Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Re: [B7L] Free Speech (was: Thread hijacking)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/24/01 6:35:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << FYI, one of the things I greatly like about Calle's handling of the Lyst is his easygoing attitude to the airing of diverse views. >> Well, yes. I agree with you completely. Which is why I took exception to the beginning of this entire conversation where people were being told that they didn't have the right to insert "humorous" or "trivial" comments into the middle of a serious thread. Which is also why your diversion of the real topic is rather strange. I also pointed out (as did other posters) that those people who truly wanted to have a "private conversation in the corner" should not expect to be able to do so on a list several hundred strong... and that their only options therefore are to a) live with the fact that their threads are not sacrosanct and people will respond in the tone and manner in which they wish or b) have a PRIVATE conversation rather than posting in front of the entire list or c) start their own list with rules that suit them better. Those are really the only options I can see. Because, frankly, even if some of us (like Betty has graciously done) agree that subject lines will be changed, etc., etc., a mailing list is in constant flux and the agreement will never stick. You're never going to get all the members of the list to comply *unless it is a rule of the list*. Why continue to upset yourself (and other members of the list) by making an issue of it? You have options. Pick one. Annie

2 1

Other Lists
by Ashton7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/24/01 4:01:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, Mac4781(a)aol.com writes: << Actually there are lot more than three right now. And other fandoms, I've been told, support many more than three, with some of them very highly specialized. Lists devoted to one character, etc. I'm sure there is overlap on those as well. >> Goodness, Blakes 7 fandom is positively *deprived* in the list department. Why, even in the rather small fandom of Alias Smith & Jones (a tv Western from the 1970s) we have, I believe, at least SIX lists and all of them, from what I can see, very healthy. Actually, I think I'm wrong. I think there are more lists than that because there are several just for *fan fiction*. There are also numerous TV Western lists where the show is discussed on a regular basis. Highlander fandom is positvely inundated with lists. I belong to 20 at last count, many of them devoted solely to Peter Wingfield (one of the guest/recurring characters!). There are many more out there devoted to other characters and actors. And then there are all of the online web Forums. There are quite a few for Highlander and its associated actors/characters. We have one of those for Alias Smith & Jones, too. Is there one of those anywhere for Blakes 7, come to think of it? Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Books and Movies - sorry 'bout the two posts
by Sally Manton 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

As you could see I left one rather important word - Cally - out of the first one, and thougth I'd caught it before it went into cyberspace. Wardrobe Room, Treasure Room ... I wonder if they had a Hobbies Room? The problem is, of course, we can't imagine what sort of technological advance might impact on hobbies (the fifties view of the future vs the arrival of internet being a good example). _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] One Two Princes Kneel Before You (still is: Thread hijacking)
by Ashton7＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

In a message dated 2/24/01 2:09:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, nydersdyner(a)yahoo.co.uk writes: << The Silly List for B7 is Lysator, moderated by Calle (please observe that he is a bloke). Posts to this list cannot be in any way shape or form serious. Anybody caught posting about postmodernism, Marxist theory or Foucauldian analysis of the fabric and colour of trousers will be politely asked to leave. >> I know you're just being humorous, Fiona (and these descriptions of possible lists genuinely are funny)... but the descriptions you've written show that you're just not getting the point. NO ONE has suggested that the "serious" posters LEAVE Lysator. NO ONE has suggested that Lysator become the "silly" list. The point has been and remains that a few people like Neil and yourself have said that you want the freedom to post serious threads *without be interrupted* by "trivial" or "humorous" posts or by having "your" posts "hijacked" in some way. You've said now that there was never a desire to have private conversations in a corner... but I quoted that directly from, I believe, one of Neil's posts. I'm sure it's out there in the archives. The suggestion has been made that if you truly want to have posts guaranteed not to be hijacked, the ONLY solution is to create a list for just that purpose. It ain't gonna happen here so why make yourself miserable. But no one has said that you must leave or that they want you to leave. As Susan Beth pointed out, trying to imbue the other side of this argument with possessing the same feelings of "ownership" regarding threads is a futile exercise because the same situation doesn't exist on the other side of the issue. As Carol pointed out, Susan Beth took just that action when the people wanting to have slash and explicit discussion decided they wanted a "safe" place to talk. I was here on Lysator when that originally came about and I remember it well. Calle NEVER said that anyone had to leave Lysator because they wanted to talk about slash. It wasn't against the rules and he supported the people who wanted to have those types of discussion. But a number of posters decided that they didn't want to continue to "offend" some of the other members of the list and, most importantly, they didn't want to continue to be *harassed* about their opinions and beliefs. They wanted to talk "safely." Without interruption, if you will. So, they created their own list and it is going strong today. Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Books and Movies
by Sally Manton 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Dana wrote: <And I didn't think she was reading, it looked to me like a magnifier that you would use to do needlepoint or some kind of fine handwork.> Oh I *like* that, because I can see *my* Cally being interesting in something beautiful and fiddly like lacemaking ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Books and Movies
by Sally Manton 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Dana wrote: <And I didn't think she was reading, it looked to me like a magnifier that you would use to do needlepoint or some kind of fine handwork.> Oh I *like* that, because I can see *my* being interesting in something beautiful and fiddly like lacemaking ... _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Another new zine at Redemption
by Deborah Day 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- > >My favourite ever by Chris was a John Cooper Clark version of Orbit. Is it >in here Chris? I guess JCC is slightly obscure, but I thought it was spot >on. I wish you could be persuaded to do a live version at Redemption. Or >perhaps we should get one of the Mancunians on the list to do it in the >appropriate drawl. > >'My mate went a hunting >he was norra man to cross >I hid in the shuttle >he didn't give a toss' > Utterly brilliant - surely the great JCC isn't obscure though? He's been well enough known to do a series of adverts on the radio for the Grauniad recently. I can just hear him saying that poem. I always thought he was more Burnley than Manchester but maybe its just the adenoids talking ... More please Chris. Debbie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Thread hijacking
by Susan Beth 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Fiona Moore wrote: > >Similarly, I don't necessarily find Avon Lust >inappropriate for discussion on Lysator (I should hope >not, since I've been carrying on the slash thread >:)...), just not always to my taste, or the taste of >others. However, nobody has suggested that people who >wish to carry on with these uninterrupted are fascist >old stick-in-the-muds out to ruin everyone's fun. Excuse me, perhaps my copies of relevant messages got lost in cyberspace, but don't you suppose that the reason no one had suggested anything about those people is because they *don't exist*? Because NO ONE complained about serious comments "interrupting" humorous threads. NO ONE claimed humorous threads were so delicate that they withered and died if anyone dared make a serious side point. NO ONE has said that those who can't add to the joke should just butt out or change the subject line or leave us alone or made any other comment to imply that those serious posts would be anything other than welcome. All of the attempts to control the posting behavior of other people have come from those trying to 'protect' their serious threads. The "You'd flame us if we did it to you" defense was not a report of it having happened (and I sincerely doubt it ever has) but merely a prediction by one of the "leave our serious threads alone" members. Note that all the responses to that post from the other side were of the "Are you kidding?" and other "no, we wouldn't" flavors. >The point I wanted to make in my response to Annie >might be better expressed as: "Why should it be more >appropriate to carry on with an Avon Lust thread >uninterrupted than to carry on with a Serious thread >uninterrupted?" Both have their place, and *that* is >what I want recognised. I just want equal rights for >academics... :) It wouldn't be "more appropriate"....But no one except your side has ever suggested that an Avon Lust or any other light hearted thread SHOULD be uninterrupted. The pro-humor side utterly and honestly don't mind. Go ahead, respond to the next post about Avon's red leather trousers with a discussion of the morality of breeding animals to slaughter them. Debate the chemistry of the dyes that would produce that particular shade of read. Give us a comparison of the development of tanning techniques from six different civilizations. Speculate on the continued existence of sweat shots in the garment industry, and whether mutoids or deltas occupy them. It won't bother us a bit. If what you say is interesting, we may join in and create a sidethread. If it's boring, we'll hit delete. If it's ridiculous, well, it will give us something new to joke about. Why can't the 'serious thread' people react the same way? This 'reciprocal desire' on the part of those who indulge in humorous thread to have those thread left untainted simply doesn't exist. It's a straw man invented or imagined by those who want their serious thread unsullied. What we (the joking rabble) have been saying all along is that EVERY MEMBER of the list has a right to reply to EVERY POST on the list in the manner s/he sees fit, so long as they abide by the rules Calle laid out in the FAQ. There's no need to ask for "equal rights for academics" -- you already have it. Susan Beth (susanbeth33(a)mindspring.com)

2 1

Re: [B7L] Thread hijacking
by Mac4781＠aol.com 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Fiona wrote: > The point I wanted to make in my response to Annie > might be better expressed as: "Why should it be more > appropriate to carry on with an Avon Lust thread > uninterrupted than to carry on with a Serious thread > uninterrupted?" Both have their place, and *that* is > what I want recognised. I just want equal rights for > academics... :) Maybe I'm missing something, which is quite possible, especially since I'm not an Avon Luster... But I've not seen Avon Lusters request that other fans not interrupt their threads. They may not like it. It may annoy them. They may even grumble about folks who pop in with disparaging comments. But I've not seen them suggest interruptions aren't permissible. But I have seen the serious-posters suggest that interruptions aren't permissible. Or if one is going to interrupt, they've asked fans to change the heading. Which transfers a burden to other fans. A burden that to my mind interrupts the spontaneity of the lyst. It means whenever I'm going to respond to a thread I'd have to (a) take time to decide whether my comments might be construed as "hijacking" and (b) come up with a different subject header if I decided it might be hijacking. If I had to add those extra chores, slight as they may be, to the process, I'd do less posting. And I can't help but wonder if other fen would do less posting. I think we'd miss a lot of humorous zingers that often provide a great deal of brightness to my day. The other solution--the one I suggested--is to set up a serious spin list. That puts the burden on the fans who want the serious threads, as opposed to putting the burden on everyone else. It's such a simple solution, I'm not sure why it's been met with a thud of silence from the serious supporters. When the slash issue was a bone of contention, that's exactly what Susan Beth (we cant thank her enough) did. She set up a private corner where slash fans/character junkies could burble away. Let me conclude by saying that I have sympathy with the serious posters' plight. I've made my share of well-researched (to my mind), detailed posts that have not received the serious responses I hoped. But some of the "trivial" responses to my scholarly treatises were absolutely wonderful in their own right. And I'm glad I didn't miss them. That's what a list is all about. Sometimes being disappointed and sometimes getting unexpected treasures. Carol Mc

2 1

WARNING: Discussion about slash (was Re: The Gospel)
by Betty Ragan 24 Feb '01

24 Feb '01

Responding to me, Fiona wrote: > > My personal opinion is that both h/c and slash are > > *valid* ways of exploring the characters > > This is a genuine and serious question, I am *not* taking the mick-- how is > it valid to the character to read in a relationship which most people seem > to agree isn't there-- including the people who write those stories? I mean, > I personally can see it as a fun thing to do for a bit of fantasy, but I > don't see the character-exploration bit. OK. I think this is a perfectly reasonable question, but it's one that I see as having a rather complicated answer, so I'm afraid this is going to be kind of a long post. WARNING: I am going to talk about slash here. (I assume that it's slash you're referring to above, Fiona, not h/c, which, as several people have said, isn't at all the same thing.) I am going to do so *only* because I was asked a serious and reasonable question about it by someone who (as far as I know) is not on the Other List. I am going to try to be as neutral and non-inflammatory as I possibly can; believe me, I have *no* desire to offend anybody. For anyone who dislikes reading about this topic at all, I urge you to please hit "delete" or scroll down your digest to the next post now. I'd also like to make it very clear that all of the below is *very* much IMHO, that I am aware that others (including people who read and/or write slash) have different opinions, and different interpretations of the B7 canon. (For instance, there certainly are people who *do* see a slash relationship between Avon and Blake in what's on the screen, certainly much more than I do. I don't claim to speak for them or for anybody but myself.) I also should amend my wording from the previous post, I should have said that I think slash *can be* a valid way of exploring the characters. Sometimes it is simply "a fun thing to do for a bit of fantasy," and sometimes it's done badly and thus isn't a valid example of anything much besides bad fanfic. :) Also, I'm going to pretty much confine myself to talking about A/B slash, mainly because that's what I'm most familiar with. Right. All that having been said, here's my take on why slash *can* be a valid mechanism for exploring the characters, IMHO: To begin with, I, personally, do not think that the canon actually points to there being a homosexual relationship between the characters. I *also* think, however, that there's nothing in the canon to rule out the possibility. And there are certain things that, if one is so inclined (and your friend's "gaydar" notwithstanding), can be read as suggestive, at the very least, of a certain degree of sexual tension (particularly on Avon's part). Again, while I don't think canon actively supports the possibility, I don't think it rules it out, either. I don't even think it's terribly implausible. Which makes it, IMO, as reasonable a thing to speculate on as any other possibility which is left open by the canon. A good comparison, actually, would be the one you brought up about "The Mark of Kane"'s take on Gan. There's nothing in canon that actually indicates that Gan was a serial killer before he got the implant, but there's nothing (in my interpretation) that rules it out, either, and there *are* things you can point to as possibly being suggestive of it, if you're inclined to see them that way. It's a possibility that some people (including me) are bound to find disturbing, but IMO it's a valid speculation that can open up some interesting new perspectives on the character. I see slash very much the same way. Assuming, for the sake of the story, that there *is* a sexual element to the relationship can allow the writer (and the reader) to explore character possibilities that wouldn't necessarily come up in a gen story, or to explore them in different ways than a gen story might. For example, a slash writer might be interested in issues of control and dominance in the Avon-Blake relationship, and choose to explore this by looking at who is in control in the bedroom. Depending on what approach the author takes, the sex might serve as a metaphor for their larger relationship, it might serve as a deliberate contrast to their behavior on the flight deck (possibly exploring *why* they behave the way they do there), or it might be the means by which they resolve the control issues they have with each other. That's just one example. Other writers might choose to explore other aspects of the relationship (and frequently do). Personally, while I generally regard slash stories as AU, I think they can be *very* interesting and (please excuse the pun!) fruitful "what if" exercises. There have certainly been slash stories which made me think very hard about my own take on the characters and on their relationship. Does that make sense to you, Fiona? I could go on, but I don't want to belabor the issue too much if I've already managed to make my own POV clear. -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

3 2

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