Science fiction
John Iwaniszek
Okay, my vacation is starting to wear off, and the tequila (Hornitos -
duty and tax free) and the Corona I just drank are starting to kick in.
This is for Jim L and his partner (in literary criticism) catherine.
Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy,
which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's definition of Science
fiction constrained it to such a diminishingly tight box that the only
thing that would fit it would be an article suited to 'Popular
Science'. catherine did not offer a definition, only platitudes about
how "the greats" would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed
for Sci-Fi today.
Do you presume to say that the silliness of 'Stranger in a Strange
Land', "Retief's Ransom", "Caves of Steel" et al. were some how
qualitatively more scientific than 'Farscape', 'Star Trek', or
'Andromeda'? Is something that involves a consistent application of a
fictional science or a fantastic premise coupled with an occasional
reference to, or extrapolation of, known science not sufficient to fit
into your narrow premise?
I say, "get down from your Percheron (a very tall horse), lower you
proboscis, relax, have some fun with it, and don't try to shoe horn
science fiction into a box composed of your narrow preconceptions."
And bring me another Corona.
catherine
"John Iwaniszek" <Jo...@Iwaniszek.com> wrote in message
news:3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com...
>
>
> This is for Jim L and his partner (in literary criticism) catherine.
>
> Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of
fantasy,
> which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
> spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered.
I conceed the point in a purely technical sense.
>Jim's definition of Science
> fiction constrained it to such a diminishingly tight box that the only
> thing that would fit it would be an article suited to 'Popular
> Science'.
Me too, John. It's been a busy week. I've had to deal in vaguries- You
should have loved them. It's the way you like your *Sci-Fi*<g>
>catherine did not offer a definition, only platitudes about
> how "the greats" would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed
> for Sci-Fi today.
Um, I did say something *similar* to that, but it was more for dramatic
effect than literal. The difference is that Science Fiction used to be
written by people with some actual scientific knowledge. Such is no
longer the case. Now it's written by a couple of guys who watched ST.
That is their scientific background. I blame it all on George Lucas...
It all started to fall apart when SW came out and turned Science Fiction
into pablum for the masses. Wow, do I sound like an elitist snob...
hum... I need to work on that.
>
> Do you presume to say that the silliness of 'Stranger in a Strange
> Land', "Retief's Ransom", "Caves of Steel" et al. were some how
> qualitatively more scientific than 'Farscape', 'Star Trek', or
> 'Andromeda'?
Whoa, there big guy, don't be lumping ST in with those other two. ST is
our history... or ancestors. We honor ST, regardless of how futile the
effort. I wonder if they keep a physist as a technical consultant on
Farscape. I'm guessing not. Love your choices in novels. I wonder how
many of them started off as a serial in a magazine for the, hem,
masses... money you know, even a Science Fiction author has to eat. As
to SIASL... I think it was the 60's and RH was stoned. That's the only
excuse I can come up with. And don't be bashin' Asimov. That's
dangerous ground yer treadin' there, my friend.
>Is something that involves a consistent application of a
> fictional science or a fantastic premise coupled with an occasional
> reference to, or extrapolation of, known science not sufficient to fit
> into your narrow premise?
Nope. I think I said that, before and it seems you've understood it
perfectly.<g>
>
> I say, "get down from your Percheron (a very tall horse), lower you
> proboscis, relax, have some fun with it, and don't try to shoe horn
> science fiction into a box composed of your narrow preconceptions."
It's an Andelusian, but I can understand the confusion, even though
Percherons are typically gray or white and Andelusians are not. I just
ride it around cuz I like the affect and my nose looks up in the air
because of a genetic miscalculation. It's mean of you to bring
attention to it, but I forgive you.
I love Farscape. I am in no way disparaging FS. I think it's
wonderful. It's one of the best things to come around in a long time.
The cast is wonderful and charismatic and the CGI is beautiful. It's
great. I love it, but it isn't Science Fiction. I didn't shoe horn
Science Fiction into a box. Someone did that for me years ago. Being a
subclass of Fantansy means by definition that it has some of the traits
of it's parent class but others are overridden. The fuzzy technology is
overridden in Science Fiction, but not in FS.
>
> And bring me another Corona.
How about a shot of Herradura with that pisswater beer?
Jim Larson
<3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com>:
>
>Okay, my vacation is starting to wear off, and the tequila (Hornitos -
>duty and tax free) and the Corona I just drank are starting to kick in.
>
>This is for Jim L and his partner (in literary criticism) catherine.
>
>Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy,
Let's not. Your definitions are your own. You can choose to classify SF in
any way you want. You can't expect to impose your definition on me, and you
shouldn't ascribe to me opinions that I never expressed. I never made the
distinction between SF and fantasy you imply. Nor did I deny that one was a
subset of the other. Reread the relevant posts if you don't believe me. I
actually said precious little on the subject other than agreeing with
Catherine that Farscape does not fit my definition of SF.
>which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
>spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's definition of Science
And is, therefore, a totally useless classifier, at least as presented.
>fiction constrained it to such a diminishingly tight box that the only
>thing that would fit it would be an article suited to 'Popular
>Science'. catherine did not offer a definition, only platitudes about
>how "the greats" would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed
>for Sci-Fi today.
>
Catherine can explain herself as she sees fit. I, however, made no attempt
to mix classification with value judgment. Personally, I find a great deal
of hard SF, and there is far more of it than you care to admit, tedious and
boring.
Farscape is fantasy that fails to qualify as SF in my view. It is also
better in many ways than some fiction that does qualify as SF.
>Do you presume to say that the silliness of 'Stranger in a Strange
>Land', "Retief's Ransom", "Caves of Steel" et al. were some how
I don't think of Stranger in a Strange Land as SF. I think of it as crap,
but that's neither here nor there. I haven't read the second item. The
third is SF whether you like the content or not. Asimov took a fairly
restricted set of postulates and extrapolated from them, both in the
construction of the future society and in his robotics principles. These
were integral to the story, not incidental.
The difference between this and Farscape is that in the latter, incidental
references to pseudo-science or nonsense science are used as needed and at
the whim of the writer rather than forming the framework for the whole
series.
>qualitatively more scientific than 'Farscape', 'Star Trek', or
>'Andromeda'? Is something that involves a consistent application of a
Andromeda is actually relatively close to my definition of SF. There is a
set of basic assumptions underlying how the technology on the show works.
They seem to work within these strictures rather than making things up on a
weekly basis.
>fictional science or a fantastic premise coupled with an occasional
>reference to, or extrapolation of, known science not sufficient to fit
>into your narrow premise?
>
This is exactly what I do not view as SF. Occasional references to known
(and in the case of Farscape, nonsense) science is not enough.
>I say, "get down from your Percheron (a very tall horse), lower you
>proboscis, relax, have some fun with it, and don't try to shoe horn
>science fiction into a box composed of your narrow preconceptions."
Are you implying that I somehow view Farscape or anything not fitting my
narrow definition as beneath me? I have never expressed any opinion
resembling that. I like Farscape, and I don't consider myself an SF snob. I
am merely imposing some semantics as I see fit.
While we are on the subject of high horses, I see the hint of one perched
beneath your posterior. Do you always feel the need to define words (this
is not the first time) in your posts for the benefit of the rubes? Some of
us actually have access to a fairly extensive vocabulary, or at least to a
dictionary or two.
>
>And bring me another Corona.
>
I would ask you to share if I drank.
Now. Can we please get back to the silly one-liners?
--
Jim
Jim Larson
<d7Oz6.416$F93....@www.newsranger.com>:
>On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:58:59 -0400, John Iwaniszek babbled...
>
>> Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy,
>> which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
>> spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's definition of Science
>> fiction constrained it to such a diminishingly tight box that the only
>> thing that would fit it would be an article suited to 'Popular
>> Science'. catherine did not offer a definition, only platitudes about
>> how "the greats" would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed
>> for Sci-Fi today.
>
>I prefer the old stand-by:
>
>Science Fiction is whatever I point to and say, "That's Science Fiction."
>
Can I point to my neighbor's cat and call it a turnip? It reminds me of
one.
--
Jim
John Iwaniszek
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 19:58:59 -0400, John Iwaniszek babbled...
>
> > which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
> > spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's definition of Science
> > fiction constrained it to such a diminishingly tight box that the only
> > thing that would fit it would be an article suited to 'Popular
> > Science'. catherine did not offer a definition, only platitudes about
> > how "the greats" would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed
> > for Sci-Fi today.
>
>
> Science Fiction is whatever I point to and say, "That's Science Fiction."
Quoth Arthur Clarke.
catherine
"Jim Larson" <larso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:907CD874Ddsflj...@130.133.1.4...
Jim, Jim, Jim, it's obviously a watch.<g>
John Iwaniszek
>
> "John Iwaniszek" <Jo...@Iwaniszek.com> wrote in message
> news:3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com...
> >
> >
>
> effect than literal. The difference is that Science Fiction used to be
> written by people with some actual scientific knowledge. Such is no
> longer the case.
Are you talking about Mary Shelly? Walker Percy? Surely not A. Clarke
or Heinlien.
I think your Procrustean bed would only fit Carl Sagan or B F Skinner,
plus whoever happens to be pounding out peices for 'Science Digest',
'Popular Science', and the health and science section of the Knight
Ridder franchise.
> >
> > Do you presume to say that the silliness of 'Stranger in a Strange
> > Land', "Retief's Ransom", "Caves of Steel" et al. were some how
> > qualitatively more scientific than 'Farscape', 'Star Trek', or
> > 'Andromeda'?
>
> Whoa, there big guy, don't be lumping ST in with those other two. ST is
> our history... or ancestors. We honor ST, regardless of how futile the
> effort. I wonder if they keep a physist as a technical consultant on
> Farscape. I'm guessing not.
Are you implying that a physicist was on staff with The Stupid White
Bread Federation Dollhouse?
Love your choices in novels. I wonder how
> many of them started off as a serial in a magazine for the, hem,
> masses...
I know that Retief did.
money you know, even a Science Fiction author has to eat. As
> to SIASL... I think it was the 60's and RH was stoned. That's the only
> excuse I can come up with. And don't be bashin' Asimov. That's
> dangerous ground yer treadin' there, my friend.
Asimov had his head so firmly wedged in his ass he didn't see daylight
for the last 20 years of his life. (Encyclopedia Galactica - now there's
something with a firm basis in science)
>
> >Is something that involves a consistent application of a
> > fictional science or a fantastic premise coupled with an occasional
> > reference to, or extrapolation of, known science not sufficient to fit
> > into your narrow premise?
>
> Nope. I think I said that, before and it seems you've understood it
> perfectly.<g>
>
At least you don't deny it.
> >
> > I say, "get down from your Percheron (a very tall horse), lower you
> > proboscis, relax, have some fun with it, and don't try to shoe horn
> > science fiction into a box composed of your narrow preconceptions."
>
> It's an Andelusian, but I can understand the confusion, even though
> Percherons are typically gray or white and Andelusians are not.
Your knowledge of horses compares admirably to your grasp of Science
Fiction.
John Iwaniszek
>
> Jo...@Iwaniszek.com (John Iwaniszek) wrote in
> <3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com>:
>
> >
> >Okay, my vacation is starting to wear off, and the tequila (Hornitos -
> >duty and tax free) and the Corona I just drank are starting to kick in.
> >
> >This is for Jim L and his partner (in literary criticism) catherine.
> >
> >Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy,
>
> Let's not. Your definitions are your own. You can choose to classify SF in
> any way you want. You can't expect to impose your definition on me, and you
> shouldn't ascribe to me opinions that I never expressed. I never made the
> distinction between SF and fantasy you imply. Nor did I deny that one was a
> subset of the other. Reread the relevant posts if you don't believe me. I
> actually said precious little on the subject other than agreeing with
> Catherine that Farscape does not fit my definition of SF.
>
> >which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
> >spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's definition of Science
>
> And is, therefore, a totally useless classifier, at least as presented.
>
You can use it to form a distinction from non-fiction. But then you
would run into that pesky Aristotelian Form thing.
Jim Larson
Nah. First order logic is just a figment of your imagination. Just like me.
--
Jim
catherine
"John Iwaniszek" <Jo...@Iwaniszek.com> wrote in message
> catherine wrote:
> >
> > "John Iwaniszek" <Jo...@Iwaniszek.com> wrote in message
> > news:3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com...
> > >
> > >
>>
> > It's an Andelusian, but I can understand the confusion, even though
> > Percherons are typically gray or white and Andelusians are not.
>
> Your knowledge of horses compares admirably to your grasp of Science
> Fiction.
If you are trying to bait me, you aren't going to accomplish it. This
isn't a matter of fact, this is a matter of opinion. I think you've
made it most clear you don't agree with me. And the beauty of the 21st
century is that we are all allowed to have an opinion. I am tempted to
try to have the last word, but that would accord your stance more value
than it has to me, so I will demur. You are right, John, and from this
point forward, you will always be right. Now perhaps we can get back to
Farscape and stop this trivial bickering.
Jim Larson
>catherine wrote:
>>
>> "John Iwaniszek" <Jo...@Iwaniszek.com> wrote in message
>> news:3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com...
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Um, I did say something *similar* to that, but it was more for dramatic
>> effect than literal. The difference is that Science Fiction used to be
>> written by people with some actual scientific knowledge. Such is no
>> longer the case.
>
>Are you talking about Mary Shelly? Walker Percy? Surely not A. Clarke
>or Heinlien.
Heinlein was an engineer of some sort, Walker a medical doctor and Clarke a
physicist. Frankenstein is not SF. It is, among other things, a criticism
of scientific progress by someone unqualified to comment on the subject.
Fine book though.
You also seem to be making the tacit assumption that technical competence
is always a function of education. It isn't.
<snip>
>
>At least you don't deny it.
>
Howdy.
--
Jim
John Iwaniszek
That's what I'm saying.
John Iwaniszek
>
> Jo...@Iwaniszek.com (John Iwaniszek) wrote in
> <3ACFB916...@Iwaniszek.com>:
>
> >catherine wrote:
> >>
> >> "John Iwaniszek" <Jo...@Iwaniszek.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Um, I did say something *similar* to that, but it was more for dramatic
> >> effect than literal. The difference is that Science Fiction used to be
> >> written by people with some actual scientific knowledge. Such is no
> >> longer the case.
> >
> >Are you talking about Mary Shelly? Walker Percy? Surely not A. Clarke
> >or Heinlien.
>
> Heinlein was an engineer of some sort, Walker a medical doctor and Clarke a
> physicist. Frankenstein is not SF. It is, among other things, a criticism
> of scientific progress by someone unqualified to comment on the subject.
> Fine book though.
It was science fiction. And the best kind, to boot. It involved a
scientific premise coupled with a great story built on a mythic
foundation. Mary S. was very competent to comment on the subject as she
was widely read in both popular and academic writings. She said in her
forward to a later edition of "Frankenstein's Monster" that her intent
was to present a work of fiction that both extrapolated from the science
of the day and appealed to the popular understanding of the physical
sciences and especially biology and Darwin. She accomplished this by
melding in the Promethian myth and Marlowe's retelling of Dr. Faustus.
Her work was limited by the parameters she set down before starting her
book and the state of knowledge of her day.
It was fiction with a scientific premise; in conclusion, it was science
fiction.
Jim Larson
<GqPz6.469$F93....@www.newsranger.com>:
>On 8 Apr 2001 00:46:58 GMT, Jim Larson babbled...
>
>> Can I point to my neighbor's cat and call it a turnip?
>
>No. But a cat is frequently mistaken for meatloaf.
>
>(Anyone who gets that reference gets a virtual pat on the head.)
>
Uh...can I have the pat on the head anyway?
--
Jim
Jim Larson
O.k.
--
Jim
Nick
<snip>
John, my man, the whiskey has your mind.
While I understand the points you are trying to make,
you are making them with unnecessary hostility.
And I think the Encyclopedia Galactica was from the
Hitchhiker's Guide, the only true science in science fiction.
--
Nick
Nick
>On 8 Apr 2001 00:46:58 GMT, Jim Larson babbled...
>
>> Can I point to my neighbor's cat and call it a turnip?
>
>No. But a cat is frequently mistaken for meatloaf.
>
>(Anyone who gets that reference gets a virtual pat on the head.)
Alf
--
Nick
John Iwaniszek
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 20:52:56 -0400, John Iwaniszek babbled...
>
> >> Science Fiction is whatever I point to and say, "That's Science Fiction."
>
> > Quoth Arthur Clarke.
>
> It doesn't sound like something he'd say. It's not his style
> of phraseology.
>
> I'll have to see if I can find an attribution.
>
You are correct. It was Damon Knight -
"I'm content to accept Damon Knight's magisterial: 'Science Fiction is
what I point to and say "That's Science Fiction."' A. Clarke in the
forward to "The Complete Short Stories of Arthur C. Clarke".
John Iwaniszek
You mistake hostility for certitude.
Robert John Guttke
Robert John Guttke
Nicodemus, Glorious John simply feels very
strongly about the topic... thus the heat....
but hardly hostile. Hostile is MY territory.
Nick
I know that you aren't being hostile, but to the untrained
eye it appears that you are. I just think you can make
your points without the high horses.
--
Nick
Robert John Guttke
Tight girth?
Nick
>Nick wrote:
>>John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>John, my man, the whiskey has your mind.
>>While I understand the points you are trying to make,
>>you are making them with unnecessary hostility.
>>
>>And I think the Encyclopedia Galactica was from the
>>Hitchhiker's Guide, the only true science in science fiction.
>
> Nicodemus, Glorious John simply feels very
> strongly about the topic... thus the heat....
> but hardly hostile. Hostile is MY territory.
Emotion does not belong in intellectual discourse.
Unless, perhaps, the discourse is about emotion.
--
Nick
Robert John Guttke
What IS this nonsense?
You going ZEN on us
tonight? Trust me, oh
moping transcendental
one, Zhaan will be back.
John Iwaniszek
But for Zhaan to return, one of Moya's crew must DIE!
Nick
Is Jool considered a crew member yet?
--
Nick
John Iwaniszek
First she must 'sleep' with one of the regulars.
Nick
>Nick wrote:
>>Robert John Guttke wrote:
>>>Nick wrote:
>>>>John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>John, my man, the whiskey has your mind.
>>>>While I understand the points you are trying to make,
>>>>you are making them with unnecessary hostility.
>>>>
>>>>And I think the Encyclopedia Galactica was from the
>>>>Hitchhiker's Guide, the only true science in science fiction.
>>>
>>> Nicodemus, Glorious John simply feels very
>>> strongly about the topic... thus the heat....
>>> but hardly hostile. Hostile is MY territory.
>>
>>Emotion does not belong in intellectual discourse.
>>Unless, perhaps, the discourse is about emotion.
>
> What IS this nonsense?
> You going ZEN on us
> tonight? Trust me, oh
> moping transcendental
> one, Zhaan will be back.
It happens occasionally. Sometimes I also post on-topic.
I will try to keep both to a minimum.
--
Nick
Nick
I vote for Rygel.
--
Nick
John Iwaniszek
He needs to be promoted from 'animal' to 'pet' first. After that, then
sky's the limit.
Nick
>Nick babbled...
>
>> And I think the Encyclopedia Galactica was from the
>> Hitchhiker's Guide, the only true science in science fiction.
>
>the 40s, with the original magazine publication of Asimov's
>Foundation stories.
That is what they want you to think.
--
Nick
Nick
If she is so well educated why does she know so little about other life
forms? That seemed odd to me.
--
Nick
John Iwaniszek
Arrogance, racism, ethocentrism, bigotry. I don't think these qualities
are necessarily obviated by education. Often, education perpetuates
them.
jayembee
> catherine wrote:
>> Whoa, there big guy, don't be lumping ST in with those other
>> two. ST is our history... or ancestors. We honor ST, regardless
>> of how futile the effort. I wonder if they keep a physist as a
>> technical consultant on Farscape. I'm guessing not.
> Are you implying that a physicist was on staff with The Stupid
> White Bread Federation Dollhouse?
Ah, actually...I think that Naren Shankar, whose been a writer
and producer on (I think) all three latter-day Trek series, as well
as the second season of FARSCAPE, was a physicist before he
became a writer/producer. I believe that he started out as a
scientific consultant for TNG or DS9.
>> Love your choices in novels. I wonder how many of them
>> started off as a serial in a magazine for the, hem, masses...
> I know that Retief did.
THE CAVES OF STEEL did, as well. But not STRANGER IN
A STRANGE LAND.
-- jayembee (jerry period boyajian at-sign eds period com)
"Buster, this trip downriver has been truly special.
Downright Twainian in a Hitchcockian sort of way."
John Iwaniszek
>
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 21:04:22 -0400, John Iwaniszek babbled...
>
> > catherine wrote:
>
> >> Whoa, there big guy, don't be lumping ST in with those other
> >> two. ST is our history... or ancestors. We honor ST, regardless
> >> of how futile the effort. I wonder if they keep a physist as a
> >> technical consultant on Farscape. I'm guessing not.
>
> > Are you implying that a physicist was on staff with The Stupid
> > White Bread Federation Dollhouse?
>
> Ah, actually...I think that Naren Shankar, whose been a writer
> and producer on (I think) all three latter-day Trek series, as well
> as the second season of FARSCAPE, was a physicist before he
> became a writer/producer. I believe that he started out as a
> scientific consultant for TNG or DS9.
>
I have degrees in the social sciences, but I work as a statistical
programmer. Psychology has not improved my programming.
James
-+-+ Listening to Sarah Brightman. The EDEN album.
-+-+ (Not able to breathe properly due to artistic
-+-+ appreciation right now...)
larso...@yahoo.com (Jim Larson) wrote:
>jayembe...@newsranger.com (jayembee (Jerry Boyajian)) wrote:
>>John Iwaniszek shrieked. urped up some Hornitos, and babbled...
>>
>>> Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of
>>> fantasy, which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction
>>> ever written, spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's
>>> definition of Science fiction constrained it to such a
>>> diminishingly tight box that the only thing that would fit it
>>> would be an article suited to 'Popular Science'. catherine did
>>> not offer a definition, only platitudes about how "the greats"
>>> would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed for Sci-Fi
>>> today.
>>
>>I prefer the old stand-by:
>>
>>Science Fiction is whatever I point to and say, "That's Science
>>Fiction."
>>
>
>Can I point to my neighbor's cat and call it a turnip? It reminds
>me of one.
Depends. Is it in a closed box with a timed lethal device?
Yes? Then no, it is definitely a cat. No? Slip it down your
pants. Does it claw and scratch? Then it is a cat. If it
just slides down passively, then it probably ~IS~ a turnip.
[James points to Jim Larson.] That is NOT a cat. For one
thing, it doesn't even know what "science fiction" is.
For another thing, it posts to Usenet indiscriminately during
the airing of FUTURAMA episodes. It is probably a turnip.
James <-> ja...@bigfoot.com - - The Frequently Asked
Questions file, written by Traci, can be found at
http://pages.prodigy.net/cailibear/alt.tv.farscapeFAQ.htm
James
-+-+ Listening to Sarah Brightman. The EDEN album.
-+-+ (Not able to breathe properly due to artistic
-+-+ appreciation right now...)
ni...@snurcher.com (Nick) wrote:
>jayembee wrote:
>>Jim Larson shrieked (since FUTURAMA was not airing while
>>he was posting to Usenet, and babbled...
>>
>>> Can I point to my neighbor's cat and call it a turnip?
>>
>>No. But a cat is frequently mistaken for meatloaf.
>>
>>(Anyone who gets that reference gets a virtual pat on the head.)
[James beams smugly.]
>Alf
*AAAAAACCCCKKK!!!* Nope! It comes from that humorous
book by Kliban - CAT, ONE HELLUVA NICE ANIMAL, FREQUENTLY
MISTAKEN FOR A MEATLOAF.
Hey! Jer-bear! Since nobody else got it, I am going to take
one of John I's Coronas instead of the virtual pat.
James
-+-+ Listening to Sarah Brightman. The EDEN album.
-+-+ (Not able to breathe properly due to artistic
-+-+ appreciation right now...)
casumme...@velocityhsi.com (catherine) wrote in response
to John Iwaniszek:
>
>If you are trying to bait me, you aren't going to accomplish it.
>This isn't a matter of fact, this is a matter of opinion. I think
>you've made it most clear you don't agree with me. And the beauty
>of the 21st century is that we are all allowed to have an opinion.
[James blinks in astonishment.] We *are*?! Even the ignorant
boobs who watch BLACK SCORPION?!! Well, frell ME dead!
>I am tempted to try to have the last word, but that would accord
>your stance more value than it has to me, so I will demur. You
>are right, John, and from this point forward, you will always be
>right.
I love the mental judo employed heah!
>Now perhaps we can get back to Farscape and stop this trivial
>bickering.
Ooop! And just when I thought that she had it...
Someone take her cookie away.
This 'trivial bickering', gentle catherine, is what sustains
us during the all-too-often-and-all-too-lengthy intervals
between new episodes (or runs of episodes at all). Take it
away and you remove our reason for being heah..
James
-+-+ Listening to Sarah Brightman. The EDEN album.
-+-+ (Not able to breathe properly due to artistic
-+-+ appreciation right now...)
gut...@juno.com (Robert John Guttke) wrote:
>Nick <ni...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>>John Iwaniszek wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>John, my man, the whiskey has your mind.
>>While I understand the points you are trying to make,
>>you are making them with unnecessary hostility.
>>
>>And I think the Encyclopedia Galactica was from the
>>Hitchhiker's Guide, the only true science in science fiction.
>
> Nicodemus, Glorious John simply feels very
> strongly about the topic... thus the heat....
> but hardly hostile. Hostile is MY territory.
<James stirs. His yellow eyes afix RJG sternly.[1]
A low growl comes from his throat.> Then, what prey[2]
tell, is MY territory?!
[1] It is, after all, the full moon...
[2] Misspelling intentional heah. I was
going for this entendre thing... "prey tell"
as in "you, the prey, tell me..." Get it??
Incidentally, RJ, I would almost wager with certitude
that you have heard Sarah Brightman. If not, run to
your nearest music store and purchase EDEN.
Jim Larson
<snip>
> [James points to Jim Larson.] That is NOT a cat. For one
> thing, it doesn't even know what "science fiction" is.
> For another thing, it posts to Usenet indiscriminately during
> the airing of FUTURAMA episodes. It is probably a turnip.
Enough is enough. If I bother you, please be so kind as to ignore me. In
any case, point your paroxysms elsewhere.
Perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps I'm just in a foul mood. You would know
all about that, I should think.
--
Jim
Robert John Guttke
Sex is suppose to better for the uncircumcised.
Nick
I doubt Jool is circumsized.
--
Nick
x-googlesoup
<casumme...@velocityhsi.com> wrote:
>Whoa, there big guy, don't be lumping ST in with those other two. ST is
>our history... or ancestors. We honor ST, regardless of how futile the
>effort.
I have no more questions for this witness.
Nick
>James wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> [James points to Jim Larson.] That is NOT a cat. For one
>> thing, it doesn't even know what "science fiction" is.
>> For another thing, it posts to Usenet indiscriminately during
>> the airing of FUTURAMA episodes. It is probably a turnip.
>
>Enough is enough. If I bother you, please be so kind as to ignore me. In
>any case, point your paroxysms elsewhere.
>
>Perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps I'm just in a foul mood. You would know
>all about that, I should think.
I have to agree with Jim here.
James, if you have real life problems bothering you, handle them.
Don't sit there and take out your frustrations on people you don't
really know through words on a screen from the safety of your own home.
Go to the source of your problem and handle it like a man.
--
Nick
Zahir
John Iwaniszek wrote:
> Okay, my vacation is starting to wear off, and the tequila (Hornitos -
> duty and tax free) and the Corona I just drank are starting to kick in.
>
> This is for Jim L and his partner (in literary criticism) catherine.
>
> Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy,
> which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
> spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's definition of Science
> fiction constrained it to such a diminishingly tight box that the only
> thing that would fit it would be an article suited to 'Popular
> Science'. catherine did not offer a definition, only platitudes about
> how "the greats" would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed
> for Sci-Fi today.
>
> Do you presume to say that the silliness of 'Stranger in a Strange
> Land', "Retief's Ransom", "Caves of Steel" et al. were some how
> qualitatively more scientific than 'Farscape', 'Star Trek', or
> 'Andromeda'? Is something that involves a consistent application of a
> fictional science or a fantastic premise coupled with an occasional
> reference to, or extrapolation of, known science not sufficient to fit
> into your narrow premise?
>
> I say, "get down from your Percheron (a very tall horse), lower you
> proboscis, relax, have some fun with it, and don't try to shoe horn
> science fiction into a box composed of your narrow preconceptions."
>
> And bring me another Corona.
Joan Hedman (QuietI)
"Nick" <ni...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:aiu0dt027i60maggb...@4ax.com...
This is hysterical.
Can't wait to see what James has to say in reply.
Joan
PS
I really like turnips.
Thinkum
> Nick wrote
>> Jim Larson wrote:
>>> James wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> [James points to Jim Larson.] That is NOT a cat. For one
>>>> thing, it doesn't even know what "science fiction" is.
>>>> For another thing, it posts to Usenet indiscriminately during
>>>> the airing of FUTURAMA episodes. It is probably a turnip.
>>>
>>> Enough is enough. If I bother you, please be so kind as to ignore me. In
>>> any case, point your paroxysms elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps I'm just in a foul mood. You would know
>>> all about that, I should think.
>>
>> I have to agree with Jim here.
>> James, if you have real life problems bothering you, handle them.
>> Don't sit there and take out your frustrations on people you don't
>> really know through words on a screen from the safety of your own home.
>> Go to the source of your problem and handle it like a man.
>
Ummm...you do realize that Jim and Nick are serious, right?
> Can't wait to see what James has to say in reply.
>
> PS
> I really like turnips.
--
Thinkum
http://www.snurcher.com/
Viki
>
> Jo...@Iwaniszek.com (John Iwaniszek) wrote in
> <3ACFA9C3...@Iwaniszek.com>:
>
> >
> >Okay, my vacation is starting to wear off, and the tequila (Hornitos -
> >duty and tax free) and the Corona I just drank are starting to kick in.
> >
> >This is for Jim L and his partner (in literary criticism) catherine.
> >
> >Let's start by defining terms. Science fiction is a subset of fantasy,
>
> any way you want. You can't expect to impose your definition on me, and you
> shouldn't ascribe to me opinions that I never expressed. I never made the
> distinction between SF and fantasy you imply. Nor did I deny that one was a
> subset of the other. Reread the relevant posts if you don't believe me. I
> actually said precious little on the subject other than agreeing with
> Catherine that Farscape does not fit my definition of SF.
>
> >which can pretty much describe every bit of fiction ever written,
> >spoken, dreamed, or otherwise uttered. Jim's definition of Science
>
>
> >fiction constrained it to such a diminishingly tight box that the only
> >thing that would fit it would be an article suited to 'Popular
> >Science'. catherine did not offer a definition, only platitudes about
> >how "the greats" would thrash in their graves if they saw what passed
> >for Sci-Fi today.
> >
>
> to mix classification with value judgment. Personally, I find a great deal
> of hard SF, and there is far more of it than you care to admit, tedious and
> boring.
>
> Farscape is fantasy that fails to qualify as SF in my view. It is also
> better in many ways than some fiction that does qualify as SF.
>
> >Do you presume to say that the silliness of 'Stranger in a Strange
> >Land', "Retief's Ransom", "Caves of Steel" et al. were some how
>
> but that's neither here nor there. I haven't read the second item. The
> third is SF whether you like the content or not. Asimov took a fairly
> restricted set of postulates and extrapolated from them, both in the
> construction of the future society and in his robotics principles. These
> were integral to the story, not incidental.
>
> The difference between this and Farscape is that in the latter, incidental
> references to pseudo-science or nonsense science are used as needed and at
> the whim of the writer rather than forming the framework for the whole
> series.
>
> >qualitatively more scientific than 'Farscape', 'Star Trek', or
> >'Andromeda'? Is something that involves a consistent application of a
>
> set of basic assumptions underlying how the technology on the show works.
> They seem to work within these strictures rather than making things up on a
> weekly basis.
>
> >fictional science or a fantastic premise coupled with an occasional
> >reference to, or extrapolation of, known science not sufficient to fit
> >into your narrow premise?
> >
>
> (and in the case of Farscape, nonsense) science is not enough.
>
> >I say, "get down from your Percheron (a very tall horse), lower you
> >proboscis, relax, have some fun with it, and don't try to shoe horn
> >science fiction into a box composed of your narrow preconceptions."
>
> narrow definition as beneath me? I have never expressed any opinion
> resembling that. I like Farscape, and I don't consider myself an SF snob. I
> am merely imposing some semantics as I see fit.
>
> While we are on the subject of high horses, I see the hint of one perched
> beneath your posterior. Do you always feel the need to define words (this
> is not the first time) in your posts for the benefit of the rubes? Some of
> us actually have access to a fairly extensive vocabulary, or at least to a
> dictionary or two.
>
> >
> >And bring me another Corona.
> >
>
>
> Now. Can we please get back to the silly one-liners?
Beige. I think I'll paint the ceiling beige.
Viki
Viki
>
I would think y'all would vote for Chiana.
Viki
Jim Larson
>Jim Larson wrote:
>>
<snip of something or other>
>>
>> Now. Can we please get back to the silly one-liners?
>
>
>Beige. I think I'll paint the ceiling beige.
>
I recommend polka dots. Oh, and phosphorescent paint.
--
Jim
James
-+-+ Listening to Sarah Brightman. The EDEN album.
-+-+ (Not able to breathe properly due to artistic
-+-+ appreciation right now...)
ni...@snurcher.com (Nick) wrote:
>Jim Larson wrote:
>>James wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> [James points to Jim Larson.] That is NOT a cat. For one
>>> thing, it doesn't even know what "science fiction" is.
>>> For another thing, it posts to Usenet indiscriminately during
>>> the airing of FUTURAMA episodes. It is probably a turnip.
>>
>>Enough is enough. If I bother you, please be so kind as to ignore
>>me. In any case, point your paroxysms elsewhere.
>>
>>Perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps I'm just in a foul mood. You
>>would know all about that, I should think.
Ooooo! I might have misjudged heah. Perhaps it IS a cat.
It certainly hissed like one.
[Oh, my! One can't indulge in mild sarcasm without someone
going all off. Pity, that.]
>I have to agree with Jim here.
Yes, but nobody asked you, Nick. I was tweaking Jim about
the whole "science fiction" thing and then running the gag
and then you jump in with your opinion.
>James, if you have real life problems bothering you, handle them.
>Don't sit there and take out your frustrations on people you don't
>really know throughwords on a screen from the safety of your own
>home. Go to the source of your problem and handle it like a man.
Okay. Allow me to just put this way:
Here on this group, we all like to play like we are all good
buds and such. But when I jump in and tweak Jim Larson about
the "science fiction" thing, not only does he automatically
assume the worst, Nick jumps in and supports the mistaken
impression. I guess my posts will be few and far between
from now on, being as I will confine myself to being on-
topic so as to avoid inadvertently giving the humorless
a wedgie - metaphorically speaking.
Jim Larson
>
>-+-+ Listening to Sarah Brightman. The EDEN album.
>-+-+ (Not able to breathe properly due to artistic
>-+-+ appreciation right now...)
>
>ni...@snurcher.com (Nick) wrote:
>>Jim Larson wrote:
>>>James wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> [James points to Jim Larson.] That is NOT a cat. For one
>>>> thing, it doesn't even know what "science fiction" is.
>>>> For another thing, it posts to Usenet indiscriminately during
>>>> the airing of FUTURAMA episodes. It is probably a turnip.
>>>
>>>Enough is enough. If I bother you, please be so kind as to ignore
>>>me. In any case, point your paroxysms elsewhere.
>>>
>>>Perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps I'm just in a foul mood. You
>>>would know all about that, I should think.
>
> Ooooo! I might have misjudged heah. Perhaps it IS a cat.
> It certainly hissed like one.
>
> [Oh, my! One can't indulge in mild sarcasm without someone
> going all off. Pity, that.]
>
It isn't your use of sarcasm, James, as I'm sure you are aware. It's simply
a combination of your spastic attitude and my mood at the time. At times, I
find your ever-changing online persona amusing. At times, I find it
irritating. Last night was an example of the latter. It doesn't
particularly mean anything to me and was forgotten not too long after I
posted.
<snip>
>
> Okay. Allow me to just put this way:
> Here on this group, we all like to play like we are all good
> buds and such. But when I jump in and tweak Jim Larson about
> the "science fiction" thing, not only does he automatically
> assume the worst, Nick jumps in and supports the mistaken
That's just it. I usually know where I stand with most of the regulars, at
least in this forum (real life is not an issue and I have no idea why you
keep bringing it up). I never know where I stand with you. One minute
you're posting something cogent. The next minute you're baying at the moon.
That is, of course, your right and part of what makes you one of the more
interesting contributors around here. However, you shouldn't be surprised
that you occasionally piss people off as a result.
> impression. I guess my posts will be few and far between
> from now on, being as I will confine myself to being on-
> topic so as to avoid inadvertently giving the humorless
> a wedgie - metaphorically speaking.
>
You have threatened reform, withdrawal, and everything in between in the
past. You have never followed through, nor should you. There is no reason
you should censor yourself here, and no reason for you to avoid off-topic
posting. However, humor is a matter of perspective, and sometimes I don't
find you funny. If that is reason enough for you to consider changing your
posting habits, then perhaps it is you who should stick to the internet's
version of the kiddie pool.
--
Jim
Joan Hedman (QuietI)
"James" <ja...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:907E3787P2u...@194.42.224.159...
James, James, James! Listen up heah.
FWIW (which I know ain't much), I'd call foul on Nick here and not penalize
Jim and the rest of the NG by withdrawing your delightful and (mostly)
entertaining self. Jim did what we all have done from time to time, which
is to say, "I'm not in the mood for this right now, please cut it out."
~IF~ you (James) had continued to tweak him after that, then I could
possibly see Nick jumping in as he did here. IMO it was uncalled for. I
started to say as much in my earlier reply in this thread and then backed
off as I didn't want to get sniped at myself. My take on this situation is
as you described it -- typical banter that happened to touch a raw nerve for
whatever reason.
Let's all back away slowly now and pretend this never happened. We do it
all the time, we're good at it by now.
Joan
ps
Frell![1] again with the alt.dev.null, James!?
[1] Deliberate use of the fangirl psuedo-swear.
James
>ja...@usa.net (James) wrote:
++ Snippage
>It isn't your use of sarcasm, James, as I'm sure you are aware.
>It's simply a combination of your spastic attitude and my mood at
>the time.
Okay. I can certainly understand that.
>At times, I find your ever-changing online persona amusing. At
>times, I find it irritating. Last night was an example of the
>latter.
One wants to be always beloved. However, being unbeloved
certainly is a more reasonable way that things tend to go.
>It doesn't particularly mean anything to me and was forgotten
>not too long after I posted.
*PHEW!* Nice to know that no real lasting harm was done.
>> Okay. Allow me to just put this way:
>> Here on this group, we all like to play like we are all good
>> buds and such. But when I jump in and tweak Jim Larson about
>> the "science fiction" thing, not only does he automatically
>> assume the worst,
>
>That's just it. I usually know where I stand with most of the
>regulars, at least in this forum (real life is not an issue and I
>have no idea why you keep bringing it up).
What? I didn't bring up real life here. Well, I *DON'T*
think that I did...
>I never know where I stand with you. One minute you're posting
>something cogent. The next minute you're baying at the moon. That
>is, of course, your right and part of what makes you one of the
>more interesting contributors around here. However, you shouldn't
>be surprised that you occasionally piss people off as a result.
True. I tried to send an e-mail from X-news but it went
wonky on me. Besides, heah is where the transgression
occurred and heah is where the atonement should happen.
If I gave offense, I am sorry. It was not my intent to
insult.
>> I guess my posts will be few and far between from now
>> on, being as I will confine myself to being on-topic so
>> as to avoid inadvertently giving the humorless a wedgie -
>> metaphorically speaking.
>
>You have threatened reform, withdrawal, and everything in between
>in the past. You have never followed through, nor should you.
The thing is, I really have been trying to reform, to tone
down. I guess I should not let a setback deter me.
>There is no reason you should censor yourself here, and no reason
>for you to avoid off-topic posting. However, humor is a matter of
>perspective, and sometimes I don't find you funny. If that is
>reason enough for you to consider changing your posting habits,
>then perhaps it is you who should stick to the internet's version
>of the kiddie pool.
[James is floating in a large tractor-tire inner-tube painted
and made up to look like an enormous rubber duck. As he floats
along, sipping on a cold beer, he sees some youngsters. He waves
and continues to drift along. One lifeguard says to another]
"Isn't that guy a little ~old~ to be HERE?"
[The other responds] "Well, he snarled and snapped at me
when _I_ tried to tell him that. But, you go ahead and
give it a try."
Jim Larson
<snip>
Kiss. Kiss. Smooch. Smooch.[1]
--
Jim
[1] Redundant, but what are you gonna do?
John Iwaniszek
I say you can never have too much fun.
Joan Hedman (QuietI)
"John Iwaniszek" <Jo...@Iwaniszek.com> wrote in message
news:3AD1B6F7...@Iwaniszek.com...
Hear, hear. Here, too.
James
#==#>> Astronaut: (n.) Someone stupid enough to be strapped on
#==#>> top of thousands of tons of highly explosive material con-
#==#>> tained in a complex system built by the cheapest bidder
larso...@yahoo.com (Jim Larson) wrote:
>ja...@usa.net (James) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>Kiss. Kiss. Smooch. Smooch.[1]
*AACK!* >spit-spit< [James wipes his mouth, wearing
a highly disgusted expression] No tongue, ya mook!
NO TONGUE!!
>[1] Redundant, but what are you gonna do?
Keep that friggin' thing INSIDE your mouth is what!!
(Theah... That better, Jim? Know wheah you stand now??
<hee-hee-hee!> Anyhoo, let the crazeeness continue.)
Jim Larson
>
>#==#>> Astronaut: (n.) Someone stupid enough to be strapped on
>#==#>> top of thousands of tons of highly explosive material con-
>#==#>> tained in a complex system built by the cheapest bidder
>
>larso...@yahoo.com (Jim Larson) wrote:
>>ja...@usa.net (James) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Kiss. Kiss. Smooch. Smooch.[1]
>
> *AACK!* >spit-spit< [James wipes his mouth, wearing
> a highly disgusted expression] No tongue, ya mook!
> NO TONGUE!!
>
>>[1] Redundant, but what are you gonna do?
>
> Keep that friggin' thing INSIDE your mouth is what!!
>
> (Theah... That better, Jim? Know wheah you stand now??
Apparently right in front of you, and way too close for comfort.
--
Jim
Mark Morrison
You should get a plasma TV for the ceiling, depending on how much time
you spend staring at it.... :)
Boldman
"Joan Hedman (QuietI)" <qui...@home.com> wrote in message
news:TTdA6.115521$Xt3.16...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnn.
I missed all of this!
Oh well, 700 more posts to get through and I'm clean!
Boldman