From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #290 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume99/290 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 99 : Issue 290 Today's Topics: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy [B7L] new genzine Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity [B7L] Re: squash ladder Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Re: [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Lightergate Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289 [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289 [B7L] Re:Horizon Policy [B7L] How Do You Spell Relief? (was Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289) Re: [B7L] How Do You Spell Relief? (was Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289) Re: [B7L] Horizon Re: [B7L] Horizon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 99 07:22:00 GMT From: s.thompson8@genie.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: New Horizon Policy Message-Id: <199910120736.HAA26243@rock103.genie.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I have been thinking over some of the issues that this incident raises, and I think there are a few points that haven't yet been made, or IMO sufficiently emphasized. The breach of privacy aspect does bother me; but on the other hand, Diane Gies's message contains some outright lies about Judith Proctor, such as the claim that there is X-rated material on her website. If someone were slandering me behind my back, I would certainly appreciate being informed even if the informer violated the slanderer's privacy by doing it. So on balance, I think that Diane forfeited her right to privacy when she abused that privacy by indulging in malicious slander of someone who, if the message had remained private, would not have been able to defend herself. As to whether anyone other than Judith needed to know about this, that's a stickier question and one I'm still mulling over. But if Diane is gearing up for an ugly fan war like the one ten years ago (and some of her comments sound an awful lot like the same things she said back then), and if "Danni's" leak can head it off, then in my moral calculus it balances out and it's probably a good thing that the message was posted here. About the proposed Horizon policy-- I would have no problem with a flat ban on all erotic material in Horizon publications and advertisements. Indeed, I think that is the most appropriate policy for an official fan club with strong ties to the actors and other personnel from the original show. But I object STRONGLY to Horizon publishing its own erotic zine, while denouncing all others (many of which are far better written, BTW) as "fan porn." This is at best hypocritical; and if the thinking behind it is that heterosexual erotica is acceptable while homosexual erotica is not, then it is also homophobic and, by the standards of many of us, morally reprehensible. With regard to the labelling of websites containing erotic fiction or art, I agree with Kathryn's points. I can't recall having seen any B7 websites that do not make the nature of their contents clear; but if there are any such, why not just send a =polite= note to the owner, or to the owner of the site where you found the link to the unlabelled explicit one, and ask that warning labels be added? I believe there was actually a court case in the U.S. some years ago, involving the attempted closing of a bookstore, in which the judge ruled that it was not reasonable to restrict the reading matter of the adult community to material suitable for children, simply because some parents could not be bothered to monitor their children's reading. Surely the same logic applies to the Internet. Hondo's policy of carefully supervising her children's use of the computer-- and keeping adult reading matter safely stowed away-- is the one that all concerned parents should follow. If you let children play on the computer unsupervised, they will soon discover far more shocking things than fan erotica-- explicit photographs, for example. As for the paranoid vision of a "vast industry" in fannish smut, this is simply nonsense. Please refer to those comprehensive lists of all known B7 zines of every kind that I've posted here on Lysator on a regular basis; they're also on Judith's web page. Overall, there are about four times as many genzines as erotic ones, and the proportions are fairly consistent across nationalities and across time periods (that is to say, slash zines are neither a recent phenomenon nor an American one, two false claims often made by the anti-slash faction; nor have they ever come at all close to dominating B7 fandom). Proving this point was one of the reasons I compiled the lists in the first place (though the number one reason was, I admit, my personal shopping pleasure). Finally, I think that IF (and only if) Horizon itself ceases to publish erotica, then the club would be within its moral rights in cutting off all contact with anyone who publishes or agents erotica as well as genzines; but I also think that would be a remarkably foolish thing to do. Pretty much the only all-B7 zines that Horizon could advertise under this policy would be its own publications and those of the Avon club-- a tiny fraction of available genzines. There wouldn't be much effect on net fandom, since anyone who uses a search engine will find plenty of B7 sites whether Horizon lists them or not. The main people who would be hurt by such a policy would be fans without computers, who depend on the Horizon newsletter for information on zines and other merchandise. Does it really make sense to try to keep them from ordering genzines from, for instance, Linda Knights, who is currently the single biggest source for B7 zines of all kinds, including Horizon's own publications? I don't think the rank-and- file members will thank the club leadership for such a policy. >From a Horizon member-- Sarah Thompson P.S. I don't have Diane Gies's e-mail address, but if anyone knows it, I'll be happy to forward this post to her as well. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:22:48 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] new genzine Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII 'All Change' by Judith Proctor This zine is my reponse to the 'The Sevenfold Crown' and 'The Syndeton Experiment'. I got so cheesed off by Barry Letts' lack of knowledge of the characters and the B7 universe that I decided to see if I could do any better. You can judge for yourself whether the result is any good. Unfortunately, Brian Lighthill returned it unread ('not looking for any scripts at present'), so I decided to publish it as a fanzine. It's a 4th season story and all of the characters have a part to play - including Blake. Needless to say, it is a genzine. There is no sex of any kind. This zine is in script form and works quite well if read by a group of fans all taking different parts. I've tried this a couple of times with good results - people enjoyed themselves. I've deliberately printed the zine in a cheap A5 format so that multiple copies are cheap if you want to try this. Price including postage is 1.50 pounds UK, 2.00 pounds Europe, 2.40 pounds or $4 cash USA, 2.50 pounds Australia. Australians may buy the zine via Pat Fenech and Americans may buy it via Maverick Press or Linda Knights (please check prices first when buying via agents) Here's the first two scenes- (BLAKE'S 7 THEME TUNE FADING INTO: INTERIOR, A LARGE ROOM IN XENON BASE. ORAC'S HUM CAN BE HEARD IN THE BACKGROUND) VILA: Pick a card, any card. DAYNA: All right, what's the trick? VILA: You have to pick a card first, then memorise it and put it back in the deck. SOOLIN: I know that one. Either the cards are all identical or else he marks it with a fingernail as you put it back. VILA: (offended) I'll have you know that I am a class act, highly skilled at presti... prest... Highly skilled anyway. SOOLIN: I'll bet. VILA: Go on, Dayna. DAYNA: Oh, all right. ORAC: Fascinating. VILA: There! I always knew somebody would appreciate me some day. ORAC: Not you. The teleport project. It was, after all, merely a matter of time before the teleport was developed independently. I have just intercepted a Federation message confirming their willingness to buy the teleport system recently completed by Zebulon Probert of the Feynman Corporation. DAYNA: A teleport! SOOLIN: But that's our main advantage over the Federation. DAYNA: Don't you mean it *was* our main advantage? VILA: Five of spades! It was the five of spades wasn't it? SOOLIN and DAYNA: Shut up, Vila! (CUT TO INTERIOR. SMALL OFFICE ACOUSTIC) DEVA: Probert? BLAKE: What is it, Deva? I'm busy. DEVA: There's something I think you ought to know. BLAKE: (impatient) Well? DEVA: I've just been speaking to the project manager... BLAKE: And? DEVA: The Federation have seen our test results. They're impressed. They're sending an investigative team from Space Command to run independent tests on the prototype and intend to purchase the system for the military if it functions reliably. They'll be here in three days time. BLAKE: Then I'd better finish this documentation quickly, hadn't I? DEVA: That's not all. BLAKE: (sighs) You're obviously determined to tell me everything. DEVA: Flight control say the Al-Biruni isn't on her scheduled approach. They should have picked her up on the scanners by now. BLAKE: So, why tell me? I'm not travelling on her. DEVA: Probert certainly isn't. BLAKE: Just what are you implying? DEVA: That Probert isn't your real name. BLAKE: Let me get this straight. I'm just about to deliver one of the most important projects this corporation has seen in a decade, and you're trying to tell me that I'm an imposter? DEVA: (a little nervous) This place may be a dump in the middle of nowhere, but they did hire a good computer security expert. I know my job, Blake. BLAKE I see. (beat) People looking for me generally have one of three motives. You aren't pointing a gun at me, so we'll eliminate the first one. That leaves you as an amateur rebel or a blackmailer. Which is it? -- 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: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:52:50 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] On "bad" episodes... Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon 11 Oct, Andrew Ellis wrote: > Can I suggest my game again. A Blakes 7 episode squash ladder. Here is a > random order of episodes. Please pick on an adjacent pair, and argue why > they are the wrong way around (best at the top). I'm not expecting the > definitive list, just something to stimulate discussion of the old ground > for us newbies. Looking at some other postings in the past few days, its > important to establish a constitution for this. I'll make the rest of the > rules up unilateraly as we go along. deliverance is better than Warlord It has really good acting in the form of Meegat and we have Avon's varied reactions as he is first embarassed and finally rather pleased by her. It has a glorious plot hole in that there appears to be no one to look after all these babies when they are born (unless they have frozen guardians like in time squad). It also has barbarians with bad wigs without which no episdoe of B7 is really complete . Oh, whoops, Warlord had that too. Gan gets a couple of good lines. Avon shows a sense of respnsibility when he goes back to look for Jenna. Warlord (apart from the scene in the desret with soolin) is pretty naff all round) JUDith PS. Sorry abut typos - fingers very sore today -- 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: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 09:06:46 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII One small point occurred to me. If anyone who sells slash zines is banned from advertising in Horizon, then this would include Horizon's own American agent. 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: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:12:50 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Mon 11 Oct, Alison Page wrote: > Andrew said - > > >But seriously, all SCIENTIFIC theories build on prior theories, that is > >after all the nature of science. > > Blimey, I'm going to be disagreeable on every list soon (oh, no, not freedom > city yet). > > The nature of science is just to test theory against observation. There is > no reason why it should build on previous theory. Newton > Einstein > > Quantum mechanics is just a special case. I think Andrew's point is that the earlier theories *are* based on observation. Thus, a new theory about FTL travel would not invalidate Newton's laws still being valid (to within 99.99% accuracy) under the conditions under which the original observations were made. 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: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 17:30:10 +0100 From: Steve Rogerson To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: squash ladder Message-ID: <38036210.C8166E5B@mcr1.poptel.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854"; x-mac-creator="4D4F5353" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Animals should be above Time Squad because of David Boyce's brilliant character acting. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Be inconsistent, but not all the time ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:23:28 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Coleman To: lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Alison Page wrote: > Andrew said - > > >But seriously, all SCIENTIFIC theories build on prior theories, that is > >after all the nature of science. > > The nature of science is just to test theory against observation. There is > no reason why it should build on previous theory. Newton > Einstein > > Quantum mechanics is just a special case. Andrew overstates his point a wee bit, but he's basically right. It would be better to say that scientific theories build on previous _established_ theories, and even better to say that any new theory must contain the previous theory as an appropriate limit (the correspondence principle). This is because the previous theory became established by testing against observation, and so must still be valid at the level of accuracy at which it passed the test. > Or the idea that the heavenly bodies moved in perfect circles, which just > got more and more complicated as observations built up, with lots of > interlocking circles, until it was easier to chuck that idea out and invent > a more 'elegant' theory built on the elipse. The name for that kind of > wholescale revision is a paradigm shift - moving the goalposts. Since modern science is often considered to have begun when Kepler rejected the Ptolomaic model on the basis of Tycho's observations, I don't think this is really a valid example of how scientific theories are superseded. > > I personally think physics is due for some kind of paradigm shift before it > gets a unified theory. But that's just a hunch, or prejudice if you like. Could well be. The real sticking point at the moment is increasing the range of experimentation, though. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 18:24:48 +0100 (BST) From: Iain Coleman To: lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-Id: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Neil Faulkner wrote: > One problem with the Lightergate post While I broadly agree with what you have to say on this matter, I'm afraid giving a political scandal a snappy name ending in "-gate" is a shooting offence. Sorry. Iain ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 08:17:06 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: <000301bf14df$141bec20$161aac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Meredith wrote: +AD4-Susan Beth wrote, in response to Neil's statement that +ACI-Horizon +AD4-is the hub around which the rest of fandom revolves+ACI-, +AD4APg-For +ACo-me+ACo-, this very list was and is the +ACI-hub+ACI- of fandom. +AD4- +AD4-Same here. In fact, I first heard about Horizon on this list. +AD4-In further fact, I'd never really paid much attention to Horizon +AD4-until now. +ADw-snip+AD4- +AD4-The +ACI-hub of fandom+ACI-? The darned thing's so far from being my +AD4-fannish hub, it doesn't even make my star charts. I won't pluck figures out of thin air to contribute to the 88 per cent of statistics that get made up on the spot, so I'll stick to the ones I do know. This Lyst - 300 subscribers (according to Calle, and why should he be wrong?). Horizon, when I left, 2000 members and still growing. Is there any other fan organisation with anything like that number of people? (I'm not saying there isn't, but if there is I've never heard of it.) Is there any other fan organisation with regular access to many prominent members of the cast? Or with contacts inside the BBC? That can publicise B7 and its fan base on nationwide (British) television, as Horizon have done on Pebble Mill and the Jonathan Ross show? Horizon is the major entry point into fandom for most -British- fans. The club has been advertised on video sleeves, on teletext, and through flyers distributed at book/video signings (as well as through some commercial merchandise such as the Comet Miniatures Liberator). At this point I'm going to have to start guessing (and hence may well be wrong), but my guess is that British fandom is more concentrated and more highly organised than elsewhere in the world, and perhaps also larger in general. B7 fandom worldwide revolves around British fandom, and British fandom is in turn dominated by Horizon. Not that all Horizon members are Brits by any means - when I first joined I was staggered by the number of Yanks in the lettercol. This Lyst might be the hub of various individuals' experience of fandom (as it is of mine), but it is not the hub of fandom as a whole. The Lyst is a ghetto. So are the newsgroups. I suspect (though again I don't actually know) that there is a smaller proportion of fans online than we might like to think, and not all of them want to get involved with mailing lists and newsgroups anyway. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 07:50:03 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: <000201bf14df$10f7c8c0$161aac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Andrew wrote: >Horizon is therefore very accountable to its membership. If I like the >service Horizon provides, I pay my dues and receive the service. If I didn't >like it, I would go elsewhere. You didn't like it and left. Fine. I think you misunderstand what I mean by accountability. As a member, what influence do you exert on club policy? None. What influence do you have on the composition of the club committee? None. What influence do you have on what is and is not acceptable material for club publications? None. Now, if you do not want any such influence, then fine. But suppose you do? Your voice will only be listened to if the committee agree with what you say. A committee you have had no opportunity to elect or approve. > I actually think that the Horizon team do a sterling job. In many ways they do. Their merchandise is generally quality stuff, they negotiate members discounts on commercial merchandise, they organise theatre trips, operate a useful news service. And much of the credit for all this must go to Diane Gies. I'm not trying to deny that she has had any positive impact on fandom - she has. Quite a lot, actually. > Lets all remember that you >can't run something like that with all the members having a say. Yes you can. Horizon sends you (or used to send you) a questionnaire when your membership is due to expire. It allows you to comment on various aspects of the club. This could easily be expanded to allow members to vote on aspects of club policy (such as the advertising of adult material) or to vote for prospective committee members. I would agree with Kathryn, though, that the latter would largely be the ratification of sole candidates. But at least the principle would be followed. > If you want >to change something, why not join Horizon, pop along to one of the regular >meetings, and get involved. Now, of your telling me that they don't let you >get involved, thats another thing. I'm new, but I was "allowed" to organise >an official Horizon trip to see and meet Michael. I did get involved. I was offered the post of Letterzine editor, and took it. (Unelected, of course.) I did try to change things, albeit in a minor way. I tried to give the Letterzine a distinct character of its own, believing I was an editor rather than a copy typist. Whether or not I succeeded is not for me to say. And then I got stomped on for breaking rules I didn't even know existed. Neil ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 19:31:50 +0100 From: Russ Massey To: Neil Faulkner Cc: lysator Subject: Re: [B7L] Lightergate Message-ID: In message <006101bf141f$87bcc3e0$c24b8cd4@default>, Neil Faulkner writes > >I think there's enough adult material out there to warrant its recognition >as a serious aspect of fan-fic-. Whether that makes it a serious aspect of >fan-dom- depends on how important fanfic as a whole is within fandom. To >promote gen as 'mainstream' simply because it isn't adult is, to my mind, >very spurious reasoning. Agreed. I assume you are referring to 'Ultra' here. No hang on, I'm thinking about the difference between slash and non-slash within the 'adult' frame. You're saying that fanfic may well be such a small part of fandom as a whole that it is essentially irrelevant to the majority. That may well be true. If Horizon has a three figure membership and decent sales of a zine (world-wide) are only two figures then you have a point. I think it's fair to say though that the producers and consumers of fanfic are the _quality_ members of fandom in terms of non-dormicedom (to mangle one of your own neologisms). Mainstream fandom is essentially passive. > To label an identified mainstream you would have >to develop a workable and all-inclusive system of fanfic classification. >I've tried it and I can say now that it ain't easy. > You'd never get widespread agreement, just as most literary critics hastily relabel any work of SF that has merit (in their eyes) as something different like 'magical realism' > >>2) She sees a great difference between a 'proper dramatic (adult) >>story' as she sees the content of Ultra 1 and 'some of what's out there', >>implying that some adult fiction is too extreme/non-B7 in form. >> >> Well some of it undoubtedly IS too extreme, and there's >>something out there to make anyone queasy, no matter how inured >>one might think oneself to be. But if Ultra is going to be the definition >>of acceptable smut then there's a lot out there that would be equally >>acceptable. > >Some of it is undoubtedly extreme, but who's to say that it's TOO extreme. Sorry - I did of course mean for my own taste there. >And what is wrong with making people feel queasy. It upsets people and might lead to a backlash. Of course, if there's a content warning then there should be no problem. > That's their problem, not >the authors'. I don't see any grounds for setting Ultra up as a definition >of 'acceptable' simply because DG says so. > Nope. > >>3) She wouldn't want to do anything about what people sell, and as >>part of that aloof, hands-off approach intends that Horizon ban >>adverts from sellers of B7 adult artwork on the grounds that the >>majority of the cast hate it. >> >> Sorry - couldn't resist a touch of sarcasm there. I tend to agree >>with Diane here as well. I believe that using an actor's image in adult >>art oversteps the bounds of good taste. > >Which begs several questions. (a) Should artists and writers be guided by >the wishes of the cast, who are not the actual characters they portrayed? >(b) Do artists and writers have any obligation to remain within the bounds >of 'good taste'? (c) Is there a conscious or subconscious conflation of >actor and character within the mind of the artist/writer to the point where >the two become indistinguishable? > >My own impressions are (a) No I have to disagree here, though from a practical rather than a moral angle. If the cast are upset then they will stop providing their support and presence to fandom. I do think that would be a bad thing, since there are a lot of people who want to see and listen to cast members and (probably) would not attend cons if they could no longer do so. > ; (b) No No, but there's also the legal aspect to consider. It might be defamatory to depict actors in certain ways. It might constitute theft of their image for personal gain (or whatever - I'm no lawyer). >; (c) Sometimes. > I think a court would be looking at the mind of any potential viewer/reader rather than the actual artist/writer. > >>4) She would ban the advertising of conventions with B7 guests unless >>there is a ban on sales of explicit B7 art and on the open display of >>adult fiction. >> >> Fairly difficult to enforce this I would have thought, but >>certainly not unreasonable for the Horizon committee to attempt. > >But isn't it unreasonable for Horizon to try and exert an influence on >conventions that have nothing to do with Horizon? It would mean either that >concoms would be forced to bow to Horizon's arbitrary standards, or that >Horizon members would be seriously underinformed about the convention >scene. Unreasonable? In whose eyes? >How would you feel if you found out that there'd been a convention just down >the road that you hadn't been told about because it sold artwork you >yourself didn't object to (that's a generic 'you', Russ, since I don't >actually know your personal attitude to adult art)? I would feel pretty >pissed off. It just means that people would start looking for alternate sources of information, I expect. Although if a Horizon ban did mean that cons were losing attendees at a noticeable level then I expect they *would* attempt to go along with the ban. I also expect that the trade would merely move underground to private rooms rather than vanish entirely. >> >>5) She would refuse net links to Horizon's site to any site that has X- >>rated material anywhere on it, 'or that links to a site that does'. >> >> Well that's the entire Internet written off then:) Someone >>showed that no site is more than a dozen clicks from any other. I'd say >>that prohibiting direct links to X-rated sites would be perfectly >>reasonable though. > >Nineteen clicks, I believe:) There is still the problem of deciding what >constitutes X-Rated, and who makes that decision. > > I thought Diane had already decided that she did. And she's the one in a position to act on that decision and make her wishes reality. The power! -- Russ Massey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 23:40:57 +0100 From: "Alison Page" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Spatials, speed and relativity Message-ID: <008201bf1503$d4d24b20$ca8edec2@pre-installedco> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Iain said - >This is because the previous theory became established by testing against >observation, and so must still be valid at the level of accuracy at which >it passed the test. OK, clearly Newton was observing things that we can readily observe ourselves. So, we aren't going to find a theory that overturns that aspect of Newtonian physics - there isn't going to be a theory that says 'gravity switches off at night' or anything like that. So if that's what people mean - no problem. But the physics of the future needn't be constrained to use the same terms as Newton, or indeed Einstein or any one. There might be completely new terms which I wouldn't like to guess at, which explain the same observations better than talking about 'gravity' and 'mass' and 'distance' and so on. That's what I mean by not building on - I mean not being limited by. Certain terms in physics have remained constant since it really got going, and they have been OK. But better ones might be invented. It all really boils down to me wanting to keep my options open when I read SF, so please don't think I was criticising you Andrew - I enjoyed your post (probably should have said that earlier). Alison ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 20:44:50 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-ID: <38040032.7D50@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > OK, 'authority', n. 1. The right *or power* to act, command, enforce laws, > > exact obedience, determine, or judge. > > I do think that power in this case must be meant as granted > power, rather than the power of force; otherwise that would > imply that any group who can seize control of a government > would have the authority to do so, and you return to the idea > of 'might makes right', where no government is illegitimate, > because the ability to take power is its own justification. > Entering this discussion... "Exacting obedience" doesn't sound like *granted* power, does it? Admittedly, it *could* refer to the legitimate authority of police to enforce laws within a democratic community, but by no means do I see this definition as being limited to legitimate authority. The very phrase 'legitimate authority', implies that is can be legitimate, as granted by the will of the people, or illegitimate, as forced upon the people. --Avona, who can split hairs with the best of 'em. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:18:07 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #288 Message-ID: <380407FF.1EF3@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > So, what's the question here? Legal or technical definitions of porn? > Not so far. As I understand it, the question is whether Horizon 1) has a > right to make certain decisions about advertising and 2) whether it is > making this decision in a legitimate fashion. > Answer to question 1. Yes. Answer to question 2: The letter in question indicated that the decision was being made by only a fraction of the actual committee/board/whatever that handles Horizon. According to an ex-member, it, at least used to be common for decisions to be made without consulting the membership at large. SO the problem, is not necessarily that "Horizon", the club, is making a decision about what materials they wish to restrict knowlege of. It is that one person intends to consult 2 or 3 friends and make that decision privately. I inferred that the reason the letter was forwarded to the list here was so that: A) Anyone who is a member of Horizon may make their opinion known to the committee. B) People can contact specific sources on the committee they may know personally, to let public opinion be known. This also could keep the people the letter writer specifically said she ''wasn't going to ask' infromed ANYWAY, since they are apparently officers who she is trying to leave out of the loop. C) We can make sure the general fan publc, and members of Horizon sepcifically know. The decision might very well be made in the dark, and the policy kept as quiet as possible. After all, if the idea is to keep the general membership from knowing about that horrible stuff, they can't very well *announce* they are banning mention of and access to, adult fiction. This gets right into the other thread, about "What is Authority?" Is it what is taken, or what we give? If no one in the club knows what the officers are doing, they are using membership money to enforce *their personal* view of what fandom should be. Rather than seeking out 'what are the community standards' in B7 fandom, or their own club, one woman in a key position wants to get her friends to decide with her what the standards should be-- and she specifically states she will not seek input from certain people (in one case, she thinks the mention of it would shock the person-- in the case of the other two, my impression was 'Let's not talk to them, because they will disagree.') As club officers, they may technically have the authority to do this, but I think the attempt at secrecy implies they are unsure of the legitimacy of their authority on this ground. The leakage also indicates someone is bothered by the attempt to work in secret. Once again, we see a struggle between a group of elite secretive decision makers who claim to be acting for the general good vs. those who want the general group as a whole to have a voice in the policies they live by. --Avona, who wonders if she should take up manifesto writing for Blake. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:41:23 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289 Message-ID: <38040D73.53CC@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This brings to mind something very funny... > An indication of the extent to which Gies appears to control club policy and > direct it along the lines of her own prejudices might be gleaned from > Horizon's ban on references to smoking in fanfic. Gies herself is a > fanatical anti-smoker. Fair enough. Even I, Mr Chimney, will concede she > has a point. But does this warrant the deletion of all smoking references > from fanfic submitted to Horizon? I've run into this, and I know at least > one other person has too. Gies personally told me that smoking was not > permitted because it was non-canonical. This is a ridiculous argument on > two grounds - (a) it simply isn't true, since the Federation general in > Traitor had a cigar, and (b) Horizon themselves have printed plenty of > material with non-canonical content (and not just off-the-wall humour > either). So, according to the 'non-canonical' standards-- there are no restrooms in the B7 universe! __Avona (snicker) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:46:04 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289 Message-ID: <38040E8C.4044@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I personally think physics is due for some kind of paradigm shift before it > gets a unified theory. But that's just a hunch, or prejudice if you like. > > Alison Likewise-- but even so, the idea of eliptical movement certainly must have come from other things known-- like the parabolic rise and fall of a thrown item on Earth? Therefore, the paradigm shift you used as an example replaced one set of theories by building on a different scientific basis... but you couldn't have designed it without the knowlege of physics availabel at the time. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 21:56:14 -0700 From: Helen Krummenacker To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289 Message-ID: <380410EE.69A0@jps.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Re: What's *too* extreme in fanfic... > > Some of it is undoubtedly extreme, but who's to say that it's TOO extreme. > And what is wrong with making people feel queasy. That's their problem, not > the authors'. I don't see any grounds for setting Ultra up as a definition > of 'acceptable' simply because DG says so. > I once received a very nasty letter for a story I wrote, before it was published, from a volunteer working on the fanzine. The story had NO sexual content. It was a B7 story on a "bargain with the devil" theme, literally. Prior to meeting his personal damnation, Avon was taken on a tour of hell. I based the things he saw partly on Paul's book, partly on the series, and partly on classical literature. She thought the sufferings of the damned were too graphic, and that I had proven myself to have a warped, sadistic, twisted little mind unworthy of her friendship ever again. Mind you-- this was simply ideas I had gleaned from Dante's Inferno. In a sense, she was criticising me for showing signs of classical education that she did not understand. Acceptable and unacceptable are VERY subjective. Never assume works you consider to be in good taste won't be on somebody's banned list. --Avona ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 12:18:20 +1000 From: Sarah Berry To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Re:Horizon Policy Message-ID: <3803EBEC.495EC693@connexus.net.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I've enjoyed this debate. I've come to enjoy debates about (B7) fandom at least as much as those about B7. Not in terms of inflaming or taking a side, but in fairness, the variety of views people express and the process of finding a solution, if that happens or if that's what's intended. People have brought up some fascinating points (particularly,I feel, Neil, Russell and Ellynne), about slash, running clubs and making the private public: most of which I agree with even if they conflict when all views are applied to this situation. I strongly believe that there are circumstances in which any so-called rule can be broken. Grey, grey, everywhere shades of grey. Grey is interesting. That's why I love B7. The problem for me is applying each person's personal opinion to the public sphere. Perhaps we should remember what this sphere is and how important the issue and the sphere are in relation to other issues and spheres. The link between personal and public is deciding what compromises to make. Judith P. my sympathy for the words written against you. I wonder what your legal recourse is given the slander was in a private message made public? Kathryn Anderson commented on how 'Liberator Australis' ran with votes for the main officer bearers. All Oz societies I've come into contact with have been run on this basis, whereas my UK experience is that people stay in a position until they don't want to or can't any longer (concoms seem to be another example of this). There are pros and cons to both methods, and I see this private policy proposal as an example of a con to the 'stay there' method. In my experience, both 'stay there' and elected societies have the same problems of not enough volunteer involvement from the membership and (different types of) dominating personalities, but I feel elected societies offer a better forum to getting round these problems. Horizon issues a questionnaire when memberships are due. I suggest members offer their opinions on these sort of issues there in addition to letters and e-mails to Horizon. My feeling is that Horizon is a big and old enough club that one person should not decide policy and that perhaps elections are in order for main office bearers. Over the years I've raised various issues with Diane Gies (slash, her editorial policies - particularly her habit of commenting in other people's letters and articles -, the structure of the committee, how complicated it is to buy things - I've gone on and on about having a merchandise list outside the NL and VISA transactions -, the fairness of conventions and various other matters). They always get a personal reply, for which I am grateful, but these views, on balance, don't appear in print. Slash, not surprisingly, gets the strongest reply; the kind of reply that suggests a mind very firmly made up. Along the lines of Neil's message about whether actors and clubs should influence the creative efforts of artists and writers, and I agree with you that they shouldn't, this is for me the key reason why slash is so contentious. Unlike other fiction containing sex, slash is based in an already created universe in which MANY people, such as fans, actors and copyright holders, feel they have ownership. You can choose to never buy the books of a particular author if you decide that they contain any sex at all or types, quantities, opinions or descriptions of sex that arouse you negatively. However, some 'owners' of the B7 universe see slash as a contaminant that escapes beyond its paper or electronic boundaries into the 'real' B7 universe. As the 'contaminant's' edges are fuzzy it is harder to remove, thus people protest more strongly and widely in word. Best wishes, Sarah Berry. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:32:23 -0600 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] How Do You Spell Relief? (was Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289) Message-Id: <4.1.19991012222407.0091daf0@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 09:41 PM 12/10/99 -0700, Helen Krummenacker wrote: >So, according to the 'non-canonical' standards-- there are no restrooms >in the B7 universe! I do believe Jacqueline touched upon this at one point in 'Gods! Gods!' aka The Flat Robin (the earth-shaking paradigm-shifting heart-stopping last chapter of which Arkaroo *elbow elbow* is rumoured to be hard at work upon even as we speak...) --Penny "Proudly Perverted" Dreadful -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 15:56:31 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] How Do You Spell Relief? (was Re: blakes7-d Digest V99 #289) Message-ID: <19991013055631.57422.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >From: Penny Dreadful >The Flat Robin (the earth-shaking paradigm-shifting heart-stopping last >chapter of which Arkaroo *elbow elbow* is rumoured to be hard at work upon >even as we speak...) Oh good. Keep nudging Arkaroo for those of us who would like to see this one finished! Trying to whip the other collected bits into shape for personal printout Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1999 22:30:41 +0100 (BST) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Tue 12 Oct, Neil Faulkner wrote: > > I won't pluck figures out of thin air to contribute to the 88 per cent of > statistics that get made up on the spot, so I'll stick to the ones I do > know. This Lyst - 300 subscribers (according to Calle, and why should he be > wrong?). Horizon, when I left, 2000 members and still growing. 1,700 and falling, I believe. The print run on the last newsletter (or so I'm told) was 1,700. That's still pretty large compared to online fandom though. My web site normally gets around 70 hits a day on the top page, but I've no way of telling if that is the same people visiting regularly or a lot of infrequent visitors. Judith PS. In addition to the new Gareth stuff, there's also a few corrections to the entry on the TV movie and some new filk songs. Older stuff includes the fanzine data base that Sarah mentioned (including all Horizon's zines), reports on numerous conventions, a costume list, the (increasingly illustrated) Sevencyclopeadia, audio tapes, etc. etc. And I'll give a free genzine to anyone who finds an entry on the site that is genuinely X-rated. -- 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: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 07:27:25 +0100 From: "Neil Faulkner" To: "lysator" Subject: Re: [B7L] Horizon Message-ID: <000401bf1544$0bd2ff80$a019ac3e@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Iain wrote: >While I broadly agree with what you have to say on this matter, I'm afraid >giving a political scandal a snappy name ending in "-gate" is a shooting >offence. Sorry. Can't you make it a flogging offence. Please, Iain. Pretty please. With sugar on top... Neil -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #290 **************************************