From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V98 #80 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume98/80 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 98 : Issue 80 Today's Topics: [B7l] re: absolutely nothing [B7L] re: Vila`s Accepting ways Re: [B7L] videos [B7L] train times Re: [B7l] re: absolutely nothing [B7L] Vila's accepting nature [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V98 #79 [B7L] Science Re: [B7l] re: absolutely nothing [B7L] Zine Sale [B7L] Science and social constructs [B7L] B7 Bit from The IDIC Epidemic Re: [B7L] Smoking ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:44:23 +0000 From: Jackie To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7l] re: absolutely nothing Message-ID: <35059817.2B99@termlow.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Calle Dybedahl wrote: > > Jackie writes: > > > A quick question? > > Which list has received about 3 posts with just a date sent? > > The Lysator list. Send complaints to postmaster@dragon.ti.com I`m not complaining, as such, I`m more interested in how such a thing can occurr. > > > Which knowledgeable person can tell me: how come, with no forwarding > > address, can this message be actually sent through the email system? > > There doesn't strictly have to be an address in the message for it to > be delivered over the net, an address on the "envelope" is enough. What would be the "envelope" bit then? When my own messages come up on the list, I see on the screen exactly what I have typed out, except for the date and time (this shows as the time I pressed *send*). What would this person had to have done for us to get these messages so many, many times? My apologies to everybody else. Jackie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 19:44:47 +0000 From: Jackie To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] re: Vila`s Accepting ways Message-ID: <3505982F.5366@termlow.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PATTI McCLELLAN wrote: > > I always thought the decision was made to cut the crying with the > rating only as an excuse, the real reason being that the decision was > made by men, and men don't cry. In other words it *made them > feel something*, so it couldn't be good for little boys to see > it. Well, macho men who make big decisions about TV series don't cry. > Do they? a) Only if they don`t buy a programme, and the other side snaps it up and makes a mint! b) they kill off a programme who`s fans refuse to lie down and go away. Those fans then startup a letter campaign, and the mach men are the ones that have to reply to the letters,- personally and individually. c) They get kicked below the belt by the Big Boss who happens to be a huge fan of the series they`ve just cancelled. d) they get recognised by the fans of said cancelled programme, and scragged. e) they try to buy their way out of trouble, only to find that there has been an unexpected rush on Vems at the bank, and the howling mob in front of them are demanding huge cash sums of Vems. (apologies for those of Lysator, who do not belong to Space City. There is a current Round Robin type story of various fans trying to get to Domo to buy Avon, by any means neccessary.) Bye Jackie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 20:06:02 -0000 From: "Dangermouse" To: "Judith Proctor" , "Lysator List" Subject: Re: [B7L] videos Message-Id: <199803102100.VAA09957@gnasher.sol.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I asked BBC books if they'd any plans to publish Blake's 7 novels. They said > not at the present, but that there was a slight possibility if the video > release went down well. Who did you ask? The truth is that Steve Cole would like to do it; a number of us writers would like to do it; but there is basically no chance whatsoever, as it's been dead too long. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 18:13:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] train times Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sorry for posting this here, but Sandra used an 'anti-spam' address, so when I replied to her question my message bounced back to me, and I'm not totally sure how alter the address to avoid the bounce. The website you want for looking up British train times is - www.railtrack.co.uk Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention 26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 15:19:00 -0600 From: "Lorna B." To: Subject: Re: [B7l] re: absolutely nothing Message-Id: <199803102153.PAA04427@pemberton.magnolia.net> Jackie said: >What would this person had to have done for us to get these messages so >many, many times? Has it occurred to anyone that this may just be a cruel hoax designed to get as many people as possible to post about it on the list? Oh no! Now I've fallen into the trap too!!!!! Lorna B. "I'm trying to contain an outbreak here and you're driving the monkey to the airport!" ------------------------------ Date: 10 Mar 1998 14:23:37 -0800 From: "Kinkade.Carol" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Vila's accepting nature Message-ID: >on 3/10/98 "Ophelia" wrote: > >Vila really is a complete sweetie, who cares about people - >(snip) >and feel empathy and consideration to people. The way he was concerned about Dayna and Tarrant when he tried to convince Avon to leave them behind in "Traitor"? The way he was concerned about Avon, Blake, and Calley in "Star One" when he tried to convince Jenna to run, and leave them behind. The way he was concerned about the entire crew in "Shadow" when he left his post to go to Space City and get drunk and enjoy? Villa *is not* a complete sweetie, who cares about people. He's no better and no worse than any of the rest of our beloved motley crew(s). Except, of course, for Avon -- who is totally misunderstood and really has a caring heart of gold and a genuine love of humankind -- and who would, without hesitation, gladly sacrifice himself to save his crew. Carol K (AVON RULES!!!!!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 23:30:19 EST From: penny_kjelgaard@juno.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V98 #79 Message-ID: <19980310.202520.9167.1.Penny_Kjelgaard@juno.com> Donna wrote: However, I would love to have some examples of BAD writing. I found it very usefull to see examples of both good and bad in several writing books I have. Unfortunately, I am completely dependent on you "experts" out there to provide these for me. How about Paul Darrow's book, "Avon a Terrible Novel, (erh, hem...Aspect.) Plenty of bad writing there...even the sex scenes are blah. Penny (getting egged by PD fans.) _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 00:23:42 EST From: penny_kjelgaard@juno.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Science Message-ID: <19980310.211752.9167.2.Penny_Kjelgaard@juno.com> Thought I'd add my one cent here. I am an ENFP. I also happen to have a degree in chemistry and another in geology/earth science education. Science is based on observable facts, hypotheses that are constantly tested and proven or disproven with reproducable evidence. Science can be very intuitive and wholistic (for people like me, right brainers who can gather the whole picture and relate it well to every day life,) and it can be very logical and (the opposite of wholistic, which my poor brain cannot conceive right now) for the left brainers. But it is not social. It is observable, testable, reproducable....observable, testable...etc. Of course, there are the conferences and the parties where people who memorize Pi to the 500 th place convene..... Penny (ENFP...Baby kisser at large.) _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 1998 06:47:54 +0100 From: Calle Dybedahl To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7l] re: absolutely nothing Message-ID: Jackie writes: > What would be the "envelope" bit then? Basically, what the mail transfer agents say to each other. As a user, you never see it. You have to go dig in the guts of the mail system to do that. > What would this person had to have done for us to get these messages so > many, many times? Nothing. Some admin at her company probably did something wrong. Anyway, I just got a mail from a postmaster at ti.com saying that they have found and eliminated the problem, so with any luck we won't see it again. -- Calle Dybedahl, Vasav. 82, S-177 52 Jaerfaella,SWEDEN | calle@lysator.liu.se Hello? Brain? What do we want for breakfast? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 01:12:45 -0600 (CST) From: malkinb7@ix.netcom.com (Michelle Malkin) To: Blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Zine Sale Message-Id: <199803110712.BAA26371@dfw-ix9.ix.netcom.com> I'll be moving soon and have to get rid of a lot of stuff including, unfortunately, many of my fanzines. Anyone who is interested in Blakes 7, Star Wars, Highlander, Robin of Sherwood, mixed media zines, please contact me at: malkinb7@mindspring.com or malkinb7@ix.netcom.com The zines will all cost $5, $10 or $15 plus postage and I will only accept money orders. No checks! Michelle Malkin (malkinb7@mindspring.com) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:43:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Una McCormack To: Lysator cc: B7 Spin Subject: [B7L] Science and social constructs Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Hi all, I'm moving this one onto the spin... Iain said: >I really hadn't intended carrying on this discussion on the list, not >because it isn't interesting but because it's irrevocably off-topic. >However, I cannot in all conscience let this latest point go. I'm going >to rant a bit, and I apologise in advance. > >I'm only writing this because it's something that I think is very >important and that I feel strongly about, and because I would be failing >in my duties as a scientist if I allowed these statements to go >unchallenged in a public forum. > I appreciate your depth of feeling, and apologise unreservedly if I have caused you offence - that is *never* my intention. However, there are a couple of things in your own post which I felt I must respond to otherwise I'd be failing my duties to my own academic priorities. My apologies for the snips that I've carried out, and I hope I haven't thereby misrepresented anything you've said. >On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Una McCormack wrote: > >>This response to one of my messages came only to me, and Graham has >>asked me to forward it to the mailing list. >> >>> This message is spot on. I particularly like the stuff on >>> legitimation. People accept unquestioningly what scientists say, not >>> realizing that they have motives and are involved in legitimation. > >Such people are very silly. But most people don't have the time, the ability or the opportunity to learn the detail of, say theoretical physics or pharmaceutical science. We can't all be experts in everything, and where do we look to get judgements on the best way to proceed if not from experts in the subject? I can't possibly get up to speed on the different interpretations of the theory of relativity because I don't have the maths / physics. So I ask people who have that understanding to explain the essentials and ramifications to me in terms I *can* understand. This, then, seems to me the responsibility of scientists, and your remarks about the idealism of scientists lead me to think that that's a responsibility which you and most scientists take very seriously. People go to the doctor to get cured because they believe s/he has trained for a long time to get the knowledge to be able to treat them. People go to a psychologist because they believe they will to be made to feel better about themselves, and make similar assumptions that the training and knowledge is there. Above all, in *all* my posts (I hope!), I think that I have been talking about *psychology* as a science, which I think is a view that in its present form needs deconstructing and reanalyzing. I am not convinced that much of the current way of 'doing psychology scientifically' deserves the title. Here I am thinking of studies to do with psychotherapy for depression, and social psychology. I cannot comment on neuropsychology and other such brands of psychology because I don't have the background. Similarly, I can't make claims to be knowledgeable about any other scientific discipline because I ain't got the background, I'm afraid! Re: social constructionist views of science I have to say that I don't think that to call something a social construction is thereby to dismiss it as an irrelevancy. I'm personally *very* interested in the construction of political debate: how and why issues are prioritized and what is submerged / suppressed as a result of that. The social constructions surrounding our political behaviour are fascinating... (I won't bore you all with details of my research and plans for research!) However, I think there's a couple of issues entangled here. I don't attack the scientific method. Nor do I deny that, on the whole, science *works* (and therein lies its power - astrology, on the whole, doesn't! Nor, for me, does Myers-Briggs). What I'm interested in is the discourse that surrounds scientific endeavour, and the fact that social research has needed to justify itself and enact itself in a way that mirrors the natural sciences - what you call 'physics envy'. Scientific endeavour is a human activity, just like any other. Where science succeeds is in its *outcome* - in the *visible* working of the results of scientific enquiry. Science is powerful because it *appears* to work. Yet for people who believe in astrology, that *also* works. What is at issue here, then, is the nature of belief. There's no difference in impact if people are convinced. A friend (computer scientist and hence better placed to comment than a social researcher like me! As well as being one of the 'experts' that I use to bolster up my own lack of scientific knowledge) remarks: >Arthur C. Clarke's observation that any significantly advanced >technology is indistinguishable from magic is, I think, pertinent here. >People are impressed by science for pretty much the same reasons as they >are by magic tricks. > >What I think appeals about science to scientists over and above the >other cloaks of authority being discussed here is that it carries on >looking like it's working the more you examine it, whereas magic tricks >are almost inevitably a huge disappointment once you've seen how they >work. Astrology is essentially a con trick (special kind of magic >trick...). Many scientists feel that only with science is there >essentially no trickery involved - explanation for the majority of >scientists' magic tricks are available for review in your local >repository of scientific publications, and by and large they aren't >spoiled by finding out how they work - more normally you gain some new >and rewarding insight into how something works, and if you pursue these >tricks to their ends, you inevitably end up with an explanation of the >form "We have no idea why this happens, it just does" (Physics, in a >nutshell) which, for some, can provide a warm glowing feeling that >you're pushing back the boundaries of real fundamental truths. Iain continues: >If we go back to the Myers-Briggs thing, scientists are generally INT >types. Isn't it the case that these types don't suffer fools gladly? >That's the source of the "venom" you perceive: the exasperation and >contempt of idealistic yet sometimes intolerant people who find >themselves being patronised by a small number of third-rate academic >hacks. Shall I include myself in that description? ;) It probably suits as well as any Myers-Briggs type, and I'd probably be happier to be called that than any Myers-Briggs type! ;) >You go and ask anyone who was in Hiroshima in 1945 if nuclear physics >theory is an arbitrary social construction. I don't think that this distinguishes between science and engineering / technology. The development of the atomic bomb involved a lot of cutting edge scientific research, but at the end of the day it was the *application* of knowledge which produced the bomb. This is absolutely central to the difference between scientific endeavour and technical expertise. The latter has demonstrable, *physical* effects and is something I'm not skilled enough to comment on. The former is human behaviour - and is something which I feel better placed to comment on. And I have 2 degrees that say I can!! ;) All the very best to everyone, and with heartfelt hopes that I have neither offended nor been crass, Una --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Judge Institute of Management Studies Tel: +44 (0)1223 766064 Trumpington Street Fax: +44 (0)1223 339701 Cambridge CB2 1AG http://www.sticklebrock.demon.co.uk/una United Kingdom http://www.jims.cam.ac.uk/research/ion/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 11 Mar 1998 08:55:32 -0800 From: "Kinkade.Carol" To: "Blakes" Subject: [B7L] B7 Bit from The IDIC Epidemic Message-ID: >Reuben Herfindahl wrote: >After hearing that there was a Blake's 7 bit in Jean Lorrah's Star >Trek novel, The IDIC Epidemic, that I so fondly remembered, I just >had to read it again. I figured I'd quote the first bit of it in case >anyone doesn't have the book. (snip for space) Thank you so much for sharing this. It was a lovely bit. Now I have to get out and find this book. Carol K (AVON RULES!!!) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Mar 1998 20:13:51 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Smoking Message-ID: In message , PATTI McCLELLAN writes > Perhaps I >could suggest you might hate the sin and not the sinner? Many of >us started smoking before anyone (except perhaps the tobacco >companies) knew that it was lethal. It might be fair to think >ill of people who start smoking now. All the cards are on the >table. That depends on whether the sinner in question is one of the unfortunates who would like to give up, but can't beat the physical and emotional addiction (and tobacco is one of the most difficult recreational drugs to stop using) - or one of the bastards who thinks that smoking is so wonderful that they're going to share it with everybody around them, regardless of whether their neighbours wish to smoke. I have every sympathy for the former regardless of age, because I've seen how difficult it can be to resist the pressure to start, even in my age group, who certainly ought to know better. But I've also met a good few smokers who will refuse point blank to consider the people who have to share air space with them. They, together with the ones who are more considerate but have no desire to stop, greatly outnumber the ones in your situation. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V98 Issue #80 *************************************