Blakes7 March 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

96 participants
1067 discussions

SF:UK
by Julie Horner 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

Just flicking through the new issue of Radio Times I noticed that SF:UK (the new series about British SF for which Paul Darrow has been interviewed) begins this coming Saturday (17th March) on Channel 4 at 12.50am (well I suppose that is Sunday really). This section in the listings is introduced as "More offbeat programming". Hmm. The first one appears to be about HG Wells so probably no B7 interest there but at least the show is finally being aired.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Birds and Bees
by Harriet Monkhouse 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

Dana told Neil: >>I've even hinted that clone might be haploid, >>with only half the full set of chromosomes, >> but I'm not sure if that's biologically feasible. >>Though apparently it works for frogs. > >That's because the Scots invented them. I was just about to ask Iain - what was the Scotsman on who invented the Blue Poison-dart Frog? Jarriet

4 4

A Sterile Federation
by Bizarro7＠aol.com 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

I don't recall any recent discussion on this topic, but there is one thing I've wondered about since I first viewed the series: What is the possibility that most of the individual citizens of the Federation have been sterilized, by one means or another? We saw very few children throughout the entire run of the show, no matter where the LIBERATOR and the SCORPIO travelled...certainly far fewer than one sees today in any public environment. The Auronar were an isolated and 'alien' situation with a different policy, and there were other hints of isolated colony planets that had gone back to breeding their own, but for the most part, there were hints that the Federation was in control of the process. All we really ever heard about it was a vague reference to 'creches', and these appeared to be divided up into some sort of class system (or else the class of Alpha, Delta etc. was awarded afterward, based on some Federation standard). Any ideas or thoughts on this? Leah

2 1

feudalism continued...
by Nathan Hook 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

As I understand it feudalism was a system where the King owned everything and then delegated land down to the nobles who in turn delegated it to the knights who delegated it to the peasants, in return for service said steven. The best example of this of course is 1066 when William took all of England by right of conquest. He owned all of it, but divied up parts to various Norman followers who were essentially tenants. They could hold the land for generations, paying rent for the right to freehold it for the King, but did not own it themselves. Which over the centuries I guess lead to the war of the roses as ties with Normandy/France became religious rather than administrative and land suddenly was seen as no longer owned by the King, in exceedingly loose terms I'm describing this gerational process here. With regards to the Fuedal business I guess I was thinking too of the mechanics of the situation. for example the Duke of Normandy was also King of England, therefore a powerful individual in his own right. (also the religious conotations of being King...endorsement from the Church, divine rule the healing power of touch etc.) Along with him were similarly powerful territories with the Dukes of Burgundy, Brittany, Aquitaine and the likes of the Counts of Anjou, Flanders...yada yada. essentially there existed a state of conformity and compliance to the King of France, however equally they could defy and be in disagreement with him. they didn't like him poking his authority into their demesne. In the case of the Duke of Normandy he was just as likely to be at war with the King. This is why I used the analogy of the moloch episode. The King in his Doomsday Book, knew quite precise details about the territories of his tenants and knew what value they were worth and what he should be getting from them in "rent" if you like. I recall servalan knowing what grose's resources to be, and being surprised by evidence to the contrary, which was to be a threat to her hold on power. a Duke about to poke about in her demesne, which was severly weakened by the end of the glactic war. Still your warlord theory holds merit Steven and it's quite possible that generals et al made use of the weakened position of the federation to set up a powerbase somewhere, given the uncertain times. Further research into this matter will continue. nathan. A 'strange coincidence', to use a phrase/ By which such things are settled nowadays. Byron. ------------------------------------------------------------ Free, BeOS-friendly email accounts: http://BeMail.org/ Peep! .:. http://twinfusion.com/comic/peep/ .:. An Epic Webcomic

3 2

Re: [B7L] Redemption '01 con report and pics
by Harriet Monkhouse 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

Joanne wrote: >Alas, poor Una. Now we don't actually need Neil's photograph... Oh yes we do. Harriere

1 0

Re: [B7L] Re: Use of images
by Ashton7＠aol.com 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

In a message dated 3/13/01 3:08:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, steve.rogerson(a)mcr1.poptel.org.uk writes: << The rights to your own image law does exists in the US I believe and can come into play here (someone who knows US law a bit better may be able to explain), but there is no equivalent law in the UK yet, though the government is thinking about this. >> Yes, but if you are considered a "public" figure, these rights are very limited. You are considered to have signed them away by very virtue of the fact that you have chosen to be an actor or a politician, etc. Annie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Recent slash discussions etc
by Tavia 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

Iain wrote: >I'm afraid I really don't buy this at all. To me, the >difference-- if any -- between a picture of Avon >and a picture of Paul Darrow exists only in the mind >of the beholder. I guess all I can do is disagree. Based on the blooper tape as cited, there is a clear difference to this particular beholder at least. I can also see the difference in offscreen shots in 'Blake's 7: the inside story', in fact there's two or three shots in that book out of costume which I guess *must* be Paul Darrow but I simply don't recognise at all. If I were a better artist, I might be able to characterise where the differences lie (in the line of the mouth, in the eyes, in the set of the jaw ???) but as it is I'll just have to bluster. I think it might be actor specific, as the difference is nowhere near so pronounced for Steven Pacey vs Tarrant. >Do I think the cops should be inspecting fan art to make >sure none of its subjects are offended by the product? >No. Absolutely not. Would I happily piss on the grave >of someone who used my likeness in a manner I found >offensive or degrading? Yup. Actually I think we're in complete agreement here. Tavia

3 2

Re: Preferred expletives
by Deborah Day 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- Personally I always thought Damn was better - you can spit it out and it goes with a bashed finger, or shutting the front door with the key inside, that sort of thing (I believe the amount of time between shutting the door and realising you don't have the key is a damnosecond). It relieves feeling without being offensive. Debbie

2 1

Re: Use of images
by Steve Rogerson 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

Shane wrote: "Could be that Sally just didn't like the way the pictures made her look. For actors, their bodies are their instruments, their means of making their living. Whether they're hired or not often depends on how they look in a picture. So if she sees a picture which she thinks goes against her image, and might make it hard for her to get work, she'd have every right to ask for it to be removed." Unless, as Annie suggested, she had some contract re the actual photos with the photographer, she would have no legal right at all. If I take a photo of you which you don't like, you would have no rights to stop me selling or publishing it. The rights to your own image law does exists in the US I believe and can come into play here (someone who knows US law a bit better may be able to explain), but there is no equivalent law in the UK yet, though the government is thinking about this. Shane said: "didn't Lalla Ward successfully sue a men's magazine a few years ago over faked-up nude photos of herself?" Don't know about this, but it is possible that she did this under libel laws. If they altered her image to make it look like she would do something she would not normally do and could be said to be damaging to her character, then she does have a case under libel laws. -- cheers Steve Rogerson http://homepages.poptel.org.uk/steve.rogerson Redemption 03, 21-23 February 2003, Ashford, Kent The 25th Anniversary Blake's 7 Convention The 10th Anniversary Babylon 5 Convention http://www.smof.com/redemption

1 0

Re: [B7L] Redemption '01 con report and pics
by J MacQueen 13 Mar '01

13 Mar '01

>From: "Neil Faulkner" <N.Faulkner(a)tesco.net> >And it's not the only one, is it, little Unakins? I Was There Too. <shakes head> You neglected to insert the diabolical laughter. Probably for the best, though... Regards Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

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 March 2001