From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #31 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/31 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 31 Today's Topics: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #30 Re: [B7L] Animals... me too. Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Wu Names Re: [B7L] News from Horizon Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) [B7L] Fan Q categories Re: [B7L] WuNames Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Wu Names Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) [B7L] Re: Grief's play [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) [B7L] WuNames Re: [B7L] Wu Names ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:24:25 -0600 From: "Brian T Bolding" To: Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V00 #30 Message-ID: <027c01bf6c6c$396d5ec0$f25ff4d1@oemcomputer> unsubscribe __________________________________________ NetZero - Defenders of the Free World Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:52:49 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Animals... me too. Message-ID: <19990131.225251.14486.1.Rilliara@juno.com> On Sun, 30 Jan 2000 22:41:33 -0000 "Andrew Ellis" writes: Now the real point is >this. >Given that Servalan had top Federation mind altering equipment with >her, >does anybody believe she would not take the opportunity to plant some >subliminal suggestion into her mind to betray Avon's base. >Come to think of it, she had all of that stuff on Terminal as well, >and >could have got to Avon. So did the master puppet master herself slip >up. Or >was it all a plot all along. The real coup would be to get Blake, and >perhaps Servalan planted a seed of distrust into Avon, and got Dayna >to send >messages related to Blake to Central Control. So when Avon goes after >Blake, >Dayna secretly tells Servalan (and what a mental struggle that would >be !), >who promptly briefs the local agents. They get close to Blake (hence >the >coincidental timing). When Avon meets Blake, his conditioning from >Terminal >kicks in, prompted by Tarrant. The rest, is ........... the new film >? NO!!! Don't do this to me! Not a reason for Animals to MAKE SENSE!!!! 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:50:10 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <19990131.225251.14486.0.Rilliara@juno.com> On Mon, 31 Jan 2000 22:25:47 +0000 Julia Jones writes: >In message <38955AFC.625960D5@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes >>He's still making the same peremptory assumptions the Federation >>is, however. At some point in the past, those people or their >ancestors >>gave an implied consent to Federation rule. > >They did? Where in the series does it say that? Or do you think that >forced consent is still consent? It's quite possible that the >"consent", >implied or otherwise, was that of people who found themselves in a >situation where they were too scared to say no. Or who didn't realise >what was going on, until it was too late to say no. First, I generally think Blake was justified in a lot of what he was doing _and_ that he had a great deal of popular support (the frequency with which rank and file Federation citizens were willing to either keep quiet when he showed up or actively help him--and the way Blake so often _expected_ that response says a lot). However, I think Blake was also capable of becoming a guy who would go off and do all this without that justification. The issue of whether a government has its people's support or fits their view of legitimate can't be ignored just because the people are a bunch of idiots to support it. The Federation seems to have started out as a more or less legitimate democracy. There are surviving forms of democratic government and possibly some pretense of actual of voting, fair trials, etc. Feeling for this sort of system remains strong enough that Le Grande and other, reasonably intelligent Federation citizens could expect the administration to be overthrown if certain corrupt practices were made public (OK, it was a pipe dream, but note Servalan didn't have the nerve to grab Le Grande in front of her fellow governors, implying she could not rely on their support for this move). Corruption seems to have set in on several levels. There's direct corruption--injustices the average Fed citizen _does_ seem to accept, like the rating system (alphas, betas, etc). While this is probably pretty bad (evidence is limited, but I'm assuming vast differences in rights and privileges), the scant evidence available suggests widespread support (one angry beta, who was a borderline nutcase and who never questioned other aspects of the ranking system, such as slavery, does not a widespread social movement make). None of the crew seem to ever seriously question the rights and wrongs of this set up (the strongest comment is Vila's assertion that he bought his delta grade. Even Gan [I assume his girlfriend's death was excused on the grounds of her being a delta, just as Gan's retalitory killing was inexcuseable because he was a delta attacking an alpha or beta] never discusses the rights a wrongs of this). So, the grading system would not have been justification. The corruptions in government might or might not have been. An important issue is how much the Federation was capable of internal reform. In my opinion, not much and those who tried were dog meat, but Blake never launched a PR campaign (underground news shows, pamplets, etc), which he was quite capable of doing (Avon's newscaster appeal is questionable, but it would have given Jenna "I only have one job on this ship. It may be stupid, but I'm going to do it" Stannis something else to do). Don't tell me that between Avon, Orac, and the Liberator, he couldn't have planted the occassional five minute summary on the evening news. Anyhow, acceptance levels of this kind of corruption is again an issue. If everyone really thinks its OK for these kind of power abuses to go on, don't expect a change in government to fix things overnight. Let's get to the heart of the matter. It was the Federation's willingness to use murder on a large scale that made them corrupt and worth overthrowing. How willing they were to kill their own citizens during the first two seasons is open to debate. They were definitly willing to slaughter their way into new territory and use the threat of genocide to keep conquored territories in line (whether these people were recognized as citizens is open to question). This becomes interesting because Blake rarely if ever justifies his actions in these terms. He always sees himself as a Federation citizen fighting to overthrow his government, not a Federation defector fighting on the other side. Darn it, I like the guy. I just have a hard time making his logic hold together. 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. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000 20:14:37 -0000 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names Message-ID: <001401bf6c81$7180a320$e535fea9@neilfaulkner> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This entire topic is not only monumentally silly, it is completely irrelevant to B7. I want nothing to do with it. Chocolatey Nazi "The only good alien is a dead alien" - Ursula LeGuin ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:03:19 -0000 From: "David A McIntee" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] News from Horizon Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ---------- > From: Mac4781@aol.com > To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se; freedom-city@blakes-7.org > Subject: [B7L] News from Horizon > Date: 31 January 2000 14:10 > > Horizon asked me to pass along the following news: > > Gareth Thomas is to play the Psychiatrist in 'Equus' at the Playhouse > Theatre, Salisbury (Box Office 01722 320333) from 24 March/08 April WHich presumably nixes his appearance at Neutral Zone... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 01:47:10 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Message-ID: <20000201094710.43239.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed After I wrote: Mistral queried: < If you really believe that morals are relative to their time, then what's the point in judging the Federation by the morals of our own?> Because they're all we've got, of course. Judgements do have to be made (and boy, I made some swingeing ones in my B A!) but always with the little proviso that 'this is what *I* think based on *my* understanding and *my* reasons and *my* inbuilt and quite unrealised prejudice and bias. And I *could* be wrong...' (not that I'll ever admit it here, of course. I Am Right. Maybe. I think...) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 01:45:28 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <20000201094528.20351.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed After I wrote: . Spacefall, Pressure Point, Killer, Children of Auron, Rumours and Traitor won't let me.> Mistral wrote: I don't see Rumors as an exception, actually, it's totally within character for him to see his own vendetta as more important than the fact that he's helping Servalan against the rebels (whose 'side' he's presumably, technically still on). I adore Avon, but one of the major strands of his character as I see it *is* this selfishness and self-centredness. Killer, Children of Auron and Traitor are *not* cases of 'crosses his well-being', since neither the galaxy at large (Killer), the Auronar nor the people of Helotrix are doing anything of the sort. Auron's plight is delaying his plans for revenge (I've said why I think this is his principle objection) and the lives of the Helots are secondary to finding out the new Federation weapon which could hurt him and his own people (as noted, the benefits of the knowledge to other planets does *not* come into his considerations, not here or for a fair time afterwards...) Spacefall - he *genuinely* considers helping the crew to space the prisoners, IMO (he thought seriously enough about it to come up with the drawbacks - had he not been serious, he wouldn't have got that far in his thinking.) Pressure Point - the companion piece to Star One - the same (as far as they know) computer base is going to go up, and his interest is in what *he* is going to get out of it (the Liberator. Yes, I think he is also going because Blake is, but that doesn't change the fact that besides what he wants - the ship and the others' safety - the effects of the destruction of Control on anyone else is immaterial.) In all these cases except Rumours, he does *not* Do The Wrong Thing when push comes to shove. In Spacefall, he thinks of those practical reasons against it; in Traitor, it proves that the population are not being massacred; the rest he is actually prevented, one way or another. But Blake was also prevented from destroying Star One... ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 01:49:10 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <20000201094910.29822.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Ellyne wrote: Hard to say...do recall, there were 'elections' and 'voting' in the Soviet Union even during the Stalinist era (it's just that the pre-selected winner - errr - won). It also depends on what form that 'democracy' took - it could be that from the start, only certain people were allowed to vote - those with a vested interest. This would satisfy the cosmetic needs of the few who were allowed to pretend they thought for themselves, and would also explain your point about Governer Le Grande (the *appearance* of morality being more important than the reality, as in fascist countries.) Ellyne, Ellyne, I love *both* of them with a pure and deep adoration, but I gave up ages ago trying to claim that either Roj *or* Kerr were logical creatures :-) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 01:42:50 PST From: "Sally Manton" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Message-ID: <20000201094250.3971.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Re Blake and Sarkoff... I agree with Mistral in one respect. Blake does coerce him - quite deliberately and for once *genuinely* using the gifts of cold-blooded ruthlessness and manipulation that are as much a part of him as the compassion. And I do disapprove (even though I love it - I do love his dangerously dark streak) but I can also understand. He does try to reason with the man, but Sarkoff is enjoying his own self-pity, formly closes his eyes and doesn't want to know; Lindor *is* facing conquest by deceit, a lot of people are going to suffer, and he can prevent it - and doesn't want to know. So Blake turns on him. Again, not nice. I'm not a huge fan of Sarkoff, but he's someone I can recognise quite readily - he's got weaknesses (self- importance, self-pity) that he covers by his charm and clever words, and I have no doubt that in his place I'd behave worse. The problem is again, that I cannot (sorry, Mistral, but *literally* cannot) judge any action or principle in isolation, but have to place it against its background of reason and motive, cause, and result, and I do judge all of them as as important as the principle itself. Blake did the wrong thing here IMO, but for the right reasons and with the right results (there's nothing in the episode to indicate that any other path would have worked for Lindor, and there's also no doubt that it all did Sarkoff himself the world of good, comparing his state of mind at the beginning and the end.) Fair enough - just as *I* can't understand how each one must be judged on equal terms - as I said, in isolation from its whole basis of cause and effect, motive and outcome. The moral values that protect our own freedoms are wonderful, and I'd hate to lose most of them - but I see them as far less use to protect freedoms that don't exist, where harsher virtues are needed. But I don't think we're ever going to come to a meeting of the minds on this... And after I wrote in another post: Sorry, I think *that's* naive, and there's plenty of evidence of bad (ranging from mildly ineffective to pure evil) governments which, though sometimes created with plenty of high-minded ideas and ideals, are themselves the creative force moulding the people who run it. We actually don't know what the original Federation was like, so it's no use stating that it was a good, bad or indifferent method of government, that the majority of people did or did not support it in its early years (could have come in as a military coup as far as I know - Neil? You wrote the book - can you recall anything?). We do know it has now been in force for centuries, and that the way I see it working is such *that* corruption and brutality flourish. Individuals have come and gone. Servalan and Travis - the President and Alta Morag - they're all replaceable functionaries - there have been hundreds before them, if it goes on there will be hundreds afterwards. But they all succeed because the system of government, its basis, its workings, its laws, are such that people like them get ahead. Had Stalin been removed, half-a-dozen Politburo members nearly as brutal could have replaced him (it might have made *some* difference to the scale of the horrors, but horrors there still would have been, because the system on which the laws and methods were based made it so). Killing Hitler may have made a difference in pre-war Germany - during the war, however, not so much IMO. Killing Goring wouldn't have - killing Heydrich didn't. Assassinating the Kommandant of Auschwitz - no matter how evil and deserving he was - would probably not have stopped the gas chambers for more than a couple of days, if that. Remove the President, and there will be another. Remove Servalan, and another high-ranking offocial will take her place and follow the same precepts and beliefs as she did, and the one before her, and the one before that...remove Travis, and someone else will be given the job of eliminating them (possibly someone who *will*.) Destroy the system - get to ground zero...and maybe you have a chance. And in *another* post: As said above, we don't know who did give even implied consent - we don't know how the Federation started, whether *in* revolution and conquest, or in elections or...well, whatever. We do know that an *again* unspecified (Nation and Boucher were really fond of vagueness) number of worlds it was definitely *not* by consent but by a program of expansion and conquest. We also don't know how many people actually *are* consciously supporting the Federation - we get some scrappy information about the resistance in different places (the evidence, such as it is, is that resistaance is quite widespread) but there's as far as I know very little indication that there were substantial numbers outside the actual power structure (the government, the military) supporting it. Anyone got any evidence on this? I feel there must have been some, but not necessarily anything like the numbers coerced/ drugged etc into obedience. And anyway, whatever the ancestors may or may not have agreed to, it most certainly wasn't what they got, so the consent is as null and void as Blake's lack thereof. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 02:02:51 -0800 From: "Sarah Thompson" To: Subject: [B7L] Fan Q categories Message-ID: <001b01bf6c9b$bb938080$95a8cdcf@y1i7s9> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil, I agree that the present system of categorizing stories for Fan Q purposes is odd. But historically, its origins are apparently the very opposite of what one might think. There has never been any official explanation of the reasoning behind the rules; but according to gossip I heard, they did once consider putting all erotica together, but that plan was vetoed by slash fans who did not want the purity of their category sullied by nasty awful hetsmut. Supposedly, that time a few years ago when the whole thing collapsed was in fact due to behind-the-scenes fighting over this very issue. But I have no idea whether the gossip is accurate or not. Sarah T. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 02:23:23 PST From: "Hellen Paskaleva" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] WuNames Message-ID: <20000201102323.34149.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: "Joanne MacQueen" >>http://www.recordstore.com/cgi-bin/wuname/wuname.pl > >Putting just my first initial in the first name box produces "Optimistic >Lyricist". > >Makes some sense on this list... Hey, that's mine one! But, interestingly, when I typed down my e-mail nick, it came out as an "Erratic Assassin". For some reason... Hellen ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 13:41:35 -0000 From: "Jonathan Coupe" To: , Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <00aa01bf6cba$0f624ac0$1837883e@ming> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Well, yes. If you subscribe to the idea of psychological egoism Could someone tell me what non-pyschological egoism is, or how it's possible? > (I do), a person will always choose that course of action that best > reinforces the self-image Not really. To state a trivial example: most teenagers are sure that they are as brave and confident as any movie hero, but faced with real physical risk few of them behave like John Wayne. So much for behaviour following self-image. And regarding altruism, I've seen people make, and have myself made, choices that ran contrary to what had previously been our self-image - because the situation called for them. Some situations are so overwhelming (being stuck halfway up a cliff face, cancer, having someone try to kill you, seeing a friend unexpectedly emotionally collapse) that self image goes out of the window. Even the strongest ego and most introverted personality doesn't think the way people do in Heinlein novels, Mistral. (I might also say that it's strange to make "always" statements regarding something you can't measure, such as someone else's - or even your own self-image, especially for someone who generaaly adopts the phraseology of a rationalist-empiricist. Admnittedly Heinlein - who I'd suspect is an influence on you - does this sort of thing all the time, but then his grasp of science was appalingly bad.) Jonathan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 06:20:36 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <3896EBB3.BFD08325@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julia Jones wrote: > In message <38955AFC.625960D5@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes > >He's still making the same peremptory assumptions the Federation > >is, however. At some point in the past, those people or their ancestors > >gave an implied consent to Federation rule. > > They did? Where in the series does it say that? Or do you think that > forced consent is still consent? It's quite possible that the "consent", > implied or otherwise, was that of people who found themselves in a > situation where they were too scared to say no. Or who didn't realise > what was going on, until it was too late to say no. Actually, I think in this case it's particularly important that a forced consent *must* be recognized as consent, for this reason: even if the Federation was originally founded in blood and brutality, if it rose to power by pointing rifles at people and saying 'submit or die', you have to take into account that those people (or their ancestors) *chose* to submit. In other words, they decided that *life* was more important to them than *freedom*. That's not to say they want to live in misery; that's to say they wanted death even less. It's not Blake's place to reverse their choice. I take your point about the law re the internet tap. There are a great many civil rights violations going on in the US, and people either don't know about them or turn a blind eye. For example, it's rather an open secret that our administration illegally accesses the FBI files of its political enemies on a regular basis, and nothing is done about it. Our constitutional right to bear arms is being slowly but methodically dismantled in the name of lowering the crime rate, even though statistics from Australia and Canada demonstrate that crimes will actually increase. CPS can in some states take children away from their parents based on anonymous accusations of wrongdoing as vague as having 'too many children'. One of our higher courts (circuit, IIRC) has ruled that when your child sets foot on a public school campus, s/he becomes a ward of the state and you lose all your parental rights. That means they don't even have to let your child go home. That particular ruling has already been used to justify giving children (toddlers to teens) medical exams, including pelvics, over the protests of the child and without consent or even *knowledge* of the parents. Why do people let this go on? Because... disbelief, apathy, fear? Your guess is as good as mine. I do know parents that already won't send their children to public school; but you'll notice that no-one is rebelling over any of these violations yet. Each person's line past which they won't be pushed is probably different; IMHO Blake needs to respect the rights of others not to join his rebellion. Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 06:21:31 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names Message-ID: <3896EBEA.B48EC78E@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil Faulkner wrote: > This entire topic is not only monumentally silly, it is completely > irrelevant to B7. I want nothing to do with it. > > Chocolatey Nazi Careful, Neil. Somebody will bite off your ears. Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 06:54:37 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <3896F3AD.3B0D1F4F@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jonathan Coupe wrote: > > Well, yes. If you subscribe to the idea of psychological egoism > > Could someone tell me what non-pyschological egoism is, or how it's > possible? Per Webster's: *psychological egoism*- the ethical doctrine that individual self-interest is the _actual motive_ of all conscious action. Also Webster's: *ethical egoism*- the ethical doctrine that individual self-interest is the _valid end_ of all conscious action. Not quite the same thing at all. > > (I do), a person will always choose that course of action that best > > reinforces the self-image > > Not really. To state a trivial example: most teenagers are sure that they > are as brave and confident as any movie hero, but faced with real physical > risk few of them behave like John Wayne. So much for behaviour following > self-image. You're confusing fantasy self-image with actual self-image. There is a difference between who we tell ourselves we are on a daily basis, and who we deep down believe we are. > And regarding altruism, I've seen people make, and have myself > made, choices that ran contrary to what had previously been our self-image - > because the situation called for them. Some situations are so overwhelming > (being stuck halfway up a cliff face, cancer, having someone try to kill > you, seeing a friend unexpectedly emotionally collapse) that self image goes > out of the window. No. That's when the fantasy self-image goes out the window. > (I might also say that it's strange to make "always" statements regarding > something you can't measure, such as someone else's - or even your own > self-image, especially for someone who generaaly adopts the phraseology of a > rationalist-empiricist. If you'll notice the word *all* in both of the above definitions- that's part of the theory, I didn't insert it. > Admnittedly Heinlein - who I'd suspect is an > influence on you - does this sort of thing all the time, but then his grasp > of science was appalingly bad.) Obviously you know more about Heinlein than I do. Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 07:31:08 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: <3896FC3C.1CD0A926@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sally Manton wrote: > Spacefall - he *genuinely* considers helping the crew to > space the prisoners, IMO (he thought seriously enough about > it to come up with the drawbacks - had he not been serious, > he wouldn't have got that far in his thinking.) Just to nit-pick; canonically, we only have Blake's word for that. Mistral -- "Who do you serve? And who do you trust?" --Galen, 'Crusade' ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 17:49:41 +0000 From: Steve Rogerson To: Lysator , Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Re: Grief's play Message-ID: <38971CB5.DB629DDA@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The Horizon bulletin said: > Stephen Greif will be appearing in 'The Last Sortie' at the New End Theatre, > Hampstead from 11 February to 05 March. BO 0207 794 0022. > Tuesday/Saturday at 7.30pm and matinees on Saturdays and Sundays at 15.30. > This is an American piece about a group of ex-bomber pilots who return for a > reunion and an enquiry. I've booked to go with a friend of mine on Wednesday 23 February if anyone fancies joining us, the more the merrier. -- 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: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 19:44:24 +0000 From: Nicola Collie To: Lysator Subject: [B7L] Chocolate (was Wu Names) Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Neil Faulkner is a >> Chocolatey Nazi This information induced Mistral to reply: >Careful, Neil. Somebody will bite off your ears. Me, I start with the feet. And gratuitous cruelty season is coming up! I saw my first Creme Eggs this week. (cue everyone else to jump in and say where they saw them on Dec 26.) Ob B7: How do Blake et al eat their Creme Eggs? Or chocolate bunnies, if you prefer. Nicola ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 21:01:53 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part Three) Message-ID: In message <3896EBB3.BFD08325@ptinet.net>, mistral@ptinet.net writes >Actually, I think in this case it's particularly important that a >forced consent *must* be recognized as consent, for this >reason: even if the Federation was originally founded in blood >and brutality, if it rose to power by pointing rifles at people and >saying 'submit or die', you have to take into account that those >people (or their ancestors) *chose* to submit. They chose? In a system clearly demonstrated to be using drugs to influence that choice, if not remove it altogether, during the period the series is set in, that's not quite the same as an active choice for life as a slave as being better than death. This is the point you keep ignoring - the people depicted in the dome in _The Way Back_ do not have the ability to make the choice. That ability has been removed from them. Using an example from later in the series - you are claiming that rebels who have been surreptitiously or forcibly treated with Pylene 50 have chosen to submit to the Federation, because they are no longer fighting back. And again, I would ask - why is it wrong for Blake to make a decision on behalf of the Federation victims, but right for their ancestors to do so? -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 20:49:26 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Message-ID: <+gpv9NAWb0l4EwUd@jajones.demon.co.uk> I should perhaps explain for those not on The Other List that I've damaged my hands, and that until either my hands or my voice recognition software are in full working order, my postings are likely to be random extracts rather than full replies, and not necessarily immediate, depending on how my hands feel. Don't be surprised if one post gets half a dozen replies to individual bits of it. In message <20000201094250.3971.qmail@hotmail.com>, Sally Manton writes >And anyway, whatever the ancestors may or may not have >agreed to, it most certainly wasn't what they got, so >the consent is as null and void as Blake's lack thereof. And I'm somewhat curious as to how the consent given by ancestors on behalf of other people is valid, and Blake's withdrawal of consent on behalf of other people is not. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 08:41:03 EST From: "J MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Message-ID: <20000201214103.28062.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: "Sally Manton" >And I *could* be wrong...' (not that I'll ever admit it here, of >course. I Am Right. Maybe. I think...) Only when not in conflict with Una, remember! Regards Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 08:06:36 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Message-ID: <20000202080636.B6996@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Tue, Feb 01, 2000 at 01:47:10AM -0800, Sally Manton wrote: > After I wrote: > *we've* got it all wrong, how do we know?> > > Mistral queried: > < If you really believe that morals are relative to their > time, then what's the point in judging the Federation by the > morals of our own?> > > Because they're all we've got, of course. Judgements do have > to be made (and boy, I made some swingeing ones in my B A!) > but always with the little proviso that 'this is what *I* > think based on *my* understanding and *my* reasons and *my* > inbuilt and quite unrealised prejudice and bias. And I > *could* be wrong...' (not that I'll ever admit it here, of > course. I Am Right. Maybe. I think...) "At any street corner we may meet a man who utters the frantic and blasphemous statement that he may be wrong. Every day one comes across somebody who says that of course his view may not be the right one. Of course his view must be the right one, or it is not his view. We are on the road to producing a race of men too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table." -- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy I love Chesterton. (-8 -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 14:27:24 EST From: "J MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Motivations and Justifications (Part One) Message-ID: <20000202032724.10463.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Kathryn Andersen >I love Chesterton. (-8 And fair enough; this is also attributed to him: You can't turn a thing upside down if there's no theory about it being the right way up. But I like Kathryn's quote more. Regards Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000 20:22:06 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] WuNames Message-ID: <3897A298.2D9B@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > There seems to be a lot of duplication going on, but am I the only Asthmatic > Enemy of God? > > Debbie. Oh, I do have occaisional asthma problems, but I'm only against organized religions, not the actual Diety... oh, you mean WuName. :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 00:18:49 EST From: Pherber@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Wu Names Message-ID: <7b.11c1877.25c91839@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/31/00 1:45:36 PM Mountain Standard Time, d.day@ukgateway.net writes: << There seems to be a lot of duplication going on, but am I the only Asthmatic Enemy of God? >> Nope - I am too, and one of the Susans, I think. Nina -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #31 *************************************