brief report from jms
Jms at B5
two-hour TV movie BABYLON 5: LEGEND OF THE RANGERS. (I'm back now for a
while.) It's been a terrific experience to date. The dailies look great.
Mike Vejar is on board to direct, and is keeping the look and feel consistent
with what we've done before, but at the same time (in collaboration with our
new Director of Photography Henry Chan) is taking the look even a step further.
The sets (courtesy of production designer Steve Gaeghan and his band of
artistic types) look more detailed, more textured, more realistic than much of
what we've done before on B5. (This is in no way to diminish what we did in B5
on sets, it's just a different approach.)
Andreas Katsulas showed up mid-week as G'Kar, and despite having been away from
that makeup for three years, was instantly back in character starting with the
first shot and straight on through.
The cast have proven themselves excellent. It's natural to take some time to
find your character, and find the lines...but from the moment they landed on
set, they had their lines letter perfect, and the chemistry is there between
them. SFC has seen the dailies and they're absolutely enchanted with what's on
film.
I wish I had colorful stories to tell, but we're talking here about a bunch of
dedicated professionals who appreciate the legacy of B5 and are doing
everything they can to make this next installment the best possible. (About
the only negative thing to happen all week was my losing my California state ID
midweek, which I'll have to go in to replace this week at my local DMV.) It's
a very elaborate production, with everything from pyros to wire works and other
stuff, in addition to the usual glut of CGI we tend to do, but so far it's all
going quite well.
I've been taking digital pictures of the production which will soon be
available on the SFC website...and there are some beauts there. I'll let you
know when they're up.
In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think that
people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained, dedicated
people.
I think it's going to go over very well indeed.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
and don't send me story ideas)
Pål Are Nordal
>
> In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think that
> people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained, dedicated
> people.
Mind telling us a little more about the cast? Who's playing who, and
which of them are intended to be regulars if the series goes?
--
Run a screensaver that helps cancer research: http://www.ud.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Mac Breck
From: "Jms at B5" <jms...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 8:49 AM
Subject: brief report from jms
> Well, all of last week I was in Vancouver for the first week of shooting
on the
> two-hour TV movie BABYLON 5: LEGEND OF THE RANGERS. (I'm back now for a
> while.) It's been a terrific experience to date.
snip
> SFC has seen the dailies and they're absolutely enchanted with what's on
> film.
Excellent news! :-)
> I've been taking digital pictures of the production
Just curious. Whatcha using?
> which will soon be
> available on the SFC website...and there are some beauts there. I'll let
you
> know when they're up.
>
> In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think
that
> people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained,
dedicated
> people.
>
> I think it's going to go over very well indeed.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
Mac Breck
----------------
Vorlon Empire
Defender of Marcus and Lennier
"To Live and Die in Starlight"
pilot movie for the new series
"Babylon 5 - The Legend of the Rangers"
Fall 2001 on The Sci-Fi Channel.
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
>In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think that
>people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained, dedicated
>people.
>
>I think it's going to go over very well indeed.
I'm so excited! ;o) Please don't say we Brits are going to have to wait
a year after the USAmericans get to see it, because I think I might
expire - I am just dying to see it! I hope they do want a series because
if the pilot's going that well, it's sounds a definite winner.
Thanks for all your hard work.
--
Anna Hayward, Alien Visitor
http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/anna/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Words are only as valid as the mind that chooses them, so the essence of all
prose is a form of deception"
from "The Affirmation" by Christopher Priest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Seven
other places, but do you anticipate the quality and look of the special
effects to remain consistent with what we've seen in the past in both B5
and Crusade? Obviously there's been some improvement in the quality of
graphics over the last few years, but how committed are you to seeing
that the new Studio maintains a level of consistency with what's been
seen in previous B5?
Thanks.
=============================================================
Wendy Schiavo
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010521035039...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
snip
> I think it's going to go over very well indeed.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
Thanks for the update!!!
JBONETATI
Thank you for taking the time to keep us posted. I missed being around at the
beginning of B5 so I've been anticipating/hoping that you'd post updates as
Rangers moves along.
Yippee!
Thanks,
Jan
Who hopes your new ID pic is at least no worse than the last. Gonna post that
one up on the SciFi site? <g>
in_vale...@hotmail.com
Blissful news for good SF fans. I'll gladly pass on a report on an eagerly
awaited project having "colourful" events, in favour of one with only "sn" and
no "afu". :)
scott tilson.
--------------------
"Sequential Art" column at http://www.sfsite.com/scott01.htm
Mid-May: _Heart of Empire_, _The Wizard's Tale_, & picks from Brenda W. Clough.
David Maciver
on the
> two-hour TV movie BABYLON 5: LEGEND OF THE RANGERS. (I'm back now for a
> while.) It's been a terrific experience to date. The dailies look great.
> Mike Vejar is on board to direct, and is keeping the look and feel
consistent
> with what we've done before, but at the same time (in collaboration with
our
> new Director of Photography Henry Chan) is taking the look even a step
further.
> The sets (courtesy of production designer Steve Gaeghan and his band of
> artistic types) look more detailed, more textured, more realistic than
much of
> what we've done before on B5. (This is in no way to diminish what we did
in B5
> on sets, it's just a different approach.)
>
> Andreas Katsulas showed up mid-week as G'Kar, and despite having been away
from
> that makeup for three years, was instantly back in character starting with
the
> first shot and straight on through.
>
Like riding a bike...
> The cast have proven themselves excellent. It's natural to take some time
to
> find your character, and find the lines...but from the moment they landed
on
> set, they had their lines letter perfect, and the chemistry is there
between
> them. SFC has seen the dailies and they're absolutely enchanted with
what's on
> film.
>
> I wish I had colorful stories to tell, but we're talking here about a
bunch of
> dedicated professionals who appreciate the legacy of B5 and are doing
> everything they can to make this next installment the best possible.
(About
> the only negative thing to happen all week was my losing my California
state ID
> midweek, which I'll have to go in to replace this week at my local DMV.)
It's
> a very elaborate production, with everything from pyros to wire works and
other
> stuff, in addition to the usual glut of CGI we tend to do, but so far it's
all
> going quite well.
>
Why don't you just have a regular ID like everyone else?! Artists..... :D
> I've been taking digital pictures of the production which will soon be
> available on the SFC website...and there are some beauts there. I'll let
you
> know when they're up.
>
> In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think
that
> people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained,
dedicated
> people.
>
> I think it's going to go over very well indeed.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
> (all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
> permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
> and don't send me story ideas)
>
Glad to hear it. You making me jelous you b*st*rd.... God, I hate the
highlands...
Ranger Dave, needs an agent
Jms at B5
Just off the top of my head and in no real order... Dylan Neal is playing David
Martel, our lead character, a Ranger who's come through some especially rough
times; Alex Zahara is Dulann, a Minbari, his second; Myriam Sirois is Sarah
Cantrell of Mars Dome One, weapons specialist; Enid Raye Adams is Firell,
Minbari, a healer; Warren Takeuchi as Kitaro Sasaki of Earth, communication and
translations; Dean Marshall as Malcolm Bridges, covert intelligence and
infiltration; David Storch as Tafeek, Minbari, a political and first contact
guy; and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan) and a Drazi, Tirk (played by
Gus Lynch), both recent recruits/ members of the Rangers.
Jms at B5
>
>Just curious. Whatcha using?
>
Sony MVC 1000 recording directly onto a mini-CDrom.
Jms at B5
>graphics over the last few years, but how committed are you to seeing
>that the new Studio maintains a level of consistency with what's been
>seen in previous B5?
The effects will be consistent, but overall will be an improvement on what's
gone before.
Jeffrey May
Yeah, could you tell us who's playing Captain Jeffrey Arhtur May.
Thanks-J.A.M.
>Pål Are Nordal <a_b...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
ArsenicMan
> >Mind telling us a little more about the cast? Who's playing who
<snip>
<drools over information>
--
Andrew
==================================================
Well, Ambassador, what *do* you want? It's impolite to just tell me "They
aren't for you," and walk off...
Pål Are Nordal
>
> >Mind telling us a little more about the cast? Who's playing who
>
> Just off the top of my head and in no real order...
You left out Mackenzie Gray...
Matt Ion
Jms at B5 wrote:
> and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan)
That name (the Narn one) sounds familiar...
--
Matt Ion, Technical Services
Center for Digital Imaging and Sound
3264 Beta Ave., Burnaby, BC
http://www.artschool.com
Christian McNeill
news:3B09E365...@artschool.com...
> Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan)
>
> That name (the Narn one) sounds familiar...
It reminds me of Dureena Nafeel.
Some of the other names sound familiar too, like Dulann and Tannier (I
heard about their name on a webpage). These two characters are Minbari.
Now it has just occured to me that we haven't seen a Minbari family on B5.
IIRC, We've only heard one story about Delenn and her father. I'm thinking
that a Minbari name also signfies what family you come from. ie. Dulann
and Delenn are both related and so are Lennier and Tannier. It's just a
thought.
--
==========================
Christian McNeill
Email: r...@underground.com.au
Web: http://red.underground.com.au/
Matt Ion
Christian McNeill wrote:
>
> > > and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan)
> >
> > That name (the Narn one) sounds familiar...
>
> It reminds me of Dureena Nafeel.
Yeah, that occured to me afterward. Lot of the other names are quite
similar to B5 names. JMS seems to be slipping on the creativity side ;)
Just kidding, Joe :)
Alyson L. Abramowitz
>
> Well, all of last week I was in Vancouver for the first week of shooting on the
> two-hour TV movie BABYLON 5: LEGEND OF THE RANGERS. (I'm back now for a
> while.) It's been a terrific experience to date. The dailies look great.
<snip> ...
> them. SFC has seen the dailies and they're absolutely enchanted with what's on
> film.
>
>
It's certainly good to hear that things are going well on the Rangers
production.
Since there were some, ahem, challenges in the network direction with
Crusade (and since I play with process challenges for a living I'm
always intrigued by both the good and the bad processes), I was
wondering what the process was this time with SCI-FI? How does it differ
from previous network experiences?
I'm delighted that SCI-FI likes the dailies (and am looking forward to
being equally as delighted with the finished product). Who sees them?
Is that their Programming Department? Did script go through a similar
process?
Thanks for the continued insight into the process.
Best,
Alyson
Mac Breck
From: "Pål Are Nordal" <a_b...@bigfoot.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Alright, what's your secret for getting a Vorlon to talk? :-)
Lisa Coulter
> "Matt Ion" <sou...@artschool.com> wrote in message
> news:3B09E365...@artschool.com...
> > Jms at B5 wrote:
> >
> > > and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan)
> >
> > That name (the Narn one) sounds familiar...
>
> It reminds me of Dureena Nafeel.
>
> Some of the other names sound familiar too, like Dulann and Tannier (I
> heard about their name on a webpage). These two characters are Minbari.
> Now it has just occured to me that we haven't seen a Minbari family on B5.
> IIRC, We've only heard one story about Delenn and her father. I'm thinking
> that a Minbari name also signfies what family you come from. ie. Dulann
> and Delenn are both related and so are Lennier and Tannier. It's just a
> thought.
Are you sure about Tannier? Tannier was one of the Ranger recruits in
"Strange Relations."
Lisa COulter
To...@fred.net
: Jms at B5 wrote:
:>
:> In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think that
:> people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained, dedicated
:> people.
: Mind telling us a little more about the cast? Who's playing who, and
: which of them are intended to be regulars if the series goes?
And which ones are wearing briefs?
*pause*
Well, the subject line *says* 'brief report from jms'....
*WHAM* *WHAM**WHAM**WHAM* *WHAM*
ow ow ow ow ow....
--
To...@Fred.Net http://www.fred.net/tomr
* Faith Manages...... But Willow is in Tech Support
* "Hello, girls.... I'm the Easter Bunny!" - Janet Reno, "South Park"
* Look out! If Bender says "ass", Katherine Harris will appear!
* "Eas in crucem." = "Screw you God, I'm going home." - Pres Jed Cartman
* Oh my God! They killed Kenny! And Joyce Summers and Mrs. Landingham and
the Blob and the Host and Richard Bay and....
Mary Kay Bergman 1961-1999 -
http://tvcomedy.about.com/tvradio/tvcomedy/library/weekly/aa111899.htm
Tammy Smith
had problems with actresses & the Narn makeup in the past.
Tammy
Richard Tibbetts
>This post on 21 May 2001 07:35:03 -0700 would probably sound more commanding if Pål Are Nordal wasn't wearing the Yummy Sushi Pajamas:
>: Jms at B5 wrote:
>:>
>:> In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think that
>:> people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained, dedicated
>:> people.
>
>: Mind telling us a little more about the cast? Who's playing who, and
>: which of them are intended to be regulars if the series goes?
>
>And which ones are wearing briefs?
>
>*pause*
>
>Well, the subject line *says* 'brief report from jms'....
>
>*WHAM* *WHAM**WHAM**WHAM* *WHAM*
>
>ow ow ow ow ow....
NBS is insufficient PUNishment for that! Paint yourself purple and
green and take a trip to the Drazi Homeworld!
--
Richard Tibbetts
http://www.primepeace.ltd.uk/
Gizmo_Goddard
<SNIPPED>
>Are you sure about Tannier? Tannier was one of the Ranger
recruits in
>"Strange Relations."
IIRC, that was "Learning Curve".
__!_!__
Gizmo
Kim A. Sommer
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>(About the only negative thing to happen all week was my losing my
>California state ID midweek, which I'll have to go in to replace this
>week at my local DMV.) It's a very elaborate production, with everything
>from pyros to wire works and other stuff, in addition to the usual glut
>of CGI we tend to do, but so far it's all going quite well.
[non-sequitor mode on]
California DMV uses CGI?
[non-sequitor mode off]
Knock-knock-knock (in a very NBS way). ...sigh..... time to get beaten.
Kim
--
-------
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
Erno Simila
> And which ones are wearing briefs?
> *pause*
> Well, the subject line *says* 'brief report from jms'....
JMS - man with a vision!
( Hey, what exactly is that arrogant group coming towards me...
Don't you dare... Don't you d... DON'T... W-H-E-E-E-L-P! )
--
Erno Similä
Brian Osserman
>> and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan)
>That name (the Narn one) sounds familiar...
My roommate (whose B5 tapes are what I've been going through) just
pointed out that it's Dureena's last name in Crusade (at least, modulo
apostrophes).
Brian
David C.
>
> ... Myriam Sirois is Sarah Cantrell of Mars Dome One ...
Isn't Cantrell a family name we've heard before? I think it was one of
the senators in EarthDome.
-- David
Jms at B5
>had problems with actresses & the Narn makeup in the past.
>
So far, so good.
Jms at B5
>Crusade (and since I play with process challenges for a living I'm
>always intrigued by both the good and the bad processes), I was
>wondering what the process was this time with SCI-FI? How does it differ
>from previous network experiences?
It isn't so much different as it is pretty much the same, in the sense that the
whole TNT situation was an aberration; I had NEVER had that much interference,
that level of interference, on ANY other show before. There have been
headaches, sure, but that's part of the job and never to this extent.
So SFC's involvement has been pretty much on a par with what has gone before.
They had a handful of notes on the outline, ditto on the script, and that was
it. And in both cases they were primarily small notes, line notes or character
bits.
You *expect* to get some notes along the way, because the network/studio is the
buyer. I'm okay with that and always have been. The TNT situation was simply
insane.
>I'm delighted that SCI-FI likes the dailies (and am looking forward to
>being equally as delighted with the finished product). Who sees them?
>Is that their Programming Department? Did script go through a similar
>process?
I know it goes to the heads of programming in NY and LA, possibly to the PR
department, beyond that I don't know.
Andy Hock
>
> Well, all of last week I was in Vancouver for the first week of shooting on the
> two-hour TV movie BABYLON 5: LEGEND OF THE RANGERS. (I'm back now for a
> while.)
If the series based on the movie is a go, how much of your
time will be spent in Vancouver vs. California?
Andy Hock
Kimball, Robert
is the third project and is not happening now. Please?
Rob
If you have received this e-mail in error or wish to read our e-mail disclaimer statement and monitoring policy, please refer to http://www.drkw.com/disc/email/ or contact the sender.
--
Posted from mailsweeper2.dresdner.com [12.3.94.41]
via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Rob Hayward
<jms...@aol.com> writes
>>I'm delighted that SCI-FI likes the dailies (and am looking forward to
>>being equally as delighted with the finished product). Who sees them?
>>Is that their Programming Department? Did script go through a similar
>>process?
>
>I know it goes to the heads of programming in NY and LA, possibly to the PR
>department, beyond that I don't know.
Is that because they see every show (I find that hard to believe),
because they new see shows they pay for or because they are simply also
fans and just like the rest of us will take any opportunity to get a
sneak peek at your latest work
>
> jms
>
>(jms...@aol.com)
>(all message content (c) 2001 by synthetic worlds, ltd.,
>permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine
>and don't send me story ideas)
--
Rob
We ate for the one, we drank for the one.
,
,
,
We got fat for the one
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Can you please put me out of my misery and say crusade is dead, or crusade
> is the third project and is not happening now. Please?
No he can't. Look in the thread "A matter of timing", started by Joseph DeMartino.
Mike Ross
That was Quantrell I believe.
Mike
http://www.corestore.org
Rangers Catering Corps - 'we boil for the One, we fry for the One'
Brian O'Neill
Jms at B5 wrote:
> ...and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan) ...
Did you really mean to reuse that name? You already had Dureena
Nafeel...
--
======================================================================
Brian O'Neill @ home one...@oinc.net
At work I'm: one...@colltech.com
Brian O'Neill
Nope...that was Senator Ronald Quantrill...it's all in the
Encyclopedia...
Yes, I WILL get Crusade in there one of these days...I'm rewriting the
system to run off a database, and have to input all the existing data
still...
Pat Luther
>It isn't so much different as it is pretty much the same, in the sense that the
>whole TNT situation was an aberration; I had NEVER had that much interference,
>that level of interference, on ANY other show before. There have been
>headaches, sure, but that's part of the job and never to this extent.
>So SFC's involvement has been pretty much on a par with what has gone before.
>They had a handful of notes on the outline, ditto on the script, and that was
>it. And in both cases they were primarily small notes, line notes or character
>bits.
>You *expect* to get some notes along the way, because the network/studio is the
>buyer. I'm okay with that and always have been. The TNT situation was simply
>insane.
This is what's always confused me. TNT bought Babylon 5. Then they bought
Crusade. Presumably, the reason they bought it, and paid all that money
into making 13 episodes, and hired you to produce & write it and everything
is because you had already proven that you could, with Babylon 5.
Why would somebody buy a product, that has been proven to work quite
well the way it is, then try to change everything about it?
If they wanted something entirely new, why didn't they buy something
entirely new, instead of something that already existed?
Was there some kind of logic to this, or what?
-Pat
--
Pat Luther http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~pluther
"...And whenever all men are really hastening to be
slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey."
--Screwtape (C.S. Lewis)
Matthew Vincent
>Why would somebody buy a product, that has been proven to work quite
>well the way it is, then try to change everything about it?
My guess is that it was basically a psychological game. Each
individual in TNT wanted to be in control, and to make it look like
they were doing something useful, and so they constantly suggested
"improvements" [sic] to everything. It was about showing JMS who was
boss, and keeping him in his (supposed) place. A lot of these people
aren't really very good at anything besides fitting in socially and
climbing up the pecking order, and they feel threatened by something
with real talent and creativity, so they have to keep the person down.
Most of the people who were doing this were themselves fairly
incompetent, and couldn't write a good Sci-Fi show in a million years.
The whole process of constantly criticising JMS's work and trying to
stay in control was a way for them to cover up their own insecurities.
A lot of these jobs are based on little besides bossing people around
and keeping them in line, and entail little real creative work. These
people are in their jobs because they got there by dominating others,
not by being especially talented or good at anything, and so they have
to keep pushing others down in order to maintain their own position.
In a system full of people like this, unfortunately, moderately
intelligent people tend to rise to the top and have to keep being
competitive and aggressive to others in order to to stay there,
whereas highly intelligent people are excluded from the system due to
being a threat. Sadly, much of the workforce operates on the maxim
"it's not what you know, it's who you know" - being good at following
the social rules and manipulating them to one's advantage tends to get
you further than having real talent or work skills, in many cases.
Alyson (or JMS), how am I doing so far? Any further comments?
>Was there some kind of logic to this, or what?
I guess that depends on how far one is prepared to stretch the meaning
of what qualifies as "logic". It was TNT-logic, you could say.
Matthew
Matt Ion
--
Mac Breck
From: "Pat Luther" <plu...@cs.pdx.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
TNT's nuts, maybe the most perfect form of "nuts".
Richard Lyth
Matt Ion wrote in message <3B0A0438...@artschool.com>...
>
>
>Christian McNeill wrote:
>>
>> > > and a Narn, Na'Feel (played by Jennie Hogan)
>> >
>> > That name (the Narn one) sounds familiar...
>>
>> It reminds me of Dureena Nafeel.
>
>Yeah, that occured to me afterward. Lot of the other names are quite
>similar to B5 names. JMS seems to be slipping on the creativity side ;)
That's nothing! Further characters include Ivan Ova, the Russian
geneticist; Mark Uskohl, the Slovakian pilot; and Bald Gary, the
folically-challenged engineer. Not to mention the seafood restaurant they
all frequent, 'Land O' Calamari'...
Richard
Jon Niehof
>
> Isn't Cantrell a family name we've heard before? I think it was one of
> the senators in EarthDome.
Sen. Quantrell, the guy who talks out of both sides of his mouth.
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
You can fool all the people all of the time if the advertising is
right and the special effects budget is big enough.
--Joseph E. Levine
Mac Breck
From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
Makes sense, except that behavior like this is not in the best interests of
the company that gives them their paycheck. It's an army (team) more intent
on fighting itself than fighting the enemy (the competition).
Aisling Willow Grey
And don't forget about Sherri Dan, the charismatic, non-jarhead captain of
the deep space wild animal preserve, Ba-bear-lon 5....
Aisling Grey
Paul Harper
wrote:
>Makes sense, except that behavior like this is not in the best interests of
>the company that gives them their paycheck. It's an army (team) more intent
>on fighting itself than fighting the enemy (the competition).
From a complete outsider's point of view (non-Hollywood,
non-television, hell, even non-American!) it seemed like a superb
example of the Peter Principle writ large.
A frequent defence for those people promoted beyond their competence
levels is aggression, bluff and bluster. Making noise is seen as a
worth substitute to making sense. That is frequently left to minions
to handle.
I work in a multinational company's head office. I know of what I
speak.
Paul.
--
See Jeri Ryan at Retribution this year: www.supernova-conventions.com
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> If they wanted something entirely new, why didn't they buy something
> entirely new, instead of something that already existed?
>
> Was there some kind of logic to this, or what?
The whole situation has been discussed here extensively before.
Basically, just as Crusade was entering production, TNT got an in depth
audience analysis that showed B5 was were only watching B5, and while
the TNT standard audience watch everything but B5. So they came to the
conclusion that they didn't want Crusade after all...
Joseph DeMartino
is the third project and is not happening now. Please? <
No.
<g>
"Crusade" *isn't* the third project and it is *not* happening now.
In reply to a similar question JMS said that Sci-Fi has not told him "no" on
"Crusade", nor have they it told him "yes." He's aware of their budget for
the year, and what other irons they have in the fire. He knows they want to
"test the waters" with "Rangers." He added that if "Rangers" is a success
he can't imagine that Sci-Fi *wouldn't* want to consider revisiting
"Crusade."
But, consider. The earliest the "Rangers" series can go before the cameras
is probably next Spring. Odds are it will then debut in the fall of 2002.
Allowing time for some meaningful ratings numbers to come in, you're looking
at late 2002 or early 2003 before they even *start* trying to put "Crusade"
back together - and even then they may elect to go with a TV movie
(especially if they've had to make major cast changes) rather than
immediately commit to shooting new episodes, which would delay a series
restart even further. So even if all goes *incredibly* well and all our
fan-boy dreams come true "Crusade" almost certainly couldn't make it back on
the air until the fall of 2003 at the *earliest*.
(Interestingly, if they either complete the existing first season, or
totally recast the show and started from scratch, this would put "Crusade"
S1.1 [2267] on the air in 2003, the same year that "Rangers" S2 [likely
2267] will be on. Coincidence? I don't think so.)
Regards,
Joe
--
Posted from mail002.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.22]
Alyson L. Abramowitz
>
> Pat Luther wrote:
>
> The whole situation has been discussed here extensively before.
> Basically, just as Crusade was entering production, TNT got an in depth
> audience analysis that showed B5 was were only watching B5, and while
> the TNT standard audience watch everything but B5. So they came to the
> conclusion that they didn't want Crusade after all...
This would be very difficult for TNT to have gotten because if you run
a report based on Nielsen data which shows what folks who watch show X
are most likely to be watching, you discover that the network B5 viewers
were most likely to be watching, during that time period (around
April,'98), was TNT. Remember, .mod doesn't really demographically
represent the 'average' B5 fan.
This seems to have become an urban B5 myth.
What TNT would certainly have read regularly (and JMS has mentioned, in
passing in a previous post about Crusade)is a Nielsen report showing the
ratings for the B5 re-runs. They were going down. Under-performance
doesn't tend to leave your manager in a good mood even if you are doing
a good job today.
Best,
Alyson
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Alright, what's your secret for getting a Vorlon to talk? :-)
Blackmail.
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Pål Are Nordal wrote:
> >
> > Pat Luther wrote:
> >
> > The whole situation has been discussed here extensively before.
> > Basically, just as Crusade was entering production, TNT got an in depth
> > audience analysis that showed B5 was were only watching B5,
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=Pine.MAC.4.10.10004062102150.2486-100000%40kapu.net
http://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/b5jms/2000-September/000376.html
E. John Roth III
Apple damn near autofragged itself with that kinda behavior under Job's first
time around as insane CEO/God Emperor. The fights between the Apple and Mac
teams got waaaaaaay out of hand.
E. John Roth III
(Steve Jobs is NOT a computer person - he is a Van Gogh whose medium is
computers)
MJB
Well, I would guess that JMS should keep an eye out
on e-bay for his license. Isn't that the next logical place
for it to show up ? :)
kaso...@sherrill.kiva.net (Kim A. Sommer) wrote:
> In article <20010521035039...@ng-mi1.aol.com>,
> Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
> >(About the only negative thing to happen all week was my losing my
> >California state ID midweek, which I'll have to go in to replace this
> >week at my local DMV.) It's a very elaborate production, with everything
> >from pyros to wire works and other stuff, in addition to the usual glut
> >of CGI we tend to do, but so far it's all going quite well.
>
> [non-sequitor mode on]
>
> California DMV uses CGI?
>
> [non-sequitor mode off]
>
> Knock-knock-knock (in a very NBS way). ...sigh..... time to get beaten.
>
>
> Kim
> --
> -------
> Kim A. Sommer
> Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
>
>
Dave Thomer
news:001101c0e3a1$486b3840$861ffea9@pavilion...
> (Interestingly, if they either complete the existing first season, or
> totally recast the show and started from scratch, this would put "Crusade"
> S1.1 [2267] on the air in 2003, the same year that "Rangers" S2 [likely
> 2267] will be on. Coincidence? I don't think so.)
That time frame occurred to me just a few days ago, and I agree, it's hard
to think that it's coincidence -- I really doubt JMS would want to have two
series set in the same universe airing at about the same time, but one be
chronologically a few years ahead of the other. "Wait, how can character X
be in Rangers? He's stuck on Earth in Crusade?" "Yeah, but in rangers,
Crusade hasn't happened yet." "Boom!" (as head explodes). JMS is, I think
too much a planner for that. I do kind of think that Rangers might hit the
air sooner than Fall 2002 -- I'm thinking that if the show gets picked up
based on rough cuts of 'Starlight', couldn't it start going before the
camera in late summer/early fall and be ready for a midseason launch? Or
did JMS say somewhere that Rangers the series would not start until the
current TWCBN wraps? It seems odd that Sci Fi would want to repeat B5 and
Crusade's "pilot/setup movie runs, series follows six months to a year later
after most people have forgotten about it" scenario.
--
Dave Thomer
This Is Not News - www.notnews.org
Philosophy, public affairs, and pop culture
Richard Tibbetts
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>Makes sense, except that behavior like this is not in the best interests of
>the company that gives them their paycheck. It's an army (team) more intent
>on fighting itself than fighting the enemy (the competition).
Ah, but each individual is motivated only by their own self-interest,
not by the best interests of the company as a whole. It's a bit like
how living organisms don't do anything "for the survival of the
species". This can be almost like a form of the Tragedy of the Commons
dilemma, in some cases, actually.
Matthew
Mac Breck
From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> On 23 May 2001 08:30:05 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Makes sense, except that behavior like this is not in the best interests
of
> >the company that gives them their paycheck. It's an army (team) more
intent
> >on fighting itself than fighting the enemy (the competition).
>
> Ah, but each individual is motivated only by their own self-interest,
> not by the best interests of the company as a whole.
Speaking for some people, true, but this view is not representative of me.
> It's a bit like
> how living organisms don't do anything "for the survival of the
> species". This can be almost like a form of the Tragedy of the Commons
> dilemma, in some cases, actually.
For non-thinking organisms, true.
David Maciver
news:9ehflr$6ko6$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> ""Joseph DeMartino"" <jdem...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:001101c0e3a1$486b3840$861ffea9@pavilion...
>
> > (Interestingly, if they either complete the existing first season, or
> > totally recast the show and started from scratch, this would put
"Crusade"
> > S1.1 [2267] on the air in 2003, the same year that "Rangers" S2 [likely
> > 2267] will be on. Coincidence? I don't think so.)
>
> That time frame occurred to me just a few days ago, and I agree, it's hard
> to think that it's coincidence -- I really doubt JMS would want to have
two
> series set in the same universe airing at about the same time, but one be
> chronologically a few years ahead of the other. "Wait, how can character
X
> be in Rangers? He's stuck on Earth in Crusade?" "Yeah, but in rangers,
> Crusade hasn't happened yet." "Boom!" (as head explodes). JMS is, I think
> too much a planner for that. I do kind of think that Rangers might hit
the
> air sooner than Fall 2002 -- I'm thinking that if the show gets picked up
> based on rough cuts of 'Starlight', couldn't it start going before the
> camera in late summer/early fall and be ready for a midseason launch?
I think that would work very well. Look at Buffy and Angel. There are some
instances of very clever meshing between the series. It's played down a
lot, but KMS could do wonders with the posibilities...
Ranger Dave, after all, the Rangers were helping the Excalibur
Joseph DeMartino
based on rough cuts of 'Starlight', couldn't it start going before the
camera in late summer/early fall and be ready for a midseason launch? Or
did JMS say somewhere that Rangers the series would not start until the
current TWCBN wraps? <
Basically, "yes." JMS gave a timeline whereby TWCBN will start shooting
right after Labor Day (SAG willing) and continue right through
February/March 2002. Once that pilot and 18 or 20 episodes are completed,
they could start on "Rangers" (Although he did add a parenthetical
reference to the possibility of using the same crew on both projects, and
sort of alternating between them, which could speed things up.)
But even doing that probably wouldn't give them enough episodes of "Rangers"
ready to go (given post-production requirements) much before the spring or
summer of 2002. When does Sci-Fi typically launch its "new season"? I
would assume, like most cable networks, it tries to avoid going head-to-head
with the major broadcast networks during things like sweeps periods and new
show launches. I have to admit that I don't watch many of their original
series, or follow the network that closely.
"Farscape" has possibilities, but I want to watch the early episodes on DVD
to get my bearings with the show. "Invisible Man" has its fun moments if I
happen to tune in, but is not a show I plan my life around <g> the way "B5"
was. The less said about "Black Scorpion" the better. (Although I have
left it on with the sound turned off, once or twice, while reading or paying
bills. It isn't bad to *look* at, as long as you don't have to listen to
what they're saying. <g>)
> It seems odd that Sci Fi would want to repeat B5 and Crusade's
"pilot/setup movie runs, series follows six months to a year later after
most people have forgotten about it" scenario. <
Not necessarily. The fact that "To Live and Die in Starlight" is finished
by July or August doesn't mean that Sci-Fi has to *air* it then. They could
simply hold onto it and run it right before the series starts. Or run it in
October or January (which I've heard are two dates under consideration) and
run it *again* when the series starts. (As TNT was *supposed* to do with "A
Call to Arms", and as Sci-Fi has, in effect, done, by editing "The
Gathering" into a two-part episode and putting it into the regular season
one rotation.)
Regards,
Joe
--
Posted from mail108.mail.bellsouth.net [205.152.58.48]
Mac Breck
From: ""Joseph DeMartino"" <jdem...@bellsouth.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: Re: Re: brief report from jms
> "Farscape" has possibilities, but I want to watch the early episodes on
DVD
> to get my bearings with the show.
It's a good show, but it's getting a bit too outrageous.
> "Invisible Man" has its fun moments
That's exactly why I watch it (when I remember to watch it).
> if I
> happen to tune in, but is not a show I plan my life around <g> the way
"B5"
> was.
and Crusade (for me).
> The less said about "Black Scorpion" the better.
Agreed! I wish they'd replace Black Scorpion with a restart of Brimstone.
That would be great!
> (Although I have
> left it on with the sound turned off, once or twice, while reading or
paying
> bills. It isn't bad to *look* at, as long as you don't have to listen to
> what they're saying. <g>)
Then, it has a lot in common with Voyager, which works better if you can't
hear the technobabble (or Janeways voice), and just watch 7 of 9. :-)
> > It seems odd that Sci Fi would want to repeat B5 and Crusade's
> "pilot/setup movie runs, series follows six months to a year later after
> most people have forgotten about it" scenario. <
>
> Not necessarily. The fact that "To Live and Die in Starlight" is finished
> by July or August doesn't mean that Sci-Fi has to *air* it then. They
could
> simply hold onto it and run it right before the series starts. Or run it
in
> October or January (which I've heard are two dates under consideration)
and
> run it *again* when the series starts. (As TNT was *supposed* to do with
"A
> Call to Arms", and as Sci-Fi has, in effect, done, by editing "The
> Gathering" into a two-part episode and putting it into the regular season
> one rotation.)
It's too bad Sci-Fi didn't run "A Call to Arms" right before "Racing the
Night". They pulled a TNT with that one, and it led to more confusion.
Mac Breck
----------------
Vorlon Empire
Defender of Marcus and Lennier
"To Live and Die in Starlight"
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>> Ah, but each individual is motivated only by their own self-interest,
>> not by the best interests of the company as a whole.
>
>Speaking for some people, true, but this view is not representative of me.
Give me an example of an act that you've done, or even one that you
*could* hypothetically do, that would be motivated by anything other
than self-interest.
Matthew
Dave Thomer
news:005f01c0e490$2a646520$aed5c997@MACBRECK...
> It's too bad Sci-Fi didn't run "A Call to Arms" right before "Racing the
> Night". They pulled a TNT with that one, and it led to more confusion.
I'm not totally sure I agree with that . . . I really do think Racing the
Night works sufficiently well as an intro to the series, and I don't think
that Call to Arms is really all that crucial in terms of character/plot
setup, the way The Gathering is. Plus you might have people wondering when
Sarah Chambers went from the navigator in Sheridan's crew to a medical
doctor. :) (We should start a pool when "Starlight" comes out -- which bit
player will get a regular or recurring role on the series as a totally
different character . . .) I mean, yeah, it might have been nice, but I'm
not sure it'd have been worth throwing a Sunday night schedule out of whack.
(Also, I think there still would have been a lot of people who tuned into
Crusade just by hanging around after B5, and a Sunday rerun of Call to Arms
would've done them little good.)
I'm more concerned about the promotional elements -- there'll probably be a
big promotional push for the first airing of "Starlight," and even if they
run it again six months or a year later, it probably won't attract the same
attention and Sci Fi will have to start from scratch to remind people "Hey!
Ya know that movie you liked? Well, it's a series now!" It'd be nice if
the first airing of "Starlight" were an immediate prelude to a bigger hype
campaign for Rangers the series.
Andrew Swallow
<An...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> writes:
>MS,
>>In the interim...know that the show is going extremely well, and I think
>that
>>people are going to like the cast a lot. They're good, well-trained,
>dedicated
>>people.
>>
>>I think it's going to go over very well indeed.
>
>I'm so excited! ;o) Please don't say we Brits are going to have to wait
>a year after the USAmericans get to see it, because I think I might
>expire - I am just dying to see it! I hope they do want a series because
>if the pilot's going that well, it's sounds a definite winner.
>
>
I was happy to see the episode 'The Rock Cried Out No Hiding Place'
on Sunday night/ Monday morning on UK Channel 4. A bit of a
surprise since it was not advertised.
If we write to Channel 4 thanking them, do you think this may encourage
them to buy Babylon 5 The Legend of the Rangers?
Andrew Swallow
Richard Tibbetts
But do we want C4 to buy it? For me, considering the way they treated
B5 (and West Wing at the moment, for that matter) they are my last
choice.
My fantasy is that the BBC buys it.
WRWhite963
>>> Ah, but each individual is motivated only by their own self-interest,
>>> not by the best interests of the company as a whole.
>>
>>Speaking for some people, true, but this view is not representative of me.
>
>Give me an example of an act that you've done, or even one that you
>*could* hypothetically do, that would be motivated by anything other
>than self-interest.
>
>Matthew
>
Before this gets into a semantics issue, define "self-interest".
I think the general definition would be that which promotes one's own welfare.
In which case, it is easy to see, any act which goes against one's own welfare
would be acting against "self-interest".
If one acts sacrifically, such that their own interests are denied for the good
of another, is acting out of a motivation other than self-interest. In the
purest form, this is "love." ("man hath no love greater than this: that he lay
down his life for his brother...")
A real-world example. Linda McCartney had a passion for photography - it was
her chosen profession. She married Paul McCartney, and she decided to create a
home for him, herself, her daughter Heather by a previous marriage, and their
recently arrived daughter Mary. To do this she had to put her photographic
ambitions on hold. It was a sacrifice of love.
She wasn't a musician, and she hated performing in front of people - yet she
saw Paul wanted her to do it, and that it would lead to a more constant, closer
relationship. She made a sacrifice, and a leap of faith, and joined Wings
(doing a passable job on keyboards.) Another sacrifice.
One could say she had a greater self-interest in marrying a wealthy Beatle -
but she was worth millions at the time, so this doesn't hold water as an
argument (she was heir to a rather large family fortune.)
One could say her self-interest involved devloping that home life - that this
was her interest - I'd only agree with the clarification that she chose this
interest over others, because of the relative value she placed on an interest
serving others, over an interest which would serve only herself.
There have been many tributes to Linda McCartney - albums, orchaestral pieces
written, and so forth - not just by Paul McCartney, but many others. Most of
the populace are left to wonder why the special treatment, and suspect it is
only because she was Paul's wife. These people don't know (or ignore) that
these tributes are done by people who knew her, and honor her character, which
was very strong.
Walter R. White
Matthew Vincent
>>Give me an example of an act that you've done, or even one that you
>>*could* hypothetically do, that would be motivated by anything other
>>than self-interest.
>Before this gets into a semantics issue, define "self-interest".
>
>I think the general definition would be that which promotes one's own welfare.
Yes, basically, although it is probably a matter of short-term
preferences rather than a rational consideration of what is best for
one's welfare overall. For instance, some people will smoke a
cigarette out of self-interest, even though it is detrimental to their
overall interests, because smoking is their short-term preference.
>In which case, it is easy to see, any act which goes against
>one's own welfare would be acting against "self-interest".
But is such an act ever done in practice?
>If one acts sacrifically, such that their own interests are denied for the good
>of another, is acting out of a motivation other than self-interest. In the
>purest form, this is "love."
All that this means is that the person's caring instincts are
outweighing other aspects of their self-interest in terms of their
contribution to that particular action or decision.
>A real-world example. Linda McCartney had a passion for photography - it was
>her chosen profession. She married Paul McCartney, and she decided to create a
>home for him, herself, her daughter Heather by a previous marriage, and their
>recently arrived daughter Mary. To do this she had to put her photographic
>ambitions on hold. It was a sacrifice of love.
Her self-interested feelings of caring for her husband and daughter
mattered more to her than her self-interested desire to do her
photography, at least for that time.
>She wasn't a musician, and she hated performing in front of people - yet she
>saw Paul wanted her to do it, and that it would lead to a more constant, closer
>relationship. She made a sacrifice, and a leap of faith, and joined Wings
>(doing a passable job on keyboards.) Another sacrifice.
Her self-interested feelings of satisfaction from her relationship
outweighed her fears of performing in front of people. Besides, it
grows on you once you get used to it.
>One could say she had a greater self-interest in marrying a wealthy Beatle -
>but she was worth millions at the time, so this doesn't hold water as an
>argument (she was heir to a rather large family fortune.)
Okay, but maybe she loved her husband quite deeply, and thus had
emotional (rather than financial) reasons for doing all this stuff.
>One could say her self-interest involved devloping that home life - that this
>was her interest - I'd only agree with the clarification that she chose this
>interest over others, because of the relative value she placed on an interest
>serving others, over an interest which would serve only herself.
That's a valid moral difference due to the difference in consequences
to the welfare of others; however, it simply means that being helpful
to others was part of her self-interested preferences. This is the
whole point - being "selfish" is thought to be bad. In a manner of
speaking, it is, if it entails disregarding the welfare of others; but
the objective measure for whether something is right or wrong is the
consequences to welfare, considering one's own and other people's
interests equally and impartially.
A person who makes sacrifices and compromises other aspects of their
self-interest, in order to do good for others, is perhaps showing how
strong their desire to do good is, so that's a virtuous trait to
possess. However, the actions themselves can only be judged by their
consequences; it is meaningless to speak of a "selfless" act, in a
sense, since all acts are based on self-interest, one way or another.
>There have been many tributes to Linda McCartney - albums, orchaestral pieces
>written, and so forth - not just by Paul McCartney, but many others. Most of
>the populace are left to wonder why the special treatment, and suspect it is
>only because she was Paul's wife. These people don't know (or ignore) that
>these tributes are done by people who knew her, and honor her character, which
>was very strong.
Yeah, from what you've said, it sounds like it was. A person whose
self-interested preferences entail a considerable amount of caring for
others, and whose actions lead to consequences that benefit others, is
indeed someone of worthy moral character. I share your sentiments
about valuing moral character more than fame or prestige.
Matthew
Chibi-Light
DeMartino") wrote:
>Basically, "yes." JMS gave a timeline whereby TWCBN will start shooting
>right after Labor Day
Er...uh...What's TWCBN?
CL
JBONETATI
<<Basically, "yes." JMS gave a timeline whereby TWCBN will start shooting
>right after Labor Day
Er...uh...What's TWCBN?>>
That Which Cannot Be Named. In the B5 tradition of using initials to indicate
titles of shows, TWCBN is the project that JMS can't talk about yet pending an
announcement by the PTB's (Powers That Be).
Jan
Pål Are Nordal
>
> Er...uh...What's TWCBN?
That Which Cannot Be Named.
--
Mac Breck
From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
I've helped other people from all over the company (of ~3000 people and
spanning two counties) with relational database applications (setup,
troubleshooting of programming, wrote a program to extract data from the
mainframe and put it a table they could use, etc., etc.). People would come
to me, call me, and/or send me email of their relational
database/programming problems. Management Information Services Training
referred people to me.
I did this work in *addition* to doing my own job (finished my own work
afterhours on unpaid OT), and this was held *against* me by my bosses (who
majored in speaking out of both sides of their mouthes). See, I figured if
I still got all of my own work done on time, it'd be OK. They were of the
opinion that if they didn't "see" me doing the work they were assigning to
me, even though it got done, it was no good, and they must not be assigning
me enough work. So, what I got for helping others (and helping the company
as a whole) was grief, low ratings, and more and more work piled on me by my
bosses. They continued to pile work on me until I felt like a hydraulic
device being used to compress water.
I did the above for the good of the company, and *never* expected to get
praised for it (You'd have to know the place to understand.). However, I
*didn't* expect to get trashed for it. Even after that, I still helped
others, but did it at home, during lunch at work, or on unpaid OT at work.
This went on for three years, and my reputation grew (word of mouth). Of
course my bosses heard it as well, and gave me more work. Instead of being
praised or rewarded, I got downsized in a corporate takeover/buyout. I
couldn't have acted in any other way. It's just in my nature to help
others, and do things for the benefit of the team. I just couldn't be a
mindless robot and "play the game."
Mac Breck
From: "Dave Thomer" <da...@notnews.org>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2001 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: brief report from jms
> "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
> news:005f01c0e490$2a646520$aed5c997@MACBRECK...
>
> > It's too bad Sci-Fi didn't run "A Call to Arms" right before "Racing the
> > Night". They pulled a TNT with that one, and it led to more confusion.
>
> I'm not totally sure I agree with that . . . I really do think Racing the
> Night works sufficiently well as an intro to the series, and I don't think
> that Call to Arms is really all that crucial in terms of character/plot
> setup, the way The Gathering is.
Well, it was for some people, as evidenced by their comments about RtN when
Sci-Fi aired it.
> Plus you might have people wondering when
> Sarah Chambers went from the navigator in Sheridan's crew to a medical
> doctor. :)
As opposed to why Morden wasn't Guerra, the C&C officer? Yeah, there was
more B5 universe time between Guerra and Morden's appearances, and that made
it more palatable.
> (We should start a pool when "Starlight" comes out -- which bit
> player will get a regular or recurring role on the series as a totally
> different character . . .) I mean, yeah, it might have been nice, but I'm
> not sure it'd have been worth throwing a Sunday night schedule out of
whack.
"A Call to Arms" was meant to be shown right before "Racing the Night."
That was how it was supposed to be aired.
> (Also, I think there still would have been a lot of people who tuned into
> Crusade just by hanging around after B5, and a Sunday rerun of Call to
Arms
> would've done them little good.)
Monday April 9, 2001, the way it should have been:
7PM - B5
8PM - A Call to Arms
10PM - Racing the Night
The rest of the Monday night programming could have been put off for one
week.
next night
7PM - B5
8PM - The Needs of Earth
next night
7PM - B5
8PM - The Memory of War
etc.
> I'm more concerned about the promotional elements -- there'll probably be
a
> big promotional push for the first airing of "Starlight," and even if they
> run it again six months or a year later, it probably won't attract the
same
> attention and Sci Fi will have to start from scratch to remind people
"Hey!
> Ya know that movie you liked? Well, it's a series now!" It'd be nice if
> the first airing of "Starlight" were an immediate prelude to a bigger hype
> campaign for Rangers the series.
So, they can run it in say October, and then run it again immediately before
the first episode of the series. Works for me.
Dave Thomer
> Well, it was for some people, as evidenced by their comments about RtN
when
> Sci-Fi aired it.
I guess I'm not convinced that CtA would have really answered many of the
complaints/questions about RtN. All that CtA sets up are the Excalibur, the
plague, Galen and Dureena, and I think that at LEAST three out of those four
are sufficiently set up by RtN. I mean, I'm not disagreeing you that it'd
have been nice to see CtA again, but I don't think it qualifies as a
TNT-level poor decision.
> > Plus you might have people wondering when
> > Sarah Chambers went from the navigator in Sheridan's crew to a medical
> > doctor. :)
You'll note the smiley -- the Navigation/Chambers thing was more of a joke
than an actual reason, plus it was setup for the Ed Wasser Memorial Pool
suggestion that followed.
>
> > (We should start a pool when "Starlight" comes out -- which bit
> > player will get a regular or recurring role on the series as a totally
> > different character . . .) I mean, yeah, it might have been nice, but
I'm
> > not sure it'd have been worth throwing a Sunday night schedule out of
> whack.
>
> "A Call to Arms" was meant to be shown right before "Racing the Night."
> That was how it was supposed to be aired.
Yeah, but since ACtA and Crusade ARE two different entities, I think RtN was
also designed to be understandable to those who had not seen ACtA. I think
Call to Arms is more like In the Beginning than The Gathering -- yeah, it's
a nifty chapter to the story, and yeah, it's a nice experience to see the
whole thing, but if you see the series without seeing the movie you'll be
OK.
> > (Also, I think there still would have been a lot of people who tuned
into
> > Crusade just by hanging around after B5, and a Sunday rerun of Call to
> Arms
> > would've done them little good.)
>
> Monday April 9, 2001, the way it should have been:
I don't think your proposed schedule would work. For one, I think asking
folks to stick around for three to four hours of B5 and B5 related shows is
just a recipe for disaster. Plus, for what was essentially a limited
maxi-series, I think airing the actual episodes at the same time every night
is important.
> So, they can run it in say October, and then run it again immediately
before
> the first episode of the series. Works for me.
But that doesn't answer my promotional concern. You and I are gonna be
keeping our eyes peeled for Rangers and possibly even for the reruns of
Starlight. But the casual viewers that the initial airing of Starlight
would pick up WON'T, so they may watch Starlight, and then forget/not
realize that a series is coming, and then when Rangers is getting ready to
start, you have to re-interest those people and also let them know, "Hey,
we're running Starlight again if you want to catch it before the series
starts." Either way, it's a relatively minor quibble, but it was something
that occurred to me.
David Maciver
news:sb4sgtg0bssnq918p...@4ax.com...
You in to Bondage or something? The BBC are E-ville.... I would be very
happy if Sky 1 bought it, they seem to be good to genre shows most of the
time. Of course if you don't have satellite I can see why you want the
beeb...
Ranger Dave, as long as it's BBC2, not 1
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>> Give me an example of an act that you've done, or even one that you
>> *could* hypothetically do, that would be motivated by anything other
>> than self-interest.
>
>I've helped other people from all over the company
I'm glad to hear that you'd do that, and I wish more people were that
considerate. There is this annoying mentality around that work which
one gets paid for is somehow more valuable, and that's stupid. The
value of work lies in its usefulness. However, your actions were still
motivated by self-interest - you did this work because it made you
feel good, or you liked being idealistic, and maybe somewhat enjoyed
the work too. Good, evil and morally neutral acts alike are all
motivated by self-interest; this doesn't mean that all acts are
morally identical, just that the measurement of an act's moral value
should be based on its consequences. Since all acts are motivated by
self-interest anyway, it is meaningless to suggest that an act becomes
better or worse due to being motivated by self-interest. Most people
at least somewhat enjoy caring for others, whereas some people enjoy
hurting or dominating others; either way, it's all self-interest.
I'm talking about on a psychological level, though. If you find it
validating to do things which benefit others on a practical level,
then that isn't "selfish" in the usual sense of the word. Perhaps the
company felt threatened by you exactly because you didn't identify
with their agenda of just looking out for oneself and the company, and
focusing purely on the work that they set you.
>I did this work in *addition* to doing my own job (finished my own work
>afterhours on unpaid OT), and this was held *against* me by my bosses (who
>majored in speaking out of both sides of their mouthes).
Yeah, often the people who are the most critical are the ones who have
little work skills of their own. There's no way that should have been
held against you; if anything, it would be a form of practical
experience which would improve your work performance.
>See, I figured if I still got all of my own work done on time, it'd be OK.
Sounds fair enough. What would they prefer, to have you use the rest
of your time slacking off rather than doing productive unpaid work?
>They were of the opinion that if they didn't "see" me doing the work
>they were assigning to me, even though it got done, it was no
>good, and they must not be assigning me enough work.
That sounds like a very poor work environment. It would be far better
to provide you with goals, targets and guidelines, and to measure your
performance by the amount and quality of work done. It is entirely
your own business what process you use to get it done.
>So, what I got for helping others (and helping the company as a whole) was
>grief, low ratings, and more and more work piled on me by my bosses.
Do you get paid per time (wage/salary) or by amount of work done? Or a
combination of both?
>I couldn't have acted in any other way. It's just in my nature to help
>others, and do things for the benefit of the team. I just couldn't be a
>mindless robot and "play the game."
I feel the same way. It wouldn't be validating to live my life in a
way that doesn't interact positively with the welfare of others, and I
would probably just shut down if I didn't have the ability to do
things to benefit others from time to time. There would be no point in
doing anything just for myself, when my own existence is only very
brief and temporary in any case.
Matthew
Richard Tibbetts
You offering??
>The BBC are E-ville....
I know they don't buy in as much US stuff as they used to, but they
have a history of picking up intelligent sf from the states, and
making it too.
>I would be very
>happy if Sky 1 bought it, they seem to be good to genre shows most of the
>time. Of course if you don't have satellite I can see why you want the
>beeb...
But sky sticks in so many damned breaks it's sometimes difficult to
follow the programme.
>
>Ranger Dave, as long as it's BBC2, not 1
?
David Maciver
*cowers behind couch*
> >The BBC are E-ville....
>
> I know they don't buy in as much US stuff as they used to, but they
> have a history of picking up intelligent sf from the states, and
> making it too.
>
Fact is, the BBC shouldn't be doing this. They actively compete with
Commercial channels without the same funding worries that these channels
have. If the BBC start feeling the pinch, I'm sure the liscence fee can
also be increased.
> >I would be very
> >happy if Sky 1 bought it, they seem to be good to genre shows most of the
> >time. Of course if you don't have satellite I can see why you want the
> >beeb...
>
> But sky sticks in so many damned breaks it's sometimes difficult to
> follow the programme.
>
3 commercials breaks in an hour long show isn't much. Pretty much every
program has one 8 mins in, another at 26 minutes and a final one at around
48. That's not too bad.
> >
> >Ranger Dave, as long as it's BBC2, not 1
>
> ?
> --
> Richard Tibbetts
> http://www.primepeace.ltd.uk/
>
BBC2 and Channel 4 are the only terrestial channels I really like, 4 more
so. They actually make intelligent programing and are the smaller
terrestrial channels. Before I had satellite, they were pretty much the
only channels I watched. BBC1 is all Eastenders, crappy documentaries and
not much else. ITV.....well it's pure crud.
Ranger Dave, the less said about C5 the better. Well, except for the
Baseball coverage
Mac Breck
From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> On 25 May 2001 06:58:43 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Give me an example of an act that you've done, or even one that you
> >> *could* hypothetically do, that would be motivated by anything other
> >> than self-interest.
> >
> >I've helped other people from all over the company
>
> I'm glad to hear that you'd do that, and I wish more people were that
> considerate. There is this annoying mentality around that work which
> one gets paid for is somehow more valuable, and that's stupid. The
> value of work lies in its usefulness. However, your actions were still
> motivated by self-interest - you did this work because it made you
> feel good, or you liked being idealistic, and maybe somewhat enjoyed
> the work too. Good, evil and morally neutral acts alike are all
> motivated by self-interest; this doesn't mean that all acts are
> morally identical, just that the measurement of an act's moral value
> should be based on its consequences. Since all acts are motivated by
> self-interest anyway, it is meaningless to suggest that an act becomes
> better or worse due to being motivated by self-interest. Most people
> at least somewhat enjoy caring for others, whereas some people enjoy
> hurting or dominating others; either way, it's all self-interest.
It's only motivated by self-interest *if* you do it to gain something
yourself. That wasn't why I did it.
> I'm talking about on a psychological level, though. If you find it
> validating to do things which benefit others on a practical level,
> then that isn't "selfish" in the usual sense of the word. Perhaps the
> company felt threatened by you exactly because you didn't identify
> with their agenda of just looking out for oneself and the company, and
> focusing purely on the work that they set you.
The bosses clearly felt threatened because I didn't blindly do what they
said like a submissive dog. I was, I guess, threatening their authority,
and they were on a power trip. Still, I got the work done, on time, *until*
they had me so loaded up as to make that impossible.
> >I did this work in *addition* to doing my own job (finished my own work
> >afterhours on unpaid OT), and this was held *against* me by my bosses
(who
> >majored in speaking out of both sides of their mouthes).
>
> Yeah, often the people who are the most critical are the ones who have
> little work skills of their own. There's no way that should have been
> held against you; if anything, it would be a form of practical
> experience which would improve your work performance.
Looking back now, they weren't really that interested in getting the work
done. They were more interested in dominating those who reported to them.
Instead I was 100% focused on getting the work done (which I thought was the
point of the job), and expanding my knowledge and expertise, and 0% focused
on petty politics and domination of others. I couldn't care less about
dominating others.
> >See, I figured if I still got all of my own work done on time, it'd be
OK.
>
> Sounds fair enough. What would they prefer, to have you use the rest
> of your time slacking off rather than doing productive unpaid work?
There were others who showed up on time or late, took exactly the prescribed
time for lunch or more, left on time or early, and did little all day (but
managed to "look" busy *when* the boss walked by). However, they were
"playing the game", and almost never got into trouble. They always did
little, and because of that, little was expected of them. When we got the
"Pay for Performance" system, those who had been doing the least all along,
and hence had the most room to improve, had the easiest time. Those who had
been working at near maximum levels all along (because that's just the way
they were, and was "in character" for them) had less room to improve. Think
of it as a Person A who always worked at 10% power and Person B who always
worked at 90% power. It's relatively easy for Person A to double their work
output, but for Person B it's more difficult to achieve the same percentage
increase. We weren't building widgets so it wasn't easy to measure and
compare Person A to Person B, but you get the idea. All the bosses had the
brain cells to measure was when you arrived, how much you BS'd during the
day, when you left, and little else. They couldn't comprehend what I was
doing, how difficult or challanging it was, or how valuable it was. Picture
Dilbert's boss and you're close.
> >They were of the opinion that if they didn't "see" me doing the work
> >they were assigning to me, even though it got done, it was no
> >good, and they must not be assigning me enough work.
>
> That sounds like a very poor work environment. It would be far better
> to provide you with goals, targets and guidelines, and to measure your
> performance by the amount and quality of work done. It is entirely
> your own business what process you use to get it done.
>
> >So, what I got for helping others (and helping the company as a whole)
was
> >grief, low ratings, and more and more work piled on me by my bosses.
>
> Do you get paid per time (wage/salary) or by amount of work done? Or a
> combination of both?
Salary, $$$$/two weeks, but Paid OT had to be Authorized a month in advance.
Don't get me wrong, I did get paid OT when they had me working on special
projects, but that was always in *addition* to my regular work, and nobody
did any of my work when I was assigned to another department (actually there
was no one else who could do it, and when I left permanently, they dropped
projects or hired consultants). It just piled up or I was expected to keep
up with it, at least with the stuff that had deadlines (as opposed to the
routine stuff that I could let pile up). I still had to mentally keep tabs
on everything and let nothing go past the due date, and extensions were
frowned upon. By the time December rolled around every year, I had enough
unpaid OT (*not* counting any time spent doing work at home), that if there
were comp. time, I could have taken all of December off.
> >I couldn't have acted in any other way. It's just in my nature to help
> >others, and do things for the benefit of the team. I just couldn't be a
> >mindless robot and "play the game."
>
> I feel the same way. It wouldn't be validating to live my life in a
> way that doesn't interact positively with the welfare of others, and I
> would probably just shut down if I didn't have the ability to do
> things to benefit others from time to time. There would be no point in
> doing anything just for myself, when my own existence is only very
> brief and temporary in any case.
I actually tried to "play the game" for once, but it made me feel cheap and
well, .... dirty. I couldn't do that and maintain any level of
self-respect.
Mac Breck
From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:29 PM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> On 25 May 2001 06:58:43 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >They were of the opinion that if they didn't "see" me doing the work
> >they were assigning to me, even though it got done, it was no
> >good, and they must not be assigning me enough work.
>
> That sounds like a very poor work environment. It would be far better
> to provide you with goals, targets and guidelines, and to measure your
> performance by the amount and quality of work done. It is entirely
> your own business what process you use to get it done.
Oops, forgot to reply to this part.
It was up to us to provide our own goals, targets and guidelines, to which
the bosses arbitrarily disagreed, based upon no knowledge. Again, think
Dilbert's boss. Then they set new goals, targets and guidelines, which
having no clue as to what was involved in the work, was often impossible to
meet. Still, they could not see this because they had no clue. They made
leaps in logic that were not justified by any kind of sense. It was like
there were two wires in their brains, but they *weren't* connected, and they
couldn't see that they weren't connected.
If you disagreed with them, even in private, you were "insubordinate" and it
didn't matter if you were right.
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>It's only motivated by self-interest *if* you do it to gain something
>yourself. That wasn't why I did it.
You gained something psychologically for yourself by doing something
practical for someone else. That's still a good thing to have done. To
give a related example, if I'm driving along the road and a cat runs
in front of me, I'll brake because I don't want to experience the
emotional distress of hitting it. That's still self-interest, but is a
good act, relative to running the cat over. Self-interest is not the
*opposite* of morality, because all acts are based on self-interest,
but different aspects of our self-interested preferences lead to
better or worse consequences than others. Part, but not all, of most
people's preferences lie in caring for others and doing good.
I'm not saying that your actions were "selfish" in the colloquial
sense; quite the opposite. I just like clearing up definitional points
like this, for the sake of consistency of ideas.
>The bosses clearly felt threatened because I didn't blindly do what they
>said like a submissive dog. I was, I guess, threatening their authority,
>and they were on a power trip.
Yeah, I'd guess that's about right.
>Instead I was 100% focused on getting the work done (which I thought was the
>point of the job), and expanding my knowledge and expertise, and 0% focused
>on petty politics and domination of others.
That's the same preferences as I have, too.
>I couldn't care less about dominating others.
I think it's actually psychologically unhealthy to dominate others.
It's kind of like an addiction, where you use control over others as a
coping mechanism to escape feeling inadequate within yourself.
>>Do you get paid per time (wage/salary) or by amount of
>>work done? Or a combination of both?
>
>Salary, $$$$/two weeks
It's unfortunate that you don't get paid by work done, at least in
part. Still, do you have a contract regarding the amount of work they
can give you, or the amount of hours? I'm not sure how the legal side
of things works in your area, though.
>I actually tried to "play the game" for once, but it made me feel cheap and
>well, .... dirty. I couldn't do that and maintain any level of self-respect.
I find it hard to even imagine doing that and feeling seriously
committed to my work. Thanks for sharing your story on this, btw - I
find it validating to hear that others are finding similar things as
I've been noticing.
Matthew
David Maciver
Hey, you don't work for Manpower do you?
Ranger Dave, sounds just like the department he recently left
Mac Breck
From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:36 AM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> On 26 May 2001 11:39:47 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It's only motivated by self-interest *if* you do it to gain something
> >yourself. That wasn't why I did it.
>
> You gained something psychologically for yourself by doing something
> practical for someone else. That's still a good thing to have done. To
> give a related example, if I'm driving along the road and a cat runs
> in front of me, I'll brake because I don't want to experience the
> emotional distress of hitting it.
Whereas, I brake mostly because it's a reflexive reaction, and secondarily
because I don't want the cat to experience the pain.
> That's still self-interest, but is a
> good act, relative to running the cat over.
That's true, for you in your particular case.
> Self-interest is not the
> *opposite* of morality,
It doesn't *have to be* the opposite of morality, but it often is exactly
that.
> because all acts are based on self-interest,
I disagree. It might be more correct to say that most consciously
deliberated acts are at least partially motivated by self interest. There
is, however the purely selfless act, which was done for the benefit of
another, without thought of how it might affect oneself.
> but different aspects of our self-interested preferences lead to
> better or worse consequences than others. Part, but not all, of most
> people's preferences lie in caring for others and doing good.
>
> I'm not saying that your actions were "selfish" in the colloquial
> sense; quite the opposite. I just like clearing up definitional points
> like this, for the sake of consistency of ideas.
>
> >The bosses clearly felt threatened because I didn't blindly do what they
> >said like a submissive dog. I was, I guess, threatening their authority,
> >and they were on a power trip.
>
> Yeah, I'd guess that's about right.
>
> >Instead I was 100% focused on getting the work done (which I thought was
the
> >point of the job), and expanding my knowledge and expertise, and 0%
focused
> >on petty politics and domination of others.
>
> That's the same preferences as I have, too.
>
> >I couldn't care less about dominating others.
>
> I think it's actually psychologically unhealthy to dominate others.
> It's kind of like an addiction, where you use control over others as a
> coping mechanism to escape feeling inadequate within yourself.
Exactly.
> >>Do you get paid per time (wage/salary) or by amount of
> >>work done? Or a combination of both?
> >
> >Salary, $$$$/two weeks
>
> It's unfortunate that you don't get paid by work done, at least in
> part. Still, do you have a contract regarding the amount of work they
> can give you, or the amount of hours? I'm not sure how the legal side
> of things works in your area, though.
Not as a regular, full time, salaried employee. The only regulating that
kind of behavior gets is by the employee quitting. Then they just hire
somebody else to do the job. Their POV: Like a wrench, wear one out, throw
it away and buy another. There's always more on the shelf.
> >I actually tried to "play the game" for once, but it made me feel cheap
and
> >well, .... dirty. I couldn't do that and maintain any level of
self-respect.
>
> I find it hard to even imagine doing that and feeling seriously
> committed to my work.
Who could? Nobody.
> Thanks for sharing your story on this, btw - I
> find it validating to hear that others are finding similar things as
> I've been noticing.
I just hope it isn't like this everywhere.
Mac Breck
From: "David Maciver" <Jedi...@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: brief report from jms.
> "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
> news:00b301c0e617$58d4a0e0$a7d5c997@MACBRECK...
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
> > Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> >
> >
> Hey, you don't work for Manpower do you?
>
> Ranger Dave, sounds just like the department he recently left
Nuclear Engineering Department of an electric utility in the US.
David Maciver
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maciver" <Jedi...@btinternet.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: brief report from jms.
>
>
> > "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
> > news:00b301c0e617$58d4a0e0$a7d5c997@MACBRECK...
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
> > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> > > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:29 PM
> > > Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> > >
> > >
>
>
> > Hey, you don't work for Manpower do you?
> >
> > Ranger Dave, sounds just like the department he recently left
>
>
> Nuclear Engineering Department of an electric utility in the US.
>
> Mac Breck
Hehehehe, your Homer Simpson :D
Ranger Dave, I'm Dilbert
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Maciver" <Jedi...@btinternet.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: brief report from jms.
>
>
> > "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in message
> > news:00b301c0e617$58d4a0e0$a7d5c997@MACBRECK...
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
> > > Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
> > > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 10:29 PM
> > > Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> > >
> > >
>
>
> > Hey, you don't work for Manpower do you?
> >
> > Ranger Dave, sounds just like the department he recently left
>
>
> Nuclear Engineering Department of an electric utility in the US.
>
Mac -
I would have thought that people who run nuclear installations would be
_very_ careful not to overstress their employers. I can only imagine what
someone in your position could do if their mental state was on the wrong
side of "crazed".
You really seem to dislike your job. Can't you move into something less
unpleasant?
--
Mark Alexander Bertenshaw
Kingston upon Thames
UK
Matthew Vincent
wrote:
>> You gained something psychologically for yourself by doing something
>> practical for someone else. That's still a good thing to have done. To
>> give a related example, if I'm driving along the road and a cat runs
>> in front of me, I'll brake because I don't want to experience the
>> emotional distress of hitting it.
>
>Whereas, I brake mostly because it's a reflexive reaction, and secondarily
>because I don't want the cat to experience the pain.
You don't want the cat to experience pain, because it would cause you
emotional distress if the cat experienced pain.
>> That's still self-interest, but is a
>> good act, relative to running the cat over.
>
>That's true, for you in your particular case.
Well, running the cat over on purpose would always be wrong. I assume
it's only the former clause that you're questioning?
>>Self-interest is not the *opposite* of morality,
>
>It doesn't *have to be* the opposite of morality, but it often is exactly that.
Sometimes, although usually it's more a matter of degrees than that.
>> because all acts are based on self-interest,
>
>I disagree. It might be more correct to say that most consciously
>deliberated acts are at least partially motivated by self interest. There
>is, however the purely selfless act, which was done for the benefit of
>another, without thought of how it might affect oneself.
But isn't this still done because one wants to feel emotionally
validated by doing the act concerned? Bear in mind that different
people want different things out of self-interest: a good person finds
it emotionally validating to care for others, whereas a violent
criminal finds it validating in some way to harm and dominate others.
The fact that it's self-interest either way is neither here nor there
when it comes to morality; the moral value of the acts is based on the
consequences to welfare of these acts.
>> I find it hard to even imagine doing that and feeling seriously
>> committed to my work.
>
>Who could? Nobody.
Hmmmm, I guess that's about right - those who happily fit into the
system are probably only superficially involved in their work, and
make a piss-poor job of it, slack off and get paid for it.
>I just hope it isn't like this everywhere.
Well, it's a matter of degrees. Most workplaces are probably at least
somewhat better than this one. Depends on the kind of work, too.
Matthew
Mac Breck
From: "Matthew Vincent" <war...@es.co.nz>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: brief report from jms
> On 27 May 2001 06:49:26 -0700, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> You gained something psychologically for yourself by doing something
> >> practical for someone else. That's still a good thing to have done. To
> >> give a related example, if I'm driving along the road and a cat runs
> >> in front of me, I'll brake because I don't want to experience the
> >> emotional distress of hitting it.
> >
> >Whereas, I brake mostly because it's a reflexive reaction, and
secondarily
> >because I don't want the cat to experience the pain.
>
> You don't want the cat to experience pain,
True.
> because it would cause you
> emotional distress if the cat experienced pain.
The "because" is incorrect.
> >> That's still self-interest, but is a
> >> good act, relative to running the cat over.
> >
> >That's true, for you in your particular case.
>
> Well, running the cat over on purpose would always be wrong. I assume
> it's only the former clause that you're questioning?
Yes.
> >>Self-interest is not the *opposite* of morality,
> >
> >It doesn't *have to be* the opposite of morality, but it often is exactly
that.
>
> Sometimes, although usually it's more a matter of degrees than that.
>
> >> because all acts are based on self-interest,
> >
> >I disagree. It might be more correct to say that most consciously
> >deliberated acts are at least partially motivated by self interest. There
> >is, however the purely selfless act, which was done for the benefit of
> >another, without thought of how it might affect oneself.
>
> But isn't this still done because one wants to feel emotionally
> validated by doing the act concerned?
No. You do it because it's in your nature to do so, because it's the right
thing to do, and not because you expect anything (e.g. money, appreciation,
etc.) in return. You can only be emotionally validated if the act is
appreciated, and often times it is not. If the being on the receiving end
is so thoroughly self-absorbed that they cannot see beyond themselves and
appreciate what was done, you're much more likely to think (afterwards) "Why
the hell did I bother?"
> Bear in mind that different
> people want different things out of self-interest: a good person finds
> it emotionally validating to care for others, whereas a violent
> criminal finds it validating in some way to harm and dominate others.
> The fact that it's self-interest either way is neither here nor there
> when it comes to morality; the moral value of the acts is based on the
> consequences to welfare of these acts.
>
> >> I find it hard to even imagine doing that and feeling seriously
> >> committed to my work.
> >
> >Who could? Nobody.
>
> Hmmmm, I guess that's about right - those who happily fit into the
> system are probably only superficially involved in their work, and
> make a piss-poor job of it, slack off and get paid for it.
Yes. Mediocrity or poor performance is rewarded, and excellence is
discouraged.
> >I just hope it isn't like this everywhere.
>
> Well, it's a matter of degrees. Most workplaces are probably at least
> somewhat better than this one. Depends on the kind of work, too.
>
> Matthew
Mac Breck
No, *I'm* Dilbert.
Mac Breck
Overstress my *employers* ? No, that's not the direction that the stress
was traveling.
> I can only imagine what
> someone in your position could do if their mental state was on the wrong
> side of "crazed".
Everybody there's very well regulated. Work is scrutinized from all angles.
There's oversight from peers, bosses, QA/QC, and the NRC.
> You really seem to dislike your job. Can't you move into something less
> unpleasant?
You must have missed one of the previous posts. I'm not there anymore. I
did enjoy parts of the job (the programming; it's like solving a puzzle). I
was downsized in a corporate takeover/buyout. When deregulation hit,
transmission and generation were separated, and all the generation assets
were sold off to form huge generating conglomerates (who already had their
own information services people, and their own software). I was in the
information services (IS) end of the Nuclear Engineering Dept., and IS is
one of the first places where they try to downsize.
I really haven't looked for work yet. I'm giving my mind and body a break
after almost 20 years of stress. Now, I'm concentrating on reawakening some
creativity through photography (which had atrophied because of the working
hours and stress) , and reading B5 novels. :-) I hope some of the
feeling comes back, but right now, I feel like Bester after seven deathbed
scans.
WRWhite963
>
>
>
>No, *I'm* Dilbert.
>
>Mac Breck
>----------------
Oh! I am seeing difficulty now! There are many Dilbert - I am Dilbert, he is
Dilbert. Slight difference in pronounciation. Dil-bert. Dil-bert. You are
seeing?
Dilbert
Jon Niehof
> > someone in your position could do if their mental state was on the wrong
> > side of "crazed".
>
> Everybody there's very well regulated. Work is scrutinized from all
> angles. There's oversight from peers, bosses, QA/QC, and the NRC.
Now that you're out of the job, Mac, go read "Blowups Happen." I believe
it's in "The Man who Sold the Moon."
--Jon, N9RUJ jnie...@calvin.edu www.calvin.edu/~jnieho38
Close the world...txen eht nepO
Serial Experiments Lain
JBONETATI
<<Now that you're out of the job, Mac, go read "Blowups Happen." I believe
it's in "The Man who Sold the Moon.">>
Brrrr...::shudder::
Jan
Dave Thomer
> > >> because all acts are based on self-interest,
> > >
> > >I disagree. It might be more correct to say that most consciously
> > >deliberated acts are at least partially motivated by self interest.
There
> > >is, however the purely selfless act, which was done for the benefit of
> > >another, without thought of how it might affect oneself.
Even acts made without conscious deliberation, acts on instinct, involve the
moral and psychological code that a person has developed over time, and so
the way you think about what is right to do will enter into the instinctual
action. And if it's true, as I think it is, that no one wants to violate
their own personal code of ethics, then there is some self-interest in even
these instictual acts.
> > But isn't this still done because one wants to feel emotionally
> > validated by doing the act concerned?
>
> No. You do it because it's in your nature to do so, because it's the
right
> thing to do, and not because you expect anything (e.g. money,
appreciation,
> etc.) in return. You can only be emotionally validated if the act is
> appreciated, and often times it is not. If the being on the receiving end
> is so thoroughly self-absorbed that they cannot see beyond themselves and
> appreciate what was done, you're much more likely to think (afterwards)
"Why
> the hell did I bother?"
But then the answer you come up with is, "because it's what I feel is the
right thing to do," or "I couldn't live with myself if I didn't" or
something like that -- there's a guilt and a discomfort that comes from
violating our own consciences or code of ethics that we naturally want to
avoid. I can not imagine an action that would have no positive consequence
for me, even the positive consequence of reinforcing my image of myself as
the kind of person I would like to be. (Didn't you actually use an
expression like "I couldn't live like that" in talking about why you
conducted yourself in a certain way at work?) You CAN be emotionally
validated even if no one else appreciates what you have done -- you validate
YOURSELF. And even if everyone appreciates what you've done, but you
disagree with it, you often FAIL to validate yourself, which is a negative
consequence. The definition of 'self-interest' you're using is a narrower
one than the one Matthew's using, and while on the one hand it is something
of an 'academic' discussion, there's something really important in what
Matthew's saying -- the trick in building a better society is not in getting
people to deny their desires, because that's such a frustrating process that
it probably will never be successful on a worldwide scale, but in getting
them to align their desires with 'positive' actions, to view their
well-being as aligned with the well-being of others -- also a difficult
task, but one that seems a lot more feasible. Take care,
David Maciver
news:20010528105328...@ng-mg1.aol.com...
Ah yes. Thankings.
Dilbert
Rob Hayward
<Jedi...@btinternet.com> writes
>> My fantasy is that the BBC buys it.
>> --
>> Richard Tibbetts
>> http://www.primepeace.ltd.uk/
>>
>
>You in to Bondage or something? The BBC are E-ville.... I would be very
>happy if Sky 1 bought it, they seem to be good to genre shows most of the
>time. Of course if you don't have satellite I can see why you want the
>beeb...
>
>Ranger Dave, as long as it's BBC2, not 1
We don't have sky, can't get On digital or cable so I wouldn't want any
of those getting it. Together with the hundreds of advert breaks and
logos on screen it would drive me nuts. Sky would be the cost of a DVD
per month, hardly worth it for 1 program.
--
Rob
We ate for the one, we drank for the one.
,
,
,
We got fat for the one
Mac Breck
From: "WRWhite963" <wrwhi...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: brief report from jms.
Exactly.
David Maciver
news:cXAEyYA+...@battleaxe.demon.co.uk...
Sky is worth it. You probably don't think it just now, but if you had it
you would. There aren't that many ad breaks, and the logos are tiny and
transparent. I don't really notice them anymore...
Ranger Dave, there's a whole channel of Sci-fi for godsake!!!