Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Thanks
by Jacqueline Thijsen 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

(hoping Calle will send this through) Thank you to all those who sent me their best wishes (and yes, I do mean all :-) ). You needn't worry that it was the discussion that made me sick. It was just the proverbial last straw, which means that lots of straws went before it. I've been suffering from a depression for a while now. Prozac has helped me deal with it, but I've been off it for a few weeks now. I guess I need it again to keep from wanting to crawl away under the table every time someone yells "boo" at me. BTW, I may have been disappointed at some of the statements made on the lyst, but I'm no longer really angry. Just tired. I think I'd really better let that subject rest when I get back. Which I hope will be really soon. Jacqueline

1 0

Re: [B7L] "That" issue
by Shane Little 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Annie wrote: >The concept of empathy really seems to be eluding some members of this list. And I'm speaking to the chief culprit. Really shown a lot of empathy, you have. >I don't know how I can make it any plainer than I already have. A number of >people certainly didn't like it when I freely expressed *my* opinion of >*their* religion... even though it is my true opinion and I meant no personal >attack on them on at all. No, you didn't. You didn't even tell us what your opinion of "their religion" (I got the impression that there were more than just Christians on the religious thread) is, you just said, and I quote: <I don't think you (or many other Christians on this list) would like it if I aired my personal views on Christianity and how adding any hint of it to B7 characters would be "twisting" them or committing "character assassination" against them. <snip> Trying to apply Christian morality to the show IS twisting it. Why don't you try putting the shoe on the other foot and think about how YOU might feel. If you can.> You also say: <I take a great deal of exception to being told that reading about two people making love is just as morally reprehensible as massacre. There's something very sick about a religion or a person who would believe that.> Now, implying that Kathryn is insensitive, or sick, definitely falls under the category of personal attack-- especially that second post, since it singles out Kathryn and doesn't just criticise her faith, not to mention twisting about what she actually said regarding massacres and sex. If you meant no personal attack, why put it in those terms? > Hey, I felt it "needed to be said" because it's the >way I feel. The two aren't always one and the same. > If it's okay for others to attack *my* beliefs and traditions and >lifestyle openly on the list, why do they feel that they are immune from >hearing my thoughts on *their* beliefs and traditions and lifestyle in >return? You're acting like you think nobody else came in on that thread, like it was just poor li'l Annie up against the evil Christians (although maybe you've killfiled the others on the thread, I don't know). Plenty of other people have responded to Kathryn and Elynne, providing countervailing voices from other beliefs and traditions; the debate and discussion has been interesting and revealing. And above all, civilised. You and Leah are the only people who have been talking in terms of attacks and bigotry, you know. > You can say anything you darn well please and I'll stand up for your >"right" to do so. Oh, right. Leaving aside the vast number of people you've personally attacked, even killfiled, you've _really_ stood up for people's rights of free speech by telling them: <there can't be open discussion among fans about slash> Because there _can_ be, Annie. And there is. You're behind the times. And it's very interesting that you also say that there can only be discussion about slash on Freedom City. Because Freedom City is a list for _people who like slash_. So people who don't like slash-- and who therefore are the ones who have a different take on slash-- don't have a voice on slash, in your ideal universe. In your ideal world, people like me, Kathryn, Neil, Fiona, and Elynne, shouldn't be allowed to express our opinions unless we go on a slash-focused list, which I don't think any of us would do. We none of us are going to go over to Freedom City and tell you that you're sick. But if you want to discuss slash on Lysator (and you haven't exactly been discouraging the discussion), you have to discuss it on the terms of this list. >But please don't act all put out and surprised when you >receive an answer IN KIND. Oh, nobody was _surprised_ at the tone of your post. But it wasn't an answer in kind. >I believe in treating people the way they have >asked me to treat them. When did Kathryn ask to be attacked? The post she was responding to wasn't even one of yours, it was in response to a question _Neil_ asked. >And I don't believe in letting people insult my way >of life with impunity. I don't have to justify my existence to anyone and I >don't have to defend my way of life. But you're not exactly letting other people defend or justify theirs, are you? In fact, you're stifling debate. >But if people here are going to freely >attack an entire group of people Of which I am also a member, and I know I'm not the only one here. You certainly don't speak for all gays, Annie, any more than you speak for all fans. > I'll be darned if I'm just going to sit back >and let them do it without saying anything. Even if all you have to say is an insult? >Some folks said that *they* weren't offended by Kathryn's original post >because she said it all so "politely". So, I went back and reread the post >(reproduced below) just to see if I was completely out of line. Nope. I'm >just as offended at 2nd and 3rd readings. I don't think it's polite at all to >blithely inform a large list of Blakes 7 fans that adultery (of Avon and >Anna) isn't half so bothersome as gay sex because, of course, gay sex is >soooo much more sinful. Showing again that you actually _haven't_ read the post. To quote Kathryn: >To refine: I find slash stories more upsetting than hetsmut >because of the moral issue, even though I don't like reading either one; >for me, het sex out of wedlock is, while not good, not half as sinful >as gay sex. (Particularly if the het sex is monogamous; at least >they're being faithful...) So it upsets me to see characters I admire >suddenly having gay sex. That's where my compass is set, and if that >upsets anyone, then go ahead and call me insulting names if it makes you >feel better. Note that Kathryn says _for her_, adultery is not as sinful as gay sex. She says that she understands other people may be upset by this, and that other people may not see it the same way. A perfectly understandable response, when asked _by Neil_ just what her religious objections to slash are. She is not blithely stating a fact, she is venturing an opinion with the proviso that she knows other people do not see it that way. I don't particularly like one or two of the things she said either, but since she's shown herself willing to respect my beliefs by her provisos I'll respect hers. Time and time again I've talked in my posts about things which must surely upset her deeply, since they assume that gay sex is a normal, positive and happy thing. She has never come back and called me sick for that. So in my turn, I'll support her right to not be bullied for her beliefs, however alien to mine they may be. Shane 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] reasons
by Shane Little 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Louise wrote: > >No, definitely not! But it does say to me that if you're going to write > >about Muslims, you should learn a bit about what the different groups are, > >and make sure that the descriptions you've got for them are right for the > >group you're writing about. Or to make the decision to throw all that > >information to one side, if you feel the story justifies it. But you >should > >have the information to begin with. > >And this is where the problem occurs. I don't currently have any close gay >friends, having lost track of the ones I knew at college. So how am I >supposed to find out? Gay literature, even that written by gay men, is >itself likely to be an unreliable source since it will presumably also be >designed to titillate and/or be interesting and exciting rather than >explain dull everyday life. Um, not always, and I think not in most cases. Armistead Maupin, for instance, writes about gay men who don't live much like I do, being in California, but "Sure of You" isn't particularly titillating or thrilling, it's just about a man living with HIV-- his books are also pretty popular with other people than gay men, too. There are quite a few anthologies of sci-fi stories (whose titles I can't remember cause they're all along the lines of "The X Anthology of Gay and Lesbian Science Fiction), which, while they contain some titillating stuff, also contain thought-provoking sci-fi. Yesterday night I taped "The Wedding Banquet," which is again not a terribly titillating or thrilling story, just about a Chinese man trying to reconcile his homosexuality with his parents' desire for grandchildren; there are documentaries about gay life in the Fifties which are also interesting. Anyway, what I'm saying is that if you go past the porn, there's a lot of writing and film about how different sorts of gay men live. > How are the majority of gay men going to react >to being asked about the intricate details of their daily personal by those >white middle class women that Neil was talking about? Depends on the gay man :-). And the white middle class woman :-). > >>And on this subject I haven't enough knowledge to comment > > >But there are ways of finding out if you want to... > >I think Tom might object :-) Your partner, I assume :-)? Oh, fair enough then... Shane "The light that brings pain came from those rocks. I saw movement there. When night comes we will circle that place and destroy them that would harm us." --Chel 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] reasons
by Shane Little 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Lisa wrote: > Neil Faulkner wrote: > > >Politics is the process of managing the systems of control within a social > >unit, micro or macro, through the dynamic struggle for access to the means > >of regulation. > > Now I have this sudden urge to go read a PWP... That's right, don't go straining your brain here :). Shane "It has a perverse kind of logic to it. Our meeting is the most unlikely happening I could imagine, therefore we meet. Surprise seems inappropriate somehow." --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] Homophobia
by Shane Little 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Annie wrote: > In a message dated 3/26/01 5:40:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, kat(a)foobox.net > writes: > > << Running around saying Christianity is sick is another matter completely. > >> > > Well, personally, I fail to see how it is ANY different than running around > saying that homosexuality is morally wrong. Look at the words used. "Morally wrong" refers to a personal code of ethics, which the other person may or may not agree with. "Sick" suggests that you are saying the other person is somehow mentally damaged. It's all in the words. One is MY opinion and the other > is YOUR opinion. I could just as easily quote your own words back at you. > Would you have me lie? Pretend to be something I'm not? Pretend to feel > something different than I feel? No? Yes? Or is it really okay with you > (obviously it *isn't*) for me to air my personal feelings about your religion > on a huge mailing list? No? Then maybe I don't want *you* to air your > personal feelings about my lifestyle, by the same token. Get it? Actually, I think you're misjudging Kathryn here. A lot of people on this lyst _have_ been airing their personal feelings about Christianity, pro, con and in-between, and she hasn't come in hysterically shrieking at them to stop it. You, though, are coming across as someone who can dish it out but can't take it. If you know what I mean. And if I can quote something you yourself keep saying: people aren't going to stop airing their views about sexuality, homo or hetero. You'll just have to get used to it. Shane Largo: Why do I feel as if I'm on trial here? Avon: Why do I feel as if you should be? 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] reasons
by Fiona Moore 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

>From: Lisa Williams <lcw(a)dallas.net> >>No, but they're not gay. > >Your personal interpretation of the characters has been duly noted. Actually, since I put in a lot of work on this :), I feel obliged to point out that there's more than just personal interpretation at issue here. Last month Steve, Betty and I spent a long time hashing out the evidence from canon with regard to the principal characters' sexual orientations, and came up with a solid straight in all cases (except Blake, and with him the balance of evidence was for straight--and the only reason for the doubt was because of the fact that the way the series was written in Series 1 and 2 left much less room for sexual themes than later on). Now, before you go accusing me of being anti-slash and Puritanical, I have to say that nobody on that particular thread, least of all me, was saying that people therefore shouldn't write slash-- just that there *is* evidence from canon for the characters' sexual orientations, they're not just blank slates. If you want to read the argument, I suggest you look in the archive under "Fiona+Betty+slash" or something similar. I can hash it all out again but I think it might bore people. 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

3 2

Re: [B7L] Biology, culture and the crush
by Fiona Moore 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

>From: Bizarro7(a)aol.com >In a message dated 3/26/01 5:14:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, >stephend999(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: > ><< Is it ? I had better tread carefully here but I would > have thought that the feelings one has for Avon, or > whoever, who we know are fictional characters are > going to be different to the feelings we have for our > significant others. Assuming that identical > physiolgical changes occur when someone undergoing a > crush sees Avon and when someone who is in love with a > real person sees their beloved we are, none the less, > identifying two discrete phenomenon. >> > >The *relationship* we have with our significant others is quite different, if >only because we have access to them in the real world. The mechanism that >makes us fall in love or develop a crush on them at the beginning of the >process is identical. But occurs within a much different social context. To take a parallell example, I think what Steven's saying is that the adrenaline rush one feels at the beginning of a race is exactly the same, biologically, as the adrenaline rush one feels if one is attacked in a dark alley. But this does not mean that running a race is the same thing as being attacked. >The crush on the TV character is "safe" in our >society's context because there is no contact and no realistic expectation >that the relationship can ever be anything but a fantasy. See elsewhere, on "stalking." And outside the lunatic fringe-- why do people go to cons, if not to have contact with their idols? >It seems reasonable >to assume that the chemical process that triggers this leverence process was >developed to help us form lasting relationships and allow our offspring a >better chance for survival and continuance of our genes, because both of the >parents might still be together, protecting and providing for the offspring, >a few years later. Once again, Leah, I'd like to know where you're getting all this. In your last post I asked you if you could cite references (ideally with dates) to support your position; you haven't, and I'd like to ask again if you can back up your position with reference to extant studies. Without references, we have no idea whether you are speaking based on a body of scientific evidence, tested and substantiated, or whether you are just making it all up. >There would be no logical genetic justification for a 'separate' crush >mechanism on an unattainable potential mate. Plenty of justifications, though, from the meme theory and the anthropological studies you disparaged in your last post on this subject. Even the hardest of biological scientists these days admit that there's more to a human being than just self-replicating DNA. 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

3 4

RE: [B7L] reasons
by Louise Rutter 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Me, then Shane: >>But to continue this analogy, since Muslims cannot agree amongst themselves >>what their religion entails, then isn't whatever I write going to be >>considered wrong by somebody? And since I cannot write about it at all >>without causing someone to object, should that take away my right to write >>it? >No, definitely not! But it does say to me that if you're going to write >about Muslims, you should learn a bit about what the different groups are, >and make sure that the descriptions you've got for them are right for the >group you're writing about. Or to make the decision to throw all that >information to one side, if you feel the story justifies it. But you should >have the information to begin with. And this is where the problem occurs. I don't currently have any close gay friends, having lost track of the ones I knew at college. So how am I supposed to find out? Gay literature, even that written by gay men, is itself likely to be an unreliable source since it will presumably also be designed to titillate and/or be interesting and exciting rather than explain dull everyday life. How are the majority of gay men going to react to being asked about the intricate details of their daily personal by those white middle class women that Neil was talking about? >>>What I meant is that it's a very different >>>thing to share your house and life with a man than with a woman, and some >>>of these differences are really very subtle. >>And on this subject I haven't enough knowledge to comment >But there are ways of finding out if you want to... I think Tom might object :-) Louise

2 1

Re: [B7L] "That" issue
by Tavia 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

Ellynne wrote: >And then there's all that "Give me liberty or give me death" >stuff that I couldn't help absorbing as a kid (hey, it was in >the air). The feeling that those things need to be said. Indeed. I don't think anyone was trying to seriously suggest that you don't have the right to express your opinion. However, firmly held beliefs of whatever nature can upset people whose own firmly held beliefs are called into question -- and upset people don't make the best discussants. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Homophobia
by Ashton7＠aol.com 27 Mar '01

27 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/26/01 5:40:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, kat(a)foobox.net writes: << Running around saying Christianity is sick is another matter completely. >> Well, personally, I fail to see how it is ANY different than running around saying that homosexuality is morally wrong. One is MY opinion and the other is YOUR opinion. I could just as easily quote your own words back at you. Would you have me lie? Pretend to be something I'm not? Pretend to feel something different than I feel? No? Yes? Or is it really okay with you (obviously it *isn't*) for me to air my personal feelings about your religion on a huge mailing list? No? Then maybe I don't want *you* to air your personal feelings about my lifestyle, by the same token. Get it? Annie

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