Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > >Something bothering you? You could say that, yes. > > > Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >Sorry, no. Saying it does, doesn't work, either. See Popper. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have evidence, see my emails, or is that too much trouble for > >you > > > as > > > > > >well? > > > > > > I've read them. You're wrong. > > > >Um, you're replying to your own comment here (which I assume is a mistake). Well, if I'm saying that "I'm wrong" then that must be a mistake! But then I must have been wrong if I said that I was wrong, because that was wrong. If you follow me. > > > Britannica.com: > > > > > > "Austrian-born British philosopher (b. July 28, 1902, Vienna, > > > Austria-Hungary--d. Sept. 17, > > > 1994, Croydon, Surrey, England), believed that knowledge--particularly > > > scientific > > > knowledge--evolves from individual experience and cannot be verified > >through > > > inductive > > > reasoning. Popper postulated that since no one can ever observe and > >verify > > > all possible > > > evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct, it is necessary only > >to > > > discover one > > > observed exception to the hypothesis to prove it false." > > > > > > Have you found an observed exception to my hypothesis, Steve? > > > >First off, you either haven't read all of the above, haven't understood it, > >or are ignoring it. So here it is again: Ooooh. Luggage rack. > > "knowledge [...] cannot be verified through inductive reasoning." > > > >and: > > > > "no one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to > > prove a scientific hypothesis correct" > > > >both of which mean you can't *know* you're correct, But I am, so Popper is wrong. and it's your assertion > >that you both can and do, to which I object. I can see that, but you are wrong Steve. I don't need to provide any > >counter evidence - the possibility that such might exist is enough to > >remove certainty. That is anti-thought Steve. By saying Popper is right, you are actually contradicting what Popper says. How do you know Popper is right? If "knowledge [...] cannot be verified through inductive reasoning," then how does Popper know that he is right? How did he come to that conclusion? Did he use inductive reasoning? In which case, how can he be right? "No one can ever observe and verify all possible evidence to prove a scientific hypothesis correct," therefore we cannot assume Popper to be correct when we apply his own system. "The sign below is true," "the sign above is false." This is a trap Steve, please get yourself out of it. > >But since you're asking, yes: there is no direct evidence what manner the > >limiter's malfunction takes. You're claiming it's in the subtext, but > >that's > >just another wording for "an educated guess," and one which I've pointed > >out > >is a bad one. It is there. Gan is a Killer. I'm sorry if you like Gan, Steve, but then Gan would want you to like him. He's a trap as well. He'd kill you. Since it's not explicit, it's > >not verifiable, which means that aspects of your conclusion that depend on > >your assertion about the limiter are not verified either. Gan is a killer who particularly enjoys killing women. When we go through more episodes, then you'll see. He's already killed a Guard unnecessarily in Space Fall, there are going to be a few more surprises when we get to Cygnus Alpha. In summary: one > >of your "facts" is pure supposition, meaning your conclusion is arguable, > >and your method flawed. Did you know, there is a very high rate of suicide among philosophy students? I think I now understand why. > >The same goes for your "one version of correct". Generally, you've said it > >was "the text", but refused to define "text" when asked to. Yesterday, you > >said: > > > > > If the director doesn't like how the actor does it, s/he will ask the > >actor > > > to redo the scene. The director tells the actor how to do it, and puts > >the > > > audience right. > > > >which conflicts with your frequent assertion that the writer is the one > >who's > >in control. It's true that the audience will see if something's wrong, but who puts the text there in the first place? The writer. It is also clear you don't know how a recording studio works. Not to mention admitting that the production process involves > >change, however small (some does not equal none). Oh dear, Steve. I have made a promise to your friend that I will be nice to you, but god give me patience, and can you make it soon? Some mistakes will always be made, that's unavoidable. The guard Gan kills in Space Fall appears again later in the background. This was a mistake, but if you analyse the text you'll see that the guard was supposed to have been killed by Gan. > >So your "body of evidence", from which you draw everything else about your > >conclusion, is actually a morass of interpretation, in itself. Given that, > >stating that you're undeniably correct is just absurd. More philosophising. The truth is always simple Steven. > >However, I don't expect you to agree to any of this. Then you were right. I don't. More likely, you'll > >do one of: > >- just say "you're wrong", without any supporting argument. I have given a great deal of supporting evidence to this lyst. If you choose not to read it, or to ignore it then that is not my fault. > >- be sarcastic, without any counter argument. I was sarcastic and it has made you angry. Some people on this lyst know exactly what I am saying. It is sometimes very difficult to determine who is a prisoner and who is a warder. Sometimes a prisoner will be savaged by accident, especially if, to all intents and purposes, he is dressed as a warder. Take the uniform off Steve. > >- go off on a tangent in the hope that I will forget that you haven't > >answered. That was not a tangent. I was trying to tell you something. Go back and look at what I wrote and read it carefully. > >- give a largely meaningless phrase (cf "animal camouflage"). It has meaning. > >- ignore the bits you can't disagree with. Not true. > >but that's okay. Whether you accept the point is not my problem. I think it is. What I think is more important is that you've at least read *some* of the text you > >quoted about Popper and, at some level, learned something about constructing an > >argument. I've come across Popper before, but he wasn't always called "Popper." Whether you admit it or not, I hope that it'll help you in later > >life, and improve the quality of your hypotheses and debate. Don't let your anger blind you. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: crimes and punishment
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

Tavia wrote > >Jenny wrote (of Iain): > > >A friend like you is a rare thing, and needs to be cherished. > > >I hope Steve realises this. > > > >Thanks Jenny, you've made my day. The image of Steve cherishing Iain is not > >one lightly forgotten... It's sad when good people get caught in the cross fire. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: A word of warning
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

Susan Beth: > >Steve Rogerson wrote: > > > > >for fandom and you don't deserve this), and your response has been this > >inane > > >camouflage message. Ooooh. Suitcase! > >Thanks for asking, Steve -- I've been mystified. > > > >And while you're at it, could you explain what 'handbag' means in your > >vernacular? To me it's just an alternate word for a purse. > > > > > > > >Susan Beth When animal camouflage breaks down. Tell me, is that one *real* snakeskin? Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: a word of warning
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

Mistral wrote: > >Joyce, my apologies if you get this twice, but you did say you'd been > >deleting digests, and I wanted to be sure you had a chance to see this. > > - > > > I personally have no use for this Lysator person ever since she attacked me last year for telling people to buy ZENITH and support B7 fandom. She > >and some others (and I have no use for them either) accused me of using a > >guilt trip on people. > > > >Excuse me, but this is a mistake. > > > >(1) I'm the person who used the term 'guilt trip' in the Zenith thread. > >I didn't do it to hurt you, Joyce, but to let you know - after the topic > >was already being discussed - why one particular thing you wrote might > >be construed as hurtful by others. I am baffled why letting you know > >that _I_ was hurt by something _you_ said should be considered an attack > >on you - I guess I'm just stupid for thinking you might want to avoid > >hurting people. > > > >(2) I completely abhor the attack on Annie, and am not involved in it. > > > >My apologies to other Lystians for this use of bandwidth, but I wanted > >to correct any false impression that I am collaborating in this > >unprincipled and deplorable attack on Annie. > > > >Mistral When animal camoflage breaks down Careful who shoots who. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] A word of warning
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

"Jennifer wrote: > >This is disgusting, Annie. I'm really sorry. When animal camouflage breaks down. Don't confuse Jenny with "Jennifer" Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: A word of warning
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

Steve Rogerson wrote: > >Jenny said in response to me: > > > > >>Have you the guts to answer these questions? > > > > > >Yes. > > > >The first question was: > > > > >Jenny has said to a number of posts: "When animal camouflage breaks > > >down..." > > >What exactly do you mean by this? > > > >which you never answered Sorry, I thought it was meant as a rhetorical question. The answer is: It means what it says. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] A word of warning
by Jenny Kaye 18 May '01

18 May '01

"Ellynne G." wrote:< > > > >Annie, an extra vote of sympathy from my corner. I remember a man who > >commented on the crimes committed 'when great malice and great cowardice > >meet.' Of course, he was a historian trying to explain less pleasant > >traditions - ways to poison an enemy's fields - largely forgotten in our > >own time. > > > >The sad thing is that people have come up with new nastiness - poisoning > >the web - to replace it. That's true. The sadder thing is that someone we know and > >care about is the victim. You hang in there, OK? > > > >Ellynne When animal camouflage breaks down. Well it had to be didn't it. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] When "Animals" Camouflage...
by Sally Manton 18 May '01

18 May '01

Ohh, I loved it! (My soft spot for Animals as a whole is gradually extending to include Og. This is a worry :-)) Thanks, many many thanks, this was wonderful. Sally _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

the B7 production process
by Alison Page 18 May '01

18 May '01

steve said - >> the production process involves change, however small I asked a friend to put this question to Chris Boucher (not in connection with the current stupid argument going on) and here is the summary of the answer 'he puts in basic action (e.g. character enters) but generally leaves the structuring of shots and the detail of movement on set / filming to the director. He might suggest some shots, e.g. the weird bit in 'Shadow' with Cally he specified in the script after learning in a conversation with the visual effects guy that it was possible to do it), but a substantial amount would be down to the director' 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

Re: [B7L] Re: A word of warning
by Tavia 18 May '01

18 May '01

Steve R asked: >Jenny has said to a number of posts: "When animal camouflage breaks >down..." ... What exactly do you mean by this? Actually I think that what Jenny is implying is reasonably clear: that there is a conspiracy on the Lyst in favour of certain interpretations of Blake's 7, and that anyone who supports Annie in this current trauma is a party to the conspiracy. Am I right, Jenny? Tavia

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