Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

RE: [B7L] Freedom City (was Re: When "Animals" camouflage)
by Louise Rutter 21 May '01

21 May '01

Jeeny Kaye wrote: >SLASHER Iain Coleman writes: Hahahahahahahaha!!! God, that's the funniest thing you've written so far. Even funnier than you being scared of Neil :-) Do keep going, you're proving very entertaining of late. Louise

3 2

Re: Orac
by Steve Rogerson 21 May '01

21 May '01

Julia said: "I can quite easily see it deciding to go with Servalan on the assumption that that offered better opportunities for revenge" Revenge isn't an emotion i associate with Orac. I think its main reason for wanting to go with Blake is that that offered it more potential freedom to do what it liked. Servalan would have just made it a tool of the federation and probably used it 24 hours a day doing something. -- 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: When "Animals" camouflage and other Stuff
by Jenny Kaye 21 May '01

21 May '01

SLASHER Rita d' Orac wrote: > > "Jenny Kaye": > > > > > SLASHER Rita d' Orac wrote: > > > >No, you are wrong: No, I'm right. > >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. 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. > > > > >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. > > Snip was made because I had no comment to make on any > >thing you wrote above the snip See? Told you. > >- if you or anyone else want 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... > > > > > > 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? > > > > >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? > > > > >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. Check archives for Tiger's earlier message > >which explains this for you. She's talking crap. > > > > > 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. > > > 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. 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? > > 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. > > > > > 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. 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! > > 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. > > > 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:-) > > > > >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? > > > (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? > >or speak to Shane I don't know him! > > or Fiona) She's not speaking to me! 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. > > > I don't believe that it is. Saying that isn't good enough, provide some evidence. > > > > >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." Yeah, that really sound plausible, doesn't it? > > 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? > > > > > 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. 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. > >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. > > 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. > > > > >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. Why would you presume to know in any case? - > >you > >weren't there!! 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. > > > > > > > >I do not condone some of the tactics IS THAT 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? > > > > >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. > > > 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? > > > . 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. > >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. 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. > > > 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? 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. >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. > >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? > > > > >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! > > > > >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. > >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? > > > > >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. > >"I'm > >not a slasher!" Yes you bloody are! > > > > >to > > > > >make and I choose to stay on both lists. > > > > > > YOU ARE A SLASHER. > > > >No, you are wrong: No, I'm right. >>By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess what... You're a deluded SLASHER. > >"I'm > >not a slasher!" Yes you are! > > > 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. Please indicate where you think my > >post attacks you. Well you've attacked my posting style, you are trying to tell me that you aren't a SLASHER, when clearly you are, you are stating that you broadly agree with things I have said, but then have failed to state which issues they are. I could go on.... > >Why don't I just ignore you? Why don't you? - I had something to add to one of the posts > >on > >this mailing list - so I posted it! But you've 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? > >Why don't I killfile you? - Why do you think I should? You're a SLASHER. 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. > > 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. > >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. > > You posted on a topic, and I replied to > >it. Good. Do it again. But next time actually say something. > >If what you said in your post was correct, It was correct. > > 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. > > > >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. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Curiouser and curiouser
by J MacQueen 21 May '01

21 May '01

>From: Steve Rogerson <steve.rogerson(a)mcr1.poptel.org.uk> >Evil Overload I think, unintentionally, you've just given the perfect description of all the axe-grinding that's been going on of late... Regards Joanne I tell you, there would be none of it, no hope for you at all were it not for the seven. --Terry Dowling, "Colouring the Captains", Rynosseros _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: Federation political hierarchies & comparisons
by Steve Rogerson 21 May '01

21 May '01

Stephen Date said: "I suspect Soolin might have voted Tory - her family were farmers after all." Good point, though I suspect she'd do something a tad more nasty than throwing an egg at Servalan's deputy. -- 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

1 0

Re: B7 production process and apologies
by Steve Rogerson 21 May '01

21 May '01

Stephen Date said he too had never noticed the boom mike shadows or wobbly walls. I must add a me too here. It was only when I read the list of bloopers posted online somewhere that I started noticing them. I printed it out and kept it by the telly so whenever I watched an episode I would look out for them. Didn't agree with all of them though. One I recall comments on the Liberator being upside down. This is in space, there is no upside down. 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. -- 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

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Orbit
by Alison Page 21 May '01

21 May '01

Steve said - >Re what I said earlier about Vila's professional attack on Arlen in Blake, if he >had those skills, why didn't he go for Avon, or was he too gutted at the betrayal? Michael Keating said Vila was crying because he was trying to get his act together to put *himself* out the airlock. That is, he was going to sacrifice himself, as you think Blake would. it's an interesting idea, and it does provide a different answer to your question Alison

4 3

Re: [B7L] Re: Vila the vegetable
by Ashton7＠aol.com 21 May '01

21 May '01

In a message dated 5/20/01 6:25:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, steve.rogerson(a)mcr1.poptel.org.uk writes: << Gan strikes me as a potato, but don't ask me to explain why cos I haven't a clue. >> I think "potato" fits, too, and I also can't tell you exactly why. My favorite "Gan" moment in fan fiction is an old, old story (I think it was in an early issue of "Fifth Season" where Gan is shot and it takes him pages and pages to get out a complete sentence to tell everyone. It was brutal to poor Gan, but it was hilarious. The story itself was a parody, anyway, so they were "picking" on everyone, not just Gan. Annie

1 0

Re: Federation political hierarchies & comparisons
by Steve Rogerson 21 May '01

21 May '01

Harriet wrote: "Servalan, of course, was a hardworking and principled administrator, too." I've often wondered about the coincidence of the early 1980s. THe above sentence works just as well with Thatcher instead of Servalan. The early 1980s were also a period were the IRA was getting some sympathy as a result of the hunger strikes. Thatcher was also threatening at the time to make the BBC a commercial station and/or restrict the licence fee (the main source of its income). The BBC at the time cancelled a show that was getting between 8 and 10+ million viewers about a group of terrorists who were treated as heroes and giving the strong female government leader (ok she was by now sleer, but was still seen in her Servalan role) a hard time. Was this all coincidence? I'd love to hear from someone in the know at the BBC at the time whether this was all coincidence. -- 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

1 0

Re: [B7L] [B7L]Back on topic, methinks? (now heading back to costumes)
by Jenny Kaye 21 May '01

21 May '01

"Sally Manton" wrote: Avon looks best is >silky >shirts IMO. IMO=Ignore Manton's Oratory. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7