From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #337
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/337
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 337
Today's Topics:
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] optimism and pessimism
Re: [B7L] Re: Sarcophagus
Re: [B7L] Re: ALert! "Avona" is actually going to DEFEND Tarrant.
Re: [B7L] :ALert! "Avona" is actually going to DEFEND Tarrant.
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] optimism and pessimism
Re [B7L] Tarrant's uniform
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Re: Avon ATA
[B7L] Strange website
Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Re: [B7L] Strange website
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 11:31:22 +0000
From: Steve Kilbane <steve@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
To: b7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-Id: <199912031131.LAA20918@whitecrow.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
The "dropping when shot once" thing is chancy, as Mistral says. On the
other hand, being knocked over when hit by suitable force helps. It all
depends on the type of response you want.
Consider: if you need a surgical kick, as in the case of SWAT snipers,
then high-powered rifle with a single shot is best. You can take your
time getting the accurate shot, the round penetrates any helmets, etc.
and there's only the one recoil to affect your aim.
On the other hand:
> It's my understanding that the SAS doctrine is to shoot the target twice,
> and then evaluate the situation.
Well, they use automatic weapons on burst settings. Increases the impact
on the target, and keeps it up for longer. If you think about it, simple
high-powered rounds might go right through the target, leaving them still
standing. A burst has more chance of knocking them down. Hollow-points,
in addition to inflicting way more injury, alse ensure that more of the
round's momentum is absorbed by the target.
I think Squirble explains this in sf, though: the effect of the gun
interacts with the target's nervous system, hence the jerk-and-fall
response.
> I presume they know what they're doing.
A whole different sort of war, which is what I was on about, at Redemption.
SAS use night, gas grenades, breathing apparatus, surveillance equipment
to identify their targets, and a very dramatic entrance style. Our Heroes
usually seem to give their assaults almost no preparatation or thought.
> Mind, you, it would also appear to be their practice to empty a magazine
> or two into any incapacitated/dead enemies as soon as possible: something
> we don't see any of our heroes doing. Not even the eminently pragmatic
> Avon.
Also noted at Redemption. The determined ones kill wounded enemies, especially
those in the only path of escape. Nicer ones drug them, somehow. At least
tie the buggers up!
steve
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 04:12:20 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] optimism and pessimism
Message-ID: <3847B3A3.6EDDCF5F@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rob Clother wrote:
> (1) Optimists are more likely to succeed than pessimists. [Alison]
> (2) Pessimists are more likely to be proved right than optimists [Mistral's
> study] -- because pessimism is, very often, a self-fulfilling prophesy.
>
> There's no contradiction at all between the statements. In fact, they are
> almost different ways of saying the same thing.
Except <mutter, grumble> that you've completely twisted what I
said. The study wasn't about optimism/pessimism as self-fufilling
prophecy, because it wasn't about *response* to the environment,
only the *perception* of it.
Pessimism and defeatism are by no means the same thing. They
occur together with what I suspect is roughly the same frequency
as optimism and foolhardiness. I cannot count the number of times
I've watched optimists precipitate major life disasters because they
refused to consider the possible negative consequences of their
actions. Pessimists are, in my experience at least, far more likely
to consider *all* possible outcomes, good and bad.
Just because a pessimist has a disaster preparedness kit in his
home, or takes his umbrella when he goes out, doesn't mean he
caused the earthquake or the rainstorm. Sometimes pessimists
fight harder to succeed because they know it's going to take
that sort of effort if there's to be a chance to succeed at all.
As in Avon's 'If they're going to kill us, let us at least try and
make it difficult for them'.
You could say it was Blake's optimism that got Gan killed.
Mistral, realist with pessimist tendencies
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:16:18 EST
From: Mac4781@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Sarcophagus
Message-ID: <0.9ba3dff6.25790e92@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Ellynne wrote:
> It just requires an officer with an open door who was the right size.
> And for Tarrant to know he was the right size (or maybe Tarrant was in
> his lifepod a long time and he spent it doing alterations? I always knew
> he had hidden talents!).
A boy has to have some hobbies, and he can't exactly enjoy roller blades or a
skateboard while on board a spaceship. :)
This was brilliant, Ellynne. Thanks so much for sharing!
Carol Mc (a bit scatterbrained at the moment--did anyone tell Andrew that
LOL means Laughing Out Loud?)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 04:29:19 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: ALert! "Avona" is actually going to DEFEND Tarrant.
Message-ID: <3847B79E.A4207121@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sally Manton wrote:
> I forgot to mention one other, external reason why this tirade
> of Tarrant's makes me wince, the same one as for Avon's equally
> silly jibe at Blake at the start of Deliverance. Both are uncharacteristic
> pieces of conceit (they're both arrogant,
> they're neither quite this stupidly conceited) clearly written
> in to set up Tarrant (Sargophagus) and Avon (Deliverance) for
> a fall later in the episode.
But if, as seems to be the case, the blue eggy was prodding Tarrant
to say things that he might be feeling but wouldn't ordinarily verbalize,
that easily accounts for his speech.
OTOH, Avon's attitude at the start of Deliverance is completely in
character; it's simply a different *mood* than we usually see. Nobody
is such an automation that they display 100% consistency, 100% of
the time. There are several episodes where he displays a desire to
prove himself more qualified to run things than Blake is. Trial and
Redemption both spring to mind. He is simply being a little more
aggressive about it than usual. (I'm sure he kicked himself for it later.)
Grins,
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 04:38:31 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] :ALert! "Avona" is actually going to DEFEND Tarrant.
Message-ID: <3847B9C6.BB407B96@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Andrew wrote:
> So, does anybody think that Tarrant's brother was in on his desertion, and
> so fled to the nearest neutral planets to avoid going into "slavery" ? Or
> did he leave whilst the grey clad one was still on active service.
It's quite clear from the dialogue in the scene where Deeta checks
in with the judges that he left Earth before Del deserted; possibly
quite some time before.
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 05:13:45 -0800
From: mistral@ptinet.net
To: B7 List <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <3847C208.E38D7BB0@ptinet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Neil Faulkner wrote:
> >> In a real life-or-death situation
> >> armed with a Ray Gun (TM), you would surely still shoot to hit and assess
> >> the consequences afterwards.
> >
> >A prescription for disaster if I ever heard one. Even if the bullet/ray
> >kills, the target doesn't drop immediately; that's a TV fiction.
>
> There's enough live footage and stills from actual combat to show that a
> target can drop instantly when hit. But it can't be relied on. A single
> slug from an AK-47 can kill outright. There are cases of people taking two
> or three such slugs and remaining on their feet. There are just too many
> variables.
Sorry if I've overstated. Targets do *sometimes* drop immediately,
although I've been given to understand it's uncommon and should
never be expected. But dropped isn't dead; death is a process, and
rarely instantaneous. Even full decapitation doesn't kill instantly; it
doesn't even cause immediate loss of consciousness, a fact which
has been put to interesting use in at least one inheritance case. In
Star One, Travis dropped when Avon shot him, but he was neither
dead nor defanged.
We do seem to agree, however, that even when you hit your target,
you can't count on them dying instantly. Which supports the point I
was trying to make, that if Avon had hit Travis in the head in Orac,
Travis might still have shot Blake.
> >You *have* to think about the consequences before you shoot;
> >and preferably, before you pick up the gun. Not doing so will
> >get you killed.
>
> But if you've got a gun in your hand, and the other guy (or girl, let's be
> PC about this) has got a gun in his/er hand, and s/he is pointing it at you
> with trigger finger whitening at the knuckle, stopping to think is probably
> not a very good idea.
Whoever said stop? Think while you aim. But if using a weapon
is a significant part of your survival routine (as it is for everybody
on Liberator) you really ought to be aware that hitting somebody
doesn't equate to removing them as a threat. That should be
obvious even to Vila.
Furthermore, Avon wasn't in the situation you describe. Travis
wasn't pointing the gun at Avon, but at Blake; and we can't tell
from the camera angle how long he actually had to think and aim.
Hmm... is it better to be dead because you didn't stop to think, or
because you did?
Mistral
--
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!"
--Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:11:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: b7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.96.991203130137.21025B-100000@bsauasc>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Steve Kilbane wrote:
> A whole different sort of war, which is what I was on about, at Redemption.
> SAS use night, gas grenades, breathing apparatus, surveillance equipment
> to identify their targets, and a very dramatic entrance style. Our Heroes
> usually seem to give their assaults almost no preparatation or thought.
>
Not even appropriate clothing. I guess it's a combination of the
action-adventure tropes and the budgetary/technological limitations at the
beeb.
The most puzzling thing is why they didn't get some decent guns. Even the
M16s used by Avalon's bunch would have been a lot more use than the
Liberator curling tongs.
>
> > Mind, you, it would also appear to be their practice to empty a magazine
> > or two into any incapacitated/dead enemies as soon as possible: something
> > we don't see any of our heroes doing. Not even the eminently pragmatic
> > Avon.
>
> Also noted at Redemption. The determined ones kill wounded enemies, especially
> those in the only path of escape. Nicer ones drug them, somehow. At least
> tie the buggers up!
I am reminded of the cover of "Private Eye", after the SAS ambushed and
killed that IRA team in Gibraltar. The cover showed two SAS chaps. One
says "Why did you shoot him sixteen times?". The other replies "I ran out
of bullets."
Iain
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:54:05 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] optimism and pessimism
Message-ID: <000301bf3dbc$046d9660$88488cd4@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Andrew wrote:
>Who ever said you needed an accurate view of reality to be successful in
>your career, or survive in a hostile environment ?
Any true pessimist will tell you that success is overrated.
Come to think of it, survival might not be all it's cracked up to be,
either.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:46:04 -0000
From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
To: "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re [B7L] Tarrant's uniform
Message-ID: <000201bf3dbc$031de4e0$88488cd4@default>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I've always assumed that Tarrant acquired his uniform by dubious means,
without deeply considering how. It may well have been stripped off a dead
officer, possibly one that Tarrant killed personally (he talks about ending
up on a Federation ship - no mention of any surviving crew. He may have
taken out the handful of survivors if self-preservation - or plain
self-interest - depended on it. Or the uniform in question might have been
fresh and unworn, still wrapped in cellophane with a nice big label
indicating its size, and stashed in a hold with thousands of others). The
point is, he appeared on the Liberator wearing a uniform that fit, ergo he
must have obtained one somehow, and there are so many ways that he could
have done so rendering it fairly pointless arguing for one means over
another. Who cares anyway?
As to the relative merits of wearing a uniform rather than civvies - both
have their liabilities, but a soldier can order civilians around (especially
in a war zone) whilst a civilian can't order soldiers around, and an officer
can order other soldiers around too (those of low enough rank, at any rate).
Tarrant is sufficiently intelligent and resourceful to make the most of his
bogus authority if he can turn it to his advantage, and his officer training
and military background give him a fair chance of bullshitting his way out
of a tight spot if his credentials are challenged. So I'd reckon he was
better off posing as an officer, simply because it stood to widen his
options. Unless of course he ended up in the company of the Black Friday
Afternoon Kill All Fed Scum Popular Peoples Mad-Eyed Revolutionary Front,
but that's just one of the risks he'd have to take.
Neil
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:31:47 -0800
From: "Spudgun" <spudgun@dial.pipex.com>
To: "Iain Coleman" <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>, "b7" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <000b01bf3e00$2a507020$674efea9@colingat>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
----- Original Message -----
From: Iain Coleman <ijc@bsfiles.nerc-bas.ac.uk>
To: b7 <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:11 AM
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
>
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Steve Kilbane wrote:
>
> > A whole different sort of war, which is what I was on about, at
Redemption.
> > SAS use night, gas grenades, breathing apparatus, surveillance equipment
> > to identify their targets, and a very dramatic entrance style. Our
Heroes
> > usually seem to give their assaults almost no preparatation or thought.
> >
>
> Not even appropriate clothing. I guess it's a combination of the
> action-adventure tropes and the budgetary/technological limitations at the
> beeb.
>
> The most puzzling thing is why they didn't get some decent guns. Even the
> M16s used by Avalon's bunch would have been a lot more use than the
> Liberator curling tongs.
>
> >
> > > Mind, you, it would also appear to be their practice to empty a
magazine
> > > or two into any incapacitated/dead enemies as soon as possible:
something
> > > we don't see any of our heroes doing. Not even the eminently pragmatic
> > > Avon.
> >
> > Also noted at Redemption. The determined ones kill wounded enemies,
especially
> > those in the only path of escape. Nicer ones drug them, somehow. At
least
> > tie the buggers up!
>
> I am reminded of the cover of "Private Eye", after the SAS ambushed and
> killed that IRA team in Gibraltar. The cover showed two SAS chaps. One
> says "Why did you shoot him sixteen times?". The other replies "I ran out
> of bullets."
>
> Iain
>
> Point taken, but just because you've put a bullet in someone does not mean
they are dead or indeed even incapacitated greatly. The SAS use speed,
suprise and agressiveness. Make sure the target is dead as they don't have a
propensity for fighting back and bullets are quite cheap !!
(They're also violent bastards !!!!)
I thought it was quite funny how little attention the heroes in B7 payed to
injured people, pulling a trigger requires so little effort !
Colin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 18:34:22 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1203183422-256Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Fri 03 Dec, mistral@ptinet.net wrote:
>
> We do seem to agree, however, that even when you hit your target,
> you can't count on them dying instantly.
Blake lives! I always knew it. That guy on the floor isn't dead, just
unconscious. Nobody even checked his pulse.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs,
pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth
Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight )
Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:23:36 PST
From: "Sally Manton" <smanton@hotmail.com>
To: Blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <19991203202336.86451.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
After Mistral wrote:
<We do seem to agree, however, that even when you hit your target,
you can't count on them dying instantly.>
Judith exulted:
<Blake lives! I always knew it. That guy on the floor isn't dead, just
unconscious. Nobody even checked his pulse.>
But Judith, I've been insisting on that (and reminding everyone
about the utterly futuristic trauma centra just of the gallery
where we can't see it) for ages...
>
>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/
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:42:24 -0000
From: "Una McCormack" <una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk>
To: "Lysator List" <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <013101bf3dce$ea173510$0d01a8c0@hedge>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Judith wrote:
> Blake lives! I always knew it. That guy on the floor isn't dead, just
> unconscious. Nobody even checked his pulse.
Aren't his eyes open in a sort of dead person type fashion?
Una
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:56:24 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <19991203.220253.10342.1.Rilliara@juno.com>
I understand SWAT teams are told to handcuff or restrain _everyone_ , no
matter how dead they look, until compotent medical authority says they
aren't faking. Many a B7 ep would have been different--and shorter--is a
SWAT team handbook had been smuggled out to them.
For the rest, the question rests on two points, the odds of Avon hitting
Travis in a way to disarm him vs the odds of a different kind of shot
(lethal or other) keeping him from shooting Blake. The answer seems to
be that IF Avon was a good enough shot to confidently feel he could make
the shot, THEN he should have done it.
The variables are how easy a second shot would have been (debated on
issues of recoil and aiming technology), how difficult the first shot
would have been for even the best shooter (debated on issues of
technology, practice, and Avon's ego vs reality), all going up against
the effects of a body shot. In our world, not a good idea unless Avon was
the kind of marksman to make Robin Hood green with envy (anything's
possible). In Avon's world, he _might_ have been able to pull it off.
Which again raises the question of what he was _trying_ to hit.
Ellynne
___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 21:43:27 -0700
From: "Ellynne G." <rilliara@juno.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <19991203.220253.10342.0.Rilliara@juno.com>
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 20:42:24 -0000 "Una McCormack"
<una@q-research.connectfree.co.uk> writes:
>Judith wrote:
>
>> Blake lives! I always knew it. That guy on the floor isn't dead,
>just
>> unconscious. Nobody even checked his pulse.
>
>Aren't his eyes open in a sort of dead person type fashion?
>
Uhm, _eye_. The other was definitly closed.
As for the one that was open, maybe he just couldn't believe what he was
seeing? Or perhaps it was a result of hayfever? So many people's eyes get
funny when they're exposed to allergens, and Blake's certainly been
exposed to deadly weapons often enough to break out in hives at the sight
of them.
Ellynne
___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 00:30:13 EST
From: Pherber@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Avon ATA
Message-ID: <0.bd6af824.257a00e5@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 11/30/99 9:01:25 PM Mountain Standard Time, avona@jps.net
writes:
> I thought that there was a lively pace to the book, and
> I've forgiven it the horrid astronomy errors, having be maybe four feet
> away from Paul as he smiled and said in a slightly enbarrassed way that
> the editor's wouldn't let him alter the errors (having looked up the
> facts for his *final* draft), saying they thought it was good enough,
> set up the proofs. He said they told him the fans wouldn't notice
> (showing they know nothing about SF fans!).
I've always believed that his editors were more at fault than Paul, myself.
He is, after all, an actor rather than an experienced writer, and (IMHO) it
is one of an editor's most important jobs to pick up on errors like that and
get the writer to fix them. With better editing, ATA would have been a far
better book even given PD's unfortunate tendency to rambo-ize Avon.
Nina
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 09:50:40 +0000
From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
To: Lysator <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] Strange website
Message-ID: <3848E3EF.B5687D8F@mcr1.poptel.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
A friend suggested I look at this web site:
http://www.caitys-world.com/aven.html
It should interest Avon lovers
--
cheers
Steve Rogerson
http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson
"In my world, there are people in chains and you can ride them like
ponies"
The alternative Willow, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:27:14 +0000 (GMT)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Realities of combat
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-1204082714-0b0Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Fri 03 Dec, Una McCormack wrote:
> Judith wrote:
>
> > Blake lives! I always knew it. That guy on the floor isn't dead, just
> > unconscious. Nobody even checked his pulse.
>
> Aren't his eyes open in a sort of dead person type fashion?
do people always close their eyes when knocked out? (I've no idea - TV tends to
show it that way so actors can shut their eyes...)
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: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 11:32:41 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "Lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Strange website
Message-ID: <002201bf3e4c$11b870c0$ca8edec2@pre-installedco>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
You see? I told you about six months ago that the cast of B7 were all
members of the weasel family. And now - photographic proof.
Alison
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #337
**************************************