The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

3355 lines
115 KiB

  1. JMS CompuServe messages for March 1997. Collected by John Hardin
  2. <jhardin@wolfenet.com>.
  3. Date: 01 Mar 1997 00:30:53 -0700
  4. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  5. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  6. Subject: Official: No year 5
  7. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  8. > So what exactly is your relationship with Netter?
  9. > I've noted you saying you don't work for him, does Copeland?
  10. > And I've noticed he is an Executive Producer, does that mean you
  11. > two have equal "ownership"?
  12. Yes, we both have equal ownership of Babylonian Productions, but
  13. Netter Digital Entertainment is his separate company, I have nothing to
  14. do with it, don't work for or with it or own any of it.
  15. jms
  16. ------------------------------
  17. Date: 01 Mar 1997 00:30:58 -0700
  18. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  19. To: WizOp Wes Meier <76703.747@compuserve.com>
  20. Subject: NEW To Sysops From jms
  21. "I decided to not address that part of your message because it seemed
  22. moot in light of the fact that I agreed with you in regard to the
  23. Carlin 7, that we are reconsidering our position that we will abide by
  24. them, and that, in the meantime, would discontinue "backrooming" any
  25. messages unless they were blatantly offensive and/or broke other forum
  26. rules. As for the stats you requested, I can't provide what I do not
  27. have. While I admit that we pulled messages containing profanity, we
  28. did not do so "arbitrarily." We pulled EVERY message that we saw."
  29. Ah, but now that confirms what I suggested earlier. The rules
  30. require you to pull one such message per every 50 messages, that was
  31. the part of the rule book that you, yourself, cited to me. So if you
  32. pulled EVERY message, then you violated CIS rules. So that point is
  33. now resolved. Thank you.
  34. "If we decide to no longer aspire to remaining off the PC list then
  35. Carlin's 7 becomes moot and you will have "won" on both of your points.
  36. What more do you want?"
  37. Actually, nothing...and this isn't about me winning, I don't
  38. have any vested interest in you losing or me winning. Who wins if a
  39. situation goes from unreasonable to reasonable? Answer: we both win.
  40. You aren't stuck having to enforce essentially indefensible and
  41. arbitrary policies, and can instead enforce them selectively,
  42. logically, and in keeping with CIS policies. Which means you don't get
  43. people yelling at you, and you have the backing to avoid doing things
  44. which you, yourself, stated you don't like doing. I don't see this as
  45. a particularly bad thing at all here.
  46. RE: the interview this afternoon with Sci-Fi Entertainment, in which I
  47. mentioned the current fracas, you say:
  48. "Thank you for indicting us in an area where we can't "confront our
  49. accuser."
  50. Old Joe McCarthy would be proud of you for using that tactic. I hope
  51. that you will "update her" if you and I conclude this discussion to
  52. your satisfaction."
  53. I simply applied the same practice that was going on here, and
  54. backroomed the discussion with the reporter, since that seemed good
  55. enough for the sysops. And you can certainly "confront your accuser"
  56. -- assuming that anyone who speaks from their own experience of a
  57. controversial situation is automatically your accuser -- when the piece
  58. appears. But to your last point...yes, I will indeed update her
  59. completely if this continues toward a positive resolution, as it seems
  60. to be doing. Understand that I'm a pain in the butt...but I'm fair.
  61. And I try to be honest.
  62. That said...I now turn to the earlier, positive comments, so we
  63. can end this on a positive note...and those looking on: pay attention
  64. to what's said in Wes's note.
  65. Regarding the rules under discussion, note the following:
  66. "...we are reconsidering our position that we will abide by
  67. them, and that, in the meantime, would discontinue "backrooming" any
  68. messages unless they were blatantly offensive and/or broke other forum
  69. rules."
  70. I think that this single sentence now takes care of most of the
  71. concerns here; if the practice of backrooming is now being
  72. discontinued, this is a positive step in the right direction, and
  73. negates about 75% of the concern shared by myself and others here. I
  74. think that most people here would agree with that.
  75. "If we decide to no longer aspire to remaining off the PC list
  76. then Carlin's 7 becomes moot." A valid point.
  77. Re: the Fair Use issue: "That isn't as definitive as I'd like,
  78. but seems to substantiate what other, non-legal, folks have said. On
  79. the other hand, there have been others who are or have been publicists
  80. who claim that more than 2-3 lines quoted exceed "fair use." Believe
  81. me, we're working on nailing this down."
  82. Thank you, and I have every confidence that what you discover
  83. will confirm what has been discussed here. Bear in mind that
  84. publicists are rarely journalists, and their job is often to discourage
  85. use of their client's material in excess, so they can control it, and
  86. when using one's quotes to publicize something, there are other very
  87. strict rules that come into play. If I write a review of a book, and a
  88. publicist wants to excerpt that review to promote someone's book to
  89. make them money, I'm going to be fairly hard about what's allowed to
  90. promote someone else's work.
  91. This is a different situation altogether from quoting material
  92. in the context of a discussion. There the Fair Use contingencies of
  93. copyright law come into play. Any good book on journalism law will go
  94. into this at length. Good on you, though, to continue to dig into it.
  95. "Any constructive suggestions you have would be welcomed --
  96. assuming we decide to continue with wanting to stay off the PC list.
  97. Hell, for that matter, any constructive suggestions ANYONE has would be
  98. welcomed at this point!"
  99. Which was the other point I mentioned. By not backrooming these
  100. sorts of discussions, you open up the door to constructive suggestions
  101. on how to deal with them. If you had said, "Listen, folks, we have a
  102. problem here...the use of language is getting into the
  103. more-than-1-in-50 limits we have to abide by, and I'm concerned about
  104. the quoting of material. Could you work with me on this and come up
  105. with some ways to moderate the discussion a bit so it doesn't get out
  106. of hand, and give me some hard facts about what constitutes Fair Use"
  107. I'll bet you $100 you'd have tons of *constructive* comments, NObody
  108. would've said you had a german accent, and you would've come out of
  109. this like a saint.
  110. B5 fans are *notoriously* helpful, and understanding, and you
  111. can bet your shoes they would've come at you with a very different
  112. response. "Here," they would've said, "HERE is somebody who respects
  113. our intelligence, who wants our input, who is open to at least
  114. *discuss* this so that we know what's at stake, and know what our
  115. options are, and would welcome our help to resolve a thorny problem
  116. he's stuck with and doesn't much like."
  117. So given all this...to those looking on...lay back for a bit. I
  118. think we are getting some positive movement here, the policy of
  119. backrooming has already been stopped, from what Wes has said, and the
  120. policy is being reconsidered, which was the point of the exercise.
  121. I think that Wes has been very receptive here, and has made a
  122. good faith effort to rectify what is, for him and other sysops here, a
  123. difficult and obviously painful situation. Let's now let the process
  124. continue.
  125. The "Joe McCarthy" comment I will let slide personally, because
  126. you were upset, and we're all entitled to a moment's upset. Instead, I
  127. will again simply thank you for taking the steps you have taken, and
  128. look forward to the final resolution of this.
  129. jms
  130. ------------------------------
  131. Date: 01 Mar 1997 00:31:03 -0700
  132. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  133. To: Ron Chusid <74756.3150@compuserve.com>
  134. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  135. Ron Chusid <74756.3150@compuserve.com> asks:
  136. > Then it's about time, no?
  137. > Have you considered the odds?
  138. Check my last note...
  139. jms
  140. ------------------------------
  141. Date: 01 Mar 1997 00:31:09 -0700
  142. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  143. To: Jean S McKnight <105513.130@compuserve.com>
  144. Subject: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  145. {original post had no questions}
  146. Thanks. I've seen just about every article on CTS that I can
  147. think of, and I've got it down to a roar...sometimes it's worse than
  148. other times. The Kinesis ergonomic keyboard at work helps, and I just
  149. sent out for a Datahand keyboard to use at home to see if that helps
  150. further. It aches pretty much all the time, but it's a low, dull ache
  151. and I'm hardly aware of it most of the time. It's only when I go to
  152. bed, and I'm still for more than 5 minutes at a time, that it really
  153. starts to demand my attention.
  154. It was *much* worse last year or so, when I had to literally
  155. write for 20 minutes, ice down my hands/wrists for 20 minutes, write
  156. for 20, ice for 20, on and on. I actually haven't had to do that this
  157. year.
  158. (And yes, when I remember to do so, I use the wrist braces.)
  159. jms
  160. ------------------------------
  161. Date: 01 Mar 1997 00:31:11 -0700
  162. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  163. To: Toni Muller <75223.1575@compuserve.com>
  164. Subject: >>Atonement<<
  165. Toni Muller <75223.1575@compuserve.com> asks:
  166. > Does what we (and a few Minbari) now know about the triluminaries
  167. > glowing in response to human DNA necessarily negate the theory of
  168. > the "Minari Soul Train"? Will Delenn ever tell John the truth?
  169. > What's going on with Delenn's/Mira's hair?
  170. We keep working on Mira's hair...some days it's better than
  171. others.
  172. jms
  173. ------------------------------
  174. Date: 01 Mar 1997 00:42:03 -0700
  175. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  176. To: Tom Knudsen <72347.1626@compuserve.com>
  177. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  178. {original post had no questions}
  179. Give Wes some time...he has restored the messages, and is
  180. currently in the position of reconsidering the situation regarding the
  181. rules themselves, and what actually applies within those rules. I
  182. think we should be willing to give him the room to do so without an
  183. immediate deadline, since he has made a good faith effort here.
  184. jms
  185. ------------------------------
  186. Date: 02 Mar 1997 02:44:05 -0700
  187. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  188. To: (blocked)
  189. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  190. {original post had no questions}
  191. "The ultimate irony is that *you,* our resident atheist, promised to
  192. regale us with a plethora of censorable biblical quotations!"
  193. Who better?
  194. Y'gotta understand, I've read the thing *twice*, cover to cover.
  195. (And ANYone with the patience to get through Deuteronomy, Numbers and
  196. Leviticus has my enduring respect.) It's actually a pretty good book,
  197. all things considered, and despite some misuse by some of its readers.
  198. There's good drama, lots of melodrama, an overall arc (and an ark),
  199. some good writing and some utterly *awful* writing, blood and thunder
  200. and some racy material, the perfect ingredients for a
  201. potboiler...except that it's often redeemed by such terrific parts as
  202. Psalms, and parts of the Song of Solomon, and Proverbs, and the story
  203. of Job, which is probably one of the best stories ever written.
  204. A good editor would've helped *enormously*, but one can't expect
  205. god to be all things at once....
  206. jms
  207. ------------------------------
  208. Date: 02 Mar 1997 02:44:07 -0700
  209. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  210. To: Jean S McKnight <105513.130@compuserve.com>
  211. Subject: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  212. Jean S McKnight <105513.130@compuserve.com> asks:
  213. > That line about Sheridan's head imploding was more than a little
  214. > autobiographical, no?
  215. "That line about Sheridan's head imploding was more than a little
  216. autobiographical, no?"
  217. Just a tad....
  218. jms
  219. ------------------------------
  220. Date: 02 Mar 1997 02:44:10 -0700
  221. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  222. To: (blocked)
  223. Subject: NEW To Sysops From jms
  224. {original post unavailable}
  225. As it happens, I have an answer to this. First, it's Warner
  226. Bros. that would be at issue here, since they own the copyright to B5.
  227. That issue aside for the moment...
  228. This actually came up not long ago, when a person doing synopses
  229. of the episodes didn't just synopsize it...it included every line of
  230. dialogue in the episode, and extensive narrative descriptions. WB saw
  231. that and said, "Tell 'em to stop it." Which they did.
  232. On several occasions, whole pages at a time have been excerpted
  233. for articles, or reprinted...a heck of a lot more than what was posted
  234. here...and neither WB nor I have a problem with that. As it is, many
  235. of the current synopses contain *massive* verbatim quotes of dialogue,
  236. just not as much as the one main offender. Nobody blinks an eye.
  237. I'm not saying this across the board, but you asked what would
  238. apply in my situation, and that's it. (Which, btw, is a kind of
  239. evasion...rather than dealing with the problem That Is, people create
  240. what they hope are similar situations and say, "Well, what would you do
  241. if THIS happened?" Well, this HASN'T happened, and it isn't a direct
  242. corrolary to this current situation in ANY event. Its' just a way of
  243. skidding the discussion off in another direction and muddying the
  244. waters.)
  245. jms
  246. ------------------------------
  247. Date: 02 Mar 1997 02:44:13 -0700
  248. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  249. To: Meryl Yourish <103470.2703@compuserve.com>
  250. Subject: B5 Soundtrack Vol 2
  251. {original post had no questions}
  252. Thanks...yeah, it's a great CD.
  253. jms
  254. ------------------------------
  255. Date: 02 Mar 1997 02:44:17 -0700
  256. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  257. To: Kirk R. Darling <73063.3115@compuserve.com>
  258. Subject: >>Atonement<<
  259. Kirk R. Darling <73063.3115@compuserve.com> asks:
  260. > Yes, but why did you give Ducat hair (a beard)?
  261. > Is it possible, BTW, that the "transformation" for Delenn worked
  262. > more thoroughly than the other Minbari realize because it had
  263. > some human DNA already in Delenn's cells to build on? And judging
  264. > from the stunned expressions on the faces of the other Gray
  265. > Council members when the trilumenary glowed, did they understand
  266. > that significance, and do any others now on Minbar? Finally, I beg
  267. > for a hint...will this information have any future bearing on the
  268. > plot, or is it merely "nice to know" data?
  269. Yeah, the human DNA definitely helped...and overall, this isn't
  270. so much the arc as the overall story and history. It's filling out the
  271. world.
  272. jms
  273. ------------------------------
  274. Date: 02 Mar 1997 02:44:20 -0700
  275. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  276. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  277. Subject: The One and the Nine
  278. Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com> asks:
  279. > Does this mean that Dukhat (and any leader of the Minbari people)
  280. > is also on the Grey Council? Was Valen the first leader of the
  281. > Minbari people in the history of the Grey Council? Or is it
  282. > possible that this vacancy in the Nine was the one that Delenn
  283. > later filled? Or am I reading this in the wrong way?
  284. > Can you help me understand this a little better, please?
  285. There's the One, and the Nine...when Dukhat was alive, there
  286. were 9 grey council members and him as the head of it, making ten.
  287. (Look at the picture and count the number of people.) 1 and 9.
  288. Valen called together the Grey Council, formed the first one;
  289. until then the castes had been in constant competition. He wanted to
  290. operate outside of that a bit, so he made sure he was not one of the
  291. Nine. That tradition has continued.
  292. jms
  293. ------------------------------
  294. Date: 02 Mar 1997 03:14:55 -0700
  295. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  296. To: (blocked)
  297. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  298. {original post unavailable}
  299. "But that doesn't mean I'll back every decision or idea or crusade or
  300. action he takes - and nobody SHOULD (and I bet he'd be the first to
  301. agree with me)."
  302. Yup. When I behave like a jerk here, I fully expect to be told
  303. so.
  304. "The issue he's brought up here is a valid one - but the method he
  305. started with was too confrontational by far. He should have started it
  306. friendly, specially without the threats of splitting, and then, if
  307. rebuffed, gotten brittle."
  308. That one, I dunno...it's easy to second-guess things after the
  309. fact. I knew that a number of people had *already* either been (or
  310. felt) forced off, or were resigning, and sometimes the only way to get
  311. a result is to first get the horse's attention, as the saying goes.
  312. I've had a number of dealings with lots of systems and worked things
  313. out quietly, behind the scenes; you don't know about them *because*
  314. they've been worked out in a friendly way.
  315. Then, there are days when only a howitzer will suffice.
  316. It was my call. I made it. And it seems to have worked. Would
  317. it have worked out with the other approach? Again, I dunno. I'm only
  318. a P3, after all....
  319. jms
  320. ------------------------------
  321. Date: 02 Mar 1997 03:14:57 -0700
  322. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  323. To: WizOp Wes Meier <76703.747@compuserve.com>
  324. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  325. WizOp Wes Meier <76703.747@compuserve.com> asks:
  326. > at work, at home, and at play"?
  327. > That sorta, kinda, leaves us out in the cold, eh?
  328. Related question, Wes: When a conference is promoted at the
  329. opening menu, does it bring in a substantial number of folks who are
  330. not *already* members of the forum? I was just thinking that folks not
  331. into SF likely would not show up for a conference with an SF type...and
  332. those into SF are likely already aware of it from the on-site notice.
  333. Just curious.
  334. jms
  335. ------------------------------
  336. Date: 02 Mar 1997 03:15:00 -0700
  337. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  338. To: (blocked)
  339. Subject: B5 Soundtrack Vol 2
  340. {original post had no questions}
  341. I believe Chris Franke's website (www.sonicimages.com) has a
  342. full breakdown on the tracks and their sources.
  343. jms
  344. ------------------------------
  345. Date: 02 Mar 1997 03:15:02 -0700
  346. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  347. To: (blocked)
  348. Subject: Captain Power <uh oh>
  349. {original post unavailable}
  350. It was a mixed bag...some good stuff, some stuff I wouldn't mind
  351. seeing dropped off a pier somewhere....
  352. jms
  353. ------------------------------
  354. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:12 -0700
  355. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  356. To: Deonaha M. Conlin <102531.2627@compuserve.com>
  357. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  358. Deonaha M. Conlin <102531.2627@compuserve.com> asks:
  359. > Is there a way for those of us not in The Business to glom onto a
  360. > copy of FCC rules?
  361. I imagine that anyone writing to the FCC in Washington DC can
  362. obtain a copy of the rules, since the FCC is a public agency,
  363. regulating the public airwaves, to ensure they conform to the public
  364. "interest, necessity and convenience."
  365. jms
  366. ------------------------------
  367. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:13 -0700
  368. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  369. To: (blocked)
  370. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  371. {original post unavailable}
  372. "Think it'll happen though?"
  373. When hasn't it?
  374. I've been told I'm a jerk before, will be in future; and in a
  375. sense, your message wondering if my actions were right was implicitly
  376. implying a potential state of Jerk...and that's okay.
  377. You're wrong, of course....
  378. jms
  379. ------------------------------
  380. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:14 -0700
  381. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  382. To: WizOp Wes Meier <76703.747@compuserve.com>
  383. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  384. {original post had no questions}
  385. I see. Though, that would apply only to SFMEDONE, if it got the
  386. PC label...you could still hold COs on SFMEDTWO, with different forums.
  387. In other words...let's say, worst case scenario, SF1 gets PC'd. No
  388. opening menu announcements. But SF2 is *not* PC'd. So the CO could be
  389. held there; and since they're both (presumably) under the same roof, it
  390. all works out the same, yes?
  391. jms
  392. ------------------------------
  393. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:16 -0700
  394. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  395. To: (blocked)
  396. Subject: NEW To Sysops From jms
  397. {original post unavailable}
  398. Okay. You're right.
  399. jms
  400. ------------------------------
  401. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:18 -0700
  402. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  403. To: (blocked)
  404. Subject: Minbari facial hair?
  405. (blocked) asks:
  406. > How did that happen??
  407. Other Minbari have had facial hair; including Draal v1.0 and
  408. Kalain in "Points of Departure." It's certainly not common, though.
  409. jms
  410. ------------------------------
  411. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:21 -0700
  412. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  413. To: Catherine Becic <73414.2603@compuserve.com>
  414. Subject: email
  415. Catherine Becic <73414.2603@compuserve.com> asks:
  416. > About how much email do you average a day?
  417. Email...maybe 60-80 per day, sometimes more. In public forum
  418. messages, on various systems...hundreds.
  419. I try to answer as much as I can, but often the questions are
  420. too complex, or ask for elaborate story discussion ("Can you give me
  421. the history of Minbar before Earth made contact?"), or have
  422. multiple-subquestions to the point where I can't deal with ANY of it.
  423. See, the problem is, everyone thinks "Well, it's just me, after
  424. all." Well, according to our ratings, there are between 10-15 million
  425. "me's" out there. But often folks don't understand that.
  426. For instance, a guy sent me a piece of email recently with 13
  427. *very* elaborate and detailed questions, much along the lines of the
  428. one just quoted above. I couldn't get into any of them, there were
  429. just too many, and they were much too involved. A week later, I got a
  430. VERY angry and agitated letter from that person saying what a jerk I
  431. was for not answering his questions, that he had taken the time to
  432. write them so I had an obligation to answer them, he's the Fan who is
  433. keeping the show alive and we owe this to the fans who support us...he
  434. got fairly abusive about it. "It shouldn't take too much of the BUSY
  435. PRODUCER'S TIME to answer ONE LETTER!" he said in conclusion.
  436. Sure, if it WERE just one letter. But it ain't.
  437. Other times, people will leave public or private mail
  438. *demanding* I answer something, as though I were under contract to
  439. them, or paid to be here. Suffice to say that I generally ignore such
  440. notes.
  441. It's worth noting, though, that those remain the exceptions to
  442. the rule; most of the online crowd is well-behaved and intelligent and
  443. courtous, especially among B5 fans.
  444. jms
  445. ------------------------------
  446. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:24 -0700
  447. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  448. To: (blocked)
  449. Subject: Subverting Censorware
  450. {original post unavailable}
  451. Never said there shouldn't be guidelines. The only question was
  452. the extent, the degree, and the clarity or consistency with which those
  453. rules are applied. The general concensus was that the rule was being
  454. *over*applied. So now let's see how it shakes down before taking the
  455. next logical step.
  456. jms
  457. ------------------------------
  458. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:27 -0700
  459. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  460. To: (blocked)
  461. Subject: TNT Air Order
  462. (blocked) asks:
  463. > What order will TNT air the episodes in?
  464. > In the original air order, or in the order you originally
  465. > intended, that for various reasons aired differently?
  466. I'll be discussing this issue with TNT in the near future, at
  467. which time we'll get into the preferred air order, which probably won't
  468. be a problem for them to follow.
  469. jms
  470. ------------------------------
  471. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:29 -0700
  472. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  473. To: ben dibble <105430.3170@compuserve.com>
  474. Subject: The Dreaming
  475. ben dibble <105430.3170@compuserve.com> asks:
  476. > What then is the deciding factor as to whose memories are
  477. > experienced by all present? Is it whoever "allows" themselves to
  478. > be drawn into the experience, who wills it to happen to them?
  479. I think the order or dominance of the drug is probably
  480. determined by the contents of the script....
  481. jm(oh, look, over there, a comet)s
  482. ------------------------------
  483. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:31 -0700
  484. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  485. To: Dave Vincent <75460.1133@compuserve.com>
  486. Subject: The One and the Nine
  487. Dave Vincent <75460.1133@compuserve.com> asks:
  488. > Could you identify this ship?
  489. > Is this the case?
  490. There was the Prometheus, which was there; and others, including
  491. the Amundsen. The one you saw, which looks a bit like the Aggy but
  492. without the rotating section, is another, smaller class of destroyer
  493. also seen, I believe, in "Dreams."
  494. jms
  495. ------------------------------
  496. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:33 -0700
  497. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  498. To: (blocked)
  499. Subject: Van Valen
  500. (blocked) asks:
  501. > Did you already have him pictured in your head?
  502. > Did it make casting easier?
  503. > Who designed them?
  504. Actually, that was Dukhat, and yeah, that's pretty close to how
  505. I saw him in my head. Definitely a bigger than life fellow.
  506. jms
  507. ------------------------------
  508. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:08:35 -0700
  509. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  510. To: Rebecca Eschliman <76072.2345@compuserve.com>
  511. Subject: <Atonement>...Attunement
  512. {original post had no questions}
  513. Good points. Speaking of visual puns, someone pointed out that
  514. in "Epiphanies," you've got Zack leaving customs, saying of whoever
  515. comes through next, "it might be the Second Coming and I'm five sins
  516. behind on penance," and who walks in...but the Three Kings....
  517. jms
  518. ------------------------------
  519. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:35:14 -0700
  520. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  521. To: Ray Pelzer <70475.1263@compuserve.com>
  522. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  523. {original post had no questions}
  524. Y'know, I've been thinking about all this a lot over the last
  525. few days (what else do I have to do, run a show or something?) and
  526. here's the thing that gets me in the area of parental controls.
  527. It starts with discussions over language, and nobody wants to
  528. say "We can't have language or other problematic items our
  529. conferences," because it smacks of censorship (which, in fact, it is).
  530. (And, granted, some uses of language are a little more disagreeable
  531. than others, I'm not getting into degrees here, just the overall
  532. notion.)
  533. So someone says, "Instead of doing that, let's have a Ratings
  534. System, which will tell parents which forums (or shows) are safe for
  535. their kids, and which are not, so we can have areas where you can say
  536. whatever you want, and other areas where it's more controlled, and
  537. parents know where to go."
  538. Then the ratings go into place...but nobody wants to be tagged
  539. with the harsher designation. Because that would mean a loss of
  540. revenue, or prestige, or visibility. So now everyone starts doing
  541. whatever it takes to avoid that rating, by changing content or
  542. enforcing stricter rules to avoid the label, since that's somewhat
  543. easier to defend (even though it's exactly the same as the original
  544. problem, they've just moved the target to something that's less of an
  545. obvious flash-point as censorship).
  546. What you therefore end up with is that all forums or shows move
  547. toward the safer designation, and there no longer IS a choice between
  548. "kid" and "adult" conversations or topics or language or subjects.
  549. Because the latter has ceased to exist not for political reasons but
  550. for *economic* ones.
  551. It's much like what happened in the record biz...some groups
  552. wanted labels put on records, have them rated so parents and kids could
  553. tell the hard stuff from the safe stuff, "But we're not pro-censorship,
  554. we just want to be informed." Until the records started coming out, at
  555. which point the same parents groups began screaming about x-rated
  556. albums being even in the same STORE where kids could enter their orbit,
  557. even if protected by cellophane wrapping and warned by labels. It
  558. became a basis for exclusion.
  559. Nobody in TV right now wants to be hit with the TV-M (mature)
  560. rating, because of threatened boycotts. It's the same material that
  561. may have been there before, but now that it has a label, that label has
  562. become a target.
  563. The expressed intent is to create clarity in making choices in
  564. material.
  565. The result is to *remove* choices by excluding material.
  566. The more I look at it, the more insidious it gets.
  567. I think I'll write something about this, one of these days....
  568. jms
  569. ------------------------------
  570. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:35:18 -0700
  571. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  572. To: (blocked)
  573. Subject: Minbari castes
  574. (blocked) asks:
  575. > What caste is Lennier, and do every member of a clan belong to
  576. > the same caste?
  577. Lennier is religious caste; and all members of a given clan
  578. belong to one caste.
  579. There are, for instance, no religious caste members of the Star
  580. Riders (military caste) clan.
  581. jms
  582. ------------------------------
  583. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:35:20 -0700
  584. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  585. To: Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com>
  586. Subject: Atonement
  587. Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com> asks:
  588. > Just wondering, what, if anything, was involved in using the song
  589. > from Pirates of Penzance that Marcus was singing at the end?
  590. Nothing, really...we just grabbed one of the audio bits from the
  591. day's filming and dropped it in.
  592. jms
  593. ------------------------------
  594. Date: 03 Mar 1997 01:35:22 -0700
  595. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  596. To: Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com>
  597. Subject: Grey Council
  598. Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com> asks:
  599. > Now if Delenn has not voted, how can there be a tie vote?
  600. > They needed more than a simple majority What say you oh Great
  601. > Maker?
  602. Others in the Council died, as was noted when the one says, "Our
  603. brothers?" "Dead," Delenn says. So there were others.
  604. jms
  605. ------------------------------
  606. Date: 03 Mar 1997 12:05:07 -0700
  607. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  608. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  609. Subject: Caste, Clan, Family?
  610. Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com> asks:
  611. > So I take it, from earlier comments of yours that Delenn chose
  612. > her caste as a child (I believe you said it was due to her
  613. > "vision" in the temple), that you are not born into your clan? In
  614. > other words, If Delenn had chosen to be a worker, she would not
  615. > be in the clan she is currently in, correct? If that's the case,
  616. > then clans aren't necessarily organizations of relatives, right?
  617. > Was her clan the "Mir" clan? Or was "Mir" her family name?
  618. > Is that different than the clan?
  619. > Is this correct?
  620. Yes, Mir is her family; you are generally born into a caste
  621. unless you at some point decide that the calling of your heart is
  622. elsewhere, at which point you enter training for that other caste (with
  623. the permission of your caste leaders) until such time as it's finalized
  624. that that's what you want, at which time you're assigned to a clan
  625. within that caste. If you choose to stay in the caste you're born
  626. into, you automatically are in your familiy's clan.
  627. jms
  628. ------------------------------
  629. Date: 03 Mar 1997 12:05:08 -0700
  630. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  631. To: John F Davis <73455.43@compuserve.com>
  632. Subject: Minbari castes
  633. {original post had no questions}
  634. Don't take this the wrong way...it's simply an
  635. observation...just a thought from someone who works with words all the
  636. time and gets very anal retentive about these things...the dictionary
  637. is our friend....
  638. jms
  639. ------------------------------
  640. Date: 03 Mar 1997 12:05:09 -0700
  641. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  642. To: (blocked)
  643. Subject: TNT Air Order
  644. {original post unavailable}
  645. No, the fault was mine, not the suits.
  646. Prior to exec producing B5, I had never edited a show before,
  647. never had final cut before...had never even been IN an editing room for
  648. more than 5 minutes before. So here I am, given the director's
  649. cut...and I know it's real slow, but I haven't done this before, so I
  650. don't trust my instincts. I let it go with very minimal changes.
  651. And I've been kicking myself ever since. I should've followed
  652. my instincts, but instead I deferred to the director's cut.
  653. It's a mistake I have never made since.
  654. Even so, that first cut just gnaws at me...I *know* I can make
  655. it better, stronger, even if only a bit in a few places, that would
  656. help salve my soul over this thing.
  657. jms
  658. ------------------------------
  659. Date: 03 Mar 1997 12:05:10 -0700
  660. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  661. To: WizOp Wes Meier <76703.747@compuserve.com>
  662. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  663. {original post had no questions}
  664. So then the concern about not getting opening screen promos
  665. because of parental controls is moot because we can't get the promos
  666. ANYWAY because it's not business oriented, so it's really a moot issue
  667. in any event...?
  668. Fascinating.
  669. jms
  670. ------------------------------
  671. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:18 -0700
  672. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  673. To: (blocked)
  674. Subject: TNT Air Order
  675. {original post unavailable}
  676. Yeah, we're also going to update the CGI, if we can do this.
  677. jms
  678. ------------------------------
  679. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:19 -0700
  680. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  681. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  682. Subject: Caste, Clan, Family?
  683. Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com> asks:
  684. > So, am I correct in my memory that you said Delenn changed castes
  685. > when she was young? If so, what was her family's original caste?
  686. No, Delenn never changed castes.
  687. jms
  688. ------------------------------
  689. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:20 -0700
  690. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  691. To: Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com>
  692. Subject: Delenn
  693. Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com> asks:
  694. > Hasn't Delenn learned her lesson about telling the truth, all of
  695. > it, to Sheridan? Are we seeing a return of the old Delenn?
  696. Certainly Delenn has some hard things to do coming up.
  697. jms
  698. ------------------------------
  699. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:21 -0700
  700. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  701. To: (blocked)
  702. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  703. {original post unavailable}
  704. Yeah, that's the problem...it has to be one or the other
  705. Family, or Adult...and if you have any content that ain't kid-approved
  706. it automatically puts you in the latter category, which lots of people
  707. don't want for all the reasons you cite. Something here don't make a
  708. whole lot of sense....
  709. jms
  710. ------------------------------
  711. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:24 -0700
  712. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  713. To: (blocked)
  714. Subject: Next New Show?
  715. {original post unavailable}
  716. The next ep comes around May-ish, so you can sleep in for a
  717. while...
  718. jms
  719. ------------------------------
  720. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:27 -0700
  721. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  722. To: John M. Graham <74166.3727@compuserve.com>
  723. Subject: TNT Air Order
  724. John M. Graham <74166.3727@compuserve.com> asks:
  725. > Will the Gathering be shown before or after the Prequel Movie?
  726. The prequel will be aired first, then the pilot, then the
  727. series.
  728. jms
  729. ------------------------------
  730. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:29 -0700
  731. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  732. To: (blocked)
  733. Subject: B5 in new Ent.Weekly
  734. (blocked) asks:
  735. > Writer_s_?
  736. > Joe, do you have multiple personalities that we don't know about?
  737. WriterS....sigh.
  738. Hell, we're just happy to know they're AWARE of us....
  739. jms
  740. ------------------------------
  741. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:31 -0700
  742. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  743. To: Tom Knudsen <72347.1626@compuserve.com>
  744. Subject: Caste, Clan, Family?
  745. Tom Knudsen <72347.1626@compuserve.com> asks:
  746. > The fact that Mir is the Russian word for peace wouldn't have
  747. > anything to do with you using it for her family name.....would
  748. > it?
  749. Yeah, there's that, and it nicely intersects with the fact that
  750. Delenn is portrayed by MIRa Furlan. It's kind of a bank shot.
  751. jms
  752. ------------------------------
  753. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:33 -0700
  754. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  755. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  756. Subject: Official: No year 5
  757. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  758. > And Netter digital does the Special Effects, right?
  759. > So what else does Netter Digital do?
  760. NDEI has its own projects under development, was involved in
  761. the Battleground Earth project with Majel Roddenberry, produces the
  762. occasional documentary (such as the Wild West documentary a couple
  763. years ago), and other projects which don't involve me at all.
  764. jms
  765. ------------------------------
  766. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:34 -0700
  767. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  768. To: Rebecca Eschliman <76072.2345@compuserve.com>
  769. Subject: Van Valen
  770. {original post had no questions}
  771. Certainly that ties in with what Delenn said about humor being
  772. essential to Minbari philosophy and culture.
  773. jms
  774. ------------------------------
  775. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:37 -0700
  776. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  777. To: (blocked)
  778. Subject: The One and the Nine
  779. {original post unavailable}
  780. No, if you keep watching Dukhat comes in, followed by Delenn,
  781. through the opening (the empty spot) and then another Minbari comes in
  782. to fill that spot.
  783. (Sudden thought...I have to check to see if we *used* that shot
  784. or if it was just in dailies...but if you count the Minbari there at
  785. the end of the scene, you'll find the count is correct.)
  786. jms
  787. ------------------------------
  788. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:40 -0700
  789. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  790. To: (blocked)
  791. Subject: Official: No year 5
  792. (blocked) asks:
  793. > Has there been any word on the fate of year 5?
  794. > Can you give us the odds?
  795. No, no definitive word yet.
  796. jms
  797. ------------------------------
  798. Date: 04 Mar 1997 14:00:43 -0700
  799. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  800. To: Bob Koslosky <102365.2062@compuserve.com>
  801. Subject: Atonement
  802. Bob Koslosky <102365.2062@compuserve.com> asks:
  803. > Those ships that showed up just before the humans attacked, where
  804. > Delenn said something to the effect that they only showed up when
  805. > death was near - who were those guys?
  806. Those were Soul Hunters, who in the first season we learned
  807. showed up to attempt to grab Dukhat's soul...they were prevented from
  808. successfully boarding the ship by the Minbari, who threw up a wall of
  809. bodies to stop them (which is why there were few around with Delenn and
  810. Dukhat; Soul Hunters are a pretty advanced sort, the terror of Minbari,
  811. and it took a lot to stop them). After Dukhat died, Delenn went down
  812. and joined in, confronting them about this.
  813. jms
  814. ------------------------------
  815. Date: 04 Mar 1997 18:28:35 -0700
  816. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  817. To: All
  818. Subject: Sysop on CIS Rules
  819. Just received this, and thought I'd pass it along for whatever
  820. use it may have in illuminating the discussion.
  821. jms
  822. Subj:Confessions of a CIS sysop
  823. Date:97-03-03 23:00:21 EST
  824. From:rick@hugin.imat.com (Rick Moen)
  825. To:jmsatb5@aol.com
  826. Here's how CIS forum-content regulation works, from the perspective of
  827. a (former) CIS primary forum sysop ("wizop").
  828. I used to work for a software company, and as part of my job as a
  829. support rep created a CIS forum to support our customers -- and then
  830. ran it single-handed for four years. This meant answering all
  831. CIS-based customer questions from around the world, plus handling all
  832. forum administration. Many wizops recruit assistants, giving them
  833. access to some sysop functions.
  834. As a forum (primary) sysop, one is handed a couple of big binders,
  835. that mostly cover technical matters, but in passing touch on content
  836. guidelines. These were vaguely described, but the sysop is told he's
  837. obliged to keep "off" all profanity, solicitations of business for
  838. other online services, and some other things. Forum members were to be
  839. _advised_ by e-mail if a post had been removed, and could be locked out
  840. (in ordinary circumstances) _only_ after a warning. (As a courtesy, I
  841. also sent a copy of any removed post back via e-mail, in case the
  842. poster wanted to edit and re-post it or send it unchanged via e-mail.)
  843. I enforced the profanity guidelines, among others, permissively, and
  844. always with the advisories described. I told members up front that it
  845. was a _support_ forum, and that they could create a Berate Company
  846. Management forum elsewhere.
  847. To get to the point, several things: (1) "Wizops" operate forums by
  848. contract with CIS for a percentage of user billings. (2) CIS thus
  849. distances itself from both administration _and_ some legal liability.
  850. (They can say "Not our fault. We weren't running it." This, in my
  851. view, is CIS sysops' primary design function.)
  852. (3) The standard CIS forum contract forbids disclosure of its terms to
  853. any third party. (Yes, I'm violating it. I have reason.)
  854. (4) Many if not most forum sysops, both wizops and their chosen
  855. assistants, ignore the obligation of accountability to users. They do
  856. this for convenience's sake, and because there's little to hold them
  857. accountable. My successor did this, for example. Sysops tend to see
  858. themselves as overworked and under-appreciated (almost always true):
  859. Unfortunately, they tend to consider this an excuse for whatever
  860. management techniques seem most expedient.
  861. (5) CIS forum management routinely abdicates its responsibility to
  862. oversee sysops. My guess is that exercising it would (most of the
  863. time) tend to increase their legal exposure, and they intercede only if
  864. there's a disaster brewing that might spill over from the sysop onto
  865. them. I've known a number of cases of people appealing to CIS
  866. management over clear cases of high-handed sysop behaviour: I don't
  867. think CIS even _responded_ to any of those users. Again, little existed
  868. to _hold_ them accountable.
  869. (6) The remedy: Exactly what you're doing. Have someone watch the
  870. watchers, and spotlight abuse when it happens. Don't accept
  871. convenience and mishap as excuses for absurd happenings such as those
  872. you've described. The responsible parties _will_ be motivated to
  873. elmininate abuses if faced with fair complaints from multiple parties,
  874. that won't go away if ignored.
  875. Thank you for pursuing the matter. Feel free to quote this e-mail if
  876. you wish, and you need not omit my name or mailbox, if you do. I stand
  877. behind it.
  878. -- Cheers, Rick Moen rick@hugin.imat.com
  879. ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
  880. From rick@hugin.imat.com Mon Mar 3 22:59:59 1997
  881. Return-Path: rick@hugin.imat.com
  882. Received: (blocked)
  883. emin08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id
  884. WAA25626 for <jmsatb5@a
  885. Received: (from rick@localhost)
  886. by hugin.imat.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id TAA06900 for
  887. jmsatb5@aol.com; Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:56:54 -0800
  888. From: Rick Moen <rick@hugin.imat.com>
  889. Message-Id: <199703040356.TAA06900@hugin.imat.com>
  890. Subject: Confessions of a CIS sysop
  891. To: jmsatb5@aol.com
  892. Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 19:56:54 -0800 (PST)
  893. Content-Type: text </PRE></HTML>
  894. ------------------------------
  895. Date: 04 Mar 1997 23:27:11 -0700
  896. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  897. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  898. Subject: TNT Air Order
  899. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  900. > Is the directors cut typically different from a producers cut?
  901. > Is there a differnce between TV and Movies on how they would
  902. > differ?
  903. A director's cut can be the same as, or vastly different from,
  904. the producer's cut, depending on what the director does, and how much
  905. in sync the director is with the producer. But the producer gets final
  906. cut in TV, whereas the director gets final cut in films (unless the
  907. studio or a big name producer has it contractually otherwise).
  908. jms
  909. ------------------------------
  910. Date: 04 Mar 1997 23:27:13 -0700
  911. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  912. To: Catherine Becic <73414.2603@compuserve.com>
  913. Subject: email part 2
  914. Catherine Becic <73414.2603@compuserve.com> asks:
  915. > Does that mean that snail mail people are out of luck?
  916. > Do you also respond to those?
  917. I try to reply to snail mail as I can, though it's certainly
  918. easier to do so in email.
  919. jms
  920. ------------------------------
  921. Date: 04 Mar 1997 23:27:15 -0700
  922. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  923. To: Catherine Becic <73414.2603@compuserve.com>
  924. Subject: Atonement again
  925. Catherine Becic <73414.2603@compuserve.com> asks:
  926. > So how come this one turned out to be a lie/deception?
  927. Those Minbari...I tell you, you just can't trust 'em....
  928. jms
  929. ------------------------------
  930. Date: 05 Mar 1997 02:58:44 -0700
  931. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  932. To: (blocked)
  933. Subject: Kick-A$$ Advertising
  934. (blocked) asks:
  935. > I wonder who I should report this rule violation to?
  936. That is kinda funny, since I was sent a private message here a
  937. month or two ago by, I believe, Chaffee, chiding me for using the term
  938. "pain in the ass" in a public forum...and here that word is used in a
  939. Member Services announcement.
  940. I guess that means that they can't promote the Member Services
  941. Announcements in the Member Services Announcements section anymore.
  942. jms
  943. ------------------------------
  944. Date: 05 Mar 1997 02:58:46 -0700
  945. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  946. To: (blocked)
  947. Subject: Atonement
  948. {original post unavailable}
  949. What airs is considered canon; in 15 years, nobody's gonna be
  950. hauling these messages around. But the show will still be on the air.
  951. If it airs, it's canon.
  952. And in another one of those posts, I did mention that on just a
  953. couple of small occasions, I have fibbed when asked major story arc
  954. questions to protect future storylines from being deflated....
  955. jms
  956. ------------------------------
  957. Date: 05 Mar 1997 02:58:47 -0700
  958. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  959. To: (blocked)
  960. Subject: Atonement
  961. {original post unavailable}
  962. He could have left Dukhat a message...but tampering in the
  963. future is VERY chancy business, and could even make things worse, for
  964. all we know.
  965. jms
  966. ------------------------------
  967. Date: 05 Mar 1997 02:58:52 -0700
  968. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  969. To: All
  970. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  971. (The following material -- which will be posted to other forums
  972. -- is submitted on the theory that I apparently haven't gotten in
  973. *nearly* enough trouble lately. So I may as well go for broke.
  974. jms
  975. John J. Miller
  976. SFWA Secretary
  977. Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America
  978. (address deleted for privacy)
  979. Dear Mr. Miller:
  980. I am in receipt of your recent letter inviting me to rejoing SFWA.
  981. While others who have either resigned from SFWA or let their
  982. memberships lapse have received similar letters, I note that you
  983. added, in handwriting, the following: "Michael - We're particularly
  984. interested in encouraging writers of your stature and experience to
  985. rejoin."
  986. I'm posting this, my reply, both online as well as in standard mail
  987. to you, because the issues at hand affect others in the industry;
  988. because it is a good subject for public debate; and because SFWA has
  989. to this date refused to publish my letter of resignation from SFWA
  990. in its membership publication; even now, years after the fact, SFWA
  991. does not choose to recognize the boorishness of its behavior toward
  992. those of us who work in television, film and other media.
  993. To recap, for the benefit of those looking on, and for the purpose
  994. of historical accuracy: a number of us were troubled by the fact
  995. that SFWA allowed TV and film scripts in the SF genre to count for
  996. membership, so that our dues could be accepted, but that these very
  997. same scripts were not considered "real" science fiction...and thus
  998. ineligible for consideration for a Nebula Award.
  999. An attempt was made to restore the Dramatic Nebula, given in years
  1000. past, in order to achieve equity with other forms of SF. Those
  1001. involved in the attempt included myself, Harlan Ellison, David
  1002. Gerrold, D.C. Fontana, Michael Cassutt and others. We believed,
  1003. foolishly in retrospect, that SF writers -- presumably forward
  1004. thinking and progressive -- would understand that stories can take
  1005. new and different forms, that SF for television and film was a
  1006. perfectly valid form. It's still SF; it simply uses a new kind of
  1007. technology to facilitate that storytelling. Since SF is often
  1008. about the foolishness of small-minded people when faced with
  1009. changing technologies, and generally the impact of technology on
  1010. people and art forms, we felt they would agree that the time
  1011. was right for the reinstatement of the Dramatic Nebula.
  1012. We were wrong.
  1013. We were greeted by an outpouring of such virulent bigotry, such
  1014. undisguised hostility, and such abuse as to numb the senses. There
  1015. was hate mail, name-calling and dead-catting; we were called (in
  1016. person, and in SFWA's publication) "hacks" and "no-talents" and
  1017. told that scripts aren't stories...obscene and threatening messages
  1018. were left on my answering machine...hate mail arrived at my home...
  1019. and the most nakedly straightforward one stated, "I work my ass off
  1020. for a few pennies a word, while you Hollywood hacks earn big bucks
  1021. for turning out crap. You'll never see the Dramatic Nebula back as
  1022. long as I'm alive."
  1023. To help defuse some of the tempers, many of us were willing to
  1024. disqualify ourselves from ever being eligible for the Nebula, should
  1025. it be reinstated, to remove any suspicion of a vested interest. It
  1026. was the principle that concerned us.
  1027. For an organization claiming forward-thinkers, there was more fuzzy
  1028. thinking and illogic pouring out of SFWA than at any average meeting
  1029. of the Flat Earth Society. "Why should SFWA give scriptwriters a
  1030. Nebula if the WGA won't give awards to prose writers?" some yelled
  1031. at us, which granted was at least an attempt to put together a
  1032. comprehensible sentence.
  1033. "Because the WGA is *form* oriented, and SFWA is *genre* oriented,"
  1034. we said, "that's why. Any genre script can win a WGA award, as long
  1035. as it's in the right form. And any form of SF should be able to be
  1036. considered for a Nebula, as long as it's in the right genre."
  1037. Our point, in the final analysis, was simply this: If SFWA will not
  1038. recognize scripts as SF for the Nebula, then they should not qualify
  1039. for membership in SFWA. If SFWA *does* recognize them as SF for
  1040. purposes of membership, then they should be eligible for the Nebula.
  1041. It was real simple: you can't have it both ways. Pick one.
  1042. But that didn't happen...the illogic, the contradiction was allowed
  1043. to continue, with SF scriptwriters held as second-class citizens
  1044. within SFWA. In theory, a GOR novel could be considered for a
  1045. Nebula...but a Babylon 5 script could never even begin to be
  1046. considered because according to SFWA, it isn't a story, it isn't
  1047. real writing, it isn't literature, it is absent of quality, and
  1048. fundamentally, it ain't SF.
  1049. It was this issue that finally compelled me to resign from SFWA,
  1050. as had others before me. That, and the insults, abuse, veiled
  1051. and not-so-veiled threats and harrassment I received from many
  1052. in SFWA over this issue.
  1053. And now you come to me...and you ask me to rejoin. You say this
  1054. is because of my "stature and experience"...but what use can that
  1055. be to SFWA if my work and the work of every SF writer working in
  1056. television or film is dismissed as lacking in merit by virtue of
  1057. the form in which we work? Since the bulk of my work is in TV,
  1058. how can SFWA consider what I have to be "stature" if it does not
  1059. recognize that there is any quality work in SF being done in TV?
  1060. I don't believe in stature, particularly and especially my own.
  1061. I'm still the same person I was when I resigned, for good or ill.
  1062. The only thing that matters to me, that has *ever* mattered to
  1063. me, is the work. The storytelling. This genre. I love SF. I
  1064. love the community of fandom that has embraced it, and given it
  1065. life. I love the sense of wonder that is SF.
  1066. [More]
  1067. ------------------------------
  1068. Date: 05 Mar 1997 02:59:00 -0700
  1069. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1070. To: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1071. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1072. [Continued]
  1073. In order to rejoin SFWA, I would have to accept the tacit
  1074. implication that my work is NOT SF...and this I will never do.
  1075. Last year, I realized a lifelong dream, and we received the Hugo
  1076. award for an episode of Babylon 5. And I'll tell you a true
  1077. thing: I'll take the Hugo over the Nebula any day, because it
  1078. comes based on the quality of the work...it comes based on the
  1079. understanding that fans have that SF is SF, regardless of the
  1080. medium. Where the pro community throws up barriers, and tidal
  1081. waves of snobbery, and play political games by defining SF as
  1082. whatever is most convenient for them, the fan community is open
  1083. to the free debate of one singular question: "Is it good SF?"
  1084. In light of that, what possible reason could I have for wanting
  1085. to rejoin SFWA? To associate with writers who disdain the form
  1086. in which I work? To try and educate them? We tried that...and
  1087. got our heads handed to us.
  1088. It's not just the Nebula that's the concern...as before, I'm
  1089. willing to permanently disqualify anything I write, now or in
  1090. the future, from Nebula consideration, to set aside allegations
  1091. of self-interest; it's the principle of the thing that matters,
  1092. the desire to make this better for the next guy to come down this
  1093. road; and it's the attitude behind the current situation that
  1094. rankles, that worries me; the open hostility and prejudice
  1095. against those working in the visual media.
  1096. So thanks, but no thanks.
  1097. SFWA has chosen to ostracize film and television...and in the
  1098. end, has only hurt itself. By sticking its head, ostrich-like,
  1099. in the sand, it has failed to come to grips with these new
  1100. media...has become isolated, so that no one in Hollywood thinks
  1101. of SFWA members, because SFWA thinks nothing of Hollywood.
  1102. The result? Where once many SF novels were chosen as fodder for
  1103. movies, now movies and TV shows drive a substantial portion of
  1104. the novel market through licensing. All too often now, books are
  1105. based on movies, when it *should* be the other way around, which
  1106. means that the audience is deprived of visual medium access to
  1107. some truly excellent work. The publishing industry has become
  1108. more like Hollywood in many ways now, looking for the blockbuster,
  1109. losing the midlist, one megacompany swallowing up another. We've
  1110. been there, done that, and could've helped.
  1111. (Now *here's* an irony I hadn't considered before just this
  1112. moment: while an episode of B5 is not eligible for a Nebula, a
  1113. novel based on B5 *is* eligible. Where is the logic in that
  1114. one? And here's another irony: one of the members who most
  1115. vociferously opposed the Dramatic Nebula on the grounds that
  1116. everything SF that came out of Hollywood was crap...well, his
  1117. name showed up recently on a list of writers asking to be
  1118. considered for an assignment to write one of the Babylon 5
  1119. novels.)
  1120. Because of SFWA's provincial attitudes toward those of us who
  1121. work in TV and film, it has lost access to secondary markets
  1122. and opportunities, costing its members potentially hundreds of
  1123. thousands of dollars.
  1124. If parts of this letter seem angry, or frustrated, you should
  1125. understand that the two areas of my life which have always meant
  1126. a great deal to me are my work in television, and SF as a genre.
  1127. I'm proud, have always been proud, of both. Many producers
  1128. assigned to SF series deny they're doing SF, as though they were
  1129. ashamed of it. I've always embraced the idea. I was proud to
  1130. be a member of SFWA. I was proud to write for television. But
  1131. finally I had to choose between them, and that was a very
  1132. difficult, painful thing for me. It still is. It's like having
  1133. divorced parents; you want desperately for them to get along with
  1134. each other, somehow put it together again...but it doesn't happen
  1135. and doesn't look like it will *ever* happen. So you get upset.
  1136. I'm not upset with you, John, or even many members of SFWA, a
  1137. number of whom weren't even members when all this went down a
  1138. few years ago. It's simple frustration with a system, and a
  1139. certain loud proportion of the membership, that is provincial
  1140. and parochial. A great deal of good could come out of a tighter
  1141. coordination between those of us working in the visual media,
  1142. and print authors. To see that frittered away is maddenning.
  1143. Television and film are as valid a forum for the exploration
  1144. of science fiction as any short story or novel. As long as
  1145. SFWA persists in saying otherwise, I will never rejoin that
  1146. organization.
  1147. Let me know when you folks get serious. Let me know when you
  1148. are willing to consider that what we do in TV and film counts as
  1149. SF. Then we'll talk.
  1150. But not before.
  1151. J. Michael Straczynski
  1152. Executive Producer/Creator/WRITER
  1153. Babylon 5
  1154. ------------------------------
  1155. Date: 05 Mar 1997 14:14:21 -0700
  1156. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1157. To: Robert Freeman <74577.1525@compuserve.com>
  1158. Subject: A fan says thanks...
  1159. {original post had no questions}
  1160. Thanks...we try.
  1161. jms
  1162. ------------------------------
  1163. Date: 05 Mar 1997 14:14:24 -0700
  1164. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1165. To: (blocked)
  1166. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1167. {original post had no questions}
  1168. I agree 100%. One of the things I've been ragging on for years
  1169. is that you should bring in SF writers to work on SF shows. Real
  1170. simple logic. But the perception there is that SF print authors can't
  1171. deal with, or are disdainful of, scripts...something SFWA perpetuated
  1172. when many of their members said they (as a group) wouldn't be able to
  1173. make sense of a script.
  1174. There are some terrific resources out there who would be
  1175. invaluable to any SF series. That's why I gave Peter David his first
  1176. shot at a live action TV series, ditto for Christy Marx and others.
  1177. jms
  1178. ------------------------------
  1179. Date: 05 Mar 1997 14:14:26 -0700
  1180. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1181. To: Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com>
  1182. Subject: Triluminary
  1183. Douglas Piligian <70760.2440@compuserve.com> asks:
  1184. > Does it glow brighter if there is more of the DNA present?
  1185. > did it glow really bright when held up to Sinclair after he was
  1186. > captured at the Battle of the Line? Did they know at that time
  1187. > that it only glowed in the presence of Valen's DNA? ever get your
  1188. > ISDN modem to work?
  1189. Yeah, we showed it glowing when Sinclair was catpured. Since
  1190. it happened with Valen, they assumed it was because he had a Minbari
  1191. soul, maybe Valen reborn.
  1192. jms
  1193. ------------------------------
  1194. Date: 05 Mar 1997 14:14:27 -0700
  1195. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1196. To: (blocked)
  1197. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1198. {original post had no questions}
  1199. The only point of disagreement is that "SF on screen is
  1200. actually more of an accomplishment." They're equal, in different ways,
  1201. and certainly a movie or TV show can, in time, start to look dated.
  1202. But a book, which exists in your head, never grows old.
  1203. jms
  1204. ------------------------------
  1205. Date: 05 Mar 1997 14:14:29 -0700
  1206. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1207. To: (blocked)
  1208. Subject: Atonement
  1209. {original post unavailable}
  1210. Yeah, some are more accurate than others.
  1211. jms
  1212. ------------------------------
  1213. Date: 05 Mar 1997 14:14:33 -0700
  1214. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1215. To: Trent K. Johnson <71020.1052@compuserve.com>
  1216. Subject: Edit Process
  1217. Trent K. Johnson <71020.1052@compuserve.com> asks:
  1218. > Is this something to do with a different editing process, or does
  1219. > it relate to the change in satellite delivery?
  1220. I'm afraid I don't know what elements you're referring to, so I
  1221. can't answer that offhand. On the rest...thanks.
  1222. jms
  1223. ------------------------------
  1224. Date: 05 Mar 1997 14:14:34 -0700
  1225. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1226. To: (blocked)
  1227. Subject: To Sysops from jms
  1228. {original post unavailable}
  1229. Well said. You really ought to consider giving this writing
  1230. thing a shot sometime.
  1231. jms
  1232. ------------------------------
  1233. Date: 05 Mar 1997 17:41:29 -0700
  1234. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1235. To: (blocked)
  1236. Subject: Incongruous Advertising
  1237. {original post unavailable}
  1238. "This forum is subject to Parental Controls because the 'bot looks at
  1239. the messages here. Parental Controls covers forums, Web pages, and
  1240. newsgroups, not Member Services."
  1241. Yeah, I think that contradiction is kind of the point....
  1242. jms
  1243. ------------------------------
  1244. Date: 05 Mar 1997 17:41:31 -0700
  1245. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1246. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1247. Subject: TNT Air Order
  1248. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1249. > So in films the director provides the thematic vision of the
  1250. > movie, wheras in TV the producer provides that vision?
  1251. Correct. In many films, the director is there from the start,
  1252. working on the vision...in TV, a director comes in 2-3 weeks before you
  1253. shoot, and walks into a situation where the vision is already set.
  1254. jms
  1255. ------------------------------
  1256. Date: 05 Mar 1997 21:45:21 -0700
  1257. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1258. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1259. Subject: TNT Air Order
  1260. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1261. > So that's why you became an Executive Producer?
  1262. > To protect the vision of your work and not have a director or
  1263. > producer change it?
  1264. "So that's why you became an Executive Producer? To protect the
  1265. vision of your work and not have a director or producer change it?"
  1266. I sure as heck can't think of any OTHER reason to do it, given
  1267. the grief involved....
  1268. jms
  1269. ------------------------------
  1270. Date: 05 Mar 1997 21:45:23 -0700
  1271. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1272. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1273. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1274. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1275. > As to the SFWA, is there anything that we, the fans can do to
  1276. > help you win this crusade?
  1277. Thanks...and as for SFWA, it's an internal matter that they will
  1278. have to consider on their own.
  1279. jms
  1280. ------------------------------
  1281. Date: 06 Mar 1997 17:06:39 -0700
  1282. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1283. To: (blocked)
  1284. Subject: Incongruous Advertising
  1285. {original post unavailable}
  1286. "It's important to understand the difference between CIS rules
  1287. and Forum rules."
  1288. Not a problem. Same rules we sometimes heard growing up.
  1289. "Don't do as I do, do as I say."
  1290. jms
  1291. ------------------------------
  1292. Date: 06 Mar 1997 17:09:07 -0700
  1293. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1294. To: (blocked)
  1295. Subject: Redist. of SFWA Letter?
  1296. {original post unavailable}
  1297. Sure; any post of mine can be reposted elsewhere.
  1298. jms
  1299. ------------------------------
  1300. Date: 08 Mar 1997 20:50:58 -0700
  1301. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1302. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1303. Subject: TNT Air Order
  1304. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1305. > Have you ever considered directing?
  1306. "Have you ever considered directing?"
  1307. With great trepidation, and at the urging of Warner Bros., I've
  1308. decided to direct one episode this season...not because I have any
  1309. particular ambition to be a director, but because I think it will help
  1310. me become a better writer by more fully understanding that side of the
  1311. camera. Given how massively busy I am already, this decision will
  1312. almost certainly be called as evidence in any sanity trial that might
  1313. take place in future.
  1314. jms
  1315. ------------------------------
  1316. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:20:07 -0700
  1317. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1318. To: PAUL SHEWARD <100256.1563@compuserve.com>
  1319. Subject: New Set of B5 Cards
  1320. {original post had no questions}
  1321. I saw a piece in one of the comics publications the other day,
  1322. might've been Comics Buyers Guide or the like...apparently unopened
  1323. boxes of the first B5 set are going for $150 each, originally $35 or
  1324. so. Not bad....
  1325. jms
  1326. ------------------------------
  1327. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:20:08 -0700
  1328. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1329. To: (blocked)
  1330. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1331. {original post unavailable}
  1332. The point of my "internal matters" reply was in response to
  1333. someone who wanted to know whom at SFWA to bombard with email about
  1334. this. I'm reasonably confident that no one at SFWA wants to receive
  1335. such a bombardment, and such a bombardment would not do any good, hence
  1336. my observation.
  1337. That's got nothing to do with the reality that SFWA's stance is
  1338. massively stupid, and deserves to be openly discussed. As someone
  1339. once said, "When someone does a foolish thing you should tell them it
  1340. is a foolish thing; they may choose to continue doing it, but at least
  1341. the truth is where it needs to be."
  1342. I'm certainly pleased to hear that GRRM is currently SFWA's
  1343. veep. George is a VNM (Very Nice Man).
  1344. Of course, that's got nothing to do with SFWA's general attitude
  1345. toward this area, scriptwriters in general, or the dramatic nebula
  1346. (they get to like George because a) he's an accomplished novelist, and
  1347. b) he's a VNM, and ignore the rest of it if they so choose). Still,
  1348. it's good news for George, and I'm pleased for him. It's a good thing
  1349. to have George, since some others, like Harlan Ellison, also refuse to
  1350. rejoin SFWA over the dramatic nebula question, and the treatment of
  1351. scriptwriters in general. George is a much more patient and generous
  1352. man.
  1353. jms
  1354. ------------------------------
  1355. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:20:12 -0700
  1356. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1357. To: JOHN GRAVES <102735.1124@compuserve.com>
  1358. Subject: Is The Great Maker Here?
  1359. JOHN GRAVES <102735.1124@compuserve.com> asks:
  1360. > JMS, Are you still participating in the CIS forum?
  1361. > When I left a posting for the sysops, >>Who Killed JMS<< the
  1362. > responses seemed very defensive (gee, I wonder why?
  1363. I'm here...and the sysops have generously altered the position
  1364. of sfmedone to allow for greater flexibility, and for that I think they
  1365. deserve considerable praise.
  1366. jms
  1367. ------------------------------
  1368. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:20:14 -0700
  1369. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1370. To: (blocked)
  1371. Subject: AgamemCon Report
  1372. (blocked) asks:
  1373. > But B5 fans?
  1374. "My respect for fans would ratchet yet higher if it turns out that
  1375. more than 350 of them can keep a secret .... especially online. I
  1376. can't imagine saying to 350 mundanes "This is just between you and me
  1377. ..."
  1378. Here's the amazing thing.
  1379. From time to time at cons, I'll decide to tell a story that for
  1380. one reason or another I want kept off the nets. And I'll say to the
  1381. audience, please oblige me on this one.
  1382. I've done this about a dozen times, in front of audiences as
  1383. large as 2,000 people.
  1384. And y'know what?
  1385. As far as I can remember, not once has anyone broken that
  1386. agreement.
  1387. Anybody wants to badrap the fans, I tell 'em that...and it sets
  1388. them straight real fast.
  1389. jms
  1390. ------------------------------
  1391. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:20:16 -0700
  1392. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1393. To: <David L. Gold> <73177.1161@compuserve.com>
  1394. Subject: Mr. Garibaldi
  1395. <David L. Gold> <73177.1161@compuserve.com> asks:
  1396. > Is this now Garibaldi?
  1397. > Or was it Talia?
  1398. > And if it's not Garibaldi, how long until we get back the
  1399. > loveable lug we remember?
  1400. Mr. Garibaldi is certainly going through some rather dramatic
  1401. changes, yes....
  1402. jms
  1403. ------------------------------
  1404. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:20:19 -0700
  1405. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1406. To: Kirk R. Darling <73063.3115@compuserve.com>
  1407. Subject: Decendents of Valen
  1408. Kirk R. Darling <73063.3115@compuserve.com> asks:
  1409. > What would be the social status of a Minbari who was known to be
  1410. > a descendent of Valen? What does that mean in terms of the racial
  1411. > purity issue? Would general knowledge of Delenn as a descendent of
  1412. > Valen help her or hurt her on the Gray Council (racial impurity
  1413. > versus descendency from the One)? Did the other members of the
  1414. > Gray Council understand the significance of the glowing
  1415. > Triluminary (yes, I saw the astonishment on their faces, but that
  1416. > might only have been surprise at the phenomenom)? Was Dukhat a
  1417. > descendent of Valen? Is it now known among at least the Gray
  1418. > Council that Valen was Sinclair?
  1419. No, Dukhat was not descended from Valen; yes, the Grey Council
  1420. now knows who Sinclair was; and general knowledge of what happened
  1421. would certainly have an upsetting effect on Minbari society, so they
  1422. will continue to keep it indefinitely back-roomed....
  1423. jms
  1424. ------------------------------
  1425. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:25:54 -0700
  1426. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1427. To: JOHN GRAVES <102735.1124@compuserve.com>
  1428. Subject: Who Killed JMS?
  1429. JOHN GRAVES <102735.1124@compuserve.com> asks:
  1430. > Just what the heck is going on?
  1431. > What are you folks thinking of?
  1432. As I noted in a message to you in another thread, everything has
  1433. worked out fine, and the sysops have adjusted the structure to allow
  1434. for greater flexibility, for which they are to be commended.
  1435. So I'm still alive and well and here...the reports of my dearth
  1436. are greatly exaggerated....
  1437. jms
  1438. ------------------------------
  1439. Date: 08 Mar 1997 21:25:56 -0700
  1440. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1441. To: (blocked)
  1442. Subject: B5 Starfury model/drwgs
  1443. {original post unavailable}
  1444. The models advertised in the UK are pirate and inferior.
  1445. Authorized models will be coming out from Revell/Monogram later
  1446. this year.
  1447. jms
  1448. ------------------------------
  1449. Date: 09 Mar 1997 22:33:40 -0700
  1450. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1451. To: Carl Cantarella <105030.3700@compuserve.com>
  1452. Subject: TNT Air Order
  1453. Carl Cantarella <105030.3700@compuserve.com> asks:
  1454. > Joe, You're gonna actually do it after all?
  1455. "I read the article in the latest Sci Fi Universe magazine, and
  1456. honestly, I don't know how you do it all. God, talk about stress!"
  1457. 1) I have no choice.
  1458. 2) You just shrug your shoulders and you do it.
  1459. jms
  1460. ------------------------------
  1461. Date: 09 Mar 1997 22:33:42 -0700
  1462. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1463. To: PAUL SHEWARD <100256.1563@compuserve.com>
  1464. Subject: New Set of B5 Cards
  1465. PAUL SHEWARD <100256.1563@compuserve.com> asks:
  1466. > Don't suppose you want to buy an autograph card do you Joe ?
  1467. > Hasn't anyone convinced Jerry "Bruce Willis' twin brother" Doyle
  1468. > to come to Blackpool for convention in the summer ? ?
  1469. > to make the love interest a bit more viable, or was there some
  1470. > other thinking behind the changes ? Are you prepared for the hero
  1471. > worship that's going to abound at the convention ?
  1472. I think Jerry has other commitments...
  1473. As for the pilot, initially Delenn was going to be a male
  1474. Minbari who came out of the chrysalis female...but due to our inability
  1475. to modify Mira's voice enough to make it work, we dropped that aspect.
  1476. jms
  1477. ------------------------------
  1478. Date: 09 Mar 1997 22:33:44 -0700
  1479. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1480. To: (blocked)
  1481. Subject: Who Killed JMS?
  1482. {original post unavailable}
  1483. No current plans for LD release.
  1484. jms
  1485. ------------------------------
  1486. Date: 09 Mar 1997 22:33:46 -0700
  1487. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1488. To: (blocked)
  1489. Subject: Is The Great Maker Here?
  1490. {original post unavailable}
  1491. Apparently they've changed the category under which this forum
  1492. falls to allow for greater flexibility in language...I think the sysops
  1493. can probably explain it better than I can...sysoping not Zathras'
  1494. strength....
  1495. jms
  1496. ------------------------------
  1497. Date: 09 Mar 1997 22:33:49 -0700
  1498. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1499. To: Craig M. Bobchin <102354.3246@compuserve.com>
  1500. Subject: Was this Delenn?
  1501. Craig M. Bobchin <102354.3246@compuserve.com> asks:
  1502. > Funny, ain't it...?
  1503. > I was wondering if you've yet sprung the off beat plot turn on us
  1504. > yet, and if so was it one of the transformations? If not is this
  1505. > still on the books to be done? If it was and not one of the
  1506. > transformations what was it?
  1507. The off-beat notion was Delenn going from male to female, and
  1508. then having a relationship with the CO.
  1509. jms
  1510. ------------------------------
  1511. Date: 09 Mar 1997 22:33:51 -0700
  1512. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1513. To: Richard M. Perry <76461.2737@compuserve.com>
  1514. Subject: Atonement
  1515. {original post had no questions}
  1516. I have NOT fibbed about past works.
  1517. Denied, denied and denied, sure, but fibbed, never.....
  1518. jms
  1519. ------------------------------
  1520. Date: 10 Mar 1997 02:14:24 -0700
  1521. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1522. To: (blocked)
  1523. Subject: NEW To Sysops From jms
  1524. {original post unavailable}
  1525. "He promised to "update" the reporter, though, so I presume he's done
  1526. that and the article will accurately reflect what went on here."
  1527. Yup. Already in process.
  1528. jms
  1529. ------------------------------
  1530. Date: 10 Mar 1997 02:22:14 -0700
  1531. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1532. To: (blocked)
  1533. Subject: Who Killed JMS?
  1534. {original post unavailable}
  1535. We don't have a public affairs office.
  1536. jms
  1537. ------------------------------
  1538. Date: 10 Mar 1997 02:22:17 -0700
  1539. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1540. To: (blocked)
  1541. Subject: Babylon 5 CD, Volume Two
  1542. (blocked) asks:
  1543. > JMS, sorry to bother you but why isn't the Volume Two CD out in
  1544. > stores?
  1545. Actually, a very few stores *have* gotten it in...but sonic
  1546. images decided to fill all the fan orders first, and have gotten
  1547. somewhat overwhelmed. Once they catch up, they'll hit the stores.
  1548. jms
  1549. ------------------------------
  1550. Date: 10 Mar 1997 02:22:19 -0700
  1551. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1552. To: (blocked)
  1553. Subject: Back to Z'Ha'Dum
  1554. {original post unavailable}
  1555. No, it's one of her regular dressing gowns.
  1556. And thanks....
  1557. jms
  1558. ------------------------------
  1559. Date: 10 Mar 1997 02:22:21 -0700
  1560. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1561. To: Meryl Yourish <103470.2703@compuserve.com>
  1562. Subject: The Man In Between
  1563. Meryl Yourish <103470.2703@compuserve.com> asks:
  1564. > Was Lorien the man in between?
  1565. > Was Sheridan the man in between?
  1566. > Was Justin the man in between?
  1567. > Okay, if you won't answer those three, then will you answer the
  1568. > following? Was Refa the one who was already dead?
  1569. Refa was never already dead, so it can't be him. Dead is dead,
  1570. and the only one who fits that description would be Sheridan.
  1571. jms
  1572. ------------------------------
  1573. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:06 -0700
  1574. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1575. To: All
  1576. Subject: jms in Orlando
  1577. Just to advise those in the Orlando area...I'll be at Megacon at
  1578. the Orange County Convention Center thereabouts, giving my B5
  1579. presentation on Saturday at 3:00 p.m., with scenes from shows not yet
  1580. aired, bloopers, and other sundry stuff. I *think* there's also an
  1581. autograph thing afterward, but can't be sure offhand.
  1582. jms
  1583. ------------------------------
  1584. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:09 -0700
  1585. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1586. To: (blocked)
  1587. Subject: NEW To Sysops From jms
  1588. {original post unavailable}
  1589. Actually, no, once you tell someone that part of a story *ain't*
  1590. a story no more...it tends to go away.
  1591. jms
  1592. ------------------------------
  1593. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:11 -0700
  1594. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1595. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1596. Subject: TNT Air Order
  1597. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1598. > Why were they so interested in you directing?
  1599. > Which one?
  1600. > Are you going to act as well to cover all the bases?
  1601. > What does your wife think of your schedule?
  1602. "Why were they so interested in you directing?"
  1603. Well, they know the show is really my vision, and they're
  1604. curious what it would look like if it was also followed through behind
  1605. the camera. And as our liaison with WB said, "We like it when our
  1606. creative people spread their wings a little." They like the show, and
  1607. it does well for them, and they're just generally supportive that way.
  1608. jms
  1609. ------------------------------
  1610. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:14 -0700
  1611. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1612. To: Rob Carr <73200.2754@compuserve.com>
  1613. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1614. Rob Carr <73200.2754@compuserve.com> asks:
  1615. > But who would want to win such an award?
  1616. > What's it mean if you let someone else win?
  1617. Well, for starters, I don't think it would be letting someone
  1618. else win; nominees would be submitted, and the best of that batch of
  1619. nominees would win in head-to-head competition. We've been bypassed
  1620. for the occasional Emmy nomination even though I think some of the work
  1621. done that year in those areas was at least as good as anything done
  1622. elsewhere...does that diminish the kudos to the ones who *did* win?
  1623. Beyond which...even if SFWA *were* to start working on restoring
  1624. the dramatic nebula -- the chances of which are roughly equivilent to
  1625. an ostrich giving birth to an iguana -- it would take them a couple of
  1626. years minimum to do it, by which time B5 is over anyway, and who knows
  1627. if any later work of mine will be in the SF area at that point anyway?
  1628. (It's likely, but one never do know...I ended up on Murder She Wrote
  1629. for 2 years, remember.)
  1630. Either way...my concern is the principle at work here. If
  1631. disqualifying or refusing the Neb myself is the only way to ensure that
  1632. this ain't a personal agenda, and thus make the road easier for
  1633. somebody else down the road, then that's jake by me. But, as stated,
  1634. the odds of this are slim and none.
  1635. jms
  1636. ------------------------------
  1637. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:17 -0700
  1638. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1639. To: (blocked)
  1640. Subject: Is The Great Maker Here?
  1641. {original post unavailable}
  1642. I'd be hard to pick an absolute favorite; I like all of them,
  1643. for various reasons, and at various times. If you put a gun to my
  1644. head, I'd say it was probably either Delenn or Londo, because of the
  1645. many shades to their characters. They're like crystals, they change
  1646. color and texture depending on how the light shines through them.
  1647. jms
  1648. ------------------------------
  1649. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:19 -0700
  1650. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1651. To: (blocked)
  1652. Subject: SFWA issue on SFLITs
  1653. {original post unavailable}
  1654. I'm sure there are, but having already been villified by Martin
  1655. over on GEnie, speaking as veep of SFWA, I think I've had enough SFWA
  1656. for a while.
  1657. jms
  1658. ------------------------------
  1659. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:21 -0700
  1660. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1661. To: Trent K. Johnson <71020.1052@compuserve.com>
  1662. Subject: Edit Process
  1663. {original post had no questions}
  1664. All I can figure out is that they must be artifacts of the
  1665. analog commercial drop-ins they've been doing, which affect the uplink
  1666. process.
  1667. jms
  1668. ------------------------------
  1669. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:23 -0700
  1670. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1671. To: Richard M. Perry <76461.2737@compuserve.com>
  1672. Subject: Atonement
  1673. {original post had no questions}
  1674. You're right.
  1675. I am dust beneath thy feet.
  1676. I shall now sit in my garden and eat worms all day as penance.
  1677. jms
  1678. ------------------------------
  1679. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:26 -0700
  1680. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1681. To: (blocked)
  1682. Subject: AgamemCon Report
  1683. {original post unavailable}
  1684. Good point.
  1685. jms
  1686. ------------------------------
  1687. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:28 -0700
  1688. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1689. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1690. Subject: The Man In Between
  1691. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1692. > Didn't Londo have a prophecy about not killing the one who is
  1693. > already dead? So, with the flash forward in WWEII we see him
  1694. > sparing Sheridan, thereby avoiding his fate, right?
  1695. The goal was to *redeem* himself. Sparing Sheridan was part of
  1696. that. Then he had to surrender himself to his greatest fear: his death
  1697. at G'Kar's hands.
  1698. jms
  1699. ------------------------------
  1700. Date: 10 Mar 1997 16:25:30 -0700
  1701. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1702. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1703. Subject: Delenn and the Truth
  1704. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1705. > Why didn't Delenn tell John the truth about her trip to Minbar,
  1706. > and won't John be slightly ticked off when he finds out the
  1707. > truth?
  1708. "Listen, honey, while you were out I went to the store and I
  1709. bought some new candles, you know how we're always running out, and
  1710. Lennier took the cat in to be cleaned, and oh, did I mention I was
  1711. directly responsible for the deaths of two hundred and fifty thousand
  1712. of your best friends and fellow officers? Pass the sugar."
  1713. She'll never tell him.
  1714. Because it's over...what would be the point, except to ruin what
  1715. they have now.
  1716. jms
  1717. ------------------------------
  1718. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:42:45 -0700
  1719. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1720. To: (blocked)
  1721. Subject: Is The Great Maker Here?
  1722. {original post unavailable}
  1723. I think that would give away half the fun of what's coming.
  1724. jms
  1725. ------------------------------
  1726. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:42:48 -0700
  1727. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1728. To: (blocked)
  1729. Subject: jms in Orlando
  1730. {original post unavailable}
  1731. I don't recall a 1 pm Sunday session, but it's possible.
  1732. jms
  1733. ------------------------------
  1734. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:42:49 -0700
  1735. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1736. To: Ron Chusid <74756.3150@compuserve.com>
  1737. Subject: jms in Orlando
  1738. Ron Chusid <74756.3150@compuserve.com> asks:
  1739. > Is Megacon the real reason you are going to Orlando?
  1740. I find this vaguely unnerving....
  1741. jms
  1742. ------------------------------
  1743. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:42:52 -0700
  1744. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1745. To: John M. Graham <74166.3727@compuserve.com>
  1746. Subject: Support Letters.
  1747. John M. Graham <74166.3727@compuserve.com> asks:
  1748. > My question is, where do we need the most pull, WB, our local
  1749. > stations, or both? Should I trust them?
  1750. At this point, I'd hold off until we see which way this goes....
  1751. jms
  1752. ------------------------------
  1753. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:42:54 -0700
  1754. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1755. To: (blocked)
  1756. Subject: First-season reruns
  1757. {original post had no questions}
  1758. I know, I know, I know....
  1759. At least we'll get 'em finally on TNT.
  1760. jms
  1761. ------------------------------
  1762. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:42:56 -0700
  1763. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1764. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  1765. Subject: Delenn and the Truth
  1766. {original post had no questions}
  1767. "You are a sadist, you know."
  1768. Thankyew....
  1769. jms
  1770. ------------------------------
  1771. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:42:59 -0700
  1772. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1773. To: Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com>
  1774. Subject: Delenn and the Truth
  1775. Scott Baker <76072.1744@compuserve.com> asks:
  1776. > Doesn't he suspect to some degree?
  1777. > He knows she was on the Grey Council, he knows she knows about
  1778. > Sinclair, isn't there the possibility he'll put 2 and 2 together?
  1779. > Also, doesn't she to some degree want forgiveness from him for
  1780. > her part in the war?
  1781. The reality is...in war, one does what one does. Afterward, as
  1782. we heal, we try to forget what we did, and what they did. He killed as
  1783. many Minbari as he could; she was on the Grey Counci that directed the
  1784. war. One doesn't go into it.
  1785. jms
  1786. ------------------------------
  1787. Date: 11 Mar 1997 14:43:01 -0700
  1788. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1789. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  1790. Subject: Who cares about truth?
  1791. Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com> asks:
  1792. > And, even if love wasn't motivation enough for her to come clean
  1793. > with her life, shouldn't truth be? What the hell has she been
  1794. > fighting for all this time? But truth doesn't apply to her?
  1795. > Was it all just a convenient lie to her?
  1796. Ah, but Minbari never tell anyone the whole truth....
  1797. jms
  1798. ------------------------------
  1799. Date: 11 Mar 1997 22:55:54 -0700
  1800. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1801. To: (blocked)
  1802. Subject: Is The Great Maker Here?
  1803. {original post unavailable}
  1804. "Can you give us any hints about what will happen to Garibaldi? He's
  1805. acting stranger and stranger.
  1806. Well...he'll probably start acting stranger and stranger....
  1807. jms
  1808. ------------------------------
  1809. Date: 11 Mar 1997 22:55:55 -0700
  1810. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1811. To: (blocked)
  1812. Subject: And now for a word...
  1813. {original post unavailable}
  1814. I've spoken with several people regarding cons in Germany, but
  1815. all of them take place in 1998, not 1997. And nothing has been signed
  1816. by me with any of them.
  1817. jms
  1818. ------------------------------
  1819. Date: 11 Mar 1997 22:55:57 -0700
  1820. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1821. To: Rebecca Eschliman <76072.2345@compuserve.com>
  1822. Subject: Mr. Garibaldi
  1823. {original post had no questions}
  1824. "There was always irreverence and distrust before -- the irreverence
  1825. has been retained, and the distrust cranked up..."
  1826. Ding....
  1827. jms
  1828. ------------------------------
  1829. Date: 11 Mar 1997 23:02:06 -0700
  1830. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1831. To: Kevin P. Kenney <104102.352@compuserve.com>
  1832. Subject: TNT Needs a Talking To..
  1833. {original post had no questions}
  1834. 1) The re-edit is likely going to be paid for by WB.
  1835. 2) It's a VERY bad mistake to intervene in business negotiations
  1836. between a production company and a studio...you will ONLY end up
  1837. pissing off the people who you want to pony up the dough to do
  1838. something, and that will be the end of that.
  1839. TNT has been *extremely* enthusiastic about the show, and doing
  1840. all they can to promote it.
  1841. jms
  1842. ------------------------------
  1843. Date: 13 Mar 1997 20:22:36 -0700
  1844. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1845. To: (blocked)
  1846. Subject: Atonement
  1847. (blocked) asks:
  1848. > Was Delenn's clan expecting her to do another transformation to
  1849. > undo her "humanness"? Since the transformation had made her
  1850. > "genetically compatible with the humans", isn't she now
  1851. > genetically incompatible with Minbari? Or would she have been
  1852. > expected to remain childless? Perhaps the equation of Sinclair
  1853. > becoming mostly Minbari was balanced by Delenn becoming mostly
  1854. > human, but what has this to do with migrating souls? It must have
  1855. > migrated!)?
  1856. Yes, some Minbari on the Grey Council think that Sinclair opened
  1857. up the "soul door," for lack of a better term, and Delenn's actions can
  1858. be seen as a kind of back-fire, closing the door again. Ain't
  1859. necessarily what's true, but what they believe.
  1860. And yes, they would've had Delenn remain childless, but would be
  1861. allowed to marry a Minbari. And, again, it's a matter of marrying a
  1862. non-Minbari with or WITHOUT kids...it's a very inflammatory sort of
  1863. thing from a cultural perspective.
  1864. jms
  1865. ------------------------------
  1866. Date: 13 Mar 1997 21:10:37 -0700
  1867. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1868. To: Kirk R. Darling <73063.3115@compuserve.com>
  1869. Subject: Was this Delenn?
  1870. Kirk R. Darling <73063.3115@compuserve.com> asks:
  1871. > Leguin's _Left Hand of Darkness_?
  1872. No, but I know the story...and the idea there is of a race that
  1873. changes sex. Minbari do not change sex as a rule, it was going to be a
  1874. one-off with Delenn.
  1875. jms
  1876. ------------------------------
  1877. Date: 13 Mar 1997 21:10:40 -0700
  1878. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1879. To: Richard P. Manny <70762.141@compuserve.com>
  1880. Subject: jms in Orlando
  1881. Richard P. Manny <70762.141@compuserve.com> asks:
  1882. > Must I send you my schedule so you can it right?!
  1883. I didn't know you could still *go* to cons, given the last
  1884. incident, and the petition, and the restraining order....
  1885. jms
  1886. ------------------------------
  1887. Date: 13 Mar 1997 21:10:42 -0700
  1888. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1889. To: (blocked)
  1890. Subject: Year 5: Catch-22?
  1891. {original post unavailable}
  1892. Both are true, to varying extents. The key stations are the
  1893. major market stations, which are getting the most pressure to change,
  1894. whereas the smaller markets are much more willing to stand pat.
  1895. jms
  1896. ------------------------------
  1897. Date: 13 Mar 1997 21:10:44 -0700
  1898. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1899. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  1900. Subject: Spot the Satai
  1901. Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com> asks:
  1902. > Does Sheridan know that Delenn was Satai?
  1903. Well, Sheridan knows that Delenn was Grey Council, so he would
  1904. obviously know she was Satai, since that's pretty much the same thing.
  1905. jms
  1906. ------------------------------
  1907. Date: 14 Mar 1997 03:15:17 -0700
  1908. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1909. To: (blocked)
  1910. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1911. {original post unavailable}
  1912. "It's a looooooong jump from that to saying that SFWA 'doesn't
  1913. consider screenwriters real writers.'"
  1914. Ah.
  1915. So, I take it that the letters that appeared in the SFWA Journal
  1916. from SFWA members stating essentially that point did not actually exist
  1917. in our universe, having instead filtered over via some spatial rift
  1918. from the Bizarro Universe version of SFWA...(which would frankly be
  1919. redundent).
  1920. jms
  1921. ------------------------------
  1922. Date: 14 Mar 1997 03:44:14 -0700
  1923. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1924. To: All
  1925. Subject: The Real Corwin
  1926. For those who know that one of my chief mentors as a writer was
  1927. (and is) Norman Corwin...who was also one of the main inspirations to
  1928. such other writers as Ray Bradbury, Rod Serling, Charles Kuralt, Stan
  1929. Freberg and others, here's your chance to actually experience some of
  1930. it.
  1931. A number of his radio dramas (and some scripts) have just been
  1932. made available via The Mind's Eye. They include performances by such
  1933. folks as Jimmy Stewart, Vincent Price, Ray Bradbury, Elsa Lanchester,
  1934. William Shatner, Edward G. Robinson, Lionel Barrymore, Orson Welles,
  1935. Jill Eikenberry, Groucho Marx, Robert Benchley and others.
  1936. You can get a catalog from 1-800-411-MIND, or from their website
  1937. at www.lodestone-media.com.
  1938. jms
  1939. ------------------------------
  1940. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:33 -0700
  1941. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1942. To: (blocked)
  1943. Subject: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
  1944. {original post unavailable}
  1945. I'll probably try it eventually, but for obvious reasons can't
  1946. handle any kind of learning curve right now....
  1947. jms
  1948. ------------------------------
  1949. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:35 -0700
  1950. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1951. To: (blocked)
  1952. Subject: Captain Power <uh oh>
  1953. (blocked) asks:
  1954. > I was just wondering, what was the last episode of Captain Power?
  1955. > Was that the last episode?
  1956. Yup, that was the last ep, "A Summoning of Thunder," part two.
  1957. jms
  1958. ------------------------------
  1959. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:37 -0700
  1960. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1961. To: (blocked)
  1962. Subject: TNT Air Order
  1963. {original post unavailable}
  1964. That's what we're trying to work out.
  1965. jms
  1966. ------------------------------
  1967. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:40 -0700
  1968. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1969. To: (blocked)
  1970. Subject: TNT Air Order
  1971. {original post unavailable}
  1972. For all intents and purposes, the pilot *is* the director's
  1973. cut...what we want to do is make a producer's cut of more material and
  1974. better editing.
  1975. jms
  1976. ------------------------------
  1977. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:41 -0700
  1978. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1979. To: PAUL SHEWARD <100256.1563@compuserve.com>
  1980. Subject: New Set of B5 Cards
  1981. PAUL SHEWARD <100256.1563@compuserve.com> asks:
  1982. > what with all the gender related issues ?
  1983. I could've pulled it off. Ve haff vays....
  1984. jms
  1985. ------------------------------
  1986. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:43 -0700
  1987. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  1988. To: (blocked)
  1989. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  1990. {original post unavailable}
  1991. But, see, Mike, there's the contradiction...when you talk about
  1992. SFWA being tolerant and inviting, you're generalizing from the
  1993. individuals to the group. But when I do the same, you say, "No, no,
  1994. those are just the individuals." When enough individuals say
  1995. something, it becomes a group opinion, and hence an organizational
  1996. opinion.
  1997. Basically, you're saying that if the action is *positive*, it's
  1998. SFWA the organization speaking...if the action is *negative*, it's just
  1999. the members talking, thus giving the group deniability.
  2000. You can't have it both ways, Mike.
  2001. jms
  2002. ------------------------------
  2003. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:46 -0700
  2004. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2005. To: (blocked)
  2006. Subject: Status Check
  2007. (blocked) asks:
  2008. > Are you and Harlan still on for I-CON at Stony Brook, Long
  2009. > Island, in three weeks?
  2010. I'm trying to still be there, but I'm working out some problems
  2011. with the convention, when has stuck me on 4.5 to 6.5 hours of panels,
  2012. presentations and the like per day, with little or NO breaks in between
  2013. to eat or rest, and insisting that I *have* to do all of it, and that's
  2014. just plain hideous. If we can come to a reasonable understanding on
  2015. this, then yeash, I'll be there...if not....
  2016. jms
  2017. ------------------------------
  2018. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:51 -0700
  2019. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2020. To: Richard M. Perry <76461.2737@compuserve.com>
  2021. Subject: Cherry Red
  2022. {original post had no questions}
  2023. You should've come up and said hello, I didn't know you were
  2024. there.
  2025. Re: the look on my face...it's a sad thing, but at 42 years old,
  2026. having lived the life I've led, and done the things I've done, part of
  2027. me is very iconoclastic and brash, but there's a part of me that's
  2028. still about 12 years old and shy and...okay, I blush. Easily. It's
  2029. *really* embarrassing. (Some women tell me it's cute, which is even
  2030. MORE embarrassing.)
  2031. And yeah, Narns are marsupial, but since Andreas keeps referring
  2032. to himself otherwise, I used it.
  2033. And the commune story...is WAY too long to tell.
  2034. jms
  2035. ------------------------------
  2036. Date: 17 Mar 1997 20:57:54 -0700
  2037. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2038. To: (blocked)
  2039. Subject: A door
  2040. (blocked) asks:
  2041. > What did he mean by this?
  2042. > Am I close?
  2043. Close. They couldn't break the rules of engagement, but he
  2044. did...and started things moving.
  2045. jms
  2046. ------------------------------
  2047. Date: 18 Mar 1997 14:40:20 -0700
  2048. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2049. To: (blocked)
  2050. Subject: to sfwa from jms
  2051. {original post unavailable}
  2052. Okay, Mike...so the organization speaks for itself. Over on
  2053. GEnie, George Martin came in, and speaking as Vice President for SFWA,
  2054. speaking for the *group*, said, of my statement to disqualify myself
  2055. from future Nebulas to show that this isn't part of a vested interest
  2056. on my part but rather the principle, "Don't you have enough awards,
  2057. Joe?" When another fan reminded him of my statement given above, he
  2058. said, "You cannot disqualify yourself from a Nebula, and I suspect Joe
  2059. knew that." (Which I didn't.) In essense he first questions my
  2060. motives and my ethics, then assaults my honesty, as his way of dealing
  2061. with my raising the issue. (I then made it plain that I will not
  2062. accept any Nebula in future, regardless, if that's what it takes,
  2063. though I think most people knowing you don't want one will tend to
  2064. discourage voting in that area.)
  2065. So now what is this, George speaking as George, or George
  2066. speaking for SFWA the organization? Because when he came in he sure as
  2067. heck made it clear that he was speaking in his capacity as VP.
  2068. Sorry, Mike, but the organization acts as its members act, and
  2069. speaks as its members speaks, and George's intemperate reaction, to
  2070. immediately and gratuitously go for the personal attack rather than
  2071. discussing the issue, when I had never said a WORD about any one person
  2072. in this discussion, just shows again why many are afraid to pursue this
  2073. issue any more. They're tired of the petty, personal attacks, and so
  2074. am I, from many of the members AND the organization and its
  2075. spokespersons. Because an organization doesn't exist as some kind of
  2076. Platonic ideal, outside reality (though in this I sometimes wonder if
  2077. SFWA is outside reality). It says in the Bible, "You shall know them
  2078. by their works." An organization is known by what it does, and what
  2079. it says, through its members. So you can try and divorce the two all
  2080. you want, but they're the same thing.
  2081. jms
  2082. ------------------------------
  2083. Date: 18 Mar 1997 23:47:35 -0700
  2084. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2085. To: (blocked)
  2086. Subject: Marcon
  2087. {original post unavailable}
  2088. Yes, although I'm waiting for some details to be worked out, as
  2089. things stand now I plan to be at Marcon.
  2090. jms
  2091. ------------------------------
  2092. Date: 18 Mar 1997 23:47:37 -0700
  2093. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2094. To: Becky Murphy <76131.1534@compuserve.com>
  2095. Subject: Directors
  2096. Becky Murphy <76131.1534@compuserve.com> asks:
  2097. > I was wondering (since it's not in the Lurker's Guide) who
  2098. > is/will be directing "Racing Mars", "Face of the Enemy",
  2099. > "Intersections in Real Time" and "Between the Darkness & the
  2100. > Light"? Also, are there any new episode titles you can share with
  2101. > us?
  2102. Intersections is John LaFia; Darkness is David Eagle.
  2103. jms
  2104. ------------------------------
  2105. Date: 18 Mar 1997 23:47:39 -0700
  2106. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2107. To: (blocked)
  2108. Subject: A door
  2109. (blocked) asks:
  2110. > Wasn't the (planned) complete destruction of every world ever
  2111. > touched by the Shadows a "break" in the rules of engagement?
  2112. FIrst, that *followed* his trip to Z'ha'dum...so yes, the rules
  2113. began to slip after that.
  2114. jms
  2115. ------------------------------
  2116. Date: 19 Mar 1997 03:53:19 -0700
  2117. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2118. To: SysOp Lee Whiteside <76711.2660@compuserve.com>
  2119. Subject: TIME NewsWire transcript
  2120. {original post had no questions}
  2121. In private mail, I said the same thing to Ray; in this case, the
  2122. sysops acted correctly. Fair Use does not in any way cover reposting
  2123. entire articles.
  2124. jms
  2125. ------------------------------
  2126. Date: 19 Mar 1997 03:55:45 -0700
  2127. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2128. To: Sandra G. Bruckner <76642.3664@compuserve.com>
  2129. Subject: Status Check
  2130. {original post had no questions}
  2131. Happily, I spoke to the President of the ICON group today, and
  2132. they seem bent on making this work, and making it right, so I suspect
  2133. this will all work out as soon as I can see a schedule with a more
  2134. reasonable layout.
  2135. jms
  2136. ------------------------------
  2137. Date: 22 Mar 1997 18:56:34 -0700
  2138. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2139. To: Richard M. Perry <76461.2737@compuserve.com>
  2140. Subject: Cherry Red
  2141. {original post had no questions}
  2142. "Aw, come on; tell us a story, Joooooe. <g>"
  2143. What the heck do you think I've been *doing* these last 4 years?
  2144. jms
  2145. ------------------------------
  2146. Date: 22 Mar 1997 18:56:36 -0700
  2147. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2148. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  2149. Subject: Rituals by the Bushel
  2150. {original post had no questions}
  2151. You have far too much time on your hands.
  2152. jms
  2153. ------------------------------
  2154. Date: 22 Mar 1997 19:12:57 -0700
  2155. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2156. To: (blocked)
  2157. Subject: TNT Needs a Talking To..
  2158. {original post unavailable}
  2159. No, the tapes are not coming out shortly, the dealer is
  2160. mistaken.
  2161. jms
  2162. ------------------------------
  2163. Date: 23 Mar 1997 20:08:43 -0700
  2164. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2165. To: Brent Barrett <75063.3305@compuserve.com>
  2166. Subject: Thanks for the Mega
  2167. {original post had no questions}
  2168. Thanks....
  2169. that bad, bad man in hollywood
  2170. ------------------------------
  2171. Date: 25 Mar 1997 12:05:54 -0700
  2172. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2173. To: (blocked)
  2174. Subject: Shelf life
  2175. (blocked) asks:
  2176. > That is, are steps taken to prevent or ameliorate this
  2177. > degradation? Or is the question irrelevant for some other reason?
  2178. I think we've got WB more aware of the preservation issues once
  2179. some of the original prints of shots from the pilot were eaten by rats
  2180. while in storage facilities. (The negatives are safe.) We spoke to
  2181. them.
  2182. jms
  2183. ------------------------------
  2184. Date: 25 Mar 1997 12:05:55 -0700
  2185. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2186. To: (blocked)
  2187. Subject: sequel series?
  2188. {original post unavailable}
  2189. We're still awaiting final word.
  2190. jms
  2191. ------------------------------
  2192. Date: 25 Mar 1997 12:05:57 -0700
  2193. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2194. To: (blocked)
  2195. Subject: Shadow War
  2196. {original post unavailable}
  2197. They did take part in the war, just not to the same extent as
  2198. the religious caste, though toward the end they got much more involved.
  2199. jms
  2200. ------------------------------
  2201. Date: 26 Mar 1997 01:43:27 -0700
  2202. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2203. To: Kristi Ferebee <75361.1615@compuserve.com>
  2204. Subject: The Shadow Within
  2205. Kristi Ferebee <75361.1615@compuserve.com> asks:
  2206. > Hey, has anyone finished the new B5 book "The Shadow Within"?
  2207. > (Or can we?
  2208. The story of the Icarus as presented in this book is considered
  2209. canon.
  2210. jms
  2211. ------------------------------
  2212. Date: 26 Mar 1997 15:09:22 -0700
  2213. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2214. To: (blocked)
  2215. Subject: G'kar - Cross?
  2216. (blocked) asks:
  2217. > Was that intentional?
  2218. > Also, are Narn usually strong enough to break the unweakened
  2219. > chains, or was that just an extra bit of adrenaline or equivalent
  2220. > on G'kar's part?
  2221. I think one can make the argument there is some symbolism in
  2222. there from christian literature, but that kind of scene takes place in
  2223. other belief systems as well, and historically that sort of torture was
  2224. used in many places, including the Roman empire in general.
  2225. jms
  2226. ------------------------------
  2227. Date: 26 Mar 1997 15:09:23 -0700
  2228. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2229. To: Kevin P. Kenney <104102.352@compuserve.com>
  2230. Subject: Prequel Plans?
  2231. {original post had no questions}
  2232. I've found it's generally best to *see* what one does before
  2233. deciding whether not to be disappointed by it. And I really have no
  2234. interest in running the story by anyone for approval or to make sure
  2235. they think it'll be okay, and along the way destroy any possible
  2236. interest in *seeing* it since the story is already out there on the
  2237. nets.
  2238. jms
  2239. ------------------------------
  2240. Date: 26 Mar 1997 15:09:24 -0700
  2241. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2242. To: Dr John A Purvis <100341.1147@compuserve.com>
  2243. Subject: The Shadow Within
  2244. Dr John A Purvis <100341.1147@compuserve.com> asks:
  2245. > There was some talk about a Book featuring Catherine Sekai is
  2246. > this still mooted? Also if there is a recurrent theme of lost and
  2247. > missing females, how about Lyta between her disappearance after
  2248. > the gathering until her return?
  2249. Catherine Sakai is one of the major characters in the third of
  2250. the current batch of new B5 novels.
  2251. jms
  2252. ------------------------------
  2253. Date: 26 Mar 1997 23:06:41 -0700
  2254. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2255. To: (blocked)
  2256. Subject: con in Germany ?
  2257. {original post unavailable}
  2258. It took me a while to run this down, but I have the info: I
  2259. have not been formally approached by this convention in Germany, and
  2260. will not be going. The convention was mentioned to Bruce, but he has
  2261. not confirmed and is not going, and is distressed that they are using
  2262. his name. I do not believe Andrea is going either; only Jerry has so
  2263. far indicated that he will be there.
  2264. jms
  2265. ------------------------------
  2266. Date: 26 Mar 1997 23:13:05 -0700
  2267. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2268. To: Michael Beemer <71551.1670@compuserve.com>
  2269. Subject: Nine New Eps!!!
  2270. {original post had no questions}
  2271. It doesn't bode well or poorly for a season 5; they'd hold back
  2272. a few in either event.
  2273. jms
  2274. ------------------------------
  2275. Date: 26 Mar 1997 23:13:07 -0700
  2276. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2277. To: (blocked)
  2278. Subject: Nine New Eps!!!
  2279. {original post unavailable}
  2280. Actually, there'd be no rush at all in terms of getting a sequel
  2281. into prep and out the door. The discussions now are in the area of
  2282. fall 97 to shoot and January 98 to air (with or without a simultaneous
  2283. S5 of B5). We have a lot of the stuff we'd need for the sequel
  2284. (costumes, uniforms, some sets, prosthetics, that sort of thing), so
  2285. the lead time would be very short.
  2286. jms
  2287. ------------------------------
  2288. Date: 27 Mar 1997 13:38:33 -0700
  2289. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2290. To: (blocked)
  2291. Subject: Nine New Eps!!!
  2292. {original post unavailable}
  2293. The fate of the show has little or nothing to do with the final
  2294. five, one way or another...they'll be seen regardless.
  2295. jms
  2296. ------------------------------
  2297. Date: 27 Mar 1997 13:38:35 -0700
  2298. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2299. To: (blocked)
  2300. Subject: Shelf life
  2301. (blocked) asks:
  2302. > And did the rats listen when you spoke to them?
  2303. The rats are the ONLY ones who listen to me anymore.
  2304. jms
  2305. ------------------------------
  2306. Date: 29 Mar 1997 23:00:11 -0700
  2307. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2308. To: T.P. Chai <104674.3064@compuserve.com>
  2309. Subject: music for pilot movie
  2310. T.P. Chai <104674.3064@compuserve.com> asks:
  2311. > Joe, if you re-edit the pilot, would you be asking Frank to
  2312. > re-score it?
  2313. Yeah, Chirs would re-score it.
  2314. jms
  2315. ------------------------------
  2316. Date: 29 Mar 1997 23:03:20 -0700
  2317. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2318. To: R. Thomas <71544.3171@compuserve.com>
  2319. Subject: ITF question
  2320. R. Thomas <71544.3171@compuserve.com> asks:
  2321. > Am I correct in my understanding that the 6 first ones' ships
  2322. > Lorien brought out were from species from this particular galaxy,
  2323. > but that had already gone beyond the rim, and do not reside in
  2324. > the galaxy at all? If so, will the walkers still appear in normal
  2325. > space around sigma 957 from time to time?
  2326. They were all still hanging around here, for one reason or
  2327. another, mostly to do with inertia, familiarity...but finally
  2328. recognized that it was time.
  2329. jms
  2330. ------------------------------
  2331. Date: 30 Mar 1997 19:36:09 -0700
  2332. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2333. To: (blocked)
  2334. Subject: The Raven & the Dove
  2335. {original post had no questions}
  2336. That was not the specific intended message, no....
  2337. jms
  2338. ------------------------------
  2339. Date: 31 Mar 1997 13:52:30 -0700
  2340. From: J. Michael Straczynski <71016.1644@compuserve.com>
  2341. To: Eric Baker <76600.2605@compuserve.com>
  2342. Subject: I-con: Time of Program?
  2343. Eric Baker <76600.2605@compuserve.com> asks:
  2344. > What time are you doing the B5 presentation at I-con?
  2345. I don't have the schedule with me at the moment, but it's
  2346. mid-afternoon Saturday...though there is a second presentation on
  2347. Sunday, apparently.
  2348. jms
  2349. ------------------------------