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

Dana Shilling wrote: > >Jenny Kaye said: > > > 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-- I never included you in. The conclusion that he was a hypocrite and a liar arose from the debate. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

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

11 May '01

Sally Manton wrote: > >After I wrote: > ><They're a reticent crowd, after all. We never hear the names of Blake's > >murdered siblings,> > > > >Jenny wrote: > ><Blake is hardly going to say, "Guess what everyone? I was arrested and > >convicted on paedophile charges. They weren't true of course." Mud sticks.> > > > >But what have the paedophile charges to do with his murdered family? They're > >two completely separate incidents (the murders being before TWB even > >starts). I don't follow you. Well, in my wild and wacky canon, Blake IMO murdered and raped his entire family. Including IMO the family dog, the hamster and Stan the python. IMO. Either that or at half past two in the mornings I misread your post. > ><These people are fictional characters within a fictional universe. > >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, and Gan's actions in Time > >Squad are designed to tell us about Gan, or to lay future plot seeds for > >Gan.> > > > >Again, I am aware that they're fictional characters, but I'm having trouble > >following your reasoning. Evidently. (For a start, imputing that amount of deep and > >meaningful intent to two words written in extreme haste by Terry Nation > >doesn't work for me). Oh well, if it doesn't work for you it must be crap then. BTW, it was only the later episodes of series 1 that were written in haste. The first four episodes were written before the casting was even done. What is the difference between Gan's words/actions > >telling us about Gan, and Soolin's telling us about her? Could it be that Soolin tells us a lot and has no reason to lie, but Gan tells us very little and has every reason to lie? Just a wild guess. In 'Blake', it>could have been shown that she told Dayna - who she's friendly with - some > >of her history; she'd still have to tell the others, nothing would be lost.But it's made clear she didn't tell Dayna. Therefore, IMO it's an indication of her reserve. It *is* an indication of her reserve. You are right. Don't feel you have to qualify your answer with "IMO" all the time. > >We seem to have two systems of interpreting the series here. You don't say. One of them is > >the time-honoured (and vastly enjoyable) Playing the Game, which is > >concerned with internal consistency - external constraints (authorial > >intent>or lack thereof, budget constraints, acting etc) simply doesn't count, what > >matters is making sense of what's on the screen. The viewer has the > >right/responsibility to interpret what is on screen without recourse to > >external factors. It's something I try to do, but it cannot be denied that external constraints play an enormous part in what we see on screen, and it is virtually impossible to "forget" certain external constraints. For example, no matter how hard you try, Travis is played by a different actor in series two, and no matter how hard you squint your eyes, Moloch still looks like a very bad prop. Unless you want to resort to surgery, you can't unlearn something. It will always be there and it will always have an influence. > > It's my preferred system; It may be your preferred system, but you are not working by its rules. Looking at internal consistency means *looking* at internal consistency, not saying "I don't see the logic, therefore there is no logic there." though I enjoy hearing what the > >makers thought or intended, it is of far less importance to me than making > >sense of the on-screen action as a whole (not, I emphasis, episodes in > >isolation.) If Maloney stated that Travis was killed by a flying haddock, and then you see the episode and see that no haddock featured in Travis's death at all, then you go by on screen evidence. If however, Boucher gives a simple explanation of a scene that he wrote and that fits all the facts then, I am going to take more notice of his interpretation of a scene than I am going to of, let's say, yours. Especially if your explanation is extremely long, convoluted and references your personal fanon which is purely based on how you would like the scene to read. > >The other is that the intent of the writers/actors/etc takes precedence > >over what the viewer may perceive from the episode; that what Terry Nation/Paul > >Darrow/David Maloney etc intended has to be factored into the > >interpretationeven if I as viewer don't agree with it (or can't even see it). See above. But in addition I would like to add that everyone to some degree will have their own "take" on something. This is undeniable. And just because a writer or actor intended something, it doesn't mean that it is valid if it is not born out by the text. But that same rule applies to everyone. > >Personally, > >though I'm always interested to hear what these people have to say, I'm not > >much interested in doing things this way (especially when I find Playing > >the Game more satisfying) especially when what Terry Nation/Paul Darrow/David > >Maloney etc intended has to be interpret anyway and we all disagree on > >what they meant to say. You can't disagree on "what they meant to say", if they "meant to say it" then they "meant to say it" there are no two ways about it. However, you can disagree on whether or not "what they meant to say" cames across or not. And you do that by analysing the text. You don't do it by ignoring the text and going on a flight of fancy, and then backing it up by bludgeoning people over the head with those three dreaded letters "IMO". > > I can and have done this in literary criticism, but I'm > >not about to do it in fandom. Why not? > ><grin> perhaps all posts need a multiple warning system - Character Junkie > >Who Plays The Game and Sometimes Forgets the IMHOs ... I've got a better one, Warning system - This is a No Discussion Zone. 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

Sally Manton wrote: > >Jenny wrote: > ><Oh, he does act stupid. There's a lot of Gan's actions which are put downh > >by a lot of people (including the crew) to his being stupid-- not checking > >to see if Jenna was behind him on Cephlon, or tearing out the computer > >banks > >in "Breakdown."> > > > >The second instance is an invalid example, IMO, Is that right? > >since it could have been > >caused by scrambled brain impulses caused by the malfunction. No. It's a deliberate act. The malfunction didn't "scramble his brain impulses," it removed his restraints. So you have > >one example of stupid behaviour (and I could add a second one, the > >temper-tantrum-moment with the handcuffs in Bouty when Vila is trying *not* > >to blow Blake's head off). Yes, but I don't think it's ment to show stupidity, just Gan's true nature. But of course <veg> the odd dumb moment is so > >*unusual* in our crew. Personally, I consider Blake, Avon, Jenna, Tarrant > >and Soolin - at the *least* - to be very bright in their different ways. > >So > >... > > > >Want to ask Avon how he thought sending that message to Servalan (in > >Hostage) would help? And why his brain turned off once he went down to > >Exbar? Hostage is a dog's dinner of an episode, I'll grant you that. Quite why it's such a mess, I don't know. Time maybe, or perhaps it was a last minute replacement script. Nation was going to write the last two episodes of series two but then didn't. That must have put a huge last minute strain on everyone. But as to why: AVON: It seemed the only rational thing to do. I thought they would get there ahead of us, get Travis and save us the trouble. Earlier: CALLY: Well, there should be no danger. Does anyone know we're here? Avon? AVON: What? CALLY: I said who knows we're here? AVON: How do I know who knows? I still say anybody could have picked up that message. CALLY: No they couldn't. You know they couldn't. Why are you so worried? 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. Where's the brainlessness in that? And where does his brain switch off when he goes down to Exbar? He gets captured but so does everybody. > >Why he turned his back on Sara in MoD? He didn't know Sara was armed. Also once the traitor had been reveiled she should have given herself up. After all, locking herself in a room with a gun isn't a very bright thing to do. And Sara is very bright. The reason she acts the way she does is that she knows she is going to be rescued by her allies. Something Avon didn't know until he was told of the homing beam trasmitter. > > Why in Rescue, when he clearly > >didn't trust Dorian, he left his gun in the other room while he took a > >bath? Where does it say that the gun was in another room? He could have simply fallen asleep in the bath. After all, after the events on Terminal they all must have been both physically and emotionally exhausted. > >Want to ask Tarrant why - after stating very firmly and loudly that he > >trusted no one but himself Two possible answers. Bravado. Tarrant very clearly needs others. Volcano was written when the original character profile for Tarrant was in operation. The one where he was, in a later episode, to sell out the crew. - he swallowed that whole incredibly silly story > >from Norl in City? Why was Norl's story "incredibly silly"? Or why he insisted in DotG that *everyone* goes down > >with the ship? Churlishness. Dislike of Avon. These characters are meant to represent people not logical automatons. People are rarely rational, especially when facing death. > >Want to ask Cally why - when she *knew* Gan had tried to throttle Blake - > >she *let him go*? Because Gan was not acting like a raging monster and was now calm. She didn't know that he was a psycopathic killer with a hatred of women. > >Want to ask Dayna why at the end of Kairos she meekly teleported Servalan > >to safety instead of into open space? Because Servalan--who operated the teleport in Terminal--would therefore be able to tell if she was operating the wrong controls and would have ordered Shad to shoot her if she did anything dodgy. Anyway the two times people are teleported into space are in S1 and S2, before Dayna joined the crew-- we don't know that she knows how or even that it's possible. >(oh, and want to ask Servalan why she > >decided to trust Dayna with her safety?) Servalan doesn't. She wants to kill Dayna; only the fact that Avon has the Orac key (and so Orac can't operate the teleport) saves her. Or why - when Avon *told* her in Powerplay to 'shoot anyone who isn't me', she still managed to get captured > >by Klegg's men without even wounding one of them? Don't know. The scene was never seen. Anything could have happened, but experienced soldiers would have an edge on an enthusiastic amateur. > >Want to ask Blake why he had so much trouble keeping up with the Twinfoil's > >explanation in 'The Web'? I've watched these scenes (Thanks for that!) and Blake's responses make perfect sense. Why he repeatedly let Travis and/or Servalan live? Because he knew that he could beat them. That's not as pat as it sounds. Travis always worked to a pattern, "The Travis strategy" Blake calls it. When Travis is replaced however, Blake is taken completely by surprise by the strategy employed by said replacement. Also if he killed Servalan, a new Supreme Commander, may very well replace Travis with someone else. Not something Servalan can do because to do so would mean that she had made a mistake in the first place by employing him. That's one of the reasons behind her actions in Trial. > >Why in MoD he left the unsealed box with an incredibly valuable neutrotope > >lying around where at the first bump it would fall? It was in a sealed padded box in the middle of a table with Gan sat in front of it. It's Gan that lets it drop. Gan again, see? > >Want to ask Soolin why she decided to help Tarrant in Warlord, risking the > >whole alliance they'd worked for, the security of the base and all of their > >lives so he could have his little romantic fling? Because she wanted insurance. And Zeeona being on Xenon Base is the best insurance you can possibly have. Notice also that Soolin dislikes Zukan (which turns out to be a much smarter action than Avon's)-- "spite" is a decent motivation. > >Want to ask Vila about that dropped knife in Cygnus Alpha? I think you mean 'gun' in 'Space Fall'. Because he is a coward. Or playing the > >with loading bay controls on Albion? Because he is curious(a particular trait of Vila's) and he didn't know it would make such a noise. Or believing Blake's mind-rape-induced > >lies in 'Voice'? As Vila had no idea that Blake is under control at that point, and Blake is the leader, it makes perfect sense. For that matter (and that episode), want both Avon and > >Jenna why - when they *knew* Blake's mind was decidedly awry - when he said > >'give the mummy a bracelet', they gave the mummy a bracelet? They don't do it willingly. They argue with Blake. Blake tells them that Ven Glynd has a plan and a way of ousting Servalan without bloodshed, but that he won't tell them until they get back on the Liberator. He is rational and lucid (remember that they don't have any actual proof at this point that his mind is being controlled); he argues them down, uses the force of his personality, and refuses to tell them Ven Glynd's evidence until they are back on the Liberator. So Avon and Jenna are effectively browbeaten into giving the mummy the bracelet. > >(Jenna doesn't have *many* 'where-in-the-world-have-I-put-my-brain' > >moments, > >but she does seem to persistently be several steps behind Avon and Blake > >(the dreaded 'what's going on, Blake?' bits) so that they have to explain > >things to her - Redemption is especially bad on this point). So? Reading that episode back, she doesn't seem to ask any more questions than Vila or Gan. > >Want to ask the whole lot of them why they didn't notice Cally was missing > >in SLD???? Nasty. Gan quite violently pushes the prisoners into a row. Thereby introducing the currency of violence. He then asks Cally if she can handle it and disappears. He then, much to Blake's surprise, joins the others in the main control room. Cut back to Cally, left on her own to guard four male prisoners, one a soldier. When Gan doesn't return, Cally goes to the door and looks for him. We then cut back to the control room. Notice that Gan doesn't mention Cally at all.Vila then runs into the room and tells Cally that the alarms are ringing. She is visibly nervous. Eventually Cally is overpowered and knocked out. The crew teleport aboard Liberator. All Gan says is that he hasn't seen her. Yet Blake had paired Gan with Cally. Gan plays the same trick again with Jenna in Deliverance. What a bastard. Or that Jenna *saw* their discarded handcuffs in Bounty and > >said nothing??? BECAUSE SHE WAS ONLY **PRETENDING** TO BE ON TARVIN'S SIDE. Next time watch the episode. > >And that's just the ones I can come up with now. Obviously the programme is a lot brighter than you give it credit for. Don't do that again, eh? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

4 3

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

11 May '01

Harriet, quoting Dana responding 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 ... 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 (cf >Dana's interesting suggestion about Gan's woman), but I didn't support >it. I feel my name being taken in vain here. As I recall, I entered the fray merely to suggest that Terry Nation's scripts might be most simply interpreted just as hack writing, rather than the ingenious, enjoyable but in the end rather implausible interpretations put forward predominantly by Fiona. I don't usually assign moral values to fictional constructs. Tavia

1 0

Re: [B7L] Gan, genius and preconceptions
by Tavia 11 May '01

11 May '01

Dana: >Tavia: >>> Size isn't the only metric. >Iain: >> So I've heard. >HORATIO: So I have heard and do in >part believe it. (Hamlet, I,i, 165) God, talk about preconceptions...... Tavia

1 0

Gan, genius and preconceptions
by Tavia 11 May '01

11 May '01

Apropos of the Gan debate (which I haven't been reading so apologies if this is repetition), it occurs to me that there's very little real evidence for Gan being any less intelligent than the average of the Liberator crew, excluding Avon and Orac (at least if you take at face value people/AI's opinions of their intellect). We see him in a mere 17 episodes, mostly in a background role. During which time, he acts as a de facto leader at least twice (Space Fall, Cygnus Alpha), he takes a stand against Blake's decisions (Shadow), he learns to pilot Liberator, he takes a technical role in its maintenance (Redemption), he's shown learning from Orac and being lectured to by Avon (about the auto-repair mechanism). [Sorry some of my memory is faulty as to episode.] I actually see the incident where he's learning from Orac as being quite important to establishing his character -- yes perhaps he's less well educated than some of the other crew members, but he's willing and able to learn as an adult, which IMO correlates with intelligence. I wonder if there isn't a bit of a perception bias here. We have Gan the 'gentle and slow giant' to go with Blake the 'hero', Avon the 'genius' and Vila the 'cunning thief'. Size isn't the only metric. Tavia

3 2

McVeigh
by Harriet Monkhouse 11 May '01

11 May '01

Catching up on my newspaper backlog from the bank holiday weekend, my eye fell on this paragraph in a feature about the Oklahoma bomber by Jon Ronson in the Guardian Weekend magazine. "McVeigh was fully aware that innocent secretaries and receptionists would be killed as a result of the massive truck bomb he detonated on April 19, 1995. But he was a keen Star Wars fan and he compared those innocents to the 'space-age clerical workers inside the Death Star. Those people weren't storm troopers. But they were vital to the operations of the Evil Empire. And when Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star, the movie audiences cheered. The bad guys were beaten. That was all that really mattered.'" I can understand if no one feels like having the Blake-at-Star-One thing just now, but it did make me pause to think about why McVeigh feels wrong and Blake mostly right. Real dead people instead of fictional ones? The photo of the small child being carried out of the building? The fact that, even at my most jaundiced, I don't quite put any part of American government on a par with the Federation? Or just that McVeigh is at the furthest part of the political spectrum from me? -- Harriere "Risin' sun goin' down." - Robert Johnson

3 2

Re: [B7L] Re: moloch/limiters
by Jenny Kaye 11 May '01

11 May '01

Sally Manton wrote: > > > >Jenny wrote: > ><It didn't say he *had.* It said he dreamt of it when in his prison cell. > >Which rather suggests that he's criminally minded, and wants to commit > >crimes. Including violent ones, it seems.> > > > >That's still no proof - none whatsoever - that he was arrested or convicted > >of killing anyone. Sally, I suggest that next time you read my entire email before replying. > > > ><We don't know the circumstances under which Avon kills the visa seller, > >and> >Avon at least had a motive. Doran shoots two unarmed people and jokes about > >it-- again, more the action of a habitual killer than someone killing > >because they have to.> > > > >None of which is relevant. Is that right? Avon still killed the man - he says so himself > >(and I doubt of even a corrupt judiciary would take 'he tried to turn me in > >as I was trying to buy illegal visas' as a defence) - but his conviction > >was > >for something else. Quite possibly, he was never suspected or arrested for > >the murder, When did I suggest that he was? > >and there's no reason to assume that Doran was either. Except for the fact that murder come easily to him, perhaps? > ><A man kills one guard and has an implant in his head (which doesn't even > >seem to stop him killing, or getting into states in which he might kill)?> > > > >The limiter is clearly both very rare (we don't see it anywhere else, none > >of the others have ever heard of it before) They haven't encountered it because they have had no reason to. They are not psychopathic killers. Well not in the sense that Gan is anyway. > >and seemingly prone to > >malfunction - it doesn't work very well. I think it works very well for what it does. > > > >My guess is that it was an experimental thing, and that prisoners were > >allocated to the experimenters to work on. Scientists in Nazi Germany were > >allowed to carry out all kinds of experiments on prisoners, and I can see > >the same sort of morality working just fine in the Federation. 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? But to test > >something designed to stop people killing, It manifestly isn't designed to stop him killing. it would make sense to trial it > >on prisoners known to kill - and it's quite in character for them to target > >those convicted of killing state functionaries (police, politicians, > >troopers) as an added turn of the punishment screw. Is that right? It also makes sense to conduct this experiment on Cygnus Alpha as well, does it? Where there is no one to actually observe the experiment? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

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

11 May '01

Ellynne G wrote: > > > >"Jenny Kaye" wrote: > > > > > > >As the local populace wanted to kill Hal, Dayna and Lauren, I think it's > > > > >unlikely that they would have got any help from that quarter. > > > >Sorry, guess I wasn't as clear as I could have been. > > > >I'm thinking anyone going to the aliens on the corner (or the seashore, > >as the case may be) would have to be pretty desperate with no place else > >to go. Hence, someone whose tribe or whose main supporters within the > >tribe had largely been wiped out. Desperation leads to desperate choices > >and there have been more than a few cases of people in wartime fleeing to > >a traditional enemy even when they weren't sure of their welcome. All true, and nicely put I may add, but there is no evidence within the episode to support this theory. > > Especially > > >when it is the Sarrans that Dayna is practising her skills by killing. > > > >Well, since Dayna was no more than a year old when they moved there, I > >don't think the killing started till later. No, but the fact that she is killing the Sarrans indicates that she has no fellow feeling for them. The fact that her father allows her to do it indicates that he has no fellow feeling for them either. Therefore that strongly suggests that they have had no sustained, direct contact with them-- or if they did that it has not been friendly. > > The > > >script states that Lauren was a child when she joined the Mellanbys, > >there is > > >no evidence that Lauren was also accompanied by anyone else. > > > >It may be that Hal Mellanby is trusting and confides all to people he > >barely knows. 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. > > >Both Dayna and her father mention that she has learned, and is learning, > >to > > >master all weapons ancient and modern. There's no reference in the > >script at > > >all to her learning how from the Sarrans or anyone else. > > > >As I tried to say, this was just a thought. But weapons such as bows, > >spears, swords, etc. take a high degree of training and skill to become > >fully expert in their use, rather like various sports or ballet. Dayna got her practice by shooting the Sarrans full of arrows. > >Also, I've never heard of anyone becoming a major expert in one of these > >fields without someone who could tell them what they're doing wrong and > >how to do better. There are many ways she could have learned. From computers, from Justin or some other friend of Hal Mellanby's who turned up for a while (remember she says Justin was "one of the specialist tutors" who came to teach her, which suggests that there were more), watching the Sarrans, her father--if he's an arms dealer then he must have some idea how to use them--in fact Dayna's interest in weapons quite clearly came from her father. > >Hal couldn't be that trainer. It's unlikely > >he would know one offworld or could try and find one on another planet. If you are an expert in weapons design then you are going to know a lot of people who are in similar fields. Hal knowing some one who was an expert in using weapons seems highly probable to me. > >Since the problems in Lauren's adoption had already been pointed out, the idea > >that this person brought Lauren along seemed likely. Occam's razor and > >all that. Yes. The simplest answer is the best:-). The simplest answer is that Lauren was kidnapped by Hal from the Sarrans to provide a playmate for Dayna. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

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

11 May '01

Harriet Monkhouse wrote: Jenny wrote: > >>But think about it. "My woman." Not "Sarah," or "Becky," or "Jill"; not > >>"someone I cared for" or "a woman who meant a lot to me." Very > >>cavemannish > >>really; it doesn't give her a name or a face or even suggest that there > >>was > >>anything at all between them. > > > >No, the avoidance of her name suggests to me "too private and painful to > >mention". Then why bring it up at all? > >An analogy, happily not a painful example: I once had a colleague who, > >when we first met, always referred to his wife as "my wife". After I > >had met her (and observed that they were a particularly devoted couple), > >he began to use her name in conversation; I concluded that when we were > >merely acquaintances he preferred to preserve a field of privacy around > >her, which he relaxed once we became friends. My wife is not the same as "my woman". When Gan discusses the > >issue with Jenna, they're acquaintances; maybe he might have opened up > >more later, But he doesn't. > >Just listening to some Billie Holiday, which reminds me that she often > >sings about "my man". BH's men invariably seem to be complete jerks, > >but I still feel that, when she sings about them, the term conveys > >intimacy and tenderness. How many jazz singers sing about "my woman" though? It's got a different meaning. And in most of the songs about "my man," as you say, "my man" is an absolute bastard who goes around mistreating women-- not the sort of guy you'd want to feel intimacy and tenderness for, if you don't want to wind up badly hurt: "Tell me he's lazy, tell me he's slow Tell me I'm crazy, well maybe I know, Can't help loving that man of mine..." "That lowdown man of mine Mistreats me all the time He says he loves me only Then goes and leaves me sad and lonely... If he could see through my eyes He'd be the one to cry..." And a rock and roll song, from the Beatles: "I used to be cruel to *my woman* I'd beat her and keep her away from the things that she loved. Man I was mean but I'm changing my scene..." Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

3 2

← Newer
1
...
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
...
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