A newbie/Starship Troopers
Stephen Jordan
gotten onto the Net, and have been searching for a RAH discussion group.
I hope I've found what I'm seeking.
This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
Re: Starship Troopers, I have read and learned from this book many
times. Recently, I watched the movie; more from curiosity re: how
Hollywood had screwed it up than any other motive. I was not
disappointed.
The movie, as expected, has only a nodding acquaintance with the book. I
have nothing against a little T&A, but it seemed gratuitous to me. For
lovers of gore, it has a lot to commend it, of course.
In the training scene in which Rico loses a man under his command, I
noted that the trainees were firing live ammo with structures and
personnel behind the targets. This is not only ridiculous, but
unforgiveable.
Also: where are the bugs' weapons? That they fight by chewing up their
adversaries, who are heavily armed, is silly.
Well, I could go on and on about the movie and its many faults, but I'm
sure that most in the group are familiar with the subject (although I
haven't seen it mentioned in the discussion).
Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
civic responsibility? And whence came the allegation that ST is some
sort of fascist propaganda?
I'm really curious about that last question.
Steve Jordan
Stephen Jordan
Robert A. Woodward
mtw...@webtv.net (Stephen Jordan) wrote:
> I've been a fan and student of RAH for over forty years. I've just
> gotten onto the Net, and have been searching for a RAH discussion group.
> I hope I've found what I'm seeking.
>
> This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
> the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
>
You noticed. There have been complaints (and the more serious posters have
abandoned this news group for a group on the 'news.sff.net' newserver.
> Re: Starship Troopers, I have read and learned from this book many
> times. Recently, I watched the movie; more from curiosity re: how
> Hollywood had screwed it up than any other motive. I was not
> disappointed.
>
> The movie, as expected, has only a nodding acquaintance with the book. I
> have nothing against a little T&A, but it seemed gratuitous to me. For
> lovers of gore, it has a lot to commend it, of course.
>
> In the training scene in which Rico loses a man under his command, I
> noted that the trainees were firing live ammo with structures and
> personnel behind the targets. This is not only ridiculous, but
> unforgiveable.
>
And these Hollywood directors, producers, and writers just don't
understand this either.
> Also: where are the bugs' weapons? That they fight by chewing up their
> adversaries, who are heavily armed, is silly.
>
They thought that the sight of a "bug" with a gun was ridiculous - specist
scum is what I call them.
> Well, I could go on and on about the movie and its many faults, but I'm
> sure that most in the group are familiar with the subject (although I
> haven't seen it mentioned in the discussion).
>
The movie was thoroughally flamed when it came out (and before).
> Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
> civic responsibility? And whence came the allegation that ST is some
> sort of fascist propaganda?
>
> I'm really curious about that last question.
Go thee to Dejanews (www.dejanews.com) and investigate. Look several
months before the movie came out.
Kirk R. Darling
<snip>
> There's a notion that everybody who is to be governed by a law should
> have an equal say in its making, which would conflict with the idea
> that one must demonstrate, well, anything in order to have the vote.
> (I happen to hold that same notion myself. I'm aware of the arguments
> for requiring proof of commitment to society's well-being for the
> franchise, but I fail to see just how that society would have any
> moral authority to govern non-participants)
>
Every government does that now--for instance, with alien residents
(although it *has* been questioned in the US courts whether alien
residents should be compelled to obey US laws while in the US. Also, a
person has to be registered and must claim a state of residency to vote.
The question of whether there is moral authority to govern non-franchise
holders, IMO, only matters if the rules effectively prevent groups from
earning the franchise. As long as the path to franchise is open to all,
there is no question of moral authority.
K.Darling
Robert A. Woodward
<Pro...@nospam.petalsoflife.attcanada.net> wrote:
> >> Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
> >> civic responsibility? And whence came the allegation that ST is some
> >> sort of fascist propaganda?
> >>
> >> I'm really curious about that last question.
> >
> >Go thee to Dejanews (www.dejanews.com) and investigate. Look several
> >months before the movie came out.
> >
>
> Oh. This *isn't* the right NG to discuss RAH's books, ideas and the movies
> that are theoretically created from them? I'm sorry, I must have
> misunderstood. I'll go some where else, then.
DejaNews is an archive.
Robert A. Woodward
bugf...@aol.com (Bugfree99) wrote:
> Steve Jordan observed:
> > This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
> > the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
>
> To which robertaw (Robert A. Woodward), who is most likely a J. Gifford clone
> or at least minion, replied:
>
I am myself; I do not take directions. You will find me posting on a
goodly number of newsgroups - go thee to DejaNews and look.
>
> >>You noticed. There have been complaints (and >>the more serious posters have
> >>abandoned this news group for a group on the >>'news.sff.net' newserver.
>
>
> Okay, gang; who wants first dibs on this guy?
I have been here years longer than you - I can post what I wish,
especially when it is an accurate summation of recent events.
Nuclear Waste
Stephen Jordan wrote in message
<4786-366...@newsd-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
I've been a fan and student of RAH for over forty years. I've just
gotten onto the Net, and have been searching for a RAH discussion group.
I hope I've found what I'm seeking.
This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
Let me assume here that you are not sent by Jimmy Gifford. Please read
the name of the group again. We are all fans of Heinlein and his works
here, however since this is alt.fan.heinlein we feel that most subjects
are fair game. We will desist from any subject not covered by Heinlein,
please point them out to us.
Re: Starship Troopers, I have read and learned from this book many
times. Recently, I watched the movie; more from curiosity re: how
Hollywood had screwed it up than any other motive. I was not
disappointed.
The movie, as expected, has only a nodding acquaintance with the book. I
have nothing against a little T&A, but it seemed gratuitous to me. For
lovers of gore, it has a lot to commend it, of course.
In the training scene in which Rico loses a man under his command, I
noted that the trainees were firing live ammo with structures and
personnel behind the targets. This is not only ridiculous, but
unforgiveable.
Also: where are the bugs' weapons? That they fight by chewing up their
adversaries, who are heavily armed, is silly.
Well, I could go on and on about the movie and its many faults, but I'm
sure that most in the group are familiar with the subject (although I
haven't seen it mentioned in the discussion).
LOL The term here is "The interminable and never ending _ST_ thread."
If you would like to see what was said, go to www.dejanews.com and use
the power search for afh and put in Starship Troopers, you should
recieve in excess of 1000 posts. If there is some specific aspect of
the book or movie you want to discuss, let us know.
Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
civic responsibility? And whence came the allegation that ST is some
sort of fascist propaganda?
I'm really curious about that last question.
LOL Steve, so are we! Those two questions spawned two of our longest
threads. For the record I have no problem with people demonstrating
civic responsibility, in fact I feel it is great. I just see no real
way to legislate such a thing.
As far as _ST_ being fascist, please don't say that here, I will just
have to fight with Randy again! It is NOT, certain Follywood directors
need to learn a little history and a lot of Poli Sci, before trying to
have an opinion. (Or just a simple H&MP class...)
Welcome aboard.
NW
Nuclear Waste
LeadWood wrote in message ...
|
|>> Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must
demonstrate
|>> civic responsibility? And whence came the allegation that ST is
some
|>> sort of fascist propaganda?
|>>
|>> I'm really curious about that last question.
|>
|>months before the movie came out.
|>
|
|Oh. This *isn't* the right NG to discuss RAH's books, ideas and the
movies
|that are theoretically created from them? I'm sorry, I must have
|misunderstood. I'll go some where else, then.
You know, you could just do what he asked. You look oddly like James
Gifford to me, but I will assume this is honest. I responded to your
post already, now if you want to participate, do, but grow a thicker
skin.
NW
Director Mike S. Medintz
While in non-compliance with local decency ordinances the world over,
mtw...@webtv.net (Stephen Jordan) spake:
>In the training scene in which Rico loses a man under his command, I
>noted that the trainees were firing live ammo with structures and
>personnel behind the targets. This is not only ridiculous, but
>unforgiveable.
That depends on whether the instructors are actually paid to deliver
_live_ trained soldiers.
>Well, I could go on and on about the movie and its many faults, but I'm
>sure that most in the group are familiar with the subject (although I
>haven't seen it mentioned in the discussion).
Don't get them started...;)
>Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
>civic responsibility?
There's a notion that everybody who is to be governed by a law should
have an equal say in its making, which would conflict with the idea
that one must demonstrate, well, anything in order to have the vote.
(I happen to hold that same notion myself. I'm aware of the arguments
for requiring proof of commitment to society's well-being for the
franchise, but I fail to see just how that society would have any
moral authority to govern non-participants)
>And whence came the allegation that ST is some sort of fascist propaganda?
Mostly from people who read the first seventeen pages of the Cliff's
Notes. I think the idea was:
1) Fascist societies are militarized.
2) In ST, nobody who was not a citizen could hold elective or
appointed office.
3) The only guarantee of citizenship was a term of federal service.
4) The most visible branch of federal service in the book was the
armed forces.
5) To hold any public office or to vote one had to complete federal
service, and was more likely to have been a military veteran than not
(Okay, I'm guessing about the proportions of military/other here, but
stay with me).
6) The government in ST was militarized.
Therefore, the government in ST was fascist.
Or so say the critics. However, the conclusion does not prove anything
other than Kettering's law, and a lot of logic was chopped to get that
far.
To put it another way: Paul Verhoeven is an idiot. But that's an
awfully uncivil thing to say.
And welcome to AFH. Pull up a chair, open a beer or five, don't grope
the ladies without an invitation, and good luck keeping the players
straight without a scorecard!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBNmH+TpdiUzdLFqlpAQEG5gf9GejqU+0vEixHK84hY3kg/WUDWQZMrCi7
5gB0h6DDFYRLAa76sjxdtzv5D5Xj9MkSTj3pSpeUZvJdmS4J90m85JeaY31f87pH
NN+dgeIi0RgmoeJz4M3Szp2RzOd5jPTbEvn9nUscRbirOuCKYE0czdwzHq+J0G6I
lBm2OjCnHPfgfEaQGc5PgQj3nIHtdwUdIKY8VZF4+zltfyJJOPhpecX5ZYoJxyhY
mHPCXOJURNW7IHw6upY+O+vkOH2cOcPM8zU+xAqZiX3gUOIAmYBRyT9N/4gwaf1Z
723+j64Ks3X6Al8dgo01t807WejGCVoi1Ej+Yt22kDg6Mslnjgl1KQ==
=ZMUA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mike S. Medintz, http://www.idir.net/~medintz
"Soon [WebTV] will be a large and expensive intranet for people
who can't deal with the complexity of AOL" -abacaxi(at)hotmail(dot)com
Bugfree99
>This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
>the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
Hoo boy! All right, who's gonna be the first to bring back the dreaded FAQ
discussion? And be gentle, children; he DID acknowledge his newbieness.
Steve
"We were trying to establish a perfect anarchistic society, but everyone kept
breaking the rules" (original thought by me? Heaven forbid. source just
unknown)
Bugfree99
>Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
>civic responsibility? And whence came the allegation that ST is some
>sort of fascist propaganda?
>
>I'm really curious about that last question.
>
>Steve Jordan
Okay; now all you folks who've so viciously argued against establishing a data
bank of common topics that have been discussed to death here, listen up: you
promised to be nice to anyone who came here and raised these questions, as long
as they didn't show troll markings. Now's your chance to live up to your word.
And welcome, Steve!
Bugfree99
>
>Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
>civic responsibility?
You're preaching to the choir if you ask that one of me, Steve. Anyone who
isn't willing to do something to benefit his/her society and its members has no
right to a say in how that society is run, as far as I'm concerned. It's kinda
like the guy that doesn't bother to vote, but then goes around bitching about
the "lousy government."
Bugfree99
Steve Jordan observed:
> This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
> the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
To which robertaw (Robert A. Woodward), who is most likely a J. Gifford clone
or at least minion, replied:
>>You noticed. There have been complaints (and >>the more serious posters have
>>abandoned this news group for a group on the >>'news.sff.net' newserver.
Okay, gang; who wants first dibs on this guy?
Steve
John M. Atkinson
Jordan) wrote:
>I've been a fan and student of RAH for over forty years. I've just
>gotten onto the Net, and have been searching for a RAH discussion group.
>I hope I've found what I'm seeking.
Yup.
>This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
>the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
Sorta. We do wander afield because we are a community drawn together
by common interests, but we always do come back to the source.
>In the training scene in which Rico loses a man under his command, I
>noted that the trainees were firing live ammo with structures and
>personnel behind the targets. This is not only ridiculous, but
>unforgiveable.
I shot past a man in Basic Training, but we about 10 meters apart
measured side to side. And I trusted him not to screw up that much
either.
>Also: where are the bugs' weapons? That they fight by chewing up their
>adversaries, who are heavily armed, is silly.
Heavily is relative--those twinky little guns sucked. And no
artillery or other weapons besides those guns and the one missle
launcher.
John M. Atkinson
nospam becomes erols to reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. . .
it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as
FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
--Thomas Jefferson
LeadWood
>> Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
>> sort of fascist propaganda?
>>
>> I'm really curious about that last question.
>
Pixelmeow
>Steve Jordan observed:
>> This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
>> the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
>
>To which robertaw (Robert A. Woodward), who is most likely a J. Gifford clone
>or at least minion, replied:
Hey, I thought Randy was Robert... I saw it in a post, I did! Really! Was it
last week, or the week before...
--
~teresa~
^..^ Thou shalt remember the Eleventh Commandment and keep it Wholly. ^..^
Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
Eat the .cat.nip to email...
"Blert!"
Ogden Johnson III
: Steve Jordan observed:
: > This group seems to wander rather far afield from time to time. Isn't
: > the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
: To which robertaw (Robert A. Woodward), who is most likely a J. Gifford clone
: or at least minion, replied:
: >>You noticed. There have been complaints (and >>the more serious posters have
: >>abandoned this news group for a group on the >>'news.sff.net' newserver.
: Okay, gang; who wants first dibs on this guy?
That puts paid to the FAQ/Charter argument. If a de rigeur groupthink is
being established in a.f.h, then a FAQ/Charter will be required to warn
newbies of the verboten topics/thoughts, lest they subject themselves to
accusations and treatment such as you seem to suggest here.
OJ III
labert
>Bugfree99 (bugf...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>snip
>: >>You noticed. There have been complaints (and >>the more serious posters
have
>: >>abandoned this news group for a group on the >>'news.sff.net'
newserver.
>
>: Okay, gang; who wants first dibs on this guy?
>
>That puts paid to the FAQ/Charter argument. If a de rigeur groupthink is
>being established in a.f.h, then a FAQ/Charter will be required to warn
>newbies of the verboten topics/thoughts, lest they subject themselves to
>accusations and treatment such as you seem to suggest here.
>
>OJ III
Well, the FAQing subject finally came up, so here's two cents. First, the
good sir was referred to dejanews for an answer to his question. He would
be courteous to go there and at least look a little. He was also invited to
ask any further questions he had, with the implication that he'd skimmed
deja first, which we alll know he may or may not do. He was treated
courteously as best I can tell, nor do I see any groupthink being imposed.
Should he return to the question, I find it likely that quite a few of us
will respond thoughtfully.
As for the "who wants dibs" quote, I interpreted that as a reference to the
claim that this brilliant assemblage of wits, sages, philosophers, and Nuke
{ :-) }, fail to be serious posters. Does this need debate? Those
acquirring such dibs should have little trouble.
Must we all be so sensitive? This seems to have been handled rather well,
and could have been dropped,but now again we go thru these convulsions.
Lighten up, OJ, have you seen newbies abused recently?
labert
"A zygote is a gamete's way of producing more gametes.
This may be the purpose of the universe."
The Senior
remove spam to email
Bugfree99
>Oh. This *isn't* the right NG to discuss RAH's books, ideas and the movies
>that are theoretically created from them? I'm sorry, I must have
>misunderstood. I'll go some where else, then.
That's not it at all; however, this subject has been "done to death" here more
than once. (Even a relative newbie such as myself knows that) If you want to
discuss these question and topics, fine. No one should try to deny you that
right, or ping on you for doing so. I didn't say they won't, only that they
shouldn't. If you decide to re-open these type of discussions, though, I
believe many of the "old-timers" here will simply choose not to participate, as
they've been there, done that, and even seen the PBS documentary about it.
labert
>>Steve Jordan inquired:
>>
>>Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
>>civic responsibility?
>
>isn't willing to do something to benefit his/her society and its members
has no right to a say in how that society is run, as far as I'm concerned.
It's
kinda like the guy that doesn't bother to vote, but then goes around
bitching
about the "lousy government."
>
Gotta disagree with you there, Steve. I'm all for civic and personal
resposibility, it's one of my biggest credos. In certain circumstances,
bitching about a gov's policy while failing to actively support that policy
or the gov in general is perrfectly legit. Can you say 'nam? Besides
which, anyone who chooses not to vote, perhaps as a protest, or worse,
doesn't bother to, still does something to benefit society at least
nominally, an' it ain't dying, it's the other one.
Would our democracy work a whole lot better if everyone voted, as opposed to
the small percentage that does now? Would that fix the flaws in the
systems? I'd say the jury is still out on that.
Ogden Johnson III
: Well, the FAQing subject finally came up, so here's two cents. First, the
: good sir was referred to dejanews for an answer to his question. He would
: be courteous to go there and at least look a little. He was also invited to
: ask any further questions he had, with the implication that he'd skimmed
: deja first, which we alll know he may or may not do. He was treated
: courteously as best I can tell, nor do I see any groupthink being imposed.
: Should he return to the question, I find it likely that quite a few of us
: will respond thoughtfully.
The good sir was directly suggested to be 'James Gifford or one of his
minions' in the part of Steve's post that I quoted and you snipped.
Which, I submit, renders the 'who wants dibs' as a perhaps less innocent
comment than you suggest in the following.
: As for the "who wants dibs" quote, I interpreted that as a reference to the
: claim that this brilliant assemblage of wits, sages, philosophers, and Nuke
: { :-) }, fail to be serious posters. Does this need debate? Those
: acquirring such dibs should have little trouble.
:
: Must we all be so sensitive? This seems to have been handled rather well,
: and could have been dropped,but now again we go thru these convulsions.
: Lighten up, OJ, have you seen newbies abused recently?
The short answer is yes, I have. It seems that every new poster that
shows up is instantly suspect as a 'James Gifford or minion' troll if
he/she makes the slightest misstep. It is a development that I alluded to
recently in an exchange with Jim Yount. Let me state it, then, flat out.
This aspect of 'the new a.f.h' troubles me immensely, and has me on the
verge of abandoning a.f.h, *not* in favor of any other Heinlein venue, not
with a James Gifford-like 'control freak' blast, but without rancor and in
sorrow.
OJ III
LeadWood
Ogden Johnson III wrote in message ...
>
>: Lighten up, OJ, have you seen newbies abused recently?
>
>The short answer is yes, I have. It seems that every new poster that
>shows up is instantly suspect as a 'James Gifford or minion' troll if
>he/she makes the slightest misstep. It is a development that I alluded to
>recently in an exchange with Jim Yount. Let me state it, then, flat out.
>This aspect of 'the new a.f.h' troubles me immensely, and has me on the
>verge of abandoning a.f.h, *not* in favor of any other Heinlein venue, not
>with a James Gifford-like 'control freak' blast, but without rancor and in
>sorrow.
>
>OJ III
>
Thank you sir. You said that much better than I could have. I would
respectfully ask you to *not* abandon a.f.h., at least not soon.
Android
robe...@halcyon.com (Robert A. Woodward) to write:
>There have been complaints (and the more serious posters have
>abandoned this news group for a group on the 'news.sff.net' newserver.
You haven't heard? Half of them died of boredom waiting for the next
post and the other half came back here to "lurk" Or maybe they just
changed their user info and didn't even leave in the first place?
D'android
Remove XspamX to use the return email address.
Android
bugf...@aol.com (Bugfree99) to write:
>Okay; now all you folks who've so viciously argued against establishing a data
>bank of common topics that have been discussed to death here, listen up: you
>promised to be nice to anyone who came here and raised these questions, as long
>as they didn't show troll markings. Now's your chance to live up to your word.
>
>And welcome, Steve!
No one argued against establishing a data bank; several such exist
already. The arguement revolved around the unnecessary posting of
such a data bank as a regular FAQ in afh.
As for ST, I personally have no desire to rehash that topic but if
our newcomer [Welcome aboard, Steve!!] cares to kick that cat,
so be it. I will even read the thread. One never knows when one may
hear something new--as remote as that possibility may be.
If the FAQ did exist, there is a possibility that some newbies might
feel a little intimidated by the "accepted" arguments, and not bother
to question them at all. Just my opinion...well, maybe not "just"
mine. I think I borrowed it from Isnana or NW or both. <g>
Oh, my! 2 Dans, 2 Dons, and now 2 Steves. I never counted on this
much confusion, Danxerox! <g>
jani
John M. Atkinson wrote
>(Stephen
>Jordan) wrote:
>
>>I've been a fan and student of RAH for over forty years. I've just
>>gotten onto the Net, and have been searching for a RAH discussion group.
>>I hope I've found what I'm seeking.
>
>Yup.
>
>>the subject supposed to be RAH and his work?
>
>by common interests, but we always do come back to the source.
I just slunk in here, as it seems to be a fairly un-acrimonious bit of the
thread, to say hello and welcome to Steve and now I'll slide out again and
look up all the page references in ST which are sure to be called for any
minute.... ;-)
Jani
Bugfree99
>>(snip) Anyone who
>>isn't willing to do something to benefit his/her society and its members
>has no right to a say in how that society is run, as far as I'm concerned.
>It's
>kinda like the guy that doesn't bother to vote, but then goes around
>bitching
>about the "lousy government."
to which >labert, after apparently misreading the above, replied:
>Gotta disagree with you there, Steve. I'm all for civic and personal
>resposibility, it's one of my biggest credos. In certain circumstances,
>bitching about a gov's policy while failing to actively support that policy
>or the gov in general is perrfectly legit. Can you say 'nam?
I can not only say it, I can still smell it, taste it, hear it, feel it and see
it. If you had bothered to read my post CAREFULLY, you might have seen that I
didn't say anything about any necessity to agree with the govt or its policies.
(I must admit a bit of confusion about your wording in the quoted paragraph
portion, too.) If you bitch about something, that would seem to be prima facie
proof that you disagree with it. And I didn't say it is wrong to fail to
support the policies of the govt. I merely said, that if you don't bother to
vote, or you're to cynical to vote, or you don't vote for any reason at all,
you lose your right to complain about the govt that gets elected. You didn't
participate from the get-go; there's realy no room for johnny-come-latelies (or
is that johnnies-come-lately? Maybe that guy bugfree will let me know).
> Besides which, anyone who chooses not to vote, perhaps as a protest, or
worse,
>doesn't bother to, still does something to benefit society at least
>nominally, an' it ain't dying, it's the other one.
Okay, I didn't say the person doesn't do anything to benefit society. I merely
stated that (for the third time) if you don't participate in the elective
process, you don't have a right to bitch about the outcome.
It's kinda like the parable about the little red hen; if you do none of the
work that goes into the preparing of the bread, you don't have any right to eat
it when it's baked and ready.
>Would our democracy work a whole lot better if everyone voted, as opposed to
>the small percentage that does now? Would that fix the flaws in the
>systems? I'd say the jury is still out on that.
Again, you're arguing with no opponent here. I never suggested this premise. I
merely said: (oh hell, I hope you know by now what I actually said)
labert
--
Ogden Johnson III wrote in message ...
>labert (laber...@fast.net) wrote:
>
>: Well, the FAQing subject finally came up, so here's two cents.
>: snip
>
>The good sir was directly suggested to be 'James Gifford or one of his
>minions' in the part of Steve's post that I quoted and you snipped.
Sorry to disagree, as I agree with the spirit of your original post, but
Steve accused a respondent of being a Gifford clone (robertaw) and that
respondent was he who directed the newbie,Steve(?) to dejanews.
>Which, I submit, renders the 'who wants dibs' as a perhaps less innocent
>comment than you suggest in the following.
>
>: As for the "who wants dibs" quote, I interpreted that as a reference to
the
>: claim that this brilliant assemblage of wits, sages, philosophers, and
Nuke
>: { :-) }, fail to be serious posters. Does this need debate? Those
>: acquirring such dibs should have little trouble.
>:
If indeed the comment weas an attack on someone, it was not the new person.
>: Must we all be so sensitive? This seems to have been handled rather
well,
>: and could have been dropped,but now again we go thru these convulsions.
>: Lighten up, OJ, have you seen newbies abused recently?
>
>The short answer is yes, I have. It seems that every new poster that
>shows up is instantly suspect as a 'James Gifford or minion' troll if
>he/she makes the slightest misstep. It is a development that I alluded to
>recently in an exchange with Jim Yount. Let me state it, then, flat out.
>This aspect of 'the new a.f.h' troubles me immensely, and has me on the
>verge of abandoning a.f.h, *not* in favor of any other Heinlein venue, not
>with a James Gifford-like 'control freak' blast, but without rancor and in
>sorrow.
>
>OJ III
As I said, the tendency to squelch discussion is a lamentable one. Perhaps
the newperson should have been counseled to read dejanews or post a thread
on the idea. Many would have ignored it, some would have flamed it, and the
interested would have participated. I, as most seem to, would not want
rules or FAQs dominating my choice of topics, but honestly, I haven't seen
much newperson abuse lately. The last two were welcomed fairly warmly, tho
yes one made some comments that sounded Giffordish, and speculations
appeared. If they were unfounded, I'm not sure how they did harm.
labert
snip
>This aspect of 'the new a.f.h' troubles me immensely, and has me on the
>verge of abandoning a.f.h, *not* in favor of any other Heinlein venue, not
>with a James Gifford-like 'control freak' blast, but without rancor and in
>sorrow.
>
>OJ III
BTW, I too invite you to hang around. I'm not yet sure what things are
supposed to be like around here, or used to be like, yet I intend to keep
the discussion about or related to rah when I'm involved, and the group
seems worthwhile even if occasionally we get lost. I skimmed several sff
rah groups the other day, and the discussion appeared to be at a somewhat
elementary level, tho more focused on rah. Perhaps this was only a symptom
of the day, but frankly, I like it better here. Hopefully you'll stick
around.
labert
--
Bugfree99 wrote in message <19981130154316...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
>Steve, aka Bugfree, since there's two Steves here now, stated:
>
>>>(snip) Anyone who
>>>isn't willing to do something to benefit his/her society and its members
>>has no right to a say in how that society is run, as far as I'm concerned.
>>It's
>>kinda like the guy that doesn't bother to vote, but then goes around
>>bitching
>>about the "lousy government."
>
>to which >labert, after apparently misreading the above, replied:
>
>>Gotta disagree with you there, Steve. I'm all for civic and personal
>>resposibility, it's one of my biggest credos. In certain circumstances,
>>bitching about a gov's policy while failing to actively support that
policy
>>or the gov in general is perrfectly legit. Can you say 'nam?
>
>I can not only say it, I can still smell it, taste it, hear it, feel it and
see
>it.
I both thank you for and regret that fact.
>If you had bothered to read my post CAREFULLY,
I did.
you might have seen that I
>didn't say anything about any necessity to agree with the govt or its
policies.
I was expanding the point to deal with bitching that comes without support,
by voting or other means. You said those who don't vote don't get to bitch.
I disagree.
>(I must admit a bit of confusion about your wording in the quoted paragraph
>portion, too.)
I don't see any part that's confusing, tho I will regretfully and with shame
amend it if you'll be more specific. I hope you will, language is my
profession, tho I relax here, and I prefer to be correct and clear.
If you bitch about something, that would seem to be prima facie
>proof that you disagree with it. And I didn't say it is wrong to fail to
>support the policies of the govt. I merely said, that if you don't bother
to
>vote, or you're to cynical to vote, or you don't vote for any reason at
all,
>you lose your right to complain about the govt that gets elected.
I disagree. First, many who have been without franchise, tho nominally
citizens, have in the past had every right to complain, and thru that
complaint, gained franchise. But that's too easy. Yes, people should vote,
I encourage everyone with whom I discuss the issue to do so. But in a
supposedly free country, with supposed free speech, people who live under
the laws, pay the taxes, and cannot affect fundamental change in an often
less than fair system, have the right to complain. There, I said my
piece, I did.
You didn't
>participate from the get-go; there's realy no room for johnny-come-latelies
(or
>is that johnnies-come-lately? Maybe that guy bugfree will let me know).
Pluralizing idiomatic speech is problematic, tho johnny-come-latelys
(latelies) seems more conventional.
>
>> Besides which, anyone who chooses not to vote, perhaps as a protest, or
>worse,
>>doesn't bother to, still does something to benefit society at least
>>nominally, an' it ain't dying, it's the other one.
>
>Okay, I didn't say the person doesn't do anything to benefit society. I
merely
>stated that (for the third time) if you don't participate in the elective
>process, you don't have a right to bitch about the outcome.
And for the third time, I disagree. No huhu, it won't be the last time <g>.
>
>snip
>I merely said: (oh hell, I hope you know by now what I actually said)
Always did, bub. :-) Sheesh, and to think I'm defending you elsewhere on
this thread! <g>
>
>Steve
>"We were trying to establish a perfect anarchistic society, but everyone
kept
>breaking the rules" (original thought by me? Heaven forbid. source just
>unknown)
labert
Danxerox
Android wrote in message
<snip>
>Oh, my! 2 Dans, 2 Dons, and now 2 Steves. I never counted on this
>much confusion, Danxerox! <g>
>
>D'android
>
But think of all the advantages... "Oh no, that wasn't me, that was the
other..." or "Actually, I was speaking about the other.... didn't mean
*you*" :-)
Danxerox.
I think that if any NG can handle this cheerfully, it would be this one,
pantheistic solipsism carried to an extreme; the rest of you go away from
time to time, but *I'm* always here!
DK99DK66
>the newperson should have been counseled to read dejanews or post a thread
>on the idea. Many would have ignored it, some would have flamed it, and the
>interested would have participated. I, as most seem to, would not want
>rules or FAQs dominating my choice of topics, but honestly,
Just wanted to throw my own .02 cents in. I don't know if FAQS are right or
wrong, but a personal observation of my own life seems relative here. When ever
rules are laid down, I tend to point out those who don't follow the rules. One
of my own quirks that I have to constantly work on. IMHO, I don't think anyone
here wants to spend a lot of time wading through posts that do nothing but
point fingers at other members.
I haven't seen
>much newperson abuse lately. The last two were welcomed fairly warmly,
I must say that I agree whole heartedly. I felt very welcomed here. Of course I
had character references from Isha and Jeanette.
<bg>
>yes one made some comments that sounded Giffordish, and speculations
>appeared.
I hope this wasn't me. I started lurking at the end of what appeared to be a
very long arguement about Gifford and that was what caused my initial
hesitation to start posting.
If they were unfounded, I'm not sure how they did harm.
>
>labert
Donald
TANSTAAFL
DShields
<Pro...@nospam.petalsoflife.attcanada.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Oh. This *isn't* the right NG to discuss RAH's books, ideas and the movies
>that are theoretically created from them? I'm sorry, I must have
>misunderstood. I'll go some where else, then.
>
This is, in fact _one_ good place to discuss RAH's books, ideas, etc.,
but does not, AFAIK, claim to be the _only_ worthwhile place to do so.
IMHO, RAH's ideas were often too deep and the possible ramifications
too complex to be completely explored without a certain amount of
topic drift. Think of it as multiperson stream-of-consciousness, for
lack of a better term.
So, if you simply can't stand to see any post which isn't the
equivalent of a Master's-level thesis on some obscure aspect of RAH,
or a petition to Saint James to reveal some crumb of knowledge not
given to ordinary mortals, then this is definitely *_not_* the right
place for you. If, on the other hand, you want to have fun with a
(mostly) congenial group of people brought together by a mutual liking
for RAH, his ideas, and his books, then welcome to the party.
YMMV, IMHO, Just my $.02, etc.
DShields
Bugfree99
>If indeed the comment was an attack on someone, it was not the new person
Thank you, my friend! If those who are vilifying me for my counsel to the new
person (I can't even remember who it was now - ?Steve?) had read precisely what
I said, and not leaped to conclusions about what I said, they would have
realized that I was asking all and sundry to be nice and not flame him for
asking about something that has already been much discussed. I in no way, shape
or form flamed him myself. Dis me if you like, but at least be accurate about
it.
Bugfree99
>I'm not yet sure what things are
>supposed to be like around here, or used to be like, yet I intend to keep
>the discussion about or related to rah when I'm involved, and the group
>seems worthwhile even if occasionally we get lost.
I think, rather than getting lost here, we tend to be more like I envision a
discussion group on Tertius would be. Any topic is "on-topic" so long as it
interests enough people to keep it going. If it doesn't do that, it quickly
dies, and it's death is not lamented. I'm inclined to believe (my opinion) that
RAH had a very, very eclectic mind and liked to discuss just about anything
going, as long those discussing it were intelligent and interesting.
Bugfree99
>If, on the other hand, you want to have fun with a
>(mostly) congenial group of people brought together by a mutual liking
>for RAH, his ideas, and his books, then welcome to the party.
>
I wish to take issue with you on this one part of your post, sir. I think this
is the most delightfully irascible, cantankerous group of societal misfits it
has ever been my extreme pleasure to know! Congenial! Hrmmph!
jani
One-of-the-Dons said
Leadwood said
><snip>
>
>>Oh. This *isn't* the right NG to discuss RAH's books, ideas and the movies
>>that are theoretically created from them? I'm sorry, I must have
>>misunderstood. I'll go some where else, then.
>>
>
>This is, in fact _one_ good place to discuss RAH's books, ideas, etc.,
>but does not, AFAIK, claim to be the _only_ worthwhile place to do so.
>IMHO, RAH's ideas were often too deep and the possible ramifications
>too complex to be completely explored without a certain amount of
>topic drift. Think of it as multiperson stream-of-consciousness, for
>lack of a better term.
>
>So, if you simply can't stand to see any post which isn't the
>equivalent of a Master's-level thesis on some obscure aspect of RAH,
>or a petition to Saint James to reveal some crumb of knowledge not
>given to ordinary mortals, then this is definitely *_not_* the right
>(mostly) congenial group of people brought together by a mutual liking
>for RAH, his ideas, and his books, then welcome to the party.
>
Right, that's *your* Donaldness ID'd as bossy Donald.
Now we can distinguish between the two of you. Quick roll-call:
bossy-Don and TANSTAAFL-Don; newbie-Steve and Bugfree-Steve; Dandroid and
Danxerox.
An' me -
(the unique) Jani
Nuclear Waste
Snip
|Okay, I didn't say the person doesn't do anything to benefit society. I
merely
|stated that (for the third time) if you don't participate in the
elective
|process, you don't have a right to bitch about the outcome.
|
|It's kinda like the parable about the little red hen; if you do none of
the
|work that goes into the preparing of the bread, you don't have any
right to eat
|it when it's baked and ready.
So then you are saying only the people who actively participate in
choosing the idiots who screw things up should be able to complain?
Just trying to clarify your position here.
One should be careful here. No right to complain would seem to be a
disenfranchisement of an order that would make the government in _ST_
benign in even Verhoven's eyes. The idea has a grain of truth, but has
become a cliche. Personally, I vote every election, but I am quite
happy that some of the folks I know limit their contribution to whining.
The views they express while doing so, convince me beyond all doubt,
that they will do more harm in the voting booth than on the corner
talking my ears off.
NW
labert
--
Nuclear Waste wrote in message <740bj0$r...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
>
snip
Personally, I vote every election, but I am quite
>happy that some of the folks I know limit their contribution to whining.
>The views they express while doing so, convince me beyond all doubt,
>that they will do more harm in the voting booth than on the corner
>talking my ears off.
>
>NW
>
>
because they are fools, or because their politics oppose yours? :-)
DK99DK66
In article <740303$blp$1...@supernews.com>, "Danxerox" <SPAMXt...@hotmail.com>
writes:
>But think of all the advantages... "Oh no, that wasn't me, that was the
>other..." or "Actually, I was speaking about the other.... didn't mean
>*you*" :-)
>
>Danxerox.
>
>
Now your talking. I hadn't even thought of the loads of fun that could had with
this
Donald
TANSTAAFL
The free lunch one
Nuclear Waste
labert wrote in message <742fvd$ole$1...@news1.fast.net>...
|Nuclear Waste wrote in message <740bj0$r...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
|>
|snip
|
|Personally, I vote every election, but I am quite
|>happy that some of the folks I know limit their contribution to
whining.
|>The views they express while doing so, convince me beyond all doubt,
|>that they will do more harm in the voting booth than on the corner
|>talking my ears off.
|
|
Well, for the most part, because they are foolish and poorly informed.
I do not mistake informed disagreement for foolishness. I tend to call
those who are informed, and still disagree with me, pigheaded. :) Hey,
I'm human!
NW
RAH...@webtv.net
"Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a citizen must demonstrate
civic responsibility?"
There are two things wrong with that concept that spring immediately to
mind. First, who gets to define a demonstration of civic responsibility?
I will not suggest this be left to local, state, or federal governments
for reasons too obvious and numerous to mention. I will content myself
with citing an example of the difficulties involved in enforcing (you
did say "must," Mr. Jordan) such a proposition.
In 1984, Gregory Johnson was arrested for settng fire to the American
flag during a protest at the Republican party's national convention. He
was convicted and the conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court in
1989. I was watching news reports of this at my local bar in 1989, when
several gentleman present expressed a desire, in colorful language, to
do greivous bodily harm to Mr. Gregory Johnson. I was feeling rather
brave and asked these gentlemen who their respective congressman were.
None knew. I would wager that Johnson knew who his congressman was. He
was also willing to travel to a political convention and get arrested
for his belief. Who is showing civic responsibility in this instance,
Johnson or those who would punish him? It's a rather exreme example but
you see the point.
The second problem with your proposition I can sum up as "or what?"
Citizens must show civic responsibility or...? They'll be deported?
Disenfranchised? Sentenced to cummunity service? This country has a
greater proportion of its people in the penal system then red China does
presently, and than did South Africa under apartheid or the Soviet Union
at the height of the purges. Shall we really imprison or disenfranchise
more of our population for failing to demonstrate another person's idea
of "civic responsibility?"
Or perhaps you have wonderful way for everyone to demonstrate it to
your satisfaction. If so disregard above.
To the regulars: Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm on webtv, and I expressed an
opinion. That's three strikes – Flame away!
Lou de Torres
aka
RAH...@webtv.net
"{There} are no circumstances in which State is justified in placing its
welfare ahead of mine." ---Robert A. Heinlein
Alexandre Pechtchanski
[ Courtesy cc'ed through e-mail to the quoted author ]
[ a thoughtful message snipped ]
>To the regulars: Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm on webtv, and I expressed an
>opinion. That's three strikes – Flame away!
Continue like this, and you'll create a good name for WebTV.
[ When replying, remove *'s from address ]
Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY
labert
--
Nuclear Waste wrote in message <743rrb$e...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
But, my friend, I sometimes fear that if we limited voting to those who had
a clue, election results would look like basketball scores. <g>
labert
--
RAH...@webtv.net wrote in message
<9773-366...@newsd-102.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
On November 29, Stephen Jordan asked:
"Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a citizen must demonstrate
civic responsibility?"
There are two things wrong with that concept that spring immediately to
mind. First, who gets to define a demonstration of civic responsibility?
I will not suggest this be left to local, state, or federal governments
for reasons too obvious and numerous to mention. I will content myself
with citing an example of the difficulties involved in enforcing (you
did say "must," Mr. Jordan) such a proposition.
snip
>Who is showing civic responsibility in this instance,
Johnson or those who would punish him? It's a rather exreme example but
>you see the point.
And the point is well made. You took you life in your hands challenging
the patriotism of staunch flag defenders in a bar as they spout their
thoroughly reasoned views. :-)
>The second problem with your proposition I can sum up as "or what?"
Citizens must show civic responsibility or...? They'll be deported?
Disenfranchised? Sentenced to cummunity service? This country has a
greater proportion of its people in the penal system then red China does
presently, and than did South Africa under apartheid or the Soviet Union
at the height of the purges. Shall we really imprison or disenfranchise
more of our population for failing to demonstrate another person's idea
of "civic responsibility?"
Or perhaps you have wonderful way for everyone to demonstrate it to
>your satisfaction. If so disregard above.
Perhaps we'll have to wait for evolution to act.
>To the regulars: Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm on webtv, and I expressed an
>opinion. That's three strikes – Flame away!
No need, this was far better than my first post. Welcome, tovarishch.
Lou de Torres
aka
RAH...@webtv.net
"{There} are no circumstances in which State is justified in placing its
welfare ahead of mine." ---Robert A. Heinlein
labert
Nuclear Waste
RAH...@webtv.net wrote a well thought out and articulated post.
To the regulars: Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm on webtv, and I expressed an
opinion. That's three strikes – Flame away!
Lou de Torres
Muahhahahaha! Wait a minute! We don't smack AOHELLERS, why thump on
Webbies? As far as newbies, we try to make them welcome here. What the
heck am I gonna flame you for?
I know! Just whatinheck do you think you are doing trying to make it
hard for a newbie to get in here? *THWAP* No go be nice to the newbie
right now! (Shake your hand and apologize.)
We are glad you are here, and very glad you have read enough Heinlein to
want to be here. A few prelims, what beer do you drink, have you ever
served in the military, and what was your first Heinlein book?
Nuclear Waste
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
"I have sworn upon the altar of God
eternal hostility against every form of
tyranny over the mind of man"
Thomas Jefferson 1800
Pixelmeow
snip a well written post
>To the regulars: Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm on webtv, and I expressed an
>opinion. That's three strikes =96 Flame away!
I'm amazed to see a webtv user who has an identifiable intellect. All others I
have seen have been along the lines of 'DEWD ya GOTTA SEE IT!!! like WAY KEWL
ya no?' So I must thank you for changing (if slightly) my opinion of that
group of usenet users! I say as I write from an aol account... Welcome, and
thanks for an *informed* opinion.
--
~teresa~
^..^ Thou shalt remember the Eleventh Commandment and keep it Wholly. ^..^
Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
Eat the .cat.nip to email...
"Blert!"
Android
caused RAH...@webtv.net to write:
>To the regulars: Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm on webtv, and I expressed an
>opinion. That's three strikes =96 Flame away!
Welcome aboard, Lou!
Ogden Johnson III
: On Wed, 2 Dec 1998 14:41:08 -0500 (EST), RAH...@webtv.net wrote:
: [ Courtesy cc'ed through e-mail to the quoted author ]
:
: [ a thoughtful message snipped ]
:
: >To the regulars: Yes, I'm a newbie, I'm on webtv, and I expressed an
: >opinion. That's three strikes – Flame away!
:
: Continue like this, and you'll create a good name for WebTV.
Which is still pretty much out of the reach for *.edu addresses. ;->
OJ III
[Present company excepted, of course. Speaking in generalities/
stereotypes only.]
Enter your name here
>want to be here. A few prelims, what beer do you drink, have you ever
>served in the military, and what was your first Heinlein book?
>
>Nuclear Waste
>XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>"I have sworn upon the altar of God
>eternal hostility against every form of
>tyranny over the mind of man"
>
>Thomas Jefferson 1800
questionnaire! So I'll chime in too, home brew or most micros (except
Grants, the man thinks way to highly of his hops) yes and have been doing so
for the past 18 years and counting. I have no clear recollection of that
event. It was about 25 years ago, I literally cut my teeth on RAH.
Morrigan
RAH...@webtv.net
<snip>
Just whatinheck do you think you you are doing tring to make it hard for
a newbie to get in here? 'THWAP' <snip>
Ouch! I wasn't trying to make it hard for a fellow newbie to get in. I
was just trying to make him feel at home by responding to his query in
the friendly and objective manner I have so often seen displayed on
these pages. <G>
<snip>
"What beer do you drink," <snip>
I see you have prioritized your questions properly. When I have my
druthers, I like a good German beer, DAB, Dinkel Acker, Hacker Pschorr,
like that. I am also fond of Budweiser. I cannot abide
steam/cherry/wheat/winter/honey/wicked anything. IMHO, the overwhelming
majority pf microbrews remain microbrews for very good reasons.
"have you ever served in the military," <snip>
The first thing I ever wanted to be while I was growing up was a U.S.
Marine. Unfortunately, I was rendered physically unfit for military
service by a work related accident when I was thirteen. The details are
nobody's business, and anyone who thinks this makes me weak, or less of
a man, or an objective of pity, is welcome to meet me in Newark, NJ,
where we can discuss it to my satisfaction. Not that I'm bitter, mind
you.<g>
and what was your first Heinlein book? <snip>
My first Heinlein book was SiaSL at about 16, I think. An interesting
effect of this book (interesting to me, anyway) is that in July, I
acquired a pair of baby boa constrictors (Mozart and Vivaldi) ala
Patricia Paiwonski. They were born in June, and last week they moved up
from mice and ate their first, small, live rats. I'm so proud.
I realize this is much more information than anyone could possibly need,
so let that be a lesson to ya on interrogating newbies. <g>
To you, Mr. Waste, and to several others who have said nice things about
my posting and made me feel welcome, I say, thank you.
Nuclear Waste
Enter your name here wrote in message
<7467dg$n...@sjx-ixn9.ix.netcom.com>...
Did not need to! You mentioned you were a noseconer, so I figured you
had to like a decent lager, and as for the first book, we will just say
it had to be _ST_ because we are shallow.
NW
Pete LaGrange
>
>The first thing I ever wanted to be while I was growing up was a U.S.
>Marine. Unfortunately, I was rendered physically unfit for military
>service by a work related accident when I was thirteen. The details are
>nobody's business, and anyone who thinks this makes me weak, or less of
>a man, or an objective of pity, is welcome to meet me in Newark, NJ,
>where we can discuss it to my satisfaction. Not that I'm bitter, mind
>you.<g>
Newark, my point of origin...The only place that still scares someone
from The Bronx. Belated welcome, sorry to hear of your accident
oldman
ICQ 10447243
Better to want and not have, than to have and not want
AGplusone
Lou,
I think I got an e mail from you from a link on our group's webpage
[http://members.aol.com/rahweb/index.htm] some time back. Do you still have
that webpage with the Heinlein comments? I failed to back it up. Naturally, I
lost my drive. So it's lost. We're substantially revising our page and I'd like
to have your page url, if you are the one, so I can link it under other
Heinlein pages.
Regards,
--
David M. Silver
AGpl...@aol.com
"I expect your names to shine!"
Gharlane of Eddore
In <4786-366...@newsd-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
mtw...@webtv.net (Stephen Jordan) writes:
>
.....<deletia>
>
> Finally, what's wrong with the idea that a "citizen" must demonstrate
> civic responsibility? And whence came the allegation that ST is some
> sort of fascist propaganda?
>
> I'm really curious about that last question.
>
Michael Ironside, the Canadian actor ( who, I believe, has never served in
the military ) made references to the "Fascist" nature of the book in a
number of taped interviews, and described it as set in a totalitarian
society on more than one occasion.
Verhoeven, the lackwit who directed, has specifically and publicly
likened RAH's future society to "Nazi government." ( Thus indicating
either a two-digit I.Q., or a complete unfamiliarity with the work. )
At the World Science Fiction Convention in 1996, when they screened
some of the FX footage and selected scenes, one of the production
honchos told us that "We've cut out all the political lectures and
<fascism>, but Heinlein fans are going to love it because we've got
*GREAT* FX."
Note that the scriptwriter, Ed Neumeier, has worked on about three
major movies in his life, all technophobic and xenophobic.
( "FRANKENSTEIN" and "ROBOCOP" are the other two.
To be honest, I rather liked "ROBOCOP." )
The only person in a major production role on that movie who was earning
his living was Phil Tippett, and *he* was constrained by what he was told
to do, right or not. ( Tippett's bright enough to know that a man-sized
bug is *not* going to be able to fly on diaphanous insect wings in
standard pressure and gravity. )
Just remember how "WHO GOES THERE?" got gutted in the early fifties, and
finally remade nearly thirty years later, as a considerably better movie.
We just need to stay alive until 2027, when the bad taste from *this*
abomination has been forgotten, and someone tries to do it RIGHT.
On the plus side, earnings from the rightly vilified movie were so poor
that there's little chance of a sequel.
( World SF Convention, 1996, when we asked what the HECK was going on,
with no power suits in the movie, the Production Guy said that the
budget had forbidden it. "Maybe in the sequel." Riiiiiiiight. )
Stephen Jordan
Steve Jordan
Helen & Bob
A very happy holiday to all in the group. May whatever you celebrate be
the best ever.
It is now dark-30 AM, Christmas eve. My best to all.
Bob
Pixelmeow
And to you, sir! Merry Whatever, and Happy New Year's!
ddavitt
us all
love
Jane
RAH...@webtv.net
your patience with a newbie.
Salud
Android
caused RAH...@webtv.net to write:
>Happy Holidays to all. Thank you for the hours of enjoyment, and for
>your patience with a newbie.
Ditto. Hope everyone has a great holiday! [not too much rum in that
eggnog, people ;-] *hic*
jani
Helen & Bob wrote
>
>A very happy holiday to all in the group. May whatever you celebrate be
>the best ever.
>It is now dark-30 AM, Christmas eve. My best to all.
>Bob
5.30 pm Christmas day here, and the little darlings have just collapsed into
bed clutching their new teddies...phew. :-) Happy celebrations to
everyone: I hope you all had an excellent day and are now (or will be when
your time-zone permits) mellowing comfortably with appropriate libations....
Jani
Wiz
BY: o...@cpcug.org (Ogden Johnson III)
>7:30 here, no little darlings to worry about, my wife has recovered from
>last night, xmas repast is history, and with two bottles of bubbly in the
>fridge, mellowing is about to commence. A teddy may be involved in my
>future this evening, but I suspect not of the same sort your little
>darlings are clutching.
<grins> My daughter was married last Saturday; she and the new son-in-law came
by for Christmas, after a short trip. (The *real* honeymoon will wait until
after spring semester is over; she is still in college.) She reported to my
wife that the Victoria's gizmo that my wife gave her as a shower gift was a
great success; my Christmas wish for you is equal enjoyment. :)
(My daughter's friends were amazed; "You got that from your *mom*?")
--
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
* Any unsolicited commercial e-mail and/or the inclusion of my user-id
in any mailing list without my express prior written approval,
including the receipt of a mass e-mail message and/or the unauthorized
reselling of this user-id to mailing list vendors, will be met with a
complaint to your internet provider.
tov {at} altavista {dot} net
n971 {at} filenet {dot} wwiv {dot} net
ToV WWIV 4.24a @971.Filenet Loveland, CO
Nuclear Waste
Ogden Johnson III wrote in message
<6cWg2.171$0B3.56...@dca1-nnrp1.news.digex.net>...
|jani (ja...@sveiss.demon.co.uk) wrote:
|
|[Snip Helen & Bob's holiday wishes]
|
|: 5.30 pm Christmas day here, and the little darlings have just
collapsed into
|: bed clutching their new teddies...phew. :-) Happy celebrations to
|: everyone: I hope you all had an excellent day and are now (or will be
when
|: your time-zone permits) mellowing comfortably with appropriate
libations....
|
from
|last night, xmas repast is history, and with two bottles of bubbly in
the
|fridge, mellowing is about to commence. A teddy may be involved in my
|future this evening, but I suspect not of the same sort your little
|darlings are clutching.
|
Well I hope your wife shaves your legs for you before you put it on.
NW
Ogden Johnson III
Android
"jani" <ja...@sveiss.demon.co.uk> to write:
Helen & Bob wrote:
>>A very happy holiday to all in the group. May whatever you celebrate be
>>the best ever.
>>It is now dark-30 AM, Christmas eve. My best to all.
>>Bob
>
>
>5.30 pm Christmas day here, and the little darlings have just collapsed into
>bed clutching their new teddies...phew. :-) Happy celebrations to
>everyone: I hope you all had an excellent day and are now (or will be when
>your time-zone permits) mellowing comfortably with appropriate libations....
2 A.M. Boxing Day here. Mellowing nicely, thanks. <yawwwwwn> My
little "darling" and her equally "darling" little cousin will be doing
back flips over top of me in 5 hours or less.
AGplusone
Just got back ...
The same best wishes to you all.
jani
Wiz wrote
<snip comments about teddies of both types>
<grins> My daughter was married last Saturday; she and the new son-in-law
came
>by for Christmas, after a short trip. (The *real* honeymoon will wait
until
>after spring semester is over; she is still in college.) She reported to
my
>wife that the Victoria's gizmo that my wife gave her as a shower gift was a
>great success; my Christmas wish for you is equal enjoyment. :)
>
>(My daughter's friends were amazed; "You got that from your *mom*?")
I *think* I get the gist of this, but what exactly is a "Victoria's gizmo"?
(By email, please, if this is not considered suitable for the shell-likes of
the ng <G>)
Jani
Prnzofthvs
>I *think* I get the gist of this, but what exactly is a "Victoria's gizmo"?
>(By email, please, if this is not considered suitable for the shell-likes of
>the ng <G>)
>
>Jani
Lingerie from "Victoria's Secret" most likely. And, yes, it probably would be a
great success on a honeymoon, abbreviated or not.
>>The Prince of the Bear Flag Restaurant; friend of Mack and the boys.<<
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
><snip comments about teddies of both types>
>>wife that the Victoria's gizmo that my wife gave her as a shower gift was a
>>great success; my Christmas wish for you is equal enjoyment. :)
>>
>>(My daughter's friends were amazed; "You got that from your *mom*?")
>
>I *think* I get the gist of this, but what exactly is a "Victoria's gizmo"?
>(By email, please, if this is not considered suitable for the shell-likes of
>the ng <G>)
Context--Victoria's Secret is a company which produces undergarments
which are considered by some to be highly erotic.
John M. Atkinson
nospam becomes erols to reply
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. . .
it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as
FREEDOM should not be highly rated.
--Thomas Jefferson
Wiz
BY: "jani" <ja...@sveiss.demon.co.uk>
>>(My daughter's friends were amazed; "You got that from your *mom*?")
>I *think* I get the gist of this, but what exactly is a "Victoria's gizmo"?
>(By email, please, if this is not considered suitable for the shell-likes of
>the ng <G>)
Oh, I think we can do this without offending, Jani. :)
"Gizmo" is USMC, for longer than I can remember, for a "whatchamacallit."
Victoria's, of course, referring to Victoria's Secrets.
(I would have thought that recognizable, but just in case, for the benefit of
those not in the US, a purveyor of silky nothings. <g>)
Nuclear Waste
Ogden Johnson III wrote in message ...
|John M. Atkinson (john.m....@nospam.com) wrote:
|
|: Context--Victoria's Secret is a company which produces undergarments
|: which are considered by some to be highly erotic.
|
Ahem! Ogden! Don't ask! He is not allowed to tell!
NW
Ogden Johnson III
: Context--Victoria's Secret is a company which produces undergarments
: which are considered by some to be highly erotic.
Considered by some? Are you in *our* Army, John?
OJ III
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
I was trying to understate the case a wee bit. Decorum does not
permit a full and complete description. ;) Let's just say that I'm
in the "some" category. Other persons (do recall where I work in
evenings and the nature of Theater People, esp males) aren't.
jani
John M. Atkinson wrote
OJ wrote>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>: Context--Victoria's Secret is a company which produces undergarments
>>: which are considered by some to be highly erotic.
>>
>>Considered by some? Are you in *our* Army, John?
>
>I was trying to understate the case a wee bit. Decorum does not
>permit a full and complete description. ;) Let's just say that I'm
>in the "some" category. Other persons (do recall where I work in
>evenings and the nature of Theater People, esp males) aren't.
LOL! (I *almost* wish I hadn't started this <G>) Now, John, what is wrong
with your customers patronising this Victoria place? Don't they do tall
sizes?
Jani
PS It's called "Anne Summers" here, and now I understand the honeymoon
reference :-)
Ogden Johnson III
: John M. Atkinson wrote
: >I was trying to understate the case a wee bit. Decorum does not
: >permit a full and complete description. ;) Let's just say that I'm
: >in the "some" category. Other persons (do recall where I work in
: >evenings and the nature of Theater People, esp males) aren't.
: LOL! (I *almost* wish I hadn't started this <G>) Now, John, what is wrong
: with your customers patronising this Victoria place? Don't they do tall
: sizes?
John wasn't talking about the customers at the dinner theater, but about
the cast and crew. Among whom, I suspect that there is more than one male
that would have a yen for some goodies from Victoria's Secret.
: Jani
: PS It's called "Anne Summers" here, and now I understand the honeymoon
: reference :-)
Another example of brit staidness. Anne Summers is just another women's
clothing store type name, like Donna whosit, Laura whatsherface, etc. On
the other hand, Victoria's Secret is deliciously suggestive.
OJ III
John M. Atkinson
wrote:
>>in the "some" category. Other persons (do recall where I work in
>>evenings and the nature of Theater People, esp males) aren't.
>
>LOL! (I *almost* wish I hadn't started this <G>) Now, John, what is wrong
>with your customers patronising this Victoria place? Don't they do tall
>sizes?
*sputter*
George Houston
clear, concise and VERY Heinleinesque discourse. I'll get watching and take
part as and when I feel up to travelling with you all (with or without
elephants!)
George
Michael Dworetsky
>
> jani (ja...@sveiss.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> John wasn't talking about the customers at the dinner theater, but about
> the cast and crew. Among whom, I suspect that there is more than one male
> that would have a yen for some goodies from Victoria's Secret.
>
> : Jani
> : PS It's called "Anne Summers" here, and now I understand the honeymoon
> : reference :-)
>
> Another example of brit staidness. Anne Summers is just another women's
> clothing store type name, like Donna whosit, Laura whatsherface, etc. On
> the other hand, Victoria's Secret is deliciously suggestive.
>
> OJ III
OJ, you obviously have never patronised an Ann Summers sex shop. :-)
Some of the stuff on sale in the branch in Charing Cross Road (not just
lingerie but 'marital aids') is not in the least suggestive--it boldly
says just what it is for and leaves little to the imagination.
--
Mike Dworetsky, Department of Physics
& Astronomy, University College London
Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT UK
email: m...@star.ucl.ac.uk
Helen & Bob
George Houston wrote:
Hello, George.
Welcome. Discussion here is primarily limited to events and opinions in this
universe, however, there is some discussion about alternative universes. Sorry
to be so limited, but one must have rules. :-)
Bob
Pixelmeow
Yes, welcome! Feel free to add to the discussion! Pull up a chair, sit a
spell, give Jani your order, and we'll all have a good ole time!
Ogden Johnson III
: Ogden Johnson III wrote:
: > Another example of brit staidness. Anne Summers is just another women's
: > clothing store type name, like Donna whosit, Laura whatsherface, etc. On
: > the other hand, Victoria's Secret is deliciously suggestive.
: OJ, you obviously have never patronised an Ann Summers sex shop. :-)
It *wasn't* on the tour Hawker-Siddley gave us when we came up to London
on a weekend break from playing with our Harriers at RNAS Yeovilton in
197mumble. I can't imagine how they thought we wouldn't be interested.
: Some of the stuff on sale in the branch in Charing Cross Road (not just
: lingerie but 'marital aids') is not in the least suggestive--it boldly
: says just what it is for and leaves little to the imagination.
Not *84* Charing Cross Road? Although *that* would have been a neat twist
for the end of the movie.
OJ III
[ObRAH: 84 Charing Cross Road was an old-book store [with all the
splendor that implies] in the movie of the same name. Great movie if you
like Anne Bancroft, Anthony Hopkins, and sentimental movies.]
Android
>
>> I've just found your group on my set of message groups - thanks for some
>> clear, concise and VERY Heinleinesque discourse. I'll get watching and take
>> part as and when I feel up to travelling with you all (with or without
>> elephants!)
"Houston, George has landed." <g>
Welcome aboard, George. If your above comments contain no sarcasm,
you are hereby declared "up to" the challenge. If the sarcasm IS
there, you are more than ready...
jani
Pixelmeow wrote in message
>Bob wrote:
>
>>George Houston wrote:
>>
>>> I've just found your group on my set of message groups - thanks for some
>>> clear, concise and VERY Heinleinesque discourse. I'll get watching and
take
>>> part as and when I feel up to travelling with you all (with or without
>>> elephants!)
>>>
>>
>>Hello, George.
>>Welcome. Discussion here is primarily limited to events and opinions in
this
>>universe, however, there is some discussion about alternative universes.
>>Sorry
>>to be so limited, but one must have rules. :-)
>>Bob
>
>Yes, welcome! Feel free to add to the discussion! Pull up a chair, sit a
>spell, give Jani your order, and we'll all have a good ole time!
>--
>~teresa~
I love the way I get to spend the most time at the bar! <G>
Nice to meet you, George. Please state your preferences regarding beer
and/or whisky, and take a look at the discussion menu. (I wouldn't
recommend the manners thread, it's getting a bit overheated. )
:-)
Jani
Danxerox
jani wrote in message
<914991439.29442.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>
>Pixelmeow wrote in message
<snip>
>>OT, but can you tell me what a budgerigar is? My daughter got a book for
>>Christmas called One Gorilla, and it's got whatever that word is in it. I
>>think it's a parakeet, but wherever did that word up there come from???
>And
>>how do you say it? Just guessing it's a British word, since the book was
>>published there. Thanks, Jani!
>
>Yes, I suppose it's a small parakeet - A little bird, related to a parrot,
>very colourful, whose main function is to imitate human speech. Very
popular
>here, for various reasons: the elderly keep them as "friends", children are
>encouraged to have a budgie as their first pet, breeders spend amazing
>amounts of time and money developing new species. Bit like cats, really <G>
>
>Jani
>
It's a small parrot, native to Australia, and the name comes from the
aboriginal name for them.
(BTW, I went and looked at your pics, Jani, what a lovely family! I would
have said something sooner, but I've always been shy around beautiful
women.)
Danxerox.
Pixelmeow
> (I wouldn't
>recommend the manners thread, it's getting a bit overheated. )
>:-)
;-P
OT, but can you tell me what a budgerigar is? My daughter got a book for
Christmas called One Gorilla, and it's got whatever that word is in it. I
think it's a parakeet, but wherever did that word up there come from??? And
how do you say it? Just guessing it's a British word, since the book was
published there. Thanks, Jani!
jani
Pixelmeow wrote in message
>Jani wrote:
>
>> (I wouldn't
>>recommend the manners thread, it's getting a bit overheated. )
>>:-)
>
>;-P
>
>OT, but can you tell me what a budgerigar is? My daughter got a book for
>Christmas called One Gorilla, and it's got whatever that word is in it. I
>think it's a parakeet, but wherever did that word up there come from???
And
>how do you say it? Just guessing it's a British word, since the book was
>published there. Thanks, Jani!
Yes, I suppose it's a small parakeet - A little bird, related to a parrot,
jani
Android wrote in message <36892d34...@news.golden.net>...
>>George Houston wrote:
>>
>>> I've just found your group on my set of message groups - thanks for some
>>> clear, concise and VERY Heinleinesque discourse. I'll get watching and
take
>>> part as and when I feel up to travelling with you all (with or without
>>> elephants!)
>
>
>Welcome aboard, George. If your above comments contain no sarcasm,
>you are hereby declared "up to" the challenge. If the sarcasm IS
>there, you are more than ready...
You've got the hang of it, then, Dan?
Jani
(Yes, ok, I'm going to the bar...I make one little comment and I have to buy
the beer...Every flamin' time...mutter mutter....One of these
days...mumble.............)
George Houston
jani wrote in message
<914969944.5571.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Nice to meet you, George. Please state your preferences regarding beer
>and/or whisky, and take a look at the discussion menu. (I wouldn't
>recommend the manners thread, it's getting a bit overheated. )
>:-)
>
>Jani
>
>
Thanks for the welcome - I'll try to add a bit of the true kilted warrior
(as opposed to LL who affected the dress - it's obvious Missouri is a bit
warmer than Scotland - we gave up the kilt in favour of thermal underwear).
I checked out the manners thread (sorry Jani, before your warning -
overheated rather understates the case -but FUN!)
Coming up to Hogmanay now in Bonnie Edinburgh - can't wait to leave! Have
you ever stood in a crush of 250,000 people at -6C, unable to see the bands,
and run out of booze!
Rather be at home with a good malt and a few good friends (remember the
order - I suggest Strathisla).
Awrrabest
George
Helen & Bob
Danxerox wrote:
>
> (BTW, I went and looked at your pics, Jani, what a lovely family! I would
> have said something sooner, but I've always been shy around beautiful
> women.)
>
> Danxerox.
Jani, do you have a web page?? Whats the address??
Bob
jani
John M. Atkinson wrote
Jani wrote
>>
>>LOL! (I *almost* wish I hadn't started this <G>) Now, John, what is wrong
>>with your customers patronising this Victoria place? Don't they do tall
>>sizes?
>
>*sputter*
Now wipe the coffee off the keyboard, please.... :-))
Jani
jani
Ogden Johnson III wrote
>jani wrote>
>: PS It's called "Anne Summers" here, and now I understand the honeymoon
>: reference :-)
>
>Another example of brit staidness. Anne Summers is just another women's
>clothing store type name, like Donna whosit, Laura whatsherface, etc. On
>the other hand, Victoria's Secret is deliciously suggestive.
<snort/chuckle> If you had ever attended an Anne Summers party, you would
not refer to Brit women as "staid". Fancy knickers is the *least* of it,
trust me.
Jani
jani
Helen & Bob wrote
>
>Jani, do you have a web page?? Whats the address??
>Bob
It's not a proper site, just some family pictures which I put on so that I
had something to show Teresa and Jane in return for *their* pix....It's at
http://home.talkcity.com/LibraryDr/siannon/index.htm
(BTW, Randy, this is the URL I was wittering about last week. I must be the
only person on the Net who has to go and look up her own address!)
Jani
jani
George Houston wrote
>>
>>
>Thanks for the welcome - I'll try to add a bit of the true kilted warrior
>(as opposed to LL who affected the dress - it's obvious Missouri is a bit
>warmer than Scotland - we gave up the kilt in favour of thermal underwear).
>I checked out the manners thread (sorry Jani, before your warning -
>overheated rather understates the case -but FUN!)
A fellow Brit! And a Celt, at that! Excellent!
>
>Coming up to Hogmanay now in Bonnie Edinburgh - can't wait to leave! Have
>you ever stood in a crush of 250,000 people at -6C, unable to see the
bands,
>and run out of booze!
Not since the good ol' days of free festivals, no.... <G> Hogmanay still
lasts a fortnight, then? (For those of you who are not and have never been
Scottish, let me explain that our all-night New Year's parties are the
equivalent of one round of drinks north of the border, where they *know* how
to party.)
>
>Rather be at home with a good malt and a few good friends (remember the
>order - I suggest Strathisla).
Right away, sir! :-)
>
>Awrrabest
Slainte! (Apologies for misspelling - my Gaelic is minimal)
Jani
jani
Danxerox wrote
<snips>
>
>(BTW, I went and looked at your pics, Jani, what a lovely family! I would
>have said something sooner, but I've always been shy around beautiful
>women.)
Well, thank you! But I trust your nice comment referred to my daughters,
otherwise I shall vanish with an acute case of terminal embarrassment <G>
Jani
Android
"jani" <ja...@sveiss.demon.co.uk> to write:
>You've got the hang of it, then, Dan?
>
>Jani
Not really. But I am begining to recognise it in others. <g>
>(Yes, ok, I'm going to the bar...I make one little comment and I have to buy
>the beer...Every flamin' time...mutter mutter....One of these
>days...mumble.............)
This round's on me. Just slide that bottle of tequila down here,
would ya, dear? I'll pass on the lemon. Think I'm due for a drunken
stupor...just wake me when you're ready to close up, k?.
Android
"jani" <ja...@sveiss.demon.co.uk> to write:
>
>Helen & Bob wrote
>>
>>Jani, do you have a web page?? Whats the address??
>>Bob
>
>It's not a proper site, just some family pictures which I put on so that I
>had something to show Teresa and Jane in return for *their* pix....It's at
>
>
>http://home.talkcity.com/LibraryDr/siannon/index.htm
Good looking family, Jani!
[ I guess we can expect a bunch of redhead jokes now? ;-)
Wiz
BY: "jani" <ja...@sveiss.demon.co.uk>
>It's not a proper site, just some family pictures which I put on so that I
>had something to show Teresa and Jane in return for *their* pix....It's at
>http://home.talkcity.com/LibraryDr/siannon/index.htm
>(BTW, Randy, this is the URL I was wittering about last week. I must be the
>only person on the Net who has to go and look up her own address!)
So, curious type that I am, I went and looked, and I didn't see a picture of
Jani. (At least, not one that was identified as such.) What's up with that?
--
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
* Any unsolicited commercial e-mail and/or the inclusion of my user-id
in any mailing list without my express prior written approval,
including the receipt of a mass e-mail message and/or the unauthorized
reselling of this user-id to mailing list vendors, will be met with a
complaint to your internet provider.
tov {at} altavista {dot} net
n971 {at} filenet {dot} wwiv {dot} net
ToV WWIV 4.24a @971.Filenet Loveland, CO
Ogden Johnson III
: >Another example of brit staidness. Anne Summers is just another women's
: >clothing store type name, like Donna whosit, Laura whatsherface, etc. On
: >the other hand, Victoria's Secret is deliciously suggestive.
:
: <snort/chuckle> If you had ever attended an Anne Summers party, you would
: not refer to Brit women as "staid". Fancy knickers is the *least* of it,
: trust me.
I stand by my characteriztion of Anne Summers the *name* as a comparison
to Donna Karen, etc. And, given what I know *now*, the proper comparison
of Anne Summers stores would be to the famous/infamous/notorious
Frederick's of Hollywood, rather than to Victoria's Secret, which, the
last time I looked, confines itself to fine, erotic, expensive, lingerie.
FoH is the one with the ... err ... ah ... ventilated panties and
pantyhose, toys, lotions, and falsies for all parts of the anatomy. [As
well as the good lingerie comparable if not as fine as that at VS, but
much cheaper, he hastens to add.]
As to the staid remark, if you look back, you will see I made the generic,
stereotyped remark of *all* Brits. Visits to Portsmouth in 1964 [as a
just turned 21 Marine] and to RNAS Yeovilton/London in 1978 [as a just
turned 35 Marine] gave me ample opportunity to assess and experience the
staidness, or lack thereof, of a wide range of British women. And, you
will note, at both the raging-hormone and mature adult level stages of my
life.
OJ III
[No Anne Summers parties though. As I said in another post,
Hawker-Siddley didn't include it on the tour.]
Prnzofthvs
>not refer to Brit women as "staid". Fancy knickers is the *least* of it,
>trust me.
>
Ah, yes...memories. I had the pleasure to make the acquaintance of a few of
your countrywomen whilst stationed in Athens, Greece. I can confirm your
statement that Brit women (at least the ones I knew) are anything but "staid."
They certainly made this sailor blush more than once! (Not that I ever
complained, mind you)
>>The Prince of the Bear Flag Restaurant; friend of Mack and the boys.<<
Android
"Wiz" <lo...@my.sig> to write:
>So, curious type that I am, I went and looked, and I didn't see a picture of
>Jani. (At least, not one that was identified as such.) What's up with that?
Are ya curious enough to look into Norse mythology? That Jani is a
mischievious little one, she is. <g>