Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

RE: [B7L] Plea to Leah and Shane
by Louise Rutter 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

Courtney wrote: >Probably because Leah is trying to defend a position that doesn't need >defending. Slash discussions on lysator have NEVER been productive. Haven't >we learned that yet? Fortunately, the interesting, civilised, informational discussions between Fiona and Betty have proven otherwise. It is perfectly possible to hold a sensible discussion between slash-believers and non-believers without resorting to personal name-calling. Louise

1 0

Re: Hey Steve
by Steve Rogerson 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

Leah asked: "Can you post an accurate listing of all the upcoming B7 Conventions in the UK? I have a feeling my list is a bit incomplete" Apart from Redemption 03 (details below) there is no B7 convention as such, but Eclectic from 25-27 May in Leicester has Gareth Thomas and Jacqueline Pearce as guests. The web address is: http://www.eclectic21.co.uk/ -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Aphrodite Blues
by Steve Rogerson 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

A few of us went to see Aphrodite Blues, starring Jacqueline Pearce, yesterday. For a brief review, and some pix, go to: http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson/aphro.html -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] Species
by Deborah Day 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

1 0

Re: [B7L] Plea to Leah and Shane
by Deborah Day 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- >> I know this may sound stupid, but what is killfiling? I just delete >> things I can't be bothered to read right through, or am not >> following the thread of. > >Killfiling is when you have your mailreader do that deleting for you, >based on the sender or the subject line or something. That way you >don't even have to see the annoying posts. > But does it work on the digest version? Debbie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Species
by Ellynne G. 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 15:22:48 -0500 "Dana Shilling" <dshilling(a)worldnet.att.net> writes: > Are Auronar Homo auronae or Homo sapiens var. auronae? > The latter. It makes for better potential plot material. Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Preferred expletives
by Ellynne G. 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

On Sat, 10 Mar 2001 11:22:56 -0000 "Deborah Day" <d.day(a)thefreeinternet.co.uk> writes: > This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, > a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Personally I always thought Damn was better - you can spit it out > and it > goes with a bashed finger, or shutting the front door with the key > inside, > that sort of thing (I believe the amount of time between shutting > the door > and realising you don't have the key is a damnosecond). It relieves > feeling > without being offensive. > Actually, I thought d--n and h--l were really appropriate in the B7 universe because, well, look around. A fair number of the characters could have made a case for being the verb and living in the noun. Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

1 0

Hey, Steve...
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

Can you post an accurate listing of all the upcoming B7 Conventions in the UK? I have a feeling my list is a bit incomplete, and I figure if anyone would know, it would be you. Thanks! Leah

1 0

Re: slash (still getting shorter!)
by Betty Ragan 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

> > Both sets of definitions are, I think, valid, but it can get confusing > > when you're using one and I'm using the other. :) > > Actually, I've read your definitions back three times and I think in the end > that they are the same thing, just differently expressed. So I withdraw any > suggestions about arguing at cross-purposes :). Hmm, but if we don't agree that those definitions are the same, *are* we arguing at cross-purposes? :) > "Truce" proposal: Let's both acknowledge that : a) speculation is a > wonderful thing :), b) the series was written according to > conventions which (unfortunately? perhaps...) precluded > relationships between the principals... [LOL!] OK, OK, I admit I was getting a little overexcitable, there. Truce happily accepted. > So on B7, one can have one's cake and eat it-- one can > have the possibility of a relationship without the actuality. Actually, I very much like that way of putting it. > > Taking the "adopt a hypothesis and see if you can make it > > fit" approach I mentioned in another post, though, I don't think the > > lack of that sort of physicality (or even "conventionally accepted > > subsitutes") renders the idea untenable. Lots of explanations are > > possible (I, personally, favor "Avon is doing his damndest *not* to > > respond to Blake that way." :)). But that *is* a different mode of > > discourse from the argument-from-canon. [small snip] > I hate to say this, though, but I'm a bit confused as to what your > interpretation of the (hypothetical) relationship is-- a while ago I > thought you were saying that Avon was pursuing Blake, but your last > paragraph suggests it's the other way around. Just a request for > clarification, btw, and totally a side topic... Oh, well, to begin with, I must admit that I've kind of been playing devil's advocate here a bit, rather than trying to put forward a coherent alternative view of the relationship. But if you want to hear *my* take on it, sure. To begin with, the version-in-Betty's-head of the relationship (my personal subcanon, if you will) includes an Avon who is deeply attracted to Blake, on an *emotional* level, with an additional attraction on a sexual level being take-it-or-leave-it possible. (Note: if you wanna know where I get the emotional thing from, go browse the archives. I hashed it out pretty thoroughly with Carol a few months ago and I'm *definitely* not going through it again! :)) I also think that Avon deeply resents his own feelings for Blake, because he knows Blake is bad news as far as his own personal prospects for survival go. So, the way I figure it, if you posit that, yes, there *is* a sexual attraction as well, Avon probably feels the same way about it as he does about the emotional aspects. If it's *there*, he's fighting it. Maybe he *is* physically attracted to Blake, and is trying not to let Blake know it, or is trying to pretend to himself that he isn't. (Blake's feelings about Avon, now, I'm still kind of trying to figure out...) Totally speculative, of course, but I kind of like it, and it *does* point to a possible explanation for... Well, a number of the "negative evidence" things you've objected to, I think. > > Nah, no hate involved. But I *still* don't see any good evidence for > > Blake being heterosexual. :) > > And I see none for him being bisexual :). Me either. Blake's a cypher. Or a blank screen upon which to project as you like. :) > :), and true. However, my definition of contracanonical is something that > contradicts the canon in some way. So once again, if we can't have a > relationship within the series canon because of the format of the series, > then to write in a relationship does strike me as something of a > contradiction of canon. Hope that clears this up. Yeah. I'd still say it mixes production-reality and fictional-universe levels in a way that's not "playing the game," but then, there's no reason why you should feel compelled to play. > Having hashed out the relative status of B/A slash > with regard to canon, onscreen evidence, dramatic convention, visual grammar > and entertainment value, shall we go for dinner? <offers arm-- in a totally > nonsexual way, of course :)> [LOL!] You like Chinese? :) -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

3 2

Blake's 7 Webring at blakes7.org.....
by Peter Borg 11 Mar '01

11 Mar '01

.....is now open for business again! The Webring at blakes7.org has been down for a while, thanks to very sudden removal of hosting, but I've managed to get the site back up and running (this took a partial re-write as all the script code was on the original server and the system owner just removed it without telling me rather than give me a copy - no backup either). I've also trawled through all 102 membership entries, and it's down to 16 members that were actually valid, got the panel working on their page, and hung on through the transition. I now have direct command line access to the system that runs the B7 Webring at blakes7.org, and as it's one of only two projects outside of normal life and work that I'm working on, it gets far more attention now than it ever did before! Anyone who has an active site *should* be able to get access to their account in the usual way to make modifications. If you're unsure or have forgotten your password, drop me a mail. Thanks to all those that hung on! Peter. http://www.blakes7.org/webring

1 0

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