RAH-Reading Group chat 6/4 and 6/6/03 "Heinlein's Good Little Girls and Boys vs his 'small-mouthed anarchists -- wild and free'"
David M. Silver
Subject: Heinlein's Good Little Girls and Boys vs. his "small-mouthed
anarchist -- wild and free!"
Dates and Times: 8 PM to 11 PM, EDT, Thursday, June 4, 2003 and
5 PM to 8 PM, EDT, Saturday, June 6, 2003.
Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"
[For instructions on the use of AIM freeware, see,
http://home.alltel.net/dwrighsr/heinlein.html --]
Earlier this week, under "Crazy Years, cont'd," Dave Jennings posted a
news account of an arrest of a 12-year-old girl for two misdemeanors,
jaywalking and resisting arrest, supposedly, "without violence." [An
aside: There must be a few nice folk in charge of the criminal law
process in Broward County for juveniles at least, btw, because based on
the account of the officer, assault and battery on a police officer is
what she'd have been booked for in some jurisdictions I can think of.]
The resulting 37-post thread called into question two issues. Let me
pose them as extremes, and see if we can narrow down the gap between
them later as we discuss them.
What is the obligation of a citizen: is it to abide by all the laws,
rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
convenient?
And what do the writings of Robert Heinlein suggest ought to be that
obligation?
Let me begin by asking all of you this: did Heinlein's opinion differ in
degree or emphasis in his works intended for juvenile audiences?
Prove it by comparing or contrasting the stories, if you can.
You can start wherever you wish, the novel _Have Space Suit -- Will
Travel_ is one good place; but for me, I'd start with the first Heinlein
novel I read, the juvenile novel _Rocket Ship Galileo_. It begins with
the portrait of three law-abiding, very careful and safe young men,
conducting a rocketry experiment; but how long did they abide by the
'rules' of their society?
All the time? Or did they break a few? Which ones, if so, and why?
--
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88
David M. Silver
"David M. Silver" <ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Heinlein Readers Group chat
> Subject: Heinlein's Good Little Girls and Boys vs. his "small-mouthed
> anarchist -- wild and free!"
> Dates and Times: 8 PM to 11 PM, EDT, Thursday, June 4, 2003 and
> 5 PM to 8 PM, EDT, Saturday, June 6, 2003.
> Place: AIM chatroom "Heinlein Readers Group chat"
>
[snip]
>
> What is the obligation of a citizen: is it to abide by all the laws,
> rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
> convenient?
>
> And what do the writings of Robert Heinlein suggest ought to be that
> obligation?
>
> Let me begin by asking all of you this: did Heinlein's opinion differ in
> degree or emphasis in his works intended for juvenile audiences?
>
> Prove it by comparing or contrasting the stories, if you can.
>
> You can start wherever you wish, the novel _Have Space Suit -- Will
> Travel_ is one good place; but for me, I'd start with the first Heinlein
> novel I read, the juvenile novel _Rocket Ship Galileo_. It begins with
> the portrait of three law-abiding, very careful and safe young men,
> conducting a rocketry experiment; but how long did they abide by the
> 'rules' of their society? [snippety]
Or we can start with the last published work by Heinlein I read, _To
Sail Beyond the Sunset_, definitely not intended for a juvenile
audience. Consider, however, the juvenile 14-year-old Maureen Johnson's
attempts to formulate an acceptible to her list of "commandments" that
she is willing to follow: what does her result say about following the
rules of society?
It's all the same to me: early, mid-career, or late works. What does
Heinlein say?
Stephanie
>What is the obligation of a citizen: is it to abide by all the laws,
>rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
>convenient?
You post two extremes indeed. I see a middle ground that I walk every day in
my life. The appearance of following all the rules is necessary to the
personal safety and freedom of the individual, but sometimes the 'convenience'
must be followed. Had I followed all the rules of society, I would now be
locked up in a mental institute for being a social aberrant and trying to deny
my impulses.
There is also the fact that in some cases, such as when Maureen's father
questioned her commandment not to steal, when practicality of survival must
abridge the rules. If I were unable to make a living by lawful means, I would
steal to feed my child. Likewise, faced with an intruder in my house, I will
shoot first even though my state does not support the right to defend property
unless violence is offered first by the intruder.
>And what do the writings of Robert Heinlein suggest ought to be that
>obligation?
The obligation of the citizen is to uphold what laws are necessary to the
functioning of society, but to have the guts to do what is needed in face of
threat that the law protects. For instance, should a Nehemiah Scudder ever
emerge, a citizen's duty would be to remove him, either by political, social,
or even physical means.
>Let me begin by asking all of you this: did Heinlein's opinion differ in
>degree or emphasis in his works intended for juvenile audiences?
>
>Prove it by comparing or contrasting the stories, if you can.
Unfortunately, it is the juveniles that I am weak in. I draw my opinions of
Heinlein from Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and the various
Lazarus Long appearances. In ST, military service allows the full citizenship.
Some took this as fascist. I must be one then, because I agreed with that
approach to full enfranchisement. I think the US could benefit from mandatory
service among the young people. After my stint, I had a much broader view of
my responsibiliteis to society, including the manner in which laws apply to
citizens.
The rational anarchist found in Prof suits me as well. His view that society
needs rules, but no individual should feel bound to follow them was sound.
Yes, this leads to snipers, rapists, etc, but then the average citizen would
feel more apt to deal with such threats firmly.
Stephanie
http://hometown.aol.com/merfilly27/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/musiquelle26/myhomepage/profile.html
Yisroel Rich Elitist Markov
said:
[snip]
>Unfortunately, it is the juveniles that I am weak in. I draw my opinions of
>Heinlein from Starship Troopers, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and the various
>Lazarus Long appearances. In ST, military service allows the full citizenship.
> Some took this as fascist. I must be one then, because I agreed with that
>approach to full enfranchisement. I think the US could benefit from mandatory
>service among the young people. After my stint, I had a much broader view of
>my responsibiliteis to society, including the manner in which laws apply to
>citizens.
This reminds me of this:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/photography/day/life4.htm
Women who can do this must be admired.
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Simon Jester
...
> In ST, military service allows the full citizenship.
> Some took this as fascist. I must be one then, because I agreed with
that
> approach to full enfranchisement. I think the US could benefit from
mandatory
> service among the young people.
Have you read EU?
> After my stint, I had a much broader view of
> my responsibiliteis to society, including the manner in which laws apply
to
> citizens.
...
djinn
D55F5D.035...@news.fu-berlin.de:
>
> What is the obligation of a citizen: is it to abide by all the laws,
> rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
> convenient?
>
The point I had in mind was more like how much force is society justified
in using against its members, and for what reasons?
> And what do the writings of Robert Heinlein suggest ought to be that
> obligation?
>
The Star Beast comes to mind. John Thomas was given direct orders by a
police officer, and defied them. Heinlein apparently meant for his young
readers to see that blind obediance to the law and its officers isn't
always the answer.
Stephanie
>Have you read EU?
Not in some time. To which story in particular are you pointing out?
Stephanie
>The point I had in mind was more like how much force is society justified
>in using against its members, and for what reasons?
I felt the officer was justified. But then I have two hellions that need firm
hands because they are too smart for their physical abilities.
The amount of force used should always be in relation to the offense being
given. Pepper spray, as a deterrent, is a pain that, for most, goes away soon
after use. For someone not cooperating with a cease and desist, it is
reasonable, in this day and age. Too many minor offenses have rapidly
escalated to tragedy because an officer was cautious in use of force. However,
the flip side is seen too, as incidents in Cincinnatti and Detroit, and New
York, anong other cities, have shown.
What force is acceptable? I think it comes back around to better training for
the police force to recognize incediary behavior. And better screening of the
police to eliminate the trigger happy sort of guys that 'accidently' kill
unarmed suspects.
djinn
news:20030507195240...@mb-m12.aol.com:
>
> What force is acceptable? I think it comes back
> around to better training for the police force to recognize incediary
> behavior. And better screening of the police to eliminate the trigger
> happy sort of guys that 'accidently' kill unarmed suspects.
>
I think you and I would agree.
I've had two encounters with police officers since I moved here(about 6
years) where the officer could only be described as abrasive and
confrontational. I had never had a confrontation with a police officer
before. Has police training changed in the last few (~10) years?
Stephanie
>I've had two encounters with police officers since I moved here(about 6
>years) where the officer could only be described as abrasive and
>confrontational.
My few scrapes with the law mostly occurred in the military. And they were
usually very professional in doing what was needed. Thankfully my nose for
trouble usually led me out of the bar in question before I had to be
'controlled'.
My one encounter with police outside of the military was not an inspiring one.
We were reporting an attempted rape, and the officer all but jumped all over my
friend (the victim) and made her feel she was at fault. I had thought this
attitude had been weeded out with the 'no means no' campaign.
Dr. Rufo
<snip>
> What is the obligation of a citizen: is it to abide by all the laws,
> rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
> convenient?
>
> And what do the writings of Robert Heinlein suggest ought to be that
> obligation?
OK, David, in RSG, the boys are clearly portrayed as being required to
follow "rules of safety" imposed by benign parental units -- Morrie's
father/Russ's(?) father/Art's mother. To do what they want to do, they
must follow the rules. They do so. No more explosions in the basement
and all precautions in place at the test launches to avoid injury to
persons and property. Safety goggles, periscopes, etc. They oblige,
seemingly with no hesitations. Further, there must be no harm to their
efforts in school. Homework first then other activities--so they can go
to college.
Then the Doc shows up and someone takes a pot shot at him. The Doc
evaluates them and their abilities. He tells them that they are capable
of more than they know. The Doc offers to lead them onto the Glory Road.
Do they want to go to the Moon? They want to do so. They are certain
they can do so. They attempt to do so. They apply themselves and make
tremendous progress with some arcane assistance from Obi-Wan's
knowledge, er, the Doc's patents and a bit of ready cash.
In the midst of their efforts, they, and we, find out that the Black
Hats are trying to stop them from fulfilling their dream. They
circumvent the Bad Guys and cut some administrative corners to leave
Earth quickly and under duress. They get to the Moon and find the Black
Hats are ahead of them. The Black Hats are busy establishing their
regime in Luna and the Sons of Light fight against the Evil Remnant of
the Evil Empire. There is an attempted murder of the boys which is the
instigation for their retaliation and the final elimination of the Black
Hats. They highjack the Bad Guys vessel and return Home. Music swells,
happy ending.
Is this a fair synopsis? Are any pertinent points missing?
In terms of your question, are the boys "citizens?" Is the Doc a
"citizen?" Are the Nazis citizens? What qualities make a citizen in this
book?
I realize my prejudice here but I will proceed. The citizen is one who
seeks to advance, to improve. Self and society, both. The
"anti-citizen" -- the Nazis -- do not. The citizen thinks, reasons,
develops solutions to a problematic situation. The anti-citizen waits to
hear the directives of others. That is, follows orders rather than
initiating a novel plan or solution.
The citizen does what is needed to make the advances required
to be a citizen. The anti-citizen holds self and society in a stasis -
a bondage, if you will - which allows no progress.
I put it to you that this attitude - if I'm not reading it into the
novel - is as much a product of the time (pardon, of the "zeitgeist") as
a product of RAH's imagination. This was written in a time which had
recently fought valiantly for freedom as a Concept and as a Reality.
This is, I feel, reflected in the book.
To skip ahead and mis-quote from the Grand Finale: Remember thou the
Eleventh Commandment - 'Thou shalt not get caught.' - and keep it wholly.
More later.
Dr. Rufo
LV Poker Player
>What is the obligation of a citizen: is it to abide by all the laws,
>rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
>convenient?
I can think of one time when I agreed with the U. S. citizens who were NOT
abiding by all laws all the time. That was when the Underground Railroad
helped slaves escape, and violated the Fugitive Slave Act by doing so.
Good for you, you great and wonderful criminals. You were some of the greatest
Americans who ever lived.
--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.
ward
More a change of attitude than training. With the increasing paramilitrism
of many PDs due to the War on (some) Drugs, the cops are much more inclined
to have the idea that they are privileged above the common heard. While
this was not unknown in the old days, it seems more the rule than the
exception now.
--
Ward Griffiths wdg...@comcast.net
And as for "adultery" ? Well, let's just say this: Even if there WERE
something in that issue which should concern anyone but the adults
involved, there are so many public officials who are known to have
"strayed" from their marriage vows, it would take so long to prosecute
their indiscretions, we might never get to the average citizen.
Steve Trinward
Bill Reich
> >From: "David M. Silver"
>
> >What is the obligation of a citizen: is it to abide by all the laws,
> >rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
> >convenient?
>
> I can think of one time when I agreed with the U. S. citizens who were NOT
> abiding by all laws all the time. That was when the Underground Railroad
> helped slaves escape, and violated the Fugitive Slave Act by doing so.
>
> Good for you, you great and wonderful criminals. You were some of the greatest
> Americans who ever lived.
That is one good example. I think that breaking a law when the action
you are taking is not in itself morally reprehensible is usually still
wrong because it is imprudent: It is very possible that it will cause
more trouble than it is worth, both for yourself and your neighbor(s)
An exception is when one is breaking the law in a good cause such as
the above. But only history can judge this for the masses. For my own
actions, he criteria I use are that the cause must be important, the
"criminal" must be willing to take the punishment and, in a country
with a solid rule of law, the action must be non-violent. Armed
insurrection is not, in my opinion, justified here and now, yet.
The other exception is when one feels like lighting up a joint or
violating some silly local ordinance against adultery.
--
Will in New Haven
I believe in a higher power. Squared is a higher powere, cubed is a
higher power
TreetopAngel
<snip>
> rules, and regulations of a society at all times, or only when
> convenient?
I am sure I've said it before. I decide which rules, regulations, laws,
etc., I am willing to to abide by and which to ignore. However, I
understand there are consequences and I must be willing to face them if I
decide to ignore something. This makes me a law-abiding citizen, as there
are few things that I am willing to take the punishment for. >
> And what do the writings of Robert Heinlein suggest ought to be that
> obligation?
To do your best at getting along with everybody, blue mud included, follow
the laws of the land, unless it is unjust or detrimental to your health.
E!
David Wright
"TreetopAngel" <treetopan...@micro-mania.net> wrote in message
news:b9e2pq$hv9m4$1...@ID-164920.news.dfncis.de...
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and
'society' and 'government' have no
existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of
self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is
impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as
blame, guilt, responsibility are matters
taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But
being rational, he knows that not all
individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in
an imperfect world . . . aware that his
effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge
of self-failure."
Mannie: "Hear, hear!" I said. "'Less than perfect.' What I've been
aiming for all my life."
From "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"
You might be interested in reading my article.
http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
--
David Wright
http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/index.html
http://heinleinsociety.org
Help us prepare for the upcoming Centennial of the birthday of Robert A.
Heinlein
http://heinlein100.org
Help us with our Blood Drives
http://heinleinsociety.org/blooddrive.html
Pete LaGrange
>> I've had two encounters with police officers since I moved here(about 6
>> years) where the officer could only be described as abrasive and
>> confrontational. I had never had a confrontation with a police officer
>> before. Has police training changed in the last few (~10) years?
>
>More a change of attitude than training. With the increasing paramilitrism
>of many PDs due to the War on (some) Drugs, the cops are much more inclined
>to have the idea that they are privileged above the common heard. While
>this was not unknown in the old days, it seems more the rule than the
>exception now.
I've got to agree, Ward. As I see it, American society is evolving,
perhaps has evolved, into a two-tiered system. Those with power and
connections can break the law, dodge the draft, smoke pot, snort coke
and molest women. FBI agents steal evidence, cops cover for their
"brothers" and all escape unscathed...even to the point of remaining
eligible for our highest offices. Domestic violence perpetrated by
police officers is routinely swept under the rug by well meaning
authorities, sometimes resulting in the death of an innocent spouse.
Day by day, the rights of the regular Joe are eroded, the war on drugs
or the war on terrorism or whatever is the cause of the hour being
offered as justification...and folks fall for it. Perhaps humans don't
deserve liberty and equality. Perhaps we get what we deserve, slavery
from above, coordinated from above by those greedy and ruthless enough
to seize what we leave unguarded. As for me, I can't figure out
whether I'd started niave and grown wise, gone sour or become just
plain paranoid. Mostly I hope it's the last.
--
Pete LaGrange
the post.com addy is a spam trap
substitute hotmail for post if you wish to e-mail
LV Poker Player
>From: "David Wright"
> "A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as 'state' and
>'society' and 'government' have no
> existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of
>self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is
> impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame . . . as
>blame, guilt, responsibility are matters
> taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But
>being rational, he knows that not all
> individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in
>an imperfect world . . . aware that his
> effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge
>of self-failure."
>
> Mannie: "Hear, hear!" I said. "'Less than perfect.' What I've been
>aiming for all my life."
> From "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress"
>
>You might be interested in reading my article.
>http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
FANTASTIC!!!
For those who have been prone to take the attitude "LVPP is an anarchist, so
everything he says must be wrong" I hope you read this article.
djinn
news:c78lbv4a2to6jio7g...@4ax.com:
> to seize what we leave unguarded. As for me, I can't figure out
> whether I'd started niave and grown wise, gone sour or become just
> plain paranoid. Mostly I hope it's the last.
>
If you are you aren't there by yourself.
Simon Jester
> >From: "Simon Jester" simon...@freeuk.com
>
> >Have you read EU?
>
> Not in some time. To which story in particular are you pointing out?
An article, rather than a story: the afterward to "Who Are the Heirs of
Patrick Henry?" - specifically, the part where RAH says "I am opposed to
conscription for any reason at any time, war or peace, and have said so
repeatedly in fiction, in nonfction, from platforms, and in angry sessions
in think tanks ... the draft is involuntary servitude, immoral, and
unconstitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court says."
Supporting conscription doesn't make you or anyone else a fascist; just
about every country in the world has used it in the past century, and most
of Western Europe still has it. But it isn't something RAH supported, either
in ST or real life.
Dr. Rufo
<snip>
> The obligation of the citizen is to uphold what laws are necessary to the
> functioning of society, but to have the guts to do what is needed in face of
> threat that the law protects. For instance, should a Nehemiah Scudder ever
> emerge, a citizen's duty would be to remove him, either by political, social,
> or even physical means.
Ma'am,
By this remark, are you referring to the actions ascribed to V.M. Smith
in SiaSL?
Or to those of Charles Manson?
I do not mean to be inflammatory because I agree that should such a
person emerge on the political scene, it would be the obligation of
loyal citizens to prevent his ascendance to power or, failing that, to
remove him from power -- by using the means provided in law.
However, I am not so positive that my personal convictions would justify
the application of your suggestion of removing him by "physical means."
In your hypothetical situation you are talking about someone abrogating
the political liberties of other citizens. Is that more or less
reprehensible than the activities of persons who deprive other
individuals of their very lives? I suggest this as the view of those who
hold that abortion of fetuses is "murder."
In order to stop the legally condoned "murder" of hundreds of infants by
one doctor, there are those who evaluate the murder of the doctor as the
lesser evil and choose that in preference to allowing the abortions to
continue. I am not advocating this course of action. I am asking if this
"choice" reflects the essential content of your remark above.
That is, if I feel that such activities are intolerable, I alone must
choose whether I shall honor society's proscription of willful murder to
prevent another such.
I perceive this to be a very difficult position to maintain.
In Stranger, we, the audience/readers, know that Mike has "powers and
abilities far beyond those of mortal men" and that because of this, he
is capable and qualified to work his way through his "Better Dead List."
In the world in which I live, I don't have anywhere near the certainty
of conviction that would justify such a choice.
What do you think?
Dr. Rufo
bookman
"LV Poker Player" <lvpoke...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030508153028...@mb-m14.aol.com...
>
> >From: "David Wright"
> >You might be interested in reading my article.
> > http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
>
> FANTASTIC!!!
>
> For those who have been prone to take the attitude "LVPP is an anarchist,
so
> everything he says must be wrong" I hope you read this article.
Skimmed, bookmarked for more detailed study.
Rtb
pixelmeow
<qinji...@yahoo.com> scribbled:
That's for sure. I know for sure that I started naive, and remain so
for the most part, but the less naive I become, the more paranoid I
become... *shivers*
--
~teresa~
AFH Barwench
^..^ "Never try to outstubborn a cat." Robert A. Heinlein ^..^
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ http://pixelmeow.com/
http://pixelmeow.com/Book_Exchange/index.htm
http://pixelmeow.com/forum/
aim: pixelmeow msn:pixe...@passport.com
Stephanie
>Ma'am,
> By this remark, are you referring to the actions ascribed to V.M. Smith
>in SiaSL?
>
>Or to those of Charles Manson?
Not Manson. I was referring more to the fact that such a person as Scudder,
who used our political system to get to the top, then made it impossible to be
rid of him through the same system, is exactly the kind of circumstance that
leads to the refreshing of the tree of liberty.
Our founding fathers were criminals. They did not start that way, or at least
not all of them, but they broke the laws of both England and the colonies to do
what they found morally responsible. It is to this that I refer, when I speak
of a dictator rising in America.
>In order to stop the legally condoned "murder" of hundreds of infants by
>one doctor, there are those who evaluate the murder of the doctor as the
>lesser evil and choose that in preference to allowing the abortions to
>continue. I am not advocating this course of action. I am asking if this
>"choice" reflects the essential content of your remark above.
Most certainly not. I am pro-choice, but what not consider an abortion for a
mormal preganancy. I condemn those who did what they did at the clinics.
John David Galt
>> The obligation of the citizen is to uphold what laws are necessary to the
>> functioning of society, but to have the guts to do what is needed in face of
>> threat that the law protects. For instance, should a Nehemiah Scudder ever
>> emerge, a citizen's duty would be to remove him, either by political, social,
>> or even physical means.
> I do not mean to be inflammatory because I agree that should such a
> person emerge on the political scene, it would be the obligation of
> loyal citizens to prevent his ascendance to power or, failing that, to
> remove him from power -- by using the means provided in law.
>
> However, I am not so positive that my personal convictions would justify
> the application of your suggestion of removing him by "physical means."
Once Scudder was elected, he tore up the constitution and made himself king,
cancelling all further elections. Once that happens, the "means provided in
law" aren't there any more.
Do you really mean to say that you would then feel a moral obligation to go
along rather than seek his overthrow?
(N.B. Despite certain similarities to recent events, I do not feel that we
are close to reaching this point yet in RL. But we do need to keep watch
in case it happens.)
Stephanie
>Once Scudder was elected, he tore up the constitution and made himself king,
>cancelling all further elections. Once that happens, the "means provided in
>law" aren't there any more.
On an off topic note, there was a good example of this in the making shown in
Escape from LA. It was a poor movie compared to the first Snake Plissken
movie, but the president was quite blatantly modelled on Jerry Falwell with
over tones of a Scudder in the making.
Chris Zakes
<j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
(snip)
>(N.B. Despite certain similarities to recent events, I do not feel that we
>are close to reaching this point yet in RL. But we do need to keep watch
>in case it happens.)
Excuse me? What are the "similarities" between the rise of Scudder and
"certain recent events"?
Are you talking about the existing religious dictatorships in parts of
southwest Asia?
-Chris Zakes
Texas
Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop
is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read.
-Terry Pratchett, "Guards! Guards!"
TreetopAngel
>
> You might be interested in reading my article.
> http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
Thanks, David! It is an excellent article and along the lines of what I
believe. I just wonder how much of my belief comes from my parents
teachings and how much from Heinlein. I'll have to talk to Dad about it.
E!
David Wright
Thanks E! for the compliment. I have never been able to figure out whether
RAH molded my thoughts or whether I simply found in his works the best
articulation of what I thought. (Even though, I don't agree totally with
him).
Howard Berkowitz
<NJZLIR...@spammotel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 May 2003 20:12:45 GMT, in alt.fan.heinlein, djinn
> <qinji...@yahoo.com> scribbled:
>
> >Pete LaGrange <oldma...@post.com> wrote in
> >news:c78lbv4a2to6jio7g...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> to seize what we leave unguarded. As for me, I can't figure out
> >> whether I'd started niave and grown wise, gone sour or become just
> >> plain paranoid. Mostly I hope it's the last.
> >>
> >
> >If you are you aren't there by yourself.
>
> That's for sure. I know for sure that I started naive, and remain so
> for the most part, but the less naive I become, the more paranoid I
> become... *shivers*
And managed care and cost reduction don't help:
"Welcome to the mental health benefits provider:
If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.
If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.
If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6.
If you are paranoid, we know who you are and what you want. Just stay on
the line so we can trace the call.
If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell
you which number to press.
If you are passive-aggressive, get someone guilty enough to press 8.
If you are depressed, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one
will answer.
If you are manic, press them all repeatedly while laughing wildly.
Pete LaGrange
< laughing wildly > and I'm sure it's a bad sign.
Dr. Rufo
I am very sorry to have given you that impression. What I meant to say
was that I would do all I could to return to the prior status using the
means allowable. If those means were *not* allowed under the new regime,
to me, that would be prima facie evidence that the new regime HAD to be
removed.
Here's a question from RL: What does eveyone think of the attempt to
return to nuclear weapons research? I just heard on the news that The
Powers That Be in Washington D.C. are very interested in rapid
development of "new and bigger nuclear weapons."
Not "nuclear research" -- "nuclear WEAPONS research."
Any opinions?
Dr. Rufo
bookman
"Chris Zakes" <moon...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pg3obvs3q23rvpv7n...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 09 May 2003 08:53:52 -0700, John David Galt
> <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >(N.B. Despite certain similarities to recent events, I do not feel that
we
> >are close to reaching this point yet in RL. But we do need to keep watch
> >in case it happens.)
>
> Excuse me? What are the "similarities" between the rise of Scudder and
> "certain recent events"?
>
> Are you talking about the existing religious dictatorships in parts of
> southwest Asia?
How about a rise in Religious Fundamentalism and
increasing voter apathy, for starters?
Regards,
--
Rusty the bookman
Minion of Phil #0001
You don't understand the power of the insufficiently lit side.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you when you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, and they're starvation cheap
- Kipling
djinn
news:3EBC915A...@mindspring.com:
> Here's a question from RL: What does eveyone think of the attempt to
> return to nuclear weapons research? I just heard on the news that The
> Powers That Be in Washington D.C. are very interested in rapid
> development of "new and bigger nuclear weapons."
>
> Not "nuclear research" -- "nuclear WEAPONS research."
>
> Any opinions?
>
I'm curious why we'd need bigger weapons. There seems less need for that
type of weapon than there's been for awhile.
I haven't seen the story though, so I can't say much about it.
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Fairly easy to figure out, Rufe, if you want my IRL opinion. The PTB in
the GOP have reinvented the forever war against the "evil empire,"
except that said EE is not a place such as the fUSSR anymore, it's a
miasmic existential concept: "terrorism," that will outlive Bin Ladin,
Al Quaida, the Axis of Evil, and everything else downrange in the target
zone today. Dub-yah has become the forever wartime President, and,
therefore, it is unpatriotic for Good Little Girls and Boys to question
his priorities or doubt the necessity for them. Yes, indeed, the Day of
Jubilee is here. Now let's see if Rove, or whoever has most recently
captured Shrub's brain, can sell it through the next election.
Nuclear weapons research naturally must resume. It's necessary to combat
the EE -- whatever or whoever that is, "Axis of Evil" or what they call
it next. Axis of Almost Evil, Axis of Thinking of Being Evil, etc.
In fairness, I agree, however, that calling Rove the most powerful
unelected person in the United States is a despicable insult to George
W. Bush!
--
David M. Silver www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29, Lt.(jg), USN, R'td, 1907-88
Dr. Rufo
> "Chris Zakes" <moon...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pg3obvs3q23rvpv7n...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Fri, 09 May 2003 08:53:52 -0700, John David Galt
>><j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>
>>
>>>(N.B. Despite certain similarities to recent events, I do not feel that
>>
> we
>
>>>are close to reaching this point yet in RL. But we do need to keep watch
>>>in case it happens.)
>>
>>Excuse me? What are the "similarities" between the rise of Scudder and
>>"certain recent events"?
>>
>>Are you talking about the existing religious dictatorships in parts of
>>southwest Asia?
>
>
> How about a rise in Religious Fundamentalism and
> increasing voter apathy, for starters?
Rusty,
"Religious Fundamentalism" has occurred and re-occurred cyclically in
almost every culture that has developed religion -- almost everywhere.
Is seems to me that religious fundamentalism is a lot like flatulence:
It shows up when you're having a good time. It makes you terrribly
uncomfortable as sneaks up on you. And, when it makes its presence
widely known, it makes a terrible stink and is viewed as a source of
ridicule.
Now, about voter apathy: Well, I just don't care to talk about it. <g>
Dr. Rufo
Dr. Rufo
I'm sure the story will be re-cycled.
It was the combination of "Weapons research" and the repeated "need for
bigger weapons" that caused me to listen up. I don't want to sound any
alarums but I don't think this is the direction in which this country --
or any country -- should proceed.
Rufe
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Rusty,
> "Religious Fundamentalism" has occurred and re-occurred cyclically in
> almost every culture that has developed religion -- almost everywhere.
> Is seems to me that religious fundamentalism is a lot like flatulence:
> It shows up when you're having a good time. It makes you terrribly
> uncomfortable as sneaks up on you. And, when it makes its presence
> widely known, it makes a terrible stink and is viewed as a source of
> ridicule.
I think you're soft-peddling the problem of fundamentalism, a bit, Rufe.
To cite a history both of us might have some knowledge of: The
Auto-da-Fé conducted June 20, 1756, following the Great Earthquake of
Lisbon of November 1, 1755, undoubtedly make a 'terrible stink,' but few
affected viewed its fundamental warfare on Jews and other heretics as
merely a "source of ridicule." Read Twain's essay on why the French are
superior to the Comanches, lately? French Protestants didn't cause much
of a problem in France after that, did they? I'm sure someone familar
with the intercine struggles of any number of varieties of Islam's sects
in Southwest Asia could suggest similar examples.
Or to twist it back on topic: obeying all society's rules, try the rule
in _"If This Goes On ... "_ that produced this passage:
" . . . a large rock caught the man between the shoulder blades, he
stumbled and went down. They were on him at once. He struggled to his
knees, was stuck by a dozen stones, went down in a heap. He gave a
broken, high pitched wail [1], then drew a fold of the gabardine across
his dark eyes and strong Roman nose.
"A moment later there was nothing to be seen but a pile of rocks and
a protruding slippered foot. It jerked and was still."
[1] Heinlein knew and certainly intended us to understand exactly what
that 'wail' was: "Hear, O Israel. The Lord is God. The Lord is One."
In a fundamentalist state, all God's good little boys and girls follow
the rules -- if you're not of Our Faith, be sure you're not outside your
ghetto at the wrong time, pariah.
That's a little stronger than flatulence.
Howard Berkowitz
<qinji...@yahoo.com> wrote:
General comments (explaining, not agreeing or disagreeing)
1. The major new development interest is in bombs that can survive to
penetrate into deeply buried shelters. Now, there are advanced
conventional types that may be able to do this adequately -- the
question is whether they could take out a large underground facility
like a chemical plant.
The B61-11 has some limited subsurface capability, but it's
probably in the tens of feet. The current conventional "bunker-busters"
can go much deeper, but without as large a yield. Previously, taking out
hardened targets like missile silos and command posts assumed low
airburst or groundburst, extremely accurate warheads in the hundreds of
kilotons to megaton yield.
2. There can be pure shelf life problems with some weapons. The
question arises whether it is adequate to refurbish the old weapon, or,
at some point, to design a more maintainable weapon with more safeguards.
Stephanie
>Here's a question from RL: What does eveyone think of the attempt to
>return to nuclear weapons research? I just heard on the news that The
>Powers That Be in Washington D.C. are very interested in rapid
>development of "new and bigger nuclear weapons."
>
>Not "nuclear research" -- "nuclear WEAPONS research."
My dear friend,
I can only say that such a thing grieves me. I am not a pacifist, but I truly
only see one outcome if any power in the world ever launches a nuclear strike.
I would rather see more money spent on interception, neutralization, etc. The
thought to make nuclear powered boosters to get us to Mars was worthwhile. But
do we really need to come up with a faster way to kill off humanity?
Stephanie
>How about a rise in Religious Fundamentalism and
>increasing voter apathy, for starters?
Living here in the south, I'll second a bit of an alarm at how firmly the
Religious Right are reestablishing their control on local elected offices, and
on general society behavior. I'm not quite a pariah yet for not going to
church, but even in Fayetteville, the pagan community seems to be quietly
withdrawing its once visible presence to be more discreet. Likewise for the
alternative living community.
Christopher A. Bohn
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Dr. Rufo wrote:
> Here's a question from RL: What does eveyone think of the attempt to
> return to nuclear weapons research? I just heard on the news that The
> Powers That Be in Washington D.C. are very interested in rapid
> development of "new and bigger nuclear weapons."
>
> Not "nuclear research" -- "nuclear WEAPONS research."
>
> Any opinions?
I think, from an international politics perspective -- specifically when
dealing with North Korea and Iran -- it may be counterproductive for the
US to engage in the development of a new weapon design. That said, there
are a few possible shades of meaning that could be applied to that brief
description. Only one is the design and development of a new weapon.
Alternate interpretations:
- make sure the facilities and expertise are available should ramping up a
program be necessary
- design a new weapon, tested by simulation, but hold off on production
while making sure the faclities are available to produce the weapon
- producing new warheads from existing designs, either to supplement the
existing arsenal or to replace aging warheads
I haven't personally seen anything regarding designing or manufacturing
new warheads, though I have read of plans to repackage existing warheads
for alternate delivery modes. This doesn't quite appear to match the
description, though.
I've also read that there is discussion (no decisions or even
recommendations, just think-tank type discussions) of designing a
Minuteman IV ballistic missile to replace the Minuteman III's. Could the
news story you heard have referred to this?
Take care,
cb
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
11 May 1949 -- Prsident Truman signs legislation for a 3000-mile-
long guided missile test range, which is built at Cape Canaveral FL.
Nuclear_Waste
"Stephanie" <merfi...@aol.comspamkill> wrote in message
news:20030510104610...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> >From: "bookman" Thebo...@kc.rr.NULL.com
>
> >How about a rise in Religious Fundamentalism and
> >increasing voter apathy, for starters?
>
> Living here in the south, I'll second a bit of an alarm at how firmly the
> Religious Right are reestablishing their control on local elected offices,
and
> on general society behavior. I'm not quite a pariah yet for not going to
> church, but even in Fayetteville, the pagan community seems to be quietly
> withdrawing its once visible presence to be more discreet. Likewise for
the
> alternative living community.
So their alleged influence upon things by way of exercising their First
Ammendment Rights is bad, yet the very same exercising of rights is well
employed in every other portion of the country by the two groups you allege
are going underground down there. I guess my question is, do you feel that
all representative government in bad, or just when it is people you happen
to dislike who are in the majority?
NW
--
Postcards from over the edge
jump101
<bo...@gamma.cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
Snip:
>
>I think, from an international politics perspective -- specifically when
>dealing with North Korea and Iran -- it may be counterproductive for the
>US to engage in the development of a new weapon design. That said, there
>are a few possible shades of meaning that could be applied to that brief
>description. Only one is the design and development of a new weapon.
>
>Alternate interpretations:
>- make sure the facilities and expertise are available should ramping up a
>program be necessary
>- design a new weapon, tested by simulation, but hold off on production
>while making sure the faclities are available to produce the weapon
>- producing new warheads from existing designs, either to supplement the
>existing arsenal or to replace aging warheads
>
>I haven't personally seen anything regarding designing or manufacturing
>new warheads, though I have read of plans to repackage existing warheads
>for alternate delivery modes. This doesn't quite appear to match the
>description, though.
>
>I've also read that there is discussion (no decisions or even
>recommendations, just think-tank type discussions) of designing a
>Minuteman IV ballistic missile to replace the Minuteman III's. Could the
>news story you heard have referred to this?
>
>Take care,
>cb
I can't really disagree with anything you have said here, but I would
like to add that it is always best to negotiate from a position of
superior firepower. If we once let our guard slip and our abilities
to rust, we will be prey to almost any two-bit power with a nuke. If
we think that the events of 9/11 were horrible, think what a small
tactical nuke would have done to NYC.
SS
David M. Silver
<Pine.GSO.4.40.030510...@gamma.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
"Christopher A. Bohn" <bo...@gamma.cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
> Good morning,
[snip]
Good afternoon, Chris,
>
> I haven't personally seen anything regarding designing or manufacturing
> new warheads, though I have read of plans to repackage existing warheads
> for alternate delivery modes. This doesn't quite appear to match the
> description, though.
>
> I've also read that there is discussion (no decisions or even
> recommendations, just think-tank type discussions) of designing a
> Minuteman IV ballistic missile to replace the Minuteman III's. Could the
> news story you heard have referred to this?
>
> Take care,
Don't know what Rufo read, but see:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nukes10may10,1,79209
80.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines
which appeared this morning.
Take care, too,
Christopher A. Bohn
On Sat, 10 May 2003, jump101 wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2003 10:54:41 -0400, "Christopher A. Bohn" wrote:
>
> Snip:
> >
> >I think, from an international politics perspective -- specifically when
> >dealing with North Korea and Iran -- it may be counterproductive for the
> >US to engage in the development of a new weapon design. That said, there
> >are a few possible shades of meaning that could be applied to that brief
> >description. Only one is the design and development of a new weapon.
> >
> >Alternate interpretations:
[...]
>
> I can't really disagree with anything you have said here, but I would
> like to add that it is always best to negotiate from a position of
> superior firepower. If we once let our guard slip and our abilities
> to rust, we will be prey to almost any two-bit power with a nuke. If
> we think that the events of 9/11 were horrible, think what a small
> tactical nuke would have done to NYC.
Absolutely. The preferred negotiating position is with your enemy on his
back and your sword at his throat. And to maintain our technological
advantage, we have to continue with research that won't pan out for 20-30
years, as well as the incremental research that'll get something on a
weapons pylon in 3-10 years.
Bearing in mind I'm not a statesman, I think a velvet glove with a
visible-but-not-overt gauntlet is appropriate in the current situation.
While still sweating from dealing with those who've had NBC development
programs and who've planned (and possibly sponsored) terrorist attacks
against the US and its interests -- and while still sweating from dealing
with those who undeniably did attack the US, along with those who called
them "guests", we should give NK and Iran the opportunity to realize it's
in their best interest not to do anything that might be perceived as
threatening.
There are those who already call the US hypocritical for having a nuclear
arsenal while attempting to enforce a multilateral treaty that prohibits
the spread of nuclear weapons to those who do not already have nuclear
weapons programs. The very same time when we're trying to convince NK and
Iran not to start or re-start nuclear weapons research is probably not the
best time to start the design and production of a new warhead ourselves.
Stephanie
>So their alleged influence upon things by way of exercising their First
>Ammendment Rights is bad, yet the very same exercising of rights is well
>employed in every other portion of the country by the two groups you allege
>are going underground down there. I guess my question is, do you feel that
>all representative government in bad, or just when it is people you happen
>to dislike who are in the majority?
I don't have a problem with representative government. If I gave that
impression, please forgive me. I get out every election day, and browbeat,
shame, or cajole the apathetic voters to do so as well. I was merely
commenting on the fact that by the moral majority currently in power, I have to
choose not to exercise my right to Free Speech and right of religious choice to
safeguard my children, or exercise away and watch social services step in and
take my kids away. It's a phase, as someone else pointed out. Since 9/11 the
religious movement of the country in general has been a deep, grass roots,
back-to-basics one. This is reflected by our representative government. In a
few years, politicians will no longer feel they have to begin and end every
speech with God Bless America, becasue the pendulum will have swung back to an
apathetic, do as you please public opinion.
Dr. Rufo
> In article <3EBCA1B2...@mindspring.com>,
> "Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Rusty,
>> "Religious Fundamentalism" has occurred and re-occurred cyclically in
>>almost every culture that has developed religion -- almost everywhere.
>>Is seems to me that religious fundamentalism is a lot like flatulence:
>>It shows up when you're having a good time. It makes you terrribly
>>uncomfortable as sneaks up on you. And, when it makes its presence
>>widely known, it makes a terrible stink and is viewed as a source of
>>ridicule.
>
>
> I think you're soft-peddling the problem of fundamentalism, a bit, Rufe.
David, I was referring to religious "fundamentalism" rather than
religious "fanaticism." I suggest that a "fundamentalist" position has
repeatedly occurred within the context of almost every religion that has
ever existed. I do not mean to suggest that it is a tenable nor a
desirable position -- ever. As far as I can see, holding a
fundamentalist position typically absolves the religionist of any need
to think through a situation.
If a person believes that (s)he is on such intimate terms with the
Deity, as to possess "sure and certain knowledge" of God's Will; that
person can justify almost any form of activity to reprove behaviour not
condoned or exhorted by that Deity's Will.
You give an example cited in Candide - mid-18th Century. Go further
back in time: The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of the French Hugenots.
The "crusade" against the Albigensians in the Provence in the 13th
century. The Crusades to "free the Holy Land" from the Infidels starting
in the 11th century. The Iconclastic Purges in the 8th century. Earlier,
the Jews who were moving into the territory of the Canaanites were
"putting cities to the sword" in the name of their G-d. There are
instructions in the Psalms to smash the heads of infants against walls
to remove those peoples from the land. And the list contains more
entries both before these and after.
"All you pagans, (or Catholics, or Jews, or gays, or Protestants, or
Sufis, or Sunnis, or Buddhists, or Hindus, or Sikhs, or Jains,or Free
Masons,or Knights Templar, or Christian Scientists, or Mormons, or
Baptists, or Mennonites, or whatevers) better not offend the Almighty,
or I, as His/Her/Its Divinely Knowledgable/Blessed Servant will
demonstrate the Divine Wrath to you personally!!
The time to deal with fundamentalism is *before* it can turn into
fanaticism. I am not trying to soft-pedal any of the atrocities that
have been perpetrated on the grounds that "God wants it this way."
Rufe
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> David M. Silver wrote:
> > In article <3EBCA1B2...@mindspring.com>,
[snip]
> > I think you're soft-peddling the problem of fundamentalism, a bit, Rufe.
>
> David, I was referring to religious "fundamentalism" rather than
> religious "fanaticism." I suggest that a "fundamentalist" position has
> repeatedly occurred within the context of almost every religion that has
> ever existed.
Distinction noted. Differences in real life can blend both together.
> I do not mean to suggest that it is a tenable nor a
> desirable position -- ever. As far as I can see, holding a
> fundamentalist position typically absolves the religionist of any need
> to think through a situation.
> If a person believes that (s)he is on such intimate terms with the
> Deity, as to possess "sure and certain knowledge" of God's Will; that
> person can justify almost any form of activity to reprove behaviour not
> condoned or exhorted by that Deity's Will.
> You give an example cited in Candide - mid-18th Century. Go further
> back in time: The St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of the French Hugenots.
I did. That's what Twain cited as the capstone of French fundamentalist
or fanatic religious conduct in his essay on the French and Comanches.
It's in Bernard deVoto's edited Twain's "Letters from the Earth." Left
out of Travels Abroad, iirc, because of a decision by his editors that
there were "space limitations." ;-) Twain's description of that vicious
event is Twain at his most viritrolic.
[snip other examples]
> The time to deal with fundamentalism is *before* it can turn into
> fanaticism. I am not trying to soft-pedal any of the atrocities that
> have been perpetrated on the grounds that "God wants it this way."
I'm not sure you can find easily the dividing line where treatment other
than cauterization is effective. That slope is very steep. Up pops the
'pope' one day and utters, "Deus vult" or "Deus volent" or whatever it
was, and the demons are unchained. Or as Alex Hergensheimer noted, they
all knew, but never openingly discussed, that one day the day will come
to implement the final solution they've been waiting for. Night of the
Long Knives?
Andy Frame
I recently read somewhere that Donald Rumsfeld used to be chairman of
the company that sold nuclear power stations to North Korea. I've no
idea whether it is true or not. Perhaps some of you merkins could
check it out.
Andy Frame
Today's subliminal message is
jump101
<ag.pl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>In article
><Pine.GSO.4.40.030510...@gamma.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
> "Christopher A. Bohn" <bo...@gamma.cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>
>> Good morning,
>[snip]
>Good afternoon, Chris,
>>
>> I haven't personally seen anything regarding designing or manufacturing
>> new warheads, though I have read of plans to repackage existing warheads
>> for alternate delivery modes. This doesn't quite appear to match the
>> description, though.
>>
>> I've also read that there is discussion (no decisions or even
>> recommendations, just think-tank type discussions) of designing a
>> Minuteman IV ballistic missile to replace the Minuteman III's. Could the
>> news story you heard have referred to this?
>>
>> Take care,
>
>Don't know what Rufo read, but see:
>
>http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nukes10may10,1,79209
>80.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dheadlines
>
>which appeared this morning.
>
>Take care, too,
"The story you requested is available only to registered members.
Registration is FREE and offers great benefits."
Feh! Like I am going to subscribe THAT rag. It's almost as bad as
the Seatlle PI.
SS
TreetopAngel
> "TreetopAngel" <treetopan...@micro-mania.net> wrote in message
> news:b9hbqk$im0cu$1...@ID-164920.news.dfncis.de...
>> David Wright wrote:
>>>
>>> You might be interested in reading my article.
>>> http://dwrighsr.tripod.com/heinlein/RatAnarch/
>>
>> Thanks, David! It is an excellent article and along the lines of
>> what I believe. I just wonder how much of my belief comes from my
>> parents teachings and how much from Heinlein. I'll have to talk to
>> Dad about it.
>>
>
> Thanks E! for the compliment. I have never been able to figure out
> whether RAH molded my thoughts or whether I simply found in his works
> the best articulation of what I thought. (Even though, I don't agree
> totally with him).
My pleasure, Sir! I find myself in the same position.
I do remember arguments with my Dad (had to be arguments we were at the age
of confrontation, not discussion at the time) in which the real lesson was
to learn to think for myself. I found out many years later that Dad
actually agreed with the stances I took, but played Devil's Advocate. Our
discussions these days are much more enjoyable, now that I have learned to
articulate my thoughts a bit better without sreaming and crying (love those
teenage hormones).
The point is, I owe Heinlein a debt of gratitude, because I am sure that his
writings helped me understand and be able to give examples of the way (and
why) I believe the things I believe in. Between Heinlein and my Dad, I grew
into the totally warped person I am today...:-)
E!
David M. Silver
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote, replying to Merfilly:
> <snip>
>
> > The obligation of the citizen is to uphold what laws are necessary to the
> > functioning of society, but to have the guts to do what is needed in face
> > of
> > threat that the law protects. For instance, should a Nehemiah Scudder ever
> > emerge, a citizen's duty would be to remove him, either by political,
> > social,
> > or even physical means.
>
> Ma'am,
> By this remark, are you referring to the actions ascribed to V.M. Smith
> in SiaSL?
>
Which actions, Rufe? The ones when he emptied the prisons, with the help
of Gillian, but insured that those unsafe for society to be at large got
sent back to the beginning of the line? If there were such an endless
loop in the life of all sentient beings, the answer suggests the
solution: try again to become the 'man who learns a lesson'! Zap goes
the phaser set to kill (er, recycle). In that framework, the activity of
the protestors against 'line-jumpers' on the 'utopia' planet Jake and
Zeb and Deety and Sharpie find in Number becomes more understandable.
Perhaps they believed as Mike did. They were after all, we must recall,
'fundamentalists' in their religion, if not fanatic. One day they did
kill all the lawyers. <g>
> Or to those of Charles Manson?
>
I always wondered, without wanting to know, really, what Charlie truly
believes. The one time I met him, not only was he plainly mad, socially
insensitive, so limited in intelligence as to approach manic behavior,
and fanatic, he was the most single-minded self-indulgent egomaniac I'd
seen in quite some time, before or after. A scary thing: when an
individual of this sort decides to use a framework from a satire someone
tells him about (during a break from looking at pictures in his comic
books no doubt) to create a sexual and power paradise on earth for
himself as Lord over a herd of little girls.
> I do not mean to be inflammatory because I agree that should such a
> person emerge on the political scene, it would be the obligation of
> loyal citizens to prevent his ascendance to power or, failing that, to
> remove him from power -- by using the means provided in law.
>
At 25, in 1967, an Army veteran, and a freshman at my university, I must
have appeared fatherly to a lot of 18 or 19 year-old young lady
classmates. As I've mentioned once before, one such asked me to
accompany her to assess the wisdom of accepting an invitation to her to
join Manson's commune, at the time it was in residence at the so-called
"Tate" bungalow gatehouse up Laurel Canyon [Manson's later grievance
against the occupants of that building stemmed from his eviction by its
owner -- he thought the owner was in residence the night they killed
Tate, Folger, the barber, and Folger's date, Tate's unborn child, and
the boy who was visiting the kid living in the gatehouse]. My wife and I
visited Manson and them, with her, one Saturday or Sunday afternoon. We
got out quickly and told her emphatically to stay away from those folk,
for reasons that I won't repeat in detail, but only note that Charlie
asked me to make bombs for him while I was there.
She declined their invitation to join them and, in fact, moved back
closer to her family in Northern California soon after. I hope she did
well.
I wonder though, had I really been her father, and focused on the
obvious to anyone sexual and drug nirvana Manson had already created
with his little girls, what I might have done about Manson's obvious
deviation from all the 'little rules' of society. Some of those little
girls were still in high school, very likely. Many who later were
dragged out of corners and crannies, during the Sheriff's raid at the
Spann Ranch a couple years later were, too.
I might have taken it somewhat personally had the young lady really been
my daughter. Charlie asked me to make bombs for him because I really,
truly do know how. Unc Shelby taught me, and it slipped out during a
little classroom exercise I delivered in Speech 1 one day, and the young
lady had mentioned it to Charlie.
> However, I am not so positive that my personal convictions would justify
> the application of your suggestion of removing him by "physical means."
>
Oh, you're a nice guy, Rufe. Me, at age twenty-five, I wasn't too nice.
Of course I've aged tollerably well, so they say.
> In your hypothetical situation you are talking about someone abrogating
> the political liberties of other citizens.
Historically, however, what is the final verdict on the Vigilance
Committee that rid San Francisco of the Sydney Ducks, Rufo? Or the ones
that cleaned up Montana, etc., after the Johnson County wars?
If, on election day 2012, the day that "blood ran in the streets" during
polling and Scudder "won" the election, the citizenry of, let us say,
Missouri and "bloody" Kansas (two places I know you're familar with),
had realized what was really happening to them and the United States
Constitution, under the guise of a rather messy election, and decided to
correct the situation by rising "from ev'ry village and town" (or
however that went), and adorning the gutters with much more, but this
time, Scudderite blood, would that have been a ethically-acceptible
alternative to "The Stone Pillow," and those other Stories Never
Written.
Could Heinlein have as easily written, in your opinion, an alternative
history story in which it went that way?
> Is that more or less
> reprehensible than the activities of persons who deprive other
> individuals of their very lives? I suggest this as the view of those who
> hold that abortion of fetuses is "murder."
>
> In order to stop the legally condoned "murder" of hundreds of infants by
> one doctor, there are those who evaluate the murder of the doctor as the
> lesser evil and choose that in preference to allowing the abortions to
> continue. I am not advocating this course of action. I am asking if this
> "choice" reflects the essential content of your remark above.
>
> That is, if I feel that such activities are intolerable, I alone must
> choose whether I shall honor society's proscription of willful murder to
> prevent another such.
>
> I perceive this to be a very difficult position to maintain.
>
So, recently, did a jury. He got twenty-five to life, in a non-capital
punishment state. And he faces some unresolved federal charges, yet. And
some more state murder charges. Elsewhere.
> In Stranger, we, the audience/readers, know that Mike has "powers and
> abilities far beyond those of mortal men" and that because of this, he
> is capable and qualified to work his way through his "Better Dead List."
>
> In the world in which I live, I don't have anywhere near the certainty
> of conviction that would justify such a choice.
>
> What do you think?
>
Maybe what's more relevant is: what might she (or I) do, under some
extreme circumstances?
And what would Heinlein say about it? To return to an earlier point,
when the Prof and the three boys in Rocket Ship Galileo killed almost
all the Nazis, and seriously threatened to torture to death the one
remaining, what did Heinlein seem to imply? Whatever happened to those
nice law-abiding three rocketry hobbyists? And, are all Professors in
Heinlein stories homocidal maniacs?
Just mooching a bit, today, Rufe. ["What are we going to do tomorrow,
Brain?" "The same thing we did today, Pinkie . . . "]
David M. Silver
jump101 <rendezvous...@mnsdesigns.com> wrote:
I dunno. It's now owned by the Chicago Tribune. We're watching the
masthead for the appearance of the Monopoly Millionaire. Go ahead,
Steve, it's safe ... "
jump101
lal_truckee
>
> Here's a question from RL: What does eveyone think of the attempt to
> return to nuclear weapons research? I just heard on the news that The
> Powers That Be in Washington D.C. are very interested in rapid
> development of "new and bigger nuclear weapons."
That should read "new and smaller nuclear weapons."
Your (and my) illustrious President wishes to have at his disposal
"usable" nuclear warheads. Current stockpile warheads are too big for
everyday regular use.
Marty Feldman
> Good morning,
>
> On Fri, 9 May 2003, Dr. Rufo wrote:
>
> > Here's a question from RL: What does eveyone think of the attempt to
> > return to nuclear weapons research? I just heard on the news that The
> > Powers That Be in Washington D.C. are very interested in rapid
> > development of "new and bigger nuclear weapons."
> >
> > Not "nuclear research" -- "nuclear WEAPONS research."
> >
> > Any opinions?
couldn't care less as long as i don't have to pay for it.
anyways, isn't the idea to get smaller and more efficient nukes? and
just how many times do they have to blow up those freaking things
before concluding they know how to blow them up?
bookman
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3EBCA1B2...@mindspring.com...
> bookman wrote:
> > How about a rise in Religious Fundamentalism and
> > increasing voter apathy, for starters?
>
> Rusty,
> "Religious Fundamentalism" has occurred and re-occurred cyclically in
> almost every culture that has developed religion -- almost everywhere.
> Is seems to me that religious fundamentalism is a lot like flatulence:
> It shows up when you're having a good time. It makes you terrribly
> uncomfortable as sneaks up on you. And, when it makes its presence
> widely known, it makes a terrible stink and is viewed as a source of
> ridicule.
>
> Now, about voter apathy: Well, I just don't care to talk about it. <g>
But in Heinlein's description, IIRC, that is exactly the point.
Religious fundamentalism(/fanaticsim (& I think you are putting
too fine a distinction on it, Rufe)) peaks in conjunction with
voter apathy. Didn't something similar occur with the French revolution?
Remember that RAH mentoins that Scudder won By getting out
his own vote, not by stealing the votes of other parties.
bookman
"Nuclear_Waste" <myn...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:b9j45b$joc3u$1...@ID-97148.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "Stephanie" <merfi...@aol.comspamkill> wrote in message
> news:20030510104610...@mb-m02.aol.com...
> > >From: "bookman" Thebo...@kc.rr.NULL.com
> >
> > >How about a rise in Religious Fundamentalism and
> > >increasing voter apathy, for starters?
> >
> > Living here in the south, I'll second a bit of an alarm at how firmly
the
> > Religious Right are reestablishing their control on local elected
offices,
> and
> > on general society behavior. I'm not quite a pariah yet for not going
to
> > church, but even in Fayetteville, the pagan community seems to be
quietly
> > withdrawing its once visible presence to be more discreet. Likewise for
> the
> > alternative living community.
>
> So their alleged influence upon things by way of exercising their First
> Ammendment Rights is bad,
I'm gonna stop you right there, sir.
Point one: establish, if you will, just where Stephanie
said it was simply a free speech issue.
Point two: I note that what she _does_ describe is a
definite shift in the direction of theocracy. Not the
establishment of theocracy, but sufficient shift in
that direction that people sufficiently distant from the
ruling minority must alter their public personae.
Do you want to live in a Theocracy?
Let's bear in mind that "majority rules" means that
your two worst enemies can take you out for lunch,
allow you no food, and make you pay the bill.
Point three: What is happening in her area is probably
a natural, human cyclic phenomena. This does _not_
mean that she is either required to praise it, nor fight it.
Per RAH (and his blue mud) all she is required to do
is survive it. I do trust that you will not turn her over
to the Proctors.
bookman
"Howard Berkowitz" <h...@gettcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hcb-68BAC0.1...@text.giganews.com...
3. Let's not forget the quest for improvement for the
sake of improvement. Telling chip designers that 5 Ghz
is _faster_ than any reasonable person needs won't stop
them from pushing the limit. (As one bad illustration)
Rtb
bookman
"Stephanie" <merfi...@aol.comspamkill> wrote in message
> >From: "Dr. Rufo" bay...@mindspring.com
> >Not "nuclear research" -- "nuclear WEAPONS research."
>
> My dear friend,
>
> I can only say that such a thing grieves me. I am not a pacifist, but I
truly
> only see one outcome if any power in the world ever launches a nuclear
strike.
> I would rather see more money spent on interception, neutralization, etc.
The
> thought to make nuclear powered boosters to get us to Mars was worthwhile.
But
> do we really need to come up with a faster way to kill off humanity?
Ma'am,
In response, I can only say that the same possibility
came to the fore when Cain picked up that rock. One
or two more 'strikes' might well have achieved the End.
Historical accuracy is less the point than Humanity raising
problems that could end itself. I think that the case could be
made that Commercial Airline Travel is as great a threat to
Humanity as any Nuclear Weapon design. Didn't a plague
travel from China to Europe via an overland trade route?
One can only hope we can manage to evolve faster, or
learn to infest other planets, or both...
bookman
"Andy Frame" <an...@andyframe.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1ntqbv0igs18dnqvl...@4ax.com...
> Perhaps some of you merkins could
> check it out.
The only "merkin" in here, is you. Learn manners.
Alternatively, assuming you don't know what a
'merkin' actually is, look it up. Try the search
words "Merkin pubic toupee".
OTOH, if you want to be insulting, learn style.
Regards,
--
Rusty the bookman
The big red "K" stands for Kwality!
bookman
> The point is, I owe Heinlein a debt of gratitude, because I am sure that
his
> writings helped me understand and be able to give examples of the way (and
> why) I believe the things I believe in. Between Heinlein and my Dad, I
grew
> into the totally warped person I am today...:-)
Maybe warped, but a serious hottie!
(Just like the rest of the Bouquet. Let Hollyweird
beware, they have no _idea_ what they missed!)
Rtb
Marc
> > Perhaps some of you merkins could
> > check it out.
>
> The only "merkin" in here, is you. Learn manners.
Tut tut! There you go again, if it's not a USian speaking about a
USian/US in revered tones you object. Free speech only for USians?
>
> Alternatively, assuming you don't know what a
> 'merkin' actually is, look it up. Try the search
> words "Merkin pubic toupee".
I and the majority of UK internet savy residents know what a merkin is ,
amongst other things it's UK internet slang for an American. If you
don't like it I suggest you stop reading posts from UK adresses .
Nuclear_Waste
"Stephanie" <merfi...@aol.comspamkill> wrote in message
Perhaps things are very diffrent where you reside. Here in the Bible Belt
my foster mother found no problem in seeking out a group of like minded
people to celebrate the new or full moon. (Sorry, I regard her religion as
superstition, so I do not pay it much heed.) Even the "moral majority" in
our small town tends to be, at the very least, tolerant. There are four
churches in town. The pastors are evenly divided between male and female.
One of the four is homosexual.
Do I agree with any or all of these four? Nope. Do I believe that they
have every right to continue in their pursuits unmolested? You bet. But
only as long as they allow me the same freedom. In short, if things are as
bad as you describe down there, I would suggest that now is not the time to
keep quiet, either that, or it is time to move.
Jim
Nuclear_Waste
"bookman"
> > So their alleged influence upon things by way of exercising their First
> > Ammendment Rights is bad,
>
> I'm gonna stop you right there, sir.
>
> Point one: establish, if you will, just where Stephanie
> said it was simply a free speech issue.
Stephanie did not say that. I did.
> Point two: I note that what she _does_ describe is a
> definite shift in the direction of theocracy. Not the
> establishment of theocracy, but sufficient shift in
> that direction that people sufficiently distant from the
> ruling minority must alter their public personae.
You will also note that I specifically pointed out that this was an unproved
allegation. I was not aware that the ACLU had ceased to operate down there,
or that public opinion was so changed from my pre 9/11 visits that such a
case was possible. Please note that I do not discount it as impossible
either.
> Do you want to live in a Theocracy?
Certainly! Talk about a target rich environment. However, I do NOT want my
son to live in one.
> Let's bear in mind that "majority rules" means that
> your two worst enemies can take you out for lunch,
> allow you no food, and make you pay the bill.
Where, exactly, did I mention democracy? If you want to discuss the tyranny
of the masses, I am willing, but I specifically stuck with the form of
government we practice, not that of ancient Athens.
> Point three: What is happening in her area is probably
> a natural, human cyclic phenomena. This does _not_
> mean that she is either required to praise it, nor fight it.
I did not ask her to praise it, only to exercise HER rights as vigorously as
those around her. In other words, do not let their dogma run over her
karma.
> Per RAH (and his blue mud) all she is required to do
> is survive it. I do trust that you will not turn her over
> to the Proctors.
I would simply refer you to _EU_ and the forward to "The Last Days of the
United States", as well as the story.
Blue mud is for foriegn cultures, it does not mean to sit back and allow
yours to slip into barbarism.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
"bookman"
> 3. Let's not forget the quest for improvement for the
> sake of improvement. Telling chip designers that 5 Ghz
> is _faster_ than any reasonable person needs won't stop
> them from pushing the limit. (As one bad illustration)
Until the drives manage to spin quite a bit faster, and the memory is a lot
faster, a 5 Ghz cpu is pretty much academic. I still want one.
NW
Nuclear_Waste
"Marc"
> I and the majority of UK internet savy residents know what a merkin is ,
> amongst other things it's UK internet slang for an American. If you
> don't like it I suggest you stop reading posts from UK adresses .
Gosh, guess them blacks shouldn't mind being called niggers, huh Marc?
Perhaps you should just attempt not to be an ass instead? You don't pull it
off as well as I do.
jump101
wrote:
So I guess we can now toss out all our preconceived notions of how
"right and proper" some people in the UK are. After all, being "right
and proper" would seem to intimate civility and using terms that many
consider insulting doesn't fall into that category. I would also
suspect that this gives free reign to those who would use such terms
as "limey" and a raft of others. This seems like a very poor policy
to me.
SS
Stephanie
>One can only hope we can manage to evolve faster, or
>learn to infest other planets, or both...
>
My vote is for another planet.
TreetopAngel
And you haven't even seen a pic of me with my new hairdo...~~:-)
E!
jump101
wrote:
I'd settle for a 3 Ghz processor for now. <g>
SS
djinn
news:m3ksbvoq4lgelhlgo...@4ax.com:
snip
>
> So I guess we can now toss out all our preconceived notions of how
> "right and proper" some people in the UK are. After all, being "right
> and proper" would seem to intimate civility and using terms that many
> consider insulting doesn't fall into that category. I would also
> suspect that this gives free reign to those who would use such terms
> as "limey" and a raft of others. This seems like a very poor policy
> to me.
>
> SS
>
Taffy was a Welshman,
Taffy was a thief.....
Marc
> >> Alternatively, assuming you don't know what a
> >> 'merkin' actually is, look it up. Try the search
> >> words "Merkin pubic toupee".
> >
> >I and the majority of UK internet savy residents know what a merkin is ,
> >amongst other things it's UK internet slang for an American. If you
> >don't like it I suggest you stop reading posts from UK adresses .
>
> So I guess we can now toss out all our preconceived notions of how
> "right and proper" some people in the UK are. After all, being "right
> and proper" would seem to intimate civility
I can be as nasty as you want me to be whilst being very "right and
proper" as one RAF NCO once told me , you don't call me Sir, Sir, I
call you Sir, Sir, but when I do you won't like it very much, Sir! "
>and using terms that many
> consider insulting doesn't fall into that category. I would also
> suspect that this gives free reign to those who would use such terms
> as "limey" and a raft of others. This seems like a very poor policy
> to me.
Limey, pom, taffy, a rose by any other name, I would suggest that if you
can take offense at a humourous deliberate misinterpretation of your own
accented description of yourself, reflected back at you, then your
offenseometer is set too low?
Marc
> >
> > So I guess we can now toss out all our preconceived notions of how
> > "right and proper" some people in the UK are. After all, being "right
> > and proper" would seem to intimate civility and using terms that many
> > consider insulting doesn't fall into that category. I would also
> > suspect that this gives free reign to those who would use such terms
> > as "limey" and a raft of others. This seems like a very poor policy
> > to me.
> >
> > SS
> >
>
> Taffy was a Welshman,
> Taffy was a thief.....
Am I now supposed to froth at the mouth and roar for satisfaction?
djinn
news:1fut1ya.1hf...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk:
Of course not. People have been saying that for so long it must be true,
and you wouldn't complain about the truth would you?
Marc
> >> > So I guess we can now toss out all our preconceived notions of how
> >> > "right and proper" some people in the UK are. After all, being "right
> >> > and proper" would seem to intimate civility and using terms that many
> >> > consider insulting doesn't fall into that category. I would also
> >> > suspect that this gives free reign to those who would use such terms
> >> > as "limey" and a raft of others. This seems like a very poor policy
> >> > to me.
> >> >
> >> > SS
> >> >
> >>
> >> Taffy was a Welshman,
> >> Taffy was a thief.....
> >
> > Am I now supposed to froth at the mouth and roar for satisfaction?
> >
> Of course not. People have been saying that for so long it must be true,
> and you wouldn't complain about the truth would you?
Ranks close to "When did ou stop beating your wife?" <g>
djinn
news:1fut2r0.16n...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk:
Better, its an assertion with no substantiation. Kinda like your stuff
about Americans.
Marc
> >> >> Taffy was a Welshman,
> >> >> Taffy was a thief.....
> >> >
> >> > Am I now supposed to froth at the mouth and roar for satisfaction?
> >> >
> >> Of course not. People have been saying that for so long it must be
> >> true, and you wouldn't complain about the truth would you?
> >
> > Ranks close to "When did ou stop beating your wife?" <g>
> >
>
> Better, its an assertion with no substantiation. Kinda like your stuff
> about Americans.
Which is close to transubstantiation where my dross is turned into gold
by you biteing.
djinn
news:1fut4uv.1v...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk:
That was really a roundabout way to say you're trolling.
jump101
wrote:
The point I was trying to make, Marc, was that if you expect to be
treated with respect, then it is incumbent upon you to treat others
likewise. In spite of the number of times that you and I have bumped
heads on things, I have never felt it proper or necessary to resort to
calling you names. I also try to steer clear of the "sheep issue".
<G>
SS
bookman
"Marc" <ma...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1futlhj.12d...@jaceeprint.demon.co.uk...
> bookman <Thebo...@kc.rr.NULL.com> wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps some of you merkins could
> > > check it out.
> >
> > The only "merkin" in here, is you. Learn manners.
>
> Tut tut! There you go again, if it's not a USian speaking about a
> USian/US in revered tones you object. Free speech only for USians?
Where am I demanding "reverence"?
Why shouldn't I object to a term which is insulting?
How is raising an objection a violation of Free Speech?
> >
> > Alternatively, assuming you don't know what a
> > 'merkin' actually is, look it up. Try the search
> > words "Merkin pubic toupee".
>
> I and the majority of UK internet savy residents know what a merkin is ,
> amongst other things it's UK internet slang for an American. If you
> don't like it I suggest you stop reading posts from UK adresses .
Since you didn't get it, I will be more direct: I was
giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he might not
know the term.
Am I to understand that you want your fellow-citizens
and yourself to be referred to by less-than-polite nicknames?
bookman
> And you haven't even seen a pic of me with my new hairdo...~~:-)
I'm waiting... ;-)
Rtb
TreetopAngel
We'll have to wait until I am presentable and Charlie can get a pic of me.
I'd really like to update my pic on the AFH Faces page. I've thinned out a
little and my hair is longer.
E!
(candid pics of me in my PJ's don't count)
Marc
> >Limey, pom, taffy, a rose by any other name, I would suggest that if you
> >can take offense at a humourous deliberate misinterpretation of your own
> >accented description of yourself, reflected back at you, then your
> >offenseometer is set too low?
>
> The point I was trying to make, Marc, was that if you expect to be
> treated with respect, then it is incumbent upon you to treat others
> likewise. In spite of the number of times that you and I have bumped
> heads on things, I have never felt it proper or necessary to resort to
> calling you names.
Maybe I don't get riled quickly about names and so can't see the
problem, but I don't consider "Merkin" to be any more offensive than
Yank, Septic or Limey, I do however take objection to being called a
liar and to to Rusty the bookman trying to teach manners in such an
abrupt way as to be rude.
Marc
> > > > Perhaps some of you merkins could
> > > > check it out.
> > >
> > > The only "merkin" in here, is you. Learn manners.
> >
> > Tut tut! There you go again, if it's not a USian speaking about a
> > USian/US in revered tones you object. Free speech only for USians?
>
> Where am I demanding "reverence"?
I never mentioned you demanding anything, only that you object.
> Why shouldn't I object to a term which is insulting?
Because it's pointless, and might not even be seen from the other side
as insulting?
> How is raising an objection a violation of Free Speech?
>
> > >
> > > Alternatively, assuming you don't know what a
> > > 'merkin' actually is, look it up. Try the search
> > > words "Merkin pubic toupee".
> >
> > I and the majority of UK internet savy residents know what a merkin is ,
> > amongst other things it's UK internet slang for an American. If you
> > don't like it I suggest you stop reading posts from UK adresses .
>
> Since you didn't get it, I will be more direct: I was
> giving him the benefit of the doubt, that he might not
> know the term.
You're digging yourself in deeper, you are now adding patronisng to
being deliberately rude...
>
> Am I to understand that you want your fellow-citizens
> and yourself to be referred to by less-than-polite nicknames?
You understand incorrectly , I don't want it, but it probably woudn't
bother me too much. When you grow up with my surname you get a thick
skin about nicknames quite quickly.
William Hughes
Yes, they do. :)
RB
"That which does not kill us only makes us stronger." - Nietzsche
Christopher A. Bohn
On Sun, 11 May 2003, Marc wrote:
> Limey, pom, taffy, a rose by any other name, I would suggest that if you
> can take offense at a humourous deliberate misinterpretation of your own
> accented description of yourself, reflected back at you, then your
> offenseometer is set too low?
I might agree if I pronounced "American" like anything close to "merkin".
Me, I use all four syllables, and the "mer" comes out with a sound closer
to an "A" (similar to "rare") than to a "U" (which according to my
dictionary's pronounciation key is how the "mer" in "merkin" is
pronounced.
Personally, I'm not offended. I'm more flabbergasted to find that slang
for US citizens ranges from a term derived from "septic tank" to the term
for a pubic wig. I thought that level of humor was rarely seen after the
8th grade.
And now a tangential question -- why would anyone invent a pubic wig?
Take care,
cb
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
11 May 1964 -- The North American Aviation XB-70 Valkyrie rolled-
out. It was designed to fly three times the speed of sound at
altitudes above 70,000 feet.
Mike Cothran
> <major snippage>
> And now a tangential question -- why would anyone invent a pubic wig?
One word... lice.
--
Mike C
Christopher A. Bohn
Thanks, but I need a few more words to fully understand. I can certainly
appreciate that lice problems might encourage one to shave -- but why
bother with a wig afterwards?
Thanks, and take care,
cb
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
12 May 1968 -- Bunker Hill AFB IN is renamed after astronaut
Lt Col Virgil "Gus" Grissom, who died 27 Jan 67 in the fire of
Apollo capsule AS-204.
Christopher A. Bohn
On Sat, 10 May 2003, Andy Frame wrote:
> I recently read somewhere that Donald Rumsfeld used to be chairman of
> the company that sold nuclear power stations to North Korea. I've no
> idea whether it is true or not. Perhaps some of you merkins could
> check it out.
This would've been under the 1994 agreement that NK stops its nuclear
weapons program in exchange for the US providing "proliferation-proof"
reactors for power plants.
Take care,
TreetopAngel
> On Sun, 11 May 2003 16:22:26 -0600, in alt.fan.heinlein "TreetopAngel"
> <treetopan...@micro-mania.net> wrote:
>> bookman wrote:
>>> "TreetopAngel" <treetopan...@micro-mania.net> wrote in message
>>> news:b9lo8i$l3i9b$1...@ID-164920.news.dfncis.de...
>>>
>>>> And you haven't even seen a pic of me with my new hairdo...~~:-)
>>>
>>> I'm waiting... ;-)
>>>
>>> Rtb
>>
>> We'll have to wait until I am presentable and Charlie can get a pic
>> of me. I'd really like to update my pic on the AFH Faces page. I've
>> thinned out a little and my hair is longer.
>>
>> E!
>> (candid pics of me in my PJ's don't count)
>
> Yes, they do. :)
>
E!
Mike Cothran
> Good morning,
> On Mon, 12 May 2003, Mike Cothran wrote:
> > "Christopher A. Bohn" wrote:
> >
> > > <major snippage>
> > > And now a tangential question -- why would anyone invent a pubic wig?
> >
> > One word... lice.
>
> Thanks, but I need a few more words to fully understand. I can certainly
> appreciate that lice problems might encourage one to shave -- but why
> bother with a wig afterwards?
Before you say I bushwhacked you with that one word answer, try any or all of
the following URLs.
http://www.quinion.com/words/articles/merkin.htm
for a slightly near historical whimsical view
or
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxmerkin.html
for a similar worded view
or
http://www.chud.com/news/mar01/mar13klum.php3
for a blown dry current view
or
http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flytying/fotw/10497fotw.html
for a fishy version
Those who would cover up their need for a shaved area; head, pubic, arm
pit (I don't have a lice problem, no sir, not me) would be the chief reasons
for this usage, I think.
Now, from memory and in the style of writing of the late 1830's, here is
my recollections of a set of questions found in a "privately printed &
distributed; written for the genteel young lady" book on the history of
sexual practices in various cultures and through the ages (title not
remembered, author not remember). I do not own this book and it has been
years since I last saw it in the hands of a dealer.
Q: Why is a merkin needed after shaving the pubic area as a preventive
measure for lice?
A: When warm & moist skin to skin contact could be isolated via merkins on
both partners enhanced joy ensued. Those who are the vainest will wish a
youthful appearance in their merkin and a good quality spirit gum to adhere.
Cleansing of your merkin is of the highest import as spoilt male ejaculate
will impart a fishy smell.
Q: Is fox fur an acceptable material for a merkin?
A: If clean and compatible with your natural hair, yes.
Q: Who fashions merkins?
A: Any reputable wig designer.
Funny phrases found
Naomi made her Merkin Hall debut in May with the Festival Chamber Music
Society...
Perkin' at Merkin ... ominous, virtuostic ... for solo percussion, making
vivid contrast...
Some definitions:
The AMERICAN Heretic's Dictionary
HairPiece - making whoopee with a merkin
Lindsay Sun Jan 12 2003 13:05:36 says:
I just looked up Merkin in an online dictionary and apparently it was later
used as a term for a mop used to clean cannons!
The above gives new meaning to the phrase 'just mopping my cannon, mom'
U.S. Catholic Bishops - Movie Reviews
Can Hieronymus Merkin Ever Forget Mercy Humppe and Find True Happiness? --
Writer-director Anthony Newley plays a star entertainer making a movie about
his career and using fragmented and surrealistic techniques both for the film
and the film-within-the-film. Apparently an attempt to make a statement about
the artist's quest for identity, the result is an incoherent failure,
floundering in excesses of explicit sexual adventures and moral relativism
that leave viewers with little to share other than the character's lack of
self-knowledge and the director's lack of ability to control his material.
(O) (X/R) 1969
and a site section devoted to them
http://www.livinghistory.co.uk/1100-1500/forum/xw_235.html
--
Mike C
Christopher A. Bohn
On Mon, 12 May 2003, Mike Cothran wrote:
> "Christopher A. Bohn" wrote:
>
> > Good morning,
> > On Mon, 12 May 2003, Mike Cothran wrote:
> > > "Christopher A. Bohn" wrote:
> > >
> > > > <major snippage>
> > > > And now a tangential question -- why would anyone invent a pubic wig?
> > >
> > > One word... lice.
> >
> > Thanks, but I need a few more words to fully understand. I can certainly
> > appreciate that lice problems might encourage one to shave -- but why
> > bother with a wig afterwards?
>
> Before you say I bushwhacked you with that one word answer, try any or all of
> the following URLs.
(groan)
> http://www.quinion.com/words/articles/merkin.htm
> for a slightly near historical whimsical view
> or
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxmerkin.html
> for a similar worded view
> or
> http://www.chud.com/news/mar01/mar13klum.php3
> for a blown dry current view
> or
IOW, they're for polite public pubic presentations.
It hadn't even occured to me that they might be used for cross-dressers.
> http://www.flyanglersonline.com/flytying/fotw/10497fotw.html
> for a fishy version
Hmm. One of these things is not like the others...
[...]
> Those who would cover up their need for a shaved area; head, pubic, arm
> pit (I don't have a lice problem, no sir, not me) would be the chief reasons
> for this usage, I think.
Actually, this thought *had* occured to me -- but I saw it from the other
POV. Certainly, a wig on the head in public would be appropriate, but in
private -- a lady of the evening would silently convey a message to her
Johns if she were "shaved bare down there", specifically that *he* won't
contract lice through intimate contact with her.
> Now, from memory and in the style of writing of the late 1830's, here is
> my recollections of a set of questions found in a "privately printed &
> distributed; written for the genteel young lady" book on the history of
> sexual practices in various cultures and through the ages (title not
> remembered, author not remember). I do not own this book and it has been
> years since I last saw it in the hands of a dealer.
>
> Q: Why is a merkin needed after shaving the pubic area as a preventive
> measure for lice?
> A: When warm & moist skin to skin contact could be isolated via merkins on
> both partners enhanced joy ensued.
[...]
I suppose so. This might also explain why pubic hair exists in the first
place.
Howard Berkowitz
frightens me that a radioactive merkin for Fidel Castro's mistress might
just have occurred to the CIA people running the anti-Castro Operation
MONGOOSE.
They actually were going to give him a thallium-coated wetsuit and
helmet to get his hair to fall out -- especially the beard.
Andy Frame
<Thebo...@kc.rr.NULL.com> wrote:
>
>"Andy Frame" <an...@andyframe.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:1ntqbv0igs18dnqvl...@4ax.com...
>
>> Perhaps some of you merkins could
>> check it out.
>
>The only "merkin" in here, is you. Learn manners.
>
>Alternatively, assuming you don't know what a
>'merkin' actually is, look it up. Try the search
>words "Merkin pubic toupee".
>
>OTOH, if you want to be insulting, learn style.
>
>Regards,
No offence was intended. In another ng that I follow (a UK one) the
word merkin is used as a slang abbreviation of American. I was unaware
of any other meaning of the word. If I have inadvertantly offended
anyone please accept my sincere apologies.
Andy Frame
Today's subliminal message is
Andy Frame
<bo...@epsilon.cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Good morning,
>
>On Sat, 10 May 2003, Andy Frame wrote:
>
>> I recently read somewhere that Donald Rumsfeld used to be chairman of
>> the company that sold nuclear power stations to North Korea. I've no
>> idea whether it is true or not. Perhaps some of you merkins could
>> check it out.
>
>This would've been under the 1994 agreement that NK stops its nuclear
>weapons program in exchange for the US providing "proliferation-proof"
>reactors for power plants.
>
>Take care,
>cb
At last. An on-topic response.
bookman
I am occasionally less than polite when confronted
with an insulting label. Live with it.
I am also less than impressed with you passing judgement
on which terms are inoffensive to others. I'll treat that
notion with all the respect it deserves.
bookman
> No offence was intended. In another ng that I follow (a UK one) the
> word merkin is used as a slang abbreviation of American. I was unaware
> of any other meaning of the word. If I have inadvertantly offended
> anyone please accept my sincere apologies.
Apology accepted, sir.
For my part, I'd like to apologize to you. I regret
'coming out of the blocks' quite as fast as I did.
It took me awhile to figure it out when I first
ran across it, myself.
Regards,
--
Rusty the bookman
Minion of Phil #0001
You don't understand the power of the insufficiently lit side.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you when you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, and they're starvation cheap
- Kipling
bookman
only if it is E!-wrapping!
Rtb