{original post unavailable}

We'll hear more on Na'Toth this season.

Laurel was, as stated in the series, transferred to the Rim.

Dr. Kyle, as stated in the series, was transferred back to
Earth.

Talia was sent back to the Psi Corps as stated in the series.

Bureau 13 changed it's name and was absorbed into the whole Psi
Corps covert operation. Secret organizations are constantly changing
their names. Homeguard has been absorbed into Nightwatch.

The fate of B4 will be shown this season.

jms

{original post unavailable}

Homeguard isn't the totality of Nightwatch, but NW has absorbed
it into its overall structure, for the most part.

jms

Edward Sykes <101632.3501@compuserve.com> asks:
> I have another question :- At the start of season 2 when Sinclair
> was reassigned, what happened to Catherine, who he got engaged to
> at the end of season 1?

They had to break it off...he had responsibilities that
excluded that kind of relationship.

jms

{original post unavailable}

It's two separate mechanisms; no one has been able to open a
jump point in a jump point because of the hideous amount of energy
needed by the ship in question. They used the White Star to open a
jump point within a standing *jump gate* that was already there, and
had a secondary source of power. The competing energies were
impossible to control, and blew the whole thing.

And yes, I'm *that* jms.

jms

(blocked) asks:
> Sin wreak-oar Mistie, Montie, PITAS, Emperor of COWDP and Kidism
> Patroler "So the leading causes of accidents are joy, sex, and
> old age?"

9) imbalance in the Grey Council

Will be dealt with this season.

10) the Underground Railroad

Will be elaborated upon and brought to the fore later this season.

11) Lady Morella's vision

C'mon..."unresolved?" It was only mentioned for the first time in the
last new episode. Gimme some time here, I'm dancing as fast as I can.

(Some more on this later this season.)

12) What Kosh really looks like

More on this later this season, in an important way.

13) Sinclair not the One, but he will be

Dealt with this season.

14) Delenn's "cramps"

In the fullness of time.

15) Londo's prophetic dream

More this season, in detail.

16) Where Bester stands (to be decided in Ship of Tears, later this
year!)

Yes, this season.

17) Minbari souls

Also this season.

See, this is the thing that I have to shake my head at when
people use terms like "unresolved plot lines" or "dropped threads;" the
story ain't done yet. You only use that term when you've finished the
book, and stuff is left hanging. We're only midway through the book --
not even that yet in what's been broadcast -- it's a little premature
to start announcing threads or plots as unresolved. There's an ebb and
flow to the threads, they're brought in and out as needed.

You can't reference every single thread in the show in every
episode, or you'd just have an hour of people sitting around and
reciting updates on all the various positions.

I don't like leaving loose threads hanging around. And I
don't. We will hear more about Na'Toth soon, because it's time to
mention that again, as an important storyline element. (Somebody
commented that it's being mentioned because folks have been
asking...no, I don't work that way. It's been asked for ages now.
People have been asking for n'grath, and I ain't moving on that one.
The few who've tossed this my way, that because they asked they forced
me to deal with it, are like the roosters who think their sounds at
morning are directly responsible for the sunrise.)

In any event, to this issue...be patient. This isn't about
immediate gratification. There's a certain pacing in the show in the
ways in which story elements come and go, which would be more apparent
if the show were being broadcast more steadily, without breaks. Yeah,
there've been two months almost since Lady Morella's prophecy, but
there *haven't even been any new episodes aired yet*, and it was only
aired in the last new epsiode out of the blocks, so how can it be a
dropped plotline?

At the beginning of year one, a lot of folks were saying,
"Where's the arc? Huh? Where's this `overarching storyline' we've
been led to expect? Huh? It ain't here." Then they saw it bigtime
starting with "Sky," and eventually realized that some elements of what
they were seeing had ALREADY STARTED the arc...they just hadn't
realized it until they looked back. "Oh, yeah...THERE it was."

Others said, "What happened to that alien ship that blew up the
Raiders in "Signs?" They were just thrown in there to shake things up,
and then they dropped it, I hate it when shows do that. It's a cheat."
Oh, you mean the SHADOW VESSEL that has now formed the main core of
year three and a lot of year two?

In this list of "unresolved plot lines" I haven't yet seen one
that we're not either dealing with, or planning to deal with shortly.
I would suggest we perhaps table this approach until the work is done,
since only at that time can you say, positively, "THIS is an unresolved
plot line," since we've hit the resolution of the story then. Until
then, it's an exercise in "who didn't cross the finish line?" halfway
through the marathon.

jms

{original post had no questions}

My point exactly.

And most folks who had the reaction you admitted, did so for
the same reason. In some ways, we get gigged for the mistakes of
others, and have to prove we won't do things that way.

And don't drag the bear into this discussion.

jms

{original post had no questions}

I don't think I flamed anyone...certainly I don't think the
person to whom I was responding felt particularly flamed. When I set
out to flame, there ain't a whole lot of ambiguity about it. I was
stating the background to the situation firmly, and indicating the
frustration brought about by *the question*, not the person.

I did not consider the original question a flame in my
direction, nor did I consider my response a flame in the other
direction. If I stated the issue strongly, it's likely because I know
that any time I leave a message, it generally gets cross-posted to a
zillion other systems, so in a way it becomes "talking to the room," so
the wider audience will know the full background of the
situation...thus helping to avoid having to go into the situation in
great detail multiple times.

If the person to whom I was "speaking" feels flamed, he should
let me know and I will apologize, as that was not my intent. If not,
then it's a moot question.

jms

Philip Hornsey <74053.2101@compuserve.com> asks:
> When you find yourself asking the question "Why the hell did
> Sheridan do this?"

One reason for the continuity is because you don't have a lot
of different chefs in the kitchen. The more you divide up the
direction of the show and parcel it out, the more contradictions are
going to emerge. Also, by virtue of having the whole story forwards
and backwards in my head, when a question gets asked about a production
element, I just sorta mentally fast-forward or backward, see how it
fits in, and can say yes, no or give a correction. Often on shows
you've got people going and coming in the command chair, and they may
not always know the background as well as they might.

jms

{original post had no questions}

Thanks. It's just as much fun for me. To the waiting...I try,
where I can, to resolve any question raised within the course of the
coming year, rather than trying to stretch it out much beyond that.
One question gets answered, another question looms. There've been a
few exceptions, but overall I think we've pretty well stuck with that
model.

jms