Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Alison Page 16 May '01

16 May '01

Iain- >>I thought it was Tom Stoppard oops. well, see message header 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] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Alison Page 16 May '01

16 May '01

Jenny said - >>what the writer says goes. This is not the opinion of the screen writers that I know (*) It doesn't correspond to the reality of the production process either. The 'writer' is in many ways the lowliest member of the production team, and the one most likely to be over-ruled. There is a joke to this effect in 'Shakespeare in Love' for example (I know a joke isn't proof, but the joke was written by Harold Pinter, and he obviously felt it would have resonance with people watching the film). There is going to be a screen-writers strike (well, actually I think it has been called off) in Hollywood, this summer, specifically about this very issue. So literally millions of dollars are resting on the fact that no definitive answer has ever been provided to this issue. In the realm of TV the situation is slightly different, but if anything in a multi-authored production like B7 we can be even less confident that the product represents a single unified vision, where all ends have been tied, and no ambiguity remains. I think the relationship between script and finished product is a complicated one, whether we are talking about theatre, TV or film. The relationship between such finished product (play, TV show or whatever) and 'truth' is also a very complex one. These are my opinions. IMO if you like. You may disagree with my opinions, but it is an objective fact that many informed people have over the years put forward a *range* of opinions. There are hundreds of books on the subject. That is what I am emphasising, not my own particular opinion, but that many different opinions exist, and have intellectual credence even among people who disagree with them. So we are dealing with a situation where the very premises of debate: who is the auteur, who has control over the finished product, where does meaning rest (with the author or the viewer or elsewhere) are themselves far from being decided. We don't have to dredge up all these heavy issues, every time we discuss Blakes 7 (thank god) we just have to be a bit tolerant of differences of opinion, because we have each of us built our case on shifting sands. Alison (*) I would be interested in DMs take on this too, if he is subscribed at present - insider's view DM? Do you feel that what you say, goes? ********************************************************************** 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 **********************************************************************

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote: > >Jenny wrote: > > > Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > > > > > >Jenny wrote: > > > > > > I'm not making this up you know. This is no self deluding "IMO" > > > > >bullshit.. > > > > > > The pattern's there. Everything fits. > > > > > > > > > >Even assuming that that is the case, > > > > > > It is the case. > > > > > > > >that doesn't mean you're right. > > > > > > Yes it does. > > > >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? > > > > >It means you have a hypothetical model which fits the facts you've > > > > >observed. > > > > > > Yes, Dr Havant. > > > >Which means, what, exactly? Which means that you are trying to use a very dangerous mind controlling technique on me. And guess what? It's been used on you as well. Now the question is: Does it mean that there is someone, or a group of someone's, using mind control techniques on this lyst to condition us? Or does it mean that you have all inadvertently conditioned yourselves? I think it's both. Next question: Does it mean that there is a very dangerous subtext contained in some episodes of B7 which if read incorrectly can have a conditioning effect? Or is it a social conditioning mechanism natural to human beings? I think it's both. BTW I am not taking about a conscious conspiracy theory here. In fact I'm not talking about a conspiracy at all. I'm talking about human nature. > > > Other models that do not contradict the same evidence are > > > > >equally valid. > > > > > > But there are no others that do this and fit all the "facts." > > > >You can't know that. See Popper, again. Bollocks to Popper. You put up another theory and I'll tear it to shreds. > > > Standard scientific approach, diluted somewhat > > > > >by individual interpretations of what is a "fact", in a dramatic > > > > >presentation. :-/ > > > > > > Who do you think writes these stories? Aliens? No, human beings. > >Therefore > > > the stories will, to a great extent, reflect human society. > > > >Which has nothing to do with the processes of logical deduction, or the > >ability to recognise supposition for what it is, rather than facts. Ah, so you do believe there are facts to be found then? Listen Steve. I am using a process of logical deduction, what I am coming up with is based entirely on the facts presented in the show. > > > This conversation with you reminds me greatly of that scene in TWB with > >Dr > > > Havant. > > > >If you like. It's irrelevant, but you can be reminded of it, if you like. Oh dear. You can't have it both ways you know. It can't be both relevant and irrelevant. This isn't a logical argument, it has become a personal one. > > > > >Note: anyone offering Occam's razor as a tie-breaker also has to > > > > >offer a mutually agreeable definition of "simplest". > > > > > > Simplicity is always easy to recognise. > > > >Note "mutually agreeable". Look Steve if I'm wrong about Gan then there will be a great many holes in my theory. And we'll call it a theory for the moment. Instead of trying to attack my intelligence or my technique, try and attack the theory I am putting forward. And if your are brave enough, put your own Gan theory forward as well. Then we'll see what is "mutually agreeable". 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
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote > >Me, then Jenny. > > > That > > > > >makes "correct" something that can be difficult to pin down. > > > > > > Not at all. B7 was production line TV not a film. In a lot of films > >things > > > are changed all the time. Why do you think Live and Let Die is so full > >of > > > holes? But not in TV. You compare an original script with the version > >you > > > see on TV and the changes will be minimal. > > > >You've just agreed that that the product process has an effect, and that > >the writer's vision isn't the only one. Only in your head Steve. The way an actor says something, the way a director wants them to say it, the visual design all have an effect, but they don't change the script. Therefore what the writer says goes. Which means you've got at least > >two versions of correct No. You have one version of correct. An actor has to say the line he's given. - the writer's, and that of anyone who modifies > >the writer's - which immediately leads to two starting points for > >interpretation. He may emphasise the line in a particular way. This does not modify the line. > >The TV versus film comparison is irrevelant: No it isn't. to paraphrase you, one changes > >a lot, while the other changes a little. Scriptwise. So they both involve change. So > >there are multiple viewpoints to start from. Wrong again Steve. You are living in a dream world. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: crimes and punishment
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Julia Jones wrote: > > >Are we perhaps missing the point of limiters - were they meant for > >something > > >else entirely (question)? > > > >A reliable source of plotdevicium... No. Because it in actual fact it is acting as a plot inhibitor. Now you don't put something like that in a series unless it is there for a purpose. > >However, that's not playing the game. As I am about to demonstrate, what do you know about playing the game? > >I think that it's likely the limiters were still relatively experimental > >devices, and that Gan was one of the beta-test guinea pigs. There is no evidence at all in the series for this. If so, the > >behaviour modification being tested may not be the only one the > >developers had in mind as a long-term goal. It's possible that the > >limiters were an early step in a form of modification for dealing with > >people like Avon - people whose intellectual abilities are too useful a > >resource to lose if there's a way to salvage them, but who aren't going > >to co-operate of their own free will. There is no evidence in the series to support this. > >Unco-operative people can be conditioned, but that conditioning can be > >broken. It's also probably difficult and expensive, if they're still > >keeping a staff of Shrinkers. Perhaps the project group developing the > >limiters were not overly pleased about the development of Pylene-50 - > >their funding was cut after that... None of this is supported by evidence from the series. > >Julia Jones "Science is not about building a body of > >known > >'facts'. It is a method for asking awkward questions and subjecting them to > >a > >reality-check, thus avoiding the human tendency to believe whatever makes > >us > >feel good." - The Science of Discworld Yes. A lesson you have evidently failed to learn Julia. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Re: [B7L] Debate and Dead Horses
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Leia Fee wrote > >Jenny wrote... > > >>I'm not making this up you know. This is no self deluding "IMO" > >bullshit.. > > > >and smilar... > > > ><sigh> I've seen so many of these type of posts since I starting reading > >this list, which isn't really that long I think you've actually been on this lyst before. and I'm sorry to add another one > >but... > > > >I watch Blake's 7 for fun. I discuss, debate, argue about it for fun. > >Bickering with you about Gan is no longer fun for me. I am not bickering. I am putting a lot of time and effort into these posts. > >I know your opinion, It's not an opinion. you know mine. Neither one of us is going to change > >the other's mind. So evidence doesn't interest you then? You just want to cling to a number of groundless theories? > > The tone of your posts sets my teeth on edge. Ah, right here we have the tried and tested formula of attacking the style not the content. I chat > >about this stuff to relax not get stressed. If that were true then you wouldn't be getting stressed. You are getting stressed because I am giving you a series of rational arguments that you can't fight, but which you also are quite clearly not prepared to accept. I therefore will not be > >responding further to your posts on this subject. Run away then. Stick your head in the sand. No doubt you will take > >that as my conceding to your opinion. No. I take that as meaning you have run off because you don't like what I am saying, but also can't produce any reasoned arguments to counteract what I have been saying. > >Do as you will. Thanks for the advice. > >Don't get me wrong, Why? You've been wrong on everything else thus far. I'm not taking my bat home or resorting to killfiles or > >storming off the lyst. No what you are doing is trying to extract yourself from a debate which you know you can not win. You are also trying to cover this fact by launching a personal attack on me. How very disingenuous of you. > >Some of your points I found interesting I note that you don't state which ones, and also use the word "interesting" not the word "convincing", or the word "compelling". > >but I can't > >be bothered dealing with your superior, condescending tone. Another personal attack.This tells me that you are a bad loser. > >I hope that this subject is just a particular bee in your bonnet The bee is in your bonnet quite clearly. And it's an angry one. > >and will > >be interested to hear your opinions on other subjects as they arise. Interesting conclusion that. It's you pretending to be tolerant. But you aren't, are you? I'll tell you something else this email reveals. You are a long term B7 fan. And you've either been directly in contact with other fans or you have been on this lyst before. I think it's both. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] the limits of parody
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote: > >Me, then Jenny: > > > > > > >Well, actually, we had *that* particular argument a few months back, > >and > > > > >it got rather unpleasant. :-) > > > > > > Yes. Ever wondered why? > > > >Nope. You know? I thought that would be your answer. Some people just can't have a civilised debate without attacking or > >bating their opponents, it seems. That is not the answer. > >I did wonder why it went on so long, > >though. Good. It went on for so long because an attack was being made on the accepted norm. Debate is stifled on Lysator and any one who comes up with a contrary opinion will be attacked. > >[blink] Are you saying that if someone presents evidence that you disagree > >with, you still might be swayed by it? No. I'm saying that the moon is made of green cheese. Steve, have you been *reading* my conversations? I've even agreed with *Harriet* when she's got a better theory than me! > > > As for evidence... > > > > > > > > > But what we are implicitly accepting here is that there is an > > > > > > actual "truth". > > > > > > > > > >You might. I don't, > > > > > > You do with Shakespeare. > > > >Who, me? Nope. Oh dear. > > > for the reasons stated in an earlier post on > > > > >dramatic productions. Elements of interpretation and interpolation > > > > >become necessary, but they should be recognised as such. > > > > > > They also have to have a bearing on the text. > > > >I presume you mean "don't conflict with", here. But you need to define > >"text". Writer's intention? Script? Script editor's intention? Direction? > >But that's a separate issue. No it isn't. It is the issues we are exactly talking about. The text is what we are given, no matter what happened to it before or since. My point is, saying "X is true" when you're > >actually merely inferring X from circumstantial evidence, is flawed. No it isn't. > > > > >Don't recall that many people have left because of this kind of > >thing. > > > > >It seems more to be because of how people said it; comments ceased to > > > > >be about the series, and became about posters. > > > > > > Go back and look at it again. > > > >No, thanks. Been through it once. See no reason to go through it again. That's right Steve close your eyes. Stick your fingers in your ears, hum a happy tune. Don't learn from experience. > > > The entire fight was over interpretation. Some > > > people just don't like having their fanons challenged. > > > >Must be talking about different events, then. Guess those posts > >passed me by. That's right Steve. Go on thinking that. Keep the conditioning up. We don't want you becoming a rebel now do we? 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
by Jenny Kaye 16 May '01

16 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote: > >Me, then Jenny: > > > > >And as I've stated elsewhere, this is not guaranteed. > > > > > > But it can't be ruled out either. > > > >Agreed. It's a possibility. It's also *less* likely as a possibility > >than possibility that it causing random failures. So don't treat it > >as an immutable fact. You are wrong. It is an immutable fact. > > > You don't know what > > > > >it's doing; > > > > > > I think I've got a good idea of what the authors intended should be > >going > > > on. > > > >So? You can think that. You don't know. I think I know. > > > you only know that at some point in the past, it started to > > > > >malfunction. We know when it started malfunctioning. It starts to malfunction during the scene on the Flightdeck in Breakdown.

1 0

Isn't it Slave's turn for the spotlight ... or something?
by Sally Manton 16 May '01

16 May '01

At the risk of flogging what is unquestionably now a dead horse, we might let the last word go to ... Terry Nation. "Gan, the big guy, was the physical presence and great physical strength, but the gentle baby of the piece, based a little on Lenny from 'Of Mice and Men''." (Blake's 7: The Inside Story). Now, anyone want to talk about Slave's definite resemblance to one Uriah Heep? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

4 3

Re: [B7L] Episode review - space fall
by Tavia 16 May '01

16 May '01

Iain W wrote: >There is more of the "other side" of federation life in this episode with >the scenes between the crew members of the London. Even though he >works for a private company in the employ of the federation the >captain is shown to be a "good" man. He says he wants no unnecessary >violence, saves Jenna from molestation, remains calm during the space >battle scenes and the rebellion, he isn't stupid, he doesn't like Raiker, >he is not prepared to allow Raiker to get away with the "you said I could" >defence, etc., etc. ... >He certainly showed the potential to turn against the federation. Well, I watched Space Fall last night in anticipation.... One thing that struck me quite strongly was the exact opposite of Iain's point here. Leylan doesn't 'save Jenna from molestation' -- he tells Raiker to 'be discreet'. If he wanted to prevent Raiker bothering her, he could have tried something like: 'There's a female prisoner on board. If I find you've laid one finger on her, I'll have you dismissed and prosecuted when we get back.' Be discreet sounds to me more like 'do as you please -- but I don't want to know'. If Leylan had been truly honourable and/or caring, he could have confined Jenna in one of the staff cabins and taken appropriate steps to assure her safety. Raiker might be an evil bully, but he's Leylan's subordinate. Leylan could have attempted to control his unacceptable behaviour (which must have been known to him from previous experience, otherwise why the warning to be discreet?). As he does nothing, Leylan holds joint responsibility for it. As to Raiker's shooting of the prisoners, Leylan is wholly responsible for that. He knew Raiker must be planning something more than usually unpleasant. Telling him off after the fact does not exonerate him (as I think Leylan himself realises). I think the message here is pretty clear, that turning a blind eye to evil is collaboration. That cynicism isn't enough to exonerate one from blame. More thoughts later, gotta work now.... Tavia

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

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