Interviewees who don't answer the question
Mark Hanson
Whenever I listen to or watch some [politician, usually] being
interviewed, a question is inevitably asked that the interviewee either
spins off of like a pro, or answers with some forked-tongue doubletalk
that had nothing to do with the question. I don't think I have EVER
heard the interviewer respond, "Well, that's very interesting, Senator,
but would you like to actually answer the question I asked?"
Are reporters so jaded that they don't even see this is happening? Have
they been hearing this political spew for so long they're confusing it
for an actual response? Am I expecting too much? Grrr...
Mark
John S. Colton
wrote:
Amen! I have the same peeve.
FWIW, Bill O'Reilly (Fox News Channel) seems to be the best
interviewer I've seen, as far as making the person actually answer the
quesion that was asked.
John
Michael Lorton
> This is something that's cheesed me off for as long as I can remember.
> Whenever I listen to or watch some [politician, usually] being
> interviewed, a question is inevitably asked that the interviewee either
> spins off of like a pro, or answers with some forked-tongue doubletalk
> that had nothing to do with the question.
Of course. Why answer a *difficult* question, one that might cost you
votes, when you can instead spout attractive platitudes?
> I don't think I have EVER
> heard the interviewer respond, "Well, that's very interesting, Senator,
> but would you like to actually answer the question I asked?"
> Are reporters so jaded that they don't even see this is happening?
At most press conferences, each reporter is only given a chance to ask
one question, and he certainly isn't going to waste it insisting that
the subject actually answer the last reporter's question.
Even when the reporter is given the chance to ask more questions,
over-precise questioning will lead to his NOT being given such a
chance in the future -- it's called "access journalism" for a reason
(at least the "access" part has a reason).
> Have
> they been hearing this political spew for so long they're confusing it
> for an actual response? Am I expecting too much?
Candidly, yes. You are expecting people to act in some way other than
in their own best interests. Politicians who fail (out of
willfulness, stupidity, or -- and this is unlikely -- integrity) to
pander to the voters fail to get re-elected, so political life becomes
populated with panderers. Reporters who grill politicians don't get
their phone calls returns -- except by the kind of politicians who get
grilled on TV and end up losing elections.
Perhaps your expectations are too "high", they are just misplaced.
Dogs bark, fish swim, politicians prevaricate. Hoping for anything
else is pointless. A, I hate to remind you, is A.
> Grrr...
Rrrrrff! Rrrrrff!
M.
A man licensed to kill gophers
>A, I hate to remind you, is A.
Would someone give Steve Ditko here a box of crayons and a pile of blank paper
and tell him to shut the fuck up?
Mutig "B is Bay, Bay, Bay, Bay" Hollander
Another thing, since you computer dorks barely know what the fuck you're doing
in your chosen profession, why the fuck do any of you think you know how the
fuck to run the fucking government?
"Such a lot of guns around town, and so few brains." --Humphrey Bogart as
Phillip Marlowe, The Big Sleep (1946)
Mark Hanson
of them) are lying slime who will spin out the time of day if asked, and
reporters (many of them) are gutless hacks afraid of being exiled back to the
beat.
I really noticed this a few years ago when the tobacco companies were being
grilled before congress. Ted Coppel was one-on-one-ing with the CEO of (I
think) Brown & Williamson, who had just stated that no tobacco company wants
children to start smoking. Ted actually accused the guy of
"disingenuousness," which I suppose is as close to accusing someone of lying
as I'll ever see. (The proper response on Ted's part, of course, would have
been to ask him, "Well then, just who DO you want to start smoking?").
Mark
Mark Hanson
Tim Robinson
mutigho...@aol.comgunga says...
> Michael Lorton mlo...@civetsystems.com writes:
>
> >A, I hate to remind you, is A.
>
> Would someone give Steve Ditko here a box of crayons and a pile of blank paper
> and tell him to shut the fuck up?
>
> Mutig "B is Bay, Bay, Bay, Bay" Hollander
>
>
> Another thing, since you computer dorks barely know what the fuck you're doing
> in your chosen profession, why the fuck do any of you think you know how the
> fuck to run the fucking government?
Well, Dutch, we can't fix the fucking government; we'd never get elected.
People like you elect the sort of people that just fuck things up. You'd
never elect anyone but one that gives platitudes. You, of course, could
never get elected either... the first time you spouted an honest opinion,
your career would be over.
FWIW, I DO know what I'm doing in my chosen profession. It's why I get
the big $$$.
--
Tim Robinson <timt...@ionet.net>
http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr
Would I be an optimist or a pessimist if I said my bladder was half full?
Michael Lorton
> Who the hell is this idiot?
He's an annoying person who changes his moniker every few months or so --
whenever everyone has him killfiled.
> A man licensed to kill gophers wrote:
> > Another thing, since you computer dorks barely know what the fuck you're doing
> > in your chosen profession, why the fuck do any of you think you know how the
> > fuck to run the fucking government?
I'm in finance.
M.
John Dean
Mark Hanson <mpha...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:394FE934...@erols.com...
> This is something that's cheesed me off for as long as I can remember.
> Whenever I listen to or watch some [politician, usually] being
> interviewed, a question is inevitably asked that the interviewee
either
> spins off of like a pro, or answers with some forked-tongue doubletalk
> heard the interviewer respond, "Well, that's very interesting,
Senator,
> but would you like to actually answer the question I asked?"
>
> Are reporters so jaded that they don't even see this is happening?
> they been hearing this political spew for so long they're confusing it
>
> Mark
>
There is at least one guy who tries to do this on Brit TV & is rightly
renowned for it. His name is Jeremy Paxman. His finest moment, as far as
I am concerned, was a few years ago interviewing the then Home
Secretary, Michael ''Something of the Night'' Howard about a debacle in
the Prison Service which was, in theory, an Agency over which the HS had
no executive control. Rumours abounded, however, that Howard had forced
the Director to resign. Howard always gave one of those 'gentle answers
that turneth away wrath' to interviewers which indicated he thought it
ludicrous to suggest he had done such a thing but which stopped short of
an outright 'No, I did not'. Paxman asked him directly. He waffled.
Paxman asked him the same question again. Waffle. Identical question,
Here mythology takes over & depending who you believe Paxman asked the
same question 12, 14 or 19 times without getting Howard to reply. The
clip is sometimes shown & he certainly asked it many times. But Jeremy
aka the Rottweiler always tries. the price he pays is that none of the
big guys like Blair will go near him, but he's made some of the second
team look like what they are - twats.
--
John Dean -- Oxford
I am anti-spammed -- defrag me to reply
john...@msn.com
Arthur Wohlwill
>From: Mark Hanson <mpha...@erols.com>
>Subject: Re: Interviewees who don't answer the question
>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:33:26 -0400
>Mark
If you believe the movie, "The Insider", various tobacco execs lied under oath
about the addictiveness of cigarettes. If they will lie then, they will lie
anytime.
Arthur Wohlwill adwo...@UIC.EDU
StarChaser_Tyger
Read it? y
>If you believe the movie, "The Insider", various tobacco execs lied under oath
>about the addictiveness of cigarettes. If they will lie then, they will lie
>anytime.
And if you believe the movie Independence Day, aliens can make dead
scientists talk like sock puppets...
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
RM Mentock
>
> I'm afraid your response is the response I was afraid of. Politicians (most
> of them) are lying slime who will spin out the time of day if asked, and
> reporters (many of them) are gutless hacks afraid of being exiled back to the
> beat.
>
> I really noticed this a few years ago when the tobacco companies were being
> grilled before congress. Ted Coppel was one-on-one-ing with the CEO of (I
Last week, Ted Koppel was interviewing BIll Gates and kept
asking him how the court decision affected him emotionally.
Gates never answered, of course. Koppel complained that
Gates was very good at staying on topic, but he wasn't
answering the question.
Gates said, "Well, we've enjoyed building software in the
United States..."
--
RM Mentock
Just 69 and I don't mind dying
Who do you love?
Nick Spalding
> This is something that's cheesed me off for as long as I can remember.
> Whenever I listen to or watch some [politician, usually] being
> interviewed, a question is inevitably asked that the interviewee either
> spins off of like a pro, or answers with some forked-tongue doubletalk
> that had nothing to do with the question. I don't think I have EVER
> heard the interviewer respond, "Well, that's very interesting, Senator,
> but would you like to actually answer the question I asked?"
>
> Are reporters so jaded that they don't even see this is happening? Have
> they been hearing this political spew for so long they're confusing it
> for an actual response? Am I expecting too much? Grrr...
There was a celebrated occasion on the BBC program Newsnight a few
years ago during the Conservative government when Michael Howard, then
Home Secretary I think, gave Jeremy Paxman such a weasel answer and
Jeremy simply asked the identical question again, and again, and again
- a total of thirteen times before giving up without ever getting a
straight answer.
--
Nick Spalding
Shawn Wilson
"Nick Spalding" <spal...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:cp31lsknf83bprauo...@4ax.com...
> There was a celebrated occasion on the BBC program Newsnight a few
> years ago during the Conservative government when Michael Howard, then
> Home Secretary I think, gave Jeremy Paxman such a weasel answer and
> Jeremy simply asked the identical question again, and again, and again
> - a total of thirteen times before giving up without ever getting a
> straight answer.
Which is another (along with only getting one shot at press conferences)
reason why reporters usually don't 'insist'. If the guy isn't going to
answer the first time he is extremely unlikely to answer it any other time
either.
Colin Rosenthal
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> wrote:
>There was a celebrated occasion on the BBC program Newsnight a few
>years ago during the Conservative government when Michael Howard, then
>Home Secretary I think, gave Jeremy Paxman such a weasel answer and
>Jeremy simply asked the identical question again, and again, and again
>- a total of thirteen times before giving up without ever getting a
>straight answer.
I'm reminded of another occasion some years ago when Sir Robin Day so
annoyed Margaret Thatcher during an interview that while she began by
calling him "Sir Robin" by the end she was calling him "Mr. Day". Was
it not also Robin Day's aggressive interviewing which prompted Defence
Secretary John Nott to walk out in the middle of a live-broadcast
interview during the Falklands conflict?
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Who the hell is this idiot?
He's a regular troll here abouts, who has recently changed his account to
get around people's kill files. You may have had him killfiled under
"Hpst...@aol.com<plus garbage he used to chage to get around kill files
before everyone tumbled to that one>". Going By the name "Dutch Courage",
he often spouts complete bullshit while drunk, as drunks are want to
do. Some people find his spouts amusing, most find him to be just the
flip side of Shawn Wilson. He is Pa Monkey to Shawn's Econo-monkey.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Margaret Kane
Mark Hanson wrote:
> This is something that's cheesed me off for as long as I can remember.
> Whenever I listen to or watch some [politician, usually] being
> interviewed, a question is inevitably asked that the interviewee either
> spins off of like a pro, or answers with some forked-tongue doubletalk
> that had nothing to do with the question. I don't think I have EVER
> heard the interviewer respond, "Well, that's very interesting, Senator,
> but would you like to actually answer the question I asked?"
>
> Are reporters so jaded that they don't even see this is happening? Have
> they been hearing this political spew for so long they're confusing it
> for an actual response? Am I expecting too much? Grrr...
>
> Mark
Well, there's a bunch of variables there. Depends on the reporter, the
pol, and the purpose of the interview. Some interviewers (I wouldn't
necessarily call them reporters) such as, oh, I don't know, Larry King?,
are known for tossing big fat softballs. He starts going hard on his
guests, they won't come on his show anymore.
But others are well known for being jerks. Sam Donaldson was famous for
this, and I wouldn't want to try to weasel out of a question before George
Will. The whole crew of 60 Minutes uses this all the time. I've even seen
Katie Couric go after people when the don't answer a question, and she's
hardly known as a toughie.
Sometimes, as a reporter, you might let an interviewee get away with this
once or twice, because that's not really the question you're concerned
about. If you really want to know X, you can ask a couple of questions
before that, get the person comfortable and then go after them. Sometimes
this works better.
Also, pestering someone to answer the question does happen, frequently, it
just makes for fairly boring television, unless you're Mike Wallace and the
guy starts blowing his top. What I've found to be the most successful is
just to keep asking the question in slightly different ways. That gets me
what I want, but I'm in print (well, HTML) so I don't have to transcribe
the 10 minutes of questioning that got me the one quote I needed.
But that method can also backfire spectacularly. I keep thinking of Jim
Gray, who got blasted by basically everyone in the country for going after
Pete Rose in this manner. Or take the whole Dan Rather/George Bush wimp
thing, or the 60 Minutes surprise interviews. You can get the response you
want, but if you come off looking like a jerk, it doesn't necessarily add
to the story.
Margaret
Dana Carpender
Table Topics (impromptu speaking -- answering a question sprung on you) we don't care
to speak to the question asked, that we can say something like, "I can't really speak
to that specifically, but... " and answer the question on the topic that we *want* to
answer. Changing the subject smoothly is a highly admired skill; we call it The
Toastmaster Shuffle in my club.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Dana Carpender
StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
> a - a scroll of news named adwo...@uic.edu (Arthur Wohlwill) .
> Read it? y
>
> >If you believe the movie, "The Insider", various tobacco execs lied under oath
> >about the addictiveness of cigarettes. If they will lie then, they will lie
> >anytime.
>
> And if you believe the movie Independence Day, aliens can make dead
> scientists talk like sock puppets...
And the President of the United States is stupid enough to stand around outside
with his family while huge chunks of flaming, radioactive metal fall out of the
sky.
Damn, that was one stupid movie.
wajohnc
>Mark Hanson wrote:
>
>> This is something that's cheesed me off for as long as I can
remember.
>> Whenever I listen to or watch some [politician, usually] being
>> interviewed, a question is inevitably asked that the
interviewee either
>> spins off of like a pro, or answers with some forked-tongue
doubletalk
>> that had nothing to do with the question. I don't think I have
EVER
>> heard the interviewer respond, "Well, that's very interesting,
Senator,
>> but would you like to actually answer the question I asked?"
>>
>> Are reporters so jaded that they don't even see this is
happening? Have
>> they been hearing this political spew for so long they're
confusing it
>> for an actual response? Am I expecting too much? Grrr...
>
few
>years ago during the Conservative government when Michael
Howard, then
>Home Secretary I think, gave Jeremy Paxman such a weasel answer
and
>Jeremy simply asked the identical question again, and again, and
again
>- a total of thirteen times before giving up without ever
getting a
>straight answer.
The beautiful BBC website has this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/talent/presenter/features/feat2.shtml
This also provides the little factoid that the reason that Paxo
was so persistent was that his producer had whispered in
the headphones that the next bit of tape wasn't ready yet and
that our Jeremy should carry on regardless.
John "like Paxman, hate Howard" Caldwell
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Helge Moulding
>People like you elect the sort of people that just fuck things up.
Am I to conclude that people like you don't bother to vote? What a
cross to have to bear! My heart bleeds. I'm surprised you aren't
living in a cave in Death Valley, preaching to the multitudes.
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
A man licensed to kill gophers
>In article <20000620192524...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
>mutigho...@aol.comgunga says...
>> Michael Lorton mlo...@civetsystems.com writes:
>>
>> >A, I hate to remind you, is A.
>>
>> Would someone give Steve Ditko here a box of crayons and a pile of blank
>paper
>> and tell him to shut the fuck up?
>>
>> Mutig "B is Bay, Bay, Bay, Bay" Hollander
>>
>>
>> Another thing, since you computer dorks barely know what the fuck you're
>doing
>> in your chosen profession, why the fuck do any of you think you know how
>the
>> fuck to run the fucking government?
>
>Well, Dutch, we can't fix the fucking government; we'd never get elected.
Huh. Maybe that's because you're a pale skinned smellyboy? Just a thought.
>People like you elect the sort of people that just fuck things up.
See, I think they do a generally fine job. I don't think you're qualified to
judge when things are fucked up, since you're a moron. Notice how badly you
muffed that "mutant registration act" thing. Notice how many of you shitheads
are out telling us about that "well, Clinton bombed them guys to distract
attention away from the hearings!" Yeah, right.
> You'd
>never elect anyone but one that gives platitudes.
Right, whaever.
> You, of course, could
>never get elected either.
Eh, i bet I could. I'm tall, handsome, I speak well, I can rile up a crowd,
chicks like me.
>.. the first time you spouted an honest opinion,
>your career would be over.
Well, there's Traficant. I mean, he at least believes what he says.
>
>FWIW, I DO know what I'm doing in my chosen profession.
Really? I doubt it. I've seen no evidence you know your ass from a hole in the
ground, like when you hold forth on anything not related to computers, huh?
> It's why I get
>the big $$$.
So when are you people going to make an OS that doesn't suck?
A man licensed to kill gophers
>
>Who the hell is this idiot?
Mike Lorton is a shithead. A pompous loudmouth who really has no business
here in the dope pages. He's mal-informed, as you can tell by checking all
factual statements in his posts, and likes to give himself a phony sense of
intelligence and superiority by reading "Reason," a snide wiseguy mag full of
unsupported snickering and quoting what he sees therein.
John Freiler is an equal dork, a shipping clerk at a trucking company, and you
can tell he's fatuous by the way he acts as though the NRA is something you'd
want to belong to.
Only the couple few smelly boys have me Killfiled, and only because they can't
hang.
Watch, and learn how it's done.
>
>A man licensed to kill gophers wrote:
>
>> Michael Lorton mlo...@civetsystems.com writes:
>>
>> >A, I hate to remind you, is A.
>>
>> Would someone give Steve Ditko here a box of crayons and a pile of blank
>paper
>> and tell him to shut the fuck up?
>>
>> Mutig "B is Bay, Bay, Bay, Bay" Hollander
>>
>> Another thing, since you computer dorks barely know what the fuck you're
>doing
>> in your chosen profession, why the fuck do any of you think you know how
>the
>> fuck to run the fucking government?
>>
A man licensed to kill gophers
>Mark Hanson <mpha...@erols.com> writes:
>
>> Who the hell is this idiot?
>
>He's an annoying person who changes his moniker every few months or so --
>whenever everyone has him killfiled.
How many people really have me killfiled anymore, and how many of them are
complete shitheads, like yourself?
Note the whooping you and Billy got on abortion?
But the "look, a baby!" story was cute.
Why is it, when I prove you wrong, like with the definition of a cynic, you
don't just say "huh, well, thanks. I learned some new shit." We could avoid
some bitterness and acrimony if you'd just grow up.
>
>> A man licensed to kill gophers wrote:
>
>> > Another thing, since you computer dorks barely know what the fuck you're
>doing
>> > in your chosen profession, why the fuck do any of you think you know how
>the
>> > fuck to run the fucking government?
>
>I'm in finance.
I liked the article in "reason," about how the commies didn't get treated mean
enough in US Films, putting aside your Red Dawns and Rocky IV's and Manchurian
canidates, and wondering why the commies werent made to look even worse in
"unbearable lightness of being" and not mentioned at all in "Home Alone II."
But hide behind your killfile, that way you can pretend to be smart, anyway.
WAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
GrapeApe
>Last week, Ted Koppel was interviewing BIll Gates and kept
>asking him how the court decision affected him emotionally.
>Gates never answered, of course. Koppel complained that
>Gates was very good at staying on topic, but he wasn't
>answering the question.
I think Gates has slowed down on one particular abuse of the language, but I
wish some journalist would call him on the defintion of 'innovation'.
StarChaser_Tyger
Read it? y
>
>
>StarChaser_Tyger wrote:
>
>> a - a scroll of news named adwo...@uic.edu (Arthur Wohlwill) .
>> Read it? y
>>
>> >If you believe the movie, "The Insider", various tobacco execs lied under oath
>> >about the addictiveness of cigarettes. If they will lie then, they will lie
>> >anytime.
>>
>> And if you believe the movie Independence Day, aliens can make dead
>> scientists talk like sock puppets...
>
>And the President of the United States is stupid enough to stand around outside
>with his family while huge chunks of flaming, radioactive metal fall out of the
>sky.
>
>Damn, that was one stupid movie.
<grin> And a blast that destroys most of LA and kills everyone in it
won't harm the palm trees...
Dr H
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Helge Moulding wrote:
}Tim Robinson wrote,
}>People like you elect the sort of people that just fuck things up.
}
}Am I to conclude that people like you don't bother to vote? What a
}cross to have to bear! My heart bleeds. I'm surprised you aren't
}living in a cave in Death Valley, preaching to the multitudes.
Multitudes in Death Valley?
Dr H
Dana Carpender
Dr H wrote:
No, no. You lead the multitudes *to* Death Valley, and go down into the
bottomless pit to wait for Helter Skelter...
Helge Moulding
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Helge Moulding wrote:
>}Tim Robinson wrote,
>}>People like you elect the sort of people that just fuck things up.
>}Am I to conclude that people like you don't bother to vote? What a
>}cross to have to bear! My heart bleeds. I'm surprised you aren't
>}living in a cave in Death Valley, preaching to the multitudes.
> Multitudes in Death Valley?
What, you don't think Tim Robinson would draw crowds?
--
Helge "Give him a crayon and stand back!" Moulding
Mark Hanson
...And an object "...one quarter the mass of the moon..." had no adverse
gravitational effect whatsoever on the Earth itself.
...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't simply barbecue
the Earth as it shed velocity.
Dumb, yeah, but -- I admit it -- kinda fun. Had trouble remembering what had happened
a few days later though.
Mark
Tim Robinson
mutigho...@aol.comgunga says...
> Tim Robinson bo...@see.sig writes:
>
> >In article <20000620192524...@ng-fs1.aol.com>,
> >mutigho...@aol.comgunga says...
> >>
> >> >A, I hate to remind you, is A.
> >>
> >> Would someone give Steve Ditko here a box of crayons and a pile of blank
> >paper
> >> and tell him to shut the fuck up?
> >>
> >> Mutig "B is Bay, Bay, Bay, Bay" Hollander
> >>
> >>
> >doing
> >> in your chosen profession, why the fuck do any of you think you know how
> >the
> >> fuck to run the fucking government?
> >
>
> Huh. Maybe that's because you're a pale skinned smellyboy? Just a thought.
>
>
> judge when things are fucked up, since you're a moron. Notice how badly you
> muffed that "mutant registration act" thing. Notice how many of you shitheads
> are out telling us about that "well, Clinton bombed them guys to distract
> attention away from the hearings!" Yeah, right.
The "mutant registration act" thing was asked because I've heard stranger
things ("I invented the internet", "It depends on what your definition of
'is' is," etc.). I don't do the TV thing at all, and definitely not
comics. That you knew the gag clearly indicates your real choice of
literature.
> >FWIW, I DO know what I'm doing in my chosen profession.
>
> Really? I doubt it. I've seen no evidence you know your ass from a hole in the
> ground, like when you hold forth on anything not related to computers, huh?
I have no particular reason to spend my time giving your my resume.
>
> > It's why I get
> >the big $$$.
>
> So when are you people going to make an OS that doesn't suck?
I did, however, write some software designed to run 24/7 and the O/S
ultimately failed before my software did. That makes me qualified. You
pony up the $$$ and I'll write an O/S for you.
deepstblu
>
> Dr H wrote in message ...
> >On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Helge Moulding wrote:
> >}Tim Robinson wrote,
> >}cross to have to bear! My heart bleeds. I'm surprised you aren't
> >}living in a cave in Death Valley, preaching to the multitudes.
> > Multitudes in Death Valley?
>
> What, you don't think Tim Robinson would draw crowds?
Not now that he's revealed his intent to go postal...
Mark Hanson
reporter's duty is -- in my dream world, perhaps -- to inform the public. If
some pol is truly a worthless cypher, capable of spewing nothing but
meaningless platitudes, then it's that reporter's duty to let the public know
it. (Assuming the public even cares -- not much evidence that they do.)
Mark
Tim Robinson
deepstblu+itma...@sprynet.com says...
OMG... I feel outed. Are you all expecting a rambling manifesto now? If
Dutch had some wit, he'd point that all my usenet posts qualify. Since
he doesn't and simply has to resort to profanity, I did it for him.
Tim Robinson
> Tim Robinson bo...@see.sig writes:
>
> >The "mutant registration act" thing was asked because I've heard stranger
> >things
>
>
> > ("I invented the internet",
>
>
> > "It depends on what your definition of
> >'is' is," etc.).
>
> nunya bidness, and would you quit wasting the people's time and money if you
> can't dig up any dirt?"
>
> > I don't do the TV thing at all, and definitely not
> >comics.
>
> superpowers threaten society" than "legislation facilitates development of
> technology" or "person evasive during discovery hearing."
>
> >p That you knew the gag clearly indicates your real choice of
> >literature.
> >
>
> When I was 13...
>
> >> >FWIW, I DO know what I'm doing in my chosen profession.
> >>
> >> Really? I doubt it. I've seen no evidence you know your ass from a hole in
> >the
> >> ground, like when you hold forth on anything not related to computers, huh?
> >
> >I have no particular reason to spend my time giving your my resume.
>
> fucking windows 98 make more money than you do.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > It's why I get
> >> >the big $$$.
> >>
> >> So when are you people going to make an OS that doesn't suck?
> >
> >I did, however, write some software designed to run 24/7 and the O/S
> >ultimately failed before my software did. That makes me qualified.
>
>
> > You
> >pony up the $$$ and I'll write an O/S for you.
>
>
> ::Adds "computer dorks" to "cabdrivers" and "barbers" on the list of "people
> who ought to shut the fuck up, and do the job they're barely qualified to
> do."::
Maintenance people too?
Tim Robinson
> Tim Robinson bo...@see.sig writes:
>
>
> Hell, Tim, I read all day. I don't just whack off with Reason like you and
> Lorto do.
I happen to like my 8x10 color glossy of Virginia Postrel. But you can
feel free to continue to whack off to Veterinary Digest and American
Girl. I certainly won't try to stop you.
> But keep swinging, kid, yer doin' great.
Thanks.
> Really, you'd be a lot further on the path to personal growth if you'd spend
> the first ten minutes of the day staring into the mirror going "I am a total
> shit head. I should remember this when evaluating my initial reaction to or
> opinion of anything that comes up"
Those sound like words of experience from someone who has truly been
there. I'll think on it. I take it that advice has worked well for you?
> And that's one to grow on.
I guess so.
A man licensed to kill gophers
A man licensed to kill gophers
When one team from one conference clinches the title, and is awaiting the
winner of the other semifinal game, they never come out and say "well,
Pittsburgh, because of how we match up."
Larry did say "LA" of course, and why not? We all knew.
Arminius
adwo...@uic.edu (Arthur Wohlwill) wrote:
> If you believe the movie, "The Insider", various tobacco execs lied
under oath
> about the addictiveness of cigarettes. If they will lie then, they
will lie
> anytime.
Didn't have to watch _The Insider_, friend. I saw it on the evening
news.
In their "defense", most people will lie their tails off to save their
livelihoods. (That's also the "Goodfellas" definition of a rat, but
hey...) I recall the initial release of Windows 95 when Gates said, on
national TV, that it would run with 4MB of RAM.
--
Arminius
So why did I do it? I could offer a million answers - all false.
The truth is that I'm a bad person.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
@bwu.edu Boron Elgar
wrote:
>--
>Tim Robinson <timt...@ionet.net>
>http://www.ionet.net/~timtroyr
>Would I be an optimist or a pessimist if I said my bladder was half full?
Well..I dunno about optimist or pessimist or your bladder...but I
would be remiss if I didn't say that several of your posts have surely
indicated to me the full condition of your colon.
Boron
A man licensed to kill gophers
>If
>Dutch had some wit, he'd point that all my usenet posts qualify. Since
>he doesn't and simply has to resort to profanity, I did it for him.
Please keep in mind that what passes for clever among smellyboys, namely the
ability to quote long passages of Monty Python sketches back and forth, ain't
what we call "funny" out here in the wilderness of North America.
A man licensed to kill gophers
>Maintenance people too?
Hell, Tim, I read all day. I don't just whack off with Reason like you and
Lorto do.
But keep swinging, kid, yer doin' great.
Really, you'd be a lot further on the path to personal growth if you'd spend
the first ten minutes of the day staring into the mirror going "I am a total
shit head. I should remember this when evaluating my initial reaction to or
opinion of anything that comes up"
And that's one to grow on.
A man licensed to kill gophers
>In article <20000621235003...@ng-cb1.aol.com>,
>mutigho...@aol.comgunga says...
>> Tim Robinson bo...@see.sig writes:
>>
>> >Maintenance people too?
>>
>> Hell, Tim, I read all day. I don't just whack off with Reason like you and
>> Lorto do.
>
>I happen to like my 8x10 color glossy of Virginia Postrel.
I look at her, and all I can think is "Pork, the other white meat."
> But you can
>feel free to continue to whack off to Veterinary Digest and American
>Girl. I certainly won't try to stop you.
Speaking of which, i had a swell idea for a magazine. Provocatively dressed
but not nude pictures of girls between 13 and 17. Would that be legal? I think
I'd clean up.
>
>> But keep swinging, kid, yer doin' great.
>
>Thanks.
Oh, when you gonna find me a cite on virtual meaning "not in fact," and that's
why companies say it, so they can wiggle out of a lawsuit, cause I think you
fucked up, again.
>
>> Really, you'd be a lot further on the path to personal growth if you'd
>spend
>> the first ten minutes of the day staring into the mirror going "I am a
>total
>> shit head. I should remember this when evaluating my initial reaction to or
>> opinion of anything that comes up"
>
>Those sound like words of experience from someone who has truly been
>there.
Yepper.
> I'll think on it. I take it that advice has worked well for you?
I sure communicate better with the wait staff, smellyboy.
Check this shit out:
http://www.nationalpost.com/artslife.asp?f=990908/74176.html
>> And that's one to grow on.
>
>I guess so.
Tell Lorton I said it would be nice if he ever cited anything.
Gary S. Callison
: adwo...@uic.edu (Arthur Wohlwill) wrote:
: > If you believe the movie, "The Insider", various tobacco execs lied
: > under oath about the addictiveness of cigarettes. If they will lie
: > then, they will lie anytime.
: Didn't have to watch _The Insider_, friend. I saw it on the evening
: news.
: In their "defense", most people will lie their tails off to save their
: livelihoods. (That's also the "Goodfellas" definition of a rat, but
: hey...) I recall the initial release of Windows 95 when Gates said, on
: national TV, that it would run with 4MB of RAM.
In the spirit of truth (albeit in defense of The Great Satan) allow me to
point out that this is not, in fact, a lie. I never got W95 to *build* in
4M, but it'll build in 8M and then run in 4, for various values of 'run'.
I built it on a 486DX33 just to see if it was possible, because (at the
time) I had customers who would occasionally ask for such a stupid thing,
my recommendations to the contrary.
Also, if you're one of those people who really thinks that the world is
spinning way too fast and we all need to stop and smell the roses, Office
4.3 on top of WFW3.11 will run in 2M. Well, not 'run' per se, more like
crawl-somewhat-haltingly...
--
Huey
mlo...@area51.bcgsystems.com
> See, I think they do a generally fine job. I don't think you're qualified to
> judge when things are fucked up, since you're a moron. Notice how badly you
> muffed that "mutant registration act" thing. Notice how many of you shitheads
> are out telling us about that "well, Clinton bombed them guys to distract
> attention away from the hearings!" Yeah, right.
Tim doesn't read comic books. He see a rather _weird_ URL on TV and ask
about what, on the face of it, is a net kook page. He asks the largest
number of people that are likely to have some idea about net-kookdome he
knows. This is your idea of "muffing" something? Asking about something
out side of your experience?
Whatever....
--
Silliness is the last refuge of the doomed. P. Opus
GAT d-- s:- a40 UL+++$ P++$ L+++$ E- W+++$ N++ K++ w---(++)$ O- M- V-- PS+
PE++ Y PGP t++ 5 X R+++$ tv+ b++++ DI+++ D G+ e+ h--- r+++ y+++(**)$
Bob Code:KHCPkpdh- lWdHo ECs-++ m4 CPEIVWc B-18 Ol LS SsC++ Tx A7T H9o b8 D1
Arminius
Very technically, of course, you are right. W95 will 'run' on 4MB in
the same way that New York is walking distance from Chicago.
Thanks for the tech notes--very informative.
CyberSybar2
> Speaking of which, i had a swell idea for a magazine. Provocatively dressed
>but not nude pictures of girls between 13 and 17. Would that be legal? I
>think
>I'd clean up.
Well, but Brittney Spears beat you to the idea, and she's on video.
Cyber(Oh, Lolita)sybar
kitteridge
Noted, viz a viz Independence Day's gross inconsistencies/impossibilities:
>...And an object "...one quarter the mass of the moon..." had no adverse
>gravitational effect whatsoever on the Earth itself.
>
>...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't simply
>barbecue
>the Earth as it shed velocity.
Now, I'm curious but I'm also a physics moron, so please speak slowly and
carefully, if you will -- but can you explain why an object a quarter mass of
the moon would affect the Earth's gravitation? I think I may know this -- that
the Earth would start being pulled towards the object? If so, are we pulled to
the moon? I'm not sure how this works.
Secondly, the other thing you mentioned -- about the object shedding velocity
and barbecuing the earth -- also has me intrigued, but why would it do that?
I'd love to know this stuff!
Thanks,
Kitt
GrapeApe
>and barbecuing the earth -- also has me intrigued, but why would it do that?
Friction, or what ever helps it stop, with that energy probably sliding over to
the barbeque everything around you side of the equation.
Dana Carpender
kitteridge wrote:
> >From: Mark Hanson mpha...@erols.com
>
> Noted, viz a viz Independence Day's gross inconsistencies/impossibilities:
>
> >...And an object "...one quarter the mass of the moon..." had no adverse
> >gravitational effect whatsoever on the Earth itself.
> >
> >...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't simply
> >barbecue
> >the Earth as it shed velocity.
>
> Now, I'm curious but I'm also a physics moron, so please speak slowly and
> carefully, if you will -- but can you explain why an object a quarter mass of
> the moon would affect the Earth's gravitation? I think I may know this -- that
> the Earth would start being pulled towards the object? If so, are we pulled to
> the moon? I'm not sure how this works.
Sure we are. Causes tides.
I'm thinking something that big, that *close* (much closer than our moon) would
exert it's own gravitational pull, causing things under it to weigh lighter,
because Earth's gravity would be somewhat counter-balanced. Or am I a total
moron, here?
Helge Moulding
>are we pulled to the moon? I'm not sure how this works.
Universal gravitation. Newton took out the patent about 300
years ago, and it's been all the rage since.
I'm sure you've seen the pictures: a cannon on a mountain top,
and a cannon ball is fired at ever increasing muzzle velocities,
until finally the ball just keeps falling around the Earth.
Newton's *universal* gravitation said that all bodies in the
universe have this effect on each other.
Newton had first pointed out that "bodies in motion move in
a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force." The
Earth and Moon are in motion, and the reason why they don't
move in a straight line is because the force of gravity that
attracts each body to the other makes them fall towards each
other. The Earth and Moon orbit each other about a common
center of gravity, about 3000 miles towards the Moon from the Earth's
center, on a line connecting the two bodies. New
>
>Secondly, the other thing you mentioned -- about the object shedding
velocity
>and barbecuing the earth -- also has me intrigued, but why would it do
that?
>
>I'd love to know this stuff!
>
>Thanks,
>Kitt
>
>
>
>
--
Helge "" Moulding
Helge Moulding
As I was saying,
The Earth and Moon orbit each other about a common center of
gravity due to their gravitational attraction to each other.
>Secondly, the other thing you mentioned -- about the object
>shedding velocity and barbecuing the earth -- also has me
>intrigued, but why would it do that?
A body with 1/4 the Moon's mass and arriving with any kind
of velocity has a huge amount of kinetic energy. Where's that
going to go when that body "stops" in Earth orbit? Heat is
the usual result when shedding kinetic energy, whether it is
by banging into something or firing retro rockets or holding
onto a brake disk. Stop something as big as that, and that
means a whole lot of heat.
Of course, that's the sort of objection you'd have to any
science fictional method of "reactionless" propulsion.
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
--
Helge "" Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
Helge Moulding wrote in message <8itu3i$35c$1...@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>...
John S. Colton
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
...
>The Earth and Moon orbit each other about a common center of
>gravity due to their gravitational attraction to each other.
...
I suspect the major gravitational impact the massive object would
have, is messing up the tides.
John
John S. Colton
wrote:
>
>
>kitteridge wrote:
>
>> >From: Mark Hanson mpha...@erols.com
>>
>> Noted, viz a viz Independence Day's gross inconsistencies/impossibilities:
>>
>> >...And an object "...one quarter the mass of the moon..." had no adverse
>> >gravitational effect whatsoever on the Earth itself.
>> >
>> >...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't simply
>> >barbecue
>> >the Earth as it shed velocity.
>>
>> Now, I'm curious but I'm also a physics moron, so please speak slowly and
>> carefully, if you will -- but can you explain why an object a quarter mass of
>> the moon would affect the Earth's gravitation? I think I may know this -- that
>> the Earth would start being pulled towards the object? If so, are we pulled to
>> the moon? I'm not sure how this works.
>
>Sure we are. Causes tides.
>
>I'm thinking something that big, that *close* (much closer than our moon) would
>exert it's own gravitational pull, causing things under it to weigh lighter,
>because Earth's gravity would be somewhat counter-balanced. Or am I a total
>moron, here?
Dana, this is the second post I've seen from you today that's gotten
messed up "Perry-style". I.e., posting a whole new thread instead of
being neatly filed under the appropriate thread. Have you recently
switched newsreaders?
Has anyone else noticed this problem, or is the fault with my own
newsreader?
John
John S. Colton
wrote:
>
>
>kitteridge wrote:
>
>> >From: Mark Hanson mpha...@erols.com
>>
>> Noted, viz a viz Independence Day's gross inconsistencies/impossibilities:
>>
>> >...And an object "...one quarter the mass of the moon..." had no adverse
>> >gravitational effect whatsoever on the Earth itself.
>> >
>> >...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't simply
>> >barbecue
>> >the Earth as it shed velocity.
>>
>> Now, I'm curious but I'm also a physics moron, so please speak slowly and
>> carefully, if you will -- but can you explain why an object a quarter mass of
>> the moon would affect the Earth's gravitation? I think I may know this -- that
>> the Earth would start being pulled towards the object? If so, are we pulled to
>> the moon? I'm not sure how this works.
>
>Sure we are. Causes tides.
>
>I'm thinking something that big, that *close* (much closer than our moon) would
>exert it's own gravitational pull, causing things under it to weigh lighter,
>because Earth's gravity would be somewhat counter-balanced. Or am I a total
>moron, here?
Depends how close it is. Look at it this way: the moon's surface
gravity is about 1/6 "normal" (earth's surface) gravity. Therefore,
with an object 1/4 the mass of the moon, if you are at one Moon-radius
far away from its center, you'll feel an additional effect of 1/24
"normal" (additional to the regular earth gravity, I mean). If you are
closer or further apart than that, the effect will be
increased/decreased according to the 1/R^2 law.
John
Mark Hanson
Mark Hanson
writing, "Um, well, um, er..." I knew WHAT would happen, though I'd have been
hard-pressed to say WHY.
Here's another one: the giant daughter ship hovering weightlessly over LA. Nope.
(This one's easier.) "Weightlessness" isn't "masslessness." Something has to keep
the ship floating in the air. If it isn't a long cable attached to the mother
ship, then the smaller ship must be exerting downward pressure. The downforce from
a ship with that much size and mass would easily squash anything beneath it.
There'd have been no need to nuke the city later; it would already have been
destroyed.
(Wasn't "Armageddon" -- my personal pick for Worst Movie of the 90s -- equally
scientifically "accurate"?)
Mark
Helge Moulding
>Helge Moulding wrote:
>> Of course, that's the sort of objection you'd have to any
>> science fictional method of "reactionless" propulsion.
>And wouldn't that make for boring reading?
If you mean to say that bad science in SF is exciting, then
I'd have to disagree.
Bad science is exasperating. Infuriating. Often maddening.
The reason why most fans of SF don't balk at Star Wars or
Star Trek type stuff is because they are already established
fairytales. New stuff that makes the same errors is not
usually successful.
For that matter, I think that to date not a single Star Wars
or Star Trek novel has been nominated for the Hugo (by the
fans), nor for the Nebula (by the SFWA). My favorite of this
year's Hugo nominees, _A Deepness in the Sky_, kept me
sleepless, though its space travel technology involved
nothing more incredible than sublight ramjet fusion and
cryogenic hibernation.
Helge Moulding
><sigh> Why can't all SF be like Vernor Vinge </sigh>
Well, that *would* be boring. No flies on VV, but there are
a number of SF authors who write great stuff, and nothing
like VV.
Mark Hanson
> Mark Hanson wrote in message <39528A0C...@erols.com>...
> >Helge Moulding wrote:
> >> Of course, that's the sort of objection you'd have to any
> >> science fictional method of "reactionless" propulsion.
> >And wouldn't that make for boring reading?
>
> If you mean to say that bad science in SF is exciting, then
> I'd have to disagree.
That's not even remotely what I meant. I merely suggested that a SF
novel featuring interstellar travel using realistic technology wouldn't
be very interesting, becuase it would take 10,000 years to get to Alpha
Centauri.
> Bad science is exasperating. Infuriating. Often maddening.
Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily make the book bad. The Earth rotating
backwards in "Ringworld" didn't make the book stink -- unless you
thought the book stunk anyway, in which case the corrected text probably
wouldn't have helped.
> The reason why most fans of SF don't balk at Star Wars or
> Star Trek type stuff is because they are already established
> fairytales. New stuff that makes the same errors is not
> usually successful.
Star Wars is pretty silly, agreed. Partly because it owes more to high
fantasy and westerns than SF; and partly because George Lucas is a poor
writer. You'd be surprised, though, how much stuff the Star Trek writers
accidently get right. Yeah, antimatter really IS the best fuel out
there, though they never quite explain how it's manufactured in
sufficient quantities...
> For that matter, I think that to date not a single Star Wars
> or Star Trek novel has been nominated for the Hugo (by the
> fans), nor for the Nebula (by the SFWA).
And this proves what? Foundation's Edge and Tehanu won Hugos; L. Rob
Hubbard's been nominated for them. Having been to several conventions, I
hardly think the dross at your average Worldcon is competent to vote for
anything, much less the best novel of the year. And the authors
certainly aren't going to award a Nebula to a media tie-in, even if the
book IS worthy. (And there are good Star Trek books; Barbary Hambly has
written several.)
> My favorite of this
> year's Hugo nominees, _A Deepness in the Sky_, kept me
> sleepless, though its space travel technology involved
> nothing more incredible than sublight ramjet fusion and
> cryogenic hibernation.
I haven't read it, though "A Fire Upon the Deep" is near the top of my
to-read list. Some day.
Mark
Dr H
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Tim Robinson wrote:
}mutigho...@aol.comgunga says...
}>
}> See, I think they do a generally fine job. I don't think you're qualified to
}> judge when things are fucked up, since you're a moron. Notice how badly you
}> muffed that "mutant registration act" thing. Notice how many of you shitheads
}> are out telling us about that "well, Clinton bombed them guys to distract
}> attention away from the hearings!" Yeah, right.
}
}The "mutant registration act" thing was asked because I've heard stranger
}things ("I invented the internet", "It depends on what your definition of
}'is' is," etc.). I don't do the TV thing at all, and definitely not
}comics. That you knew the gag clearly indicates your real choice of
}literature.
Hey now! Nothing wrong with reading comic books, so long as they
don't represent one's /entire/ literary input. (Gotta get some
tech manuals in there, too. ;-)
Dr H
Dr H
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Helge Moulding wrote:
}Dr H wrote in message ...
}>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Helge Moulding wrote:
}>}Tim Robinson wrote,
}>}>People like you elect the sort of people that just fuck things up.
}>}Am I to conclude that people like you don't bother to vote? What a
}>}cross to have to bear! My heart bleeds. I'm surprised you aren't
}>}living in a cave in Death Valley, preaching to the multitudes.
}> Multitudes in Death Valley?
}
}What, you don't think Tim Robinson would draw crowds?
If he's good enough to draw crows to Death Valley in the summer,
he's probably good enough to get elected.
Or in-with-God, depending on his pitch.
Dr H
John Hopkin
>messed up "Perry-style". I.e., posting a whole new thread instead of
>being neatly filed under the appropriate thread. Have you recently
>switched newsreaders?
>
>Has anyone else noticed this problem, or is the fault with my own
>newsreader?
Looks fine to me on M$ Outlook, but then so do Perry's recent posts. The
thot plickens ...
John Hopkin
John S. Colton
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>Mark Hanson wrote in message <39528A0C...@erols.com>...
>>Helge Moulding wrote:
>>> Of course, that's the sort of objection you'd have to any
>>> science fictional method of "reactionless" propulsion.
>>And wouldn't that make for boring reading?
>
>If you mean to say that bad science in SF is exciting, then
>I'd have to disagree.
>
>Bad science is exasperating. Infuriating. Often maddening.
>
>The reason why most fans of SF don't balk at Star Wars or
>Star Trek type stuff is because they are already established
>fairytales. New stuff that makes the same errors is not
>usually successful.
>
>For that matter, I think that to date not a single Star Wars
>or Star Trek novel has been nominated for the Hugo (by the
>fans), nor for the Nebula (by the SFWA). My favorite of this
>year's Hugo nominees, _A Deepness in the Sky_, kept me
>sleepless, though its space travel technology involved
>nothing more incredible than sublight ramjet fusion and
>cryogenic hibernation.
<sigh> Why can't all SF be like Vernor Vinge </sigh>
John
A man licensed to kill gophers
>For that matter, I think that to date not a single Star Wars
>or Star Trek novel has been nominated for the Hugo (by the
>fans), nor for the Nebula (by the SFWA).
On the other hand, if there's one place the awarding thing doesn't belong,
it's genre. Or perhaps thats where it belongs, since convention exploitation
can be compared one thing to another, while it's harder to say why you like
Joyce better than Fitzgerald without waxing poetic.
>My favorite of this
>year's Hugo nominees, _A Deepness in the Sky_, kept me
>sleepless, though its space travel technology involved
>nothing more incredible than sublight ramjet fusion and
>cryogenic hibernation.
Well, you can have that. Gimme the Flash Gordon.
Mark Brader
of the subthread, which started when "Starchaser", whoever that is, said:
>>> And if you believe the movie Independence Day, aliens can make dead
And Dana Carpender said:
>> And the President of the United States is stupid enough to stand
>> around outside with his family while huge chunks of flaming,
>> radioactive metal fall out of the sky.
And Mark Hanson writes:
> ...And you can hack into an intergalactic alien battleship with a Powerbook.
Which are fair points of criticism against what was nevertheless a superb
work of entertainment. (If you expected serious science fiction, I'd say
you went to the wrong movie.)
But Mark continues:
> ...And an object "...one quarter the mass of the moon..." had no adverse
> gravitational effect whatsoever on the Earth itself.
Which is nonsense. Why should there be an effect significant enough to
depict in the movie? No reason. As John Colton writes:
| I suspect the major gravitational impact the massive object would
| have, is messing up the tides.
And that's about it. Well, that and a small change in the Moon's orbit.
Now, how concerned are how many people going to be consider about that
sort of thing when *our whole civilization is under attack*?!
"Kitteridge", whoever that is, wrote:
)) Now, I'm curious but I'm also a physics moron, so please speak slowly
)) and carefully, if you will -- but can you explain why an object a
)) quarter mass of the moon would affect the Earth's gravitation?
It wouldn't. It would cause a tidal effect, as the Moon and Sun do.
)) I think I may know this -- that the Earth would start being pulled towards
)) the object?
Yes, but not to an important degree.
)) If so, are we pulled to the moon? I'm not sure how this works.
And Dana answered:
) Sure we are.
Which is right, and
) Causes tides.
Which is at best partly right. You don't get tides just from being in a
gravitational field. You get tides from having a *body of significant
length* in a gravitiational field. We experience tides because we're
in the gravitational fields of the Moon and Sun *and are 4000 miles from
the center of the Earth*.
) I'm thinking something that big, that *close* (much closer than our
) moon)
Er, it wasn't all *that* close, as I recall.
) would exert it's own gravitational pull, causing things under it to
) weigh lighter, because Earth's gravity would be somewhat counter-
) balanced. Or am I a total moron, here?
Yep, afraid so. If it was very close you might get noticeable lightening
of things under it due to the tide; in that case you would also get
devastating earthquakes, at the least. Other than the effects of that
little 4,000-mile offset, you and the Earth are attracted to the body
as a unit, so you don't see any difference in your weight with respect
to the Earth.
Look at it this way. The Sun has *100,000,000* times the mass of the
alien spaceship. Do things get lighter at noon? Er, that is, I mean,
do things weigh less at noon?
Mark also wrote:
> ...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't
> simply barbecue the Earth as it shed velocity.
What makes you think it's exerting a reaction on the *Earth* to shed
velocity? Maybe it's reacting against the Sun, for instance. There's
no physical reason why it shouldn't do that. *We* don't know how to
do it, but we're talking about an alien starship; it would *have* to
be able to do things we don't know how to do.
In a later article, Mark added:
+ I see others answerd this one nicely.
No, they didn't.
+ Thanks for sparing me the embarassment of writing, "Um, well, um, er..."
+ I knew WHAT would happen, though I'd have been hard-pressed to say WHY.
What DO you think would happen?
+ Here's another one: the giant daughter ship hovering weightlessly over
+ LA. Nope. (This one's easier.) "Weightlessness" isn't "masslessness."
+ Something has to keep the ship floating in the air. ... [so it] must
+ be exerting downward pressure.
It's a spaceship with unknown technology, not a helicopter. The hovering
mechanism is probably designed to react against a large piece of the
planet, not just the surface underneath it. Otherwise what would happen
if they wanted to hover over *friendly* territory?
+ (Wasn't "Armageddon" -- my personal pick for Worst Movie of the 90s --
+ equally scientifically "accurate"?)
Compared to Armageddon, Independence Day was a masterpiece of hard
science fiction.
--
Mark Brader "After all, it is necessary to get behind
Toronto someone before you can stab them in the back."
m...@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes, Prime Minister"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Helge Moulding
>You'd be surprised, though, how much stuff the Star Trek
>writers accidently get right. Yeah, antimatter really IS
>the best fuel out there, though they never quite explain
>how it's manufactured in sufficient quantities...
Currently antimatter takes a huge amount of energy to
produce, much more than is released by its annihilation.
The real problem is, as far as I can tell, that antimatter
can't be stored safely. Positrons and anti-protons are
easy enough (relatively speaking) to sock away in magnetic
confinement, but anti-hydrogen, for example, can't be put
in a bottle.
In SF the anti-matter notion is pretty ancient. One elder
writer called it "contra-terrene," I think. C-T.
RM Mentock
> ) I'm thinking something that big, that *close* (much closer than our
> ) moon)
>
> Er, it wasn't all *that* close, as I recall.
How close was it?
> ) would exert it's own gravitational pull, causing things under it to
> ) weigh lighter, because Earth's gravity would be somewhat counter-
> ) balanced. Or am I a total moron, here?
>
> Yep, afraid so. If it was very close you might get noticeable lightening
> of things under it due to the tide; in that case you would also get
> devastating earthquakes, at the least. Other than the effects of that
> little 4,000-mile offset, you and the Earth are attracted to the body
> as a unit, so you don't see any difference in your weight with respect
> to the Earth.
>
> Look at it this way. The Sun has *100,000,000* times the mass of the
> alien spaceship. Do things get lighter at noon? Er, that is, I mean,
> do things weigh less at noon?
Well, yes, that's what the tide is. Except the moon
has twice as much influence as the sun--so the effect
is strongest at noon with a new or full moon.
A quarter of the mass of the moon?? I had to look
that one up. Yep, other sources say that too. But
it's only 550 km long--that means it's what, 100
times as dense as the moon? And it was partly
hollow.
That mother ship was in geosync orbit. The tide-raising
power of a quarter lunar mass would be 250 times that of
the moon--but there would be no tides, since it was in
geosync. Definitely large earthquakes though, and
the oceans would've swamped the coastal areas until the
crust adjusted.
--
RM Mentock
http://bob.bob.bofh.org/~cube/party/f-iday.html
Just 69 and I don't mind dying
Who do you love?
John S. Colton
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>John S. Colton wrote, anent _A Deepness in the Sky_,
>><sigh> Why can't all SF be like Vernor Vinge </sigh>
>
>Well, that *would* be boring. No flies on VV, but there are
>a number of SF authors who write great stuff, and nothing
>like VV.
Well, I meant:
... as far as good plot, good characters, for the most part good
science, and where the science/technology is extremely speculative at
least he maintains self-consistency.
John
John S. Colton
wrote:
[snip]
>I haven't read it, though "A Fire Upon the Deep" is near the top of my
>to-read list. Some day.
I'd move it up to the top. Fire Upon the Deep is reigning as my
"favorite science fiction book ever".
John
kayak
science. And even then, it's possible to excuse a lot.
Recently it was shown that the distorting-space trick a French
physicist came up with to achieve "warp drive"would take more
energy than a galaxy produces. So what? You just assume you've
got that kind of power, and you have the backdrop to a decent
story.
I love Heinlein's "And He Built a Crooked House" even though the
"science" is nonsensical. It's still a wonderfully imaginative
tale.
What makes such stories succeed is the skill of the author in
persuading you to suspend disbelief. Transporters, which carry so
much of the plot in Star Trek, aren't possible, given what we
know of physics and biology, but it doesn't stop physicists from
enjoying a good Star Trek episode.
Michael Edelman
------------------
http://www.foldingkayaks.org (nomadics)
http://findascope.com (buying a telescope)
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
kayak
full of just that kind of really aggressive questioning. You
youngsters have short memories ;-)
One thing that's happened in the last decade is a very troubling
sort of fraternizing between the media and politicians. Reporters
want to insure they're invited on the press flights and allowed
into the press room, not to menion invited to State dinners and
other big hoedowns, so they go easy. Consider Barbara Walters
interviewing Hillary or Bill- two of the most famous suckup jobs
in recorded history.
There's so much movement between the worlds of show biz oand
politics now it's almost like one big family. Those who don't
play this game get shunted out of the loop. Two ex-Clinton press
secretaries are in the media biz now. George Stephenopolous is
still making excuses for Clinton and has a high profile. Didi
Meyers was very critical of many of Clinton's acts- and she
hasn't been heard from in a loooong time.
Gary S. Callison
: Very technically, of course, you are right. W95 will 'run' on 4MB in
: the same way that New York is walking distance from Chicago.
Well, not as such. I _have_ actually run W95 in 4M, while I'd never try to
walk to New York. Better metaphor would be something along the lines of
getting a tooth drilled. Yes, you can do it- but if you want to do it
you're a little wierd, and if you want to do it every day someone needs to
hit you in the head with a hammer, or perhaps hit your computer's hard
drive square in the heads with a hammer...
: Thanks for the tech notes--very informative.
De nada.
--
Huey
Mark Brader
> > ) I'm thinking something that big, that *close* (much closer than our
> > ) moon)
Mark Brader (that's me) wrote:
> > Er, it wasn't all *that* close, as I recall.
R.M. Mentock writes:
> How close was it?
And later answers himself:
> That mother ship was in geosync orbit...
If this is right, I retract the point -- that would be close enough to
cause devastating tides. But I thought a distance was given that was
much farther out, something over 100,000 miles anyway.
> > Look at it this way. The Sun has *100,000,000* times the mass of the
> > alien spaceship. Do things get lighter at noon? Er, that is, I mean,
> > do things weigh less at noon?
>
> Well, yes, that's what the tide is.
Sigh -- I should have known better than to write it that way. I meant,
"Are things lighter at noon than at midnight? Er, that is, I mean, do
they weigh less at noon than at midnight?" To which the answer is no.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "What Europe needs is a fresh, unused mind."
m...@vex.net | -- Foreign Correspondent
Mark Hanson
> > ...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't
> > simply barbecue the Earth as it shed velocity.
>
> What makes you think it's exerting a reaction on the *Earth* to shed
> velocity? Maybe it's reacting against the Sun, for instance. There's
> no physical reason why it shouldn't do that. *We* don't know how to
> do it, but we're talking about an alien starship; it would *have* to
> be able to do things we don't know how to do.
It's pointless to wonder what the mothership was reacting "against" while it was
slowing down to enter Earth orbit. The mere fact that its engines were pushing
against something is enough. Every action has an equal, opposite reaction,
remember? Engines fire along axis of motion; ship slows down. I actually looked
this up, because it was interesting enough that I remembered it: "If it took the
Mother Ship's engines an hour to slow the craft down, the energy radiated by these
engines would be almost 10 times the entire luminosity of the Sun during this
period! Imagine a Sun shining down on us not from 93 million miles away but from a
mere 22,500 miles away. The intensity of the radiation would be almost 25 million
times stronger." (_Beyond Star Trek_, Lawrence M. Krauss.)
> + Here's another one: the giant daughter ship hovering weightlessly over
> + LA. Nope. (This one's easier.) "Weightlessness" isn't "masslessness."
> + Something has to keep the ship floating in the air. ... [so it] must
> + be exerting downward pressure.
>
> It's a spaceship with unknown technology, not a helicopter. The hovering
> mechanism is probably designed to react against a large piece of the
> planet, not just the surface underneath it. Otherwise what would happen
> if they wanted to hover over *friendly* territory?
The gentleman doth protest too much, I think. ID4 was hokey, nonsensical -- albeit
temporarily entertaining -- claptrap. You're employing a farfetched explanation to
defend an impossible technology. I was making light of the foolishness in the
movie by attempting to portray what might actually have happened. If you like, we
can just say the aliens used magic fairy dust to keep the ships aloft. Is that
better?
Mark
Mark Brader
> > > ...And said battleship, presumably weighing billions of tons, didn't
> > > simply barbecue the Earth as it shed velocity.
> >
> > What makes you think it's exerting a reaction on the *Earth* to shed
> > velocity? Maybe it's reacting against the Sun, for instance. There's
> > no physical reason why it shouldn't do that. *We* don't know how to
> > do it, but we're talking about an alien starship; it would *have* to
> > be able to do things we don't know how to do.
>
> It's pointless to wonder what the mothership was reacting "against" while
> it was slowing down to enter Earth orbit.
No, it's pointless to make assumptions about it and then reason from them
as if they must be true.
> The mere fact that its engines were pushing against something is enough.
When the technology is known to be based on effects that we have not
discovered, "the fact that its engines were pushing against something"
is not enough to be able to say where the heat that it generates will go.
You don't like the idea that it might go into the Sun? Okay, idea two.
It goes into a heat reservoir within the center of the ship, lined with
a highly reflective substance. The temperature difference between that
reservoir and the outside is used to power their main weapon.
> I actually looked this up, because it was interesting enough that
> I remembered it: "If it took the Mother Ship's engines an hour to slow
> the craft down, the energy radiated by these engines would be almost
> 10 times the entire luminosity of the Sun during this period! Imagine
> a Sun shining down on us not from 93 million miles away but from a
> mere 22,500 miles away. The intensity of the radiation would be almost
> 25 million times stronger." (_Beyond Star Trek_, Lawrence M. Krauss.)
And he's assuming it goes into the ship and is then radiated away.
> > + Here's another one: the giant daughter ship hovering weightlessly over
> > + LA. Nope. (This one's easier.) "Weightlessness" isn't "masslessness."
> > + Something has to keep the ship floating in the air. ... [so it] must
> > + be exerting downward pressure.
> >
> > It's a spaceship with unknown technology, not a helicopter. The hovering
> > mechanism is probably designed to react against a large piece of the
> > planet, not just the surface underneath it. Otherwise what would happen
> > if they wanted to hover over *friendly* territory?
>
> The gentleman doth protest too much, I think. ID4 was hokey, nonsensical
> -- albeit temporarily entertaining -- claptrap. You're employing a
> farfetched explanation to defend an impossible technology.
No, I'm explaining why the charge that the movie depicted physically
impossible events is erronous. The technology is impossible to humans
today because we have no idea of a way to do those things, but it is not
physically impossible -- there is no violation of conservation laws.
> I was making light of the foolishness in the movie by attempting to
> portray what might actually have happened.
Rather, deriding the idea that the improbable might actually happen.
> If you like, we can just say the aliens used magic fairy dust to keep
> the ships aloft. Is that better?
No, because it's equally derisive.
--
Mark Brader | "For the stronger we our houses do build,
Toronto | The less chance we have of being killed."
m...@vex.net | -- William McGonagall, "The Tay Bridge Disaster"
Helge Moulding
>Remeber wwhen Nixon was President?
Yes.
>His press conferences were full of just that kind of really
>aggressive questioning.
Not so that I'd recall. Once Watergate broke and Nixon was
fatally wounded, sure, but before then they all worried about
getting their Whitehouse privileges pulled.
>One thing that's happened in the last decade
Try "in the last two-hundred years." It's always been a
problem, one that "freedom of the press" was supposed to
fix, but never quite did. Recent developments - in the
past 20 years, as far as I'm concerned - have turned
political leaders much more into opinion makers than
they've been before, and the press contributes to that by
dutifully sitting down, notepad in hand.
Part of the problem is that it's expensive and time
consuming to do the footwork. You're not going to fix that
unless you can convince people to become more critical
consumers of the news; judging from the success of tabloid
journalism I doubt that the market is there.
The other part of the problem is that opinion making works,
particularly as it is abetted by the media. When you make
opinions, then it's a given that folks whose opinions you
make will agree with you. Politicians who make lots of
opinions get elected.
>There's so much movement between the worlds of show biz
>oand politics now it's almost like one big family.
Grandy of "Loveboat" fame says that moving from acting to
politics was merely a matter of changing audiences. I
think he's right, and not the least bit cynical. I also
don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with that.
mlo...@area51.bcgsystems.com
> There's so much movement between the worlds of show biz oand
> play this game get shunted out of the loop. Two ex-Clinton press
> secretaries are in the media biz now. George Stephenopolous is
> still making excuses for Clinton and has a high profile. Didi
> Meyers was very critical of many of Clinton's acts- and she
> hasn't been heard from in a loooong time.
>
She is the "reality check" person for "West Wing". I would say "technical
adviser" but that sounds, well, wrong, for a political show. Hardly a
"hasn't been heard from".
--
Silliness is the last refuge of the doomed. P. Opus
GAT d-- s:- a40 UL+++$ P++$ L+++$ E- W+++$ N++ K++ w---(++)$ O- M- V-- PS+
PE++ Y PGP t++ 5 X R+++$ tv+ b++++ DI+++ D G+ e+ h--- r+++ y+++(**)$
Bob Code:KHCPkpdh- lWdHo ECs-++ m4 CPEIVWc B-18 Ol LS SsC++ Tx A7T H9o b8 D1
RM Mentock
> And later answers himself:
> > That mother ship was in geosync orbit...
>
> If this is right, I retract the point -- that would be close enough to
> cause devastating tides. But I thought a distance was given that was
> much farther out, something over 100,000 miles anyway.
Yeah--this question blew away yesterday morning. It turns
out we have a copy of the film--and my twelve year old
daughter had never seen it. So, we watched the whole thing.
The movie shows an artificial satellite plowing into the
mother ship, and later, someone mentions that it has settled
into a geosync orbit.
> > > Look at it this way. The Sun has *100,000,000* times the mass of the
> > > alien spaceship. Do things get lighter at noon? Er, that is, I mean,
> > > do things weigh less at noon?
> >
> > Well, yes, that's what the tide is.
>
> Sigh -- I should have known better than to write it that way. I meant,
> "Are things lighter at noon than at midnight? Er, that is, I mean, do
> they weigh less at noon than at midnight?" To which the answer is no.
But things are lighter at noon than they are at 6am or 6pm--during
the full or new moon. Some places experience once-a-day tides
instead of twice-a-day--in those cases, things are lighter when
the moon is directly overhead than about 12 hours later.
But your point was that it wasn't that significant, and I agree
with that.
--
RM Mentock
Opus the Penguin
>It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to changing
>the "Subject:" header here.
Blaylock started it.
--
Opus the Penguin
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin (opusthe...@micronet.net) wrote:
>: Robert Crowe wrote:
>: >It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to
>: >changing the "Subject:" header here.
>: Blaylock started it.
>
I am not! He's just got a fat butt! It's not my fault!
--
Opus the Penguin
Gary S. Callison
: Robert Crowe wrote:
: >It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to
: >changing the "Subject:" header here.
: Blaylock started it.
MOM! Opus won't stay on his side of the car! He's touching me!
--
Huey
Seanette Blaylock
Changing the subject (Was Re: Is Dana using Perry's newsreader? (was:
Re: Velocity Barbecuing the Earth? (Was: Interviewees who don't answer
the question)))":
DAD! Huey's making funny faces at me!!!
--
Seanette Blaylock
"You attribute perfect rationality to the whole of humanity, which has
to be one of the most misguided assumptions ever." - Alan Krueger in NANAE
[make obvious correction to address to send e-mail]
Opus the Penguin
>Gary S. Callison had some very interesting things to say about "Re:
>Changing the subject (Was Re: Is Dana using Perry's newsreader? (was:
>Re: Velocity Barbecuing the Earth? (Was: Interviewees who don't answer
>the question)))":
>>Opus the Penguin (opusthe...@micronet.net) wrote:
>>: Robert Crowe wrote:
>>: >It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to
>>: >changing the "Subject:" header here.
>>: Blaylock started it.
>>MOM! Opus won't stay on his side of the car! He's touching me!
>
>DAD! Huey's making funny faces at me!!!
<snicker> He can't help it.
<sings>
Huey's got a funny face! Huey's got a funny face!
</sings>
--
Opus the Penguin
Gary S. Callison
: > huey wrote:
: >>Opus the Penguin (opusthe...@micronet.net) wrote:
: >>: Robert Crowe wrote:
: >>: >It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to
: >>: >changing the "Subject:" header here.
: >>: Blaylock started it.
: >>MOM! Opus won't stay on his side of the car! He's touching me!
: >DAD! Huey's making funny faces at me!!!
: <snicker> He can't help it.
: <sings>
: Huey's got a funny face! Huey's got a funny face!
: </sings>
<silence, as Huey fumes and plots something evil, preferably involving
anvils or cast-iron skillets>
--
Huey
Kurt Basham
"Seanette Blaylock" <seanette.spam...@impulse.net> wrote in
message news:f4gblscqaqh9e5pem...@4ax.com...
> Gary S. Callison had some very interesting things to say about "Re:
> Changing the subject (Was Re: Is Dana using Perry's newsreader? (was:
> Re: Velocity Barbecuing the Earth? (Was: Interviewees who don't answer
> the question)))":
> >: Robert Crowe wrote:
> >: >It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to
> >: >changing the "Subject:" header here.
> >: Blaylock started it.
> >MOM! Opus won't stay on his side of the car! He's touching me!
> DAD! Huey's making funny faces at me!!!
I swear, if you kids don't settle down I'll turn this thread right around...
CaptnKurt
Seanette Blaylock
Changing the subject (Was Re: Is Dana using Perry's newsreader? (was:
Re: Velocity Barbecuing the Earth? (Was: Interviewees who don't answer
the question)))":
>"Seanette Blaylock" <seanette.spam...@impulse.net> wrote in
>message news:f4gblscqaqh9e5pem...@4ax.com...
>> Gary S. Callison had some very interesting things to say about "Re:
>> Changing the subject (Was Re: Is Dana using Perry's newsreader? (was:
>> Re: Velocity Barbecuing the Earth? (Was: Interviewees who don't answer
>> the question)))":
>> >Opus the Penguin (opusthe...@micronet.net) wrote:
>> >: Robert Crowe wrote:
>> >: >It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to
>> >: >changing the "Subject:" header here.
>> >: Blaylock started it.
>> >MOM! Opus won't stay on his side of the car! He's touching me!
>> DAD! Huey's making funny faces at me!!!
>I swear, if you kids don't settle down I'll turn this thread right around...
Are we THERE yet???
A man licensed to kill gophers
><silence, as Huey fumes and plots something evil, preferably involving
>anvils or cast-iron skillets>
Those easy credit terms from Acme are just irresistable, huh?
Andrew Gore
wrote:
>
>Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily make the book bad. The Earth rotating
>backwards in "Ringworld" didn't make the book stink -- unless you
>thought the book stunk anyway, in which case the corrected text probably
>wouldn't have helped.
>
The earth rotated back'ards in "Ringwrld"? How'd that happen?
I must've missed that.
I met Niven recently; I could've needled him about that, had I
known. I've always admired him for being one of those "hard SF"
writers who is scrupulous about obeying all known astronomical laws in
his work. Not that he doesn't make mistakes. I haven't read any of his
work in years, yet the other day, while idly waiting for a bus, for
some reason a fatal error concerning the Puppeteers occured to me. I
will clue you in if interested.
Anybody know how poor old Arthur C Clarke is doing lately,
what with the terrible civil war in Sri Lanka.?
Mark Brader
> The earth rotated back'ards in "Ringwrld"? How'd that happen?
> I must've missed that.
Only in the first edition.
> I met Niven recently; I could've needled him about that, had I
> known. I've always admired him for being one of those "hard SF"
> writers who is scrupulous about obeying all known astronomical
> laws in his work. Not that he doesn't make mistakes.
Probably his most famous is in Neutron Star, where the probe comes
much closer to the star than the distance at which the effect that
he (otherwise correctly) describes would have the magnitude depicted.
At the distance in the story, no one could have survived.
Some consider that the conclusion reached about the Puppeteers at
the end of the same story is also spurious, but that's a psychological
point and not a matter of astronomical law.
--
Mark Brader | "I'm a little worried about the bug-eater", she said.
Toronto | "We're embedded in bugs, have you noticed?"
m...@vex.net | -- Niven, "The Integral Trees"
Chris
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:18:27 -0400, Mark Hanson <mpha...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily make the book bad. The Earth rotating
>>backwards in "Ringworld" didn't make the book stink -- unless you
>>thought the book stunk anyway, in which case the corrected text probably
>>wouldn't have helped.
>>
>
> The earth rotated back'ards in "Ringwrld"? How'd that happen?
>I must've missed that.
I did too. Actually, I don't remember *any* reference to the rotation
of the Earth in the whole book, and I re-read it within the last year.
> I met Niven recently; I could've needled him about that, had I
>known. I've always admired him for being one of those "hard SF"
>writers who is scrupulous about obeying all known astronomical laws in
>his work. Not that he doesn't make mistakes. I haven't read any of his
>work in years, yet the other day, while idly waiting for a bus, for
>some reason a fatal error concerning the Puppeteers occured to me. I
>will clue you in if interested.
I'm interested; please clue me in. :)
--
To email me---oh, figure it out yourself.
"I only came to say, I must be going"
Mark Hanson
> I did too. Actually, I don't remember *any* reference to the rotation
> of the Earth in the whole book, and I re-read it within the last year
It's only in the first edition (which is presumably worth a bit). At the
beginning of the book there's a scene where the main character teleports his
way around the world on his birthday (I think; it's been a while) so he can
celebrate it 24 times, once per time zone. But he travelled the wrong way:
west to east.
StarChaser_Tyger
Read it? y
>Opus the Penguin (opusthe...@micronet.net) wrote:
>: Seanette Blaylock wrote:
>: > huey wrote:
>: >>Opus the Penguin (opusthe...@micronet.net) wrote:
>: >>: Robert Crowe wrote:
>: >>: >It boggles my mind as to why there is such a casual attitude to
>: >>: >changing the "Subject:" header here.
>: >>: Blaylock started it.
>: >>MOM! Opus won't stay on his side of the car! He's touching me!
>: >DAD! Huey's making funny faces at me!!!
>: <snicker> He can't help it.
>: <sings>
>: Huey's got a funny face! Huey's got a funny face!
>: </sings>
>
><silence, as Huey fumes and plots something evil, preferably involving
>anvils or cast-iron skillets>
Mommmmm, Huey's fuming, can I roll down the window?
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information,
and information on which artists do and do not want their
work posted!
http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
GrapeApe
>>I must've missed that.
>
There is precious little time on earth PERIOD, so there are very few places it
could be. Probably happens when Louis Wu is plannet hopping before he meets
Nessus.
StarChaser_Tyger
Read it? y
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:18:27 -0400, Mark Hanson <mpha...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily make the book bad. The Earth rotating
>>backwards in "Ringworld" didn't make the book stink -- unless you
>>thought the book stunk anyway, in which case the corrected text probably
>>wouldn't have helped.
>>
>
> The earth rotated back'ards in "Ringwrld"? How'd that happen?
>I must've missed that.
In one of his other books, I THINK 'N-Space', he says something like
'if you have a first edition copy of Ringworld, the one where the
Earth turns backward, hang onto it'.
I never looked seriously, and I don't have the first edition anyway,
but I believe it refers to the direction that Louis Wu transported
himself to stay ahead of the night terminator line to make his
birthday longer.
Chris
wrote:
>Chris wrote:
>
>> I did too. Actually, I don't remember *any* reference to the rotation
>> of the Earth in the whole book, and I re-read it within the last year
>
>It's only in the first edition (which is presumably worth a bit). At the
>beginning of the book there's a scene where the main character teleports his
>way around the world on his birthday (I think; it's been a while) so he can
>celebrate it 24 times, once per time zone. But he travelled the wrong way:
>west to east.
>
That must have been embarrassing---to Mr. Niven, that is.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Some consider that the conclusion reached about the Puppeteers at
> the end of the same story is also spurious, but that's a psychological
> point and not a matter of astronomical law.
Of course it's spurious, but the fact that the puppeteers caved in shows
that it has some merit. Then again, if it had no merit, /not/ paying off
Shaefer(?) might be seen as confirmation that the puppeteer homeworld
?did? have a moon. On the gripping hand, the puppeteers would soon be
broke, if they paid off everyone who made a speculation about thier
homeworld.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
John S. Colton
>... On the gripping hand...
Isn't it fun to use that construction? And everyone knows what it
means by context, although only Niven fans know where it comes from.
I've seen it several times in Usenet, the most recent being on
soc.religion.mormon. I wonder if it will catch on enough that people
who have never heard of Niven will be using it.
John
GrapeApe
>>west to east.
>>
>
>
>That must have been embarrassing---to Mr. Niven, that is.
>
I always got the feeling reading Niven if he were writing about a guy having a
party, he was actively researching the part as he was writing it.
Not sure how much actual rewriting was necessary to fix the first printing.
StarChaser_Tyger
Colton) .
Read it? y
Phew. I hated that book. It seemed like the entire thing existed only
so they could use that same saying over and over and over and over and
over and over...