Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Sentencing
by Leia Fee 13 May '01

13 May '01

I wrote.... > A life sentence for theft is a little heavy too but the Federation aren't > exactly strong on prisoner rights from what we see of their justice system. Then Helen wrote... >In California you could get a life sentence for theft if it's the third >time you are caught and the dollar value is high enough. I never knew that. How high is 'high enough'? <curious> >Vila was in and out of the system several times before he was made a lifer, or so I >interpreted his comments on his past. Yep I agree. I suppose when fiddling with his mind didn't work and locking him up for a finite time didn't work they resorted to a life sentence. 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. Seriousness of the offence? Repeated offences? >The really interesting thing, as someone brought up on list before, is >Nova-- he's a pretty fresh-faced kid to be getting life himself. And keen to help Blake and had been avoiding the drugs in the food on the London. Interesting. Leia

1 0

Limiters in General
by Leia Fee 13 May '01

13 May '01

Helen wrote... >In Buffy, Spike realizes he has to actually *think* about hurting >someone to trigger his chip. There needs to be intention. Gan's limiter >might have a similiar problem-- if the situation is so severe that he is >acting on instict rather than clear thought, it doesn't recognize the >intent to kill? Different nueral path, doesn't hit the block. Just a >possibility. An interesting one. That apparent killing on Cygnus Alpha has always bothered me but that explanation fits quite nicely. Also fits with the 'I was enjoying that' in Redemption(?) - until he realised what he was doing and had to stop. Leia

1 0

Re: Limiters in general
by Helen Krummenacker 13 May '01

13 May '01

> Jenny said... > >He also appears to kill someone with a spear in Cygnus Alpha. > > Accepted. But I'm not sure what more that proves other than the limiter is > not 100% reliable. > In Buffy, Spike realizes he has to actually *think* about hurting someone to trigger his chip. There needs to be intention. Gan's limiter might have a similiar problem-- if the situation is so severe that he is acting on instict rather than clear thought, it doesn't recognize the intent to kill? Different nueral path, doesn't hit the block. Just a possibility.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Marriage and the federation
by Alison Page 13 May '01

13 May '01

Ellyne said - >Look, we all know I'm the little arch-conservative. Do you think >arch-conservatives are blind to social injustices? >Or that welfare 'reforms' that seem likely to >penalize children when they kick in in the very near future don't make me >furious? I don't know any other arch-conservatives to whom those two descriptions would apply which is why I wouldn't have classified you in that category. I would have called you right of central, certainly, but I wouldn't have put you with the arch-coservative poeple one sees on other lists who rant on about 'Let the babies die, it's Darwinian'. I know you aren't in that group. >I know I'm not always the best at expressing myself, but have I really >done that poor a job? OK, well you did pick up that I was a bit pissed off, but in fact it was simpler than that. I'm in a very long-standing partnership, which is not formal marriage, and I took exception to the undercurrent coming from a bunch of people on the list, that a relationship which is not formalised by State approval means the people have less respect for each other, or less commitment, or are dislinclined to care for their children, or whatever. Alison

1 0

Re: Careers
by Helen Krummenacker 13 May '01

13 May '01

> Jenna as free-lance pilot, hiring herself out for the more adventurous and > dangerous jobs, is an obvious choice. I think she'd also make a decent > investigative journalist - always asking "What's going on?" :-) > And has a nice combination of cynicism, skepticism *and* a desire to believe the cynics wrong. She'd be good at digging to the heart of political things without trying to make her reputation at the cost of an innocent by distorting facts. > >

1 0

Re: [B7L] Famouse Sand Pit (no! not _that_ one!)
by Sally Manton 13 May '01

13 May '01

Ellynne wrote: <But, that pales beside the greater issue - The B7 characters are clearly reincarnated a few centuries later in Dune!> Eeep. That's one I *hadn't* thought of :-) <Duncan Idaho is clearly Vila (who is paying off his bad Karma debt for cowardice by being reincarnated as a heroic type [again, and again, and again . . . he's got a lot of debt to pay off])> Oh, I *love* this idea, with or without the Dune tie-in (actually, if you wanted to write a fanfic on the idea of Vila being reincarnated like this ...) <Blake was Leto (guy tried to change the system for the better, failed).> Of course. <Avon was rather peeved to come back as Paul (IMO, especially as Cally was Jessica and Dayna was Chani).> Avon would probably be peeved no matter who he came back as. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Jabberwocky - MIndRape
by Judith Proctor 13 May '01

13 May '01

Part two of Jabberwocky is now up in the Hermit library. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.knightwriter.org ) Redemption '03 21-23 Feb 2003 http://www.smof.com/redemption/

1 0

Ebay B7 nice collectible--# 1144417913
by JEB31538＠cs.com 13 May '01

13 May '01

Blake's 7 on Ebay has a wonderful collectible--item # 11444417913. It is Chris Boucher's handwritten first draft (91 pages) of "Star One." I think this is something any serious collector of B7 would like to have. I'm almost tempted to bid on it myself, but I am trying not to collect scripts since they up a lot of space to keep. But if you've got the space and the money, then this is truly a one of a kind item for you. I'm going to slap my fingers and let this item go to some other lucky fan. Joyce

1 0

iains episode reviews: TWB
by Sally Manton 13 May '01

13 May '01

Iain W wrote, amongst other good things: <Another indication of imperfect drugging is the public address announcement: "President to answer questions on population control". So clearly there are people questioning authority and public announcements about it - so even the fact that people question authority is not hidden. This implies that the administration needs some sort of popular support. Is it possible that there are elections to some positions within the administration? So Blake may be fighting a democracy (albeit a pretty dodgy one).> Possibly not. Oh they could have 'elections' (I would imagine that the 'right' candidate wins, however, even assuming there's more than one.) Two little points here: firstly, the Federation does strike me - at least before the War - as interested in *appearing* to have the interests of its subjects at heart (among other things, the fact that prisoners *are* shipped off to prison planets is IMO a pretence of 'clemency', life instead of death). This is not that unusual in dictatorships, which often put a heavy emphasis on appearing to be benevolent and wonderful on one hand, and ruthlessly stifling dissent with the other. (For instance, both the Soviet and Nazi secret service acted almost in a PR situation, expending much time and effort to try and find out what ordinary people *genuinely* thought - a task not made easier by their other task of suppressing any such genuine thought that tended to be critical). I can see the same sort of thing in the Federation (remember the work-over Blake got, to make him publicly recant. And this would quite likely be more focused in the centre of their power base, Earth, than in the Outer Worlds. Secondly, <g> though it is good for the image to have the President appear alert and open to people's concerns, and ready to address them, we don't hear what *kind* of questions he is going to answer, do we? "Dear Mr President, would you like to tell your loyal subjects what wonderful successes we have had over the last few months in this vital area, all due to your foresight and brilliant planning, and how everyone listening can do their part in the next all-important step towards the great and orderly future you and your loyal council have nobly dedicated your lives to giving us?" _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Marriage and the federation
by Ellynne G. 13 May '01

13 May '01

>Ellyne said marriage would have advantages for the Federation >>2) If people know their misbehaviors may come back and >>hit their family, they are less likely to commit them. >Though of course people who are not married still have families, and live >with them, and love them just as much and everything, so this would apply >anyway. >Or do you mean that the Federation would find it harder to identify who >those families were? Sorry, I _try_ to keep my posts down to manageable size, and then I cut out essential elements. Now, starting with the usual disclaimer that anthropology is only an off and on interest of mine, making knowledge gaps inevitable, let's get on with this. I suppose I should have said that the Federation is likely to encourage the idea that certain male-female pairings should come with a life long commitment attached and with strong, vested interests (both social and economic) in the other's well being. As far as I know, in most cultures where such exists, this kind of union is usually referred to as a 'marriage' (or that's how they're commonly translated). The commitment angle is the one I see as of primary interest to the Federation. Look, I don't know everything I'd like to about human cultures, but how we organize our families and what obligations we recognize ourselves as having to them and others is one of the core elements of social structure. There are some cultures that go to the extreme that only blood relatives count, cultures where women were referred to as strangers in their husbands' homes because they weren't his blood (or, conversely, where fathers were of little account [however, matrilineal cultures are another, underdocumented-from-unprejudiced-sources-before-they-were-in prolonged-contact-with-patrilineal-cultures story]). There are cultures where relatives, by blood or marriage, are the _only_ people you can ask for help or who aren't considered competitors. Anyhow, what we're talking isn't just the personal element of the relationship, however powerful that may be. We're talking about having as many reasons as possible to see your social and economic (and assorted other) fortunes as coinciding with another individual's, a view supported by as many _outside_ forces as may reasonably be brought to bear. Ergo, a legally recognized union of a type with major legal and social baggage. Then, there's the children angle. The term 'legitimate,' when used in reference to children, originally had legal connotations, whether a child was considered a legitimate _heir_. It's quite possible for a child to be a legitimate heir without being what we usually think of the word legitimate as meaning (and, before anyone says, I quite agree that stigmatizing a child for parental behavior is low). Also, it's quite possible for a child to be 'legitimate' without being a legitimate heir (morgannatic marriage, female children, the list is long). Since status for minors and things such as their access to education and other privileges (medical help, the Federation version of social security, etc) are dependent on to what extent they have claim on their parents' status, I assumed a governmental interest in the issue. Also, if there is a reasonable social expectation of having heirs for whatever reasons (duty to the state or to the family), which children can be _heirs_ is of greater interest (in our own culture, we still consider it a greater tragedy for a father to lose his only _son_ [and don't complain about the justice of it. I'm just stating a fact, not my opinions on it]. Also, consider the military's sole surviving son rule). These children are also greater leverage against the parent. I wouldn't call it fair, but there are enough precedents that I would call it true to how a lot of people act with the right cultural conditioning. >>Would a delta >>grade who had a child out of wedlock or whatever receive any kind of >>state help? Unlikely. >Would a Delta who conceived a child *in* wedlock receive any state help? >Presumably the same rules would apply: in either case if she or her partner >were unemployed they wouldn't be able to feed the child without help. A >marriage contract doesn't make it cheaper to live. Again, let me clarify. From things Vila has said (like about getting his pleasure hours in the rec center or whatever) and because I like to use ancient Rome as a partial basis for the Federation, I assume there is a sort of 'bread and circuses' mentality. This also means things about citizenship - there were lots people -even rich, important people - in the Roman Empire who weren't citizens. A _citizen_ of the Federation and Earth (JMO, but I think there were citizens who wouldn't have had automatic rights to Earth residency and that living on Earth was generally cushier), even low grade, I'm thinking would have certain claims on the state. This is just an idea I had for a story, but I'm thinking they had claims to some kind of housing and food coupons, possibly a few other things. When I was first kicking this idea around, I thought that the Federation would come down very hard on anyone it saw as not fulfilling various legal requirements - I was passing on what I saw as some of the nastier ideas in the welfare reform debate a few years ago (see Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' for details). I then combined this with the economic problems Rome faced providing bread when the empire was no longer expanding. More specifically, I was working with a story in which Avon's mother was nonFederation (a soldier from Helotrix who had to go underground after the Federation took over her world the first time). She wound up on Earth with false papers passing her off as a delta. Without going into lengthy side stories about Avon's father and how they were seperated during this time, she got stuck on Earth after finding out she was pregnant. To clarify her difficulties, she could 1) Find a way to support her child (so long as she didn't make claims for him, she still received her own food ration and a hole in the wall [literally, in the domes] room) without using any of her job skills that would show she probably wasn't the grade she seemed _and_ without falling afoul of the law, which would have her declared unfit and her child taken into 'care.' 2) Give up and hand him over to a life of abuse, assuming he survived. Look, we all know I'm the little arch-conservative. Do you think arch-conservatives are blind to social injustices? Do you think we don't have axes to grind? Or that welfare 'reforms' that seem likely to penalize children when they kick in in the very near future don't make me furious? Or that, when I consider the Federation likely to perpetuate the same kind of evils, I mean it as a good thing? I know I'm not always the best at expressing myself, but have I really done that poor a job? Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

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