Fiona Moore wrote:

I wasn't actually referring to debate ettiquette when I spoke of the Gospel. I mean that there are certain opinons which appear to be taken as the "mainstream opinion" on the Lyst. For instance:

These really surprise me, because I don't agree with most of them, and I *certainly* didn't think most of them were "mainstream opinion."

-Deliverance is a great story and shows Avon in his best light [I think this one's changed status now, but for a long time this was held to be true]

I think the Avon-Meegat scenes in "Deliverance" are fun. It's not remotely one of my top-ten favorite episodes, but I find it mildly entertaining. I *did* feel, during the "Deliverance" thread, as if I were being told that I was an Evil Tool of the Patriarchy or something for not finding it revolting, though... Which made me (and, I think, a number of other people) feel rather defensive.

-Avon and Blake are in love, or at least in lust, with each other

I know there are some people who firmly believe this, but I always considered it a minority view. Me, I happen to like A/B (so shoot me! :)), but I'd disagree with that statement as it stands, in fact. (But, again, this probably really isn't the place to discuss that.)

-Same goes for Avon and Servalan

The lust I'd agree with there. I think it comes through fairly strongly on screen. This one probably *is* a mainstream opinion. I'd actually be quite interested in hearing what you think *is* going on between them, if you don't see a genuine sexual attraction.

-Blake is a noble idealist whose singlemindedness frequently blinds him to other people's needs, making him cold and insensitive

Hmm. I think people's views of Blake differ a *lot*. Heck, mine fluctuate all over the place, especially when I'm reading/writing fanfic.

-H/C fiction is a great way of exploring the more intimate side of a character, and neither it nor slash particularly offend anyone

I think all of us are very much aware that some people are offended by slash. Me, I *wasn't* aware that some people were offended by h/c. My personal opinion is that both h/c and slash are *valid* ways of exploring the characters (I won't go so far into value judgment as to say "excellent"). How well it actually works, of course, depends on the quality of the story.

-Women find brooding, soulful-eyed men inherently sexy

Some women, including some women on this list.

-The female characters on B7 are all positive role models

I don't think *anybody* on B7 is an ideal role model. :)

Now, every fandom has its version of this (for DW fans it seems to be things like: "Genesis of the Daleks, The Curse of Fenric etc. were great, The Daemons is shite... Colin Baker's Doctor was shite and Tom Baker's bloody brilliant... the TARDIS is a living entity...").

Hmm. I like "The Daemons," too...

However, dissenting opinions *are* automatically assumed to be the "minority opinion" which isn't always true (as we've seen in the case of the Deliverance thread, in which a *lot* of people outed themselves as dislikers of Deliverance).

I think part of the problem may be that different people had different ideas as to just what was being asserted on the "Deliverance" thread. I actually would not really disagree with the assertion that, say, "'Deliverance' has some questionable elements in terms of the gender roles, and this may reflect on the still male-dominated nature of English society and/or the Federation." That, to me, is an interesting and valid topic. Nor do I have any problem with someone saying "I dislike "Deliverance;" it strikes me as sexist." Even if those are minority opinions, I welcome hearing them. I *like* understanding how and why some people can see the same things differently from me. But if the tone of the post feels hostile and confrontational, as if the poster is more interested in asserting the absolutely rightness of his/her own opinion that actually discussing the issues, *that* annoys me. Perhaps (and this is something I'm just coming to realize now) that kind of tone often comes out of frustration and the feeling that one's opinons *aren't* being heard, or respected, or represented, or whatever. But, again, IMHO, getting snarky about that is counterproductive to opening up a good debate.

Similarly, I've heard from other people that when a line in "Mark of Kane" suggested (didn't state, just *suggested,* since there's no reason to assume Tando was telling the truth) that Gan might have had a dark and evil side, a lot of people reacted with shock, dismay and denials in the letters-of-comment in Horizon instead of discussing the evidence pro and con.

Hmm. Personally, I found that line *really* disturbing, and all the more so because it's so very, very *possible*.

--- Fiona Moore wrote: >

-Avon and Blake are in love, or at least in lust, with each other

Nope. Although I am reminded of one of the lines on the Evil Overlord website. "If a young couple come to town I will have them observed. If they are quite happy together I will ignore them. If they spend all their time insulting each other except when they are saving each others life when there are definite moments of sexual chemistry between them I will have them killed". Delete the word "sexual" from that and it's not a bad description.

Now, every fandom has its version of this (for DW fans it seems to be things like: "Genesis of the Daleks, The Curse of Fenric etc. were great, The Daemons is shite...

Blatant plagiarism of Quatermass and the Pit for my money, but quite entertaining none the less.

However, dissenting opinions *are* automatically assumed to be the "minority opinion" which isn't always true (as we've seen in the case of the Deliverance thread, in which a *lot* of people outed themselves as dislikers of Deliverance).

I'm slightly puzzled by this. I don't recall anyone suggesting that anyone else was wrong, merely by dint of being in a minority. I don't propose to go through a line by line exegesis of the entire thread, but as far as I can recall offence was generally caused by people not being prepared to (or being percieved as not being prepared to) accept that anyone who disagreed with them had a valid point of view.

My point is that all of these things *could be* the subject for debate, but they're *not* debated, and when you do, it stirs up hornets' nests.

Well you can't have it both ways.

Or becomes a non-starter. About a year ago I tried raising the "Blake is a noble idealist..." bit, and got a bit of decent debate out of it, followed by several posts reading "Oh, you'll never change my opinion of Blake! He's my fave..." (which falls kind of close to what I was talking about on the thread-hijacking thread).

Since I signed up to the Lyst about a month ago Deliverance and h/c have both been debated at length and I distinctly recall a lengthy debate about Blake's character the last time I was subscribed to the Lyst. Avon and Servalan, I imagine, wouldn't provoke a great deal of debate as the evidence is there in Deathwatch and Aftermath - although you've provoked a couple of posts neither of which were of the "Isn't Avon cute" variety.

Similarly, I've heard from other people that when a line in "Mark of Kane" suggested (didn't state, just *suggested,* since there's no reason to assume Tando was telling the truth) that Gan might have had a dark and evil side, a lot of people reacted with shock, dismay and denials in the letters-of-comment in Horizon instead of discussing the evidence pro and con.

I first watched this episode with my Dad when I was eight. When I asked for an explanation as to what was going on (having missed the first 15 minutes), Dad had missed some vital piece of exposition and concluded that Gan was a homicidal lunatic, hence the limiter. Not canon, of course, but we only have Gan's word in Time Squad and he might have lied to protect himself.

Again, this happens in other fandoms too (a gentle and well-spoken Old Oxonian friend of mine got savaged online last year for suggesting, with evidence, that Genesis of the Daleks was two episodes too long).

Pesky Cambridge graduates get everywhere :)

It also happens professionally (I regularly take stick in departmental seminars for suggesting that Levi-Strauss was not the recipient of some sort of divine revelation). So maybe it's part of human nature-- but part of *my* nature is to treat any sacred cow (sorry Neil) with suspicion.

Quite right too ! But I would suggest that sacred bovicide is not as uncommon on this Lyst as you imply :)

Stephen.

____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie