From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #153
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> 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 <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] History
Message-ID: <oGXd5GAPQwK3Ewxp@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <m10dZQf-0003ZZC@fwd05.btx.dtag.de>, Tanja Kinkel <Angria@t-
online.de> 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 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
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. <sigh> 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." <rilliara@juno.com>
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.
<grin> 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" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
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 <lcw@dallas.net>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
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: <m10dfmy-0003NAC@fwd04.btx.dtag.de>
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 <g>).
> 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 <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
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....
<bounce>
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" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
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" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
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:
<When Avon starts shouting "Where are the others ?" in the Keeper, is any
one else reminded of Vila asking "Where's Tarrant?" in Blake? I must say
that it's the first time I really noticed that bit and it
quite shocked me. Avon forgetting to hide the fact he cares?>
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: <m10doUB-0003TFC@fwd06.btx.dtag.de>
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 <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] search engines
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0501210608-f7fRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
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 <julia.SC@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: space-city@world.std.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] SC: Fan Q ballot
Message-ID: <V2NSVAAjsAL3Ew9f@jajones.demon.co.uk>
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 <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Curious things in Star One (potential spoilers)
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0502074006-0b0Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
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 <grin>. 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! <smile> 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" <hellen_pas@hotmail.com>
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):
<<If suppressants suppress initiative, then at the minimum, high government
officials (such as Servalan) would be exempt.>>
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
**************************************