Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Book Store Advice
48 views
Skip to first unread message
BillTurlock
Jun 13, 2013, 2:49:58 AM6/13/13
to
Tim Wright
Jun 13, 2013, 9:37:12 AM6/13/13
to
On 6/13/2013 1:49 AM, BillTurlock wrote:
>
>
> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>
> NJill?
>
Shopper to book store clerk, "Where is the self-help section?"
Book store clerk, "I could tell you, but that would sort of defeat the
purpose."
#18 is quite true. When I cleaned out my mother's house we went through
her books and found about $700. I don't think she was using them as
bookmarks, just stashing cash and forgetting where she had put it.
--
Chickens: Tasty animals you eat before they are born and after they are
dead.
Tim W
>
>
> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>
> NJill?
>
Shopper to book store clerk, "Where is the self-help section?"
Book store clerk, "I could tell you, but that would sort of defeat the
purpose."
#18 is quite true. When I cleaned out my mother's house we went through
her books and found about $700. I don't think she was using them as
bookmarks, just stashing cash and forgetting where she had put it.
--
Chickens: Tasty animals you eat before they are born and after they are
dead.
Tim W
N Jill Marsh
Jun 13, 2013, 10:33:31 AM6/13/13
to
1. I hate mismatched bookshelves, and they don't work if you are
selling new books. Used or remainder books, maybe.
2. Half is too little, that would leave you in the black. Assume you
will lose money. Forever.
3. True more than it isn't.
4. True less than it isn't.
5. True, except I would offer Jodi Picoult or Dan Brown, depending on
the vibe.
6. Yes, and why the hell you'd ever want a posse of unsupervised kids
with gum in your bookstore, I can't imagine.
7. Not true, the hoarders take it all, pretty quickly.
8. True.
9. Totally false, there's a HUGE proportion of self help book buyers
who will hang around and talk to you for hours, if you encourage it.
Which you do, because these people are cash cows and will be back in a
few weeks to buy the next self help book. They also tend to make you
feel better about yourself and are really understanding if you need to
excuse yourself to go do something sane.
10. True, except for the creepy guys who want to discuss them.
11. This happens anyway.
12. False, with a caveat. They don't write bad checks (usually) at
the store, but they'll write bad checks at events regularly, you are
guaranteed at least one at each event. Event buyers also give maxed
out credit card numbers because you can't check them.
13. Yep.
14. That stuff isn't books, it's junk.
15. True. Also true of schizophrenics, who were some of my best and
nicest customers. And retirees with an interest in military history.
Most of these guys are really nice, though, since all they need are
rules, and more or less appreciate kind directness.
16. True. Very difficult to explain. I was a meanie head and
referred them to a local rare book dealer who was a total asshole and
deserved to have to explain this over and over.
17. That's not kosher with new books, your supplier will hang you out
to dry if you do that, and they will find out, oh yes they will. But
it's standard practice in used and remainder stores, which is pretty
stupid and obnoxious.
18. That happens, though in the bookstore I worked the longest the
most common find was a gift certificate to the store, often many years
old. We always honoured them.
19. Dr. Suess is better, but still a cliche.
20. True.
21. True. This is made worse by your regular flashes of psychic power
when someone comes in and asks "do you have that book? it's blue...?"
and you give them what they wanted. A corollary is that customers
think you only read high literature, and they keep apologizing for
buying the latest whatever, which you adored and have been stuffing
into peoples' bags for the last two months.
22. True. Also angry if you don't match Costco prices.
23. Mystery readers are your best customers. They aren't weird, they
buy a lot of books, and they're quiet. Tend to be older, highly
educated, and monied, often have extremely interesting life stories,
like "I walked from New Dehli to the Everest base camp in 1957" sorts
of stories. And they bring in pictures.
24. While I think it's true, I don't think it's sad. They are just
things. People lend all too many emotions to books, instead of the
things that books represent.
25. True, although after a year or six months you are scarily up to
speed and become incredibly intimidating wrt current and past books.
Some of that's real, but most of it is learning to fake it in a most
spectacular manner. I could yak with superfans about the latest
whatever in the series and not get caught out, it's all a matter of
learning the dozen important things about the series or book or
character or author.
--
nj"internym here"m
Send reggae, guns & numbers.
selling new books. Used or remainder books, maybe.
2. Half is too little, that would leave you in the black. Assume you
will lose money. Forever.
3. True more than it isn't.
4. True less than it isn't.
5. True, except I would offer Jodi Picoult or Dan Brown, depending on
the vibe.
6. Yes, and why the hell you'd ever want a posse of unsupervised kids
with gum in your bookstore, I can't imagine.
7. Not true, the hoarders take it all, pretty quickly.
8. True.
9. Totally false, there's a HUGE proportion of self help book buyers
who will hang around and talk to you for hours, if you encourage it.
Which you do, because these people are cash cows and will be back in a
few weeks to buy the next self help book. They also tend to make you
feel better about yourself and are really understanding if you need to
excuse yourself to go do something sane.
10. True, except for the creepy guys who want to discuss them.
11. This happens anyway.
12. False, with a caveat. They don't write bad checks (usually) at
the store, but they'll write bad checks at events regularly, you are
guaranteed at least one at each event. Event buyers also give maxed
out credit card numbers because you can't check them.
13. Yep.
14. That stuff isn't books, it's junk.
15. True. Also true of schizophrenics, who were some of my best and
nicest customers. And retirees with an interest in military history.
Most of these guys are really nice, though, since all they need are
rules, and more or less appreciate kind directness.
16. True. Very difficult to explain. I was a meanie head and
referred them to a local rare book dealer who was a total asshole and
deserved to have to explain this over and over.
17. That's not kosher with new books, your supplier will hang you out
to dry if you do that, and they will find out, oh yes they will. But
it's standard practice in used and remainder stores, which is pretty
stupid and obnoxious.
18. That happens, though in the bookstore I worked the longest the
most common find was a gift certificate to the store, often many years
old. We always honoured them.
19. Dr. Suess is better, but still a cliche.
20. True.
21. True. This is made worse by your regular flashes of psychic power
when someone comes in and asks "do you have that book? it's blue...?"
and you give them what they wanted. A corollary is that customers
think you only read high literature, and they keep apologizing for
buying the latest whatever, which you adored and have been stuffing
into peoples' bags for the last two months.
22. True. Also angry if you don't match Costco prices.
23. Mystery readers are your best customers. They aren't weird, they
buy a lot of books, and they're quiet. Tend to be older, highly
educated, and monied, often have extremely interesting life stories,
like "I walked from New Dehli to the Everest base camp in 1957" sorts
of stories. And they bring in pictures.
24. While I think it's true, I don't think it's sad. They are just
things. People lend all too many emotions to books, instead of the
things that books represent.
25. True, although after a year or six months you are scarily up to
speed and become incredibly intimidating wrt current and past books.
Some of that's real, but most of it is learning to fake it in a most
spectacular manner. I could yak with superfans about the latest
whatever in the series and not get caught out, it's all a matter of
learning the dozen important things about the series or book or
character or author.
--
nj"internym here"m
Send reggae, guns & numbers.
Greg Goss
Jun 13, 2013, 11:24:11 AM6/13/13
to
Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>#18 is quite true. When I cleaned out my mother's house we went through
>her books and found about $700. I don't think she was using them as
>bookmarks, just stashing cash and forgetting where she had put it.
When I moved in with Wendy in 1996, I found a check for $1700. The
>#18 is quite true. When I cleaned out my mother's house we went through
>her books and found about $700. I don't think she was using them as
>bookmarks, just stashing cash and forgetting where she had put it.
store re-issued it with a current date on it. Wendy found astounding
that I could lose that much money without even noticing it.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Mac
Jun 13, 2013, 12:19:12 PM6/13/13
to
On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:49:58 -0700, BillTurlock wrote:
>
>
>http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>
>NJill?
He left out the most important one, IMO: never forget that, like small
>
>
>http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>
>NJill?
restauranteurs, you are in a business that some people will do as a
hobby, and that a depressingly large number of people think they want
to do.
rroger
Jun 13, 2013, 2:35:00 PM6/13/13
to
On Jun 13, 2:49 am, BillTurlock wrote:
> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>
Concerning #5, what or who are they then? Also, who really IS a
reader?
> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>
Concerning #5, what or who are they then? Also, who really IS a
reader?
Hactar
Jun 13, 2013, 3:08:57 PM6/13/13
to
In article <b1u6gl...@mid.individual.net>,
but I didn't use it.) I instituted a 10% reward.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
> Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >#18 is quite true. When I cleaned out my mother's house we went through
> >her books and found about $700. I don't think she was using them as
> >bookmarks, just stashing cash and forgetting where she had put it.
>
> When I moved in with Wendy in 1996, I found a check for $1700. The
> store re-issued it with a current date on it. Wendy found astounding
> that I could lose that much money without even noticing it.
My then-current GF found a few paychecks. (Direct deposit was offered
> Tim Wright <tlwri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >#18 is quite true. When I cleaned out my mother's house we went through
> >her books and found about $700. I don't think she was using them as
> >bookmarks, just stashing cash and forgetting where she had put it.
>
> When I moved in with Wendy in 1996, I found a check for $1700. The
> store re-issued it with a current date on it. Wendy found astounding
> that I could lose that much money without even noticing it.
but I didn't use it.) I instituted a 10% reward.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
LIBRA: A big promotion is just around the corner for someone
much more talented than you. Laughter is the very best medicine,
remember that when your appendix bursts next week. -- Weird Al
Jack Campin
Jun 14, 2013, 7:54:00 AM6/14/13
to
>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
[odd bookmarks in second hand books]
yet found a Viagra bubblepack in a sex book, but instead I get to play
the association game "people who read this also have this condition".
If it's diabetes and high blood pressure medication, that tells you a
bit about the demographic for Wilbur Smith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
[odd bookmarks in second hand books]
> 18. That happens, though in the bookstore I worked the longest the
> most common find was a gift certificate to the store, often many years
> old. We always honoured them.
My favourites are the pill packaging and drug info leaflets. I haven't
> most common find was a gift certificate to the store, often many years
> old. We always honoured them.
yet found a Viagra bubblepack in a sex book, but instead I get to play
the association game "people who read this also have this condition".
If it's diabetes and high blood pressure medication, that tells you a
bit about the demographic for Wilbur Smith.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
N Jill Marsh
Jun 14, 2013, 8:28:40 AM6/14/13
to
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Jun 13, 2:49 am, BillTurlock wrote:
>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>
>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
They are people who, for whatever reason, need to buy a book. They
may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
assistance in doing so.
> Also, who really IS a reader?
That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
meanings in this context.
One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
bookstore employee.
The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
idiotic attitude.
wrote:
>On Jun 13, 2:49 am, BillTurlock wrote:
>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>
>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
assistance in doing so.
> Also, who really IS a reader?
meanings in this context.
One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
bookstore employee.
The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
idiotic attitude.
Les Albert
Jun 14, 2013, 12:19:05 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
Les
wrote:
>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>meanings in this context.
>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>bookstore employee.
>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>idiotic attitude.
You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>meanings in this context.
>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>bookstore employee.
>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>idiotic attitude.
coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
Les
Mac
Jun 14, 2013, 12:21:58 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:19:05 -0700, Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>idiotic attitude.
>
>
>
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>1959, "Time Enough at Last".
Wunnadagrates, dat. Impressive how much of the TZ was.
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>idiotic attitude.
>
>
>
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>1959, "Time Enough at Last".
danny burstein
Jun 14, 2013, 12:25:48 PM6/14/13
to
In <5kfmr81pqdpum3kcq...@4ax.com> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> writes:
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
>compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
>and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
>bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
>mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
>If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
>compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
>and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
>bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
>mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
>If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
http://www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-
amid-cu
(watch for line wrap)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Mac
Jun 14, 2013, 12:38:35 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:25:48 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <5kfmr81pqdpum3kcq...@4ax.com> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>>1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
>>compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
>>and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
>>bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
>>mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
>
>>If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
>
>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>
>http://www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-
>amid-cu
>
>(watch for line wrap)
I watched. Didn't help.
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <5kfmr81pqdpum3kcq...@4ax.com> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> writes:
>
>>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>>1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
>>compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
>>and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
>>bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
>>mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
>
>>If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
>
>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>
>http://www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-
>amid-cu
>
>(watch for line wrap)
Was this the free-standing safety deposit box vault, with the rest of
the band (Well, Credit Union) largely removed and yotally re-arranged?
Les Albert
Jun 14, 2013, 12:38:30 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:21:58 -0700, Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu>
I have the entire collection of several seasons on my Netflix cue. I
started watching them last night and was amazed at how imaginative and
interesting they are even though I have seen them all, and knew the
outcome of the stories from 50+ years ago.
Another great episode (doesn't appear online) that I am looking
forward to is the one-person story with Agnes Moorehead, "The
Invaders".
Les
started watching them last night and was amazed at how imaginative and
interesting they are even though I have seen them all, and knew the
outcome of the stories from 50+ years ago.
Another great episode (doesn't appear online) that I am looking
forward to is the one-person story with Agnes Moorehead, "The
Invaders".
Les
Les Albert
Jun 14, 2013, 12:40:26 PM6/14/13
to
>In <5kfmr81pqdpum3kcq...@4ax.com> Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> writes:
>>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>>1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
>>compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
>>and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
>>bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
>>mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
>>If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-amid-cu
>>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything. By
>>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>>1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
>>compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
>>and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
>>bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
>>mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
>>If you are interested you can see online at: http://vimeo.com/39941330
>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>(watch for line wrap)
Woulda made a good fall-out shelter.
Les
danny burstein
Jun 14, 2013, 12:42:36 PM6/14/13
to
In <1lhmr81no5aptkbq8...@4ax.com> Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> writes:
>>
>>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>>
>>http://www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-
>>amid-cu
>>
>>(watch for line wrap)
>I watched. Didn't help.
>Was this the free-standing safety deposit box vault, with the rest of
>the band (Well, Credit Union) largely removed and yotally re-arranged?
eyup.
>>
>>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>>
>>http://www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-
>>amid-cu
>>
>>(watch for line wrap)
>I watched. Didn't help.
>Was this the free-standing safety deposit box vault, with the rest of
>the band (Well, Credit Union) largely removed and yotally re-arranged?
wierd.... trying the url directly isn't working now, but
going to their main page, typing "tornado", and then
clicking through... gets the same url and it works.
Les Albert
Jun 14, 2013, 1:02:14 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:42:36 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <1lhmr81no5aptkbq8...@4ax.com> Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>>>
www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-amid-cu
<dan...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <1lhmr81no5aptkbq8...@4ax.com> Mac <anmc...@alumdotwpi.edu> writes:
>>>
>>>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>>>
>>>
>>>(watch for line wrap)
>
>>I watched. Didn't help.
>
>>Was this the free-standing safety deposit box vault, with the rest of
>>the band (Well, Credit Union) largely removed and yotally re-arranged?
>eyup.
>wierd.... trying the url directly isn't working now, but
>going to their main page, typing "tornado", and then
>clicking through... gets the same url and it works.
The url works for me when clicking on it from Agent. See above.
>>>(watch for line wrap)
>
>>I watched. Didn't help.
>
>>Was this the free-standing safety deposit box vault, with the rest of
>>the band (Well, Credit Union) largely removed and yotally re-arranged?
>eyup.
>wierd.... trying the url directly isn't working now, but
>going to their main page, typing "tornado", and then
>clicking through... gets the same url and it works.
Les
danny burstein
Jun 14, 2013, 1:05:33 PM6/14/13
to
[snippeth]
>>>>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>>>>
>www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-amid-cu
>>>>
>>>>(watch for line wrap)
>>
>>>I watched. Didn't help.
>>
>>>Was this the free-standing safety deposit box vault, with the rest of
>>>the band (Well, Credit Union) largely removed and yotally re-arranged?
>>eyup.
>>wierd.... trying the url directly isn't working now, but
>>going to their main page, typing "tornado", and then
>>clicking through... gets the same url and it works.
>The url works for me when clicking on it from Agent. See above.
Probably a momentary hiccup.
To those playing along who haven't taken a look, it's a fasinating
photo and story of a group of folk at their credit union
building who took shelter in the safety deposit vault.
When they came out... well, think Global Thermonuclear War...
>>>>Sure hope these folk had extra pairs of reading glasses:
>>>>
>www.cutimes.com/2013/05/21/oklahoma-tornado-life-saving-vault-stands-amid-cu
>>>>
>>>>(watch for line wrap)
>>
>>>I watched. Didn't help.
>>
>>>Was this the free-standing safety deposit box vault, with the rest of
>>>the band (Well, Credit Union) largely removed and yotally re-arranged?
>>eyup.
>>wierd.... trying the url directly isn't working now, but
>>going to their main page, typing "tornado", and then
>>clicking through... gets the same url and it works.
>The url works for me when clicking on it from Agent. See above.
To those playing along who haven't taken a look, it's a fasinating
photo and story of a group of folk at their credit union
building who took shelter in the safety deposit vault.
When they came out... well, think Global Thermonuclear War...
Lesmond
Jun 14, 2013, 2:47:47 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Jun 13, 2:49ÿam, BillTurlock wrote:
>>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>>
>>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
>
>They are people who, for whatever reason, need to buy a book. They
>may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
>hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
>assistance in doing so.
>
>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>meanings in this context.
>
>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>bookstore employee.
You know you're being too kind.
>>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>>
>>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
>
>They are people who, for whatever reason, need to buy a book. They
>may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
>hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
>assistance in doing so.
>
>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>meanings in this context.
>
>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>bookstore employee.
>
>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>idiotic attitude.
say, but disagree with the way you're saying it.
I'm not sure I'll be much better explaining it.
Yes, there can be a snobby attitude about reading. I don't mind being a snob
to certain folks I know who are *proud* of having never had to read a book
since high school. I know one guy who won't be found dead without a copy of
Catcher in the Rye, because it always used to help him pick up chicks. When
you're over 40, that's scary and sad. Especially since he hasn't read it
since he was 15. I can feel free to abuse the shit out of him.
And then there are folks who simply assume I'm an elitist or a snob because I
am reading anything at all. I totally resent being considered a snob when
I'm sitting there reading James Fucking Patterson.
A reader is someone who reads. I don't care what. I consider my husband a
reader even if he only reads a couple of books a year. He's constantly
reading other stuff, Scientific American, PC Gamer, trade publications,
online articles, whatever.
If someone can't name a single book they liked, or a single subject they
would enjoy reading about, they are *not* a reader. This is not to say they
shouldn't have suggestions made or be encouraged.
Clear as the bottom of a septic tank, right?
P.S. I am a masochist. I'm 200 pages into Infinite Jest again.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
Lesmond
Jun 14, 2013, 2:49:26 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:19:05 -0700, Les Albert wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>idiotic attitude.
>
>
>
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything.
I think most of us here took that for granted. But dammit, you're right, I
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>idiotic attitude.
>
>
>
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything.
meant to mention that.
Lesmond
Jun 14, 2013, 2:50:54 PM6/14/13
to
might have been 6. She had already spoiled the ending, but I still loved it.
And still do.
Les Albert
Jun 14, 2013, 3:11:46 PM6/14/13
to
(Moorehead) doesn't speak a single word, but it is a great
performance.
And for anyone who places "Twilight Zone" in their Nerflix cue, here
is a complete listing of the episodes in the five seasons with a brief
description of each:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Twilight_Zone_episodes
Les
Tim Wright
Jun 14, 2013, 6:16:24 PM6/14/13
to
the cornfield.
N Jill Marsh
Jun 14, 2013, 9:09:43 PM6/14/13
to
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh <njm...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>idiotic attitude.
>
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything.
I did indeed.
>wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>idiotic attitude.
>
>You left out a third category, the compulsive reader of anything.
> By
>coincidence, last night I watched an episode of "Twilight Zone" from
>1959, "Time Enough at Last". Burgess Meredith plays a man who is a
>compulsive reader. When at home his wife snatches away his newspaper
>and ruins his books, so he takes to reading the labels on condiment
>bottles, but he complains that now she won't let him have ketchup at
>mealtime. Slight humor, but then the story takes a tragic turn.
Well worth it.
N Jill Marsh
Jun 14, 2013, 9:23:40 PM6/14/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:47:47 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
<les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
<les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 13, 2:49�am, BillTurlock wrote:
>>>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>>>
>>>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
>>
>>They are people who, for whatever reason, need to buy a book. They
>>may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
>>hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
>>assistance in doing so.
>>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>
>You know you're being too kind.
No, I'm not, honest. Anyone who asks for a recommendation shouldn't
>>>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>>>
>>>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
>>
>>They are people who, for whatever reason, need to buy a book. They
>>may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
>>hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
>>assistance in doing so.
>>
>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>>
>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>meanings in this context.
>>
>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>bookstore employee.
>
>You know you're being too kind.
get the third degree before they get one. It's an opening to a
conversation, not an interview.
>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>idiotic attitude.
>
>I think you're missing something here. I understand what you're trying to
>say, but disagree with the way you're saying it.
>
>I'm not sure I'll be much better explaining it.
>
>Yes, there can be a snobby attitude about reading. I don't mind being a snob
>to certain folks I know who are *proud* of having never had to read a book
>since high school. I know one guy who won't be found dead without a copy of
>Catcher in the Rye, because it always used to help him pick up chicks. When
>you're over 40, that's scary and sad. Especially since he hasn't read it
>since he was 15. I can feel free to abuse the shit out of him.
or does not read.
>And then there are folks who simply assume I'm an elitist or a snob because I
>am reading anything at all. I totally resent being considered a snob when
>I'm sitting there reading James Fucking Patterson.
>A reader is someone who reads. I don't care what. I consider my husband a
>reader even if he only reads a couple of books a year. He's constantly
>reading other stuff, Scientific American, PC Gamer, trade publications,
>online articles, whatever.
>If someone can't name a single book they liked, or a single subject they
>would enjoy reading about, they are *not* a reader. This is not to say they
>shouldn't have suggestions made or be encouraged.
quizzed by a bookstore employee." That adds a much different context
and emotional overlay to the whole thing. Because they aren't trying
to answer *that* question, they are trying to bring up a useful
answer, or an answer that makes them look smarter, or at least, like
what they think a reader would answer.
Different context, but in job interviews I always asked people what
their favourite stuff to read was. *Everyone* stumbled over that
question, and it's a question that in that context you *know* is going
to be asked. The *vast* majority of people mumble something noble and
artful, and then we'd say something like "no, what do you read for
/fun/? what kind of /trash/ do you like? because you need to be able
to talk to people about popular, interesting, /fun/ stuff a lot more
than your favourite 18th century Russian author." People who like to
read, and read lots, especially lots of different stuff, immediately
relax and start the conversation there, but previous to that, it's
like pulling teeth. (Also, we could totally trip them up on 18th C
Russian authors if they were faking it.)
I know it seems like a dumb thing, but most people, even those who
read lots, don't answer that question trippingly in response to a
direct answer.
>Clear as the bottom of a septic tank, right?
>
>P.S. I am a masochist. I'm 200 pages into Infinite Jest again.
Lesmond
Jun 17, 2013, 2:33:00 PM6/17/13
to
On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:23:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:47:47 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
><les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 13, 2:49˜am, BillTurlock wrote:
>>>>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>>>>
>>>>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
>>>
>>>They are people who, for whatever reason, need to buy a book. They
>>>may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
>>>hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
>>>assistance in doing so.
>>>
>>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>>>
>>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>>meanings in this context.
>>>
>>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>>bookstore employee.
>>
>>You know you're being too kind.
>
>No, I'm not, honest. Anyone who asks for a recommendation shouldn't
>get the third degree before they get one. It's an opening to a
>conversation, not an interview.
You are far more patient than I.
>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:47:47 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
><les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:28:40 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:35:00 -0700 (PDT), rroger <raus...@aol.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Jun 13, 2:49˜am, BillTurlock wrote:
>>>>> http://imgur.com/gallery/2MB3Erd
>>>>>
>>>>Concerning #5, what or who are they then?
>>>
>>>They are people who, for whatever reason, need to buy a book. They
>>>may be going on holiday, or buying a present, or spending time in the
>>>hospital, or whatever. They want to buy a book, and have asked for
>>>assistance in doing so.
>>>
>>>> Also, who really IS a reader?
>>>
>>>That is a very good question. I would say that has two possible
>>>meanings in this context.
>>>
>>>One is the more obvious, that these are people who don't read a great
>>>deal, at least, read books for pleasure in such a way that they cannot
>>>easily produce a title of the last book they enjoyed when quizzed by a
>>>bookstore employee.
>>
>>You know you're being too kind.
>
>No, I'm not, honest. Anyone who asks for a recommendation shouldn't
>get the third degree before they get one. It's an opening to a
>conversation, not an interview.
>
>>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>>idiotic attitude.
>>
>>I think you're missing something here. I understand what you're trying to
>>say, but disagree with the way you're saying it.
>>
>>I'm not sure I'll be much better explaining it.
>>
>>Yes, there can be a snobby attitude about reading. I don't mind being a snob
>>to certain folks I know who are *proud* of having never had to read a book
>>since high school. I know one guy who won't be found dead without a copy of
>>Catcher in the Rye, because it always used to help him pick up chicks. When
>>you're over 40, that's scary and sad. Especially since he hasn't read it
>>since he was 15. I can feel free to abuse the shit out of him.
>
>Yeah, but that's because he's creepy and pathetic, not because he does
>or does not read.
"certain" other folks to perceive them as readers. I used my most extreme
example here, but I know plenty of people who act the same way to a lesser
degree.
Did I ever mention my erstwhile friend Dee? She had a daughter who loved to
read. She would let Alex read, but she threw out the books as soon as the
girl was done because they didn't match her decor. Only color coordinated
books could go in her bookshelf. No, she didn't read them.
>
>>And then there are folks who simply assume I'm an elitist or a snob because I
>>am reading anything at all. I totally resent being considered a snob when
>>I'm sitting there reading James Fucking Patterson.
>
>Those are a completely different brand of asshole.
>
>>A reader is someone who reads. I don't care what. I consider my husband a
>>reader even if he only reads a couple of books a year. He's constantly
>>reading other stuff, Scientific American, PC Gamer, trade publications,
>>online articles, whatever.
>
>I would agree completely.
>
>>If someone can't name a single book they liked, or a single subject they
>>would enjoy reading about, they are *not* a reader. This is not to say they
>>shouldn't have suggestions made or be encouraged.
>
>I wouldn't disagree with that, except when I am adding the "when
>quizzed by a bookstore employee." That adds a much different context
>and emotional overlay to the whole thing.
Because they aren't trying
>to answer *that* question, they are trying to bring up a useful
>answer, or an answer that makes them look smarter, or at least, like
>what they think a reader would answer.
not sure I get.
>
>Different context, but in job interviews I always asked people what
>their favourite stuff to read was. *Everyone* stumbled over that
>question, and it's a question that in that context you *know* is going
>to be asked. The *vast* majority of people mumble something noble and
>artful, and then we'd say something like "no, what do you read for
>/fun/? what kind of /trash/ do you like? because you need to be able
>to talk to people about popular, interesting, /fun/ stuff a lot more
>than your favourite 18th century Russian author." People who like to
>read, and read lots, especially lots of different stuff, immediately
>relax and start the conversation there, but previous to that, it's
>like pulling teeth. (Also, we could totally trip them up on 18th C
>Russian authors if they were faking it.)
"Anything". Not fond of anything historical, but otherwise, I'm good.
>
>I know it seems like a dumb thing, but most people, even those who
>read lots, don't answer that question trippingly in response to a
>direct answer.
>
>>Clear as the bottom of a septic tank, right?
>>
>>P.S. I am a masochist. I'm 200 pages into Infinite Jest again.
>
>;-D
Bleu. And Terry Pratchett's World of Poo is my current bathroom book.
Greg Goss
Jun 17, 2013, 3:15:45 PM6/17/13
to
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Did I ever mention my erstwhile friend Dee? She had a daughter who loved to
>read. She would let Alex read, but she threw out the books as soon as the
>girl was done because they didn't match her decor. Only color coordinated
>books could go in her bookshelf. No, she didn't read them.
I was once on a social event with the crew from a project at my IT
>Did I ever mention my erstwhile friend Dee? She had a daughter who loved to
>read. She would let Alex read, but she threw out the books as soon as the
>girl was done because they didn't match her decor. Only color coordinated
>books could go in her bookshelf. No, she didn't read them.
department. After the boat ride, we ended up at a local pub. The
user-requirements types ended up in the front half of the bar, where
the dancing and music was, and the techie types ended up in the quiet
back room where the pool tables were.
I don't play pool, so at one point when everyone else was
concentrating on the game(s?) I grabbed a book at random from the
"decor" and started reading. "Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation."
It was a bit of a tough slog, but readable. The next time that they
came back from the pool tables, someone commented "OK, Greg. You win.
you just out-geeked Dieter."
Why would they put up books if they didn't want customers to read
them?
Another time, I was in a Wendys and tried to read one of the books,
and discovered that they were screwed to the shelf. Then noticed that
they'd been sawn off to half-depth so that the shelves wouldn't
protrude as far into the room.
art...@yahoo.com
Jun 17, 2013, 3:31:54 PM6/17/13
to
On Friday, June 14, 2013 9:23:40 PM UTC-4, N Jill Marsh wrote:
I know one guy who won't be found dead without a copy of
>
> >Catcher in the Rye, because it always used to help him pick up chicks. When
>
> >you're over 40, that's scary and sad. Especially since he hasn't read it
>
> >since he was 15. I can feel free to abuse the shit out of him.
>
>
>
> Yeah, but that's because he's creepy and pathetic
What about the women he picked up with Catcher in the Rye? I'll admit it never occurred to me to try. Perhaps I can use "The Cold Six Thousand".
I know one guy who won't be found dead without a copy of
>
> >Catcher in the Rye, because it always used to help him pick up chicks. When
>
> >you're over 40, that's scary and sad. Especially since he hasn't read it
>
> >since he was 15. I can feel free to abuse the shit out of him.
>
>
>
> Yeah, but that's because he's creepy and pathetic
S. Checker
Jun 18, 2013, 8:21:01 AM6/18/13
to
--
Life is hilariously cruel.
-- Bender
Lesmond
Jun 18, 2013, 9:25:05 AM6/18/13
to
Lesmond
Jun 18, 2013, 9:24:10 AM6/18/13
to
art...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2013, 9:37:58 AM6/18/13
to
N Jill Marsh
Jun 18, 2013, 10:50:39 AM6/18/13
to
On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:33:00 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
Or, you know, I was being paid to do it, and I was good at my job, and
all that. I never talk books with strangers for free.
>>>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>>>idiotic attitude.
>>>
>>>I think you're missing something here. I understand what you're trying to
>>>say, but disagree with the way you're saying it.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I'll be much better explaining it.
>>>
>>>Yes, there can be a snobby attitude about reading. I don't mind being a snob
>>>to certain folks I know who are *proud* of having never had to read a book
>>>since high school. I know one guy who won't be found dead without a copy of
>>>Catcher in the Rye, because it always used to help him pick up chicks. When
>>>you're over 40, that's scary and sad. Especially since he hasn't read it
>>>since he was 15. I can feel free to abuse the shit out of him.
>>
>>Yeah, but that's because he's creepy and pathetic, not because he does
>>or does not read.
>
>But it seems to me that folks who are proud of not reading still seem to want
>"certain" other folks to perceive them as readers. I used my most extreme
>example here, but I know plenty of people who act the same way to a lesser
>degree.
Sure they do, because being a reader equals being smart. Something
which readers who are also smart should know is complete bullshit, but
maybe they don't actually talk enough to other readers to realize
that's not the case. I don't know.
I know quite a few people who aren't readers who are extremely bright,
and I've sure met some idiots who loved to read.
>Did I ever mention my erstwhile friend Dee? She had a daughter who loved to
>read. She would let Alex read, but she threw out the books as soon as the
>girl was done because they didn't match her decor. Only color coordinated
>books could go in her bookshelf. No, she didn't read them.
I've met people like this occasionally, as long as the kid didn't
object to her chucking them, I don't actually have a problem with it.
It's just decor. Books are things, they are not sacred repositories
of whatever. If someone wants to turn them into knickknacks, fine.
>>>And then there are folks who simply assume I'm an elitist or a snob because I
>>>am reading anything at all. I totally resent being considered a snob when
>>>I'm sitting there reading James Fucking Patterson.
>>
>>Those are a completely different brand of asshole.
>
>Yeah. But I still try to not read James Fucking Patterson in public.
Why not? Oh, sorry, you're talking about the author, not the book
about James and Patterson.
>>>A reader is someone who reads. I don't care what. I consider my husband a
>>>reader even if he only reads a couple of books a year. He's constantly
>>>reading other stuff, Scientific American, PC Gamer, trade publications,
>>>online articles, whatever.
>>
>>I would agree completely.
>>
>>>If someone can't name a single book they liked, or a single subject they
>>>would enjoy reading about, they are *not* a reader. This is not to say they
>>>shouldn't have suggestions made or be encouraged.
>>
>>I wouldn't disagree with that, except when I am adding the "when
>>quizzed by a bookstore employee." That adds a much different context
>>and emotional overlay to the whole thing.
>
>Sure.
>
> Because they aren't trying
>>to answer *that* question, they are trying to bring up a useful
>>answer, or an answer that makes them look smarter, or at least, like
>>what they think a reader would answer.
>
>There's a lot of dishonesty when it comes to the subject of reading that I'm
>not sure I get.
Exactly. You're too genuine a person to get it, but it exists, and it
exists with readers, and non-readers, and everyone in between.
>>Different context, but in job interviews I always asked people what
>>their favourite stuff to read was. *Everyone* stumbled over that
>>question, and it's a question that in that context you *know* is going
>>to be asked. The *vast* majority of people mumble something noble and
>>artful, and then we'd say something like "no, what do you read for
>>/fun/? what kind of /trash/ do you like? because you need to be able
>>to talk to people about popular, interesting, /fun/ stuff a lot more
>>than your favourite 18th century Russian author." People who like to
>>read, and read lots, especially lots of different stuff, immediately
>>relax and start the conversation there, but previous to that, it's
>>like pulling teeth. (Also, we could totally trip them up on 18th C
>>Russian authors if they were faking it.)
>
>I can so see this. But whenever I have been asked the question, I always say
>"Anything". Not fond of anything historical, but otherwise, I'm good.
"Anything" is not an adequate response, it's weaseling, we'd make you
get more specific than that.
all that. I never talk books with strangers for free.
>>>>The second, is kind of a snobby value judgment that one often finds in
>>>>bookstore employees, and more often, in used bookstore employees, in
>>>>that "not being a reader" is something very negative, meaning a person
>>>>too stupid to appreciate life's greatest pleasure, or some such
>>>>idiotic attitude.
>>>
>>>I think you're missing something here. I understand what you're trying to
>>>say, but disagree with the way you're saying it.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I'll be much better explaining it.
>>>
>>>Yes, there can be a snobby attitude about reading. I don't mind being a snob
>>>to certain folks I know who are *proud* of having never had to read a book
>>>since high school. I know one guy who won't be found dead without a copy of
>>>Catcher in the Rye, because it always used to help him pick up chicks. When
>>>you're over 40, that's scary and sad. Especially since he hasn't read it
>>>since he was 15. I can feel free to abuse the shit out of him.
>>
>>Yeah, but that's because he's creepy and pathetic, not because he does
>>or does not read.
>
>But it seems to me that folks who are proud of not reading still seem to want
>"certain" other folks to perceive them as readers. I used my most extreme
>example here, but I know plenty of people who act the same way to a lesser
>degree.
which readers who are also smart should know is complete bullshit, but
maybe they don't actually talk enough to other readers to realize
that's not the case. I don't know.
I know quite a few people who aren't readers who are extremely bright,
and I've sure met some idiots who loved to read.
>Did I ever mention my erstwhile friend Dee? She had a daughter who loved to
>read. She would let Alex read, but she threw out the books as soon as the
>girl was done because they didn't match her decor. Only color coordinated
>books could go in her bookshelf. No, she didn't read them.
object to her chucking them, I don't actually have a problem with it.
It's just decor. Books are things, they are not sacred repositories
of whatever. If someone wants to turn them into knickknacks, fine.
>>>And then there are folks who simply assume I'm an elitist or a snob because I
>>>am reading anything at all. I totally resent being considered a snob when
>>>I'm sitting there reading James Fucking Patterson.
>>
>>Those are a completely different brand of asshole.
>
>Yeah. But I still try to not read James Fucking Patterson in public.
about James and Patterson.
>>>A reader is someone who reads. I don't care what. I consider my husband a
>>>reader even if he only reads a couple of books a year. He's constantly
>>>reading other stuff, Scientific American, PC Gamer, trade publications,
>>>online articles, whatever.
>>
>>I would agree completely.
>>
>>>If someone can't name a single book they liked, or a single subject they
>>>would enjoy reading about, they are *not* a reader. This is not to say they
>>>shouldn't have suggestions made or be encouraged.
>>
>>I wouldn't disagree with that, except when I am adding the "when
>>quizzed by a bookstore employee." That adds a much different context
>>and emotional overlay to the whole thing.
>
>Sure.
>
> Because they aren't trying
>>to answer *that* question, they are trying to bring up a useful
>>answer, or an answer that makes them look smarter, or at least, like
>>what they think a reader would answer.
>
>There's a lot of dishonesty when it comes to the subject of reading that I'm
>not sure I get.
exists with readers, and non-readers, and everyone in between.
>>Different context, but in job interviews I always asked people what
>>their favourite stuff to read was. *Everyone* stumbled over that
>>question, and it's a question that in that context you *know* is going
>>to be asked. The *vast* majority of people mumble something noble and
>>artful, and then we'd say something like "no, what do you read for
>>/fun/? what kind of /trash/ do you like? because you need to be able
>>to talk to people about popular, interesting, /fun/ stuff a lot more
>>than your favourite 18th century Russian author." People who like to
>>read, and read lots, especially lots of different stuff, immediately
>>relax and start the conversation there, but previous to that, it's
>>like pulling teeth. (Also, we could totally trip them up on 18th C
>>Russian authors if they were faking it.)
>
>I can so see this. But whenever I have been asked the question, I always say
>"Anything". Not fond of anything historical, but otherwise, I'm good.
get more specific than that.
Les Albert
Jun 18, 2013, 12:01:36 PM6/18/13
to
By Daniel Bergner http://tinyurl.com/mhnllbd
Les
S. Checker
Jun 18, 2013, 1:50:10 PM6/18/13
to
Overly Trusting Individuals?"
"Zen and the Art of Washing Fine Linens?"
--
That reminds me, I put in my Yaz CD the other day and realized it was
crap.
-- Aster achieves enlightenment in afca
Stanley Daniel de Liver
Jun 18, 2013, 3:09:52 PM6/18/13
to
--
It's a money /life balance.
art...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2013, 3:46:27 PM6/18/13
to
art...@yahoo.com
Jun 18, 2013, 3:47:54 PM6/18/13
to
Or
"50 Grades of Shea" (I'm not a big Met fan)
Les Albert
Jun 18, 2013, 7:00:03 PM6/18/13
to
On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:47:54 -0700 (PDT), "art...@yahoo.com"
The book has no pictures and you can cover it with plain brown paper,
so you can read it anywhere in public without embarrassment
(The url I gave above is for a review of the book in last Sunday's NY
Times.).
Les
so you can read it anywhere in public without embarrassment
(The url I gave above is for a review of the book in last Sunday's NY
Times.).
Les
Les Albert
Jun 18, 2013, 7:41:13 PM6/18/13
to
>> is a complete listing of the episodes in the five seasons with a brief
>> description of each:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Twilight_Zone_episodes
>> description of each:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Twilight_Zone_episodes
>There was more imagination in those days.
The stories were written over 50 years ago, and stories of space and
time travel were being dramatised for the first time other than in the
occasional movie about them. The result was that it all seemed like
great TV, and better than the popular TV shows of the period
(1950-1959): I Love Lucy, Perry Mason, Bonanza, Gunsmoke, What's My
line, The Ed Sullivan Show, etc. The only thing that I can remember
approaching the imaginative stories of Twilight Zone is Alfred
Hitchcock Presents.
The Twilight Zone stories were science fiction and fantasy fiction
presented in 28 minute episodes for a large viewing audience, many of
whom never read a SF or fantasy story before. And the viewers found
that they liked it. So maybe there was more imagination than today,
or maybe it was just the different type of story at that particular
time that made it seem that way.
Les
Rick B.
Jun 18, 2013, 8:41:40 PM6/18/13
to
"Lesmond" <les...@verizon.net> wrote in
news:yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6:
Learned Pigs & Fireproof Women?
news:yrfzbaqirevmbaar...@192.168.0.6:
Howard Hael
Jun 18, 2013, 9:05:13 PM6/18/13
to
Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote in
> The Twilight Zone stories were science fiction and fantasy fiction
> presented in 28 minute episodes for a large viewing audience, many of
> whom never read a SF or fantasy story before.
For whatever reason, my favorite was one that had no supernatural/sci fi
side at all, The Jeopardy Room with Martin Landau.
> And the viewers found
> that they liked it. So maybe there was more imagination than today,
> or maybe it was just the different type of story at that particular
> time that made it seem that way.
It helped that Rod Serling was brilliant. He had a bunch of misses in the
stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have worked, it's
pretty incredible.
The AV Club has been a running a good set of reviews of it. They're up to
season 3.
http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/the-twilight-zone,234/
> The Twilight Zone stories were science fiction and fantasy fiction
> presented in 28 minute episodes for a large viewing audience, many of
> whom never read a SF or fantasy story before.
side at all, The Jeopardy Room with Martin Landau.
> And the viewers found
> that they liked it. So maybe there was more imagination than today,
> or maybe it was just the different type of story at that particular
> time that made it seem that way.
stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have worked, it's
pretty incredible.
The AV Club has been a running a good set of reviews of it. They're up to
season 3.
http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/the-twilight-zone,234/
Les Albert
Jun 18, 2013, 10:00:16 PM6/18/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:05:13 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hael
<howar...@notmail.com> wrote:
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote in
>> The Twilight Zone stories were science fiction and fantasy fiction
>> presented in 28 minute episodes for a large viewing audience, many of
>> whom never read a SF or fantasy story before.
>For whatever reason, my favorite was one that had no supernatural/sci fi
>side at all, The Jeopardy Room with Martin Landau.
>> And the viewers found
>> that they liked it. So maybe there was more imagination than today,
>> or maybe it was just the different type of story at that particular
>> time that made it seem that way.
>It helped that Rod Serling was brilliant. He had a bunch of misses in the
>stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have worked, it's
>pretty incredible.
As I mentioned earlier, I am working my way through the episodes of
<howar...@notmail.com> wrote:
>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote in
>> The Twilight Zone stories were science fiction and fantasy fiction
>> presented in 28 minute episodes for a large viewing audience, many of
>> whom never read a SF or fantasy story before.
>For whatever reason, my favorite was one that had no supernatural/sci fi
>side at all, The Jeopardy Room with Martin Landau.
>> And the viewers found
>> that they liked it. So maybe there was more imagination than today,
>> or maybe it was just the different type of story at that particular
>> time that made it seem that way.
>It helped that Rod Serling was brilliant. He had a bunch of misses in the
>stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have worked, it's
>pretty incredible.
the six seasons, and Richard Matheson's name appears as the author of
many of them. I think that others wrote more of the stories than
Serling did.
>The AV Club has been a running a good set of reviews of it. They're up to
>season 3.
>http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/the-twilight-zone,234/
Les
Dover Beach
Jun 19, 2013, 10:13:39 AM6/19/13
to
Howard Hael <howar...@notmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1E3D686A1D03ho...@94.75.214.39:
How many of them end with bitter, stomach-clenching irony? That gets
old fast.
news:XnsA1E3D686A1D03ho...@94.75.214.39:
old fast.
Lesmond
Jun 19, 2013, 12:04:02 PM6/19/13
to
Howard Hael
Jun 19, 2013, 12:45:35 PM6/19/13
to
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:05:13 +0000 (UTC), Howard Hael
>>Les Albert <lalb...@aol.com> wrote in
>
>>> The Twilight Zone stories were science fiction and fantasy fiction
>>> presented in 28 minute episodes for a large viewing audience, many
>>> of whom never read a SF or fantasy story before.
>
>>For whatever reason, my favorite was one that had no supernatural/sci
>>fi side at all, The Jeopardy Room with Martin Landau.
>
>>> And the viewers found
>>> that they liked it. So maybe there was more imagination than today,
>>> or maybe it was just the different type of story at that particular
>>> time that made it seem that way.
>
>>It helped that Rod Serling was brilliant. He had a bunch of misses in
>>the stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have
>>worked, it's pretty incredible.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I am working my way through the episodes of
> the six seasons, and Richard Matheson's name appears as the author of
> many of them. I think that others wrote more of the stories than
> Serling did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twilight_Zone
>
>>> The Twilight Zone stories were science fiction and fantasy fiction
>>> presented in 28 minute episodes for a large viewing audience, many
>>> of whom never read a SF or fantasy story before.
>
>>For whatever reason, my favorite was one that had no supernatural/sci
>>fi side at all, The Jeopardy Room with Martin Landau.
>
>>> And the viewers found
>>> that they liked it. So maybe there was more imagination than today,
>>> or maybe it was just the different type of story at that particular
>>> time that made it seem that way.
>
>>It helped that Rod Serling was brilliant. He had a bunch of misses in
>>the stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have
>>worked, it's pretty incredible.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, I am working my way through the episodes of
> the six seasons, and Richard Matheson's name appears as the author of
> many of them. I think that others wrote more of the stories than
> Serling did.
This page says that Serling "wrote or adapted nearly two-thirds of the
series' total episodes" although I'm always a little unsure if the
writer credit is always accurate -- in movies, it's common for the
writing credit to be bogus due to studio politics, so it's possible back
then for TV the credit may be wrong too.
Still, Serling was definitely the heart and soul of the show regardless
of who got the credits. He was like David Simon for the The Wire or
David Chase for The Sopranos -- nothing happened without his
involvement, and he was constantly reviewing and editing and casting
stuff even if he didn't write the script.
>>The AV Club has been a running a good set of reviews of it. They're
>>up to season 3.
>>http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/the-twilight-zone,234/
>
> I will look in at that. Thanks.
For instance, their review about the one with Billy Mumy as the
omnipotent little kid mentions that it has Chloris Leachman, and links
to this interview with her which includes her memories of the show:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/cloris-leachman-talks-about-the-horror-
movie-the-f,72913/
John Mc.
Jun 19, 2013, 12:49:21 PM6/19/13
to
John Mc.
Howard Hael
Jun 19, 2013, 12:54:56 PM6/19/13
to
>> It helped that Rod Serling was brilliant. He had a bunch of misses
in
>> the stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have
>> worked, it's pretty incredible.
>>
>> The AV Club has been a running a good set of reviews of it. They're
>> up to season 3.
>>
>> http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/the-twilight-zone,234/
>
> How many of them end with bitter, stomach-clenching irony? That gets
> old fast.
Lots of them did, and there were definitely some shows where the twist
in
>> the stuff he wrote, but when you think about how fast he must have
>> worked, it's pretty incredible.
>>
>> The AV Club has been a running a good set of reviews of it. They're
>> up to season 3.
>>
>> http://www.avclub.com/tvclub/tvshow/the-twilight-zone,234/
>
> How many of them end with bitter, stomach-clenching irony? That gets
> old fast.
at the end seemed to be the whole point, and those were weak. But there
were lots, in a similar vein to Columbo, where the actors were so much
fun that the twist was basically beside the point, like the one where
Art Carney learns the true meaning of Christmas, Buster Keaton finds out
his life could be worse, or Robert Redford plays a gut shot policeman.
Peter Ward
Jun 19, 2013, 1:16:28 PM6/19/13
to
John Mc. says...
> Blücher!!
Gesundheit!
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
Screw fashion
- Darkon
> Blücher!!
Gesundheit!
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
Screw fashion
- Darkon
Howard Hael
Jun 19, 2013, 2:58:13 PM6/19/13
to
John Mc. <Jo...@tdcogre.com> wrote :
> Howard Hael <howar...@notmail.com> wrote:
>> They can be kind of rambling, but they often have interesting stuff.
>> For instance, their review about the one with Billy Mumy as the
>> omnipotent little kid mentions that it has Chloris Leachman, and
>> links to this interview with her which includes her memories of the
>> show:
>>
>> http://www.avclub.com/articles/cloris-leachman-talks-about-the-horror-
movie-the-f,72913/
>
> Blucher!!
I wonder who would win in a fist fight, Frau Blucher (Neighhhhh!) or Ruth
Popper. My money is on Popper, but I'm not 100% sure.
> Howard Hael <howar...@notmail.com> wrote:
>> They can be kind of rambling, but they often have interesting stuff.
>> For instance, their review about the one with Billy Mumy as the
>> omnipotent little kid mentions that it has Chloris Leachman, and
>> links to this interview with her which includes her memories of the
>> show:
>>
>> http://www.avclub.com/articles/cloris-leachman-talks-about-the-horror-
movie-the-f,72913/
>
I wonder who would win in a fist fight, Frau Blucher (Neighhhhh!) or Ruth
Popper. My money is on Popper, but I'm not 100% sure.
S. Checker
Jun 19, 2013, 2:31:53 PM6/19/13
to
Lesmond <les...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:50:39 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:33:00 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
>><les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I can so see this. But whenever I have been asked the question, I always say
>>>"Anything". Not fond of anything historical, but otherwise, I'm good.
>>
>>"Anything" is not an adequate response, it's weaseling, we'd make you
>>get more specific than that.
>
> Ah, but I have never asked a book store employee for book suggestions.
I never would have read Jim Thompson if it hadn't been for a book store
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:50:39 -0400, N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:33:00 -0400 (EDT), "Lesmond"
>><les...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I can so see this. But whenever I have been asked the question, I always say
>>>"Anything". Not fond of anything historical, but otherwise, I'm good.
>>
>>"Anything" is not an adequate response, it's weaseling, we'd make you
>>get more specific than that.
>
> Ah, but I have never asked a book store employee for book suggestions.
employee. And I never would have read Cornell Woolrich if I hadn't gone
back and asked for another recommendation after that.
--
People don't listen to enough Motorhead.
-Katy Q.
art...@yahoo.com
Jun 19, 2013, 3:54:02 PM6/19/13
to
Howard Hael
Jun 19, 2013, 5:09:13 PM6/19/13
to
"art...@yahoo.com" <art...@yahoo.com> wrote in
If it was a drinking contest, I have the feeling Phyllis Lindstrom would
win, although Ruth Popper might give her a run for her money.
win, although Ruth Popper might give her a run for her money.
Roy Smith
Jun 19, 2013, 5:49:23 PM6/19/13
to
--
BillTurlock
Jun 19, 2013, 6:31:05 PM6/19/13
to
On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 16:49:21 +0000 (UTC), John Mc. <Jo...@tdcogre.com>
wrote:
>
>Blücher!!
I couldn't agree more!
wrote:
>
>Blücher!!
I couldn't agree more!
Howard Hael
Jun 19, 2013, 7:10:09 PM6/19/13
to
"Roy Smith" <rsmi...@nc.rr.com> wrote in news:kpt913$eng$1@dont-
email.me:
I doubt she drank, although Louise Fletcher did win an Oscar just a few
years after Cloris Leachman, and if Nurse Ratched was in a fistfight
with Nurse Diesel, it would be close. I think both would lose in a
fight to Kathy Bates' Oscar award winning version of Nurse Annie Wilkes.
Any of them would take out Juliette Binoche's Oscar winning character
Nurse Hana, as well as Jessica Lange's Nurse Charles, which was the
character played by Lange's Oscar winning portrayal of Julie Nichols.
email.me:
years after Cloris Leachman, and if Nurse Ratched was in a fistfight
with Nurse Diesel, it would be close. I think both would lose in a
fight to Kathy Bates' Oscar award winning version of Nurse Annie Wilkes.
Any of them would take out Juliette Binoche's Oscar winning character
Nurse Hana, as well as Jessica Lange's Nurse Charles, which was the
character played by Lange's Oscar winning portrayal of Julie Nichols.
0 new messages