From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #34 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/34 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 00 : Issue 34 Today's Topics: [B7L] Beatles7 [B7L] News on the Q study Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 Re: [B7L] Beatles7 Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different [B7L] Cult TV [B7L] Muir's book [B7L] Zine review: Avon Millennium Special Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) [B7L] Reviews Re: Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)) Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 [B7L] Re-Introduction and Muir's Book RE: [B7L] Reviews [B7L] Cult TV 2000 [B7L] Missing mail [B7L] B7 related quote ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 22:45:42 +0100 From: Angria@t-online.de (Tanja Kinkel) To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Beatles7 Message-ID: <12GU4M-01QonRC@fwd06.sul.t-online.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Neil Faulkner wrote: > Except that by the time the Beatles were producing songs with any substance > to them, they were written by either Lennon *or* McCartney, though both were > credited. And of the two, give me Lennon any day of the week. Except that George Martin - who certainly was in the best position to know - said that Lennon was naturally lazy and without the constant challenge and competition with McCartney wouldn't have written much (he also said McCartney, on the other hand, would have written as much, but not as well); they were each the other's best critics. Tanja ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:53:31 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Cc: "Freedom City" Subject: [B7L] News on the Q study Message-ID: <056101bf6e91$1e9afbd0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm delighted to be able to say that my article: 'Reality is a dangerous concept': Accounts of appreciation amongst an online fan community which is based on the Q study in which so many of you so generously participated, has been accepted for publication in a special edition on audience research in 'Diegesis', a cultural studies journal. Many, many thanks to everyone who did a Q sort, and then to everyone who responded to the write-ups. To put it mildly, I'm dead chuffed! Una ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 13:42:38 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)) Message-ID: <3899F64E.F8C94D3@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil Faulkner wrote: > Mistral wrote: > > Well, if they are lies, damned lies, and statistics, they aren't > > mine. I was channel-surfing a few weeks ago and ran across the > > end of a documentary about gun rights. It did show statistics for > > several types of violent crimes that had increased in Australia since > > the last laws were passed; from burglary through murder with rises > > as high as 19%, plus listing home invasions as becoming a problem > > whereas they were previously nearly unheard of. There were also > > interviews with several citizens, including one police officer who > > said that police were against the laws because they'd made their > > job more dangerous and difficult. > > That sounds like tabloid-level false association to me. Gun control is > tightened, violent crime increases, ergo gun control provokes violent crime? > Only if all other factors remain the same. Crime and the causes of crime > are complex, subject to subtle shifts in economic and cultural conditions. > The way in which statistics are compiled and collated can also make a huge > difference (as has happened here in the UK recently). The willingness of > victims to report a crime can change over time as cultural attitudes shift > (I believe rapes are more frequently reported now than they were in the > past). You are of course completely correct (surprised?); OTOH, all other factors *never* remain the same in this sort of situation, which means not only that it would be equally invalid to suggest that gun control lowers crime, but invalid to draw any sort of cause-and-effect relationship between laws (or other artificial or natural stimuli) and results on the general population. Yet it's done all the time, including here on lysator. When you say 'tabloid-level false association' are you referring to an actual disregard for accuracy of facts, or are you jumping to the conclusion that a media conclusion that differs from the majority opinion must necessarily be either based on faulty data or biased? All reporting is inevitably biased; based simply on the law of averages, the majority of (free) media reporting should therefore be biased in favour of majority opinion (and thus reinforce trends, whether good or ill, true or false), wouldn't you say? [ObB7: in a culture such as the Federation, of course, media reporting is 'biased' in favour of official policy, which doesn't make it true.] If we had the raw data, we could perhaps discuss how it could best be interpreted; but we'd probably have an equal disagreement about that, and in any case, we don't have the raw data, and are restricted to interpretative sources. > With a television broadcast you also have to consider the > programme's undeclared agenda, which decides what information it chooses to > focus on, who gets interviewed etc. Again, I agree completely. However, you'll have surely noticed that a source supporting the majority opinion is subjected to far less severe scrutiny than one supporting an annoying minority opinion. Case in point, surely my documentary is *potentially* as valid as Jacqueline's magazine article or Kathryn's 'savvy person who listens to the news' [see note]. We know nothing about either, and yet neither I nor anybody else has criticized them for relying on those sources as evidence. (Please know that I am not accusing you of criticizing me.) Since my topic was not, in fact, gun-control, but a demonstration of the differences in how far people will allow themselves to be pushed in the matter of deprivation of (perceived) rights, I did not consider that I needed to be concerned about whether the source was *unimpeachable* on the matter of gun-control. It was in the nature of a throwaway remark (which of course is the kind most rabidly seized on and run with in a disagreement around here.) (And since, unlike B7, we have no official canon of sources, no two people will likely agree entirely on what sources are valid.) > And I would never trust a copper's > opinion about anything as a matter of principle. Yet another thing about which we agree; I admit it was a little naive of me to think better of an Australian copper's opinion than I would of an American copper's. (And I'm pleased to see that you do have at least one principle .) [ObB7: Does it strike others, as it strikes me, that the job of Federation Trooper attracts bullies? Does the screening process hunt for this trait or is it a result of the training? Is that a commentary on modern law-enforcement types?] I'd like to publicly thank you for the carefully neutral tone (intentional or not) of your last couple of posts on these matters (particularly considering how rarely we do agree), something for which I generally strive but often fail. 'I must try to emulate your clarity of thought'. Elsewhere, the Chocolatey Nazi said: > in the ongoing debate of Mistral v Rest of the World, Oh, do let's call it Mistral v Rest of the Lyst, else I shall have to buy computers for all my Luddite friends, so they can come and convince you that I am not alone. Mistral [Note re 'savvy persons': this is perhaps somewhat similar to the way in which I handle topics in which I have no interest or background (such as history). I consult my own collection of 'experts': professional or otherwise, people who have vastly more interest and background than I ever could. My niece with the law degree for constitutional law and US history; an English professor friend for Lit; a friend with seven kids, a passionate interest in parental rights, and good research skills for those issues; etc. Some might accuse me of laziness and apathy; I consider it good use of resources. On my own, I could never duplicate their knowledge; there are too many subjects and too little time. No, I don't check their sources. I trust them to do that.][ObB7: How thoroughly do you suppose Blake checked Jenna's pilot's license before accepting her word that she could pilot the London? Was he remiss in not studying piloting himself before trying to take over the ship? Or should he have gotten a degree in computing and sabotaged the computer himself rather than trusting Avon? And what level degree did Cally have in rebelling?] -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 15:06:37 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <389A09FD.334E5DA4@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Mom: I'm off to spin-land, after this note to Joanne, who I'm not sure I shall see there. --Misty J MacQueen wrote: > I don't know that I'd trust even a documentary as an information source > these days. I would've hoped that Mistral wouldn't have taken it at face > value either. I don't take anything at face value. OTOH, I didn't consider that what was only intended to be a peripheral comment which was *not* about B7 and only intended to *illustrate* a point *about* B7 needed to be thoroughly backed with hard data. Please see my post to Neil. > >http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html > > Having looked at the same site, I'm with those who come down on the side of > "well-regulated militia" as the most important bit. Again, my intent was not to discuss gun control. However, until the US Supreme Court rules, anything on either side is merely opinion. That said, it might be worth pointing out that according to several 'real-live old people' I know, this idea that the second amendment refers to only a militia is fairly recent; about 30-35 years. And, per my dad who started work as a deliveryman in his teens, virtually every home he entered during the thirties and early forties had at least one rifle or shotgun hanging on the wall or propped up in the corner of the living room. The 'right to bear arms' was widely understood to be unassailable in those days. > Ultra-right-wing > loonies, individual madmen and unco-ordinated members of the general public > do not a well-regulated militia make. As I understand it, (verified by my source, quote from the 100 Yale Law Journal available upon request,) when the Constitution was written, the militia would have been understood to mean every adult male citizen (co-ordination, madness, lunacy notwithstanding.) Presumably if they'd had the idea of equality, it would have meant females over sixteen, as well. The term 'militia' would have been considered synonymous with 'the people', which in the Constitution *never* is used to refer to the states or the nation. Patrick Henry: "The great objective is that every man be armed; everyone who is able may have a gun." James Madison: "The advantage that Americans have over every other nation is that they are armed." > Worse still, it is not a right that > people should be armed, nor even a need. It is, purely and simply, a want. It might perhaps be useful to distinguish between 'basic human rights' (which I suspect you mean) and 'rights guaranteed by a government to its citizens', to which I was referring. > Especially now. The British are supremely unlikely to come back to take > statehood away from a small group of former colonies - they've had their own > problems over the last couple of centuries. As Ellynne's already noted, in those days, there was as much or more concern about protecting citizens from the Federal government as from invaders. And you'll note that Americans *were* attacked on their own soil during the century just ended. Not by foot soldiers, I'll grant you; but the suggestion that we're somehow impervious to attack is erroneous. [ObB7: How would you expect Teal and Vandor to defend themselves against the Federation? Having done away with war, should they outlaw armaments as well?] I know 'many, many people' ( well, okay, just many people) who are concerned about maintaining gun rights for a *variety* of reasons. None of us are in a militia; very few of us are gun owners (I'm not); and only a couple of us are ultra-right-wing loonies (that one depends on your definition). Perhaps I am the only person on the lyst that feels that way (although I suspect I'm just the only one simple enough to say so) but the pro- and anti-gun groups are fairly well balanced, which is why the public debate is still ongoing. >From the Feb. 4 issue of Human Events: "Between 1980 and 1995, of 39 law review articles, 35 noted the Supreme Court's prior acknowledgment of the *individual* right of the 2nd Amendment, and only four claimed the right is a collective right of the states (three of these four were authored or co-authored by employees of the gun-control lobby)." > >At any rate, the B7-related point I was trying to make was that > >people will differ about how much infringement of their rights > >they will accept before they think it's worth rebelling. > > Is it rights, or is it autonomy? The American colonies rebelled because they > didn't want their taxes to go into British revenues any longer, they didn't > want to be a dumping ground for convicts any longer, they no longer wanted > whatever had a negative bearing upon the desire for self-government. All > British colonies went through this, but most fought with words rather than > guns. That implies you're criticizing the American Revolution? To what end? You've *never* seen me defend the American Revolution on any grounds, for the simple fact that I consider it unjustifiable. > What is Blake fighting for? Rights, or autonomy? So, then, is autonomy a > right? Is he, and those like him, simply ahead of his time and others, where > not drugged into compliance, will come to realise that they want > self-government too? My operating assumption has always been that the Federation has at least a pretense of being a nation of laws, else why the need to operate covertly in at least several instances? I don't in fact consider autonomy a right. Closer to a want. Quite *apart* from that, I am firmly of the opinion that what scant canonical clues there are point to the Federation having begun as some form of self-government, and having gone wrong from there. > Regards > Joanne > (wishing that "right to bear arms" also invoked Godwin, as it seems to do > similar damage to arguments as the H-word) And on that note, I'd like to apologize to anyone who feels I've been monopolizing the bandwidth; it certainly seems that way even to me. When I joined lysator, a fellow lystian (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty--and because I don't remember who it was) told me that folks shouldn't write to you if they don't want a reply. So...I'm never quite sure when it's more polite to reply or not. And every time I've thought this was winding down someone else joined in. I do *try* to be polite. Hard to believe it was all because I objected to the implication that disagreeing with one of Blake's actions is Blake-bashing. (No! Noooooo! Not again.....................) Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 22:17:51 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: Lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 Message-ID: <$Et8qjAP6fm4Eweu@jajones.demon.co.uk> In message , Nicola Collie writes >I've been lurking in afb7 for a few weeks now - is it quite low-traffic? I >just checked my newsreader - I have 7 messages over the last week or so. Is >that what others are seeing, or is my newsfeed missing posts? I'm seeing very low traffic through the Demon newsserver. Since one of the lurkers is a Demon newsbod, I think we can probably assume that the feed through Demon is working reasonably well:^) This also means that the person who used a Demon account to post a binary in a non-binary group earlier this evening may regret doing so... -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:21:31 +1030 From: "Martin Dunn" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Beatles7 Message-Id: <23533928135592@domain2.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Neil Faulkner > > Except that by the time the Beatles were producing songs with any substance > to them, they were written by either Lennon *or* McCartney, though both were > credited. And of the two, give me Lennon any day of the week. Yesterday I encountered a local government phone waiting music tape that was plastic chimes of Paul's special catalogue. Has anyone else ever heard of such a thing? > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:08:41 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] And now for something completely different Message-ID: <000201bf6edb$0e504ce0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit TigerM wrote: > > Other than these, were there any computers in the series that spoke? I > > don't remember any, so I'm voting for Avon knowing what he was talking > > about when it came to Federation computers. > > The android Vinni seemed to be self-aware in Death-watch. Opinions differ on > whether or not he was entirely mechanical. If we're counting androids as well (and I suppose we ought to) then the android Avalon said quite a bit. Muller's creation got a bit vocal too. Neil "...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an orange)." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:06:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Cult TV Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII I recieved the following yesterday from the guest liaison for Cult TV. > > Judith > > Bad news I am afraid, I received a letter yesterday advising that Paul Darrow > will be unable to attend this year's Cult TV due to work commitments. This is > obviously a bit of a blow to our guest list and I will be making a suitable > announcement to our e-mail list later tonight. AS you have promoted our events > on your site I thought it polite to let you know before hand. > > WE are obviously aware of the large number of Blake's Seven fans that have > registered for the event and it will be a priority to ensure that they are > catered for in addition to the presence of Stephen Greif. > > It is not all doom and gloom as I have several other big guest names in the > pipeline, I can't really say who they are yet as the ink is not yet dry on > contacts etc. > > Anyway, Watch out for a more positive guest announcement in the next few > weeks. > > Cheers > > Paul J > Cult TV I'll be updating my web site tomorrow to show the change in the guest list. Cult TV is an enjoyable weekend run by an experienced team and those who went last year will tell you it's fun (apart from Pontins' food and beds, but they'll be at a better site next year which should solve that). They're obviously trying to get another B7 guest - let's wish them luck. Judith PS. Two guests down at different conventions in less than a week! Such is life - work always has to come first for actors. Gareth Thomas is still a confirmed guest for Redemption '01. Fingers crossed PPS. If you've never been to a convention and wonder what it's like, there's lots of convention reports on my web site from many conventions on three different continents. I also try and post news on any future conventions with a Blake's 7 guest or of particular interest to fans. (eg. Eclecticon is a non-guest con but always has Blake's 7 discussions in the programme. Bats has Gareth Thomas as a guest.) -- 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, 04 Feb 2000 07:37:56 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] Muir's book Message-ID: <389A818A.491ADEED@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My copy of John Kenneth Muir's B7 book arrived yesterday. However, it didn't have a dust cover. Are other people's copies the same? -- 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: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 21:37:49 -0800 From: "Sarah Thompson" To: Cc: , , "Judith Proctor" Subject: [B7L] Zine review: Avon Millennium Special Message-ID: <000801bf6eea$50fb1ca0$67aacdcf@y1i7s9> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Zine review: =Millennium Special= In the field of B7 zines, 1999 went out in style, with the publication of this gorgeous new edition of some old favorites. The Avon Club's =Millennium Special= is a must for Tarrant fans, and highly recommended for fans of Avon and Servalan as well. This genzine reprints a novella and story by Gillian Marsden, "The Chameleons," from 1986, and "Deadly Night Shades," from 1983. I searched literally for years for these zines and never did find originals; I'd been making do with blurry multi-generation photocopies, so I'm thrilled with the neat, legible new edition. Many thanks to author Gillian Marsden for giving permission for the new edition, and to editor Ann Bown for doing such a good job of producing it. The zine is A4 size, with comb binding, and has a full-color cover with a very nice composite photo of Avon and Tarrant against a background of a colorful planet (which rather reminded me of Wendy Duffield's encaustic paintings). According to the editor's introduction, the author was anxious that the stories, written so long ago, might now seem dated. She need not have worried. If anything, "The Chameleons" in particular is even more enjoyable now, since we can imagine it being enacted by the actors as they are today. The story is set nine years after GP (but it could just as well have been 15 to 20 years, and that was how I imagined it myself as I read). I very much like the original science-fictional details, reminiscent of the work of such writers as Judith Seaman and Lillian Shepherd. The story maintains interest by cutting back and forth between scenes with various different characters, including some very believable original ones, much as the show itself did. The author has a good ear for dialogue, too; Avon gets some snappy lines that I can just hear him saying. It is hard to describe this story without spoilers as there are so many plot twists throughout-- the reader is surprised every few pages. I'll try to give some idea of it without giving too much away. Just around the time of GP, we gradually learn, the Federation encountered a humanoid alien civilization of comparable size and power, the Nine Dynasties of Rhak. Following years of war, the two were united in the Federated Rhakian Alliance. As the story opens, we meet the elderly Rhakian who is currently President of the Alliance, and the seductive Federation Commissioner who has enthralled him; but she is not who you might think, although this does not become clear until later. The two of them meet a surprising fate which puts a serious crimp in certain Federation plans. We then meet Federation Squadron Commander Lash of the famed 98th Squadron, and he is not exactly what he seems either. Avon, however, is immediately recognizable. He escaped the Federation when a prison ship crashed on a distant planet, and he is now engaging in massive computer thefts with the help of his beautiful alien lover. This happy life is brought to an end when he is captured by the 98th and recognizes the tall, thin, scarred Squadron Commander as someone he used to know. Avon and Tarrant become enmeshed in Federation plots against the Rhak and Servalan's plot to regain power within the Federation. As the two of them try to work out what to do, Tarrant must struggle against deeply ingrained conditioning and serious medical problems, and Avon must cope with Servalan's lingering passion for him. The ending is a tragic one, but it is highly satisfying, at least to this wallow addict. My one complaint: I disliked the inaccurate use of the term "galaxies" for the respective territories of the Federation and the Rhak; I'd prefer "galactic sectors" or some such thing. I mentally changed it as I read, and it didn't actually bother me all that much. "Deadly Night Shades," the second story in the zine, is set in an alternate fourth series that actually manages to be even bleaker than the original. It opens with the death of Tarrant's lover (not Zeeona but an original character), leading to his separation from the rest of the Scorpio crew as Soolin and Avon head back to Xenon without him. On the way, Soolin is badly injured in an accident, and Avon must leave her in a hospital. Meanwhile, Dayna is back on Xenon guarding a Federation prisoner, and Vila is stranded with local rebels on a planet where the Federation is running a nasty little scam involving the drug known as Deadly Night Shades. Avon, temporarily alone, confronts Servalan over the drugs; but their perverse attraction to each other takes its steamy course during an eventful night, and once again they pass up opportunities to kill each other. By the end of the story the remaining Scorpio crew are reunited, but two of them are now dead and it doesn't look good for the others; Avon, especially, is clearly in bad shape psychologically. The aura of doom and gloom is very much in keeping with the fourth season as it was aired, even though the specific events are a bit different. In the case of this story, I found it a little hard to follow the plot because it was so complex and so obliquely written, with clues dropped only very subtly. I think the author was trying hard not to be too obvious and spell everything out in a boring way, and she overdid it just a bit. In the slightly later "Chameleons," however, she gets the balance of suspense and plot exposition exactly right, in my opinion. I enjoyed both stories very much indeed and recommend them highly. The zine is 104 pp. and about 52,000 words. It's available from the Avon Club at the following prices, including postage: UK #7.50 - EUR #8.50 - AUS/NZ #11.00 - USA/CAN #10.50 or $18.00 CASH. The club website is:  ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2000 01:39:30 -0700 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: Lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 Message-Id: <4.1.20000204013651.0093fe00@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:17 PM 03/02/00 +0000, Julia Jones wrote: >This also means that the person who used a Demon account to post a >binary in a non-binary group earlier this evening may regret doing so... And didn't even give me credit as the original source of said Copyright Violation! The swine. ;-p ______________________________ "No rules, no naps, no shoes!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 05:40:12 -0500 From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> To: "INTERNET:blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Two) Message-ID: <200002040540_MC2-97AA-3A9C@compuserve.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Pat P wrote: >Avon's crusade was as edgy and cheerless as Lennon's solo compositions If edgy and cheerless means Plastic Ono Band, I'm all for it. I'd have to check out their ankles to decide which of the girls could have the honour of being Patti Boyd. Harriet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 07:18:30 EST From: Mac4781@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se, freedom-city@blakes-7.org Subject: [B7L] Reviews Message-ID: <44.17b8e57.25cc1d96@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There's a review of DON CARLOS, with Josette Simon, at: http://www.whatson.com/wos/reviews/ Also, there is a review of Gareth's TWELFTH NIGHT listed for the current edition (February 3, 2000) of THE STAGE. It doesn't appear to be included in their on-line version, so you'll have to pick up a paper copy. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:10:28 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: Sources (was Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three)) Message-ID: <000b01bf6f3b$40a25fc0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > When you say 'tabloid-level false association' are you referring to > an actual disregard for accuracy of facts, or are you jumping to > the conclusion that a media conclusion that differs from the > majority opinion must necessarily be either based on faulty data or > biased? Neither, really. The tabloids (at least in the UK) have an irritating habit of using the facts (their accuracy is not, AFAIK, disregarded) to tell the readers what they want to read, through shallow analysis and misinterpretation. The result hardly 'differs from the majority opinion', if anything it reinforces it (at least, the majority opinion of the readership is reinforced). This systematic eradication of all complexity from complex issues has been parodied by, amongst others, Viz (which was in turn the inspiration for the 'Fascinating Facts' section of my Avon Tribute Page - Viz readers will no doubt recognise the style). >All reporting is inevitably biased; based simply on the law > of averages, the majority of (free) media reporting should therefore > be biased in favour of majority opinion (and thus reinforce trends, > whether good or ill, true or false), wouldn't you say? The oft-touted myth of the objective journalist has, IMO, provoked a countermyth, namely the myth of the myth of the objective journalist. IOW, exactly the kind of simplistic black-and-white view of the world that the tabloids like to peddle. Journalism can strive towards objectivity, even if it can never attain it. When shifting copies by the truckload is more important than a rigorous assessment of the facts, striving tends to take a back seat. Yes, reporting is biased, but is it biased by what the writer wants to say or what the readers want to hear? (Getting slightly back on topic, I would note that the level of discussion on the Lyst is way above the two-dimensional drivel that fills the SF prozines like TV Zone - if that's still actually alive - and their ilk. Is that because the writers can't do any better, or because there is no demand for (or indeed, an active rejection of) anything more than the tentatively intellectual by the SF zine readers?) > I'd like to publicly thank you for the carefully neutral tone > (intentional or not) of your last couple of posts on these matters > (particularly considering how rarely we do agree), something > for which I generally strive but often fail. The tone was definitely intentional, and mainly because I found myself disagreeing with you even more than usual:) I also stayed out of the thread because -even more so than usual - it got bogged down in particularities based on undeclared assumptions. And since there was unlikely to be any consensus on the implied fundamentals, there was little chance of the thread reaching any kind of meaningful conclusion. Which it hasn't. Neil "...Lennon got in the habit of issuing vague orders for the creation of evocative sounds (he once asked Martin to make a song sound like an orange)." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 18:07:37 +0000 From: Nicola Collie To: Lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] alt.fan.blakes7 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Julia: >>This also means that the person who used a Demon account to post a >>binary in a non-binary group earlier this evening may regret doing so... Penny: >And didn't even give me credit as the original source of said Copyright >Violation! The swine. ;-p Well, I'm sure you'll be able to come up with a suitably painful and humiliating punishment. Somehow, just cutting off hir net access doesn't seem enough. Well, maybe not *quite* enough. I'd suggest hog-tieing the miscreant and shutting hir in a room with Orac, but that's just my pathological tendency to try to stay on topic :) Nicola ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:24:50 -0500 From: pcarter@pccc.cc.nj.us (Patricia Carter) To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] Re-Introduction and Muir's Book Message-ID: <01BF6F1B.99AE4B80@Patricia.pccc.cc.nj.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Everyone, I'm Pat C., a US B7 fan who joined the list a while back under the email address off Sestina2. Due to instabilities in work and living situations, I've had to retire from the list about five months ago and have thus missed all of your enthusiastic posts. I now have a new email address and I'm looking forward to being back in your midst once again Re: Steve's query about the Muir book: I received my copy of Muir's book from Amazon before last Christmas. It, like yours, did not have a dust jacket probably due to the fact that it was listed as a "library binding" edition as it seems intended for a university library somewhere. Still, I honestly found Muir's work to be quite analytical superficial. He seems not to have consulted any of the myriad B7 resources on the net and just re-used his old notes from previous books he's written about Space 1999 and Battlestar Galactica. It didn't take me long to regret that $43 I spent on it through Amazon. Fond memories of meeting you at E-Con last November! Pat C. ---------- From: Steve Rogerson[SMTP:steve.rogerson@mcr1.poptel.org.uk] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 2:37 AM To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] Muir's book My copy of John Kenneth Muir's B7 book arrived yesterday. However, it didn't have a dust cover. Are other people's copies the same? -- 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: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 14:32:21 -0500 From: pcarter@pccc.cc.nj.us (Patricia Carter) To: "blakes7@lysator.liu.se" Subject: RE: [B7L] Reviews Message-ID: <01BF6F1C.A67F6F00@Patricia.pccc.cc.nj.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Thanks for the info, Carol. Any US fans other than me planning on seeing the production of Don Carlos with Josette Simon when the RSC comes to the Brooklyn Academy of Music in May? (I'm going to the May 20th performance.) Pat C. ---------- From: Mac4781@aol.com[SMTP:Mac4781@aol.com] Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 7:18 AM To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se; freedom-city@blakes-7.org Subject: [B7L] Reviews There's a review of DON CARLOS, with Josette Simon, at: http://www.whatson.com/wos/reviews/ Also, there is a review of Gareth's TWELFTH NIGHT listed for the current edition (February 3, 2000) of THE STAGE. It doesn't appear to be included in their on-line version, so you'll have to pick up a paper copy. Carol Mc ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:14:09 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Carolan?= To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: freedom-city@blakes-7.org Subject: [B7L] Cult TV 2000 Message-ID: <20000204191409.12282.qmail@web1703.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit News for anyone going to (or thinking of going to) CULT TV in Torquay 27-30 0ct 2000....They have just announced that Paul Darrow won't be a guest after all, as he's working that weekend. But don't let that put you off going... I booked again *before* I knew that PD had been invited again. Carolan __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:43:59 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Subject: [B7L] Missing mail Message-ID: <0a2f01bf6f48$2facb780$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If anyone has addressed e-mail to me recently and I haven't responded, my apologies. My ISP appears to be sending some messages to Guildford and bypassing me here in Cambridge, and as I'm only there part-time, I fall behind on messages. Sorry - I'm not being rude, it's just the damn technology. Una ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 20:56:03 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] B7 related quote Message-ID: <20000204.210716.11438.0.Rilliara@juno.com> Been reading "The Rediscovery of Man: the Complete Short Science Fiction of Cordwainer Smith" and came across a few quotes that made me think of B7. "(Perhaps, if she had been a sympathetic person, she would have let them die. But it was the nature of Dr. Kraus not to be sympathetic--just brilliant, remorseless, implacable against the universe which had tried to destroy her.)" Remind anyone of favorite computer fiends? And, thinking of self-aware computers, and how maybe they had a way to imprint a living personality onto one-- "The computer in which the bodiless image of the Lady Panc Ashash survived for a few days after the trial was, of course, found and disassembled. Nobody thought at the time to get her opinions and last words. A lot of historians have gnashed their teeth over that." And, just because it's a good line (and reflects the mental tricks I sometimes have to resort to to get anyone to watch B7)-- "Do not read this story: turn the page quickly. The story may upset you. Anyhow, you probably know it already. . . . Don't let yourself realize that the story is the truth. "It isn't. Not at all. There's not a bit of truth to it. . . . These are all just imaginary, they didn't happen, forget about it, go away and read something else." Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #34 *************************************