From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se
Subject: blakes7-d Digest V99 #33
X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se
X-Mailing-List: <blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se> archive/volume99/33
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 33
Today's Topics:
[B7L] raising children
Re: [B7L] raising children
[B7L] Power
Re: [B7L] raising children
Re: [B7L] raising children
Re: [B7L] raising children
Re: [B7L] mathematics and innuendo
RE: [B7L] mathematics and innuendo
RE: [B7L] Trolling 101
RE: [B7L] The Woman in B7
[B7L] Kids Nowadays....
Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Re: [B7L] mathematics and innuendo
Re: [B7L] Renaissance
Re: [B7L] Social engineering
Re: [B7L] Renaissance
RE: [B7L] The Woman in B7
RE: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
[B7L] Totally OT- MLK Day
The Men in Blake's 7 (was Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7)
Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
[B7L] Avon disagrees
[B7L] Relationships (was Morrigan)
Re: [B7L] Women, B7 and Avon
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:09:49 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: [B7L] raising children
Message-ID: <00a701be420a$2837bc00$ca8edec2@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Raising children is a complex and demanding job. It is a job that you can
quickly and rewardingly get much better at. It constantly demands from you
the limits of what you can manage.
Paradoxically it is also a job with a great deal of leeway. If you are
tending an engine you have to behave in precisely prescribed ways or it goes
wrong. This is not the case with children, because they are also part of the
process, and they too are intelligent and reactive beings. Plus they love
you as much as you love them, so they want the process to work as much as
you do.
I know I have been guilty myself of making dogmatic remarks about how to
raise children (I had a bee in my bonnet a while back about the number of
mothers who were on happy pills I remember). But this is not a good area
for crass and unsubtle generalisations, particularly be people who have
never tried it.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 03:54:08 PST
From: "Penny Dreadful" <pdreadful@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] raising children
Message-ID: <19990117115408.3523.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Alison said:
>But this is not a good area
>for crass and unsubtle generalisations...
Thank you/Curse you, Alison: it always seems like just when I've finally
convinced myself irrevocably that "evil is the nature of mankind" some
voice of Reason muddles the clear waters of my hate.
--Penny "And Speaking of B7, I Could Drink Vila Under The Table With One
Liver Tied Behind My Back" Dreadful
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:38:39 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Power
Message-ID: <ea7252d4.36a1d9cf@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
I rewatched the episode Power last night and was amazed at how it relates to
the previous debate. What message do the members of this list believe that
writer Ben Steed was trying to convey with this episode? What about the final
scene in which Avon shoots the Seskan and states "If she didn't like the
answer she shouldn't have asked the question."
I believe it was a statement on the male female relationship and its
importance to society....the fact that one cannot survive without the other,
and the belief that a war between the two can only result in the destruction
of both. I believe it is a greater statement on the futility and illogical
basis of the woman's liberation movement and the uselessness of both sexes
attempting to occupy the same role in a society. A very deep episode, IMHO.
I believe Steed was also making an unconcious statement on the futility of
homosexuality....directly tied into his greater statement on what was
happening between the Hommiks and Seska. Men and women need one another....it
is a force of nature....the only real force of nature concerning sex. And
that anything else is unnatural.
I would like to hear others comments on the episode.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 04:47:37 PST
From: "Rob Clother" <whitehorse_dream@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] raising children
Message-ID: <19990117124737.26396.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Alison:
>I know I have been guilty myself of making dogmatic remarks about
>how to raise children (I had a bee in my bonnet a while back about
>the number of mothers who were on happy pills I remember). But this
>is not a good area for crass and unsubtle generalisations,
>particularly be people who have never tried it.
Guilty as charged, yer onner. Yes, I have been generalising (viz. the
dustbin lids thread), and no, I haven't tried it yet. But I do intend
to, and this intention has shaped the career path I've chosen for
myself. In that sense, bringing up kiddies is a process I've already
started. And I know that, in twenty years' time or so, all my
preconceptions will have been turned upside down and I'll have very
different views compared to those I hold now. But does that really mean
I shouldn't air my ideas, even if they are crass and unsubtle?
When I post to this list, I take the attitude that if my views are too
outrageous, someone will step in and be able to falsify my point by
rational argument, or by examples from their own experience. There's no
need to gag anyone: give them a piece of rope long enough and they'll
hang themselves with it (Note, for example, that S******* has simply
ignored my challenge to back his remarks up with concrete evidence).
I'd rather take that attitude than tell anyone, however obliquely, that
their views aren't welcome.
-- Rob
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:30:54 -0000
From: "Alison Page" <alison@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
To: "lysator" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] raising children
Message-ID: <003901be4226$3aa16a00$ca8edec2@alisonpage.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Rob quoted me
>But this
>>is not a good area for crass and unsubtle generalisations,
>>particularly be people who have never tried it.
>
>Guilty as charged, yer onner.
I didn't mean you Rob.
<snip - Rob saying he doesn't want to stifle debate>
>I'd rather take that attitude than tell anyone, however obliquely, that
>their views aren't welcome.
Put it this way. Everyone here has got a 'thing they do' (might be their job
for example) that they know a bit about. You're a mathematician aren't you
Rob? Take that as an example.
Imagine somebody on the list is not a mathematician, but has a point of view
on the subject. It wouldn't bother you too much if they expressed that view,
even if you disagreed with them. You might step in and put a contrary
position, and so we go on. Fine. You might even learn something from the
view of an interested outsider. That would be my attitude to your opinions
on child rearing (though as it happens I don't disagree with them even that
much).
Now imagine somebody posts dozens and dozens of completely ignorant comments
about maths every day, when it is clear they don't know the first thing
about it. Imagine they won't listen to real mathematicians who point out
very gently that it might be a bit more complicated than they think. Imagine
then that their posts start to drift in the direction of abusive comments
and nasty sexual innuendo (hmm... a bit hard to imagine how a debate on
maths could go that way :-)
I'm not saying that this person can't post. What I'm doing is
criticising the entire premise from which he is posting, (in this case the
idea that it is appropriate to lay down highly detailed regulations about
how men and women co-operate to raise children). I hope that makes
sense.
Can I also apologise for carrying on this debate. I tried to keep out of it
for many days, and I'll certainly try not to prolong it more than is
necessary.
Alison
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:48:27 +0000
From: Julia Jones <julia.lysator@jajones.demon.co.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] raising children
Message-ID: <725KLmA7gfo2EwVq@jajones.demon.co.uk>
In message <19990117115408.3523.qmail@hotmail.com>, Penny Dreadful
<pdreadful@hotmail.com> writes
>--Penny "And Speaking of B7, I Could Drink Vila Under The Table With One
>Liver Tied Behind My Back" Dreadful
Penny, any objections to your more amusing taglines being used for
fillers in the Space City zine?
--
Julia Jones
"Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!"
The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 00:47:15 +1000
From: vera@c031.aone.net.au
To: <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] mathematics and innuendo
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990118004715.00a213f0@mail01.mel.aone.net.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Alison Page wrote:
>then that their posts start to drift in the direction of abusive comments
>and nasty sexual innuendo (hmm... a bit hard to imagine how a debate on
>maths could go that way :-)
Eh! You! Jimmy! Find the square root of this!
His eyes followed the smooth curves of her... integration.
Sorry, so sorry. I'll just pop off to bed now.
With my abacus.
Malissa
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:34:32 +-100
From: Jacqueline Thijsen <jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl>
To: "blakes7@lysator.liu.se" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] mathematics and innuendo
Message-ID: <01BE423F.A86AD8A0@nl-arn-lap0063>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Malissa wrote:
>Sorry, so sorry. I'll just pop off to bed now.
>With my abacus.
<bg>
If you keep this up, you'll end up having to send any mathematical discussion to the naughty list.
And Rob, just because someone doesn't use words that are generally considered "filthy", doesn't mean that they are being polite. Telling people that they are less than others can be done with a lot of "thanks" and "IMHO" thrown in just as easily as by calling them names. The difference is purely one of semantics and neither form is polite, no matter how it sounds.
But I do understand your argument and would normally agree with it. Which is why I have never before bothered to find out how to killfile someone. Deleting someones messages unread struck me (so far) as being the equivalent of saying that the person whose messages I wouldn't read was less than me. However, I also believe that I have the right to choose what I will read or listen to, and I no longer wish to read messages which are almost certain to contain some kind of very nicely worded abuse.
Jacqueline Thijsen
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:43:59 -0000
From: Louise Rutter <Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com>
To: "'B7 Lysator'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] Trolling 101
Message-ID: <01BE4239.1CCFC4A0@host5-99-49-136.btinternet.com>
>Avon was "macho", for lack of a
>better word....and its the real reason women like him, whether they admit it
>or not.
Then why is it that I like Avon when I don't like any character played by Sly or Arnie?
Please do tell 8-)
Louise
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:43:29 -0000
From: Louise Rutter <Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com>
To: "'B7 Lysator'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Message-ID: <01BE4239.1A6BE400@host5-99-49-136.btinternet.com>
Continuing the debate:
>>How can you predict who will make good,
>>nurturing mothers? Some terribly professional career women suddenly go
all
>>mushy when they have a child.>>
>Indications they have what it takes to be good mothers.
True, but you don't know that until after they've had the child.
(snip)
>>You could give young people a dry run by
>>testing their nurturing reaction to a pet, but that's not foolproof -
>>personally, I go all soggy at the sight of a kitten, but I don't want
>>babies anywhere near me.>>
>I think the Federation would do more than a dry run.
So what would they do? Let everyone have a child, then forcibly remove it
for adoption if the parents weren't nurturing enough? I suppose that would
reduce the risk of the kids growing up dysfunctional. The Feds could always
drug the natural mother so she didn't bother about her baby, or even
condition her to forget she ever had one.
Trouble is I can only see them doing that with lower grades. According to
your analysis, Servalan must be the result of rich but emotionally cold
parents. Kasabi speaks about her "family connections", so she clearly had
powerful relatives. I can't see even the Federation getting away with
removing large numbers of Alpha children without there being such an outcry
that the policy was overthrown. So once again, your social engineers fail.
Louise
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 09:40:37 PST
From: "Edith Spencer" <sueno45@hotmail.com>
To: jacqueline.thijsen@cmg.nl
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Kids Nowadays....
Message-ID: <19990117174038.14665.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hello all, and especially Superdumb,
Jacqueline quoted and said:
"I seem to recall reading something to the effect that genetically, it
didn't really matter wether someone got any kids of their own or left it
to their siblings. In that case, doing your best to make the world a
little better so that other kids can have a good life is in fact the
same as doing your best to raise your own kids."
Or for some of us, people have children they don't want and these
children suffer horribly as a result. My sister was involved in a very
bad marriage from which there came three darling angels. But the mum and
dad were not good parents, so Mother and other members of my (very
extended) family took the kids in, gave them plenty to eat and drink,
beautiful things to wear and an abundance of love. As a result, they are
sweet, good hearted kids who like to play baseball and jacks, work in
the community Garden in Brooklyn, and love to sing.
The reason tht they are goodhearted is due to them being surround by
a large Carribean family and being told they are of worth. Had they been
left with an uncaring Child Services bureacracy, which is overburderned
as it is......<shudder>
How does this relate, at *all* to B7? When technology and profit
becomes more worthy than humans who make it, you end up with that type
of materialist based dictatorship. People did not seem to be the priorty
in B7- only the abstract vision of the Federation.
Yours, Edith
PS- Pat, i do agree with your statement that cars and other shiny
machines seem to be worshiped more than gods in our lovely society. I
sometimes dread going to church because of the nasty fights that erupt
in the church parking lot over whose Mercedes Benz is going get a spot.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 17:55:11 +0000
From: Richard Watts <Richard.Watts@cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Message-Id: <E101wPn-0003aw-00@canada.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Neil Faulkner wrote:
>How absolutely true. At last I've seen the light, and John Norman is God.
>How right you are to point out that working mothers are a recent
Well, judging by the subject matter, endless plot repetition, and
prose style, I'm afraid you may be right :-).
From alt.syntax.tactical, SupeStud00@aol.com <SupeStud00@aol.com> wrote:
>In a message dated 1/15/99 3:32:24 PM EST, Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com
>writes:
>
><< The problem with this arguement, of course, is that not all women are by
> nature of the nurturing type.>>
>
>My belief is that they should be. Those who are not end up raising children
>with serious deficiencies.
And my belief is that False => True. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen,
and goodnight.
[snip]
><< If your theory holds any merit, of course, then these poor
> mothers are themselves the victims of poor parenting. Personally, I don't
> think that's true in anything like all cases, but I'll run with it for a
> while.
> So, assuming your band of social engineers manages to gain sufficient power
> to enforce major sociological change, what are they going to do with these
> non-nurturing types?>>
>
>Make them nurturing through some unknown process or eliminate them....the
>Federation appears to be quite capable of both....brainwashing and
>ruthlessness.
I think we're descending into the realms of `there's no evidence for
this in the series at all, so I can say what I like': the Federation
could quite easily have run concentration camps for arbitrary social
groups, a la Nazi Germany, or it could equally well not have, like
Stalin's Russia, Pinochet's Chile or Mussolini's Italy.
However, I'd've expected that, had there been enough public support
for this particular form of brainwashing, there would've been some
evidence for it - frex in The Way Back. Even the Federation needed
(at least at the start of the series) some form of public support
(The Way Back, Seek-Locate-Destroy, Trial).
[snip]
><< To achieve their dream society, they not only have to
> ensure that all mothers stay at home with the kids, they have to ensure
> that poor nurturers don't breed at all - their kids would be too likely to
> be dysfunctional.>>
>
>Agreed.
... and that can be done with drugs. Erm, probably. Indeed, it could
almost be done today (think about the water distribution network). I
have no trouble believing that the Federation controlled who was
allowed to breed by putting contraceptives in the water supply (`to
stop unwanted pregnancies'), and requiring permits to have children,
but that's a long way from what you're proposing, and is more or less
a form of political control (`be nice or we won't let you have kids',
and the concomittant `want kids or you'll disappear one day because we
can't control you') rather than an actual attempt at social
engineering. But I would've expected this to have been mentioned at
_some_ point in the series - it's not as if Blake didn't meet
enough female rebels (Avalon, for example).
I'm still not sure the Federation would get away with it though -
historically, tamper with practically anything else, and you'll get
little resistance. Tamper with someone's family, and they'll happily
charge a combat-ready mechanized infantry division armed only with a
small fruit knife.
[snip]
> nurturing mothers? Some terribly professional career women suddenly go all
> mushy when they have a child.>>
>
>Indications they have what it takes to be good mothers.
I wonder if you might confine yourself to this universe for the
purposes of this discussion ? It seems fairly clear that you live in a
universe where making bizarre, random comments is considered a good
form of argument, but you've wandered into one where it isn't.
>
><< Others want to continue their lives just as
> they did before the kid was born.>>
>
>One possible reason Avon exists......or John Hinckley.....or Saddam
>Hussein.......or Hitler........or Bill Clinton........
... or John Flibblenook, an accountant from Surrey. FWIW, I believe
your Hitler example is incorrect.
Anyway, if the Federation has eliminated all dysfunctional families,
how do you explain practically all the characters in B7 ?
[snip]
> << I think your social engineers would be in for a rough ride and a good deal
> of disillusionment. >>
>
>
>Not unlike the Federation.
But the Federation didn't _have_ a rough ride. Most of their
population seemed fairly contented, except for the outer colonies,
whose focus of rebellion always seemed (Traitor, Project Avalon,
Countdown, The Way Back, Bounty, Voice from the Past etc.etc.) to be
political independance rather than freedom from any specific
nastiness. There was never any suggestion that the Federation were
doing anything other than expanding their empire and suppressing
dissent.
If they were messing about with people's families in a general way
(rather than as experiments on specific worlds, and in fact even then),
I would expect someone to have mentioned it.
Richard.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:44:12 -0700
From: Helen Krummenacker <avona@jps.net>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] mathematics and innuendo
Message-ID: <36A22F7D.1AF@jps.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
vera@c031.aone.net.au wrote:
>
> Alison Page wrote:
>
> >then that their posts start to drift in the direction of abusive comments
> >and nasty sexual innuendo (hmm... a bit hard to imagine how a debate on
> >maths could go that way :-)
>
> Eh! You! Jimmy! Find the square root of this!
>
> His eyes followed the smooth curves of her... integration.
>
> Sorry, so sorry. I'll just pop off to bed now.
>
> With my abacus.
>
> Malissa
(continuing this line of though a bit of fanfic?)
Avon's interest in the conversation he'd been eveasdropping on began to
rise, geometrically. His intellectual involvement surged, the power
increasing higher and higher. "Give me more, ORAC!" he burst forth. He
took his calculator from his pants pocket, carressing it gently as he
began to perform operations.
By the way, that's exactly 47 words, and I suggest it be added to the 7
x 7 collection Allison was working on.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 14:33:30 +0100 (BST)
From: Judith Proctor <Judith@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
To: Lysator List <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Renaissance
Message-ID: <Marcel-1.46-0117133330-965Rr9i@blakes-7.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
On Sun 17 Jan, Rob Clother wrote:
>
>
> Judith:
>
> >I really must go away and finish laying out 'Renaissance' which - to
> >nobody's surprise - contains moments with an emotionally vulnerable
> >Avon having to face horrors including the Inquisition, Vila having
> >to make agonising decisions to try and protect those he loves and
> >Blake being a prisoner of the Medicis. They also (on the other
> >side) manage military victories, scientific advances and great art.
>
>
> You're kidding! Judith, when is this going to become available, and how
> will I be able to get hold of a copy?
If all goes well, it should be available in about three weeks. I did the layout
this afternoon and I'm now working on the last of the proof corrections. Val's
working on the last of the pictures.
It's an alternative universe story written by Diane Holland. The characters are
cast into historical roles in Renaissance Italy. Blake is cast as Machiavelli
(note that a lot of Machiavelli's bad reputation was created by his enemies).
Avon is Leonardo da Vinci and Vila is a pupil of Leonardo's. Servalan gets the
niche in history that belonged to Cesare Bordia. The story takes enormous
liberties with history, but is generally true to the period.
It's like no other Blake's 7 story I've ever read. It does however have loads
of angst and is very well written. I liked it enough to publish in spite of
having far too much other work on my plate this year.
It'll be available from me, both in person at Redemption and by mail order.
Judith
--
http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7
Redemption 99 - The Blakes 7/Babylon 5 convention
26-28 February 1999, Ashford International Hotel, Kent
http://www.smof.com/redemption/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 10:24:05 PST
From: "Edith Spencer" <sueno45@hotmail.com>
To: s.thompson8@genie.com
Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Social engineering
Message-ID: <19990117182405.11598.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hello there, and especially Sarah,
In a way, there is communal raising of children in some societies.
It done by the extended family. I posted something similiar bout my own
experiences, but I think that it work in a underpopulation crisis as
well.
Edith :)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:57:52 -0600
From: Lisa Williams <lcw@dallas.net>
To: <Blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: [B7L] Renaissance
Message-Id: <Version.32.19990117125509.0100b100@dallas.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Judith Proctor wrote:
>Avon is Leonardo da Vinci and Vila is a pupil of Leonardo's.
Salai, I assume?
(Quote from one of Leonardo's notebooks: "Salai steals money.")
- Lisa
_____________________________________________________________
Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@rsc.raytheon.com
Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/
New Riders of the Golden Age: http://www.warhorse.com/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 18:23:51 -0000
From: Louise Rutter <Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com>
To: "'B7 Lysator'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Message-ID: <01BE424C.7D29ED40@host5-171-251-45.btinternet.com>
>>After that, why isn't the emotional capability to nurture all
>>that important?
>It's important, but the mother should provide the bulk of it. The man
should
>tend to his other duties.
If you really believe that, SS, then I wouldn't like to have you as a
father.
Many children have been harmed by Victorian-style fathers, whose love and
approval they always try to gain but don't receive. Kids just don't need to
be loved by their fathers, they need to KNOW that he loves them.
Helen wrote:
>> I have many ways to express my creative and life-giving side without
>> adding to overpopulation, burdening my wonderful husband with the
>>financial weight of having to earn enough for 3 people to live on, all
>>for the sake of creating a creature that will contribute nothing but
>>drool to my life for several months before it even begins to be a
>>rational creature.
SS replied:
>This is a selfish attitude.
I'm in entire agreement with Helen here because her view of babies is much
the same as mine. I took no interest at all in my niece until she was old
enough to talk. However, mothering instincts or lack of aside, there are
many forms of selfishness. Is it more selfish to have no children or to
have 10 kids and contribute to overpopulation? Is it more selfish to have
no kids because you can't afford them, or to have a child because then you
get priority on the housing lists?
Louise
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 18:46:05 -0000
From: Louise Rutter <Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com>
To: "'B7 Lysator'" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: RE: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7
Message-ID: <01BE424C.803D47C0@host5-171-251-45.btinternet.com>
>What do other women think of the Blake's 7 guys, if they consider, not a
>dream romance, but the way real life usually works?
Basically I agree with you, Helen. Avon is great for a fantasy, but if I
met him at work I'd dislike him. As you say, Tarrant has the most
possibilities, basically because he's the most "normal" of the bunch. A bit
too cocky, perhaps, his arrogance would get up your nose from time to time,
but he'll grow out of that. He showed signs of maturing very well towards
the end of the series.
Louise
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:40:10 PST
From: "Edith Spencer" <sueno45@hotmail.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Totally OT- MLK Day
Message-ID: <19990117194011.15218.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Completely Off-Topic, but.....
Hello all, Edith here. Tomorrow in the USA is MLK day- a holiday to
remember Martin Luther King, jr ( btw, it wasn't until college that I
found out who martin luther was. I think he woulda approved.) Anyhoo,
for people in the USA, there are many community activities that will
have music, art and discussion about nonviolence, cultural issues and
how people can improve communications within communities. Given the
acrimonious state of Legislature, this a maybe a way to avoid more
impeachment talk. For listers not in the USA, go ahead and do something
in the spirit- not that you don't do it everyday....
Edith :)
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:48:26 +1100
From: Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
To: "Blake's 7 list" <blakes7@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: The Men in Blake's 7 (was Re: [B7L] The Morrigan in B7)
Message-ID: <19990118074826.47595@welkin.apana.org.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Sun, Jan 17, 1999 at 06:46:05PM -0000, Louise Rutter wrote:
>
> >What do other women think of the Blake's 7 guys, if they consider, not a
> >dream romance, but the way real life usually works?
>
> Basically I agree with you, Helen. Avon is great for a fantasy, but if I
> met him at work I'd dislike him.
Actually, judging by the way he works with Del Grant, and at some
points discusses technical things with Blake, if I met Avon at work, I
think we'd probably get on fine, on a work level. He would work hard,
being more interested in getting the job done than either (a) how many
hours he worked or (b) who is higher in the hierarchy than someone
else (we're a small company, we don't *have* a hierarchy). He would
be intelligent, I wouldn't have to explain three times what was
required <internal shudder at the recollection of a particular person
I had to work with once>. He doesn't actually mind explaining how
things work (ref, the times when he has explained workings of the
Liberator to the crew) so it *would* be possible to discuss different
approaches to problems with him. Thing is, I already work with
someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly (my boss) and I get on fine
with him, so I think it could be possible that I could get on with
Avon. *If* he didn't come to the conclusion that I was a fool, that
is.
Whether I would *like* him in person, is another question.
Of course, Avon wouldn't be working in Australia, he'd be working in
Silicon Valley for the big bucks. He'd then start up his own company,
and go bust because he alienated all his workers and his customers.
He would then blame Microsoft, hack into their computers in an
attempt to steal all their money, and be betrayed by his girlfriend
who was really working for the NSA.
(-8
> As you say, Tarrant has the most
> possibilities, basically because he's the most "normal" of the bunch. A bit
> too cocky, perhaps, his arrogance would get up your nose from time to time,
> but he'll grow out of that. He showed signs of maturing very well towards
> the end of the series.
And he's a gallant boy. (-8
--
_--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen <kat@welkin.apana.org.au>
/ \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat
\_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h"
v |
------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere
Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:37:28 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Message-ID: <a0c2a3c7.36a25818@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/17/99 11:53:30 AM EST, Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com
writes:
<<
>Avon was "macho", for lack of a
>better word....and its the real reason women like him, whether they admit it
>or not.
Then why is it that I like Avon when I don't like any character played by Sly
or Arnie?
Please do tell 8-)
>>
I think there are different types of mach depending on the man.
A man can be intellectually mach, or macho in attitude, as well as physically.
(Example: I've been blessed with machoism in all areas.)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:40:41 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Message-ID: <b18675ce.36a258d9@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/17/99 11:54:48 AM EST, Louise.Rutter@btinternet.com
writes:
<<
>I think the Federation would do more than a dry run.
So what would they do? Let everyone have a child, then forcibly remove it
for adoption if the parents weren't nurturing enough? I suppose that would
reduce the risk of the kids growing up dysfunctional. The Feds could always
drug the natural mother so she didn't bother about her baby, or even
condition her to forget she ever had one.>>
I wouldn't put it beyond them. You have to admit, based on what we've seen in
the series, the Feds are quite capable of this.
<< Trouble is I can only see them doing that with lower grades. According to
your analysis, Servalan must be the result of rich but emotionally cold
parents.>>
I could see this as well.
<< Kasabi speaks about her "family connections", so she clearly had
powerful relatives. I can't see even the Federation getting away with
removing large numbers of Alpha children without there being such an outcry
that the policy was overthrown. So once again, your social engineers fail. >>
It need not be social engineering on a grand scale, but on say, the delta
level. I like the suggestion.
What do you think of my analysis on "Power"?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 16:50:56 EST
From: SupeStud00@aol.com
To: Richard.Watts@cl.cam.ac.uk, blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] The Woman in B7
Message-ID: <a952f9cc.36a25b40@aol.com>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 1/17/99 1:01:24 PM EST, Richard.Watts@cl.cam.ac.uk writes:
><< If your theory holds any merit, of course, then these poor
> mothers are themselves the victims of poor parenting. Personally, I don't
> think that's true in anything like all cases, but I'll run with it for a
> while.
> So, assuming your band of social engineers manages to gain sufficient power
> to enforce major sociological change, what are they going to do with these
> non-nurturing types?>>
>
>Make them nurturing through some unknown process or eliminate them....the
>Federation appears to be quite capable of both....brainwashing and
>ruthlessness.
<< I think we're descending into the realms of `there's no evidence for
this in the series at all,>>
I never proposed there was, I was simply suggesting the Feds are capable.
And, there's actually not much evidence against it. We don't find out many
detils about the fedeartion along the course of the series.
<< so I can say what I like': the Federation
could quite easily have run concentration camps for arbitrary social
groups, a la Nazi Germany, or it could equally well not have, like
Stalin's Russia, Pinochet's Chile or Mussolini's Italy.>>
And we really don't know. If they drugged large planetary populations, why
not camps as well. Some species might not be susceptible to drugging and
would need to be contained another way.
<< I'm still not sure the Federation would get away with it though -
historically, tamper with practically anything else, and you'll get
little resistance. Tamper with someone's family, and they'll happily
charge a combat-ready mechanized infantry division armed only with a
small fruit knife.>>
They did get away with drugging entire populations.
<< Anyway, if the Federation has eliminated all dysfunctional families,
how do you explain practically all the characters in B7 ?
Good question. They were all crminals. Perhaps there are some forms of
genetic tampering that the Federation hasn't perfected?
<< But the Federation didn't _have_ a rough ride. Most of their
population seemed fairly contented, except for the outer colonies,
whose focus of rebellion always seemed (Traitor, Project Avalon,
Countdown, The Way Back, Bounty, Voice from the Past etc.etc.) to be
political independance rather than freedom from any specific
nastiness. There was never any suggestion that the Federation were
doing anything other than expanding their empire and suppressing
dissent.>>
We only saw the Federation through the crew's eyes. We don't really know if
there was civil unrest among the general population. It could go either way.
<< If they were messing about with people's families in a general way
(rather than as experiments on specific worlds, and in fact even then),
I would expect someone to have mentioned it. >>
You have a good point, but lets just go on speculation for the sake of the
argument.
Thanks for the discussion and for not resdorting to name calling. What did
you think of my analysis of "Power"?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 11:24:04 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Trolling 101
Message-ID: <36A238D4.5BFB@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Judith Proctor wrote:
> I disagree with a fair bit of what Supestud is saying, but I can at last
> admire him for staying fairly good natured throughout the debate.
Judith is always calm and logical in the midst of the storm. I like this
about her.
I also am *not* offended by SuperSud's (I say that cuz he got everyone
worked up into a lather) posts, albeit the delivery is often 'hit and
run' Perhaps it is his writing style, more so than the message, that has
people upset. Also, I appreciate his restrained rejoinders to those
outright attacks on him by people who became too emotionally offended by
his opinion to respond to the message.
When I read something radically at odds with my own beliefs, I simply
think: how interesting that someone could feel that way. I never feel
that I am insulted or will be contaminated by someone else's opinions.
Opinions are not contagious.
However, why has no one suggested this thread remove itself to the Spin
List? Controvery is always welcome there, and a good brawl is always
eagerly embraced. I forget, who administers the Spin List? Now would be
a good time to repost how to subscribe, as there are, of late, lots of
new names on the lysator list.
Pat P
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:06:04 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Avon disagrees
Message-ID: <36A242AC.8AC@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
SupeStud00@aol.com wrote:
> how would Avon handle persons who disagree with him and want him silenced?
ah ha! Avon will slice and dice the disagreer with witty, barbed
verbiage that leaves his opponent standing, open-mouthed with no
suitably clever rejoinder, bloody-brained from the unaccustomed strain
of trying to think of one, and watching in stumped silence as The Snarly
One spins on his heel and executes a dramatically dismissive exit, stage
left (or right, depending on blocking and camera angle).
Vila would assault them with funny marshmallow words that would bounce
off most people's thick skulls without leaving any noticeable impact -
but Vila would know that he had scored a clever coup on the dullard. And
if it went unnoticed by the victim, all the better, for that was his
intent - that way he need not expend any further effort on a tiresome
battle of wits. For it's no fun battling with someone who has none.
This, of course, is why - when Vila and Avon got at it we all enjoy it
so much. For when it comes to wit, they are worthy opponents. :)
BTW, wit is always welcome on this list, no matter what the subject
matter.
Pat P
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:42:03 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: [B7L] Relationships (was Morrigan)
Message-ID: <36A2592B.25C0@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Helen Krummenacker wrote:
> Likewise, I find myself thinking about the men of Blake's 7. Setting
> aside their looks, which ones would be aceptable to me for a romantic
> partner, and which ones wouldn't.
Ohhhhh, what a good game, Avona!
Only, I'm going to change the rules to: A good spouse:
> Blake is too patricarchal. He may not be sexist; he bosses everyone
> equally. But he bosses.
Right. Not Blake, but because he's an emotional mess. I haven't the
patience for reconstructive hand holding.
> Gan is pleasent, but wouldn't give me the intellectual challenge I'd
> want in a mate.
Right. Boooooring. And too biiiiiig.
> Vila has a very good personality if he would sober up.
I'd want Vila as a friend in a heartbeat. But as a spouse, never! In a
spouse you want someone willing to pull half the load. To help equally
(or more than equally!) with household income, chores, and
steadfastness: the ability to cope if unexpected disaster should strike.
Vila is none of the those: he is lazy and proud of it!
> Avon-- I fear not. I like being needed. He doesn't need anyone, or likes
> to act like he doesn't.
Avon would hurt my feelings with his thoughtless (if clever) sniping. I
would always feel stupid around Avon, because no one, in his opinion,
can come close to his intellect (except, possibly, Orac).
> Tarrant? I hate to say it, but there's possibilities. He respects the
> women around him.
aaaccckkk! I hate to say it, but you are right! Tarrant is the best of
the bunch! ':-0
(Carol McCoy says: hey you all! What have I been trying to *tell* you
all these years???)
Travis I - Don't laugh: He's got good looks, strength, loyalty to the
company, steady employment history, could well protect his family from
predators.
What do the men think of the Blake's 7 gals?
(yeah, you too, SuperSuds - work us into a lather - again - and we'll
put you thru the wringer - again)
Jenna: Don't expect dinner and dishes from her! And you'd better not
have a possessive bone in your body.
Cally: I'd get bored with her real quick. And you'd better not try to
hide any secret affairs!
Dayna: As with Vila, I'd dearly want her for a friend. We would have
such fun hunting Sarrans in the hills! But not for a spouse: she'd be
off with the first truck driver who offered a new adventure.
Soolin: Oddly, I think she'd be a good spouse: dependable,
even-tempered, lucrative employability skills (personal bodyguard to
some rich bloke), intelligence, looks to die for. But don't ever ever
ever get into an arguement with this spouse. And come to think of it, in
time, in the end, you would probably wind up a victim of domestic
violence.
Servalan: hahahahahahahahaha. You'd be dead in a week. (But *what* a
week!)
Tyce Sarkoff is not a main character, but would make the best spouse
material: steady, strong, practical, beautiful, loyal to family, well
connected. And stands to inherit a bundle!
Pragmatic Pat P
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 12:29:38 -0800
From: Pat Patera <pussnboots@geocities.com>
To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se
Subject: Re: [B7L] Women, B7 and Avon
Message-ID: <36A24832.1BAB@geocities.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sestina2@aol.com wrote:
long, yes, but most insightful.
> But it is not so
> much nature as society that confines women to the sphere of the domestic...
> Any such division of
> labor -- like men do the hunting and women do the gathering, etc. -- is
> strictly social and not biological in nature.
We have had long debates on this subject before - on the spin list, I
think, and I am not about to slog about at length in this swamp again,
except to say: Women are, and have always been, the majority of the
populace and they are more than equally responsible for the situation
and condition of women. A people get the government they deserve (will
tolerate) and women get the treatment they deserve (will tolerate).
> I think this distinction is crucial. If the reason women are devalued
> particularly in most Western societies has to do with their role as caregivers
> -- a role that is by society's standards largely one of unpaid labor
This made me wonder at a curious fact: men's "instinctive" urge to beat
upon and destroy one another is glorified and televised as national
football (boxing, this ball, that ball) and the participants reap HUGE
recognition and admiration for enacting their inate biological
imperative. But women's "instinctive" urge to nurture and nourish others
is ignored, discounted and in today's competitive capitalistic society,
even denounced. Curious, as Mr. Spock would say, because this dicotomy
makes no logical sense.
And even I dismiss Cally as beng wimpy Nurse Chappel, while I admire
Soolin for being Wyatt Earp.
Guess I've been properly socially conditioned!
<big snip>
> But I also sense that I
> like Avon so much precisely because he epitomizes the condition that so many
> of us, male and female, exist in late-capitalist Western societies: We are
> completely alienated from others as well as from the deepest parts of
> ourselves, our own humanity.
(The reasons were finely set forth by Neil's recent essay)
This condition is new in human history. Like the herd animals we are,
humans have historically lived foremost for the good of the collective.
Humans share 98% of their DNA with chimps - and chimpanzee behavior
mimics this same fact: young males patrol the edge of the group so that
when danger approaches, they are most likely to die (get eaten first,
but not before sounding the alarm) - but for the good of the "tribe's"
offspring and continued existence.
Post hunter-gatherer society, human civilization has sadly distorted
this model: now the young males are roaming about preying on the women
and children they should be sacrificing themselves to protect.
> Note to Neil: SupeStud....SS......Tanith Lee. Any connection do you think?
hmmmm - you mean like witches chanting an incantation, the list's
chanting of Tanith Lee - Fascism - called up from the netherworld SS -
SuperStud? An intriguing theory! :-D
Pat P
--------------------------------
End of blakes7-d Digest V99 Issue #33
*************************************