Blakes7 May 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

84 participants
897 discussions

Re: [B7L] Dayna's family
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

> >Harriet Monkhouse wrote: > > > >Dana responded to Jenny: > > >>>It might be a good idea if you went back into the archive and reread >the > > >>>emails between Tavia, Dana, Harriet, Fiona and myself on the subject of > > >>Hal > > >>>Mellanby(in and around the beginning of April-- > > >>>http://tezcatlipoca.algonet.se/cgi-bin/getbyid.pl?id=46210 is a good > > >>one) > > >>>but basically what we came up with is that he's a hypocrite and a > > >>>liar. > > >>Include me out--that may be what you came up with, I don't think > > >>he's such a bad guy > > > > > >My recollection was that there was a 3-2 split on the subject. The case > > >against Hal was ingenious, and I regard it as legitimate speculation It strongly draws from the evidence available in the episode. >(cf > > >Dana's interesting suggestion about Gan's woman), That draws strongly from groundless supposition. >but I didn't support > > >it. Never said you did. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses ... (long)
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Harriet Monkhouse wrote: > >Jenny wrote: > >>If Avon sent a message to Space Command Headquarters (anonymously > >>remember), > >>it would be logical for Servalan/her staff to send the nearest pursuit > >>ship > >>to Exbar, which would have gotten there in a very short period of time; > >>Travis would have been dealt with by the time Blake got into in his shiny > >>suit. Unfortunately Servalan herself got interested and decided to come > >>along, which meant a long delay, and meant Blake had time to get into > >>trouble and need rescuing. > > > >Look, everybody, Jenny and I agree on something! I think there is another email floating about where we agree as well :-) > >>Where does it say that the gun was in another room? He could have simply > >>fallen asleep in the bath. > > > >What a charming picture... You're not too bad after all :-) (and nor am I actually, but don't tell anyone. It's our secret okay?). Then again, "Bathing" could have been a euphemism for other things one does in the same room :-). Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

IMO
by Helen Krummenacker 11 May '01

11 May '01

Means "In My Opinion". It indicates the user realises they are expressing an opion, and not an indisputatble fact. I can not be used to stifle a debate, because acknowleging one's own views are an opinion shows an understanding that other opinions are possible.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Gan's woman
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Harriet Monkhouse wrote: > > >Jenny replied to me: > > >>> >No, the avoidance of her name suggests to me "too private and painful > > >>to > > >>> >mention". > > >> > > >>Then why bring it up at all? > > > > > >As you say later, > > > > > > >Backstory seeds may be sown, but the full back story will only be > > > >activated when it is significant to the plot. For example Soolin's > > > >history tells us about GP and what we can expect. As a consequence Gan > > >telling us about his "woman" is significant to the episode Time Squad > > > > > >He has to say something to explain the limiter. That's right. >(And, stepping back a > > >bit, Terry Nation wants to remind us that the Federation are Nasty > > >People). But Gan's a quiet, understated man, who's not going to pour > > >out his life story on the spot. That's true. > > >>> >issue with Jenna, they're acquaintances; maybe he might have opened > > >>up > > >>> >more later, > > >> > > >>But he doesn't. > > > > > >We have no idea what Gan said to Jenna later. We know what is in the script. See above about "seeding" and all that. > > > >Gan is saying that he has to stay with the crew of the > > > >Liberator because he needs people he can "rely" on. That means he > > >trusts them. > > > > > >I "rely" on my colleagues. Some of them, after a couple of years, cross > > >the line and become trusted friends and confidants. This status is > > >hardly automatic, however. But in the scene Gan is telling her that he has to "rely" on them to stay alive. Which I doubt you do with your colleagues :-). > > >Moving back into the B7 universe, I think Avon "relies" on his fellow > > >crew. He doesn't go round telling them sob stories about his love life > > >until it's absolutely necessary, and then he keeps it as plain as he > > >can. See? We agree again! > > > > > >Re Porgy and Bess, my impression was that the love between them was the > > >redeeming feature of their lives (which is why he goes off to look for > > >her at the end of the opera). But they're fairly rotten lives, and remember, all the subsequent references to "my woman" in the musical stem from the initial song "a woman is a sometime thing," in which we learn that: "Listen to your daddy warn you, Fore you start a travelling Woman may born you, love you and scorn you, but a woman is a sometime thing... Don't you ever let a woman grieve you Just cause she's got your wedding ring She'll love you and deceive you and she'll take your clothes and leave you Yes a woman is a sometime thing..." Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: Breakdown
by Helen Krummenacker 11 May '01

11 May '01

> Maybe he was getting revenge on the computers for all the times he > > >didn't know what button to press. > > No. He's getting revenge on Avon for treating him with contempt all those > times, by attacking the thing he knows Avon loves. > ::snicker:: Is that the computers, or Blake?

1 0

Re: the Mellanbys
by Helen Krummenacker 11 May '01

11 May '01

> > >I believe Ellynne was putting out the 'trusting' options as *unlikely*. > > >So far, I like [Ellynne's) version better than the lying hypocrite > version. > > Why? > Because I am generally a very good judge of character and my first impression of Hal Mellanby was that he was all right. And because I prefer to think the best of people until I am proven wrong. I didn't say I was basing my preference on canon. I believe that since most of our theories are not provable, it's best to enjoy the one(s) that suit each person's self. I don't believe it's right to force them on the rest of people, just make the suggestion and people can take it or leave it. I do think that debate is good because if a flaw is found in a theory, the people who hold with it can look for other proof to bolster it, consider it as working in an AU, or just decide no theory accounts for all behavior and shrug it off. What is ridiculous is when one of our number insists on an unprovable being correct to the exclusion of all other explanations, loudly and obnoxiously. Not that this is happening with theis thread. \However, one question which I don't know if you guys covered, because I did leave during the Mellanby discussion previously: if he was such a coward he turned in his own wife and friends for his and his daughter's safety, why would Servalan have killed him instead of forcing him to help her get ORAC and Avon as pizes for her triumphal return to the Federation? She could have done with some assistance.

1 0

Re: The Limiter
by Helen Krummenacker 11 May '01

11 May '01

> A theory not supported by the evidence. Kayn and Renor knows what a > limiter > is and speak of it in a very matter-of-fact way-- not as if it's > something > rare. Are they in on the experiment too? > There space station has been allowed its nuetrality because of the valuable research they do. Maybe this is where the limiter was developed. Vila's been in prisons most of his life. You'd think if limiters were much in use he would have heard about it. > >

2 1

Re: Gan in Breakdown
by Helen Krummenacker 11 May '01

11 May '01

> : No. It's a deliberate act. The malfunction didn't "scramble his > brain > : impulses," it removed his restraints. > > That's your interpetation. The text doesn't give us to believe that > we're seeing the true Gan. I'd grudgingly allow that it leaves the > possibility open, but on the other hand we have: > > AVON: It's not my field, but if I am right, then the limiter is > feeding scrambled impulses into his brain. > > Which seems sensible given that: 1. If he is the cold blooded psychopath capable of planning the abandonment of friends to be killed while leaving himself looking merely the fool, and all the limiter did was remove his restraints, why the temper-tantrums in plain sight of everyone? Why not pick the others off one by one, first though asleep in their cabins, then whoever is on duty on the flight deck. Why attack without weapons and inefficiently? He's only going to, well, get himself drugged and bound going about things that way. 2. The limiter is right in whatever portion of his brain controls the urge to kill. It deteriorates, it isn't as if it's suddenly not there; there's a metal irritant among his dendrites at the very least.

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses ... (long)
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Some woman wrote: > >Jenny, you'll probably be glad to know I won't be following up to your > >posts anymore. "Relieved" I think would be a more accurate word. I'm tired of the "Watch the episode again" response when > >I know these episodes by heart, both word and nuance, and I see different > >things in them than you do. Well watch them again and you might think differently. You seem to think that a lot of what you've > >filled in for yourself (there's that word "interpretation" again) is > >actually incontrovertibly present, No. I'm just presenting an argument and waiting for someone out there to knock it down. I'm also trying to put a dent in this "IMO" bullshit. > > and I have little patience for the > >tone with which you repeatedly insist on it. So basically, and not to put too fine a point on it, you are incapable of constructing a rational counterargument, too arrogant and too contemptuous of an opinion that differs from your own to bother to even look at an episode again, and, having demonstrated your superior intelligence by attacking my posting style rather than any of the points in my posts, you are now going to run off and stick your head in the sand. Bravo. From Jenny the Flaming Arsehole. Please note spelling! _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses ... (long)
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

1 0

← Newer
1
...
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
...
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