Blakes7 February 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

80 participants
929 discussions

Other Lists
by Caveatemptor1＠aol.com 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

<< Annie wrote: << There are quite a few for Highlander and its associated actors/characters. We have one of those for Alias Smith & Jones, too. Is there one of those anywhere for Blakes 7, come to think of it? >> There is the Avon List. Courtney

1 0

Double Standards
by Mac4781＠aol.com 25 Feb '01

25 Feb '01

I've been debating mentioning this for days. And as my conscience has been prickling all the while, I think I'm meant to say something. Some of you may have read my post several days ago where I said we on the lyst are guilty of having double standards. I believe that very much to be true, and I believe I'm as guilty of it as anyone. It's natural to be more disturbed when a "stranger" is attacking a "friend." And it's natural to be more disturbed when you disagree with the point the attacker is making. I think both those reasons (and probably others as well) are why some tactless posts slip through and some are jumped on. Wendy's comments were directed at words, and an outcry of distress rose from some members of the lyst in response. Such an outcry that even today it was mentioned again by a member who mentioned she was "disheartened" by Wendy's wording. A post was recently sent to the list that to my mind was far more disheartening than Wendy's, but not a single list member has spoken up. So here I am, championing yet another apparent underdog. Neil wrote: > I have never called you a dickhead, I have never thought of you as a > dickhead, and until now I've never even *wanted* to consider you a dickhead, > but if you persist in making such an obvious fool of yourself in this > infantile fashion you will leave me with no other choice. I feel the use of "infantile" is inflammatory and insulting. > You have in the past proved to me, through your postings, your websites, and > what fiction of yours I have read, that you are a person of intelligence, > not to mention wit. All the more pity, then, that you seem to have > degenerated into the kind of boorish lout that cannot tolerate anyone > enjoying a conversation that he or she feels excluded from. I don't think the first sentence is a justifiable excuse to call someone a "boorish lout." I'm very disturbed by the tone of this post. There are far more tactful ways of making a point. I'm sorry that it's taken me so long to say something. I'm especially sorry because I very much enjoy Penny and she's not posted a single thing to the lyst since then. Maybe because she was hurt by the words. Not everyone complains in public when they've been hurt. Or maybe because she was hurt that no spoke up in her defense. I hope she's still here to read this. Carol Mc

1 0

Re: [B7L] One Two Princes Kneel Before You (still is: Thread hijacking)
by Mac4781＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Fiona wrote: > A lot of good and well-taken points, although I think > the subject-heading-changing could also be taken as an > opportunity for amusing and entertaining creativity > (see above) <G> Alas, I am not that creative. In evidence I submit my totally inappropriate, totally blah subject header "Question," which I created because Sally had asked us to please delete her name from headers. > Not me, or, as I said before, if I've said something > that could be taken this way, <Slave> I most humbly > and abjectly apologise, madam </Slave> Since I'm the one who said misunderstandings are best avoided by quoting, I've pulled up one of your quotes on the subject: > We were talking about carrying on with our "serious" > discussions, which are not to everyone's taste, > hijack-free, and I don't particularly see any reason > why we shouldn't have "serious" discussions openly on > the list, even if not everyone responds or even read It's the "hijack-free" that seems to be the crux of the problem. It seems to suggest a degree of censorship. So if someone reading a "serious" discussion thought of a wisecrack response, he/she should muffle it or change the heading, putting an extra burden on that person. > Because of what I've been saying. You *can't* have > serious without silly, or silly without seriousness. I > mean, when FC started, Avon Lust on the Lyst didn't > die, did it? Exactly. And serious threads are not going to evaporate from the lyst if a serious list is started. There are many posters here who enjoy a mix of serious and fun, and they are going to keep posting serious right here to lyst. What will transfer to the serious list are discussions between posters who don't want those silly interruptions. Some of those threads might start out on the lyst and be transferred over to serious, as topics are moved to the spin list. While you can't realize it because you're not on FC, some threads from the lyst are transferred to FC, where slash and drool and character discussions don't offend anyone. It's done quietly and without fuss. Just a "I think it's more appropriate to say this on FC." What it comes down to is how irritating hijacking is to you and others who have been bothered. If/when it gets irritating enough, you'll form a spin off list. Until then you're going to have resign yourselves to business as usual. > "There are a total of three mailing lists for B7. Actually there are lot more than three right now. And other fandoms, I've been told, support many more than three, with some of them very highly specialized. Lists devoted to one character, etc. I'm sure there is overlap on those as well. > Hope this provided some entertainment, It did. Thanks. It's always important to keep one's sense of humor. > Section-Leader Fiona Moore, M.Phil (Oxon) Since I am a Godmother, however, I outrank you. :) By the way, I think Penny's promotion to "Queen" of F.I.N.A.L.A.C.T. went unnoticed by many during our recent noisy period. But I noticed. And I'll be keeping an eye on future developments. I will not be outranked. ;) Carol Mc

2 1

Re: [B7L] Free Speech (was: Thread hijacking)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/24/01 4:36:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << I have found nothing in this discussion to upset me; In fact, I rather enjoy being able to hear other people's views and to put my own into print form. However, as tempers are obviously fraying, I'm going to make this post my last word, and go and watch a few episodes of "The Clangers" for a while... >> And let me just say that I'm not upset with you, Fiona or Neil or anyone else. I haven't been part of the "thread hijackings", at least in recent memory, so it holds little to no reason for personal animosity for me. I have simply tried to point out that it is an exercise in futility to think that you can affect the behavior of an entire mailing list simply because a few members want to indulge in academic debate *without having the tone or direction* of the discussion interrupted in any way. It just isn't going to happen. Annie

1 0

Threads
by Sally Manton 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Una, you're a witness ... I tried not to do this ... The Lyst is open to everyone interested in and everything about Blake's 7, thanks to the most fair and open-minded of listmasters. This means that everyone - *everyone* is going to read stuff that annoys and irritates them, as well as stuff that amuses, interests and delights them. And *everyone* also has to accept that they are going to *be* the irritants and annoyances - without in the least meaning to - at times; everyone's posts are probably unneccessary mailbox baggage to someone on the list, that's the nature of the thing. I hear and accept that the frivolous interjections annoy sometimes, and that I'm one of those who do it, and some people dislike it. I also agree that sometimes it's just flippancy or frivolousness, a sudden thought I thought I'd share, that some people feel is ill-placed (others don't - I *do* know that - but that doesn't invalidate the feelings of those who do). BUT ... it's not that simple. That isn't the only reason we interject humour. Sometimes it's actually a defensive thing. A lot of the serious discussions become heated, and people feel - or think they sees friends - under fire. Neil's comment re Shania notwithstanding, I really *am not* that confident, I sometimes get shaky about whether my serious posts are going to be met in a spirit of acrimony or not, and I'm not sure I'm the only one (Ob B7 - like Vila and his joking on the flight deck). So I do sprinkle them with 'lighteners' to try and forestall it, or - when a thread seems *to me* to be getting acrimonious - try to head it off with humour. It's not deliberate - it's almost a reflex action - and yes, I understand that it irritates those who don't see the thread as becoming anything like heated (and I'm not for one moment saying they're wrong, this is a very personal thing) and want to keep arguing. Secondly, some threads *themselves* can start to make me uncomfortable. For instance, a number of the serious ones go into 'fandom'- what other fans think and why they do/don't like or are/are not interested in aspects of the show. The recent hc thread is a good example of this. Now there is no reason why you or others can't discuss this, but if people in the group being discussed are also people on the Lyst ... well, as I said, I start feeling uncomfortable, a little like a lab rat who hasn't been asked before the electrodes go in. And I just aren't the sort to say "look, DO you mind?" even if I didn't [a] know that you and Neil and others had *no intention* of making me feel like that and [b] agree with Calle's 'nothing's sacred' rule. So I react with a joke, quite often a nervous or defensive one. Maybe in this case it *is* an (unconscious) case of wishing to - not hijack a thread, but deflect it. And of course no one else knows why I'm doing it (until I thought about it, neither did I :-)). This is a bit of a ramble, but what I'm trying to say is ... it isn't always as simple as it looks on either side. If you're in a serious discussion and some people seem more drawn to follow one frivolous interjection, it *might* be that they also find *it* more comfortable for their own reasons. Not always. But sometimes. This is a mailing list, not an ethics class and not debating group where everyone has to prepare beforehand. Some people come here for serious discussion; others come here purely for the fun and frivolity, really dislike the rough-and-tumble and wish it would stop. Some come purely for the action-adventure series they saw, and some people come just to discuss Avon. Replies are usually written in haste and tossed in with the genuine hope (and I do believe this for nearly everyone I've 'met' on the Lyst, past and present) that others will enjoy them. So do I have an answer? No. Well, how's about, in the midst of this discussion about chaff, a few cheers for the huge amount of goodly wheat - both deep-and-serious *and* funny-and-frivolous - we all get every day? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Free Speech (was: Thread hijacking)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/24/01 6:35:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << FYI, one of the things I greatly like about Calle's handling of the Lyst is his easygoing attitude to the airing of diverse views. >> Well, yes. I agree with you completely. Which is why I took exception to the beginning of this entire conversation where people were being told that they didn't have the right to insert "humorous" or "trivial" comments into the middle of a serious thread. Which is also why your diversion of the real topic is rather strange. I also pointed out (as did other posters) that those people who truly wanted to have a "private conversation in the corner" should not expect to be able to do so on a list several hundred strong... and that their only options therefore are to a) live with the fact that their threads are not sacrosanct and people will respond in the tone and manner in which they wish or b) have a PRIVATE conversation rather than posting in front of the entire list or c) start their own list with rules that suit them better. Those are really the only options I can see. Because, frankly, even if some of us (like Betty has graciously done) agree that subject lines will be changed, etc., etc., a mailing list is in constant flux and the agreement will never stick. You're never going to get all the members of the list to comply *unless it is a rule of the list*. Why continue to upset yourself (and other members of the list) by making an issue of it? You have options. Pick one. Annie

2 1

Other Lists
by Ashton7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/24/01 4:01:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, Mac4781(a)aol.com writes: << Actually there are lot more than three right now. And other fandoms, I've been told, support many more than three, with some of them very highly specialized. Lists devoted to one character, etc. I'm sure there is overlap on those as well. >> Goodness, Blakes 7 fandom is positively *deprived* in the list department. Why, even in the rather small fandom of Alias Smith & Jones (a tv Western from the 1970s) we have, I believe, at least SIX lists and all of them, from what I can see, very healthy. Actually, I think I'm wrong. I think there are more lists than that because there are several just for *fan fiction*. There are also numerous TV Western lists where the show is discussed on a regular basis. Highlander fandom is positvely inundated with lists. I belong to 20 at last count, many of them devoted solely to Peter Wingfield (one of the guest/recurring characters!). There are many more out there devoted to other characters and actors. And then there are all of the online web Forums. There are quite a few for Highlander and its associated actors/characters. We have one of those for Alias Smith & Jones, too. Is there one of those anywhere for Blakes 7, come to think of it? Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Books and Movies - sorry 'bout the two posts
by Sally Manton 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

As you could see I left one rather important word - Cally - out of the first one, and thougth I'd caught it before it went into cyberspace. Wardrobe Room, Treasure Room ... I wonder if they had a Hobbies Room? The problem is, of course, we can't imagine what sort of technological advance might impact on hobbies (the fifties view of the future vs the arrival of internet being a good example). _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] One Two Princes Kneel Before You (still is: Thread hijacking)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/24/01 2:09:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << The Silly List for B7 is Lysator, moderated by Calle (please observe that he is a bloke). Posts to this list cannot be in any way shape or form serious. Anybody caught posting about postmodernism, Marxist theory or Foucauldian analysis of the fabric and colour of trousers will be politely asked to leave. >> I know you're just being humorous, Fiona (and these descriptions of possible lists genuinely are funny)... but the descriptions you've written show that you're just not getting the point. NO ONE has suggested that the "serious" posters LEAVE Lysator. NO ONE has suggested that Lysator become the "silly" list. The point has been and remains that a few people like Neil and yourself have said that you want the freedom to post serious threads *without be interrupted* by "trivial" or "humorous" posts or by having "your" posts "hijacked" in some way. You've said now that there was never a desire to have private conversations in a corner... but I quoted that directly from, I believe, one of Neil's posts. I'm sure it's out there in the archives. The suggestion has been made that if you truly want to have posts guaranteed not to be hijacked, the ONLY solution is to create a list for just that purpose. It ain't gonna happen here so why make yourself miserable. But no one has said that you must leave or that they want you to leave. As Susan Beth pointed out, trying to imbue the other side of this argument with possessing the same feelings of "ownership" regarding threads is a futile exercise because the same situation doesn't exist on the other side of the issue. As Carol pointed out, Susan Beth took just that action when the people wanting to have slash and explicit discussion decided they wanted a "safe" place to talk. I was here on Lysator when that originally came about and I remember it well. Calle NEVER said that anyone had to leave Lysator because they wanted to talk about slash. It wasn't against the rules and he supported the people who wanted to have those types of discussion. But a number of posters decided that they didn't want to continue to "offend" some of the other members of the list and, most importantly, they didn't want to continue to be *harassed* about their opinions and beliefs. They wanted to talk "safely." Without interruption, if you will. So, they created their own list and it is going strong today. Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Books and Movies
by Sally Manton 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Dana wrote: <And I didn't think she was reading, it looked to me like a magnifier that you would use to do needlepoint or some kind of fine handwork.> Oh I *like* that, because I can see *my* Cally being interesting in something beautiful and fiddly like lacemaking ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
...
93
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 February 2001