Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Open B5 questions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    <<Get yourself a clearer justice book.>>

    Sir! Yes, sir!

    Leave a comment:


  • Radhil
    replied
    From Webster's Online, Under the Legal section
    PREMEDITATION. A design formed to commit a crime or to do some other thing before it is done.
    2. Premeditation differs essentially from will, which constitutes the crime, because it supposes besides an actual will, a deliberation and a continued persistence which indicate more perversity. The preparation of arms or other instruments required for the execution of the crime, are indications of a premeditation, but are not absolute proof of it, as these preparations may have been intended for other purposes, and then suddenly changed to the performance of the criminal act. Murder by poisoning must of necessity be done with premeditation. See Aforethought; Murder.

    Intent to kill - as surely Lennier did so, not claiming the man is a saint, or is anything short of damned for it - is not pre-meditation. Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, not murder and pre-meditated murder.

    Get yourself a clearer justice book.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    <<If you're gonna claim semantics, don't yank the claim beyond what's true and what's not.>>

    It was pre-meditation. If a gangbanger is leaning on his 64 Impala and a rival gang storms around the corner and the first gang member figures they are going to do a drive-by and so decides to shoot first and kills three people, it's pre-meditation.

    If it wasn't pre-meditation, then it was murder, cut and dry.

    EDIT: Just to preempt any questions, I found my old criminal justice book..."willfull killing of another being, with malice aforethought." I don't think ole Lennier was hoping to let John get a good sweat in the sauna.

    Here is the thing with Lennier...I never liked him. I liked the character, but in the context of myself being one of the other characters, I didn't like him. There has always been something sinister behind him, and so when I saw that ep where he tries to kill Sheridan, I totally flipped out because it was expected, but not expected.
    Last edited by Dr Maturin; 09-24-2004, 11:29 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Radhil
    replied
    Pre-meditation indicates that he planned the murder before the execution of the act. Unless he was responsible for the leak or whatever the accident was, that's nowhere near true. Five seconds of reaction time as he stared googly-eyed through the door does not amount to planning.

    If you're gonna claim semantics, don't yank the claim beyond what's true and what's not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    <<Which indeed would be more adequate for vegetable life-forms.>>

    Well, the Vorlon ships do look like flowers...

    <<Lennier sinned by omision, not by action. He left Sheridan to die.
    The interrogator actively tortured him, that would make him a criminal in Sheridan's eyes IMO.>>

    Semantics. Lennier committed pre-meditated attempted murder. He thought about it, and clearly chose to let John die. Jealousy over Delenn? Probably. But I don't think anything like temporary insanity would apply here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capt.Montoya
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben-Thayer Dunnthaedt
    ... I'm inclined to say that they don't NEED any kind of physical sustenance as we corporeal entities do, since they've transcended physical form. Just watch that scene.........they're walking power plants! (or floating, or maybe they have roller skates on under the jukebox, who knows?) I'm being literal too, walking power plants! Biff! Sock! Pow! (cue Batman theme)
    On the non-corporeal concept of Vorlons:
    > Was Kosh actually poisoned or did he just fake it for the
    > natives?

    No, he wasn't faking it. Understand that their appearance as a
    being of light is only how they want to appear; they are life forms
    much the same as many others
    , and can be poisoned if one knows the
    right combination of substances.
    http://jmsnews.com/msg.aspx?id=1-1691

    A non corporeal being couldn't be poisoned by a skin tab containing chemical substances, you need a chemical metabolism for poisons to affect you...

    I think hydrogen peroxide is too unstable to be part of a metabolism, unless it was produced by the organism itself, which would require an oxidizing agent. Peroxides in general are too reactive and will decompose very easily (sometimes explosively).
    The Space.com article mentions microorganism that use hydrogen and produce methane, this is a reducing metabolism, the opposite of an oxidizing one. Which indeed would be more adequate for vegetable life-forms. The reason air breating organisms dominated Earth is that oxidation reactions in general produce more energy than reduction reactions. (Also that primordial cyanobacteria left almost no choice by filling the atmosphere with oxygen from photosynthesis a few thousand million years ago, leading to extinction of many anaerobic organisms, with few surviving in specific ecologic niches).
    I'd think that nitrates could be an oxidizer counterpart in a reducing metabolism, good idea Andrew.

    Considering [ Sheridan's ] lenient, forgiving nature, such as his reaction when Lennier tried to murder him, who knows
    Lennier sinned by omision, not by action. He left Sheridan to die.
    The interrogator actively tortured him, that would make him a criminal in Sheridan's eyes IMO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    <<You know, that old "Well, I loosened the lid first" never works.>>

    I knoooooooow. I've tried using it every time I've failed to break someone.

    <<The ultimate question of what happened to him depends on how much came to light after Clark was gone. I wonder if SHeridan dropped a word or two in the right places.>>

    Considering his lenient, forgiving nature, such as his reaction when Lennier tried to murder him, who knows?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben-Thayer Dunnthaedt
    replied
    Wow, this is getting heavy, and a little over my head!

    Walking power plants. I like it. Easy to understand!

    Leave a comment:


  • Andrew_Swallow
    replied
    Originally posted by Capt.Montoya
    Yes... when burned with oxygen... and you can't mix them in an atmosphere without risk of explosion.
    Burning is oxidation (doesn't need to be oxygen, fluorine is another quite oxidizing gas, other oxidizing agents exist), methane is more likely to be part of a reducing metabolism (the opposite of oxidation).
    A possibility would be a hydrogen based metabolism:
    CH4 + H2O -- > CO2 + H2
    (you can balance the equation to remember high school chemistry)

    I should read that Space.com article before speculating more...
    Plants could use that equation, to move animals need a reaction that gives off energy.

    A possibility is to use an oxidising agent like hydrogen peroxide instead of water.

    CH4 + 4 H202 --> C02 + 6 H2O

    As an alternative to the bleach that dyes hair Kosh could eat a solid fertiliser. Such as potassium nitrate or that favourite in home made explosives ammonium nitrate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben-Thayer Dunnthaedt
    replied
    I rewatched the Vorlon battle scene in Falling Towards Apothoesis again. It's interesting to note the immense power of a Vorlon, even a piece of a Vorlon. After watching that scene, I'm inclined to say that they don't NEED any kind of physical sustenance as we corporeal entities do, since they've transcended physical form. Just watch that scene.........they're walking power plants! (or floating, or maybe they have roller skates on under the jukebox, who knows?) I'm being literal too, walking power plants! Biff! Sock! Pow! (cue Batman theme)

    Leave a comment:


  • WorkerCaste
    replied
    Originally posted by Z'ha'dumDweller
    That said, what do you think happened? Pay cut?
    I think it would depend. The corporate (or government) approach is more typically a stalled career path and less interesting work. Still, if it was his first real failure, he would probably been given another chance. Sheridan's escape may have been a help, too, since the PTB can't point and say "Well, Bob broke him. Why didn't you?" I fthey had broken SHeridan, they would have been able to point out exactly what the first guy did wrong. You know, that old "Well, I loosened the lid first" never works.

    The ultimate question of what happened to him depends on how much came to light after Clark was gone. I wonder if SHeridan dropped a word or two in the right places.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capt.Montoya
    replied
    Originally posted by Andrew_Swallow
    The Vorlons may not use methane to breath but as a food. It gives off a lot of energy when burnt.
    Yes... when burned with oxygen... and you can't mix them in an atmosphere without risk of explosion.
    Burning is oxidation (doesn't need to be oxygen, fluorine is another quite oxidizing gas, other oxidizing agents exist), methane is more likely to be part of a reducing metabolism (the opposite of oxidation).
    A possibility would be a hydrogen based metabolism:
    CH4 + H2O -- > CO2 + H2
    (you can balance the equation to remember high school chemistry)

    I should read that Space.com article before speculating more...

    Leave a comment:


  • vacantlook
    replied
    The Vorlons may not use methane to breath but as a food. It gives off a lot of energy when burnt.
    And tonight I surf by space.com and read an article there titled Life is a Gas: Methane Might Support Underground ET that talks about an "idea that [methane] could theoretically support unseen colonies of microbes on both [Earth and Mars]." It's a considerably interesting article to read.

    Leave a comment:


  • Capt.Montoya
    replied
    Goes the Inquisitor...

    I'd think they just put him to work in another prisoner... similarly to how they switched interrogators for Sheridan.

    I'd speculate that they expected Sheridan to be a tough nut to crack, so they put one of their best (not necessarily their best) to work him up. When the first interrogator failed they put the second one, and changed tactics.

    Also I remember that part of the first interrogation tactic was the pressure: "confess now or else..." When they went through the simulated electrocution of Sheridan giving him the very same interrogator again would have been uneffective... but with a new one, Sheridan wouldn't know for sure if his threats were now for real.

    And after the fall of the Clarke regime many of those interrogators went underground, maybe in Argentina...

    Leave a comment:


  • Dr Maturin
    replied
    Originally posted by WorkerCaste
    I would respectfully submit that humiliation is torture. Both physical and mental torture share the same goal of "breaking" somone, and for some people the pain of humiliation can be deeper and longer lasting than physical abuse.

    With regard to the interrogator in "Intersections in Real Time", I always thought that he was a guy doing his job, but like all people given a really important task, you've got to be concerned when you don't get the desired results. I think he was telling the truth when he talked about the shortness of time. His task was not just to break Sheridan, but to break him fast, and he wasn't delivering. Management has a short memory and often looks at things with a "What have you done for me today?" perspective. If you've got a great track record, you can usually miss delivering results once or twice, but then you're in trouble. I wouldn't bet on politicians being understanding, either. Add to that the fact that they probably wouldn't just fire him, since they wouldn't want their tactics to come to light, and said tactics demonstrate a real "ends justifies the means" mentality.
    That said, what do you think happened? Pay cut?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X