[B5JMS] Attn. JMS - Cost of Sci-Fi TV

[b5jms-admin at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: Lucas Bachmann <lucasbachmann at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 02:35:33 GMT
Lines: 100



Jan wrote:
> Lucas wrote:
> 
> 
>>1. End of the Line was PUBLISHED first by the CREATOR of BABYLON 5.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we have a different definition of the word published.  Mine requires
> that it be available for purchase.  Yours seems only to require that it be
> posted someplace.  If that were valid, pirated material would be more valid
> than non-, since it often shows up on the nets first.  My understanding of the
> terms that JMS allowed the posting of his unproduced scripts under was that
> they were, as far as possible, not available for download or printing, only for
> reading online.
> 
> By your definition, the fact that copies of the script were distributed before
> filming to the cast and crew meant that the script was 'published'.  Wrong,
> both legally and morally.


By my definition it was published since JMS was PAID for the work, and
I READ it as a result. JMS was not paid to show copies to the cast,
and likewise I did not see them in that form.

That Bookface.com chose to make it available for the cost of advertising 
rather then selling copies is irrelevant to whether it was published or 
not.  Likewise the failure of the conditions JMS posed in order for it 
to be published does not make it unpublished.


> 
> 
>>2. Items in the Technomage Trilogy directly contradict the filmed 
>>episodes (and other novels), so those are canon, and the technomage 
>>trilogy is not by your own logic.  Therefore there is nothing
>>standing in the way of that PUBLISHED End of the Line script's events.
>>
> 
> 
> What are the specific contradictions?
> 

You know what, there are about two months worth of discussion
archived on this subject. I made my points then. Since
I doubt you care what they are why should I put the effort into retyping 
them. Certainly I doubt any of the past participants wish to go through
it again.

> 
>>Amazingly, End of the Line both showed up on my computer screen from 
>>where it was published and I then printed it.  Guess that satisfies
>>both criteria.
>>
> 
> 
> See my comments above.  It was never intended to be downloaded or printed. 
> What you've is pirated it, if that's what you did.

I suspect pirated doesn't apply here since they are just as
"pirated" as the TNT broadcasts I have on tape.  Perhaps this
can be where the thread turns to copyright law.

> 
> Why is it that you find it necessary to call people names? 

I didn't (unless you consider rotten cabbages to be a name,
in which case it's about the weakest form of name calling possible),
though JMS was saying something about "ill-mannered boob" earlier, maybe 
you should pose the question to him, on the other hand he was only 
asking if I had heard about it.


> Prisoner references
> are wasted on me.  I never followed the show. I don't care if you're 'unmutual'
> or anything else, I just wish you'd learn some manners.
> 
> Jan
> 

There has been tne one point here where I was short with Mac which is
hardly anything worse than he's been with me in the past.

The knee-jerk reaction people seem to have had to the
my heresy that it is a fact the novels have mistakes and
in general I don't value other peoples opinions because
the vast majority of the time they are ill-informed,
and lack any thought or logic behind them - is not my problem
nor does it fall under the scope of manners. It does however fall
under the scope of politically incorrect, and if anything that must
mean I'm more right than I thought.

Lucas







=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 14 Jan 2003 07:15:44 GMT
Lines: 36

>I don't value other peoples opinions because
>the vast majority of the time they are ill-informed,
>and lack any thought or logic behind them - is not my problem
>nor does it fall under the scope of manners. It does however fall
>under the scope of politically incorrect, and if anything that must
>mean I'm more right than I thought.

1) You have just defined the very meaning and the psychology of a troll better
than anything I have read online in the last ten years.

2) If you place no value on other peoples' opinions, then you cannot possibly
derive anything from your company on this group, since it is contingent upon
that premise.  Nothing anyone here says can mean anything to you since you do
not value their opinions.  

As stated: a troll who only comes in to cause furors and annoy people for his
own amusement without any interest in a real conversation.

Hey, Jay...can somebody introduce this guy to the workings of a moderated
group?

He may not like it much, but the thing about not valuing other peoples'
opinions is that it gives them the right not to value yours.

Troll.

 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2003 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)