John M. Kahane <102664.773@compuserve.com> asks:
> Is this something that explains one little gaffe that I spotted
> in this episode? Oh, well,...I guess you can't catch every one,
> huh?

Not a gaffe; we flopped the shot because the writing was done
left to right, instead of right to left, which is Narnish script.

jms

Doug Gordon <71610.247@compuserve.com> asks:
> Was the implication supposed to be that the high energy of these
> weapons was atomically fusing the hydrogen? Or perhaps the weapons
> were designed to be used in vacuum, and the atmosphere was
> scattering the energy? Or am I missing something quite obvious?

Given that we're looking at a high-energy weapon capable of
burning through a four-mile wide Narn orbital base as though it were
made of butter, it's putting out enough energy, I figured, to lead to a
reaction with the hydrogen, whether it's a fusion reaction of some
other.

We're talking a concentrated level of energy equal to a
thermonuclear reaction on a controlled level, or a fusion weapons
system with an energy output well beyond contemporary science to
calculate (particularly since this system is capable of delivering the
energy, undiluted, to targets tens or dozens of miles distant).

jms

{original post had no questions}

Yeah, perhaps a better word than ignite could've been used.
But hey, the guy was being shot at...I'd be sitting in a corner going
bibble-bibble...

jms

Jon Wolf <76103.2541@compuserve.com> asks:
> Was she lying, or mistaken?

If I said that exact phrase, it's because the word "pilot" is
not exactly correct.

jms

Philip Hornsey <74053.2101@compuserve.com> asks:
> Do they ever use something more *positive* on cities and the
> like?

Yes, sometimes they introduce talk shows as an instrument of
war. Any culture which begins to see talk shows can pretty much rest
assured that shadows are behind it, and that our time is growing short.

jms

Mike Hoffmann <100321.2604@compuserve.com> asks:
> Could one of the "Side of Light" (Sheridan, Sinclair, Marcus,
> Ivanova, Delenn) be prepared to "pilot" a Battlecrab - and
> turning it to a powerful ship for the Good Guys? Or is a
> Battlecrab alive and intrinsically "evil" enough to prevent this,
> just like the One Ring could not be used for Good in Lord of the
> Rings, no matter how good and powerful the user was?

It's certainly a *very* good question.

jms

{original post had no questions}

Thanks. We've featured Minbari script going straight up and
down like Japanese, right to left with Narns, and other variations.
Because they would naturally occur.

jms

Alan P. Biddle <73260.1450@compuserve.com> asks:
> Since you like at least parts of THE SHINING, I was wondering if
> he is writing the Narnish equivalent of "The quick brown fox
> jumped over the lazy dog" over and over and over?

No, I don't think I'd go that way with him, certainly not
yet....

jms

Damian Reaves <75373.2325@compuserve.com> asks:
> Is the Shadow ship just a living ship or is it actually a
> different type of Shadow?

It's not a kind of shadow, no.

jms

Philip Hornsey <74053.2101@compuserve.com> asks:
> It there and *actual authentic* name for the really cool Shadow
> monsters?

I just call them shadow vessels. For now.

jms