From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #321
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/321
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 321
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Re: Why Dystopia?
Re: [B7L] dystopias
Re: [B7L] dystopias
Re: [B7L] dystopias
Re [B7L] Whence Herculanium?
[B7L] Cally-related.
Re: [B7L] Cally-related.
[B7L] Post-con blues
[B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319
[B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319
[B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319
[B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320
[B7L] Last Lines game
[B7L] the Federation
Re: [B7L] dystopias
Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315)
Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315)
Re: [B7L] the Federation
[B7L] Re: Cally
Re: [B7L] dystopias
Re: [B7L] Cally-related.
Re: [B7L] Re: Cally-related.
[B7L] Soldiers of Love pt 3
[B7L] the Federation
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:44:54 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Why Dystopia?
Message-ID: <0b9501bf2fa1$e5930180$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Yoona wrote:
You're not *that* far from Cambridge, Neil. There's more than an outside
chance that you might meet me face-to-face again at some point...
> >> though quite who Una Palomablanca was I wouldn't
> >> like to guess.
> >
> >D'you know, it's about 20 years since I last heard that joke.
>
> About time it was dusted off, then.
You'll be dusting off Mrs Slocombe's pussy next.
> >During the
> >1970s, it was made so much that I was forced to start murdering people
who
> >cracked it (I was a precocious and bad-tempered 7 year-old.)
>
> Ah, la plus ca change...
:P
> I won't tell you what I was called at school.
Oh go on. Whisper. Promise I won't tell.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 13:02:54 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias
Message-ID: <19991115.130255.10014.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:22:30 -0000 "Una McCormack"
<una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> writes:
>Alison wrote:
>
>That argument seems to me to fall into a trap of saying, 'Well, that's
>how
>people behaved in (some sort of) 'pre-modern' society, so that *must*
>constitute our 'natural' behaviour.'
No, _not_ natural, simply common and often with lots of records to
suggest how a culture acted or adapted over long periods of time. And
then there are the ways different groups use different adaptations for
the same situation (the common storyline with people living on desert
worlds or regions all developing stereotypical Arab cultures, for
example, doesn't hold up when compared to a few dozen other cultures that
also lived in desert regions).
The point is cynicism was not a survival trait for most people in most of
these situations. The immediate negative consequences of excess distrust
were too obvious and were culturally reinforced. Knowing an oath would
be kept was vital _for survival_ to many of these people. Oathbreaking
could be punished by death in some societies. In others, it led to the
oathbreaker being kicked out of his community. It was something that
couldn't be tolerated.
On the other hand, there are cultures that consider showing respect tons
more important than keeping a promise. Hence, making a promise you have
no intention of keeping is all right _if you did it to avoid showing
disrespect_.
However, both groups of people _know_ the rules. Cynicism is the belief
people will either violate these cultural ideas of right and wrong
whenever it works in their favor or that these rules serve no greater
purpose and certainly don't serve the individual considering breaking
them.
I'd say much of modern society encourages cynicism, but I'm still
against it. I've known too many people who would always go the extra
mile--and then some--for others to not believe the world was a better
place for them being in it, a claim I have never heard cynics make for
themselves.
I'm not convinced. Also, I
>*don't* live
>in a society where I have to rely on people in my family, tribe or
>village -
>so those survival techniques aren't appropriate to me anyway.
What I meant was that, while the immediate consequences aren't there, it
doesn't mean there aren't long term ones.
>Cynicism doesn't strike me as a particularly effective strategy in the
>'modern' era, either, leading, as it does, to depression, nihilism,
>and an
>overwhelming sense of pointlessness. On a good day. It's just that in
>our
>society we have more time to brood about it, rather than worrying
>where the
>next meal is coming from.
>
Yeah, those consequences.
>> I think the values which we are taught as children don't make any
>kind of
>> sense, and the result is that thoughtful people tend to get as far
>as
>'moral
>> rules are rubbish' and leave it at that.
>
>Or take the time to reconstruct their own personal creed based on e.g.
>humanism, liberalism or some sort of bastardized psychoanalytic
>theory.
>
Suddenly, I get the feeling I had a different upbringing than some
people. Granted, there were a lot of things I thought at age five I know
realize were flawed, but so was my understanding of math. After getting
addition and subtraction down, I really wondered why I had to spend
another 11 years studying the same stuff. I realized I was wrong, but 1
+ 1 still equals 2. Things I thought were set in stone in kindergarten
have changed, but it doesn't mean the basic principles don't work.
Ellynne
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:31:36 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias
Message-ID: <19991115203137.95347.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Una wrote:
<However, I suspect that Avon would accuse Blake of subscribing to crappy
pieties.>
He would, he would...but does anyone agree that he'd also be disconcerted
(not to say disgruntled) if Blake *gave up* said
pieties?
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:01:42 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias
Message-ID: <0c3101bf2fac$a0a93f70$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ellynne wrote:
> However, both groups of people _know_ the rules. Cynicism is the belief
> people will either violate these cultural ideas of right and wrong
> whenever it works in their favor or that these rules serve no greater
> purpose and certainly don't serve the individual considering breaking
> them.
>
> I'd say much of modern society encourages cynicism, but I'm still
> against it. I've known too many people who would always go the extra
> mile--and then some--for others to not believe the world was a better
> place for them being in it, a claim I have never heard cynics make for
> themselves.
I appear to have acquired the reputation of some sort of arch-cynic in all
this - not entirely sure why. I don't pursue cynicism as some sort of
personal creed and I don't think anyone would *enjoy* being a cynic. I don't
believe that I am a bad person because I am, on occasion, a mistrustful one.
I think I agree with your first definition of cynicism, but not with your
second one.
> > I'm not convinced. Also, I *don't* live
> >in a society where I have to rely on people in my family, tribe or
village -
> >so those survival techniques aren't appropriate to me anyway.
>
> What I meant was that, while the immediate consequences aren't there, it
> doesn't mean there aren't long term ones.
>
> >Cynicism doesn't strike me as a particularly effective strategy in the
> >'modern' era, either, leading, as it does, to depression, nihilism, and
an
> >overwhelming sense of pointlessness. On a good day. It's just that in our
> >society we have more time to brood about it, rather than worrying where
the
> >next meal is coming from.
> >
> Yeah, those consequences.
:)
> >> I think the values which we are taught as children don't make any kind
of
> >> sense, and the result is that thoughtful people tend to get as far
as'moral
> >> rules are rubbish' and leave it at that.
> >
> >Or take the time to reconstruct their own personal creed based on e.g.
> >humanism, liberalism or some sort of bastardized psychoanalytic
> >theory.
> >
> Suddenly, I get the feeling I had a different upbringing than some
> people. Granted, there were a lot of things I thought at age five I know
> realize were flawed, but so was my understanding of math. After getting
> addition and subtraction down, I really wondered why I had to spend
> another 11 years studying the same stuff. I realized I was wrong, but 1
> + 1 still equals 2. Things I thought were set in stone in kindergarten
> have changed, but it doesn't mean the basic principles don't work.
When I was 5, I was taught that I would go to hell if I was naughty and that
I had a guardian angel sitting on my shoulder keeping an account of my sins.
I was also taught to respect other people, their property, their opinions,
and to be true to my own goals and personality in life.
Some of this was bollocks, some of this wasn't. Recognizing the difference
is impossible for a 5 year old. Sifting the crap and keeping the nuggets of
gold appeared to me to be the process of progressing toward maturity.
I appear to be getting rather depressed today and personalizing a lot more
of these posts than I actually think is intended by anyone. Apologies to all
and sundry. I'm now bowing out of this one and going off for my tea.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:43:12 EST
From: "Joanne MacQueen" <j_macqueen@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re [B7L] Whence Herculanium?
Message-ID: <19991115214312.22817.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
> > Of course. There's nothing to have stopped, say, Chris Boucher, thinking
> > "That's an interesting name, sounds like a metal", and there you are...
>Oy! Don't blame that one on Chris. James Follett was reponsible for 'Dawn
>of
>the Gods'.
Well, I'm not blaming Chris Boucher for the episode <grin> And I wasn't
blaming him for the name of the metal, either, just chucking a few
possibilities around. (<gets out copy of Attwood's programme guide> Sorry,
I'm filking again. Bad habit.) Given that Follett was also responsible for
Stardrive, I'd be suitably grateful if Boucher had named herculanium. Then
again, the script editor could have been salvaging one of the few good bits
in Follett's script, I don't know.
Regards
Joanne
Well, there's nothing so rum it might not be true.
--William Herrick Macaulay
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:06:41 -0000
From: "Andrew Ellis" <Andrew.D.Ellis@btinternet.com>
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Cally-related.
Message-ID: <007801bf2fb5$ea7fe6e0$92628cd4@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Kai, Hellen and Sally have been discussing Cally.
>I have to refer here to my personal
>experience again. Several years ago the communists still ruled my country,
>.......
That is, because the communist system is rotten in
>it's very base. And it could not be repaired, only overthrown... As well as
>the Federation was. Q.E.D. ;-)
Hellen,
I'll have to bow to your experience as to whether the communist system is
rotten (or at least your local implementation). I have Chinese friends on
both sides of the fence, and no real personal experience. But....back to
Blakes 7........ OK there are corrupt people in the Federation, and the
leaders of the Teranostra have infiltrated the government (not known to rank
and file members like Vila). But does that in iteslf mean that the whole of
the Federation is corrupt. As our current leader in the UK has stated, "The
Establishment" has too much control here. But, if "The Establishment" is not
government, then it is the wider community of administrators, civil
servants, the leaders of trade associations and the wealthy/influential.
So...., either a system is corrupt because the head is corrupt (in which
case you just cut of the head), or it is corrupt because the wider body of
the administration is fundamentally corrupt. If the later case, then it
seems to me that the only difference between a "good" regime and a "bad"
regime is the level of corruption that the populace are willing to accept.
And the level of "acceptable corruption" is of course a variable depending
on standard of living, and, if you have just won a revolution/war or not. So
really, is the Federation any different to, say, (just for example), the
British Empire in Victorian times. And if not, what has really changed in
the mechanism of home government over the last centuary ?
> There are, sometimes, decisions like this, which you _have_
>to take the responsibility for, at all costs.
Point taken. And Blake THOUGHT that he had taken the right decision. He
began to doubt it at one point though, hence the quote about needing to
prove that he was right, that the killing was justified etc. But it does not
matter if he was right or wrong, finding that out (and for me, we never do)
is part of the story, part of the appeal. If the Fedeartion was so Black,
and the Crew so White, the series would have been so much flatter.
Sally
>The problem is that Cally *doesn't* IMO grow into her changes of
>attitude - she stays static, then lurches into them all of a
>sudden
I have actually seen this happen in real life, people support you one minute
and not the next. In my experience, this can sometimes be motivated by 1)
boredom, or 2) hidden agenda's, or by 3) beliefs of futility. 1) Cally may
have held her views for a long time, but just could not be bothered to voice
them until some other influence has caused her to sit up and examine the
issue (the writer needs her to). 2) She might have wanted to go to the Earth
system for her own reasons, and destruction of control went broadly along
with her more immediate and over riding ends (the writer might forget in the
excitement). Or (3), Cally may have thought that there is no way they could
destroy control on Earth, so there is no point in arguing about it, but when
it looked like they were going to assault an un gaurded and isolated planet
and actually achieve the goal, it becomes an all important issue (if there
is no apparent opposition, the writer needs some in the group). So without
watching the episodes in detail to see if this holds up, her changing moral
stance does not cause me a problem (or it does if its down to the writers
not actively realising all of this).
Of course, Cally's changing moral stance also coincides (approximately) with
Blake's temporary loss of faith in himself. So the glorious revolution may
have, at that time, lost some of its gloss for Cally, allowing her to
actually question the validity of individual actions, rather than blindly
accepting that the ends justify the means.
Andrew
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:05:04 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Cally-related.
Message-ID: <0d1d01bf2fbe$0ea02050$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Andrew wrote:
> As our current leader in the UK has stated, "The
> Establishment" has too much control here.
As our current leader of the opposition in the UK replied: 'This is a man
educated at public school and Oxford with a majority of almost 200 in the
House of Commons. Who does he think *is* the Establishment?'
Una
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:34:54 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Post-con blues
Message-ID: <PNjgIMAeBGM4Ew4N@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <199911151350.NAA08059@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>, Steve Kilbane
<steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk> writes
>> Oh my aching head. I don't drink, so why do cons give me a hangover?
>
>Because you're so busy doing con things that your normal food, drink 'n'
>sleep routine is utterly disrupted. So you're more dehydrated than normal
>for the time of day, and tired.
Some of us also had jet lag to contend with, of course. However, I felt
fairly rotten first thing Monday morning after the con, but perked up
enough to thoroughly enjoy the "Five do New York" with which some of us
amused ourselves after we'd been cruelly abandoned by our American
playmates.
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:56:50 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319
Message-ID: <3830F223.1139@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> One
> > alien wandered into Ten Forward, the Enterprise bar, and his worldview
> > collapsed, leading to suicide. Now, can you honestly see anyone on B7
> > doing this? Other than Vila, if he found himself trapped in a universe
> > where they don't serve liquor?
>
> Which means that he might just do this in SN:TNG, since they serve synthetic
> alcohol there.
>
> Susan M.
I think Vila would set up a still and go into business.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:00:18 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319
Message-ID: <3830F2F3.F21@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> > Which is an interesting question about the Trek Federation - what sort
> > of a law system would they have which fairly reflects the excessive
> > tolerance of their culture?
>
> Obligatory psychotherapy for those whose opinions and behaviour don't line
> up with the great fluffy consensus.
>
>
> Una
Bringing us back to Blake getting brainwashed.
I always wanted to see a dimensional twist send the Liberator and the
Enterprise to the same place. The Enterprize identifies itself as a
Federation vessel, and gets blown up very quickly by the alarmed
rebels. <veg>
--Avona
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:05:37 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #319
Message-ID: <3830F431.3A8B@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Re: Janeway-- if the show had been decent, I might have liked her. I
thought the actress was good. But the scripts HURT! I'd rather watch the
movies they make fun of on MST3k without the bots. At least they are
meant to be fun.Voyager seems to take itself way too seriously.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:16:00 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #320
Message-ID: <3830F6A1.123F@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Any how, some people seem to regard cynicism as a virtue. Like Avon.
>
> Ellynne
Sometimes, and sometimes he makes a virtue out of what he regards as a
necessity. He does think rather highly of Blake.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:24:02 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Last Lines game
Message-ID: <3830F883.39B5@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rescue:
Vila> Say, didn't Dorian's ladyfriend used to be a Mutoid?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 23:12:02 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] the Federation
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1115231202-3efRr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Mon 15 Nov, Andrew Ellis wrote:
> If the later case, then it seems to me that the only difference between a
> "good" regime and a "bad" regime is the level of corruption that the populace
> are willing to accept. And the level of "acceptable corruption" is of course a
> variable depending on standard of living, and, if you have just won a
> revolution/war or not. So really, is the Federation any different to, say,
> (just for example), the British Empire in Victorian times. And if not, what
> has really changed in the mechanism of home government over the last centuary
> ?
The British Empire was far from perfect, but I think even the Victorians didn't
stoop as low as drugging entire populations in cities, massacring half the
population of a planet and deporting the rest, or making an entire world live
with the knowledge that every single one of them would die if there was a
revolution.
That's just part of it. Check out my web site for a fuller list of Federation
atrocities and which episodes I'm citing.
Becuase the killing was off-screen (BBC budget and watershed as well) I think it
is often overlooked. Stalin would have run pretty even with the Federation,but
I don't think the Victorians abused their own people to that extent.
It was once said of Ghandi that passive resistance wouldn't have worked against
anyone except the British. India gained its independence.
Foster tried passive resistance - he got shot. Come to think of it, Blake tried
it too.
BLAKE: Of course I did. Travis was already there. He'd been hiding
in that basement for more than two days. We made no attempt
to resist arrest. There was no point, we had no chance. I
said to Travis, "We will offer no resistance." And he just stared
at me. And then he ordered his men to open fire.
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: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 02:40:06 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias
Message-ID: <19991116104006.10082.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>That argument seems to me to fall into a trap of saying, 'Well, that's how
>people behaved in (some sort of) 'pre-modern' society, so that *must*
>constitute our 'natural' behaviour.'
I've heard an awful lot of people speculate on what our "natural" behaviour
is, was, or should be. But I've never heard anyone even attempt to define
exactly what they mean by "natural". To me, it usually sounds like "the way
*I* think people should be".
>It's just that in our society we have more time to brood about it, rather
>than worrying where the next meal is coming from.
In "The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee", Jared Diamond claims that
hunter-gatherer socities would work, on average, 20-hour weeks. He based
his assumption on the societies he lived and worked with in Papua New
Guinea. Ever heard that niggling little voice saying, "You're in the wrong
business, Mate"?
>>I think the values which we are taught as children don't make any kind of
>>sense, and the result is that thoughtful people tend to get as far as
>>'moral rules are rubbish' and leave it at that.
>
>Or take the time to reconstruct their own personal creed based on e.g.
>humanism, liberalism or some sort of bastardized psychoanalytic theory.
I have to admit, given the choice of (1) writing my own personal moral code,
based on my life's experiences and the teachings of the people I respect
most, and (2) having my morals dictated to me by some dogmatic tract, I
would choose the former over the latter. Up to a point, I suppose. I mean,
I wouldn't want every man and his dog writing their own moral code with
respect to murdering Rob Clother. To name but one example.
>>What I like about the 7 is that they don't subscribe to crappy pieties,
>>but they do have loyalty and compassion and courage, which (IMHO) are the
>>real virtues.
>
>However, I suspect that Avon would accuse Blake of subscribing to crappy
>pieties.
I don't think it would be so much subscribing to crappy pieties, as dreaming
impossible dreams -- and living by the results. My contribution to the
ST/B7 War is the observation that the Trek "goodies" never questioned
themselves, or what they were doing. Partly because of the differences
between Avon's outlook and Blake's, the question "why" was bandied around a
great deal in B7. Nothing should ever be so sacred that it is adhered to
unquestioningly.
Cheers,
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 06:19:02 -0500
From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315)
Message-ID: <199911160619_MC2-8D37-BB0A@compuserve.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Joanne wrote:
>Because there's only one Michael Murray, right Harriet?
Actually, there's the other one who chaired the Test and County Cricket
Board's Structure Working Party which recommended playing all Championship
games over four days, at about the same time as GBH, which I found very
funny though no one else seemed to get the joke (despite commentary by
Christopher Martin-Jenkins cropping up in the final episode)...
Didn't you love the scene where Robert Lindsay is trying to seduce Lindsay
Duncan in the middle of a Dr Who con?
Harriet
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:44:09 +0000
From: Una McCormack <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: DS9 (was Re: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #315)
Message-ID: <383197E9.6F20B9A1@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Harriet Monkhouse wrote:
> Didn't you love the scene where Robert Lindsay is trying to seduce Lindsay
> Duncan in the middle of a Dr Who con?
It was better watching it as an extra.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:43:05 +0000
From: Una McCormack <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] the Federation
Message-ID: <383197A9.CA4CB3F4@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Judith Proctor wrote:
> It was once said of Ghandi that passive resistance wouldn't have worked against
> anyone except the British. India gained its independence.
Hmm. I would probably put India's independence down to the fact that
Britain could no longer sustain an Empire after the War than to passive
resistance on the part of Gandhi's party. Not-so passive resistance did
pretty well securing an Irish Free State. One could argue that neither
strategy worked so well given the fact that both countries ended up
partitioned. Or not, depending which side of the argument you're on.
Una
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:46:15 GMT
From: benmtt@cwcom.net
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Re: Cally
Message-id: <3831a677.137c.0@cwcom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally wrote:
>I can see what you're saying, but I still think revenge had a
>great deal to do with Cally's behaviour on Saurian Major (the
>wording is important - not 'my death will have meaning" but
>"companions for..." she wants blood).
I think it's a bit more involved than that. Perhaps
she wants to atone for her "failure" (surviving while
her Saurian Major colleagues all died?), but most of
all she wants to avoid dying "alone and silent". The
desire for revenge may be a contributing factor but it
isn't the beginning and end of her behaviour, in
stark contrast to Avon's plain revenge for revenge's
sake and self-deluded notion of himself as an "executioner"
and self-appointed righter of wrongs in "Rumours".
>Yes, by Children of Auron time, she's changed her mind
>about the worth of revenge. I agree with your <I think being
>hot on >revenge and other violent action has understandably
>lost its taste for her.> But there is *no* excuse, given her
>own earlier feelings, for her to be so holier-than-thou about
>it.
Is she being "holier-than-thou"? For a start, Cally is an
alien, and thus presumably has a value system that may not
necessarily equate with our own. Cally has never struck
me as being given to sententious sneering at the behaviour
of others, rather she merely exercises her perfect right to
express an alternative viewpoint according to her own
specific (cultural?) beliefs. If you want to see some real
sanctimoniously pious behaviour, look no further than Blake
himself. Way back in "The Way Back", he makes the sweeping
statement "There can be no justification for deliberate
murder". A few episodes later, he's blowing up communication
centres full of (conscripted?) Federation personnel and
casually rigging charges to entry hatches to wipe out
the neutrotope buyers in "Mission To Destiny."
>"It doesn't achieve anything?" How would she know? >
But as the subsequent chain of events showed, she was
quite right. It didn't achieve anything. It only served
to make Avon even more screwed up than he was before. I
think the pointlessness of revenge is a layered theme of
"Rumours". I also loved Cally's line "It's contagious,
isn't it?", giving Tarrant, Dayna and Vila a lot of
their own hypocrisy to chew on.
>It's fairly obvious she at least knows *nothing*
>of Avon's reasons or feelings, in fact she knows
>nothing at all (to be fair, IMO he only told Tarrant
>and Vila what he had to to get them to do what he wanted.
>Cally wouldn't have been so manipulable, so he left her
>out of it). How can she pronounce such a sweeping judgement
>without making the slightest attempt to understand?
I don't think Cally's anywhere near as ignorant as you
seem to make out. Check out "Hostage" - she seems to suss
out Avon's guilty behaviour pretty fast.
><2. The Changing Seasons of Cally
><with a sudden simultaneous breakdown of just about every larger
>computerised function in over 200 worlds, many which are probably
>completely dependant of them, could well mean a death toll of millions>
>
>[1] See my other post - yes, "many many people" were going to die.
>But how many is many is another question. I still think millions
>is a gross exaggeration. And I'm absolutely sure Cally doesn't
>mean millions (or she'd have used a less vague term, like - maybe?
>- "millions".) But be that as it may...
A bit of straw-clutching going on here? Given Star One's
(admittedly, largely implied) status, it's perfectly
logical to assume (with or without the benefit of
statistics) that its destruction would have
dramatic repercussions not just for the Federation
but also on the people, whose freedom Cally has been
fighting for for quite some time. It's perfectly
understandable that she might want to take a step back
and think carefully about the consequences of her
actions, and all the more credit to her for having
the courage to do so. (Not that Blake lacked courage
either).
>[2] Cally was perfectly happy to destroy the same computer complex
>when she thought it was on Earth. She's perfectly happy right the
>way through to end of The Keeper (she doesn't have any interest in
>Avon's desultory 'let's use it'. There is no indication that they
>had any more information about the results of loss of Star One than
>of Control. *If* she thought millions would die, why not speak up
>then? Why the *sudden* attack of collywobbles?
There is a rather obvious possibility. Cally was gung ho
along with Blake to destroy Control ("We must take this
chance!") and also suggested a raid on the Federation
Weapons Defence Centre ("Weapon"). *And then Gan is killed."
I dare say that the loss of a colleague whom she has
worked alongside for a long period of time might have
been a teensy weensy bit traumatic. Gan's death certainly
led Blake to (temporarily) question his motivations, so
why not Cally? In "Trial", someone (sorry, but I haven't
watched it for a while) made the point that they had
built up an image of being invulnerable (or words to the
same effect) and Cally says, almost to herself, as
though she is thinking aloud: "We were even starting to
believe it ourselves." I don't believe that having the
guts to take a long, hard look at yourself, to seriously
examine your own values and agendas, and then possibly
having a change of attitude makes one self-righteous or a
hypocrite of any kind.
>The problem is that Cally *doesn't* IMO grow into her changes of
>attitude - she stays static, then lurches into them all of a
>sudden when the writer needs her to. And there's no sense of "I
>was wrong, I've changed my mind, I'm nor so sure".
Which seems to be typical of episodic television in general,
with leads such as Blake and Avon getting the lions' share
of the "character development" with the others making do
with the occasional tokenist scrap. The hint of Gan's
willingness to sacrifice himself in "Bounty" leading to
his "I'm not worth dying for" in "Pressure Point" was
probably by accident rather than design. Again, this is
nothing to hold against Cally's character specifically.
Basically, I like pretty much all the characters for
their good mix of positive and negative qualities, which
only adds more to the richness of the show overall.
Maybe Cally is a self-righteous, intolerant hypocrite,
but to quote the lady herself, "Nobody's perfect."
Ben M.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 08:46:57 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] dystopias
Message-ID: <lqEaxBABoRM4Ewu$@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <19991115203137.95347.qmail@hotmail.com>, Sally Manton
<smanton@hotmail.com> writes
>Una wrote:
>
><However, I suspect that Avon would accuse Blake of subscribing to crappy
>pieties.>
>
>He would, he would...but does anyone agree that he'd also be disconcerted
>(not to say disgruntled) if Blake *gave up* said
>pieties?
>
Yes. I'd go into greater detail, but I'm still not with it (thank god
this software has a spellchecker, my typing's dreadful at the moment).
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:57:03 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Cally-related.
Message-ID: <000a01bf3067$fa580360$941dac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally wrote:
>[2] Cally was perfectly happy to destroy the same computer complex
>when she thought it was on Earth. She's perfectly happy right the
>way through to end of The Keeper (she doesn't have any interest in
>Avon's desultory 'let's use it'. There is no indication that they
>had any more information about the results of loss of Star One than
>of Control. *If* she thought millions would die, why not speak up
>then? Why the *sudden* attack of collywobbles?
She's as enthusiastic as ever once she's down on the surface of Star One
itself, so I suspect her little ''Are we fanatics?'' bit was her expressing
doubts she's had all along. This is crunch time, after all. Like all good
rebels (Blake included) her conviction is not blindly absolute - if
anything, it becomes even stronger through being called into question now
and again.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:22:26 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Cally-related.
Message-ID: <000b01bf3068$02ebc0c0$941dac3e@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hellen wrote (in excellent continuation of Kai's equally excellent post):
>She
>could not match herself, she could not identify herself with actions like
>abducting gems ("Harvest of Kairos") or torturing people ("Rumours of
>Death").
I don't think it's the actions that bother her so much as the motives, the
blatant self-interest behind the crew's activities with no 'higher' purpose.
I've long thought that the effective disappearance of the Federation at this
time (temporary though it ultimately was) left Cally drifting. Therefore
she retreated to the moral high ground and started polishing her halo.
>Probably this internal conflict of her's - between that newly re-written
>aims of the crew and her persistent beliefs - has made her so unsteady and,
>consequently, helpless against external mental influences, which has
>happened to her most often than ever in season III.
I like that idea.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 16:42:19 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
cc: Freedom City <freedom-city@blakes-7.org>
Subject: [B7L] Soldiers of Love pt 3
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1116164219-b49Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
I now have Soldiers of Love pt 3 in stock (as well as parts 1, 2 of course)
Gareth Thomas, Michael Keating and Jan Chappell can be heard on this one.
I'll post a review once I've listened to it myself (just arrived in this
morning's post). I expect it will be the usual camp humour and comic book style
villains. I certainly hope so!
Cost from me is 10 pounds including postage (Eur 10.50, USA 11 or $19 cash,
Aus/NZ 11.25). cheques payable to Judith Proctor, 28 Diprose Rd, Corfe Mullen,
Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 3QY
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: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 12:33:35 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] the Federation
Message-ID: <19991116203336.52520.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Andrew Ellis wrote: <So really, is the Federation any different to, say,
(just for example), the British Empire in Victorian times. >
I agree with Judith here. Our Heroes may come in shades of grey (that's one
of the things we like about them), but I see the Federation is almost
entirely black - evil on the scale of Nazism or Stalinism (and do read
Judith's list - it is pretty impressive evidence thereof). What fascinates
me *is* the fact that these flawed and fallible and not-meant-to-be-heroic
('where are all the good guys?' 'You could be looking at them.' 'What a
depressing thought') human beings* can fight against something so utterly
evil, and, if they don't win, put up a damned good fight...
There isn't black and white in B7, but there is grey, black and
blacker-than-black. The Powers-that-Be, for me, come under the latter
heading (definitely led by Servalan, for all her surface glamour).
* Okay, except maybe for Tarrant. And Dayna. Maybe. The rest - not even my
Beloved Leader - are anything *but* natural hero material (And then there's
Vila...)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #321
**************************************