Blakes7 May 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

84 participants
897 discussions

Re: [B7L] A Word of Warning
by J MacQueen 21 May '01

21 May '01

>From: "Kinkade, Carol A" <Carol.Kinkade(a)West.Boeing.com> ><< Jenny writes: >When animal camouflage breaks down. Birds of a feather flock together. > >AH! A confession. You ARE on the lyst under other names. Wendy? Fiona? Can we stop this altogether? I've just identified that grinding noise I'm so sick of hearing - it's the groove being worn in the Ben Steed Memorial Barrel Bottom. It's giving off a strong smell of obsession, and I hardly need to add that I don't mean the perfume. I don't need this, you don't need this - any of you. I don't bloody care whether you're pro- or anti-slash, but I can hear my temper knocking on the walls of my brain, looking for a weak spot so it can get lost. Stop now. Getting tetchy Joanne _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] New frame captures
by J MacQueen 21 May '01

21 May '01

>From: "Sally Manton" <smanton(a)hotmail.com> >Do we have another convert here? ;-) Why not? My head is spinning. I think Servalan would have to explain a few plot points to me too, the way I feel... Regards Joanne (muttering darkly about festering things) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] now heading back to costumes
by Sally Manton 21 May '01

21 May '01

Tavia wrote: <Would Space Command count as 'Inner Worlds'? I'd hardly count Servalan as a plain dresser, even in S1.> I'd exempt it - and her; the plainness seems to be a civilian thing, and Servie's mode of dress is so very different from anyone else in the galaxy :-) Which is an interesting point in itself. Historically, a woman so successful and in a glittering, high-profile job, who is also strikingly beautiful and has a unique style would influence general fashion strongly (yes, it's very impractical fashion but since when did that stop it?) *Especially* once she became the President. But unless you count Jenna's and Cally's breif long-skirt period mid-S2, there's no sign that Servie's style had *any* influence. Could this be indirect evidence that she in fact deliberately kept *out* of the public eye (which would make the S4 switch marginally easier to swallow, if the public don't know what she looks like. Only marginally.) I can see some *faint* signs of military influence on the S3-4 fashions (ROD with Chesku/Anna, the pacific Obsidians) and the more practical 'uniform' overtones of the younger members of the crew (especially Tarrant). Dayna's and Soolin's ubiquitous but more sensible jumpsuits are quite a way from Jenna's and Cally's more ... errr ... original flights of fancy (but of course, jenna and Cally had Zen to run them up for them). _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] now heading back to costumes
by Tavia 21 May '01

21 May '01

Sally wrote: >It is interesting, watching the upsurge of sartorial exuberence in late S1-S2 after the plainness of the early, Earth fashions; as Bercol and Rontane, government high-flyers, also dress very plainly, I'm inclined to think that plain, unadorned fashion is the norm there (and possibly in the Inner Worlds) for all grades, differences being in quality of material and finish, perhaps. Once we get off Earth, it all starts to get more flamboyant (the Amagons, Sarkoff and Tyce, etc). < Would Space Command count as 'Inner Worlds'? I'd hardly count Servalan as a plain dresser, even in S1. Tavia

2 1

oh well
by Deborah Day 21 May '01

21 May '01

This email was delivered to you by The Free Internet, a Business Online Group company. http://www.thefreeinternet.net --------------------------------------------------------------- I knew it was too good to last. Debbie

1 0

Re: [B7L] Avon worship
by Jenny Kaye 21 May '01

21 May '01

Jacqui wrote: >"Jenny Kaye" <jennycat55(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > SLASHER Harriet Monkhouse wrote > > > > Jacqui wrote: > > > >>I suppose Avon is the most ambiguous character (and how many Richard > > > >>III fans 'go' for Avon as a preference?) > > > > > > > >Hm, but the majority of the Richard III fans I knew when I was active > > > >(apart from a few devil's advocates) went for the complete whitewash >of > > > >Richard, who turned out to be some sort of saint, and a complete New >Man > > in sexual politics too. Whereas Avon fans tend to treasure the >ambiguity. > > > > THAT IS A LIE. IT'S FREEDOM CITY AND LYSATOR'S JOB TO WHITEWASH AVON. > > LYSATOR IS A RECRUITING GROUND FOR FREEDOM CITY. > > > > Jenny > > > >Please do not be shout or be abusive. I'LL STOP SHOUTING WHEN YOU START LISTENING. AND HOW IS THE TRUTH ABUSIVE? JENNY _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] When 'Animals' Camouflage
by Jenny Kaye 21 May '01

21 May '01

SLASHER LEAH FEE WROTE: > ><< Leah wrote... > > >I have ambitions to rule the planet. > >and similiar.. > > > >What are you going to do with your other hand? ;-)>>> Operate a sockpuppet. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] OT Response to Rita Part 2
by Jenny Kaye 21 May '01

21 May '01

PART TWO. HERE WE GO AGAIN. SLASHER Rita d'Orac wrote: > > > You don't have to actively write Slash to be a SLASHER. > > > >No, but you do have to either read or write it. I do neither. Then why are you on Freedom City? Why are you on this bloody Lysator? The idea that you can't be conditioned by these vile things is crap. It's basic common sense. You work in an office long enough and you'll take on some of the characteristics of what is going on around you. It's inevitable. Have you ever thought about why it is management put posters up in the toilets about efficiency? It's a conditioner. We have all been socially conditioned to some extent, but what's happening on here and on Freedom City goes way beyond anything like that. > > > > >a large number of my B7 friends are violently (and in some cases > > > > > > > > very publically) opposed to slash. > > > > > > Publicly perhaps. But the Slash reading is so heavily promoted that even > > > normal fanfic has developed a homoerotic subtext. They may not know they > >are > > > SLASHERS, but on some level they are. > > > >No, they are not. Yes they are. Unless they are very single minded, or have a strong belief system like Christianity or communism or some such thing. That's how Faulkner was about to resist it. He's a Marxist. If they don't read slash and they don't write it, they > >are > >not slashers. On any level. You earlier went on about going to events with people who were on these lysts. If they spend too long on these lysts then they will become SLASHERS. A few, a very few will be able to resist it, a large number will embrace it, and an even larger number will say they have no opinion either way. But that is crap. On some level they will have been conditioned. It's inevitable. It's happening now. It can't be avoided. It's simply being human. That's how we are. Unless you believe ALL fans are slashers, in > >which case we appear to have two different definitions of what a slasher > >is. We evidently do. Yes. > >Applying normal dictionary rules, a slasher is one who slashes. To me, > >that > >would appear to be one who takes part in slashing. Since these friends I > >am > >referring to do not, ergo they are not slashers. False logic. See my Nazi parallel in part 1. > >I don't read much fanfic at all - perhaps that explains why I appear to > >have escaped being conditioned... That's interesting. So you are saying that it has a conditioning effect? > > > > > Others are not. I am perfectly happy to have friends > > > > >with views that oppose mine. > > > > > > Good, but as I have no idea what your views are, that tells me > >absolutely > > > nothing. > > > >Please refer to the list I gave you above. I trust that you now feel a > >little > >more enlightened? No, I don't. > > > > > > > >But our debating remains reasonably civilised because we > > > > > > >respect the fact that we are all B7 fans. > > > > > > > > > These debates never took place. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: They did. > > > > > > They didn't. > > > >No, you are wrong: They did. No, you are wrong. They didn't. > > > Why would you presume to know in any case? - > > > > >you weren't there!! > > > > > > >You can gain solid evidence of whether a discussion took place if you were > >there. You can gain reasonable evidence by obtaining the evidence of those > >who > >were present. Anything else, is pure conjecture. Look, you have already stated that you have never debated on lyst whether or not conditioning devices have appeared on Freedom City and Lysator. If you were at all suspicious that this was happening you'd have left these lists long ago. You've even denying it now. > > > I don't need to be there. I can see how you are arguing now. > > > > > > > > > > >Despite broadly agreeing with your views on some of the issues > >you > > > > >have raised, > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice she doesn't specify which views she broadly agrees with. > > > Another > > > > > > conditioning device. > > > > > > > > > >If you aren't able to work out from this which views we have in > >common, I > > > can spell them out for you. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > >That's OK - I was happy to do my little list above for you. I trust that > >you > >are able to decide which of my views you agree or disagree with without my > >help? Not enough I'm afraid. I want you to talk to me about the possibility that mind-altering techniques are being used on the two lists I have mentioned, not whether or not you think Avon was shagging Blake. He wasn't, BTW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I do not condone some of the tactics > > > > > > IS THAT IT?????? > > > >Yup - that's it! IS THAT A JOKE? > > > > > > > > > Here's another old favourite. Attack the posting style, avoid the > > > > >issues. > > > > > > > > > >That is because it is in fact your posting style that I object to. I > > > have no issues to avoid. > > > > > > Then why are you avoiding them then? > > > >I am not avoiding any issues. Give me an issue, and I'll be happy not to > >avoid it for you. Okay, mind conditioning techniques to alter people perspectives on a TV series, in an attempt to promote an opposing view which is sick and homophobic. Discuss. > > > > > > > > > >you/Fiona/Shane/Whoever > > > > > > > > > > > > Now look here. There is a subtle difference. She is trying to > > > > > > > > > > > suggest now that Fiona, Shane and myself and "whoever" else may be > > > saying the same thing are all the same person. This equates to basically > > > saying that this view is being held by only one person. Wrong. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: This equates to me not being clear about how > > > > > > > > many of these people you actually speak for. To clarify further > > > > >for > > > you, I refer to yourself AND Fiona AND Shane AND anyone else you care to > > > name that you feel you speak for. > > > > > > But you didn't put "AND" did you? You put a slash, rather appropriately. > > > >No I didn't. I clearly overestimated you comprehension skills Ohh. Handbag. and will > >make a > >concerted effort to accommodate your level of interpretation in future. Interpretation has got nothing to do with it. > >Please > >bear with me while I do this. A slash has been in common usage in the > >English > >language for this purpose for a very long time. It has no other > >significance > >in this context. If I use the character "/" to mean anything else other > >than > >this common usage, I'll be sure to flag it for you so you don't > >misunderstand. Know a lot about SLASH, don't you? > > > > > > > > I really don't care if you are all one person or several > >individuals. > > > > > > Why mention them then? I can't really speak for these people, so why are > >you > > > equating my views with theirs? > > > >I had thought that *you* claimed you did. No. > > My apologies if that is not the > >case Thank you. > >- I don't mind carrying on our conversation with a group of people, but I'm > >equally happy to do it with just you since you appear to prefer that. No. I have no problem carrying on with it here. > > > > > > > > . However also note that this letter > > > > >is a very sophisticated programming device. They've upped the ante. > > > > > > > >Yes, I am on record in the archives as stating that they are > >important > > > issues. > > > > > > Let's discuss them then. > > > >Yes, let's. Start with any issue you want to discuss Jenny... See above. Also, earlier in this letter you were saying that you hadn't discussed these issues, but now looking at the sentence above you say, "Yes, I am on record in the archives as stating that they are important issues." Unless you mean you once said, "These are important issues." and that was it. Lot of use that was!!!!! > > > > >That is why I used those very words. > > > > > > You use the words, but you then avoid the issue. I am judging you by > >your > > > actions not just your words. > > > >See above. I am not avoiding any issues at all. You've given an inch. Not good enough. Any issue you care to > >discuss > >is fine with me... See above. > > > As to whether your posting style is > > > > >the reason for people not debating with you - yes, I believe it is. > > > > > > But you would, wouldn't you. I've seen what's goes on here. No one > >debates > > > anything. They just go on about vegetables. Rather appropriately. > > > >I don't believe I've ever made a comment about vegetables on this list. If > >other people choose to discuss issues I'm not interested in discussing, > >that's fine by me. I'm not arrogant enough to assume that their discussions are > >invalid simply because I do not take part in them. Why do you think they are discussing vegetables now? It is valid because it is a conditioning device. Stick you head in the sand if you like, but that's what it is, and it's used by SLASHERS. > > > > > > > > My evidence for this is the many postings from people whom > > > > >you > > > have tagged as slashers saying that this is the case. > > > > > > They are SLASHERS. Why would they want to debate anything? > > > >...and why do you assume that slashers have no inclination or ability to > >debate? This is not the case in my experience. Because it is my experience. I've seen them in action on the lyst. They'll pretend to debate you, but they'll stick an IMO in front of it, and they'll insist that you do as well. And if you don't, then they'll make personal attacks on you. > > > > > > > >Neither can I condone in any way the actions > > > you/Fiona/Shane/Whoever have taken or incited > > > > > > > >others to take against Annie's website. It is wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > Again look what she is saying. Shane left this lyst six weeks ago > > > > > > > >but >now > she > is saying that he has attacked Annie's evil website. I > > > think Fiona's > >attack> > > on Evil Annie's website was wrongheaded, > >but it > > > was not done through > >malice, > > > > > > it was done through desperation. Fiona is an anthropologist. > > > > > > Secrecy surrounds SLASH because they don't want it debated. > > > > > > > >They > > > say people who> > > attack SLASH are homophobic, but > > > Shane was > >gay. He > > > described **SLASH** > > > > >as **homophobic**. It is. > > > > > > > > > >It was incorrect of me to add Shane's name to that list. A > >copy/paste > > > error, nothing more. > > > > > > That's convenient. > > > >Not really, I hate making errors, but like every other human being I make > >them > >just the same. Did you catch my terrible spelling of "publicly" earlier? Yes I did, but I left it alone. > >My > >only excuse is that I was watching Sarcophagus at the time and kept > >thinking > >"Cally"! > > Glad to see that you are giving this email your full attention. > > > >I have no knowledge as to whether Shane was involved or not. > > > > > > Again you are implying that it was a possibility, but without a shred of > > > evidence to back it up. > > > > > > >No, I certainly did not mean to imply that. I had though that point was > >clear > >from my last post. No it was not. Do you have any evidence that Shane was responsible for the totally justified attack on Evil Annie's website? Yes or no? > > > > > > >The "whoever" part covers anyone else who was involved - I have > > > > >no > > > interest in knowing their identities. > > > > > > Then why give a list of people then? > > > >I haven't - "whoever" could be 1000 people or it could be nobody at all. You listed me, you listed Shane you listed Fiona! > > > > > > > > > >Please don't assume that you speak for all non slash fans, > >Jenny - > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting that you use my name here. > > > > > > > > > >I use it because I am referring to you. It is common practice in the > > > > > > >English language to name the person you are referring to. > > > > > > Is that right, Rita d' Orac! Jesus, you couldn't make this shit up! > > > >Nope - it's all real! You are really called Rita d' Orac? That's a fantastic coincidence if that's true! > > > > > > > > > >you don't speak for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > No I don't, you are a SLASHER. Also note what she is now > > > > >saying, > > > earlier she said that she broadly agreed with what I was > > > saying, > >now > > > she says that she doesn't. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: As stated earlier, I am not a slasher. I stated > > > earlier "There are several issues that I agree with you and > > > Fiona/Shane/Whoever on". > > > > > > But you still haven't stated what those issues are. Stop running away > >and > > > confront them. > > > >They were already on public archive, Earlier you said they aren't. Make your mind up. which means they had in fact been > >stated. > >They are now written out (for you convenience) above. Not good enough. > > > > >You are a SLASHER. If you are not a SLASHER, why are you on Freedom City? > >Why are you defending Freedom City? Why don't you want to debate the issues? > > > >I am not a slasher. I have explained why that is the case in my previous > >post. You are a SLASHER. > > As stated above, I am happy to debate any issue you want to debate. You > >do not have my permission to speak on my behalf on *any* issues. You are speaking for yourself, you are saying to me that you are a SLASHER. You have so far provided no evidence to the contrary. > > > > > > > > > >Please don't presume to tell me whether or not it is "safe" > > > > > > > >for>me to be a member of this or the Freedom City list - that > > > >decision is > > > > > > mine > > > > > > > > > > > > YOU ARE A SLASHER > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess > > > what... > > > > > > You're a SLASHER. > > > >Nope. I am not. Yep, you are. > > > > > > >"I'm > > > > >not a slasher!" > > > > > > Yes you bloody are! > > > >No I'm not. Yes you are. The lady doth protest too much! > > > > > > > >to > > > > > > > >make and I choose to stay on both lists. > > > > > > > > > > > > YOU ARE A SLASHER. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > > > > > No, I'm right. > > > >No, you are wrong. You are a SLASHER. > > > >>By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess what... > > > > > > You're a deluded SLASHER. > > > >No. I'm not a slasher, deluded or otherwise. Yes you are. You are a SLASHER. > > > > >"I'm > > > > >not a slasher!" > > > > > > Yes you are! > > > >No I'm not. Yes, you are. > > > > > > > > Why do you think this person is attacking me? Why not just ignore > >me > > > or > > > > > > Killfile me? > > > > > > > > > >Why am I attacking you? - I am not. > > > > > > Yes you are. > > > >No I'm not. I am debating with you and in some instances I am disagreeing > >with you. You are not debating with me. This entire email is insane. > > It is a strange definition of "attacking" that you have. There are many methods of attack, this is just one. > > > Please indicate where you think my > > > > >post attacks you. > > > > > > Well you've attacked my posting style, you are trying to tell me that > >you > > > >No, I said I disliked it. Again, that is an opinion, not an attack. It's an attack. > > > aren't a SLASHER, when clearly you are, you are stating that you broadly > > > >As I have said several times, and will no doubt be required to say again, I > >am > >not a slasher. YOU ARE A SLASHER. > >Again, that does not constitute an attack. Yes it does. > > > > > agree > > > with things I have said, but then have failed to state which issues they > > > are. I could go on.... > > > >I have stated where my views can be found. No you haven't. You have stated where they cannot be found. It is common practice to avoid > >unnecessary repetition in a discussion thread to avoid it becoming > >unwieldy. Are you fucking mad? Look at the size of the email!!!! You are constantly writing "I am not a SLASHER" over and over again, but when I ask you to put your arguments you say you don't want to repeat yourself. I'm doing this letter because I've got a strange sense of humour, but you, what the hell are you doing? > >However, as I stated earlier, just for you I have listed my view again > >above. That isn't a view, that's crap. > >Once again, that really cannot be defined as any sort of attack. Oh, and > >please *do* go on... I will, it is. Getting a bit rough is it? > > > > >Why don't I just ignore you? > > > > > > Why don't you? > > > >I had not realised that you wanted to be ignored Jenny. I am talking about you, not me. > > If I had, I would > >have > >advised you not to take part in a discussion thread, because people are > >naturally going to assume that you want to discuss the topic of that > >thread. I do, but this is just bollocks. You know, I'm getting a funny feeling here. I think you and I have exchanged emails before. But you were under a different name. > >Or you could just make it clear in your posts by adding the words "please > >ignore me" on your posts. Why would I want to do that? > > > - I had something to add to one of the posts > > > > >on > > > > >this mailing list - so I posted it! > > > > > > But you've added nothing. > > > >Yes I have. I won't bore you with a word count - I'm sure you can do that > >yourself if you feel inclined to do so, but surely you would have had > >nothing to reply to if I had added nothing? I've had nothing to reply to. This isn't a debate, this is a children's game. > > > > > I never ignore a message I want to reply to. > > > > > > What the bloody hell does that mean? Why would you reply to a message > >you > > > wouldn't want to reply to? Have you been taking lessons off Sally > >Manton? > > > >Well my dear, We have spoken before, haven't we? you were the one who suggested I should ignore that message - > >so > >you tell me! More "Wortham/Rosenthal Bastards" mind games. > > I don't know Sally other than in the context of this mailing > >list, That's enough for me. > >so no, I haven't had any lesson from her on anything. Reading her is enough. > > > > > > >Why don't I killfile you? - Why do you think I should? > > > > > > You're a SLASHER. > > > >I am not. Even if I were, why would that mean I should killfile you? Because SLASHERS hate debate. As you clearly do. > > > > > > She is trying to discredit what I am saying. > > > > > > They don't want you to listen. This person is a PROGRAMMER. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > > > > > No, I am right. > > > >No, you are wrong. NO I AM RIGHT. > > > > > I replied to a public post on a public mailing list. > > > > > > And what have you said, apart from "I'm not a SLASHER," over and over > >again. > > > >If you took the time to read my posts, you would notice that I replied to > >several points that you raised. You call that replying? Unless you are now telling me that all you > >ever said was "you are a slasher", I had plenty to say. Go back and read > >it. Where? > > > > > > >It is > > > > >reasonable to expect people to reply to your post if they have > >something to add to the topic you are posting on. > > > > > > But you have added absolutely nothing. > > > >But I did. No you didn't. > > > > > You posted on a topic, and I replied to > > > > >it. > > > > > > Good. Do it again. But next time actually say something. > > > >I said something last time and I'm saying something again. No, you are not. You're just going round and round. Typical PROGRAMMER technique. Please read and > >assimilate the contents of the posts before commenting on them. There is nothing to assimilate. > > Your comment in the context of a post where there are several comments made by myself > >will only make you appear illiterate No it doesn't, but it make you look stupid, or mad, or a PROGRAMMER, or possibly all three, if that's possible! >>and I'm sure that isn't the case, despite the flaws in your education that we previously identified. If this email isn't a huge joke there is clearly something wrong with your education. > > > > >If what you said in your post was correct, > > > > > > It was correct. > > > >It was not. Yes it was. > > > > > I would not be inclined > >to comment on it at all, never mind > > > > >attempt to discredit it in any way. > > > > > > So if what I'm saying is right, and you agree with it "broadly" you say > >you > > > would not comment. So now you are saying you don't actually agree with > >me, > > > because if you did you wouldn't have responded. I wish you'd > > > make your mind up. > > > >No, your not paying attention again. No, you are just talking shit lover. No wonder you're a SLASHER. I said I broadly agree with you on > >some > >issues that you have raised during your time on the list. I did not say > >that I > >agreed with the post I replied to. No, you didn't but you never said that did you. How the hell am I supposed to know what you do or don't know? > > > > > > PLEASE LEAVE THIS LYST AT ONCE. > > > > > > > > > >No. Shan't. Won't. Can't make me. So there. > > > > > > I wasn't talking to you. I know you can't go because you are an addicted > > > SLASHER. > > > >I don't want to leave the list. That's because you are an addicted SLASHER. > > I am able to do at any time should I wish > >to Go on then, do it now. > >and once again, I am not a slasher, addicted or otherwise. You are. Jenny _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] OT Response to Rita Part 1
by Jenny Kaye 21 May '01

21 May '01

THIS EMAIL WAS WRITTEN BY A SLASHER PROGRAMMER. I HAVE ANSWERED JUST FOR THE HELL OF IT. PART ONE SLASHER Rita d' Orac wrote: > >Jenny Kaye wrote: > > > > > SLASHER Rita d' Orac wrote: > > > >Wrong - I'm not a slasher > > > > > > > "Jenny Kaye": > > > > > > > > > > > SLASHER Rita d' Orac wrote: > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > > > > > No, I'm right. > > > >Wrong - I'm not a slasher Wrong- You are a SLASHER. > > > > >By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess what... > > > > >"I'm not a slasher!" > > > > > > No it doesn't. You're on Freedom City, therefore by definition you are a > > > SLASHER. > > > >Wrong - I'm not a slasher. Wrong - You are a SLASHER. > > As explained to you previously, one is able to be on Freedom City >without being a slasher. No, one cannot. That's like saying "one can shag sheep without being a sheepshagger." You are a SLASHER. > >Do pay attention! I have done, you are a SLASHER. > > > > > There's this guy in a pub and he says, "I'm really pissed off." And the > > > barman asks, "Why?" > > > "Look," says the man, "someone who buys a pint of milk and takes it > >home, > > > that doesn't make him a milkman, does it?" > > > The barman scratched his head, "No, I suppose not." > > > "And what if someone put a Christmas card through a friends letter box > >to > > > save money on a stamp, that wouldn't make his a Postman would it?" > > > "No," said the barman. > > > "I shagged one sheep...." > > > > > > The man's a sheepshagger, you're a Slasher. Get used to it. > > > >Wrong - I'm not a slasher. Get used to it. Yes you are a SLASHER, go on, own up. > > > > > > > >Subject: [B7L] Re: When "Animals" camouflage and other Stuff > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jenny wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >{huuuge snip} > > > > > > > > > > > > She has made this "huuuge snip" because she doesn't want to > >> > > > >discuss most of the issues I have brought up. > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > > > > > No, I'm not. > > > >Yes you are. > > > > > > > Snip was made because I had no comment to make on any > > > > >thing you wrote above the snip > > > > > > See? Told you. > > > >"No comment" means just what it says. No it doesn't. > > Did your primary school not teach > >you basic English comprehension Jenny? Yes, and a much better teacher told me how to spot bullshit. > > > > >- if you or anyone else wants to see that part of your message, just > > > > > > >look in the archive. > > > > > > I just have done. But if you are not going to talk about it... > > > >No, I am not. If I wanted to comment on any of your posts or any other > >parts > >of this post, I would have done so. "I had no comment to make" means just > >what it says. It says that you are avoiding the subject. In the same way that you can't face up to the fact that you are a SLASHER. > > >Everyone on Freedom City is by definition a slasher, but on this lyst there are > > > >people who are not. It's those people that are > > > > > > > > > my concern, the ones you are after. It's petty, it's small > > > minded, but I suppose it's power of some kind. > > > > > > > >{snipped rest of message} > > > > > > Again, she snipped the rest of this message because she wants to avoid > > > answering > > > the issues. That better for you? > > > >The rest of the message was snipped because I had no comment to make on any > >thing you wrote below that the snip. See? Told you. > > Thought that went without saying, That's right. You don't want to discuss it. > > but I guess I overestimated your powers of comprehension once again. Not at all, but you've certainly underestimated my intelligence, SLASHER baby. > > My apologies for that. Thank you, but there's really no need. > > > > > > > > > >Actually no - I'm not a slasher, but I am a member of Freedom > >City. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then by definition you are a SLASHER. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: By definition "I'm not a slasher" means...guess > > > > >what... "I'm not a slasher!" > > > > > > No. It means you are a Slasher in denial! What the hell are you doing on > > > Freedom City if you don't want to read Slash? > > > >I don't read slash. I don't write slash. There are plenty of discussion > >threads on Freedom City that are not slash stories. By definition they will all to some degree be tainted by SLASH. I am quite capable of > >distinguishing slash from non slash Quite clearly you are not. and selecting what I do and do not wish > >to > >read. You are deceiving yourself. > > I would imagine it is quite difficult to be a slasher (in denial or > >otherwise) if you don't read or write slash. You are trying to tell me that you are on Freedom City because you don't read or write SLASH. That is a total farce. That's like saying, "I live in Nazi Germany, I've got a picture of Adolf Hitler on my wall, I am a member of the Nazi party. My son is in a youth brigade, my eldest son is in the SS but I am not a Nazi." Bullshit. That man is a Nazi and you are a SLASHER. > > > > > > > > > >If I see something on that list that I don't want to read, I > > > >> > > > >don't read it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Freedom City is a SLASHER lyst. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: It is not. > > > > > > Yes it bloody is. > > > >No, you are wrong: It is not. Yes it damn well bloody is. Also how the hell would you know that you wouldn't want to read something if you haven't read at least part of it? > > > Check archives for Tiger's earlier message > > > > >which explains this for you. > > > > > > She's talking crap. > > > >No, you are wrong: She is not. She is a PROGRAMMER. She is talking crap. > > > > > > > > Apart from a few misdirected email's that weren't meant for > >the list, I don't recall having come across any posts that attacked > >> >> > > > individuals viewpoints the way I've seen them attacked here - such > > > behaviour is not tolerated by the list's administrator. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true. Debate on Freedom City is stifled. That "misdirected > > > email" comment though is interesting. On the surface it seems Freedom > >City has a relaxed atmosphere, but behind people's backs they are all sniping > >at each other. See? > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > > > > > No, I'm right. > > > >No, you are wrong. No, I am right. > > > > > > Debate is not stifled > > > > > > Yes it is. You've just stated so yourself. You stated that some people > >are > > > having offlist conversations where they snipe at other people. If they > >can't > > > say what they want in the open then debate is stifled. > > > > > > >No, I did not state that it is. Yes you did. Please take the time to read my posts > >before > >commenting on them. That's what I do. I stated that, as in all mailing lists, posts are made > >to > >the list that were not intended for that list. It happens. People make > >mistakes when sending email. They don't mean it. They are free to discuss > >anyone or anything they want to off that list. Yes but you are also stating here that freedom does not exist on the Freedom City List. And you are right, it doesn't. > > That is know as > >conversation No, it's known as two faced sniping. > >and it takes place all over the world via different media for different > >purposes. We are talking about Freedom City. Please keep on topic. I have no interest in conversations list members have outside > >the > >list. Don't believe it. Natural curiosity would make you look. What if your name was on one of those misfire emails? How do you know they aren't talking about you now? Do you really know that there isn't some Freedom City SLASHER sticking the knife in you right now? No, of course you don't. And the likelihood is that is exactly what they are doing. Those email misfires are telling you exactly that. One day your name will be on one and it'll hurt like hell. Any accidental "overhearing" via stray emails is simply inadvertent > >eavesdropping and as such, of no interest to me in respect of the topics of > >discussion on the list. They are the underlying basis of the topics on discussion. Of course they are, and I bet you send offlist emails as well about the subjects covered. Freedom City is a snake pit. > > > and I have no interest in > > > > >commenting > > > > >on (or even reading) messages accidentally sent to the list. > > > > > > Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to make them go away, you > >know? > > > >I have no wish to deny people the opportunity to converse offlist. You can do nothing about it. That is going to be inevitable with Freedom City. > > > > > There is a clearly defined policy for what to do if/when this > >happens. > > > > > > Yes. Stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Freedom City is > >like > > > a duck. It's still on the surface but underneath people are paddling > > > vitriolic emails to each other like mad. You can ignore if it you like, > >but > > > it doesn't mean it isn't happening. > > > >No, it is the same as for any conversation one accidentally eavesdrops on > >i.e. > >such conversation is to be ignored. But they aren't ignored are they. They cannot be ignored. Someone, many someone's is going to read it. Let's say SLASHER-X says SLASHER-Y is "a vulpine degenerate", first off, you aren't going to know that it's a misfire until you have read some of it, and even if you don't read it someone else would. Gossip is the currency the Freedom City underground thrives on. An email appears calling SLASHER-Y "a vulpine degenerate" and some people are going to say, "yes, I thought that. That last email s/he put on list last night was sick." And someone else is going to think, "Hu, fancy SLASHER-X calling SLASHER-Y a vulpine degenerate? SLASHER-X is just as bad and SLASHER -Z is even worse. And then there is another flurry of emails pointing this out. On the surface though you're all desperately trying to talk about something else. Freedom City is a mechanism that is turning you all into two faced hypocrites. > > The list policy simply puts into words > >common practice within the western world. Only in some tin pot dictatorship, run by power freaks. > > > > > > > > What I have enjoyed on that list is reading the many > > > > > > > >different opinions of people on several aspects of B7 that I > >might > > > > > > > not otherwise have had an opportunity to listen to or discuss (I > >am > > > > >mostly an active lurker). > > > > > > > > > > > > She is now stating that there is debate on Freedom City which > > > > >contradicts what she has previously stated. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > > > > > No, I am right. > > > >No, you are wrong. No, I am right. > > > I never stated that there wasn't debate on the list - > > > > >you did - and I therefore cannot have contradicted myself. > > > > > > Yes you have! You stated in your previous email that the moderator > >actively > > > controls the conversations on the list. Therefore nothing the moderator > > > doesn't want on the list is going to be on there. Then you say that it > > > allows for a free exchange of opinion! > > > >The moderator quite properly monitors all topics to ensure they are on > >topic. No the moderator is there is stifle discussion. > >The moderator is thus doing the job of a moderator. The moderator is doing the job of a PROGRAMMER. However, your comments > >above have reminded me that our conversation is in fact off topic. Going to run away now are we? > > In other words, our discussion is not about Blake's 7. As such, the rules of this > >list require us to take this conversation offlist. Firstly neither Freedom City or Lysator talk about B7, they talk about SLASH. B7 and SLASH are two totally different things. Secondly, if there are rules for this lyst, where are they? Many of the people here are quite clearly hysterical, but no moderator is coming in to stop what's going on. Do you know why? I think I know. I will reply to any further > >reply of yours to jennycat55(a)hotmail.com (I have copied this reply to your > >address) so please feel free to continue this conversation with me by > >sending your replies to either rita(a)vilaworld.com or rita_de_orac(a)yahoo.co.uk - I am posting this reply to the lyst. In answer to your reply which is posted to the lyst. If you email me offlyst then that's a different thing. Anything you say to me will be treated in confidence. I'm not like that backstabbing Faulkner pseudo. I respect other peoples confidences. > > It would be a shame to stop our discussion just because we are no longer able > >to carry it on in this mailing list. We can continue on lyst. We are on topic. The topic is SLASH in B7 FANDOM. As for any discussion, what discussion is that? Basically it's just you saying "Well I'm not a SLASHER" and me pointing out that you are. > > > > > To clarify for you there is plenty of debate on that list. > > > > > > Only under the surface and that consists of constant sniping at one > >another. > > > Or else it's the sort of debate that includes a lot of "IMO"s. > > > >Actually, no. Actually, yes. Again, I suggest that you try being a member of that list so > >that you can comment on in knowledgeably rather than in blind prejudice. It's not prejudice, it's a fact. Anyway, how do you know I'm not a member? > > If it frightens you to stay on it, you can of course remove yourself from the > >list once you have gained the knowledge you require. I know about Freedom City. > > > > > > I suggest that you try being a member of that list before you > >knock > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Even I wouldn't want to spend too much time on Freedom City. The > > > programming techniques being used there are extremely powerful. > > > > > > > > > >Scared of being proved wrong? > > > > > > No, scared of being turned into a programmed psychopath:-) > > > >If that happens to you, I promise to buy a hat and eat it... I have no intention of letting it happen to me. You eating a hat is no encouragement at all. > > > > > > > >There are several issues that I agree with you and > > > > >Fiona/Shane/Whoever > > > > > > on, > > > > > > > > > > > > Smart. You can see that what Fiona (an anthropologist) Shane > > > > >(a > > > gay male) and I (???) are saying, come down basically to the > > > same > > > thing, SLASH is a dangerous conditioning device. > > > > > > > > > >No, I have already made my views clear to this list (check the > >archive > > > > > > You have made your views clear concerning this lysts use of mind control > > > techniques? When? > > > >No, I have made clear my views on the issues you raised. As stated in my > >last > >message, I do not agree with you that this list uses mind control > >techniques. It does, and you on some level know it. Why else are you too frightened to discuss these issues onLyst? > > > > > > > > (check the archive > > > > > > if youcan be bothered, > > > > > > I'm not going to go round chasing shadows. If you've got anything to say > >on > > > the issue say it now. Unless you're scared. Are you? > > > >Scared? Me? Nah! - just too lazy to type stuff twice over if I don't need That's an interesting reaction. > >to. > >But since you asked, some my views are as follows: > > > > - I do not like slash. Then why are you on Freedom City? > > - I do not care whether anyone else likes slash. Then you should. > > - I do believe that everyone who has watched Blake's 7 should feel free > >to > >discuss the programme if they want to. Good. But this doesn't happen on this Lyst or Freedom City. Why do you thing there are 70 emails in my mail box, almost all by tagged SLASHERS. All banging on about shit like "If Avon was a vegetable, what vegetable would he be? I think he'd be a cabbage because then he'd be just like me!" Is this talking about B7? Is it fuck. It's a conditioning device, and a very effective one at that. It's been used over and over again. Can't you see? Are you so blind? > > - I do not believe that any of the regular characters were gay. Good. None of them were. But you suggest that on here or Freedom City and you'll get murdered. > > - I do believe that some of the one off characters were portrayed as > >possibly > >being gay. That's true as well. > > - Neither of the above statements influence my enjoyment of the programme > >in > >any way. Why should they? > >I have lots of other views, but these are general and not related to B7. > >If an > >issues arises through discussion on this list or elsewhere, I'm quick to > >form a > >view on it... But do you dare to argue it out? No. You'd be shouted down, or attacked for not using an IMO. > > > > >or speak to Shane > > > > > > I don't know him! > > > >Well neither do I, other than in the context of the posts he made to this > >list! Same here! > > > > > > > or Fiona) > > > > > > She's not speaking to me! > > > >Is that just a comment, or are you expecting me to do something about this? It's a statement of fact. > > I > >don't know Fiona other than in the context of this list (If she was at > >Redemption I may have met her, but I don't remember her), I have no idea whether she was there or not. so it would be > >difficult for me to help you with this. I'm not asking you for help. I think that the situation is beyond it, quite frankly. > > > and you will see exactly which > > > > >issues I agree on. The archives (or any conversation you have with > > > either Shane or Fiona) will prove that I have never indicated in any way > > > that I believe slash is a dangerous conditioning device. > > > > > > So you have had conversations on lyst with Shane and Fiona about whether > > > Slash was or was not a dangerous conditioning device? Bullshit have you. > > > >No, I did not say that I had. You implied it. That is the point. I have never had any > >discussions on that topic, which is why I suggested you look at the archive This is barking mad. Why should I look in the archive for something that isn't there? > >or ask people I had assumed you knew who were on the list to confirm this for > >you. Is this some kind of "Wortham/Rosenthal Bastards" mindgame you are playing here? It has all the hallmarks. > > The point of your looking at the archive was to confirm that no such > >discussion took place, You wanted me to scan through nearly 10 years of Lysator and Freedom City archives just to find something you say isn't there? This is a "Worthem/Rosenthal Bastards" mindgame. therefore I could not have ever indicated to anyone > >my > >opinions on whether I believe slash is a conditioning device. You implied it. > > > > > > I don't believe that it is. > > > > > > Saying that isn't good enough, provide some evidence. > > > >I have been on lists with and around people who are slash fans for several > >years. I can see that quite clearly. During that time, I have changed jobs 4 time and in before being > >accepted for each job I had (and passed) a medical examination. I was > >considered fit in every way. None of the 4 doctors concerned thought I had > >been conditioned in any way. That's because they were looking in the wrong place. Did you tell them that you belong to Freedom City, a SLASHER list that deals with the writing and reading of sick homophobic fantasies about of group of actors from a 20 year old TV series? Like hell you did. > > My own doctor has seen me when I had > >tonsillitis > >and later when I had Bronchitis. What's that got to be with mental conditioning? She also did not believe I was under the > >influence of any conditioning. You asked her? You said, "BTW Doctor, do you think I have been mentally conditioned by Freedom City?" Like hell you did. > > Since 5 professional doctors failed to see > >any evidence of conditioning during thorough examinations, this leads me to > >conclude that there isn't any conditioning to find. No, it means that they weren't looking for it. And you're not going to point it out are you? You're quite clearly in denial about being a SLASHER. > >What evidence do you have that such conditioning exists? The things I have seen going on here. All this crap about all interpretations being valid. Attempts by certain individuals to turn reality on its head. "Elynne G." quite clearly understands anthropology and yet she sends me an email which contains a number of dangerous and well established reality altering techniques. All opinions are not valid and to state such a thing is delusional, or worse. > > > > >By offlist, I simply mean face to face conversations held at various > > > > > > > >places I have had the good fortune to run into other B7 fans > > > > > > > >conventions, theatre trips, Beer & B7 meetings etc). > > > > > > Oh right. So you go on a theatre trip to see Gareth Thomas in "Whoops > > > Where's Me Trousers", then go to the bar afterwards and say to a fellow > >fan, "Do you think Slash can be used as a dangerous conditioning device?" And > > > they say, "Dah, no." And you say, "Nor me." > > > >Not at all :) Have you never been in conversation with people offlist > >regarding B7? As I have stated several times, the "slash can be used as a > >dangerous conditioning device" topic has never come up. I can quite clearly see that. I'll be sure to > >bring > >it up at the next Beer & B7 meeting - come along and share your views! It would turn into a fight. > > > Yeah, that really sound plausible, doesn't it? > > > >No, it doesn't That's right it doesn't. > > - that's because people don't converse in that fashion. That's right. > > I thing you need to get out and about a bit more... I think you need to get of these lysts. > > > > > Of course I haven't contacted you offlist > > > > >- Is there any reason I should have done so? > > > > > > How the hell am I supposed to know that? > > > >Well, you seemed to believe that I should have contacted you offlist! Where the hell did you get that from? > > I was just wondering why you thought I should have done so. More "Wortham/Rosenthal Bastards" mindgames. > > > > > > > > at some time or another with several of my B7 friends (and > >that > >includes my B7 friends who are "slashers") > > > > > > > > > > > > They are all SLASHERS. > > > > > > > > > >No, you are wrong: > > > > > > No. I'm right. > > > >No, you are wrong. No, I am right. CONTINUED IN PART TWO. I SUGGEST YOU HAVE A LIE DOWN BEFORE YOU READ ANY FURTHER. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

Re: [B7L] Quoting B7 at friends
by Sally Manton 21 May '01

21 May '01

Leia wrote: <So many B7 quotes are so useful on a reenactment battlefield... <snip> "I just don't want to die - is that unreasonable?"> <grin> and did the others all come back with "yes!!" the way they did at Vila? _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

1 0

← Newer
1
...
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
...
90
Older →

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 May 2001