From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #22 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/22 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 22 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] History Re: [B7L] The TRUTH abaout Travis [B7L] Capchered agane [B7L] Brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments) [B7L] Mind-control Re: Good ol' Frank [Re: [B7L] Mental health & Governments] Re: [B7L] History Star One/Stardrive (was Re: [B7L] History) Re: [B7L] History Re: [B7L] The TRUTH abaout Travis Re: [B7L] Brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments) Re: [B7L] Capchered agane Re: [B7L] Capchered agane [B7L] Re: [B7L] History Re: [B7L] History Re: [B7L] Capchered agane Re: [B7L] Re: Robot Wars Re: [B7L] Re: Robot Wars Re: [B7L] History [B7L] [Fwd: History] RE: [B7L] History ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:14:05 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sun 23 Jan, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > > I think the fact that you've not studied history is probably why we disagree > > so much. I've not studied much, but I think I've read more than you. I > > also suspect that American media report less news outside your own country > > than is typical in Europe. > > I've already said I know a great deal less history than you; and as for media, > I completely agree; which is why the only news I ever bother to watch (albeit > rarely) is ITN world news, which as I understand is imported from Britain. > > I suspect the reason we disagree is far more basic; the fact that you seem to > think more knowledge of history could, or *should* change my mind is a clear > indication that we have basically incompatible perspectives. I'd be ashamed of > myself if such a thing did change my mind; history tells us what happened, but > it's not a yardstick for right and wrong. I disagree totally. Only by studying history can we come to realise that life simply isn't *simple*. Out there in the real world, simplistic moral principles rapidly become involved in reality. You can have people on opposite sides, all fighting for what they consider to be valid moral points. You have the necessity of compromise, where right and wrong as you percieve them may have to be abandoned in order to save lives. Unless you look at history/current affairs, you will never try and see the world though the eyes of those who have different ways of looking at the world from your own. How can you understand the appeal of facism unless you know the background it arose from? How can you understand why communism was so popular unless you know the different circumstances that gave birth to it. It doesn't require a degree in history. It doesn't require any qualifications at all. It just requires enough interest for you to go and find out. > > Economic issues *were* slavery. The south's economy depended on it. The > > north's did not. > > I think we're at cross purposes here. Your original comments > seemed to imply that the US civil war was a good thing because > it ended slavery. Slavery would have ended without the war (both > the north and south had plans to do so). The war was about whether > or not the southern economy would be crushed by the procedure. It > would have been much better if slavery had ended without the war, > so no, I don't think the war was a good thing. News to me. I'd be interested to read your source that says the south was planning to end slavery. (not individuals - the governments) If you can tell me what to read, I'll try and find a copy. After all, if they were planning to end it anyway, why did they leave the union? > In particular, it doesn't give him authority over other citizens who either > don't believe the Federation has lost its legitimacy, or who prefer (for > whatever reason--including being drugged) to live under an illegitimate > government rather than to rebel and risk suffering and death for themselves > and their families. ---including being drugged---- do you really believe that? If you do, I can offer you some perfect solutions to urban crime, and every social problem you can to think of. It just requires the legalisation and mass administration of various drugs to anyone who isn't happy. Ever read 'Brave New World'? (I believe it was one of Nation's inspirations - the use of 'soma' is of great interest) > I repeat; the difficulty I have with Star One is not the fact that > people will die; it's Blake's lack of right to make that decision. And mine is that 'legitimacy' does not automatically confer any moral right - which is why I cited Stalin. Have you read Ursula le Guin's 'Those who walk away from Omelas'? > > I find it more than a little baffling (and amusing, in a twisted sort of > way) the apparent discontinuity in the attitudes towards the events > in Star One and those in Stardrive. Avon clearly has the authority > to sacrifice Dr. Plaxton to save the others; and yet when I've said I > believe he did the right thing, I get an argument. 'Scuse me. I have *never* said (nor thought) Avon shouldn't have done it. I'd debate whether he had 'authority' - I bet Plaxton didn't think he had and she wasn't a member of his crew - but he still made the only possible decision. >Blake, OTOH, has no authority over either the 'many, many' who will die, or >over the equally vague number he wants to free, and yet this is somehow a noble >and heroic decision in many people's estimation. As the society is non-democratic, Blake has no way of gaining 'authority'. I think living in a strong democracy can make one lose awareness of how little freedom other people may have. I don't see it as noble and heroic, any more than Avon's action with Plaxton. If Blake cannot gain 'authority' should he do nothing? Edmund Burke - 'It is necessary only for the good man to do nothing, for evil to triumph.' > So you measure right and wrong by taking a vote? I don't think > the Continental Congress had any right to declare independence > unless the British government had lost its legitimacy--something > I've never seen any evidence of. I think all people have a right to independence if the large majority desire it. Take a current situation. Should Australia change its status? Britain has done nothing nasty to Australia. Does that mean Australia must remain part of the crown? Of course not (in my opinon). If they want to be free of us, then that is their right. > > > It didn't start as an all-out war. It began as small scale conflicts and it > > is probable that the final result was not forseen (nor necessarily intended) > > by either side. Real life is far more messy and complicated than we like to > > think. > > Which is why I prefer decisions made on basic principles, instead of > flip-flopping every time some new detail comes to light. No wonder you don't like history! It's full of so much inconvenient reality. Every 'detail' involves somebody's principles. > > > Compare Germany bombing Coventry and London. Coventry was a major > > industrial city - many civilians died in the bombing, but it was a militry > > target. London was bombed deliberately to kill civilians and was thus not a > > valid target (any more than our own bombing of Dresden.) > > Obviously we disagree again; all the citizens of two countries at war are at > war. Even those too young to vote? Even those opposed to the war? Even conscientious objectors, even those in hospital? Even conscripts? Even those who fought because they didn't know what was being done in their name? Do you think all German soldiers knew about the death camps? They didn't. An arbitary national boundary does not make someone my enemy. > > > > I'm afraid I can't agree that rebel leaders, however righteous > > > their causes may be, have the same range of options open to > > > them that legitimate governments do, with regard to civilian > > > populations. > > > > You're right (but for the wrong reasons). It's far easier for legitimate > > governments to kill massive numbers of their own civilians. Hitler was > > 'legitimate'. Five million jews, gypsies, etc, were killed quite legitimately. > > No. As I've said above, when a government begins slaughtering > law-abiding citizens wholesale, it's lost its legitimacy. so if the government loses its legitimacy, for example by butchering half the population of Saurian Major (Time Squad) who has the legitimate right to act then? Nobody? > > > I'm with Tanya. If I could have blown up Hitler at the price of my life and > > a handful of innocent people, I hope I'd have done it. > > Well, I think Hitler was an acceptable target, at least once the > war started. I might have done it, too. I'm not sure Blake would > have, though. He didn't kill Travis and Servalan when he had the > chance. They weren't as influential as Hitler, of course, but they > were appropriate targets, and it would have had an effect. I think he should have done. (and I can't even blame it on the scriptwriters wanting to keep continuing characters, as that's not playing the game by the rules.) Whooops. We agreed on something! 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: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:03:41 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: b7 Subject: Re: [B7L] The TRUTH abaout Travis Message-ID: In message <000301bf65d2$694aa3a0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner writes >TRAVIS: Then bring in hairy primitivs to dig up whole valey make it look >like chalk quary plant lots of buddlia. (THORTS: Then Blake will not be >able to resist coming here and I can capcher him agane for the last time.) More! more! -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:34:07 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Capchered agane Message-ID: <388B81DF.2624@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Travis hav no brane he do not shoot us dead on spot or even tuough us up but > send us to cells where we langwish and ponder our fete. A sort of 'get out of jail free' party? How kind of him to allow them time to plan their celebration. This is one case where it's definnitely funnier to take the erratic spelling as correct. BTW< I have no idea what these are based on, but they're hysterically funny, anyway. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:49:48 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: [B7L] Brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments) Message-ID: <010101bf65ee$863f9940$de8d01d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Anybody fancy watching all 17 episodes of "The Prisoner" again to add another SF dimension to this debate ? Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 16:13:55 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Mind-control Message-ID: <388B8ACC.7734@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alison said: > There's some stuff in William Burroughs about all this. Conditioning someone > to feel physically attracted to some-one else, and various other gruesome > things. That's done every single day to the majority of people with access to the media. Many male movie star 'hunks' are actually rather unhandsome, and how else can we possibly explain the idea that the hipless, anorexically thin supermodels of today are beautiful, when traditionally men have liked women who are curvy and somewhat plump? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 09:34:23 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: Good ol' Frank [Re: [B7L] Mental health & Governments] Message-ID: <20000123223423.33794.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Harriet Monkhouse <101637.2064@compuserve.com> >No, that was where I started paying attention, and trying to remember what >his son was called... Keep thinking Dweezil, but is that weird enough? That was what one of them is called. There was another called Ahmet, but they have other siblings too, and I don't remember what their names are, thankfully - see what you've done, Penny, Harriet?!?!?! I'll think I'll go back to reading Ker "Nigel Molesworth" Avon, in order to put such pieces of trivia right at the back of the brain, where they belong (if I can't extract them from my head altogether...) Regards Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:56:19 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: <388B9523.742EEDBB@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Uh-oh, I've stirred up a sleeping Overlord! Jacqueline Thijsen wrote: > Mistral wrote: > > > If you are tempted to suspect that I can accept this sort of judgment > > because the effects don't rebound on me personally, please don't; > > as I am certain is true of everyone else on this list, I can and have > > had to make difficult decisions where making the right choice had > > profound negative impact on me personally. Happens to everyone. > > Ah, yes, but we're now talking about a situation where making the "right" > (in your opinion) choice has a profound negative impact on lots of *other* > people. Not quite the same. Agreed. I was simply trying to forestall accusations of not caring about what happens to other people; I do. My approach to helping others is a lot different from most people's, however. > You've both been saying a lot about legitimate vs illegitimate governments. > But what, exactly, is a legitimate government? I'm asking, because the > matter doesn't seem very clear. Agree again, totally! I don't know; which is why I've just assumed for the purpose of discussion that the Federation was legitimate at one point. But it's lost it, IMHO. > In other words, if Blake had succeeded and managed to form a government, he > would have been legitimate and all of his previous actions would suddenly be > considered either legitimate or necessary nastiness. Not in my book. That's why I think he has to restrict himself to attacking the now-illegitimate Federation. Destroying Star One IMHO oversteps the bounds. > > Or it might be, that the Federation violated its own laws in order to > > prevent Albian from leaving, in which case, rebellion could > > be justified. > > Not at all. Two wrongs do not a right make, and "he started it" is only an > acceptable defense when you're six years old. Rebellion is never justified > according to the laws one happens to be living under. That's why it's called > rebellion. Rebellion happens when your personal sense of justice tells you > that following the law would be worse than breaking it. Once again, I agree with everything you've said. Rebellion is obviously never legal; when I say justified, I mean morally (as in, personal sense of justice). > >Can it possibly be that it's easier to accept > > the death of the faceless 'many, many' than a character with a face > > and a name and a few lines? Or is it just because Blake is a more > > traditional heroic type who seems warm where Avon seems cold? > > Actually, that's precisely why I would trust Avon more that Blake. I find it > very difficult to predict the behaviour of the 'warm' types, and often don't > understand their decisions (such as the decision not to kill Servalan or > Travis when given the chance). Agreed. (This is also why I *try* to avoid being swayed by emotional issues in making moral decisions. I don't believe that giving in to sentimentality helps make good choices.) > > Obviously we disagree again; all the citizens of two countries > > at war are at war. > > Huh? How does this justify randomly killing people? These days such actions > are quite rightly considered war crimes. Although I wonder how the main > powers would react if *they* were called to justice for such actions. Nothing random about it. I'll refer you back to Sally Manton's post of 1/15 on the 'Too Quiet' thread. One snip from Sally's post: > It's that word *civilian*. Nearly all wars in the 20th century > treat civilians as no more sancrosanct than (conscripted) > soldiers - something that, as I understand it, did come in > with Sherman in the American Civil war. As he pointed out, > the *adult* civilians (if I remember rightly, 'the women') > of the South were just as enthusiastic for secession, pushed > just as hard for the war, so he did *not* see them as non- > combatants. Which I do think is fair enough; a civilian who > supports other people fighting for his cause is no more > innocent than a soldier conscripted willingly or not to do > the actual fighting. IMO, if you're in a justifiable war, fight hard, fight to win, fight to win *fast*, it will minimize the bloodshed in the long run. (Somebody will say this is what Blake was doing; no it's not, he was in a rebellion--different thing.) Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:49:18 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Star One/Stardrive (was Re: [B7L] History) Message-ID: <388B775D.92B64155@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julia Jones wrote: > In message <388ACF0C.60FF9B2F@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes > >I find it more than a little baffling (and amusing, in a twisted sort of > >way) the apparent discontinuity in the attitudes towards the events > >in Star One and those in Stardrive. Avon clearly has the authority > >to sacrifice Dr. Plaxton to save the others; and yet when I've said I > >believe he did the right thing, I get an argument. > > But who do you get an argument from? Not necessarily the same people who > believe that Blake was right to attempt to destroy Star One. Or that it > was at least the lesser of two evils. Not necessarily the same people, true. But it's this lesser of two evils thing that bothers me about the whole Star One debate. As if there were only two choices: blowing up Star One or losing. Not true; there were many other available options, some of them IMO far better. This oft-touted (and I don't mean by you) idea that it was 'the only way' after everything else had failed is simply non-canonical hyperbole. > I believe quite firmly that Avon was right to take that decision, and I > don't understand why he's criticised for it (criticism for his attitude > is another matter). He can press the button, and Plaxton dies, or he can > leave it, and they all die. Whatever he does, he is taking the decision > to kill people. Plaxton is dead either way. He took the decision that > killed the fewest. Well, I'd have said he was saving five; it was the plasma bolt that would have killed six. But it would have been irresponsible not to act. Attitude--IMHO this is another case of not having to act irrational to show you care; cutting off a pointless and painful discussion. > This is nothing to with him having the authority - it could be argued > that going by the standards you use to judge and condemn Blake, Avon in > fact does not have the authority, as Scorpio is a stolen ship and the > group is in many ways an anarchy. 'Judge and condemn Blake' is a bit harsh, isn't it? It's only one specific action I'm disagreeing with. Certainly his commitment to his cause is admirable. Avon's authority in Stardrive--Avon killed Dorian in self-defense, then went to considerable trouble to secure Scorpio. It's *not* stolen, and *if* any one person could claim it, that would be Avon. That's not where I think his authority comes from, however. All of the others have removed their allegiance from the Federation, which is their prerogative (whether right or wrong). Scorpio crew is allowing Avon to call the shots in Stardrive--whether because they believe him their leader, or whether because they go along on a case by case basis is immaterial as long as they continue to follow, and as you point out, they don't stop him pushing the button. And Dr. Plaxton put her life in the hands of whoever was in charge of their group when she asked to go with them. > Any of the others could have tried to > stop him - they chose not to, and I don't find their attitude to Avon > particularly endearing. Agreed. Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:13:07 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: <09f401bf65ff$f04f06c0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral wrote: > IMO, if you're in a justifiable war, fight hard, fight to win, fight > to win *fast*, it will minimize the bloodshed in the long run. > (Somebody will say this is what Blake was doing; no it's not, > he was in a rebellion--different thing.) I have the distinct impression I'm going round in circles, but your model doesn't account for civil wars, and I think it's perfectly possible to characterize Blake's as being on one side in a civil war. Una ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:22:11 -0000 From: "Angua" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] The TRUTH abaout Travis Message-ID: <00de01bf6601$9ec6eaa0$d76b989e@demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Neil Faulkner" Subject: [B7L] The TRUTH abaout Travis > And so the eyepatches crorl all over Travis but he swat them off, all except > the Princess who cling on tite. In the prosess he is suptly changed his > face become diferent his hair get shuvved up into quiff he akwire cockny > aksent. He hav to go to psyco therapist to cope with this trormatic > transformashun. > Ahahaaa, at last the real explanashun for the change in Travis ! This was hysterical, more more :-) Louise http://starriders.net - Babylon 5 & Crusade, Blake's 7, SF cult tv and movies, free graphics, and more ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:10:17 -0500 (EST) From: Claudia Mastroianni To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Brainwashing (was Mental health & Governments) Message-Id: <200001240610.BAA16234@is06.fas.harvard.edu> "Andrew Ellis" wrote: : Anybody fancy watching all 17 episodes of "The Prisoner" again to add : another SF dimension to this debate ? Ha! Just did this earlier this month... almost exactly five years after the *last* time I watched the whole series. Both times were marathon viewings... I know some sick people. ;-) The difficulty is, I'm much more inclined to take The Prisoner allegorically than to read anything it says about brainwashing terribly literally. What did you have in mind? Claudia -- "Mrs. Peel, may I introduce Mr. McSteed." "How do you do, Mr. McSteed?" "Everyone calls me Jock. How do you do?" "You don't have a Scots accent." "I was carried south by marauding Sassenachs when I was a bairn." -- the Avengers ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:14:21 -0700 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Capchered agane Message-Id: <4.1.20000124011040.0091e520@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 03:34 PM 23/01/00 -0700, Helen Krummenacker wrote: >BTW< I have no idea what these are based on Oh joy! I thought that (as with the last one...or three...) perhaps I was the only one in the whole wide world who didn't get the joke! -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 08:33:57 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Capchered agane Message-ID: <0ac301bf6645$c45ed8b0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Penny wrote: > At 03:34 PM 23/01/00 -0700, Helen Krummenacker wrote: > > >BTW< I have no idea what these are based on > > Oh joy! I thought that (as with the last one...or three...) perhaps I was > the only one in the whole wide world who didn't get the joke! This should help a little: http://www.digiserve.com/mike/html/molesworth.html But if you can get hold of the books, they're disturbingly similar to Neil's versions. I think the same authors perpetrated '1066 and all that' which is a classic text on history. Una --- Please do not throw hands at me. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 20:16:52 +1100 (EST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?fred=20tasker?= To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Message-ID: <20000124091652.22762.qmail@web1206.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit How can i get off this list? _____________________________________________________________________________ http://greetings.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Australia & NZ Greetings - Better choose an online card now... Valentine's Day is coming sooner than you think! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 01:24:29 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: <388C1A4D.8AEFD767@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral: > >I'd be ashamed of myself > > if such a thing did change my mind; history tells us what > > happened, but it's not a yardstick for right and wrong. Una: > How else can we come to know about the past and be in a position to judge it > without *studying* the past? Changing one's mind in the light of evidence > is not, I think, something to be ashamed of, nor is it an abandonment of > one's principles. At the very least, understanding a past situation better > might throw new light on the issues of legitimacy which you hold so dear. Sally (also responding to me): > No. What it *is* however, to me at least, is a reminder and a warning of how > that yardstick can be used, misused and misconstrued, without anyone being > aware they're doing it...a reminder to be very very cautious when advocating > absolutes of right and wrong, or policies of perfection. History is one of > the messier sciences, reminding us that where human beings are concerned, > absolutes are deceiving and dangerous, and right and wrong can become so > grey and entangled in practice that it's impossible to tell one from the > other. I can see I've been unclear; every time I try to be brief I seem to make things worse. *Everybody* has immutable principles. They are the basic assumptions we make when judging right and wrong. They may come from your parents or your religion, education or experience, philosophy, or any number of places, but everyone has them. When you (generic) look at history to see what action has resulted in the best outcome, you're applying your basic assumptions about what the best outcome *is*. As in, people should not be forced to suffer and die unjustly. Or the even more basic assumption that you can assess the rightness and the wrongness of actions by their *visible* outcomes, and never mind the ripples throughout history that can't be traced and measured. It's true that history can be a valuable source of information in making decisions, or a wonderful storehouse of examples for illustrating discussions (assuming everybody has similar education). But the way in which I'd personally apply history is this: first I ask myself, what is the basic principle involved, the basic question of right vs. wrong. Then I ask myself, what options do I have that don't violate my principles. Having gotten that far, if I had more than one morally acceptable option, that's when I'd look at history to see if one of my acceptable options had a better track record as far as outcomes. I *wouldn't* look at outcomes, find the best one, and take that path, ignoring whether the action that produced it was right or wrong. Principles before cases, not cases before principles. And yes, the real world is grey and murky. *And you can't see all the results of your actions.* Some of them will always be invisible to you, although they will have their effect; and you can never see the effect of the choice you didn't take. The reason I'd choose something that adhered to my principles even when the immediately measurable results seemed to be painfully bitter is because experience leads me to believe that if we *could* measure all those immeasurable effects, it would be clear that adhering to right principles has far better consequences in the long run. Which is also the reason I care about the legitimacy of authorities. I'm a pragmatist. I wouldn't retain principles unless I truly believed, based on my experiences, they'd work out to the maximum benefit--for others as well as myself. The rest of these snips are Una's: > I'd be interested to know where you believe Avon's authority came to > sacrifice Dr Plaxton. Are you saying it comes down to a simple equation of > survival of individuals, or are you arguing that Avon et al. had removed > themselves from the chain of legality that existed within the Federation and > therefore could ignore most laws? Mm. *If* I understand you, the latter. Federation laws would no longer apply (but right and wrong still would). This is one of the reasons I think knowing when an authority has lost its legitimacy is so important--to know when you can reasonably remove yourself from said authority. Re Scorpio crew: If they've committed to Avon's leadership, he has the authority by virtue of *being* the authority. If he is simply acting as de facto leader for that particular mission, the same applies. In these two cases, he took the *only* correct action, because he was responsible for all the others, including Dr. Plaxton. If they're working as a democracy/anarchy, his actions were taken under group authority since none of them tried to stop him. > Yet Avon never manages > to develop the intellectual courage to enable him to make decisions that > will affect 'many, many people' in order to counter a perceived evil, as > Blake did. Really? Are you discounting his decision at Helotrix that getting information that might protect both Scorpio's crew and many other planets was more important than getting involved in the fight for Helotrix? Or his efforts to form a league of non-aligned worlds in order that they might help protect each other? Those decisions affected 'many, many people'--they just didn't overstep his authority. (Not that I think he cared about that, mind you. I just think it goes with the natural detachment of his personality type, coupled with his experiences.) Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:47:32 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: <388C11A4.3A5CF3A3@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Una McCormack wrote: > Mistral wrote: > > > IMO, if you're in a justifiable war, fight hard, fight to win, fight > > to win *fast*, it will minimize the bloodshed in the long run. > > (Somebody will say this is what Blake was doing; no it's not, > > he was in a rebellion--different thing.) > > I have the distinct impression I'm going round in circles, but your model > doesn't account for civil wars, and I think it's perfectly possible to > characterize Blake's as being on one side in a civil war. Good point; my suspicion is that everything called a civil war can be sorted into one category or the other; and I suspect, mostly rebellions (whether justified or not). Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 23:04:48 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Capchered agane Message-ID: <+T+MffBQk4i4EwPN@jajones.demon.co.uk> In message <388B81DF.2624@jps.net>, Helen Krummenacker writes >BTW< I have no idea what these are based on, but they're hysterically >funny, anyway. I assure you, Neil has the pastiche perfectly. I have to admit I never thought of Avon as Molesworth, but he is *so* appropriate:-) -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:20:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Iain Coleman To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Robot Wars Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Steve Rogerson wrote: > Alison said: > > > It's just on because the kids like it you understand. > > Grossly unfair! I can't hide behind that excuse. > I use the "I'm only watching it for Phillipa Forrester" excuse. An excuse which has, as Kissinger would say, the additional advantage of being true. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 10:39:30 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Re: Robot Wars Message-ID: <0bce01bf6657$4d801210$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Iain wrote: > On Sat, 22 Jan 2000, Steve Rogerson wrote: > > > Alison said: > > > > > It's just on because the kids like it you understand. > > > > Grossly unfair! I can't hide behind that excuse. > > > > I use the "I'm only watching it for Phillipa Forrester" excuse. An excuse > which has, as Kissinger would say, the additional advantage of being true. Oddly enough, it's also the excuse Kissinger uses for watching 'Robot Wars'. Una ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 02:40:20 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] History Message-ID: <20000124104020.35025.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed After Mistral wrote: Una added: Ooooh, not only history, but historical semantics, now. I do agree with Una (yes, I can hear you all falling off your chairs in shock) but it raises an interesting (well, to me) point - when and how does rebellion *become* civil war *become* revolution? (The latter, presumably, if it succeeds). The one point we all seem to have argued towards is that, in the B7 universe, there is *no* legitimate authority (if there was in the Federation, it has died. If there was on the individual planets, it has been usurped.) Had Blake's rebellion become a revolution, where would legitimacy have lain then? Does the different title make a difference as to the legitimacy of their actions? And who decides - and when - where the semantic boundaries lie? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 03:12:06 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: [B7L] [Fwd: History] Message-ID: <388C3385.C68CB986@ptinet.net> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------B3FF2537C74D7B25F1CA8B4E" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------B3FF2537C74D7B25F1CA8B4E Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Forwarded from Tanja :) --------------B3FF2537C74D7B25F1CA8B4E Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mailout00.sul.t-online.de (mailout00.sul.t-online.de [194.25.134.16]) by mail.nw.centurytel.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id GAA01616 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 06:31:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from fwd02.sul.t-online.de by mailout00.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 12CO31-00057c-02; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:31:23 +0100 Received: from (320079790335-0001@[212.184.146.145]) by fwd02.sul.t-online.de with smtp id 12CO2q-23nLDUC; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:31:12 +0100 From: Angria@t-online.de (Tanja Kinkel) To: mistral@ptinet.net References: <388ACF0C.60FF9B2F@ptinet.net> Subject: History X-Mailer: T-Online eMail 2.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 15:31:12 +0100 Message-ID: <12CO2q-23nLDUC@fwd02.sul.t-online.de> X-Sender: 320079790335-0001@t-dialin.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 mistral@ptinet.net wrote: < gigantic snip> > > Well, I think Hitler was an acceptable target, at least once the > war started. I might have done it, too. I'm not sure Blake would > have, though. He didn't kill Travis and Servalan when he had the > chance. They weren't as influential as Hitler, of course, but they > were appropriate targets, and it would have had an effect. Not on the system itself, which is a point Blake makes in dialogue and the series makes as well, in showing that no matter whether Servalan's predecessor(s) is/are in charge in the first two seasons, Servalan is in the third, or whoever replaced her as head of government in the fourth, the Federation as a totalitarian system with a disregard of the life and freedom of the individual continues. I think we need to differ between two types of totalitarian states here. The Third Reich as centred around Hitler the person; while its ideology was a hotchpotch of ideas around for decades before Hitler turned up, the National Socialist Party and later the state was constructed around Adolf Hitler the person (not an exchangable leader) in such a way that his death would have caused a breakdown. For one thing, none of the other top Nazis had been build up to godlike proportions by the propaganda so that they could have taken over in the public perception; for another, the most powerful - Goebbels, Göring, Himmler, Bormann - loathed each other with a passion and their infighting would have contributed to the breakdown. Moreover, Hitler didn't really construct his state with the idea of a successor in the first place, and it showed. Now the former Sowjet Union, on the other hand, also a totalitarian state, did have its general secretaries with cults of personality (Stalin comes to mind), but it was constructed in a way which didn't depend on a specific individual to be in charge. If any of the general secretaries had been assassinated, it would not have made a difference to the fate of the state, not in the long run. I see the Federation as presented in B7 as something more of the second type. Last but not least: what do you mean with "Hitler was an acceptable target, at least once the war had started"? Not earlier? He began with dispensing civil rights and making mass arrests as early as March 1933; in 1934, he began executing opponents or perceived opponents without even bothering with the pretense of asking the now-defunct Parliament; in 1935, the Nuremberg Laws, which in essence denied the Jews the status of human beings, were issued. And in 1938, with the "Reichskristallnacht", it was clear that he wouldn't be content with making the Jews emigrate, he was after their lives as well. Tanja --------------B3FF2537C74D7B25F1CA8B4E-- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 12:28:59 +0100 From: Jacqueline Thijsen To: B7 List Subject: RE: [B7L] History Message-ID: <39DCDDFD014ED21185C300104BB3F99FAF12C6@NL-ARN-MAIL01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Mistral wrote: > > Uh-oh, I've stirred up a sleeping Overlord! Shhhh!!! Unlike Una I've been smart and have not yet made my intentions public. BTW, I've been snipping shamelessly in this without bothering to remember where I did so: > Jacqueline Thijsen wrote: > > > You've both been saying a lot about legitimate vs. > illegitimate governments. > > But what, exactly, is a legitimate government? I'm asking, > because the > > matter doesn't seem very clear. > > Agree again, totally! I don't know; which is why I've just assumed > for the purpose of discussion that the Federation was legitimate at > one point. But it's lost it, IMHO. That's a rather big assumption. Governments such as the one that apparently rules the Federation generally come to power by grabbing it (in which case they wouldn't have been legitimate to begin with) or by coming to power quite legitimately and then breaking or changing their own rules, like Hitler did. There's no way to tell, of course, but as I see it, Servalan et al have no more legitimate authority than Blake. They were simply in a better position to grab power. So you could make a case for this being a struggle between rivals. > > In other words, if Blake had succeeded and managed to form > a government, he > > would have been legitimate and all of his previous actions > would suddenly be > > considered either legitimate or necessary nastiness. > > Not in my book. That's why I think he has to restrict himself to > attacking the now-illegitimate Federation. Destroying Star One > IMHO oversteps the bounds. Actually, I was talking about how the actions of any rebel leader are generally viewed. Win, and history will call you a freedom fighter. Lose, and you're a damn terrorist. BTW, I think that Blake had another, very pragmatic, reason for destroying Star One. Before Star One was destroyed, they constantly had to run from one sector to another because the Federation kept tracking them. Afterwards, that was no longer the case (that I can remember, feel free to correct me). I suspect that gaining the freedom to move was one of the main reasons Blake wanted to destroy Star One. Not because it would throw the Federation into disarray (questionable, since there were obviously backups, such as the pilot of that destroyed ship wanted to use) but because it would give him and other rebel factions the freedom to get themselves and their equipment into place without being seen. Another thought I had is about Cally's remark about the 'many, many people' who would die. I haven't seen the episode recently, but did she actually say that this would be because of equipment failure? She could just as easily have gotten cold feet over the realization that destroying Star One might be the start of a major civil war in which 'many, many people' would indeed be killed. > > It's that word *civilian*. Nearly all wars in the 20th century > > treat civilians as no more sacrosanct than (conscripted) > > soldiers - something that, as I understand it, did come in > > with Sherman in the American Civil war. As he pointed out, > > the *adult* civilians (if I remember rightly, 'the women') > > of the South were just as enthusiastic for secession, pushed > > just as hard for the war, so he did *not* see them as non- > > combatants. Which I do think is fair enough; a civilian who > > supports other people fighting for his cause is no more > > innocent than a soldier conscripted willingly or not to do > > the actual fighting. > > IMO, if you're in a justifiable war, fight hard, fight to win, fight > to win *fast*, it will minimize the bloodshed in the long run. That's what they did in the gulf war. Burying Iraqi soldiers alive by filling up their trenches couldn't be called humane, but it did stop the fighting there rather abruptly. You may also note that they did concentrate on military targets, and that civilian targets were usually considered goofups rather than necessities. Civilians may not be non-combatants according to some, but they are the ones you're still going to have to deal with after the war is over, so you don't want them any more bitter about what you've done to them than absolutely necessary. And while I admit that that war wasn't nearly as clean and precise as the generals tried to pretend, they did a pretty good job of winning as quickly as possible. > (Somebody will say this is what Blake was doing; no it's not, > he was in a rebellion--different thing.) That depends on your POV. It could just as easily be seen as (the start of) a civil war. BTW, terrorizing civilians by bombing them hardly ever works. I admit I'm not a historian (far from it), but I've read articles about the bombings of non-military targets such as London and Dresden. Apparently, the thinking on both sides was that it would discourage the population of the enemy so much that they'd be easier to conquer. In fact, the opposite happened. The people who were bombed were actually confirmed in their beliefs that the enemy was evil and were all the more enthusiastically in support of fighting, instead of surrender. So bombing civilians was actually counterproductive since it didn't scare the leaders into giving up. And while I'll admit that this did happen in Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both valid military targets, BTW) were bombed, this was a totally different situation, since the balance of power was so incredibly skewed, what with Japan being on the brink of defeat anyway and the US suddenly using this new superweapon. But, to get back on topic, I think that this is why the Federation would have failed sooner or later. As Mistral's General (or whatever) told her, such regimes usually self-destruct. Blake was only hastening a process that was already going on, as evidenced by the number of rebel groups that seemed to be growing left and right. And that's two postings I've actually thought seriously about in two days. I think I'd better get some rest now. Maybe read some more of Nick Pollotta's "Illegal Aliens" to help me get back to my normal frivolous state of mind. Jacqueline -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #22 *************************************