JMS Usenet Posts
Dirk A. Loedding
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Just idle curiosity - are you going to ask Warner Home Video to
:finally put the episodes in the order you planned for them, with the
:small improvements in foreshadowing and "flow" that provides (and the
:major continuity glitch it avoids for "Day of the Day") or will you just
:let them go out in the airdate order we've all become accustomed to?
I think to get them to restructure all their formats which have gone
to stations and cable networks round the world would be more work than
they'd be willing to do.
jms
>In a thread that asked if JMS is a millionaire, JMS wrote:
"You don't write for the money, because if you do, you're a monkey.
You don't write for the fame, because if you do, you're a monkey. You
don't even write because you like to write, because if you do, you're
still a monkey. You write because to NOT write is suicide."
Stephen King
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Any chance of more B5-related novels coming out? A series finishing
:off the Crusade story would be really nice.
Nope, nothing's on the boards, and I think Del Rey's license has
either expired or is about to expire, so any other company could
certainly come in and make a case for picking up the license.
jms
>JMS noticed a thread about an effort to collect money from viewers to
>compensate him for his time in doing the commentaries on the DVD sets:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa...I must've missed the transmutation of
threads to get to this point.
I've made it a point never to directly connect the financial dots
between me and B5 viewers, I have 'way too much respect for them and I
won't see them exploited for *any* reason, and this is an example of why.
I very much appreciate the gesture, but please do NOT do this. As I
noted, if anyone wants to make a donation in my name to the local
charity of your choice (if I can opt for a preference it should be a
women's shelter), that's the best way to handle it.
That would be the best thing, honest and true.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers, in the thread about whether or not he's a
>millionaire:
>He has been lucky enough to be quite prolific in a high paying field
>for a number of years despite the pressure of TV writing being a
>young man's game.
Harrumph...I'm still only 47, though I look about 60 in most photos.
:would require that JMS is an idiot (something he continually
:disproves), has a monkey on his back (he has several, but can't say
:that I have detected one that is a particularly costly financial
:drain), or has been swindled by a CFO / Money Manager (events
:probably would have been leaked to CNN).
The main monkey on my back is comics, comics related collectibles,
and...erm...I think I just ran out of stuff.
Though I'm not going to get into the specifics of this discussion, one
thing that needs to be factored into the overall understanding is that
Los Angeles is a VERY expensive town in which to live and work, and
the entertainment business is a VERY expensive field in which to work.
Gas, food, restaurants, clothes, rent (average rent for a small
two-bedroom apartment out here is about $1300 per month), mortagages
(you can't find much anything decent in town for less than about
$800,000 as your baseline, and for that you're getting maybe 1400 sq
feet), it's just a money sink.
And very few people, especially writers, work year-round. You may
have six months when you're flush, then six months to a year with
nothing. The average WGA member makes one TV sale per year; the
average WGA member makes less than your average elementary school
teacher. Only about 2% of the WGA earns over $100,000 per year.
William Goldman is probably one of the best writers we have; after
five years of big hits, he couldn't get arrested for nearly ten years.
Then he became big again. Factor five years of income, however high,
across 15 years total...you see the dilemma.
Income tax takes about 30-45% of any money you make in that tax
bracket (however shortly you might be there), the agent gets another
10%, the attorney another 5%, so you're losing about 60% of your
income right off the bat.
Which is why you can't let yourself get too caught up in the money
part or you'll go insane. All you can do if you're sensible is focus
on the art and the craft and hope for the best.
Here's the only thing I know that makes any sense when it comes to
money: find what you enjoy doing, find what moves you to passion, find
what you can't *not* do, and the miraculous thing about it is, if
you're half decent at it, and dedicate yourself to getting better, and
keep at it, after a while, sonuvagun, you can almost always find a way
to make a living off it.
Well, before taxes, anyway.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Until recently, I didn't even know he had worked on He-Man,
:Ghostbusters, etc. Damn, I have been watching (and reading) this guy's
:work for my entire life! Kinda scary. But thanks.
Thanks...but just so you know, the next guy who comes up to me at a
convention and says "I've been seeing your stuff since I was a kid"
gets it in the neck.
jms
>A link to the DVD box art for the first season:
There's a better picture at:
http://www.r2-dvd.org/pics/Sleeves/warner/b5-1.jpg
jms
:"Most writers use some form of character chart as a way to get to know
:their characters better. Basically, you're looking for something
:that's a cross between a police profile and personal. Keep completed
:character charts handy while you're writing; with these charts posted
:on your bulletin board or on your computer desktop, you can instantly
:find the detail(s) you need." Do you do anything like this, or keep it
:all in your head?
I keep it all in my head.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
>"I keep it all in my head."
:Have you always? Or, if I can broaden the question, have you changed
:the way you go about writing over the years? Sort of the way one gives
:up training wheels at some point? Or were you just born riding the
:2-wheeler?
Yeah, pretty much...when I conceive a character, they're just sorta
*there*, fully grown, and I no more have to write down their
characteristics than I would have to write down the aspects of a
friend I knew well, it's just the way I've always been.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers about the 7/12 Jeremiah:
:After viewing all the friday TV oevres for the second time, I want to
:cast my vote in favor of JMS's opinion about this episode of Jeremiah
:being his finest writing to date.
Thanks...for me, it's the two parts combined as one big story that
pushes it over the top for me. And part two is just freakin' huge....
jms
>A post from George Johnsen about the CGI stuff, as it relates to the
>DVD releases:
Not being involved with the DVD release, I'm not really connected to
the problem, however the visual effects on the show were designed to
take advantage of the SD frame, and it was always planned for
re-renders to occur before the show went HD. With that in mind, there
will be some compositional errors in a crop.
There will likely be no loss in the quality, as if they simply crop
the image from the original 720 x 486 files, the will still have the
same resolution as newly transferred film information. (Explanation:
the NTSC frame is 720 x 486 pixels. This remains the same whether or
not the image contained is wide screen or standard screen. If you
present wide screen image on a standard definition teevee, the image
is actually 486 pixels tall, just the top and the bottom pixels are
black. Therefore, if you transfer new material to NTSC wide screen,
then the image is 720 wide by 486 tall, with black bars at the top and
the bottom. If you crop a 720 wide by 486 tall image, it is still 720
x 486, it just has black bars added to the top and bottom, effectively
masking part of the image.) There is one possibility to wreck the
image, and that is to squeeze it into the letter box by stretching it
wide. If they were to do that, all bets would be off, as the
resolution will be the same, but the image will be smeared by trying
to have 3 pixels in the original screen represented by 2 in the
letter-boxed version.
They will need to be VERY careful on the black levels in the CG,
however, as the compression that is used for DVD is not forgiving when
up against the blacks in the first season. If they are careful, it
will be a fairly painless event, tech wise.
Crop wise, it will be interesting. I hope that someone who knows and
loves the show is supervising, as each shot will need to be
individually placed to make sure the elements in the frame have the
proper impact. During the production of the show, it was common to
avoid the "rules of normal" in placing action in the CG screen, as it
was our goal to make the CG composition as close to a live action
frame as we could. Part of this was to allow things to happen out of
the center of the frame. Also, much care was given to relative
placement of ships in space so that the perspective shown supported
the intent of the story. If this stuff is just "cropped to a spec"
then all of that impact will be lost.
Where you will get serious pixelation is when the shows are bumped up
to HD. It is easy enough to do a new film transfer to get the main
images up to 1920 x 1080, but there isn't a very attractive way to
convert the CG from 720 to 1920 and 486 to 1080. THAT will be a
difficult task for someone. The only real solution is to re-render,
but the cost will not allow that to occur, even if they can find all
of the parts that were delivered on the shots.
No tricks required, just care. :-)
George Johnsen
>JMS quotes and answers:
:A side thought. Jeremiah is being made in Canada. At what point does
:JMS have to start paying Canadian Income Tax?
I was able to get a waiver on LoTR because it was a short-term
engagement, but on Jeremiah I've been paying Canadian taxes (as well
as American taxes) since day one.
Even so, my Canadian tax burden is still far less than the average
Canadian has to shell out every year, percentage-wise. Though I'm
still somewhat of a newcomer, my feeling is that, frankly, the
Canadian people are getting hosed. I understand the dilemma of having
a very large country and a very small population that has to support
that infrastructure, but even so they're just getting hammered out of
all proportion and reasonableness.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Don't forget we have more of a more generous social infrastructure,
:but nowhere near enough big profitable corporations to support it.
:Still, we like to think at least we're better off than the Finnish. :-)
Yeah, in theory it's a generous social infrastructure, but it don't
work. Between lower paying salaries and a tax burden that leads a lot
of professionals in various areas like medicine to go to the US,
you've got a brain drain and a resources sink that kills a lot of that
infrastructure. (Which is why I spent 6 hours in the emergency room of
Vancouver General Hospital, before being taken into the actual work
room, and another 2 hours before getting worked on by a doctor, the
day I dislocated my right ring finger...there was only ONE emergency
room doctor on duty on a Saturday night.)
It costs less, but there's less OF it, and it's not terribly
efficient, and doesn't give your average Canadian the value for
his/her money.
Maybe I'm a bit more vocal about this than I should be, as an American
(and knowing how much we've contributed to the problem) but goddamn,
you guys are getting taken to the cleaners up there.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:In the light of actual knowledge of this topic, I would ask, why a
:women's shelter ? Are we not aware that DV is a 50/50 matter, where
:for every battered woman, there a battered man out there ? Why no
:concern for the need for places of safety for men ?
Because someone asked what I personally would prefer. I answered.
You don't have to abide by that, it's just my preference having seen
too much of this stuff. If I'd seen a lot of the other side, I might
have said otherwise...but I haven't. All the DV I've seen has been
against women, and that's where my emotions take me, and my answer.
jms
>Where did the "stars and garters" phrase come from?
I don't recall exactly where I heard it first, might've been in an old
(30s) movie...but it definitely wasn't in the Carl Barks strip.
jms
>Note: Here, we once again delve into politics. If this topic
>doesn't interest you, page down a bit to get past it. All complaints
>will be cheerfully ignored.
>JMS quotes and answers:
:It's interesting that the idea of civilians looking out for each other
:should fill some people with dread. I attribute the fear to the
:elitist perception that "I can handle responsibility, but everyone
:else is irresponsible". Certainly the best protection against
:burglars is a nosey neighbor.
This misses the point by a mile.
What the Citizens Corps involves is the establishment of a branch of
the government which will solicit information from various sources --
none of whom are authorized peace officers or in any way official
individuals trained in detection -- and take that information, gather
it, disseminate it internally, and track that information about people
who may not have anything whatsoever to do with anything in the
smallest regard concerning terrorism.
Who gets this information? What will they be doing with it? How will
it be organized and disseminated? What stops someone from sending
along unreliable or false information in order to get someone in
trouble? Who decides what is "suspicious behavior?" And you the
person being cataloged have NO way of knowing what's in that file or
that there even IS a file...further, this agency will be free from
FOIA discovery, so there's no way to determine what the government has
on you, if anything. The potential for abuse is mind-boggling.
The way the country has always worked is that if someone sees
something suspicious, they report it to the local police, who
investigate it. That's how our system has functioned for a very long
time and successfully.
The acts of 9/11 should not lead us to throw out the very aspects of
our American system that brought their attack in the first place, the
ideals that we are, in principal, defending.
We've seen this before, in the McCarthy period. I'd hoped we had
become smart enough as a people not to fall for the okey-doke a second
time. I was wrong.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:But I think it's a baseless, and, I might say, entirely inappropriate
:and distressing thing to say about "the Republicans," whose collective
:will is not as clear-cut as that.
Yes and no...but a lot of the party's stands are in total lock-step.
For instance...I know somebody who ran for office as a Republican last
year (jms looks around the audience with doe-like eyes of innocence,
letting folks figure out the rest for themselves)...who told me that
as part of running, the Party gave him a box full of notebooks that
contained what was to be his stance on any number of issues. He was
not to diverge from them.
But most troubling...he was given what was essentially a loyalty oath,
stipulating that he would support George W. Bush in the forthcoming
primaries *exclusively*, and not McCain, and if he didn't agree, the
Party would withhold its financing from his election bid.
So much for the marketplace of free ideas.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Yes, yes, the "platform". Again, it begs the question, "What do the
:Democrats (or any other party) do differently, if anything?"
I don't know. Does one legitimize the other? If both are doing
something wrong, does it mean therefore that either are free from
criticism? I've never understood this logic: "Well, HE does it too."
So? And in this case we DON"T know if he/they do it too.
:ame question, did not the Democratic party exact a similar loyalty
:oath for Al Gore from candidates?
Dunno. Are you saying they did? If so, if you know that to be the
case, I'd be interested in hearing about it. If you don't know it to
be the case, then it's just pettifogging.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Hmm, maybe there's hope of turning JMS into a libertarian yet. :)
I like to consider my mind an open door.
It's just not a revolving door.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:So... in return for receiving financing and support from an
:organization, he had to agree to act as a member of that organization
:by supporting its goals & accepting the decisions of those who were in
:charge of the organization. Those evil Republicans -- to think that
:they'd act like... <wait for it> any other damn organization on the
:entire planet or elsewhere, including the Benevolent and Protective
:Order of the Elks, Emily's List, the John Birch Society, the Rangers,
:the Shadows, the Vorlons, (obligatory B5 references), and even the
:Democratic Party...
But they were not acting like republicans. The primaries were still
in effect. Both individuals, McCain and Bush, were republicans, both
running for the nomination of their party. But the party hierarchy
decided *in advance of hearing the will of the people* that they would
ONLY support Bush, and used economic blackmail to force the issue.
Is that what Republicans stand for? I somehow doubt the rank and file
civilians out there would cotten to it.
And the comparison to the Elks and the other groups is specious, one
is a political party, the others are not. We are talking about the
acts of one of the two parties that control the electoral fate of the
country; let's keep this an apples-and-apples discussion, not apples
and oranges.
:Okay, Joe, this is easy to demonstrate ;-) -- according to this
:standard, the next time the Writer's Guild walks out you should just
:keep working in the marketplace of free ideas...
And here you just shoot yourself in the foot, because the WGA is about
the least organized organization in the world. Further, a walkout has
to do with economic issues and contracts up for renewal; the
Republican issue has to do with elections and the fate of a nation
that at least nominally is about fair play between two candidates.
See the part above about apples and oranges.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:I would be interested to hear some alternate suggestions on how to
:deal with them. After all, it is one thing to criticize. It is
:another to offer an alternative.
The alternative is that we use the system of justice that has served
this country for over two hundred years.
We endured two world wars and one cold one. We faced the greatest
military war machine in human history, with their own agents in this
country as we had agents in theirs. We beat them by hewing to the
ideals and the standards and the laws that had propelled us to that
moment out of history in the first place.
The moments we look back at in shame are the moments when we *diverged*
from our sense of justice, as with the Japanese internment camps.
Let's take a good, hard look at what we're facing here. For all the
announcements to come out of the administration, we have had no
further attacks on American soil, and the one attack we DID have
consisted of a handful of individuals wielding *box cutters*. That's
it. We're talking freakin' exacto-blades here. They used our own
technology against us.
This could have happened at ANY point in time prior to that moment.
It could have happened during the Korean war, the Vietnamese conflict,
the Gulf war...all you need is X number of guys with the will to do
it. We are not in any more danger now than we were then.
We have ALWAYS been vulnerable to such things because we are a free
society, and there are an awful lot of people pissed off at us for a
variety of reasons.
Not ONE really credible threat has been exhumed since 9/11. The
"dirty bomb" bit turned out to be just a *discussion* about such
things, so that even Ashcroft had to backpedal.
The Al Queda structure has been severely weakened by the actions in
Afghanistan (or so we are told), the hostiles in this country (not yet
proven but I'm willing to believe they're here) are small in
number...is all this worth throwing the Constitution away, the same
Constitution that served us through the Civil War, in which over
100,000 US citizens died, in which brother could not trust brother?
(Yes, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeus corpus for some of that
time, and there were other abuses, but we recognize them now AS
abuses. If we see that it was wrong then, why repeat the error?)
The administration says we are at war, and therefore must sacrifice
our rights. But in fact we are NOT at war. There has been no
declaration of war from congress.
Is the solution to detain American citizens in military cells without
right of attorney (even if they are lowlifes like Padilla)? Is the
solution to dealing with maybe a few dozen dangerous guys (and there
have ALWAYS been dangerous guys in this country, anybody who thinks
otherwise is nuts) to have a million people acting as informants and
spies on other American citizens through TIPS? Is the solution, as
Ridge and Bush are now advocating, to use the military to make arrests
in violation of the Posse Comitatas act?
No. The solution, the alternative to dealing with the problem you ask
for is the one we've had for two hundred years. A nation with laws,
and oversight, and checks and balances.
If we sacrifice that, then the country we hand to our inheritors won't
be worth the struggle we endured to maintain it.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:Please outline what enforcement powers this department has. Please
:show us the legions of jack booted thugs it employs to do it's bidding.
Sure. Easy. The office of Homeland Security would have access to FBI
and other resources. But more interesting, as per today's New York
Times, Homeland Security head Tom Ridge suggested that one good
solution would be to use the military in this situation. Further,
Bush himself has requested a review of the Posse Comitatas rule, which
forbids use of military forces for civilian arrests. Though Ridge
says that these forces "might not be used," it'd be a good idea to
have that power if needed.
:OK - and anonymous calls to the local police can't be used to the same
:purpose!?
Nope. Because if you call in a police report, they won't take it in
most cases without your name and address. If it's an anonymous tip,
it is, nonetheless, within the legal system and can be subpoenad and
produced as evidence. Further, if someone files a police report on
you, the police generally investigate and you'll know that the report
has been called in.
In the case of TIPS, the information goes into a general database and
there's no way to know what's being gathered on you, and the TIPS
program as outlined is not subject to FOIA, so you might never know
you have a file or have access to it (whereas you can get FBI files on
you, albeit censored, via FOIA).
:And by the way, if it *is* abused, there is an EXISTING mechanism to
:right the wrongs, on many levels. First, if you are actually
:prosecuted, and found innocent, you can sue for overzealous prosecution.
Sue who? The government? Do you know for a fact that TIPS is subject
to civil suit?
Further...even if we allow that they can, which hasn't been
established here...sure, you could sue, after you've spent years
having your reputation destroyed. A reputation, once hit by suspicion,
is hard to rebuild again. And even if you win, you're looking at
another three or more years in court, again defending your reputation
because the defense will make your rep the point of their case.
I don't think the possibility of suing back is in any way the equal to
six years of one's life lost, along with one's reputation. Not to
mention the concurrent fallout on work, family, friends,
relationships, career, you name it.
:Second, you can sue the guy whio tipped. If you actually get into
:court, they have to produce the guy. rule of law...
For starters, see above. Second, as of this point in time, TIPS is
*not* subject to the same rules of evidence as any other agency.
Thirdly, all someone has to do is say the information was given in
good faith, that X happened...it's just in the *way* it was reported
that the trouble started.
For instance...somebody subscribes to an Persian newspaper. We note
this in somebody's home. The person also has a farm, and thus access
to fertilizer. Trucker sees this, files the information, and continues
to the next delivery. Now you have a file, and people are going to be
looking for anything that might fit the profile, because you wouldn't
HAVE a file if there wasn't something going on, right?
Or what if it's not a Persian language paper? What if it's another
country altogether, but the trucker made a mistake? You can't sue
over something like that.
And finally, somebody like that doesn't have deep pockets as a rule...
so what do you do, sue for 3 years, spend hundreds of thousands of
dollars, to get nothing?
People who say "Hey, just sue the guy" have generally never been sued
themselves, or had to sue, so they don't undersstand what's really
involved.
::No government agency should be allowed to strike with impunity;
:Glad you agree. There are several provisions in constitutional law
:that make such actions illegal.
Too bad that TIPS, as currently envisioned, has exempted itself from
such provisions or made it difficult to even find out what's going on
so that you could try and bring those provisions into play.
jms
>JMS quotes and answers:
:So, you are saying that the Korean War and Vietnam War weren't wars?
:Get real!
Hmm...let me go over what I actually wrote, and see...nope, I didn't
say that.
(It's been my experience that when somebody begins with "So are you
saying," the odds are extremely good that in fact you NEVER said that,
just as I didn't say it here, the person is reacting to something that
they want to fight about.)
:It is possible to be in a de facto _state_ of war without the
:existence of a de jura _declaration_ of war.
Granted, and that was never the point. The point I was making was
that for someone to start changing the laws under which this country
operates, you can only do so under conditions which allow you to make
such sweeping changes. If someone like Bush wants to start making
those changes, which are considered only appropros in time of declared
war, then he should declare war and get Congress to authorize it.
In neither of the cases noted above did anyone try to change as
drastically as now the laws under which this country operates.
:Additionally, a declaration of war can only be issued against another
:nation state. At present we are in a de facto state of war against a
:non-governmental entity (actually a group of entities), so there is no
:nation against which to declare war.
I doubt very much that anyone would let semantics get in the way of
something like this. If one can declare war *without* congress
without naming a nation, why could you not declare it *with* congress?
And I don't recall seeing or hearing anything indicating that it HAD
to be a nation-state. Where is this stated?
:I am of the opinion that a DoW should have been issued against the
:Taliban, although I can understand the reasons for not doing so: a
:DoW would have recognized the Taliban as the rightful government of
:Afghanistan, something that was not necessarily desirable.)
Except of course that in the months leading up to 9/11, the Bush
administration was, according to some published accounts, in
negotiation with the Taliban to see if they could work out an oil
pipeline deal, so I don't think this would have been much of an issue
either way.
:Sorry if there is a bit of ranting here, but this is a comment that
:_really_ gets my dander up.
Understandable...except the part where I pointed out that I never
*said* the coment that "gets your dander up."
Perhaps it's a dander problem. Have you considered Head and Shoulders?
:With a couple of exceptions, all of the detainees in _military_
:custody are foreign nationals, not US citizens.
Exceptio Probat Regulum: the exception puts the rule to the test.
First, there should be NO exceptions, that is the law of this country,
that a civilian cannot be held in this fashion without being charged,
without being given access to an attorney, without due process. It
doesn't matter if it's one, three, fifty or a hundred, the law is the
law is the law.
Second, you don't KNOW that it's only "a couple of exceptions." We
only found out about Padilla *six months* after he'd been picked up.
How many other American citizens are currently being detained without
counsel? In fact, you have no idea how many there are, because we
haven't been told, because the administration doesn't feel it HAS to
tell us.
So this part of your argument goes out the window on both counts.
:All the detainees at Guantanamo were armed enemy captured in a combat
:zone by US military forces. The Guantanamo detainees should _not_ be
:in civilian custody.
Never said they should. Again, it would be most constructive if you
were to respond to what I actually said than responding to what I
*didn't* say as if I had said it.
:As I have stated in a couple of other posts, I do not see that TIPS or
:the Citizen Corps really makes any difference in this matter.
And lots of other people, including any number of Republicans, DO see
it as making a huge difference to the tone, tenor and structure of
this country.
Your mileage may vary.
But I imagine the STASI were put in with similar justifications about
the general good.
jms
>Who is Nicholas Charles Wilkes, to whom the 7/12 Jeremiah episode was
>dedicated?
Nick was a PA who worked on the series, and was well liked by everyone
on the show. He died in a car accident on the way to work while we
were shooting TLU part one. Everybody felt very strongly that he
deserved notation here.
jms
>Someone asked about The Original B5 Story, the one that would have
>been told if O'Hare hadn't left, if Claudia had stayed around, if he'd
>never had to worry about renewal, and so forth and so on.
There's really only one answer to this question, and it's the only one
that can parse to a non-writer.
Somebody, I think it may have been Grant, but I'm not 100% sure of
that, said "No plan of battle ever survives contact with the enemy."
I have never written a script, a story, or a novel that has hewed to
my original outline. I don't think most writers do that. The
original structure is there to give you a guideline so if you get lost
you can grab hold of it to lead you to the next level. But along the
way you have to have the freedom to explore and play along the way on
the one hand, and react to events outside your control on the other.
Stories grow and evolve and their telling improves as you mature as a
writer. It's not a die-stamped product, it's a process.
Even if every single cast member would have been there from day one to
final day, even if we'd known from day one that we would have five
guaranteed seasons, there would STILL (and were) changes and
evolutions made as the story progressed. Because that's simply the
way I (and most writers, I think) work.
jms
>Someone asked about a comment in "Midnight Nation" about almost
>losing someone twice:
No, basically it was just in reference to the birthing
process...obviously her parents would in no way know about what went
on in the other side.
jms
--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dirk A. Loedding <*> ju...@america.net |
| |
| To subscribe to the jms-posts mailing list, go to |
| http://www.yetta.net/mailman/listinfo/jms-posts |
| Archive of JMS Posts at http://america.net/~judge |
| Schedule information at http://america.net/~judge/b5sched.txt |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.info <*> Another fine service of ISN, Mars Bureau
submissions to: b5-...@plage.stanford.edu
comments to: b5-info...@plage.stanford.edu