Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

Re: Eighties drama [was Re: [B7L] Thatcher v Servalan]
by J MacQueen 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

>From: Mistral <mistral(a)centurytel.net> >Una McCormack wrote: > > Thought I'd keep you all on your toes. >Makes it awfully difficult to waddle, though. Practice, Mistral. It makes perfect, remember? <grin> Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Recent slash discussions etc
by Tavia 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Cheryl wrote: >As for porn/slash - ... my stand in these >areas are more along >the lines of...We have kiddies out there people, >impressionable youths and sensitive adults (which by >the way I am not) Cheryl, I fear you've probably inadvertently tripped a Tavian rant wire here. Based on personal observations only, the demographics of the B7 fan population appear to be heavily skewed towards people who saw the show when it was first aired in their country of residence, ie mostly 30s--40s. I know that there are a few children who have been introduced to B7 by fannish parents, but they'd form a tiny minority. >and if this genre is introduced via >fan fiction etc, to a show which has no previous >mention or implications in this area, then the stories >(IMO)should not be interspersed with general B7 >material and any illustrations of the characters >should not show any realistic reproductions of the >faces of the actors involved. The show itself is violent, in virtually every episode we see death, torture, massacre &c. I'd say that once or twice there's a strong implication of behind-the-scenes rape. The 'heroes' themselves include murderers, thieves &c. and Blake is accused of paedophilia. So-called 'gen' material in 100% genzines commonly includes a degree of violence that (whilst in keeping with the show) might shock young children. It seems to me that the depiction of sexual relationships of whatever nature is hardly any *less* suitable for children than the depiction of, say, torture. (In either case, one might like to consult the sensibilities of the individual child and his/her parents, the age in question, the degree of explicitness of the material &c&c.) A blanket ban on mixing any adult material with gen material tends to result in fanzines that are (to my mind) rather dull -- either masses and masses of Our Heroes running round in corridors blowing things up, or masses and masses of erotica in the style insert tab X into slot Y. Tavia (who would like to declare a clear conflict of interest as the editor and publisher of a mixed zine, ttba: http://www.viragene.com/ )

4 3

1985
by Ellynne G. 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 21:22:19 -0000 "Fiona Moore" <nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk> writes: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Una McCormack <una(a)qresearch.org.uk> > > > Do you see the BBC's gradual dropping of all science fiction > programming > > throughout the 1980s as part of a general trend in becoming more > reactionary? > > It's an interesting suggestion, certainly. > > I was recently reminiscing about the great SF of yore with a friend > and we > noticed that all the good shows (with one or two exceptions) seem to > have > either ended or gotten really rubbish round about 1985. What, not 1984? Seriously, though, shows seem to go in cycles. The first good SF show in a long time comes along, gathers lots of attention (partly for being 'new' and 'different'), lots of inferior imitations (who never grasp the 'new' and 'different' part) abound, along with a few original ideas that have been looking for funding for years but were spurned under the theory nobody would watch them (see 'new' and 'different' again, which, in TVese, is 'no evidence anyone was watching this last year'). The new ones also make money. More imitation is sparked. Some of the imitators lose money. Producers decide to play it safe by sticking more closely to the already successful formulas. Soon, everyone is convinced they have seen every storyline you can possibly do for an SF show. Their eyes glaze over as soon as one come up (one could argue the same for the writers, come to think of it). Producers abandon their recycled (well, more like smelly compost) scripts, saying "SF doesn't sell." 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:slash
by Steve Rogerson 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Fiona quoted me thus: and there is just as much evidence for > homosexual as there is for > heterosexual relationships between the > characters, for some reason missing out the last few words of the sentence, which said: "that is very little with some hints". This was important, because what I am saying here was that there was little to base sexual interpretations on and so when writing about this subject we almost have a clean sheet. Fiona said: "There is some evidence for heterosexual relationships/feelings/leanings between some of the principal characters on B7. There is no evidence of homosexual ones for these characters." This is just a matter of interpretation, on what you see in their interactions. You later suggest Bounty and Hostage as showing examples of Blake's heterosexuality, but I don't see that. In Bounty he made no significant response to Tyce's obvious attraction to him and the kiss with Inga in Hostage can be interpreted in many ways - she's family after all. Your point about the interviews with the characters and creators only shows that there was no subtext intended not that it didn't exist unintentionally. But again, there is so little evidence of sexual preferences that we really do have very much a clean sheet and so can go wherever we wish. Fiona quoted me: > We know Avon is > attracted to women, but that doesn't mean he > isn't also attracted to men. and responded: "Again, we see no evidence of this." Again open to interpretation, but even if true it doesn't mean he doesn't feel such attractions. Many bisexual people hide one side of their sexuality. Fiona said: "in "Rescue," we get the scene where Dorian gives Avon a decidedly "cruisy" look, after making a remark about his fondness for indulging any pleasure, to which Avon responds with "you really are insane, aren't you?" A perfect opportunity for Avon to show his colours-- and what he shows is quite the opposite." It could also mean that Avon doesn't fancy Dorian. If a man is homosexual it doesn't mean he fancies all men in the same way that a heterosexual man doesn't fancy all women. Fiona said about Gan, Tarrant and Vila: "All of whom actually make declarations at various times in the series supporting their heterosexuality." Do they, when? They show at various times that they fancy women, but that cannot be said as a declaration of heterosexuality unless they also say they don't fancy men. Being attracted to women makes no statement either way about whether they are also attracted to men. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption: The Blake's 7 and Babylon 5 convention 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent http://www.smof.com/redemption

6 11

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Ellynne G. 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

On Tue, 6 Mar 2001 10:50:19 +0000 (GMT) Iain Coleman <ijc(a)bas.ac.uk> writes: > > > > > > > I find this result frankly incredible. Can you direct me to this > > > > article? > > You seem unclear about what the domain .ac.uk indicates. > > You know, a single honest-to-God citation would have been a lot > shorter, > and a lot more useful. > OK, OK, aside from this subject being becoming increasingly painful everytime I feel I should post something on it, I was trying to get around one of my own, little internet rules. The article in question was in the local paper. That's why I'm not giving it and that's why I made a (fairly miserable) effort to bluff/work around it. I know, I know, I'm probably being moderately neurotic on this issue, but it makes me queesy to come flat out on a publically archived list and say "I live here." So, believe I quoted correctly or not. Believe I had it in context or not. It's not coming. Oh, and I did do some background research, like I said, on the person quoted (and on a few other subjects, just to refresh my memory) but not quite as obsessive compulsive as stated. BTW, if it makes you feel better, the reference you felt should be thrown across the room with great force was from an interview of Park Dietz, a prominent forensic psychiatrist (and, yes, I know prominent is not synonymous with being right), in an article titled "Dancing with Devils" from the May/June 1999 issue of Psychology Today (which, whatever its virtues, is not JAMA, not something from NIMH, and not the Surgeon General's office, I know). Touch of irony. I felt a twinge of guilt for citing him since, despite his strong feelings on mixing sex and violence in the media, he's really more in your camp on most of this issue. I know there are places where the rules are different than the U.S. I've lived in one. It was a place I love, with people I love, people I would give every last drop of blood I have to help. And I learned there to see a lot of problems in the U.S. in ways I never had before - to question underlying cultural assumptions. But there were also things I saw and learned about that just hurt. I know what happens to a sick woman abandoned by her family and picked up by a beggar gang. I know about debt slavery and how it plays a part in supplying brothels with workers - just young girls. And just writing this makes me sick, as if I'm lying about these people, as if I wrote about Columbine and made out that it was the only face America has. I wish I could fill this up with the reality, but I'm trying to stick with the topic, and the relevant topic is a small sliver of what that country is. Let me just say, if ever catch anyone using this as an argument to rip on these people, I'll come over and bop you one. I'll buy rottweilers just to let them loose in your yard. I'll sneak time release eau de skunk into your shoes right before the biggest presentation of your life. Am I clear on this? Yes, porn was common. There were adds for videos and movies (and other things) all over the place. Short of going around with your eyes closed and bumping into things, they were impossible to avoid. So, I realized one day, when one set of posters came down and another came up, it was never the same girl twice. You wonder what happens to them. AIDS is supposed to be pretty common in that industry. Some American nurses I knew told me about the difficulties they went through discarding needles. People finding them in the trash would resell them. So, I was understandably scared for a friend whose family was in debt and who were having business problems, just to mention it. Frankly, the people I've run into in the States who are into it (and, sure, we're talking mostly the addicts who'll peruse it in public places, so, you might argue, high profile but not the norm) haven't done anything to change my mind. Anyhow, that's what porn means to me. It means selling people, it means destroying their lives to make a profit, it means grinding up teenage girls who are nothing more than children, it means telling people this kind of buying and selling is OK. It's like selling blood. Ob. B7: Blake's bleeding heart: fanatic or not? I'm not casting a vote, tonight. Thanks. 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

Eighties drama [was Re: [B7L] Thatcher v Servalan]
by Harriet Monkhouse 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

Una said: >I always feel 'Edge' stands out as an exceptional drama > in the 1980s, when everything else is, frankly, a bit rubbish.) But... But.... Star Cops... (Glad to know you're OK, by the way, I was getting alarmed by your failure to respond to the mention of certain furry things with four limbs.) Jarriet

3 2

Re: Re [B7L] PWP (porn? what porn?)
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 9:13:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << I'd be interested to know why you felt the urge to say that, and especially in response to me, because I have never said that I consider sex to be 'nasty' and deserving of censure, and I have never said that because I do not believe it. You're jumping to conclusions and imbuing me with beliefs I simply do not hold.<< Neil, you simply *have* to stop taking so many statements made in a public list debate as if they were personally directed toward you. The topic is porn. My comment was rather obviously directed toward the subject matter. No personal accusation was directed toward you, and no beliefs were attributed to you. Perhaps the sensitive nature of the subject is causing your reaction. >> Where shall I put the gold star on your loose leaf paper?<< >Several places spring to mind, none of them on my loose leaf paper.< Why, Neil! I do believe you've made a remark which some more sensitive souls would interpret as 'pornographic.' >>No, I didn't take it that way, as I thought I had clarified earlier. Yes, most human activity is 'unnatural' (which I pointed out myself). But from recognition of that there arises a body of opinion that promotes the 'natural' as superior and stakes a claim to superiority through pursuit of the 'natural'. << You are attributing a value judgement on the word 'natural' in this topic of discussion which does not exist. It was a mistake to assume that it was meant in a negative fashion, since that was not the intent in the context of the discussion. It was not a mistake to use it. >> Therefore, to say that "If you stop having sex of any kind, you are not behaving in a natural fashion" you run the risk of being associated with this elitist position (whether you personally subscribe to it or not) and hence arousing the ire of those who might feel they have been denigrated for behaving in this particular 'natural' fashion.<< I understand your sensitivity on this issue, Neil, and I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable about a percieved value judgement on your lifestyle choice. It gives one perspective into the viewpoint of the gay individual under similar circumstances, doesn't it? There is an elite body of the population that labels them as 'unnatural' in a purely and deliberately negative context, and yet all sorts of biological examples can be cited to argue the 'naturalness' of their behavior. I apologize for inadvertantly making you feel uncomfortable. >>Once again you seem to be either going off at a tangent or making very rash assumptions about my own personal beliefs. I have never suggested that either sex or pornography are unnatural (in the derogatory sense) or evil, and I'm not sure anyone else on the Lyst has said that outright either. So why bandy these terms around in the first place?<< Neil, this is a public discussion. Not every statement made relates directly to your response, or is directed toward you personally. Some of it is directed toward the arguments on this same topic by other individuals, inspired by issues you or I have raised. It's not all about you. Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: slash (not much shorter) (frivolousness alert)
by J MacQueen 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

>From: "Dana Shilling" <dshilling(a)worldnet.att.net> > > even Inspector Morse, rather knocks that one out of the window. >I'm beginning to think that the major requisite for slashing a domain is >N hot guys greater than or equal to 2, <insert sound effect of brain in meltdown> I'm sorry, I've just been trying to apply the description "hot" to the televised Morse and Lewis. It doesn't seem to work for me. I'll leave now, I think, because I think that movement I saw was Neil getting out the anti-thread hijacker apparatus... Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Slash
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 7:40:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net writes: << Pornography is not sex, >> Perhaps you and kingpin merely need to expand your statement to clarify what was really meant; that pornography is not the *act* of sex. Why yes, that *is* bloody obvious. But that was never said once, and the difference between the two statements is quite profound. Leah

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Dressing
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 07 Mar '01

07 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/6/01 4:39:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, 101637.2064(a)compuserve.com writes: << Kerril's mother belonged to the "wear your best underwear in case you're knocked down and killed in a traffic accident" school. Kerril suddenly remembered this when she changed into the pale green number (and matching clean underwear). >> LOL!!! What a delightful idea. Maybe it's actually a 'Delta' thing, and they never take their clothes off at nookie-time. Leah

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