'll concede that the Federation has crossed the line. And I believe that if you've settled on violence for solving the problem, you go all out and get it over with. (Violence is not the only way however. Gandhi's method does work against an immoral enemy; it just takes longer, and more die. The advantage is that those who die generally made their own choice. And for those of a Biblical bent, both Jesus and Paul taught *against* rebellion. Many religions, including Christianity, consider external circumstances largely inconsequential.) c) Consensus is *not* necessary. It's not even desirable. I have never been talking about reaching some aggregate number of people who agree that revolution is justified. You do whatever's right. (And no, not everyone will agree on what right is, but you have to live by your *own* understanding of morality. Anything else is cowardice.) Forcing someone *else* to do what you think is right, or to die for your idea of what is right, is IMHO something else entirely, however. Particularly when you are not in a legitimate position of authority over them. My point was, that an individualist (as I perceive Avon to be) might have reason to feel that Blake was going to immoral lengths in his attempts to build a revolution. *There is a problem with destroying Star One.* When you enter into a war, you have to accept that there will be some losses. Generally, however, you try to limit them to the enemy's troops and your own troops, preferably as few of the latter as possible. You also have to expect that there will be some collateral loss of non-combatants; you try to limit this as much as possible. Military leaders who deliberately target the enemy's civilians are almost universally reviled. That's the equivalent of the Solium device. What Blake is contemplating doing at Star One, however, is the equivalent of turning the artillery on his *own* civilians. AFAIK, that has never been considered acceptable by any civilized society. Many of the people who will be first to die, before the weather systems and transportation can be returned to normal, will be the weakest: children, the elderly, and the sick; not only from the violent weather, but possibly from lack of food and medical supplies, as well. These people would not be the ones fighting and dying in a rebel army of volunteers, such as we see on Helotrix. They would be the ones such volunteer soldiers were fighting and dying to protect. Blake has an admirable goal, but his tactics are sometimes abominable. He coerces people into helping him (Bounty), deals with drug pushers and worse (Shadow), lies to his crew (Pressure Point), and at Star One he plans to cause wide-scale destruction with massive collateral damage. To Blake, the ends justify the means. He's driven, he wants to bring the Federation down *now*, and he doesn't care who is willing to die for his cause and who isn't. **Blake is doing the futuristic version of turning freedom into a religion and forcing the galaxy to convert at blaster-muzzle.** Contrast that with Avon's leadership style, once he reluctantly takes up the fight: he looks for recruits, allies, and experts (Volcano, Animals, Headhunter, Warlord); also defenses, weapons, intel, and financing (Power, Traitor, Stardrive, Games, Sand, Gold, Orbit). Although he's admittedly no more successful than Blake, and not nearly as good a leader, he goes to great lengths to try to assemble a real resistance movement, and give them a chance to win. He doesn't, however, force anyone to join in the cause that doesn't want to. And we all know he's not exactly Mr. Upright. It must be because he respects their right to decide for themselves, as he wants to decide for himself. (BTW, it's just occurred to me yesterday that the appropriate tactic *was* to seize Star One. Blake could have got control of the Federation, disbanded the military, and returned control of ecosystems, transport, and self-government to the planets in such a way as to cause minimum destruction. Taking Star One doesn't have to mean keeping it -- not that I think that's what Avon had in mind, you understand.) As always, just IMHO, Mistral -- "Some losses are inevitable."--Travis "Travis, have you no sense of proportion?"--Servalan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 06:34:49 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <19980314.063451.10030.0.Rilliara@juno.com> The question about whether Blake was justified in his attack on Star One rests on a few questions that, unfortunately, the series really does give us insufficient information on. To put it in perspective, I put this little essay quiz together. The "Was Blake Right to Attack Star One" Quiz 1) How many would have died? 2) How widespread was support for Blake and for revolution? 3) How effective was Federation repression and misinformation during the first two seasons (example: how widespread were drugs and what were the drugs effects? Were they low-level tranquilizers or something else?)? How did this either validate or invalidate the public's support (or lack of it) for change? 4) How bad was Federation rule during the first two seasons? Did it change in seasons three and four, rendering evidence from them invalid? In connection with this, how much did conditions vary among different worlds and among the different classes? Were some of the atrocities shown or mentioned regular events or deviations? 5) Was genocide in cases of revolt a norm or were Saurian Major and Albian isolated cases? Did they reflect decisions by local Federation leaders or people on higher levels? Were there any unique circumstances involved in these decisions? Did the destruction of Auron, which was a nonFederation world left alone till the third season, reflect normal Federation treatment of its own during seasons one and two? 6) What was standard treatment of nonFederation worlds and how should it be considered in Blake's decision? 7) Given your answers to these questions, how do you feel they weigh against each other in deciding whether Blake was right? It's at this point I came to the nasty realization Blake had a lot more information to make his decision than I have to evaluate it. Given the fact Avon, Cally, and Blake himself had concerns about the attack, I'd say there was room for debate. However, without further evidence to the contrary and in light of two cases of Federation genocide (one attempted, one successful), it's hard to condemn their decision. Ellynne ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 14:44:20 EDT From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <5b874ba5.245ca584@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 5/1/99 5:59:05 AM Mountain Daylight Time, smanton@hotmail.com writes: > Judith writes: > education.> Sally replied: > Well, but Judith, there had to be *something* in the galaxy he didn't know. Not that he'd want to admit it... If he was raised entirely within the confines of the domes on Earth, he wouldn't have had much experience with climatology in any case. And he never seems particularly comfortable in outside environments in general. Maybe he believes that the Great Outdoors should stay there. Nina ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 19:53:34 +0100 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: <006501be9404$ab0bcd50$0c01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tanja wrote: > Una McCormack schrieb: > > > The only proviso being that they wouldn't want to give a suggestion that > > these empires/powers ever collapsed. Teaching about the Nazis might not be > > such a good idea, for example. But you could do a nice twist on that > > description of the British Empire: the Federation is an Empire on which > > *suns* never set. > > Errr... sorry to be pedantic, but as far as I know, that was the description of > the Holy Roman Empire under Charles V. Nothing to do with Britain. Lisa replied: >It was, in the early 19th century. It was later co-opted as a description >of the British empire under Victoria, and became something of a cliche in >that context. This has turned out to be more interesting that I thought. I'm quite happy to admit that I know nothing about the original quotation. Although I had only heard of it in the context of the British Empire, I'm quite willing to believe that it had been used originally to describe another Empire, and was reapplied to the British Empire in the Victorian period. Certainly, I'd heard it only as a description of the British Empire in - oddly enough - Irish Republican songs and, later, in textbooks. But, still having some residual historical training and inquisitiveness screaming for life in me, I did a little poking round. First, as all good historians would do in my place, I reached for Miscrosoft Bookshelf 99. I did a search for quotations on 'Empire'. Nothing. So I did a search on 'British Empire'. Bingo: 'His Majesty's dominions, on which the sun never sets.' Christopher North (John Wilson; 1785-1854) Scottish writer. Noctes Ambrosianae, 20 Apr 1829. But, of course, there are two problems with this: 1. 'Him' could imply Charles V, and certainly doesn't imply Victoria (especially with the date) and 2. Who trusts Microsoft to get it right? However, the date suggests that it could be either George III or IV - both plausible. So I reached for that fantastic source of knowledge about the British Empire, Jan Morris' 'Pax Britannica' books, looked up John Wilson and, once again, bingo: 'John Wilson of 'Blackwood's Magazine' had observed seventy years before that the sun never set on the British Empire.' (Seventy years before because this chapter is about Victoria's Jubilee in 1897.) So now I am even more intruiged! Is John Wilson the originator of this quotation or did he pinch it off someone else? Was he applying it Charles V, or to one of the Georges, or both? Tanja and Lisa, I would love to hear your side of the story! In the meantime, alas, I don't have access to the requisite primary sources at home. But, a copy of the said book should be waiting for me at the University Library after the Bank Holiday - I'll keep you posted. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 May 1999 14:18:26 -0500 From: Lisa Williams To: Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-Id: <4.1.19990501140941.009f1e60@mail.dallas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Una McCormack wrote: >So now I am even more intruiged! Is John Wilson the originator of this >quotation or did he pinch it off someone else? Was he applying it Charles V, >or to one of the Georges, or both? The saying goes back to the reign of Charles V himself, during the Renaissance. It was also used various successors of Charles, including Felipe II of Spain (Charles held the Spanish crown, among several others). It apparently only made its way into English around the beginning of the 19th century, at least according to the quotations I can find, and it was originally just a translation of the traditional phrase referring to the empire of Charles V. That was the case when Walter Scott used it in 1827 -- he specifically *said* Charles V -- and hence probably also when Wilson used it in 1829, though I don't have the context for Wilson's use. However, once it made its way into English, poor Charles didn't get to keep it for long. It was highly applicable to the British empire during the Victorian era, and was soon being used to refer to that instead of the old Holy Roman Empire. Most people in English-speaking countries are probably more likely to have heard it in its Victorian incarnation, whereas those in other parts of Europe may be more familiar with the earlier use, as Tanja is. Like I said, it's just too good a line not to use. - Lisa _____________________________________________________________ Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@raytheon.com Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/ From Eroica With Love: http://lcw.simplenet.com/Eroica/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 21:51:04 +0200 From: Angria@t-online.de (Tanja Kinkel) To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] History Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Giving us an excellent summing up, Lisa wrote: > > The saying goes back to the reign of Charles V himself, during the > Renaissance. It was also used various successors of Charles, including > Felipe II of Spain (Charles held the Spanish crown, among several others). I'm not a hundred percent sure of this, but I think it was first used when Charles got himself elected Emperor by bribing all the necessary princes with money from Jakob Fugger (the Bill Gates of his time), beating, among others, Henry VIII. (in whose realm the sun still did sink ). > It apparently only made its way into English around the beginning of the > 19th century, at least according to the quotations I can find, and it was > originally just a translation of the traditional phrase referring to the > empire of Charles V. That was the case when Walter Scott used it in 1827 -- > he specifically *said* Charles V -- and hence probably also when Wilson > used it in 1829, though I don't have the context for Wilson's use. > > However, once it made its way into English, poor Charles didn't get to keep > it for long. It was highly applicable to the British empire during the > Victorian era, and was soon being used to refer to that instead of the old > Holy Roman Empire. Most people in English-speaking countries are probably > more likely to have heard it in its Victorian incarnation, whereas those in > other parts of Europe may be more familiar with the earlier use, as Tanja is. Indeed, and it might also have helped that by the time Wilson pinched the line, the British Empire was virtually the only one left (Napoleon having dissolved even the legal remnants of what was once the Holy Roman Empire) and at its prime. Thank you, Lisa, for the information - I truly didn't know about the Victorian connection before. Tanja > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 23:27:28 +0200 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: B7 List Subject: RE: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (long) Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99F10FBBB@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain Mistral said: > *There is a problem with destroying Star One.* > > When you enter into a war, you have to accept that > there will be some losses. Generally, however, you > try to limit them to the enemy's troops and your own > troops, preferably as few of the latter as possible. You > also have to expect that there will be some collateral > loss of non-combatants; you try to limit this as much as > possible. Military leaders who deliberately target the > enemy's civilians are almost universally reviled. That's > the equivalent of the Solium device. > > What Blake is contemplating doing at Star One, > however, is the equivalent of turning the artillery > on his *own* civilians. AFAIK, that has never been > considered acceptable by any civilized society. > Whew, I never even thought about it that way. Good point, Mistral. The reason Blake stated for destroying star one (so he would know he was right???) always seemed like a weak one to me. On the other hand, he might not have wanted to take over star one because he was afraid he wouldn't be able to give it up again. After all, exactly when would the right time for that be? There would always have been leftover groups trying to restore the federation, making it necessary to keep control. And when a planetary government was deciding to go back into the federation (not at all unlikely, if you consider the big following the communist party still has in Russia. Stability is very tempting, even if it means oppression), wouldn't it be tempting for Blake to use star one to convince them otherwise? After all, he'd used force to 'convince' people before. I think Blake needed to make sure he wouldn't be tempted. As for method, I always liked Avon more than I liked Blake. And your argument has certainly reinforced that. On a cheerier note: I just bought tapes thirteen and fourteen. That means that tomorrow I'll be watching The Keeper, Star One, Aftermath and Powerplay. Am I happy? Yes I am! But I will not bounce. I will *not* bounce. I....will....not.... Dang, that one got away from me. Hope you're proud of yourself, Tramilla. Jacqueline ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 02:14:19 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: <08ca01be943a$314b8740$cb498cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Judith wrote: >Always irritates me. I can't concieve of any kind of planet that can be >temperate at the equator and close to absolute zero at the poles. A black mark >for Terry there. I think few writers really think about just how cold absolute >zero really is. I wonder if he was thinking of zero Farenheit. Probably not, >but it would be somewhat closer to the mark. Taken literally it is, I agree, utterly absurd, and I think Terry Nation really intended it to be taken literally (El Tel being one of those people who are gung ho for science fiction but know next to bugger all about actual science). However, you could always do what I do and interpret Avon's description as blandly delivered hyperbole. He might have said 'absolute zero' but all he really meant was 'bloody cold'. The phrase might even have been in common usage for all we know. And on the subject of drugs and variable dosage levels: >Because the body language was totally different. The people we saw moving in >the corridors at the start behaved very differently from those in the Justice >department. Therefore I assume they were drugged and those in control were not. >Besides, Tel Varon started taking action against the system - therefore he >wasn't docile and presumably wasn't drugged. Yeah well, you can look it at that way. Or you could look at those people shuffling around at the beginning of the ep and see lots of extras doing their best at looking drugged for the cameras:) Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 02:19:53 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] The Keeper and Star One Message-ID: <08cb01be943a$322ee260$cb498cd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lost track of who first posted this: It's hardly the first time. In Deliverance, everyone teleports back up after finding Maryatt, at which point Blake points out that Jenna is missing. Avon immediately - and rather hurriedly - states his intention to go back down for her. He sounds almost guilty about Jenna's disappearance, which is odd because he was with Vila on the surface, and it was Gan's lack of alertness that led to Jenna being abducted. So in the absence of any reason to feel guilty, can we infer that he had the hots for Jenna at this particular time? Neil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 07:08:15 +0200 From: Angria@t-online.de (Tanja Kinkel) To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] The Keeper and Star One Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Neil Faulkner schrieb: > > It's hardly the first time. In Deliverance, everyone teleports back up > after finding Maryatt, at which point Blake points out that Jenna is > missing. Avon immediately - and rather hurriedly - states his intention to > go back down for her. > > He sounds almost guilty about Jenna's disappearance, which is odd because he > was with Vila on the surface, and it was Gan's lack of alertness that led to > Jenna being abducted. So in the absence of any reason to feel guilty, can > we infer that he had the hots for Jenna at this particular time? I thought his reaction was the result of his earlier digging at Blake that he, Avon, was perhaps more qualified to lead missions than Blake was. And the first time he's in charge, someone of his team disappears... very embarassing. Tanja ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 May 1999 22:06:08 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] search engines Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII If anyone has problems finding a particular entry on my web site - such as references to plague blankets, or a particular zine or all references to Michael Keating, etc. then try the 'search' facility. It's on the main menu and will allow to search the site for anything you want. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 09:21:55 +0100 From: Julia Jones To: space-city@world.std.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] SC: Fan Q ballot Message-ID: The Fan Q ballot has just gone up on the MediaWest website. Ballt page is at http://members.aol.com/sfmediafen/fq99.htm -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 08:40:06 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers) Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sun 02 May, Neil Faulkner wrote: > And on the subject of drugs and variable dosage levels: > > > Because the body language was totally different. The people we saw moving > > in the corridors at the start behaved very differently from those in the > > Justice department. Therefore I assume they were drugged and those in > > control were not. Besides, Tel Varon started taking action against the > > system - therefore he wasn't docile and presumably wasn't drugged. > > Yeah well, you can look it at that way. Or you could look at those people > shuffling around at the beginning of the ep and see lots of extras doing > their best at looking drugged for the cameras:) Tut tut . There is no such thing as an extra. How can you possibly imagine that these were not real people? I mean, it would be like saying that all those hairy natives were wearing wigs instead of having natural blond plaits. Nah! They looked drugged because they were drugged. And that thing in Harvest of Kairos really was a giant spider! All in chorus, please 'No, I'm a believer'. You know, this strikes me a perfect thing to make a filk out of. If anyone can send me the original lyrics then I'll see if I can do a filk on all the impossible things that a B7 fan can believe before breakfast. (I don't know the song well enough to do it without the original lyrics - I'd muck up the scansion) Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Fanzines for Blake's 7 and many other fandoms, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 10:45:38 PDT From: "Hellen Paskaleva" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Drugs Message-ID: <19990502174619.44108.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; Kathryn wrote (on May, 1st): <> It seems to me that the Space Command's headquarters, based on the remote artificial satellite is *their* solution to the problem with air-spreaded suppressants. As it is necessary for servicemen to be in full sane, they could not afford themselves to emit even small amounts of any tranquilizer. By the way, slightly out of topic, but - it was typical for authorities in the communist countries to treat the 'inconvenient' people with drugs for suppressing their resistance/will. Federation does not invent anything new, *they* were simply good learners. Hellen, the Bulgarian ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #153 **************************************