In a message dated 3/9/01 4:01:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, littles@lycos.co.uk writes:

<< Since you've killfiled Fiona, Annie, and therefore missed half the argument, you really don't know where the other side is coming from. But of course, since you've killfiled me, you're not going to get this message either, are you? >>

Please, I entreaty you to keep repeating this! Apart from the daily chuckle the repetition provides, the obsession reinforces exactly how effective the measure was, on Annie's part. It's rather like watching a moth bang itself repeatedly against a light bulb.

...

So am I. Are you aware that you've just answered the same post twice?<<

Of course! There was so very much wrong with the statement that I was responding to, that I needed to deal with each aspect separately. I'm most impressed by your achievements in the area, Shane. As I've said before, when it's this easy, it's fun.

...

Never said there was. It's for sale, though, isn't it? And as for the

illustrations, well, I doubt Avon, Blake and Vila are in bed together to keep warm.<<

Your very words were "explicit". You leapt on top of the one page you could find in an enormous website that contained any discussion of an adult fanzine at all, and, unable to produce anything more shocking than this mild little sleep-in, you hoped everyone would simply take your word for it and assume you were referring to pictures I must have done of the B7 principles, doing the nasty. When it turns out that there was nothing of the kind, suddenly your story changes (again) to 'implied' explicitness. Hardly something to call out the hounds about, I fear.

...

Sorry, but did I say I was referring to _your_ artwork? And as for

genitalia, the representation of genitals is not all it takes to make a picture sexually explicit.<<

Yes, your attack was specifically directed toward me, in this discussion. Let's not be silly and backpedal in that direction, shall we? And as for the rest of your comment, if you really believe this, than you will never be happy on this list, I'm afraid. Everything is going to imply explicitness, at one time or another for you. My advice is to avoid the internet altogether to avoid being offended by explicit implied content.

...

And, if you'll reread the paragraph above (misrepresenting people again,

Leah. Oh dear...) you'll note that I said the word "purveyor." Get out the dictionary again, and find out what that means. You work for Ashton Press, don't you?<<

Nope. I have had my own press (PONCHO PRESS) for close to 25 years, now, in which I've produced ten issues of WIDE OPEN SPACES, ECHO 1, THE BIZARRO ZINE and other fanzines, and thank you very much for allowing me one more opportunity to 'purvey' that plug here on the list. Yesssss!

...

For someone who's tame, you're doing a lot of snarling.<<

If snarling bothers you, turn off B7. Avon must disturb you at times.

...

Booby"'s got two meanings in Britain. The other one is of a spoilt, crying

child.<<

That would explain why I've never heard of it, but you're very familiar with this alternate definition.

...

Why do you keep on bringing the actors into the discussion? You're

obsessed.<<

Where went all that dire discussion of the possibility that actor's careers might be ruined and they would be horrified by all this 'explicit' depiction of them by fan artists and writers in general? If someone is offended by what they regard as pornography, then it makes no sense whatsoever for them to look at it. Stop worrying about what other people are doing in bed. You'll be a lot happier, as an individual list member.

...

Videos? Books? You suggesting the actors are all in the porn trade? Get a

grip.<<

My, you *are* confused, aren't you? I'm sure you regard the artwork of Suzie Lovett as 'explicit', by the standards you've put on my own paltry piece on the Ashton Press website. And yet Sheelagh Wells and Gareth Thomas had no problem, commissioning Suzie to do the cover of the MASQUERADE video that Sheelagh produced a few years back. In fact, they had no problem with me doing a cartoon for the end credits, either. Are you going to accuse them of purveying porn, somehow? And as for Mr. Darrow, he cheerfully had Karen River do the cover for AVON: A TERRIBLE ASPECT in the paperback edition. Karen's illustrations have appeared in adult fanzines. Obviously, none of this shook these B7 personalities to their foundations. Speak from knowledge, Shane.

...

No, that's called not getting involved in a discussion which involves

things which I don't know about.<<

It hasn't seemed to stop you before, as this particular thread demonstrates.

...

That wasn't what I've heard (ask yourself why Horizon and Avon Club don't

carry or even advertise slash at all), but then, once again, repercussions were never at issue here. Leah, you really should start _reading_ these e-mails<<

Oh, I do! I do. I've meant to ask you about that, Shane. Weren't you the one who was castigating Diane Geis here, just a while back, about all the terrible *censorship* she was imposing on her little HORIZON empire? Exactly what side of this issue are you on this week? I think we need a score card now.

...

Dire warnings? From whom, pray? All I said was "I'd be careful if I were

you." Which can have any number of meanings. If you choose to take it that way, then fine.<<

Oh no, no-one would *ever* take the phrase "I'd be careful if I were you", used in the context that you did, as any kind of a threat, would they? ROTFL!!!

Listen, you really need to step back out of this and regain some perspective. Take some deep breaths. Let it go. Find something else to obsess about. Because slash and adult matter is not going to go away from fandom, because you don't like it...this week.

Leah