Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Sentencing
by Leia Fee 16 May '01

16 May '01

Helen wrote... >Yes. In his [Vila's] case, the system appeared to be working more or less justly. >After all, he couldn't stand the idea of life without theivery even if >it included safety and a woman who loved him. So he seems pretty much >beyond redemption. I agree. Vila is certainly an incorrigable thief. Pretty harmless compared to come off the criminals shipped off to Cygnus Alpha but I can see where the Federation would be at a loss what else to do with him. Helen wrote... >the first step for nonviolent, nonpolitical crimes would be take them into custody and try >to revise their minds to become law abiding citizens. It might even be possible to >do this much without a trial Possible. Havant tells Blake he's disturbed when he's messing with his mind. If they defined criminal beahviour as evidence for mental illness they probably could 'treat' it without the persons consent or without a trial. We have compulsory treatment orders for mental illness even here and now. Vila talks about being in custody pretty young though, 14 I think is mentioned. Is their PR good enough to pass off conditioning a child? I think maybe he was locked up in whatever the Federation equivalent of juvenile detention is and they didn't 'adjust' him until he was caught as an adult and when that didn't work locked him up again. Or maybe the conditioning took place while he was actually serving a jail sentence. Or maybe jail or mental adjustement are both options available to a judge and it depended on the exact circustances, temper of the judge and so forth.# It's one of the things in B7 I'd liked to have heard more about. Leia

1 0

Nova (was Sentencing)
by Leia Fee 15 May '01

15 May '01

I always kind of thought Nova was probably a political troublemaker. His willingess to join Blake, his eagerness to volunteer for a dangerous part in the escape attempt, his youth and apparent innocence. They just look like the makings of an idealist who got caught. Leia

2 1

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Jenny Kaye 15 May '01

15 May '01

Steve Kilbane wrote: > > > This would explain why he's able to indulge in > > > >some self-defensive actions in 'Deliverance' (and possibly 'Cygnus > > > >Alpha' as well), because he isn't experiencing sufficient rage to > > > >trigger the limiter. > > > > > > Then what would be the point of giving him a limiter at all? > > > >In a sane society, there would be reason; it would mean that anything > >he does is done while in control. Diminished responsibility or > >temporary insanity wouldn't be valid defenses. So he'd bear the > >full consequences of his actions. > > > >But this is the Federation, so that doesn't count here. :-) Oh dear. The Federation isn't insane. How long do you think it would last if it were? The Federation stands for order, not chaos. Never confuse corrupt with insane. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

2 1

Sentencing
by Leia Fee 15 May '01

15 May '01

I said >Now I'm wondering what determines whether a convicted criminal gets >their >mind messed with or gets locked up. Age? The Federation didn't seem to >have any qualms about messing with the kids memories to get them to >incriminate Blake. then Julia said... >Here it isn't the Federation, but corrupt Federation officials at the >highest levels - not the same thing. What goes on behind closed doors is >not necessarily what is allowed under official policy. Vila's >psychiatric treatment seems to me to be an official part of the penal >system, and attempt to reform him so that he is A Good Citizen, what was >done to falsify a case against Blake was not part of the official >system. Accepted. Faulty argument on my part. I think maybe they would be more inclined to try to reform young offendors with more traditional methods of correction - better PR. >And once you've been cured of your unfortunate mental illness, you'll be >terribly grateful to the state for your medical treatment. I can see them being very keen to publicise how remorseful and grateful they reformed criminals are actually. Leia

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Steve Kilbane 15 May '01

15 May '01

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 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. > you only know that at some point in the past, it started to > > >malfunction. From then on, to the point where an expert in the field > > >declares > > >that it's fixed, all bets are off. > > An expert who declares Gan a psychopath. Irrevelant to the reliability of the limiter, before he fixes it. All you *can* say, reliably, is that > > >you can't trust what's going on in there, because there's an unknown > factor > > >that *might* be influencing things in an unpredictable manner. > > That's absolutely right. But only right in the sense in which it relates to > that particular episode. Only in the sense that you can't reliably infer anything from Gan's behaviour during the majority of that episode. So let's discount it as a episode contributing towards or against any theory about Gan's character, shall we? steve

1 0

Re: [B7L] the limits of parody
by Steve Kilbane 15 May '01

15 May '01

Me, then Jenny: > > >Well, actually, we had *that* particular argument a few months back, and > > >it got rather unpleasant. :-) > > Yes. Ever wondered why? Nope. Some people just can't have a civilised debate without attacking or bating their opponents, it seems. I did wonder why it went on so long, though. > If you disagree about the evidence, you're > > >unlikely to be convinced. > > Not at all. You bring consistent evidence to support a conclusion, then I > will consider it very carefully. [blink] Are you saying that if someone presents evidence that you disagree with, you still might be swayed by it? > 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. > 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 intension? Direction? But that's a separate issue. My point is, saying "X is true" when you're actually merely inferring X from circumstantial evidence, is flawed. > > >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. > 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. steve

1 0

Re: [B7L] We can't *all* be geniuses
by Steve Kilbane 15 May '01

15 May '01

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. Which means you've got at least two versions of correct - the writer's, and that of anyone who modifies the writer's - which immediately leads to two starting points for interpretation. The TV versus film comparison is irrevelant: to paraphrase you, one changes a lot, while the other changes a little. So they both involve change. So there are multiple viewpoints to start from. steve

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Limiters in general
by Steve Kilbane 15 May '01

15 May '01

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. > > >It means you have a hypothetical model which fits the facts you've > > >observed. > > Yes, Dr Havant. Which means, what, exactly? > 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. > 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. > 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. > > >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". steve

1 0

New Blake Zine: Price Revisions
by Sondra Sweigman 15 May '01

15 May '01

The Way Forward: Crusades of Blake, which debuted at Redemption in February, has just completed a second print run, and we find that we can now offer it to US and Canadian buyers for $2 less than the original price. TWF: CoB is an all-Blake genzine consisting of 165 A4 pages of stories and poetry, richly illustrated with all-color computer graphics (plus an original watercolor of Blake as a solar prominence on the back cover). The zine may be ordered from the following sources for the following prices: Pat Fenech 4/2-6 Darley Road Leichhardt, 2040 New South Wales Australia patriciamaryf(a)iprimus.com.au Price: $38.00 AUS Judith Proctor Waveney Press 28 Diprose Road Corfe Mullen, Wimborne Dorset BH21 3QY United Kingdom Judith(a)Blakes-7.com http://www.hermit.org.Blakes7 Price: 17 pounds (Note: Judith accepts credit card orders) Sondra Sweigman 2 Hiawatha Road Woburn MA 01801-5418 USA sweigman(a)world.std.com Price: $21.00 US Anyone who missed the publicity flyer originally posted on February 19, can't find it in the Lysator archives and would like to see the full rundown on the contents may contact me privately and I'll e-mail it to you (specify if you prefer Word or plain text). Sondra

1 0

RE: [B7L] the limits of parody
by Roberts, Patricia ＠ CSE 15 May '01

15 May '01

> Jenny wrote: > Suicide is painless :-). > > And Tavia replied: > No it isn't. > Neither is it a good subject for jokes. Agree. Pat

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