Blakes7 May 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

84 participants
897 discussions

Re: Space Fall
by Ellynne G. 21 May '01

21 May '01

OK, so I'm getting the digest now and the 'write' section of my e-mail doesn't like it. I'll get the hang of it sooner or later. Leylan's character: I think he represents the full tragedy of what the Federation can do to the good - or potentially good - people under its control. He _knows_ what's right and he's willing to make some gestures towards it, but with a great sense of futility. He gives Jenna some protection when he tells Raiker to be discreet. I gather Raiker wasn't big on _asking_ or, at any rate, listening when he was told no. But stop him entirely? This is the way the system works. This is what men like Raiker expect. What use is it to fight it? He gives Raiker authority when they're under attack. Perhaps he was caving into fear or just desperate for a plan. I _don't_ think he'd thought it through to the logical end. I did think he accepted responsibility for the consequences. But that was part of the same attitude. It's not the full scale, heated outrage we might expect from someone who had no reason to expect a sane officer would do this (or who knows that no sane officer serving under him would think he could do this and get away with it). It's more the resignation of a man who knows he should have seen it because it was what Raiker would do - and who knows the only option to hold Raiker responsible is to admit his own complicity and be punished right along with him. Then, when the chance comes to send the merry trio over, I think he OKs it partly because it's the only way he can avoid executing them (and this is the _captain_). At the end, I think he was planning to take as much of the blame as he could to help spare the younger officer. Arguing that he did his best and lost (all true) doesn't cross his mind, not as a potentially winning argument. So, I see him as a potentially good man who may not like the evils he sees but considers himself powerless to oppose them in more than very small ways. He may not like the status quo or the corruption but he sees himself as powerless to do anything about it - an attitude so strong it persists even when he has a postition of power where he _could_ do something. 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.

4 4

Re: [B7L] New frame captures
by J MacQueen 21 May '01

21 May '01

>From: Mistral <mistral(a)centurytel.net> ><sniff> My Dumpling is not filler. He is the point of the episode. Indeed. The need to explain things to him means he is the pivot, the very fulcrum upon which the plot turns, bends, whatever. Right, Mistral, Sally, Harriet? >This certain person is, well, pleased at the least. Thank you, Lisa. Take an elocution lesson from Avon in Space Fall. "Content", pronounced according to the exemplar just mentioned, is probably the word you are looking for <smile> Regards Joanne Obviously, I haven't read them all -- the gap between now and death is narrow... --Helen Elliott, The Weekend Australian, 5-6 May 2001 _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

OT Re: When "Animals" camouflage and other Stuff
by Rita d' Orac 21 May '01

21 May '01

"Jenny Kaye" jennycat55(a)hotmail.com wrote: > SLASHER Rita d' Orac wrote: Wrong - I'm not a slasher > > > "Jenny Kaye": > > > > > > > SLASHER Rita d' Orac wrote: > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > No, I'm right. Wrong - I'm not a slasher > > >By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess what... > > >"I'm not a slasher!" > > No it doesn't. You're on Freedom City, therefore by definition you are a > SLASHER. Wrong - I'm not a slasher. As explained to you previously, one is able to be on Freedom City without being a slasher. Do pay attention! > There's this guy in a pub and he says, "I'm really pissed off." And the > barman asks, "Why?" > "Look," says the man, "someone who buys a pint of milk and takes it home, > that doesn't make him a milkman, does it?" > The barman scratched his head, "No, I suppose not." > "And what if someone put a Christmas card through a friends letter box to > save money on a stamp, that wouldn't make his a Postman would it?" > "No," said the barman. > "I shagged one sheep...." > > The man's a sheepshagger, you're a Slasher. Get used to it. Wrong - I'm not a slasher. Get used to it. > > > > > >Subject: [B7L] Re: When "Animals" camouflage and other Stuff > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenny wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >{huuuge snip} > > > > > > > > She has made this "huuuge snip" because she doesn't want to > >> > >discuss most of the issues I have brought up. > > >No, you are wrong: > > No, I'm not. Yes you are. > > > Snip was made because I had no comment to make on any > > >thing you wrote above the snip > > See? Told you. "No comment" means just what it says. Did your primary school not teach you basic English comprehension Jenny? > > >- if you or anyone else wants to see that part of your message, just > > >look in the archive. > > I just have done. But if you are not going to talk about it... No, I am not. If I wanted to comment on any of your posts or any other parts of this post, I would have done so. "I had no comment to make" means just what it says. > > > > > > > Everyone on Freedom > > > > > > > City is by definition a slasher, but on this lyst there are > > > >people who are not. It's those people that are > > > > > > > my concern, the ones you are after. It's petty, it's small > minded, but I suppose it's power of some kind. > > > > > >{snipped rest of message} > > Again, she snipped the rest of this message because she wants to avoid > answering > the issues. That better for you? The rest of the message was snipped because I had no comment to make on any thing you wrote below that the snip. Thought that went without saying, but I guess I overestimated your powers of comprehension once again. My apologies for that. > > > > > >Actually no - I'm not a slasher, but I am a member of Freedom City. > > > > > > > > Then by definition you are a SLASHER. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess > > >what... "I'm not a slasher!" > > No. It means you are a Slasher in denial! What the hell are you doing on > Freedom City if you don't want to read Slash? I don't read slash. I don't write slash. There are plenty of discussion threads on Freedom City that are not slash stories. I am quite capable of distinguishing slash from non slash and selecting what I do and do not wish to read. I would imagine it is quite difficult to be a slasher (in denial or otherwise) if you don't read or write slash. > > > > > >If I see something on that list that I don't want to read, I > >> > >don't read it. > > > > > > > > Freedom City is a SLASHER lyst. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: It is not. > > Yes it bloody is. No, you are wrong: It is not. > Check archives for Tiger's earlier message > > >which explains this for you. > > She's talking crap. No, you are wrong: She is not. > > > > > > Apart from a few misdirected email's that weren't meant for the > list, I don't recall having come across any posts that attacked > >> >> > individuals viewpoints the way I've seen them attacked here - such > behaviour is not tolerated by the list's administrator. > > > > > > > > That is true. Debate on Freedom City is stifled. That "misdirected > email" comment though is interesting. On the surface it seems Freedom City > has a relaxed atmosphere, but behind people's backs they are all sniping at > each other. See? > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > No, I'm right. No, you are wrong. > > > > Debate is not stifled > > Yes it is. You've just stated so yourself. You stated that some people are > having offlist conversations where they snipe at other people. If they can't > say what they want in the open then debate is stifled. > No, I did not state that it is. Please take the time to read my posts before commenting on them. I stated that, as in all mailing lists, posts are made to the list that were not intended for that list. It happens. People make mistakes when sending email. They don't mean it. They are free to discuss anyone or anything they want to off that list. That is know as conversation and it takes place all over the world via different media for different purposes. I have no interest in conversations list members have outside the list. Any accidental "overhearing" via stray emails is simply inadvertent eavesdropping and as such, of no interest to me in respect of the topics of discussion on the list. > and I have no interest in > > >commenting > > >on (or even reading) messages accidentally sent to the list. > > Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make them go away, you know? I have no wish to deny people the opportunity to converse offlist. > > > There is a clearly defined policy for what to do if/when this happens. > > Yes. Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Freedom City is like > a duck. It's still on the surface but underneath people are paddling > vitriolic emails to each other like mad. You can ignore if it you like, but > it doesn't mean it isn't happening. No, it is the same as for any conversation one accidentally eavesdrops on i.e. such conversation is to be ignored. The list policy simply puts into words common practice within the western world. > > > > > > What I have enjoyed on that list is reading the many > > > > > >different opinions of people on several aspects of B7 that I might > > > > > not otherwise have had an opportunity to listen to or discuss (I am > > >mostly an active lurker). > > > > > > > > She is now stating that there is debate on Freedom City which > > >contradicts what she has previously stated. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > No, I am right. No, you are wrong. > I never stated that there wasn't debate on the list - > > >you did - and I therefore cannot have contradicted myself. > > Yes you have! You stated in your previous email that the moderator actively > controls the conversations on the list. Therefore nothing the moderator > doesn't want on the list is going to be on there. Then you say that it > allows for a free exchange of opinion! The moderator quite properly monitors all topics to ensure they are on topic. The moderator is thus doing the job of a moderator. However, your comments above have reminded me that our conversation is in fact off topic. In other words, our discussion is not about Blake's 7. As such, the rules of this list require us to take this conversation offlist. I will reply to any further reply of yours to jennycat55(a)hotmail.com (I have copied this reply to your address) so please feel free to continue this conversation with me by sending your replies to either rita(a)vilaworld.com or rita_de_orac(a)yahoo.co.uk - It would be a shame to stop our discussion just because we are no longer able to carry it on in this mailing list. > > > To clarify for you there is plenty of debate on that list. > > Only under the surface and that consists of constant sniping at one another. > Or else it's the sort of debate that includes a lot of "IMO"s. Actually, no. Again, I suggest that you try being a member of that list so that you can comment on in knowledgably rather than in blind prejudice. If it frightens you to stay on it, you can of course remove yourself from the list once you have gained the knowledge you require. > > > > I suggest that you try being a member of that list before you knock > it. > > > > > > > > Even I wouldn't want to spend too much time on Freedom City. The > programming techniques being used there are extremely powerful. > > > > > >Scared of being proved wrong? > > No, scared of being turned into a programmed psychopath:-) If that happens to you, I promise to buy a hat and eat it... > > > > > >There are several issues that I agree with you and > > >Fiona/Shane/Whoever > > > > on, > > > > > > > > Smart. You can see that what Fiona (an anthropologist) Shane > > > (a > gay male) and I (???) are saying, come down basically to the > > > same > thing, SLASH is a dangerous conditioning device. > > > > > >No, I have already made my views clear to this list (check the archive > > You have made your views clear concerning this lysts use of mind control > techniques? When? No, I have made clear my views on the issues you raised. As stated in my last message, I do not agree with you that this list uses mind control techniques. > > > > (check the archive > > > > if youcan be bothered, > > I'm not going to go round chasing shadows. If you've got anything to say on > the issue say it now. Unless you're scared. Are you? Scared? Me? Nah! - just too lazy to type stuff twice over if I don't need to. But since you asked, some my views are as follows: - I do not like slash. - I do not care whether anyone else likes slash. - I do believe that everyone who has watched Blake's 7 should feel free to discuss the programme if they want to. - I do not believe that any of the regular characters were gay. - I do believe that some of the on off characters were portrayed as possibly being gay. - Neither of the above statements influence my enjoyment of the programme in any way. I have lots of other views, but these are general and not related to B7. If an issues arises through discussion on this list or elsewhere, I'm quick to form a view on it... > > >or speak to Shane > > I don't know him! Well neither do I, other than in the context of the posts he made to this list! > > > or Fiona) > > She's not speaking to me! Is that just a comment, or are you expecting me to do something about this? I don't know Fiona other than in the context of this list (If she was at Redemption I may have met her, but I don't remember her), so it would be difficult for me to help you with this. > and you will see exactly which > > >issues I agree on. The archives (or any conversation you have with > either Shane or Fiona) will prove that I have never indicated in any way > that I believe slash is a dangerous conditioning device. > > So you have had conversations on lyst with Shane and Fiona about whether > Slash was or was not a dangerous conditioning device? Bullshit have you. No, I did not say that I had. That is the point. I have never had any discussions on that topic, which is why I suggested you look at the archive or ask people I had assumed you knew who were on the list to confirm this for you. The point of your looking at the archive was to confirm that no such discussion took place, therefore I could not have ever indicated to anyone my opinions on whether I believe slash is a conditioning device. > > > > I don't believe that it is. > > Saying that isn't good enough, provide some evidence. I have been on lists with and around people who are slash fans for several years. During that time, I have changed jobs 4 time and in before being accepted for each job I had (and passed) a medical examination. I was considered fit in every way. None of the 4 doctors concerned thought I had been conditioned in any way. My own doctor has seen me when I had tonsillitis and later when I had Bronchitis. She also did not believe I was under the influence of any conditioning. Since 5 professional doctors failed to see any evidence of conditioning during thorough examinations, this leads me to conclude that there isn't any conditioning to find. What evidence do you have that such conditioning exists? > > > > > >most > > > > > >of which I have debated offlist > > > > > > > > Why offlyst? Also, this person has never contacted *me* offlyst. > > > > > >By offlist, I simply mean face to face conversations held at various > > > >places I have had the good fortune to run into other B7 fans > > > > > >conventions, theatre trips, Beer & B7 meetings etc). > > Oh right. So you go on a theatre trip to see Gareth Thomas in "Whoops > Where's Me Trousers", then go to the bar afterwards and say to a fellow fan, > "Do you think Slash can be used as a dangerous conditioning device?" And > they say, "Dah, no." And you say, "Nor me." Not at all :) Have you never been in conversation with people offlist regarding B7? As I have stated several times, the "slash can be used as a dangerous conditioning device" topic has never come up. I'll be sure to bring it up at the next Beer & B7 meeting - come along and share your views! > Yeah, that really sound plausible, doesn't it? No, it doesn't - that's because people don't converse in that fashion. I thing you need to get out and about a bit more... > > > Of course I haven't contacted you offlist > > >- Is there any reason I should have done so? > > How the hell am I supposed to know that? Well, you seemed to believe that I should have contacted you offlist! I was just wondering why you thought I should have done so. > > > > > > at some time or another with several of my B7 friends (and that > > >includes my B7 friends who are "slashers") > > > > > > > > They are all SLASHERS. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > No. I'm right. No, you are wrong. > As most people on this list are already aware (and most > > >of them are by now probably quite rightly sniggering at your above > comment!), > > You don't have to actively write Slash to be a SLASHER. No, but you do have to either read or write it. I do neither. > > >a large number of my B7 friends are violently (and in some cases > > > > very publically) opposed to slash. > > Publicly perhaps. But the Slash reading is so heavily promoted that even > normal fanfic has developed a homoerotic subtext. They may not know they are > SLASHERS, but on some level they are. No, they are not. If they don't read slash and they don't write it, they are not slashers. On any level. Unless you believe ALL fans are slashers, in which case we appear to have two different definitions of what a slasher is. Applying normal dictionary rules, a slasher is one who slashes. To me, that would appear to be one who takes part in slashing. Since these friends I am referring to do not, ergo they are not slashers. I don't read much fanfic at all - perhaps that explains why I appear to have escaped being conditioned... > > > Others are not. I am perfectly happy to have friends > > >with views that oppose mine. > > Good, but as I have no idea what your views are, that tells me absolutely > nothing. Please refer to the list I gave you above. I trust that you now feel a little more enlightened? > > > > > >But our debating remains reasonably civilised because we > > > > > > >respect the fact that we are all B7 fans. > > > > > These debates never took place. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: They did. > > They didn't. No, you are wrong: They did. > Why would you presume to know in any case? - > > >you > > >weren't there!! > You can gain solid evidence of whether a discussion took place if you were there. You can gain reasonable evidence by obtaining the evidence of those who were present. Anything else, is pure conjecture. > I don't need to be there. I can see how you are arguing now. > > > > > > >Despite broadly agreeing with your views on some of the issues you > > >have raised, > > > > > > > > Notice she doesn't specify which views she broadly agrees with. > Another > > > > conditioning device. > > > > > >If you aren't able to work out from this which views we have in common, I > can spell them out for you. > > Thank you. That's OK - I was happy to do my little list above for you. I trust that you are able to decide which of my views you agree or disagree with without my help? > > > > > > > > > >I do not condone some of the tactics > > IS THAT IT?????? Yup - that's it! > > > > > Here's another old favourite. Attack the posting style, avoid the > > >issues. > > > > > >That is because it is in fact your posting style that I object to. I > have no issues to avoid. > > Then why are you avoiding them then? I am not avoiding any issues. Give me an issue, and I'll be happy not to avoid it for you. > > > > > >you/Fiona/Shane/Whoever > > > > > > > > Now look here. There is a subtle difference. She is trying to > > > > > > > suggest now that Fiona, Shane and myself and "whoever" else may be > saying the same thing are all the same person. This equates to basically > saying that this view is being held by only one person. Wrong. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: This equates to me not being clear about how > > > > many of these people you actually speak for. To clarify further > > > for > you, I refer to yourself AND Fiona AND Shane AND anyone else you care to > name that you feel you speak for. > > But you didn't put "AND" did you? You put a slash, rather appropriately. No I didn't. I clearly overestimated you comprehension skills and will make a concerted effort to accommodate your level of interpretation in future. Please bear with me while I do this. A slash has been in common usage in the English language for this purpose for a very long time. It has no other significance in this context. If I use the character "/" to mean anything else other than this common usage, I'll be sure to flag it for you so you don't misunderstand. > > > > I really don't care if you are all one person or several individuals. > > Why mention them then? I can't really speak for these people, so why are you > equating my views with theirs? I had thought that *you* claimed you did. My apologies if that is not the case - I don't mind carrying on our conversation with a group of people, but I'm equally happy to do it with just you since you appear to prefer that. > > > > . However also note that this letter > > >is a very sophisticated programming device. They've upped the ante. > > > >Yes, I am on record in the archives as stating that they are important > issues. > > Let's discuss them then. Yes, let's. Start with any issue you want to discuss Jenny... > > >That is why I used those very words. > > You use the words, but you then avoid the issue. I am judging you by your > actions not just your words. See above. I am not avoiding any issues at all. Any issue you care to discuss is fine with me... > As to whether your posting style is > > >the reason for people not debating with you - yes, I believe it is. > > But you would, wouldn't you. I've seen what's goes on here. No one debates > anything. They just go on about vegetables. Rather appropriately. I don't believe I've ever made a comment about vegetables on this list. If other people choose to discuss issues I'm not interested in discussing, that's fine by me. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that their discussions are invalid simply because I do not take part in them. > > > > My evidence for this is the many postings from people whom > > > you > have tagged as slashers saying that this is the case. > > They are SLASHERS. Why would they want to debate anything? ...and why do you assume that slashers have no inclination or ability to debate? This is not the case in my experience. > Again, look in the archives if you want to > > >confirm this. > > I have. > > > > > > >Neither can I condone in any way the actions > you/Fiona/Shane/Whoever have taken or incited > > > > > >others to take against Annie's website. It is wrong. > > > > > > > > Again look what she is saying. Shane left this lyst six weeks ago > > > >but >now > she > is saying that he has attacked Annie's evil website. I > think Fiona's > >attack> > > on Evil Annie's website was wrongheaded, but it > was not done through > >malice, > > > > it was done through desperation. Fiona is an anthropologist. > > > > Secrecy surrounds SLASH because they don't want it debated. > > > > > > They > say people who> > > attack SLASH are homophobic, but > > > Shane was gay. He > described **SLASH** > > >as **homophobic**. It is. > > > > > >It was incorrect of me to add Shane's name to that list. A copy/paste > error, nothing more. > > That's convenient. Not really, I hate making errors, but like every other human being I make them just the same. Did you catch my terrible spelling of "publicly" earlier? My only excuse is that I was watching Sarcophagus at the time and kept thinking "Cally"! > >I have no knowledge as to whether Shane was involved or not. > > Again you are implying that it was a possibility, but without a shred of > evidence to back it up. > No, I certainly did not mean to imply that. I had though that point was clear from my last post. > > >The "whoever" part covers anyone else who was involved - I have > > > no > interest in knowing their identities. > > Then why give a list of people then? I haven't - "whoever" could be 1000 people or it could be nobody at all. > > > > > >Please don't assume that you speak for all non slash fans, Jenny - > > > > > > > > Interesting that you use my name here. > > > > > >I use it because I am referring to you. It is common practice in the > > >English language to name the person you are referring to. > > Is that right, Rita d' Orac! Jesus, you couldn't make this shit up! Nope - it's all real! > > > > > >you don't speak for me. > > > > > > > > No I don't, you are a SLASHER. Also note what she is now > > > saying, > earlier she said that she broadly agreed with what I was > > > saying, now > she says that she doesn't. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: As stated earlier, I am not a slasher. I stated > earlier "There are several issues that I agree with you and > Fiona/Shane/Whoever on". > > But you still haven't stated what those issues are. Stop running away and > confront them. They were already on public archive, which means they had in fact been stated. They are now written out (for you convenience) above. > > >There is nothing in that statement that implies that you may speak > >> > for me on any issues. To clarify once again - you may not. > > I am not speaking for you on "any issues" I am speaking for you on one. You > are a SLASHER. If you are not a SLASHER, why are you on Freedom City? Why > are you defending Freedom City? Why don't you want to debate the issues? I am not a slasher. I have explained why that is the case in my previous post. As stated above, I am happy to debate any issue you want to debate. You do not have my permission to speak on my behalf on *any* issues. > > > > > >Please don't presume to tell me whether or not it is "safe" > > > > > >for>me to be a member of this or the Freedom City list - that > >decision is > > > > mine > > > > > > > > YOU ARE A SLASHER > > > > > >No, you are wrong: By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess > what... > > You're a SLASHER. Nope. I am not. > > >"I'm > > >not a slasher!" > > Yes you bloody are! No I'm not. > > > > > >to > > > > > >make and I choose to stay on both lists. > > > > > > > > YOU ARE A SLASHER. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > No, I'm right. No, you are wrong. > >>By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess what... > > You're a deluded SLASHER. No. I'm not a slasher, deluded or otherwise. > > >"I'm > > >not a slasher!" > > Yes you are! No I'm not. > > > > Why do you think this person is attacking me? Why not just ignore me > or > > > > Killfile me? > > > > > >Why am I attacking you? - I am not. > > Yes you are. No I'm not. I am debating with you and in some instances I am disagreeing with you. It is a strange definition of "attacking" that you have. > Please indicate where you think my > > >post attacks you. > > Well you've attacked my posting style, you are trying to tell me that you No, I said I disliked it. Again, that is an opinion, not an attack. > aren't a SLASHER, when clearly you are, you are stating that you broadly As I have said several times, and will no doubt be required to say again, I am not a slasher. Again, that does not constitute an attack. > agree > with things I have said, but then have failed to state which issues they > are. I could go on.... I have stated where my views can be found. It is common practice to avoid unnecessary repetition in a discussion thread to avoid it becoming unwieldy. However, as I stated earlier, just for you I have listed my view again above. Once again, that really cannot be defined as any sort of attack. Oh, and please *do* go on... > > >Why don't I just ignore you? > > Why don't you? I had not realised that you wanted to be ignored Jenny. If I had, I would have advised you not to take part in a discussion thread, because people are naturally going to assume that you want to discuss the topic of that thread. Or you could just make it clear in your posts by adding the words "please ignore me" on your posts. > - I had something to add to one of the posts > > >on > > >this mailing list - so I posted it! > > But you've added nothing. Yes I have. I won't bore you with a word count - I'm sure you can do that yourself if you feel inclined to do so, but surely you would have had nothing to reply to if I had added nothing? > > > I never ignore a message I want to reply to. > > What the bloody hell does that mean? Why would you reply to a message you > wouldn't want to reply to? Have you been taking lessons off Sally Manton? Well my dear, you were the one who suggested I should ignore that message - so you tell me! I don't know Sally other than in the context of this mailing list, so no, I haven't had any lesson from her on anything. > > >Why don't I killfile you? - Why do you think I should? > > You're a SLASHER. I am not. Even if I were, why would that mean I should killfile you? > I have never > > >killfiled > > >anybody I disagree with and I have no wish to start doing so now. > > Good. That's a start. > > > > > I'll tell you why. She is trying to discredit what I am saying. > > > > They don't want you to listen. This person is a PROGRAMMER. > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > No, I am right. No, you are wrong. > > > I replied to a public post on a public mailing list. > > And what have you said, apart from "I'm not a SLASHER," over and over again. If you took the time to read my posts, you would notice that I replied to several points that you raised. Unless you are now telling me that all you ever said was "you are a slasher", I had plenty to say. Go back and read it. > > >It is > > >reasonable to expect people to reply to your post if they have something > to add to the topic you are posting on. > > But you have added absolutely nothing. But I did. > > > You posted on a topic, and I replied to > > >it. > > Good. Do it again. But next time actually say something. I said something last time and I'm saying something again. Please read and assimilate the contents of the posts before commenting on them. Your comment in the context of a post where there are several comments made by myself will only make you appear illiterate and I'm sure that isn't the case, despite the flaws in your education that we previously identified. > > >If what you said in your post was correct, > > It was correct. It was not. > > > I would not be inclined > >to comment on it at all, never mind > > >attempt to discredit it in any way. > > So if what I'm saying is right, and you agree with it "broadly" you say you > would not comment. So now you are saying you don't actually agree with me, > because if you did you wouldn't have responded. I wish you'd > make your mind up. No, your not paying attention again. I said I broadly agree with you on some issues that you have raised during your time on the list. I did not say that I agreed with the post I replied to. > > > > > >You are correct in calling me a programmer because I program in > >VB as > part of my job. > > > > > > > > > > > PLEASE LEAVE THIS LYST AT ONCE. > > > > > >No. Shan't. Won't. Can't make me. So there. > > I wasn't talking to you. I know you can't go because you are an addicted > SLASHER. I don't want to leave the list. I am able to do at any time should I wish to and once again, I am not a slasher, addicted or otherwise. ===== rita d'orac "If you think of this mouse as a space captain..." http://www.vilaworld.com ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

1 0

Re: Vila the vegetable
by Steve Rogerson 21 May '01

21 May '01

Gan strikes me as a potato, but don't ask me to explain why cos I haven't a clue. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent Celebrating 25 years of Blake's 7 and 10 years of Babylon 5 http://www.smof.com/redemption

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Vila the vegetable
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 21 May '01

21 May '01

In a message dated 5/21/01 2:30:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mistral(a)centurytel.net writes: << LOL, Leah, I was only thinking brown, lumpy, and dense. >> Well it's very apt. After all, Gan *did* end up bured in the ground, the fate of all potatos. Is there a "crazy" fruit or veggie analogy for Avon? Or is he just past ripe and gone off? Leah

1 0

Re: [B7L] Spacefall
by Tavia 21 May '01

21 May '01

Re various people's comments on Leylan's virtue or otherwise. There's heartwarming evidence that the actions of people with power in a small way can have influence even under repressive regimes. I quote from 'Like Water on Stone: The story of Amnesty International' by Jonathan Powers (as repro'd in their newsletter -- I'm sure they won't mind)... In 1978 Shahid Nadeem (a Pakistani television producer and trade unionist) had been sentenced to one year's imprisonment and 15 lashes. His crime: organising a staff occupation of four television stations in Pakistan. ... [After receipt of letter from Amnesty supporter] That evening the deputy-superintendant summoned him. 'He was so friendly and respectful I was shocked. He explained his dilemma as a God-fearing jailer who has to obey orders and follow the rules. The head warden also began to behave himself. Taking their cue, the junior staff changed as well.' Shahid Nadeem was later released and often muses on how 'a woman in San Antonio had written some kind and comforting words which proved to be a bombshell for the prison authorities and significantly changed the prisoners' conditions for the better.' Tavia

1 0

ttba & AI
by Tavia 21 May '01

21 May '01

Much to my surprise, ttba appears to be on course to break even. Thanks to everyone who has bought a copy and also, of course, to all those who contributed stories and/or artwork. In consequence, I propose to contribute 1 pound per copy sold from now on to Amnesty International, who are celebrating their 40th anniversary this week. You can buy ttba from me (http://www.viragene.com/ price 6.50 pounds, UK cash/cheque only) or from Waveney/Judith Proctor (http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7/Fanzines/OtherPubs/ttba.html) Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: B7 production process and apologies
by Sally Manton 21 May '01

21 May '01

Steve wrote: <Another mentions Avon's slip when they burst into Justin's lab in Animals. Why is that a cock up? It just adds to the reality.> Probably put in the list because it wasn't a *deliberate* slice of reality, but it's one of my favourite moments in Animals. Another Unplanned Moment is in Redemption, where - after that first dramatic tumble - Blake keeps rubbing his wrist through the next bit of dialogue; I'm assuming that Gareth came down a little harder than planned. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

Re: [B7L] Re: Vila the vegetable
by Sally Manton 21 May '01

21 May '01

Steve wrote: <Gan strikes me as a potato, but don't ask me to explain why cos I haven't a clue.> Sweet potato, surely :-) Given the heavyweight nature of this thread, how could I resist? Avon's one of those ones like artichoke, where you have to peel away layers to get at the good stuff. Cally's a string bean, and Dayna a Mexican jumping bean <g> I agree with Tarrant and asparagus. Can't think of one for Blake, surely he's a passionfruit instead? And the Liberator is the magic pumpkin that turns into Scorpio at midnight - err, S4. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: Orbit
by Alison Page 21 May '01

21 May '01

Jenny F said - >>I don't know where/when Michael said this, can you remember? Oh damn, I can't remember at all. 'Somebody told me' :-( I think a Vila fan a couple of years ago, but I'm a bit hazy. I didn't hear it from MK himself. Sorry that isn't a very good answer. I haven't embellished this story at all from when it was told to me, but it could have been wrong to start with. For example, someone could have said to MK - 'Were you crying in Orbit because... etc.' and he politely answers 'Oh, yes, sure.' because he didn't want to trample on their pet notion. I've no evidence either way. But - people know my stance - that the opinion of an actor is very good to know but doesn't put bounds on another person's imagination. So even if MK didn't say it, it is still an interesting notion to play with, even if one ultimately rejects it. And so is the idea of Dayna training Vila in unarmed combat. I know that if we were talking about real life we couldn't play so fast and loose, but I think it is fun to do so with a packaged product like a TV series. Alison ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

1 0

← Newer
1
...
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
...
90
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 May 2001