Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: Propaganda Posters (was [B7L] the politics of slash)
by Kanna Ophelia 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Fiona wrote: > Also, I personally consider a lot of things about B7 very visual. Yep. I *like* all that concrete and harsh look, I like the magic bangles and the odd guns (I was sad when the Scorpio season ditched both), I like the clothes (except the red mummy suit) and, well, the whole look of it. And I also like the cheapness - it looks almost stylised and abstract to me. I adore the outline teleporter effect, for example, and the credits with the dinky toy Liberator... And both Travises look fantastic, evil leather pirates, ooh... Of course, I've never been interested in special effects, or seen why movies and tv should really be any more "realistic" than a stage set, and I watch far too many cartoons, so my taste might be highly personal... As far as I'm concerned, anyway, B7 is highly visual, and not merely because of Seravalan's gowns and Soolin... It has a distinctive visual style, and I love it. I'll admit I'm glad there weren't very many non-humanoid aliens, though... <wince> Of course, I was watching "Pressure Point" this weekend when my 8 year old brothers wandered in. (I don't usually watch it around them becuase of concerns with its violence.) And when Gan met his fate, they didn't get upset, they howled with laughter, and when I asked them why, they said because cardboard couldn't hurt anyone... And now, everytime I criticise Digimon <sniff>, they say, "Well, you watch a show made out of cardboard!" Kids today are so cynical... > As for the art: Una's right. Posters *would* have been a cheap but effective > way of conveying a totalitarian system, and one with which the viewer could > have immediately identified, being familiar with contemporary Civil Defence > posters as well as with wartime propaganda posters of all sorts around the > place. One wonders why they didn't. Perhaps it was just too familiar? > In fact, I recall from a DWB article on the B7 title sequence that the > original title sequence was going to feature the printing of "Wanted" style > posters of Blake and Co. Oh, how cute! XXX Kanna-Ophelia Femmeslash: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/femmeslash The Pokeslash Playground: www.tvheaven.pokemon.com Diversion Tactics: www.geocities.com/diversiontactics --------------------------------------------- This message was sent using One.Net's Mail Man. http://mailman.one.net.au

3 2

Re: [B7L] "That" issue
by Fiona Moore 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

>From: Bizarro7(a)aol.com >At every historical opportunity, including a massive example only 5 decades >past, followers of this religious and moral belief system have had no problem >with facilitating massive amounts of dead Jews, for no other reason than a 2 >thousand year old legend about some Jews who caused the death of an >apocryphal character they claim was the son of God. Well, I can't speak for earlier genocidal activities, but in the case of the Nazi genocides, I feel obliged to point out purely for the sake of accuracy that, while the Jews suffered the most numerically, the Nazis also killed large numbers of Christians, atheists and Gypsies in exactly the same way. I should also point out that the Nazis' actions vis-a-vis the Jews had less to do with interpretations of the New Testament, and more to do with their--highly mistaken--beliefs about human genetics and--equally mistaken--attribution of Communism to Judaism, and that their actions vis-a-vis the other groups had nothing to do with the Bible at all (in fact, the top Nazis viewed Christianity with deep suspicion, and made attempts to supplant it with a state-devised religion based on ancestor worship). ObB7: the attempted genocide of the Auronar had no religious justification either. Fiona The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [B7L] "That" issue
by Shane Little 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Leah wrote: ><< Well, not meaning to offend, but I am genuinely puzzled - do you not > find there to be a difference between saying an _action_ is wrong, and > saying a _person_ or group of people is sick? << > >This eye of the beholder thing isn't really difficult, if you can step >outside your little room for a moment. Let me try to make you understand. >Please do *not* be offended by what I'm about to say; Considering that you've just called her narrow-minded, I think you've probably lost her already. Certainly any feeling _I_ might have had, that your previous post might have meant that you were going to calm down and stop name-calling, has just been disproved. >this is not meant to >offend, it's my *reality*. > >I was born and raised a Jew, in an orthodox Jewish community. In 'my' >community, Christianity is not just another religion. It's regarded as a >malevolent sickness that afflicts many people in the Western world, and >aggressively tries to recruit anyone who will not see the world the way its >members do. The symbol of this religion is a cadaverous dead Jew on a stick. >At every historical opportunity, including a massive example only 5 decades >past, followers of this religious and moral belief system have had no problem >with facilitating massive amounts of dead Jews, for no other reason than a 2 >thousand year old legend about some Jews who caused the death of an >apocryphal character they claim was the son of God. This strikes us as very >funny, since it's common knowledge that the Romans did the actual killing of >this mythical character, but the Romans cannot be persecuted, because they >were the guys who had the poor judgement to adopt, promote and force this >religion on the rest of Western Civilization over the next few centuries. > >Since then, more blood has been shed 'in the name of God' than any other >cause. More torture. More looting. More warfare. More persecution. More >massacres. More annihilation of native and indigenous cultures. And so, because crimes have been committed in the name of Kathryn's religion, this makes Kathryn evil, or somehow responsible for it all? All because >the souls who embraced the cross felt themselves morally superior to those >beings who had not. If there *had* been a Jesus, how do you think he would >feel about this? Who would he choose to embrace, if he made that much-touted >return? Perhaps that's what was meant by the meek inheriting the Earth. I >know to you that sounds ironic at best and disgustingly sacreligious at >worst, but that is ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW, and a very real one. It is a form >of empthy, one that is totally discounted by the Christian doctrine because >it's *dangerous* for members of an autocratic, aggressive prosthelitizing >faith to empathize with the people and the belief system of others. > >Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of many other faiths >reside among us on this list. They have their own faith system, each of which >has its own problems, some of them the very same as Christianity. Yes, and since the original discussion was about homophobia, it should be noted that Judaism has been no more tolerant than Christianity in that regard. Three years ago the Chief Rabbi of England publicly said that homosexuals should not teach children, after all. > Ignoring >them or discounting their opinions doesn't make them go away. Point out to me where Mistral has disparaged other faiths, and I'll consider this point valid. I'll bet you can't. Disparaging a >different point of view on a moral issue, like a form of sexuality that >offends Christians, isn't going to make it go away, nor is it going be >'wrong' to someone who isn't a Christian. It may not even be wrong to someone who _is_ a Christian. What about the Metropolitan Community Church? >Contrary to what you've been told, >you can't pretend the whole world is Christian, with the same lines drawn >over acts, beliefs and morals. That is not reality...it's a fairy tale. It _is_ a fairy tale, yes, but it's not them that's writing it. Nobody on the lyst has said that the whole world is or should be Christian; nobody has said anything to disparage anybody else's faith. The discussion, in case you've forgotten, was about homophobia. Trying to start a religious war isn't going to improve that or bring people round to your point of view. > >>Because every time this > sort of issue comes up, it just floors me. We all do things that other > people think are wrong. If I cheated on my income tax, I'd consider that > I'd done something immoral; I certainly wouldn't consider that I was > sick. Those two concepts are poles apart to me. << > >If the subject were stealing, or murder, you would have a good parallel here. >The issue is what other people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, with >mutual consent. But some people do consider that immoral. I don't like it either, Leah, but I have to live with it and try and change people's minds about gays one person at a time. >Christianity seems to obsess on this topic to the point of >mania. And mania is a form of sickness. So like Annie, you think Christians are sick? > Why does what two consenting adults >do in a bedroom have ANYTHING to do with the price of tea in Rome? Who >appointed the members of this faith sexual watchdogs on what sexual acts are >and are not morally acceptible? But see above with regard to the Chief Rabbi-- and the newspapers for cases of Muslims executing gays-- and history for secular states prosecuting homosexuals (like Communist Russia). You seem to think there's a Christian conspiracy out there; there isn't. There are people of all faiths who think homosexuality is right and others of the same faiths who think it's wrong. Let's be fair. >Why don't they ban sex between heterosexual >couples who are unable to have children? They can't procreate, so they must >be doing it just for pleasure and affection. Isn't that a 'sin'? I'm trying to work out what this has to do with B7, slash or fanfic and drawing a blank. > >>As I sit here eating my turkey sandwich and reading my lyst mail, I come > across a post from Neil. Now, I know Neil thinks it's immoral for me to > eat my turkey sandwich - but I don't assume that he thinks I'm a sick > and evil person because of it. He might, but I'm not going to jump to > that conclusion, because it isn't productive, fair, or kind; and if I > did jump to that conclusion, my upset would be my own doing, not his.>> > >Annie's comments were an attempt to make certain lyst members see the >parallel between telling other lyst members that a certain category of fanfic >is sick and offensive and how it looks from the other side. Kathryn said "character assassination." That may mean "offensive," but not "sick." I happen to consider slash a twisting of the characters myself; am I sick? >You may think >it's immoral to read or perform the acts in a piece of slash fanfic; but you >don't assume everyone else believes as you do. Leah, you and Annie are the only ones assuming that. You don't jump to that >conclusion, because it isn't productive, fair, or kind; if you did jump to >that conclusion, your upset would be your own doing, not anyone else's (your >own words above). > >Perception. Empathy. Respect. Stretch open the door in that little room a bit. That tag, on the end of the post as read, is the most supremely ironic thing I've seen on the lyst since I've joined. Shane "You really are insane, aren't you?" --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: On con attendance
by Tavia 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Steve K wrote: >My original title for the panel was "'Loaded' With Spaceships", Or even, " 'Loaded' with Vampires" since the editions I skimmed seemed spaceship-lite. >Sorry about that. Blame me, since I was chair. I don't consider any blame attaches to anyone. But, in politeness, one cannot slag off x in the presence of two or three vocal people who work on x, and who also happen to be guests. Or at least, I found I couldn't, anyway... (Does that make me polite? Surely not...) Tavia

2 1

Re: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Shane Little 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Tavia wrote: > >Shane wrote: > > >What is the average sales of a B7 zine? One of the plus > > >factors may have been though the fact that DW fandom is bigger then B7. > > > >As I could only answer that by quoting more experienced zine editors than > >I, had better leave them to speak for themselves -- if they choose to > >make their sales figures public. > > > > >Good question. Certainly they [[Ashton Press]] are interested > > >in protecting their particular > > >market, but I feel that there maybe another reason for their continued > > >involvement in B7 fandom, one that perhaps stretches a long way back. Any > > >ideas > >I would say the most likely reason was an abiding love for Blake's 7 and > >its fans. Sorry Tavia, but I don't see any evidence of that. I do however see an abiding hatred for certain actors, and I also see an abiding contempt for fans who don't share their opinions. > >And finally, if I might say just one thing, Shane. Feel free. I've always got time for you, Tavia :-). > >I might not agree with > >everything Annie or Leah have posted to this Lyst; in fact that's true of > >virtually any regular poster I could name. >However, casting unproven and > >unprovable aspersions about them or their enterprises, I think many of my aspersions are justified and can be proved very easily. Just look back at some previous posts, and you'll see for yourself that: Leah and Annie hate people to disagree with them. They both indulge in distorting the words of the people they happen to be disagreeing with. They killfile people they take against. They call people "sick" and "liars" when that person says something they don't like. They continue to exploit actors' images in ways the actors find grossly offensive. They make disparaging remarks about certain actors and their careers. They have their fingers in many fandoms. They put a great deal of time and effort into maintaining their market. They have little interest in exploring what B7 has to say about anything. They make outrageous claims, but then fail to answer when someone asks them to provide evidence. They are religiously intolerant and go out of their way to denigrate others' religious beliefs. They try and stifle debate. As for whether they make money out of B7 fandom. That can be easily proved, or disproved, all they have to do is publish their accounts. I personally hope that they do make money out of it, because if they don't then it suggests that the real reason that they exploit actors' images is out of contempt for them. > >on the basis of what > >feels to this reader at least, like a personal grudge, As I said to Carol Mc, I have no connection with them at all. I don't like what they are doing, but aside from that I know nothing about them. No emotional bond exists at all. > >it is really not doing > >anyone any good. I don't agree. It's always good to challenge, especially if that challenge leads to enlightenment. Shane "I don't like an unsolved mystery." --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Shane Little 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Kathryn Andersen wrote: Shane wrote: > >I was involved with fanfic; in fact it was > > > impossible *not* to make a profit, which was a bit of a problem because > > > fanzines by their nature have to be non-profit making, or else you are > > > infringing copyright. > > > >Really? I'm amazed. What a lucky fellow! That's not the experience > >I've had in either editing a zine myself (since 1995) or talking to > >fellow editors. Again, as I said to Tavia, it may have had something to do with the size of Doctor Whow fandom, and maybe the fact that the programme was either still on the air or only recently dead. > > > >(And, technically speaking, it's still infringing copyright, but it > >makes it a lot less likely that one will be sued.) > > > > > > >at least in this fandom. So far so good. > > > I'm sure that is your experience, but Ashton Press have their fingers in > > > many fandoms, not just B7. Ever wondered why? Especially when you > >consider > > > that Annie or Leah have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any real > >interest > > > whatsoever in what B7 was about, and in fact have demonstrated a clear > > > dislike for some of the main actors involved. Needs investigation, I > >feel. > > > >Why is Ashton Press into many fandoms? > >Because they like them. They may like what they are doing to them, but there is a difference. > >Demonstrate no real interest in what B7 was about? > >Well, they'd probably disagree with you on "what B7 is about" anyway. Yes, but then again, they've demonstrated on this lyst that they disagree with anyone who doesn't swallow their take wholesale. > >It may simply be that they are still in B7 fandom from inertia, I think that's part of it, yes. > >because > >their friends are here, You don't have to remain in fandom to keep your friends. You also don't have to produce loads of explicit fanzines. Perhaps if they were a little more selective in what they printed, and especially draw, they might make some new friends. But that doesn't seem their business. > > and though they've lost a great deal of interest > >in things that used to interest them about B7, You've noticed that too. Interesting. > >they still have enough > >interest to stay. Yes, but what _is_ their motivation? What it "is about" to them isn't the same as what it > >"is about" to you... Very true. > >and neither party has the right to tell the other > >what B7 fandom *ought* to be about to the other person. Again, very true. But you can discuss things. That's partly what fandom is about. However, Leah and Annie don't like discussing things. They get very nasty about it. They try and twist your words to "win" their "argument". They don't like answering straightforward questions. They killfile you. > >So, for > >example, it isn't legitimate for Annie to say that *fandom* has got > >nothing to do with the actors -- only that *her own preferred experience > >of fandom* has nothing to do with the actors. But Annie's involvement with fandom involves the direct exploitation of the actors, and especially their images. > >Likewise, someone else > >can't say that *fandom* isn't about meeting your fannish friends at cons True. > >Dislike some of the main actors involved? > >That goes back a very long way, and it probably isn't my place to > >discuss it, seeing as I was one of those on the opposite side of the > >schism than Ms. Wortham and Ms. Rosenthal. This is very interesting. So basically, what I have been picking up on is the residue of something that happened long ago, but that Annie and Leah can't let go of. Asking *them* why they > >dislike certain actors isn't going to get you a calm, objective > >response. In fact, no response at all. This dislike doesn't stop them cynically exploiting the actors' images though, does it? What "love" can there be in drawing someone you dislike? But then, if you are drawing someone you dislike in a situation you know "that certain someone" would find grossly distasteful, well, "love" is one thing we are certainly not talking about.. What if you then go on to distribute these images? What do we have then? If it's not for money, and it's not for love, what does that leave? Malicious glee perhaps, hatred even, revenge, possibly. > > and asking anyone *else* is doomed to be mere speculation. Depends on whether you ask the right people. > > > > >The experience of editors down the years is that there *are* > >objections, > > > > >and resulting loss of sales, to mixed zines. From both camps. It's > >not > > > > >just the loss of sales, either, it's having to deal with the bitching > > > > >from people who think that the merest hint that two men (or two > >women) > > > > >could have a sexual interest in each other turns it into a filthy > > > > >pornographic rag; and at the other extreme, the people bitching about > > > > >having to pay for this boring gen stuff when all they want is the > > > > >action. Or the ones who want only slash and gen, none of that horrid > >het. > > > > > > But then that's the price you pay when dealing with a controversial > >subject. > > > I know that compromises have to be made, but the end result is still > > > ghettoisation. > > > ><sarcasm>Nasty evil editors, how dare they be considerate to the desires > >of their audience! Never! They should shove their sexual politics down > >people's throats, in the name of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity! > ></sarcasm> I think you're a nice person, you know that? But sometimes even the best of us make mistakes. My statement above was a stating of the current status quo. I've worked on zines, I know that you have to compromise. I've had to myself. I'm not trying to condemn anyone in this respect. I raised a question, it was answered, I state the result. If anyone wants to challenge that status quo, then they are very brave indeed, but that still doesn't mean that the audience can't be challenged, or re-educated. It would be hard going, though, I'll admit. > >It shouldn't surprise you that I'm one of the ones who won't buy a mixed > >gen and slash zine. Sorry, Tavia, I'm sure there are good stories > >there, but there are other stories that I Will Not Read, so I'm not > >going to buy the zine. Don't apologise. I can see where you are coming from, and your decision makes perfect sense. > >There are people who won't buy my zine either > >(shrug) (I even had someone come up to me at a con once, ask me if > >there was Doctor Who in the zine, and I said no, and he walked off > >without even bothering to look at the zine.) Well some Doctor Who fans can be very narrow-minded, but then to some degree, can't we all? Shane "I don't take anything on trust" --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Shane Little 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Carol Mac wrote: > > > > > >Well then, why don't you go conduct that investigation? And when > >you're > > > >ready to level specific charges, come back and tell us about it. > > > > > > Why don't you? You're closer than I am. But if you want some advice, > >you > > > could start by asking for their accounts to be made public... > > > >I wrote a note beside my computer that you would respond exactly as you > >did: > >"Why don't you investigate it?" See? It was the logical conclusion. > >The point I was making is that it is very easy to make insinuations of > >improper behaviour. Sorry to be pedantic here, but according to my dictionary, "insinuate" means to "introduce gradually or subtly; convey indirectly, hint obliquely." I think I was quite direct in what I said. In my experience it's rather difficult not to make some money. Now perhaps this was because of the nature of Doctor Who fandom five years back, I don't know, but if they aren't making any money (from B7 fandom at least), that leaves a hell of a lot of unanswered questions in my mind. This lyst would be even more unpleasant than it has > >been > >of late if we all took to doing that. As I didn't do it, don't worry about it. Given that you don't have any proof > >for your theory, Not direct proof, but I think some circumstantial evidence. > >and given that you aren't willing to do the investigation > >that *you* apparently think would give your theory credibility, I'm not in the position to, but you are, and as you are discussing this issue with me then why not take the next step and do some checking to see if it is true? > >your > >comments > >come across as nothing more than a vendetta Sorry to be pedantic here, but according to my dictionary "vendetta" means, "Blood-feud, esp.one practised through generations, as in Corsica and parts of Italy." On "Blood-feud" my dictionary says, "feud between families of which one has split the other's blood." So are you trying suggest that I am somehow related to either Leah or Annie? Because I'm not. I have never met Leah, or Annie and didn't even know of their existence until a couple of months back. > >by someone with a personal ax > >to > >grind. I refer you to my above answer. I have had no previous connection with these people at all. > >> >I've purchased Ashton Press zines. You're a good customer, eh? >I've held them in my hands. Always a good idea when picking something up :-). > > I've seen > >how many pages they have. Not just empty covers then. I'm impressed :-) >I know what type of binding they use. See? Insider knowledge! You're just the person I'm looking for to head this investigation. > >I recognise > >that some of the art work would involve extra reproduction costs. What would that involve then? Burning letters of complaint from jobbing actors who object to their likeness being disrespected in such a gross way? I've > >also > >done two B7 zines and 43 issues of the Tarrant APA, so I know what it costs > >to do fannish publications. More insider knowledge--go on have a look round; you know it makes a lot of sense. Anyway, I couldn't afford the airfare to America, but you're there already. There is no way Ashton Press can be making > >money. You know that for a fact do you? > >It would be easier to get rich going sofa to sofa and plucking out > >lost change. They might do that as well, I don't know. > >Both Annie and Leah do zines for the love of fandom. Sorry, but I don't see any evidence of "love" at all. In fact, when it comes to B7 actors- quite the opposite. They also appear to be extremely intolerant of other fans' opinions, and appear incapable of conducting a conversation without having to resort to twisting people's words out of context to support their frequently fatuous cases. Something they are also doing to B7 the series, interestingly. So if they hate the actors, are not willing to engage in any serious fan debates (and no Leah, I am not convinced by your post of this morning), show contempt for any fan who has a different opinion to themselves, and appear to lack a basic understanding of the show's premises, then I think I'm justified in thinking "What are Leah and Annie doing in B7 fandom if it's not for money?" > >I appreciate their efforts. But then you would. You support them. Shane "I don't like an unsolved mystery" --Avon Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

1 0

Re: [B7L] zine editing
by Jenny Kaye 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Una wrote: ><applause> > >I'm sorry if what I'm about to write makes me come across as an arse, but... > >The mood on this mailing list has become intolerable. Jacqueline unsubbed >earlier in the week, and another person unsubbed today with deeply hurt >feelings. I would not be surprised if many other people have unsubbed too in the >past few months. I notice that Natasa has not posted in over a month, and I >suspect that she has left too, which is a terrible shame. I know I'm new on the lyst so I don't have much knowledge, but I'd just like to tell you about how I subscribed. I was out with some fannish friends, and one of them told me that, if I was a B7 fan, I should go on Lysator. But another one said "Oh, don't go there; it's totally boring, they just talk about clothes and about whether there's going to be a movie made of the series or not." He said that he had been on it for six months, but unsubscribed. Because of what he said, I didn't subscribe for a while, but then I did because I wanted to hear news on the actors. Imagine my surprise when I did subscribe! (she said, sounding like a soap advert :-)!) Some of the posting has been very nasty, and I don't blame some people for unsubscribing. But there are very few people on the lyst who are acting genuinely mean; others are getting a bit heated, but I can see why, especially on the religion thread, and since they've been calm posters on other subjects I'm sure this is just one issue. And there are other threads, some are interesting and are making me think about the series and why I go to cons, some are screamingly funny, some are cute and silly. But the heated discussion makes me think of something else. There've been hints on the slash thread that before, slash discussion "wasn't allowed," because people on both sides thought it couldn't be discussed rationally. So it's no wonder that people are a little testy-- they've never discussed it before. On some other threads too I get the feeling that long-buried feelings and opinions are now coming to light. I don't think it's right to say that people shouldn't talk about things they feel strongly about, cause that's just going to make them feel more bitter about it. On the Syndeton thread: the film won't be produced by the BBC, so does that mean it won't be canon? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

plea for sanity
by Deborah Day 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- Echoing other comments, could we please get back to discussing Blake's Seven, the reason we are all on this lyst, and leave our personal problems out of it. Debbie.

1 0

(No Subject)
by Shane Little 28 Mar '01

28 Mar '01

Julia wrote: >In message <01C0B70D.72481B80.tavia(a)btinternet.com>, Tavia ><tavia(a)btinternet.com> writes > >>Tanstaafl. > > > >I'm going to regret this, I know, but: what??? > >There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. > Which, to bring the discussion back to pornography (which Neil was discussing), suggests that you get something out of consuming it, but that it also takes something out of you... Shane "You don't win wars by running away and hiding" --Servalan Who needs Cupid? Matchmaker.com is the place to meet somebody. FREE Two-week Trial Membership at http://www.matchmaker.com/home?rs=200015

2 1

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 March 2001