Some market news...
Robert B. Marks
For those that don't know already, I think I've killed another market...I
sent a story to Epitaph, and they folded.
At any rate, I have a letter here saying that as of Nov. 29, 1998, Pirate
Writings Publishing no longer exists, and that DNA Publications has bought
them up (which we all knew from earlier). However, one of the results of
this is that Epitaph has folded, and will no longer be publishing.
I hope this information is helpful.
Best regards to all,
Robert B. Marks, the SF kiss of death...
--
The future has not been written, / The past is set in stone,
And I am but a lonely wanderer, / With time as my only home.
-- from _Demon's Vengeance_
Forthcoming: _Myth_ical Battlefields -- Computer Gaming World (early
1999) (working title)
Speculations: Monolithic Proportions -- The United (early
1999)
Chuck Gee
>At any rate, I have a letter here saying that as of Nov. 29, 1998, Pirate
>Writings Publishing no longer exists, and that DNA Publications has bought
===========================================================================
Chuck Gee replies:
Hhhmmmm...
Remember the recent thread "How long is too long?"
I posted a reply to the originator of that thread, stating
that a bunch of my manuscripts had suddenly become overdue in
their return to me: a most unusual event (in my case).
The most notable one of the lot was a submission to "Pirate
Writings." They've had this particular short story for a total
of 102 days.
Previously, Pirate Writings had averaged 17 days response
time to me, with a maximum of 23 days. SFWA shows an average of
18 days with 52 long; Scavenger's has them listed at 37 days
average with 47 long; and Submitting to a Black Hole has them at
26 days average, 98 long.
Releases from DNA and/or Pirate Writings had clearly stated
that DNA was handling the publishing end of the business
(printing, distribution, etc.), while indicating that the
editorial practices of Pirate Writings would remain unchanged.
Perhaps my "overdue response" from Pirate Writings is because
of unforeseen (or unstated) problems in the recent changeover of
business operations??????????
Can anyone elaborate on this? I hate to bug Pirate Writings
directly--at least not yet. I'm sure they must be busy with the
new changes and all.
Black Dragon
> For those that don't know already, I think I've killed another market...I
> sent a story to Epitaph, and they folded.
>
Congrats on the destruction. Do you keep score?
> At any rate, I have a letter here saying that as of Nov. 29, 1998, Pirate
> Writings Publishing no longer exists, and that DNA Publications has bought
> them up (which we all knew from earlier). However, one of the results of
> this is that Epitaph has folded, and will no longer be publishing.
Well, do you (or anyone else) know what effect that will have on Pirate
Writing submissions? I have a manuscript there (been there since 10/21), but
I see on the Black Hole page that someone appears to have gotten a response
from them in October of this year. Should I go ahead and submit somewhere
else or has the slush pile been forwarded to DNA publications?
AvantPop
>I have a manuscript there (been there since 10/21), but
>I see on the Black Hole page that someone appears to have gotten a response
>from them in October of this year.
You know, this anal attitude of some of you people who maintain an exact date
to what
it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really bugs
the shit out of me.
Why? Because you guys do it like a mathematical statistic....like there are
robots on the other end spewing out rejection slips to you.
And if there's a difference in the average rejection, you start forming weird
theories as to why....
Newsflash,people: there are human beings who are editors on the other end
reading and ejecting (and sometimes accepting) the material.
And all you people seem to do is talk abot how long is took you to get
rejected. Who gives a flying %^$$# about your rejctions. Report good news, if
you got good ews.
Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put your
stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...and just
write....you may start noticing a difference.
Mike Hemmingson
Charles Anders Kupperman
> You know, this anal attitude of some of you people who maintain an exact date
> to what
> it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really bugs
> the shit out of me.
Sorry to hear that. There's a simple reason for it. I like to know,
before I send a story to a magazine, whether it's likely to be there for a
week or a year. I try to avoid magazines that regularly keep manuscripts
for the latter length and seek out magazines that turn them around in the
former. That seems like rational behavior to me.
> Why? Because you guys do it like a mathematical statistic...
It _is_ a mathematical statistic. And it's a courtesy that writers give
each other on-line, tabulating those response times. In particular Andrew
Burt has been terrific about putting together a page (the Black Holes
site) that provides an easy reference point for writers who get frustrated
by long response times. I consult it every time I'm thinking about
sending out a story.
> And if there's a difference in the average rejection, you start forming weird
> theories as to why....
Some writers are a bit obsessive-compulsive. This is news to you?
Also, there's always the hope that if a story's been kept longer it's
under serious consideration. Usually it's a forlorn hope, but sometimes
not.
> Newsflash,people: there are human beings who are editors on the other end
> reading and ejecting (and sometimes accepting) the material.
What makes you think people don't know that?
Charles
--
"God, I so hate good taste. It is so lacking in courage. It is so
tasteless." -- Diana Trent, Waiting For God.
AvantPop
>What makes you think people don't know that?
Being an editor, I have my suspicions. :)
Chuck Gee
>You know, this anal attitude of some of you people who maintain an exact date
>to what
>it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really bugs
>the shit out of me.
Chuck Gee responds:
Then you need to chill a little. The craft of writing appeals to persons
with "anal" leanings. Nothing you can say or do will change that.
=============================================================================
>Why? Because you guys do it like a mathematical statistic....like there are
>robots on the other end spewing out rejection slips to you.
>Newsflash,people: there are human beings who are editors on the other end
>reading and ejecting (and sometimes accepting) the material.
Chuck Gee responds:
The fact that there **are** human beings at the other end is what makes it
so fascinating. There is no mystery in tracking the behaviour
pattern of robots.
============================================================================
>rejected. Who gives a flying %^$$# about your rejctions. Report good news, if
>you got good ews.
Chuck Gee responds:
I give a flying %^$$# about rejections, that's who. I get more rejections
that any writer I know; and until that situation changes (if it ever does)
I will continue to be concerned with such.
And one of the pleasant things about this group is the fact that the users
of it do not bombard us with "yahoos" every time they make a $ 40 sale to
some airline magazine. (Unlike certain other newsgroups.)
============================================================================
>Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put your
>stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...and just
>write....you may start noticing a difference.
>Mike Hemmingson
Chuck Gee responds:
Actually, I always advise others to handle their submission/rejection
chores during a time they would not normally be writing. I don't write on
weekends, so I handle all the tabulating, etc. on Saturday mornings. It's
a fun little hobby, and has absolutely no effect on my writing time.
As far as getting a life? I think it's pretty clear to most who read this
thread as to who needs to get a life. Anyone who would dive into a fairly
innocuous usenet discussion in order to deliver such a nasty rant
obviously needs to find something productive to do.
I dare say, in a long and active life I've done more than any two or three
(or more) average people. The fact that I choose to devote the last
couple decades of it to more academic or prosaic pursuits is nobody's
business but my own. And I certainly have no reason to justify my life to
such an obvious and obnoxious punk.
--
g...@teleport.com
AvantPop
> And I certainly have no reason to justify my life to
>such an obvious and obnoxious punk.
so said g...@user1.teleport.com (Chuck Gee), who admits:
> I get more rejections
>that any writer I know
Gee, Gee, I wonder why?
Jay Random
>
> >From: Black Dragon <mr.nos...@black-dragon.nospam.com>
>
> >I have a manuscript there (been there since 10/21), but
> >I see on the Black Hole page that someone appears to have gotten a response
> >from them in October of this year.
>
> to what
> it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really bugs
> the shit out of me.
Why? Because you hold onto people's manuscripts forever before rejecting
them, & you don't like being compared unfavourably to Gordon Van Gelder?
(Just a guess; I have no idea what your response times are for your
anthologies, & don't intend to bother finding out.)
> Why? Because you guys do it like a mathematical statistic....like there are
> robots on the other end spewing out rejection slips to you.
It _is_ a mathematical statistic. I suppose you object to census-taking
& opinion polls, too.
> And if there's a difference in the average rejection, you start forming weird
> theories as to why....
Yeah, such as: George Scithers, Darrell Schweitzer, Gordon Van Gelder,
Scott Edelman, & certain other editors believe in dealing promptly with
the duties they have voluntarily taken on. Some other editors don't give
a flying fig.
> Newsflash,people: there are human beings who are editors on the other end
> reading and ejecting (and sometimes accepting) the material.
Newsflash, Mike: There are human beings _submitting_ the material, too.
And speed of response is _important_ to them. Life is too short to spend
waiting six months per market for a form rejection.
> And all you people seem to do is talk abot how long is took you to get
> rejected. Who gives a flying %^$$# about your rejctions. Report good news, if
> you got good ews.
These lists of response times include acceptances as well as rejections.
> Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put your
> stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...and just
> write....you may start noticing a difference.
Not if you keep sending to markets that take forever to respond, you
won't.
Look, Hemmingson, there is a very real & legitimate demand for a service
that tracks average response times for different markets. This demand is
being met. You don't have to participate in it if you don't want to.
What the hell is your problem with that?
AvantPop
>Because you hold onto people's manuscripts forever before rejecting
>them, & you don't like being compared unfavourably to Gordon Van Gelder?
My response time, for my anthos, is one week to three months. I factor in
variables: what's going on in my life, how many submissions are in, whether I
feel like looking at a ms. or not, etc....
Gordon Van Gelder happens to be a great editor; he happens to have made great
suggestions on various manuscripts over the years (my novel MINSTRELS, from
Permeable Press, is in its current form due to his re-write suggestions, even
if he didn't take it for SMP).
>Yeah, such as: George Scithers, Darrell Schweitzer, Gordon Van Gelder,
>Scott Edelman, & certain other editors believe in dealing promptly with
>the duties they have voluntarily taken on.
Voluntary? Heh. Gordon Van Gelder is paid for his work on F&SF, *and* being n
editor at SMP at the same time....Scitchers also gets paid...
>What the hell is your problem with that?
I find it silly.
Mike
Jay Random
>
> >From: Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca>
>
> >Yeah, such as: George Scithers, Darrell Schweitzer, Gordon Van Gelder,
> >Scott Edelman, & certain other editors believe in dealing promptly with
> >the duties they have voluntarily taken on.
>
> Voluntary? Heh. Gordon Van Gelder is paid for his work on F&SF, *and*
> being n editor at SMP at the same time....Scitchers also gets paid...
IIRC, nobody forced them to take those jobs at gunpoint. Responding to
slush is part of the job; they agreed of their own volition to do it.
They choose to do it promptly. Is this value of `voluntarily' too
abstruse for you?
> >What the hell is your problem with that?
>
> I find it silly.
Then call us silly for exchanging that information. Don't call us
lifeless, stupid, anal-retentive, & the rest of the names you've been
spooning around.
Jay Random
>
> > I get more rejections
> >that any writer I know
>
> Gee, Gee, I wonder why?
Could be because he puts more manuscripts in the mail than anybody he
knows.
Babe Ruth, as everybody knows, set a record for career home runs that
endured for decades. What most people forget is that he also set the
record for career strikeouts.
Gee, Hemmingson, I wonder why?
AvantPop
>Gee, Hemmingson, I wonder why?
>
Gee, Random....ya win a few, ya lose a few, perhaps?
AvantPop
> Don't call us
>lifeless, stupid, anal-retentive, &
Never called anyone any of those.
Boy! Only someone from Canada!
Mike "Beware of the Canadian Invasion army of 2002" Hemmingson, eh.
Jay Random
>
> >From: Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca>
>
> > Don't call us
> >lifeless, stupid, anal-retentive, &
>
> Never called anyone any of those.
Beg to differ. I cite your remarks:
`You know, this anal attitude of some of you people....'
This is calling people anal-retentive. And from the same post:
`Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put
your stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...'
There's lifeless: you don't tell someone to `get a life' if you think
they already have one. Oh yes: I forgot to mention that you called us
all obsessive as well.
Chuck Gee
> so said g...@user1.teleport.com (Chuck Gee), who admits:
>> I get more rejections
>>that any writer I know
>Gee, Gee, I wonder why?
===============================================================
Chuck Gee replies:
Though I freely admit that I am far from being an accomplished writer, I
do possess a strong work ethic. I currently have 12 short stories
submitted to 11 different magazines, with another story due to ship in a
week or two, and three more in the mill.
By the way, am I to assume from other postings that you're an editor?
Please let me know the name of the publication, so I can avoid submitting
to it. I would strongly prefer that more deserving editors receive the
"honor" of reading my works.
Budwebster
>You know, this anal attitude of some of you people who maintain an exact date
>to what
>it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really bugs
>the shit out of me.
Sorry to hear it. Get used to it, because it ain't gonna change.
The time a market took to get back to me last time makes a difference in
whether or not I submit to them again at all, or simply move them around in the
queue a little, all other things being equal. There's one market I probably
will never submit to again, because they hung onto a story for more than six
months. Another editor will more than likely not see another one of my stories
because he misplaced the last one and didn't find it until after they shut down
operations and cleaned out the office. I keep *very* close tabs on how long a
manuscript stays at a magazine - as does SFWA, I might add.
Bud Webster
Writer - Editor - Proofreader: Think of me as an infinite number of Mexican
stuffed-frog bands.
The Nebula-nominated "The Ballad of Kansas McGriff" is now available as a
limited edition chapbook - ask me for details.
Robert B. Marks
: Robert B. Marks wrote:
:> For those that don't know already, I think I've killed another market...I
:> sent a story to Epitaph, and they folded.
: Congrats on the destruction. Do you keep score?
Only loosely. I had a publisher in Canada say he was interested in my
novel, and then the entire Canadian fantasy market crashed for a year or
so and I lost that one. I figure an entire genre counts for at least 3
points. Then I sent something to Adventures in Sword and Sorcery, and
they vanished for around half a year, so I NEARLY got them. Count that
one as half a point. And now Epitaph...one point there. So, four and a
half points...so far...
Beware, all ye editors, I could be sending manuscripts to you next...
[Evil laughter...]
:> At any rate, I have a letter here saying that as of Nov. 29, 1998, Pirate
:> Writings Publishing no longer exists, and that DNA Publications has bought
:> them up (which we all knew from earlier). However, one of the results of
:> this is that Epitaph has folded, and will no longer be publishing.
: Well, do you (or anyone else) know what effect that will have on Pirate
: Writing submissions? I have a manuscript there (been there since 10/21), but
: I see on the Black Hole page that someone appears to have gotten a response
: from them in October of this year. Should I go ahead and submit somewhere
: else or has the slush pile been forwarded to DNA publications?
Okay...the letter says that the business aspect (cheque-writing,
subscriptions, etc.) is now at the new DNA address. However, the
editorial stuff (submissions, etc.) goes to the old address, and the
editor remains the same.
So, for the submissions side, I don't think anything has changed. Except,
of course, for Epitaph dying...
Robert Marks
Erin C. D.
AvantPop wrote in message <19981210110614...@ng08.aol.com>...
>
>You know, this anal attitude of some of you people who maintain an exact
date
>to what
>it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really
bugs
>the shit out of me.
>
are
>robots on the other end spewing out rejection slips to you.
>
>And if there's a difference in the average rejection, you start forming
weird
>theories as to why....
>
>Newsflash,people: there are human beings who are editors on the other end
>reading and ejecting (and sometimes accepting) the material.
>
>And all you people seem to do is talk abot how long is took you to get
>rejected. Who gives a flying %^$$# about your rejctions. Report good
news, if
>you got good ews.
>
>Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put your
>stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...and just
>write....you may start noticing a difference.
>
>Mike Hemmingson
Oh, ok. So we're not supposed to worry about if our mail got there in
the first place? And after it has gotten there (assuming the postal deities
are with you) we're supposed to not mind if it lingers in a pile for ages?
Most of us don't obsess for hours Mike. The Black Hole site is
wonderful, because you can quickly see how long the major markets are
taking - it saves time, letting us get back to writing faster. I take
offense at your implication that anyone who cares about return times isn't
(or can't) write. I know people who have been published many times over who
still care.
Mike, do you ever remember what it was like to be a beginner? Or did you
leap out of the womb, fully formed as a pro-writer? Wasn't there any time at
all that you walked down to the mailbox with anticipation, nervousness,
anger, or elation?
I know that i feel those ways a lot -- perhaps because i'm a foolish
optimist at heart -- and that other newbie writers do too. I use the web
charts and the network of friends that i have to figure out when i need to
start worrying about a work that might have been lost at sea, or when the
mailbox might spew a rejection out. It isn't anality, it is wondering if
maybe this time you've managed to hook your story up with the right market,
maybe this time you've figured out what they were looking for, maybe this
time you've crossed some bridge of ability and now can swim in deeper
water...
I'm sorry that you can't understand. I assume that, you being who you
are (or seem to be on here :P), you never earn any rejections at all
anymore, that each word you type is golden, and each new day brings you
envelopes full of money/galley proofs/acceptance letters. I also assume that
because you've never felt worry or wonder at what the mailbox brings that
your newfound glory doesn't bring you any joy. Afterall, how can one be
happy without ever having known despair?
Erin Cashier Denton
http://www.worldcontrol.org/theri
It's no better to be safe than sorry.
Brenda Clough
AvantPop wrote:
> Robert:
>
> Can you submit a sword and sorcery novel too all U.S. publishers so that
> insipid sub-genre can just keel over and die?
>
> Thanks! :)
>
> Mike
Nonsense. Such mighty powers must be used for good, not evil. Robert, do
you happen to have Saddam Hussein's mailing address?
Brenda
--
Brenda W. Clough, author of HOW LIKE A GOD from Tor Books
<clo...@erols.com> http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda
AvantPop
>Beg to differ. I cite your remarks:
>
>`You know, this anal attitude of some of you people....'
No. You see, I said 'this anal attitude', which means an attitude, a stnace,
a poise. You didn't say: 'You anal people!'
>This is calling people anal-retentive
That's your definitioin. There was no retentiveness implied whatsoever.
>There's lifeless: you don't tell someone to `get a life' if you think
>they already have one
"Lifeless" would imply being dead. "Get a life" is a colloqualism indigenous
to the United States, more so in So. Califiornia, and Canadians tend not to
catch these a lot -- I know, there are Canadians at this moment swarming my
beloved Borrego Springs Desert....what the hell, though, we charge them
sky-high prices and sent that back North broke. :)
> Oh yes: I forgot to mention that you called us
>all obsessive as well.
Well, you are obsessive. I'm obsessive.
Mike
AvantPop
Jay Random
>
> >From: Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca>
>
> >Beg to differ. I cite your remarks:
> >
> >`You know, this anal attitude of some of you people....'
>
> No. You see, I said 'this anal attitude', which means an attitude, a
> stnace, a poise. You didn't say: 'You anal people!'
>
> >This is calling people anal-retentive
>
> That's your definitioin. There was no retentiveness implied
> whatsoever.
`Anal' as a term of abuse is simply short for `anal-retentive'. The
shortening has happened within my own lifetime; I saw it happen.
> >There's lifeless: you don't tell someone to `get a life' if you think
> >they already have one
>
> "Lifeless" would imply being dead. "Get a life" is a colloqualism
> indigenous to the United States, more so in So. Califiornia, and
> Canadians tend not to catch these a lot -- I know, there are Canadians
> at this moment swarming my beloved Borrego Springs Desert....what the
> hell, though, we charge them sky-high prices and sent that back North
> broke. :)
I hate to break this to you, but `Get a life' is about Number Three on
the pop chart for colloquialisms in current use in Canada. Furthermore,
`lifeless' is what we call people who have no life in the `Get a life'
sense of the word. People who post on Usenet are considered lifeless
until proven otherwise. <sour grin>
JamesAB5
>
>From: Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca>
[snip re: tracking response times]
>>What the hell is your problem with that?
>
>I find it silly.
Several people have given reasoned, cogent, and *professional* reasons fro
noting resposne times from editors, and you find it "silly"?
I find you to be an ass.
Questioning somebody's talent over such an issue is inexcusable, although your
reaction is understandable. After all, if writers start holding editors to
professional standards regarding response times, imagine what would happen if
they started doing the same regarding online behavior...
Best,
Jim Bailey (jame...@aol.com)
http://www.sff.net/people/jbailey/
Web Assistant: The Market List -- http://www.marketlist.com/
SF/F/H short-story market listings and more.
ti...@my-dejanews.com
budwe...@aol.com (Budwebster) wrote:
<snip>
> The time a market took to get back to me last time makes a difference in
> whether or not I submit to them again at all, or simply move them around in
the
> queue a little, all other things being equal. There's one market I probably
> will never submit to again, because they hung onto a story for more than six
> months. Another editor will more than likely not see another one of my
stories
> because he misplaced the last one and didn't find it until after they shut
down
> operations and cleaned out the office. I keep *very* close tabs on how long a
> manuscript stays at a magazine - as does SFWA, I might add.
Same here. It's a good way of keeping track of who to do business with or
not, and sharing the info with other writers just seems like a common
courtesy to me. I also keep tabs on who buys my stories and how much time it
took them to reply, to pay me, and to get the work published. Plus, it's
good info to have come tax season.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AvantPop
>`Anal' as a term of abuse is simply short for `anal-retentive'.
Maybe in Canada, but not So. Calif.
Of course, my ex-girlfriend Christine used to say, "Hey, I'm feeling anal
tonight," by which she meant she felt like me $%%%# her in the butt...so there
ya go. ;)
Mike
AvantPop
>I find you to be an ass.
At least you didn't call me anal!
> imagine what would happen if
>they started doing the same regarding online behavior...
Hey, then I guess it's a good thing Harlan Ellison refuses to be on the Net,
huh?
Mike
AvantPop
>Several people have given reasoned, cogent, and *professional* reasons fro
>noting resposne times from editors, and you find it "silly"?
I didn't say I found the practice, per se, *completely*silly and w/out merit; I
find that some people's obsession over how many days it takes to get rejected
silly.
I think there's some bulletin boards on AOL and sff.net and perhaps elsewhere,
I can't recall at this moment, where I've looked at some large lists of people
posting: "Hey, Gardner Dozois sent me a form rejection letter in 93 days!"
"Hey, I got one from him in 56 days." "I got..." Etc etc. Then some people
start averaging, start tabulating strange numbers.
My feeling: Why do you want to talk about your rejections? Talk about
something good
instead. Or think about something better.
Maybe it's just me. I mail stuff out, I forget it. I don't write down when I
sent it and how long it takes for a response. I work on something else, and
each day's pile of mail is a new suprise. Sometimes I even say, "Oh, did I
send that to that place?"
(I have an anecdote from six years ago when a small literary magazine sent me
contributor's copies of a story they never told me they accepted, or at least I
didn't recall them telling me so, after a year, and I'd completely forgotten
I'd ever written the story -- it was only 1200 words, so that's easy to
forget....)
Of course, 6 times out of 10 my responses are acceptances, and I don't even
keep track of that...
I don't even remember who I am sometimes.
Yours,
Jerry Springer
Jonathan W Hendry
>Maybe it's just me. I mail stuff out, I forget it. I don't write down when I
>sent it and how long it takes for a response. I work on something else, and
>each day's pile of mail is a new suprise. Sometimes I even say, "Oh, did I
>send that to that place?"
So I take it you sell 'First North American Serial Rights Unless I
Forget That Someone Else Bought It First In Which Case Tough Luck"?
Dorothy J Heydt
> Starguard's Guaranteed Fire Extinguisher
>
>A very wise Fidonet system operator once told me her "magic formula"
>for putting out flamewars. I have since posted it to two newsgroups
>and seen it praised by their administrators. And it's so SIMPLE....
>
>Take the premise that chronic flamers have an ego problem. Consider
>what result they hope to achieve: to get people "going", to get a reaction.
>So! What to do? Follow this very simple plan:
>
>Ignore them.
>
>If you feel you absolutely MUST answer them, answer them only ONCE,
>no matter what else they reply with. (I don't care if you have to bite your
>lip, kick your desk, get up and run around the room...sit on your hands.
>Deny them the satisfaction!)
>
>If you DO break down and answer them: refuse to stoop to their level,
>no matter what the provocation. (Why should you allow them to drag
>you down to their childish level?!)
>
>(I might add that part of the genius of Starguard's Plan is that answering
>ONLY ONCE forces you to make a careful, well-reasoned rebuttal...try to
>hew to this part of the formula. She got her inspiration from a rule West
>Point gave up because it was TOO effective....)
>
>
>But most of all: IGNORE them.
>That's the worst torture of all to an egotist!
>
>
>
>
>And it WORKS.
>
>Suze Hammond
>tri...@agora.rain.com
>with thanks to "Starguard" SysOp of "the Overworked Dragon BBS",
>Portland, OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
_A Point of Honor_ is out....
Dan Goodman
time is _never_ more than 78.3 days and 15 seconds, can take up to six
months. Or that Bloodsoup, which says that it may take up to six months,
usually takes about two weeks.
The editors of Speculations and of Scavenger's Newsletter also seem to
consider this useful -- as evidenced by their soliciting such information
from readers, and publishing the results.
In article <19981210110614...@ng08.aol.com>,
AvantPop <avan...@aol.com> wrote:
>>From: Black Dragon <mr.nos...@black-dragon.nospam.com>
>
>>I have a manuscript there (been there since 10/21), but
>>I see on the Black Hole page that someone appears to have gotten a response
>>from them in October of this year.
>
>
>You know, this anal attitude of some of you people who maintain an exact date
>to what
>it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really bugs
>the shit out of me.
>
>Why? Because you guys do it like a mathematical statistic....like there are
>robots on the other end spewing out rejection slips to you.
>
>And if there's a difference in the average rejection, you start forming weird
>theories as to why....
>
>Newsflash,people: there are human beings who are editors on the other end
>reading and ejecting (and sometimes accepting) the material.
>
>And all you people seem to do is talk abot how long is took you to get
>rejected. Who gives a flying %^$$# about your rejctions. Report good news, if
>you got good ews.
>
>Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put your
>stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...and just
>write....you may start noticing a difference.
>
>Mike Hemmingson
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Budwebster
>Maybe it's just me. I mail stuff out, I forget it. I don't write down when I
>sent it and how long it takes for a response. I work on something else, and
>each day's pile of mail is a new suprise. Sometimes I even say, "Oh, did I
>send that to that place?"
Mike, you are screwing a completely unnecessary pooch here, and making yourself
look like an utterly unprofessional ass. My advice is to drop it and back
away.
Robert B. Marks
: Robert:
: Can you submit a sword and sorcery novel too all U.S. publishers so that
: insipid sub-genre can just keel over and die?
: Thanks! :)
Er...actually, I write mythical fantasy. I'm busy killing that market
(assuming that D&D novels haven't gotten there first, and that may just be
the case...).
However, I think the man you want for Sword and Sorcery would be Terry
Goodkind...I hear he's doing an excellent job at killing that market...
Robert Marks, currently taking his pot-shot at Pocket Books...
Robert B. Marks
: AvantPop wrote:
:> Robert:
:>
:> Can you submit a sword and sorcery novel too all U.S. publishers so that
:> insipid sub-genre can just keel over and die?
:>
:> Thanks! :)
:>
:> Mike
: Nonsense. Such mighty powers must be used for good, not evil. Robert, do
: you happen to have Saddam Hussein's mailing address?
Sorry, but I refuse to use my powers to further American foreign policy.
Besides, Premier Mike Harris is such a tempting target...
Robert Marks
Frank
>Robert:
>
>Can you submit a sword and sorcery novel too all U.S. publishers so that
>insipid sub-genre can just keel over and die?
>
Robert, could you also submit a story to Mike Hemmingson?
Julian Flood
I,too, do this. I'm either a free spirit or unprofessional. Choose one.
--
Julian Flood
jul...@argonet.co.uk
Life: much too important to be taken seriously.
Jim
wrote:
>AvantPop wrote:
>> Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put your
>> stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...and just
>> write....you may start noticing a difference.
>Not if you keep sending to markets that take forever to respond, you
>won't.
Oh, what a hell of a night -- I have to agree with Dan Goodman and
Random in the same day . . .
Take, for example, a simple scenario -- you've sent off a ms to a
decent zine, and you haven't heard from them in a reasonable length of
time (reasonable according to published stats on their response time)
-- you may very well assume that either the story or the rejection (or
the contract) got lost in the mail. A thoughtful person then adds a
certain length of time because of the fact that some editors may hold
a story on their desk a month or two, thinking it's good enough to
buy, but there's been so many slightly better things coming through
the slush pile, that they'll hold this one until things die off a
little. Once that time's past, however, the author needs to find out
if it was a mail mishap.
Also -- what is a writer to do if the muse happens to move in for six
months -- they have maybe 26 stories ripe and ready for market, and if
some idiot sits on their submissions for a year, why bother?
Personally, I don't care if an editor normally sits on a story a year
or whether they get it back in two weeks -- it's when one is acting
out of character that's important, and tells me that something might
be wrong -- that's why all those statistics are important.
And remember, this is a professional situation, and professional
attitudes are expected on both sides.
J.Michael
________________________________________________________
There are hundreds of women who worship me.
Every time I walk in, they say: "Oh, my God, he's back."
Julian Flood
> Looks like time I posted this again
Surely you're not suggesting that we've got a... no, no, it can't be...
ti...@my-dejanews.com
avan...@aol.com (AvantPop) wrote:
> Maybe it's just me. I mail stuff out, I forget it. I don't write down when I
> sent it and how long it takes for a response. I work on something else, and
> each day's pile of mail is a new suprise. Sometimes I even say, "Oh, did I
> send that to that place?"
I did this, a while back. Got me into a bit of trouble because I'd forgotten
that the work I was just now sending off was also under consideration
somewhere else. Nothing like getting your ass kicked to make you anal.
> (I have an anecdote from six years ago when a small literary magazine sent me
> contributor's copies of a story they never told me they accepted, or at least
I
> didn't recall them telling me so, after a year, and I'd completely forgotten
> I'd ever written the story -- it was only 1200 words, so that's easy to
> forget....)
And I have a story about how a lot of writers had their work pirated from a
magazine they'd all submitted to four or five years ago. Thanks to some of
them being so obsessive about submissions records, they were able to track
down the little thief.
> Of course, 6 times out of 10 my responses are acceptances, and I don't even
> keep track of that...
>
> I don't even remember who I am sometimes.
Must be hell come tax season.
I keep track of rejects and sales. If someone shows up on my door step
demanding an audit, I can show them everything. It's the only thing in life
I'm organized about. Everything else is chaos.
PMccutc103
>You know, this anal attitude of some of you people who maintain an exact date
>to what
>it takes to get rejected, and then tabulatig it all over the web, really bugs
>the shit out of me.
>
>Why? Because you guys do it like a mathematical statistic....like there are
>robots on the other end spewing out rejection slips to you.
There are very good reasons to keep track of when you sent something out.
Those who aspire to professional status, for example, might find it desirable
to keep records for the IRS in order to demonstrate that their writing is a
"business" whose expenses can be deducted rather than a "hobby" for which
expenses cannot be deducted.
Granted, you don't have to know to the nanosecond when something was sent and
rejected, and I agree that tea leaves are often more illuminating than
attempting to deduce something from the coffee stain on page 42, or the fact
that it took three more days than usual to get rejected.
But keeping track of when you sent something out strikes me as a businesslike
and professional thing to do. And when something has been out for over a
hundred days, wondering whether it's been lost in the shuffle is not wholly
unreasonable.
>
>And if there's a difference in the average rejection, you start forming weird
>theories as to why....
>
>Newsflash,people: there are human beings who are editors on the other end
>reading and ejecting (and sometimes accepting) the material.
>
>And all you people seem to do is talk abot how long is took you to get
>rejected. Who gives a flying %^$$# about your rejctions. Report good news,
>if
>you got good ews.
>
>Get a life, stop tabulating nonsense, and sit down AND WRITE...and put your
>stories in the mail...and wrte more...and stop obsessing...and just
>write....you may start noticing a difference.
>
By hypothesis, somebody who keeps careful track of when things are submitted
has indeed written something. I certainly agree that one can become so
obsessed with periphereal matters that one forgets to write. However, I see
little basis for inferring that this was the case of the original poster.
He sent something to a magazine whose ownership has changed, and he noticed
that the submission had been there longer than usual. This strikes me as a
reasonable concern.
--
Pete McCutchen
AvantPop
>So I take it you sell 'First North American Serial Rights Unless I
>Forget That Someone Else Bought It First In Which Case Tough Luck"?
>
Uhhh...embarrassingly enough, I have sold the rights to a couple of things I
wasn't supposed to.
This is why I need to get an agent now.
Mike
PMccutc103
>Please let me know the name of the publication, so I can avoid submitting
>to it. I would strongly prefer that more deserving editors receive the
>"honor" of reading my works.
>
According to his AOL member profile, he is an editor for an outfit called
"Permeable Press," which, according to its web page, has now merged with
something called "Cambrian Publications."
They have published work by a couple of people whom I have actually heard --
Rudy Rucker and Paul Di Filippo, so, much as I might not like to admit it, it
looks very much like a struggling but not wholly ridiculous small press. They
seem to publish work that probably wouldn't be my style, but the sort of people
dye their hair green and who wear black all the time might find it quite
appealing.
By the way, their web page also says that they're filled up for three years and
not taking submissions. So the issue of not sending stuff to Hemingson is
moot, anyway.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>Gordon Van Gelder happens to be a great editor; he happens to have made great
>suggestions on various manuscripts over the years (my novel MINSTRELS, from
>Permeable Press, is in its current form due to his re-write suggestions, even
>if he didn't take it for SMP).
Please note that Permeable Press is also, apparently, the outfit at which Mr.
Hemingson appears to be an editor. Coincidence?
>
>>Yeah, such as: George Scithers, Darrell Schweitzer, Gordon Van Gelder,
>>Scott Edelman, & certain other editors believe in dealing promptly with
>>the duties they have voluntarily taken on.
>
>Voluntary? Heh. Gordon Van Gelder is paid for his work on F&SF, *and* being
>n
>editor at SMP at the same time....Scitchers also gets paid...
>
>>What the hell is your problem with that?
>
>I find it silly.
If the point is to get published as soon as you can, then it would seem to me
that the best way to do that is to take into submit first to markets that
respond more rapidly than others. Obviously, that can't be the only factor --
one would not submit a hard sf tale to _Marion Zimmer Bradley's Fantasy
Magazine_ or a delightful fantasy tale to _Analog_, regardless of response
times, but as between markets for which a tale is equally appropriate, response
time seems a legitimate concern.
Given that fact, a service which tabulates response times strikes me as useful.
It's all done by computer; it's not as if the fellow who has the web page
spends nine hours a day with an abacus to get the totals right.
Do you also object to publishing the rate of pay?
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>Of course, my ex-girlfriend Christine used to say, "Hey, I'm feeling anal
>tonight," by which she meant she felt like me $%%%# her in the butt...so
>there
>ya go. ;)
If a gentleman refuses to kiss and tell, what can one infer about a man who
ass-fucks and then tells?
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
>>`Anal' as a term of abuse is simply short for `anal-retentive'.
>
>Maybe in Canada, but not So. Calif.
Whether you recognize the term as an abbreviation of "anal-retentive" or not,
that is clearly its derivation, even in California. You yourself used the term
as a pejorative for persons obsessed with minor and uimportant details; this
charateristic is one of the hallmarks of an anal-retentive personality.
You see the derivation even within your own usage, if you bother to reflect
upon it.
(Many people don't recognize this derivation because Siggy has become less
popular over the last twenty years or so. This is probably a Good Thing.)
--
Pete McCutchen
Random
:They seem to publish work that probably wouldn't be my style, but the sort
of people
:dye their hair green and who wear black all the time might find it quite
:appealing.
I say:
Woohoo, I'm there!
AvantPop
>Or did you
>leap out of the womb, fully formed as a pro-writer?
Came out of my hippie mother in 1966 with an Olympia manual...she's still
trying to figure out how that happened.
>Wasn't there any time at
>all that you walked down to the mailbox with anticipation, nervousness,
>anger, or elation?
Oh yes. I started writing when I was 10. When I was 11, I sent a bad UFO
story to F&SF, convinced that Ed Ferman was going to call me up and tell me
what a genuis I was. I waited for months; and months....until I learned,
later, that I didn't type the story double-spaced, and I didn't put an SASE in
with my ms.
I have a weird story that SOME DAY I will write an essay about. I will write
this essay the day I sell a novel to St. Martin's Press (which looks like it
may be soon, an editor there is pitching my mystery novel to the board for
publication, copies of it are circulating the SMP office in the Flatrion
Building, etc....)
Anyway, here's my wild tale of a 12 year old kid who wrote a 60K word, bad SF
novel called THE ALIEN MAN and sent it to Thomas Dunne at St. Martin's Press in
1979.
Why? Because this kid writer, little Mikey Hemmingson, loved the writings on
one Joe Haldeman, such as THE FOREVER WAR and his second novel, the title which
eludes me right now. At a con, Mikey heard Haldeman on a panel talk about
Thomas Dunne who was the man who'd taken him under his wing at St. Martin's.
So Mikey sends his book to Dunne, who at the time was just a regular editor
there.
Three months later, Mikey gets a letter from Dunne: "I'm really interested in
your book..." blah blah. A few weeks later, Dunne calls Mikey on the phone:
"I really like your book and..." Mikey's father thinks a church has called
him: "What's this St. Martin's Church calling you about?"
Mikey gets a few more letters from Dunne over the next six months. "Still in
the pipeline." Mikey knows that Mr. Dunne has no idea he is (now) 13, and
wonders how'd SMP would feel about that.
Mikey shows these letters from SMP to his junior high (8th grade) English
teacher, a frustrated writer herself, who is flabbergasted, is in denial that
some 13 yr old student of hers has caught the attention of a publisher, assumes
that Mikey has forged the letters, calls his parents to tell them what I liar
he is, only to be embarrassed by Mikey's parents who tell her, "No, these
people are interested in his book..."
Well, after nine months of this, Mr. Dunne calls Mikey one day and says, "I
couldn't get enough in-house support for your novel so we'll have to decline."
That word haunted me for years: DECLINE.
All my dreams of being a teenaged novelist were shattered. I put THE ALIEN MAN
away, and never submitted it elsewhere. I didn't write for a year.
I have always wondered: if they'd published THE ALIEN MAN, would my life had
been different? Would it've been a bad thing to publish an SF novel that
young?
I always vowed: St. Martin's Press will publihs a book of mine one day!
Every book I sent there has been rejected. I've been in a few antholgies
they've done. Now, at 32, I am in the same boat when I was 13: my ms. is being
passed around, an editorial board vote has not yet been made.
I do feel some nervousness about it....because the day I do sell a novel to
them (and I'd really like to sell it to Dunne, who has his own imprint there),
I'm gonna write this essay and sell it to Writer's Digest or something.
So what happened to Mikey, the would-be teenaged novelist? He kept writing
novels on his mnaual typewriter. He wrote about 8 bad novels in his teens. He
wrote a sappy YA novel of 28,000 words thinking, "I should write about
teenagers," when he was 16. He sent it to Elisbath Sifton, who was at Viking
at the time (why? becuse Viking had published SE Hinton as a teenager). Mrs.
Sifton liked the book a lot, but couldn't make an offer. She suggested Mikey
send it to a editor she knew at Avon's YA paperback imprint. The book was
purchased, much to Mikey's surprise, for a $2500 advance. When Mikey, at 17,
now doing a lot of drugs at Venice High, wearing leather and sporting long hair
and playing in a band, saw the galleys, he freaked out. The book was silly and
shitty. He put a pen name on the book, fearing the worse. The book didn't
sell, got one sappy review.
At 20, Mikey started writing westerns for a book packager under a house name
for a rip-off paperback co. that's still alive and ripping people off. He
learned how to plot writing these in-house westerns, so it wasn't so bad, and
he did get $1500 a pop.
Mikey stopped writing from 22-25, then went back, and started selling again at
27.
End of story.
Hope it wasn't too boring.
Mike Hemmingson
AvantPop
>If a gentleman refuses to kiss and tell, what can one infer about a man who
>ass-fucks and then tells?
I guess Max Hardcore and Seymour Butts ain't no gentlemens.....
And god I hate to say it, I know these guys. I've written porn scripts for some
of the adult video producers who all seem to be moving down to San Diego now.
AvantPop
>Please note that Permeable Press is also, apparently, the outfit at which Mr.
>Hemingson appears to be an editor. Coincidence?
Say what? Brian Clark is the editor of Permeable Press, which merged last
year with Cambrian Editions, which publsihed, oh, Paul di Fillop's first two
novels....
Harlan Ellison said something that struck me:
"People are NOT entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to their
informed opinions."
The pubishers I am editing anthologies for, Mr. McCutchen, are Robinson UK,
Carroll & Graf, and Masquerade Books.
Before you go abouit making asinine opinions, check your facts.
Permeable has published three of my books. They are in San Francisco and
Idaho. I am in San Diego.
You idiot.
Mike
Random
:And god I hate to say it, I know these guys. I've written porn scripts for
some
:of the adult video producers who all seem to be moving down to San Diego
now.
I say:
Porn need scripts?
What are the pitch meetings like, "I've got something new and cutting edge
-- no genitals, anywhere on the screen!"
"I don't think the audience will go for that..."
"Okay, how about a bunch of crack addicts in the same room have sex with
each other. Then we finish it all up with money shots."
"Now you're talking!"
I can top that though. I wrote interviews and storylines for an
independent wrestling promotion here in Jersey. "You think you are a bigger
bad-ass than Gino Caruso and you want to prove it in the ring..."
AvantPop
Well, not the compilations. But there *are* some script-minded directors in
that industry, like Bob Black and John Leslie. Hell, even Max Steiner
(Hardcore) likes a script now and then.
AvantPop
>According to his AOL member profile, he is an editor for an outfit called
>"Permeable Press," which,
Here's from my AOL member profile:
>>Occupation: Writer: fiction, plays, screenplays. Also direct plays at The
Fritz Theater and The Alien Stage Project, both in San Diego.
Personal Quote: "Is real levitation possible?" -- Art Bell. Info on
my novels and other books can be found at www.permeable.com...>>
Where does it say I am an editor for Permeable Press?
Where, Pete, huh? Where?
>it
>looks very much like a struggling but not wholly ridiculous small press.
They're a medium-sized house. They do print runs in the 3-5,000 range. One of
their books, by my pal Lance Olsen, was nominted for the Philip K. Dick Award.
>They
>seem to publish work that probably wouldn't be my style, but the sort of
>people
>dye their hair green and who wear black all the time might find it quite
>appealing.
I think people who dye their hair green and wear black read all sorts of
things, Pete.
Academics find Permeable Press' offerings appealing....a lot of Permeable books
are on college course lists.
>By the way, their web page also says that they're filled up for three years
>and
>not taking submissions. So the issue of not sending stuff to Hemingson is
>moot, anyway.
They're not taking any unsolicited submissions. Book are in the works, Pete,
believe me.
Mike
AvantPop
>I say:
>Woohoo, I'm there!
Is your hair green, or do you wear all black?
Or is your hair black and you wear green?
;)
Budwebster
>Uhhh...embarrassingly enough, I have sold the rights to a couple of things I
>wasn't supposed to.
>
>This is why I need to get an agent now.
*sigh* No, Mike, you DON'T need an agent for that. What you need is to pay
attention to what you're doing. It's really that simple. Really.
AvantPop
>No, Mike, you DON'T need an agent for that. What you need is to pay
>attention to what you're doing.
I'd rather have an agent pay attention to that. :)
Or a secretary.
A Bookkeeper?
A wife?
I dunno.
PMccutc103
>>Please note that Permeable Press is also, apparently, the outfit at which
>Mr.
>>Hemingson appears to be an editor. Coincidence?
>
> Say what? Brian Clark is the editor of Permeable Press, which merged last
>year with Cambrian Editions, which publsihed, oh, Paul di Fillop's first two
>novels....
In my defense, I did state (in another post) that Permeable Press, which
published your books, appeared from its web page to be a legitimate small
press.
As to my factual error, I apolgize. I misread your AOL Member Profile, which I
looked up after you started beating your chest. Reviewing your member profile
again, I'm not sure quite how I did this, but there you have it.
>
>Harlan Ellison said something that struck me:
>
>"People are NOT entitled to their opinions. They are entitled to their
>informed opinions."
>
>The pubishers I am editing anthologies for, Mr. McCutchen, are Robinson UK,
>Carroll & Graf, and Masquerade Books.
>
>Before you go abouit making asinine opinions, check your facts.
>
>Permeable has published three of my books. They are in San Francisco and
>Idaho. I am in San Diego.
>
>You idiot.
You know, it seemed rather obvious that I had inadvertantly misread something
-- Permeable Press is, after all, connected with you, albeit not in the manner
which I initially described. It was perfectly legitimate of you to point out
that my comment was a factual error. But there was no particular reason to
engage in name-calling.
I really think that you ought to have one of your friends from Masquerade books
administer a good spanking.
--
Pete McCutchen
ti...@my-dejanews.com
avan...@aol.com (AvantPop) wrote:
> >From: budwe...@aol.com (Budwebster)
>
> >No, Mike, you DON'T need an agent for that. What you need is to pay
> >attention to what you're doing.
>
> I'd rather have an agent pay attention to that. :)
<snip>
Yeah, but you'd also have to pay the agent money. I'd rather spend 20
minutes (maximum) a week on my database than pay an agent 10-15% of
everything I sell. Not that agents don't have their place, of course. I know
of agents who deal with the occasional short story, as a favor to clients who
have already made a good bit of money for them through novels. But
generally, on a $200-500 short story, an agent wouldn't be getting enough in
fees to make it worth their time.
I think it's easier and quicker (for most of us) to set up a datebase. Or
scribble the info on matchbook covers. Or something.
PMccutc103
>If a gentleman refuses to kiss and tell, what can one infer about a man who
>>ass-fucks and then tells?
>
>I guess Max Hardcore and Seymour Butts ain't no gentlemens.....
I don't know who these fellows are, but from the context I think I can guess at
least a bit about them.
I would hesitate to say that a person involved in the porn industry is
automatically not a gentleman -- I _am_ a libertarian, after all -- but I
continue to believe that telling the tale of how your former girlfriend said,
"I feel anal" every time she wanted a good ass-fucking was crude. But perhaps
my view on this matter was influenced by the fact that I had already concluded
that you were a jerk.
>
>And god I hate to say it, I know these guys. I've written porn scripts for
>some
>of the adult video producers who all seem to be moving down to San Diego now.
Is there a lot of dialogue in adult movies?
--
Pete McCutchen
AvantPop
>I think it's easier and quicker (for most of us) to set up a datebase. Or
>scribble the info on matchbook covers. Or something.
Okay, I think I'll start scribbling the info on the back of mss. that writer's
never send SASE for return.
AvantPop
>You know, it seemed rather obvious that I had inadvertantly misread something
>-- Permeable Press is, after all, connected with you,
Connected me only in that I have published there, and in their now defunct
magazine, PUCK, as well.
I got on your case because you were being a pompous smart-aleck, trying to
infer that I was something that I am not. That you had the audacity to open
your mouth and spew (or type) nonsense without checking your facts.
Whether you misread my profile or not is not an excuse. You were trting to a
jerk yourself, and it backfired, buddy.
Shame on you. Shame. You need a spanking.
>I really think that you ought to have one of your friends from Masquerade
>books
>administer a good spanking.
It's already planned in the future. :)
Mike
Jo Walton
pmccu...@aol.com "PMccutc103" writes:
> I would hesitate to say that a person involved in the porn industry is
> automatically not a gentleman -- I _am_ a libertarian, after all -- but I
> continue to believe that telling the tale of how your former girlfriend said,
> "I feel anal" every time she wanted a good ass-fucking was crude. But perhaps
> my view on this matter was influenced by the fact that I had already concluded
> that you were a jerk.
It was the way he gave her name.
If he'd just said "a former-gf" it would have been crude and un-funny, but
just a tacky line.
Giving her name put it into "kiss and tell" territory and therefore made
it ungentlemanly.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Julian Flood
> Is there a lot of dialogue in adult movies?
Yes, yes.. oh, yess, yeeees... oh yes....
P Nielsen Hayden
>I would hesitate to say that a person involved in the porn industry is
>automatically not a gentleman -- I _am_ a libertarian, after all --
Hey, my wife once had a job editing a line of naughty novels. And you're
right, by golly, she's not a gentleman.
>but I
>continue to believe that telling the tale of how your former girlfriend said,
>"I feel anal" every time she wanted a good ass-fucking was crude.
Well, we all noted that it was his _former_ girlfriend. Not hard to
understand why.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Aahz Maruch
P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <19981211201654...@ng-fv1.aol.com> pmccu...@aol.com (PMccutc103) writes:
>>
>>I would hesitate to say that a person involved in the porn industry is
>>automatically not a gentleman -- I _am_ a libertarian, after all --
>
>Hey, my wife once had a job editing a line of naughty novels. And you're
>right, by golly, she's not a gentleman.
Really? Next you'll be telling us she's not swarthy, either.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"Just because I'm selling you into slavery doesn't mean we can't be
friends." B-movie cliche Hall of Fame (_Bounty Hunter: 2002_)
AvantPop
>Giving her name put it into "kiss and tell" territory and therefore made
>it ungentlemanly.
Those who prctice "kiss and don't tell" are usually philanderers or married men
-- they never say anything because it's gonna get them in trouble with the
women they are supposedly pledged too.
The former artistic director of my theater company used to call it "being
discreet." He'd be certain to tell whatever actress he was sleeping with that
week to "be discreet in public" because often at a reception, or at the bar,
there'd be 3-4 women there he was screwing, plus his girlfriend who wanted to
get pregnant, and they all had to be "discreet" so as not to find out about
each other.
One of the reasons why my Board of Directors fired him, to say the least...
Mike
AvantPop
>I would hesitate to say that a person involved in the porn industry is
>automatically not a gentleman --
I would hesitate to believe that you derived this blanket statement by the same
way you gather information about people's editorial affiliations.
Rachael M. Lininger
On 12 Dec 1998, AvantPop wrote:
>>From: J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton)
>
>>Giving her name put it into "kiss and tell" territory and therefore made
>>it ungentlemanly.
>
>Those who prctice "kiss and don't tell" are usually philanderers or married men
>-- they never say anything because it's gonna get them in trouble with the
>women they are supposedly pledged too.
There is a difference between keeping things from your SO and giving
out personal details about your--and someone else's--sex life over
Usenet to people who don't know either of you, don't care, and don't
want to have to listen to it.
Or did you really mean from the first to imply that writers who
tracked response times wanted anal sex? That might make it relevant.
Crude, insulting, and unprofessional, but relevant.
Rachael
--
Rachael M. Lininger | "I never pin up my hair with prose."
lininger@ | Mrs. Millamant
virtu.sar.usf.edu | Congreve, _The Way of the World_
David G. Bell
> In article <19981211160519...@ng02.aol.com>,
> avan...@aol.com (AvantPop) wrote:
> > >From: budwe...@aol.com (Budwebster)
> >
> > >No, Mike, you DON'T need an agent for that. What you need is to pay
> > >attention to what you're doing.
> >
> > I'd rather have an agent pay attention to that. :)
>
> <snip>
>
> Yeah, but you'd also have to pay the agent money. I'd rather spend 20
> minutes (maximum) a week on my database than pay an agent 10-15% of
> everything I sell. Not that agents don't have their place, of course. I know
> of agents who deal with the occasional short story, as a favor to clients who
> have already made a good bit of money for them through novels. But
> generally, on a $200-500 short story, an agent wouldn't be getting enough in
> fees to make it worth their time.
>
> I think it's easier and quicker (for most of us) to set up a datebase. Or
> scribble the info on matchbook covers. Or something.
Anyone using a computer for writing could print off the submission copy
with an extra page, which they keep, that lists the details of the
story, the date, and who it is being submitted to. Stick that in a
folder or ring-binder, and there you are. Or run off a copy of the
covering letter, and keep that, which is what I've done in the past.
It isn't complicated or difficult. You don't even need a computer
(though I don't recall the last time I saw carbon paper on sale).
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
AvantPop
>(though I don't recall the last time I saw carbon paper on sale).
Man, carbon paper! Did writers really use that messy crap? They did. The
recent mystery/suspense book I wrote (now sitting at St. Martin's Press) is set
in 1953, about a pulp writer who gets mixed up with Pink Commie spies...I had
to remember that my narrator needed to put carbons in his Underwood; ther was
no Kinko's around the corner to make copies.
Ian
>>Those who prctice "kiss and don't tell" are usually philanderers or married men
>>-- they never say anything because it's gonna get them in trouble with the
>>women they are supposedly pledged too.
>
>There is a difference between keeping things from your SO and giving
>out personal details about your--and someone else's--sex life over
>Usenet to people who don't know either of you, don't care, and don't
>want to have to listen to it.
>
>Or did you really mean from the first to imply that writers who
>tracked response times wanted anal sex? That might make it relevant.
>Crude, insulting, and unprofessional, but relevant.
What is it about this newsgroup and overreactions?
Kemnitzer,Trollman
(Ian) wrote:
>
>What is it about this newsgroup and overreactions?
>
Oh, what it is is that this newsgroup is much less worse about
overreactions than many others.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Helen Kenyon
<avan...@aol.com> writes
Not having access to a time machine so they could nip to the future to
make a photocopy, writers (including me for my first stories) did indeed
use carbon paper.
Sigh... Not only is AvantPop arrogant, self-centred and lacking in any
kind of consideration or empathy for the feelings of others[1], he's
ageist too...
Helen
[1] e.g. ex-girlfriends
--
Helen Kenyon, Gwynedd, Wales *** ken...@baradel.demon.co.uk
http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
**Please delete the extra bit from e-mail address if replying by mail**
Jo Walton
avan...@aol.com "AvantPop" writes:
> Man, carbon paper! Did writers really use that messy crap? They did. The
> recent mystery/suspense book I wrote (now sitting at St. Martin's Press) is set
> in 1953, about a pulp writer who gets mixed up with Pink Commie spies...I had
> to remember that my narrator needed to put carbons in his Underwood; ther was
> no Kinko's around the corner to make copies.
I used to use it.
It's not that messy, and it has quite a pleasant smell. What's horrible
is not being able to go back and change anything, every word set as it
is typed, or the entire page needing retyping.
In fact I had a huge pad of it - 500 sheets, something like that? -
only partly used when I first got access to a puter and realised that
I was never going to use it again.
I donated it to a Unitarian Church in Roumania several years later.
I was typing in their list of things they wanted when I realised
simultaneously that "carbon paper" was a very low tech thing to want
and that I still had this huge block. I do hope it was useful for
them.
Random
:Sigh... Not only is AvantPop arrogant, self-centred and lacking in any
:kind of consideration or empathy for the feelings of others[1], he's
:ageist too...
I say:
You are just as wrong to assume that AP's old girlfriend has a problem
being spoken about in a newsgroup than AP might be that she doesn't care
(except for the fact that he actually knows the woman).
Just because *you* would not like being referred to that way does *not*
mean that all women would agree with with you (in fact, I know this to be
false through a single counterexample of my own lover to whom I showed this
thread) or that AP's old girl would be as offended as you are.
Someone whose solipsism operates on such a level as to entirely ignore the
feelings of the person she is somehow trying to *defend* against the
depredations of someone else has no right to complain about the lack of
empathy for the feelings of others. You haven't shown any, you just
crudely assumed it. In fact, you've demonstrated yourself to be a
hypocrite in this regard. At least AP is in a position to figure out what
his ex-gf may or may not be offended by, you simply assume that everyone is
a tongue-clucking prude.
Additionally, there was nothing *ageist* in AP's comments about carbon
paper. "Did writers really use that messy crap? They did," is not an ageist
statement. The Carbon Paper Manufacturers Of America may have a valid
complain, but you simply don't.
P Nielsen Hayden
What blanket statement? Pete said he _wouldn't_ say that. Can you read?
Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet
J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton) writes:
>In article <19981212190051...@ng-fa2.aol.com>
> avan...@aol.com "AvantPop" writes:
>> Man, carbon paper! Did writers really use that messy crap?
>I used to use it.
So did I. One of the reasons I married David was that the first
serious present he gave me was a box of carbon sets, a large
three-ring binder, and a gigantic cast-iron paper puncher. He had
noted that while in many senses I was extremely serious about my
writing, I was not organized about it in the least and this was
impeding my ability to continue working.
>It's not that messy, and it has quite a pleasant smell. What's horrible
>is not being able to go back and change anything, every word set as it
>is typed, or the entire page needing retyping.
And that's just as true of the original, which also has to look good.
I am deeply grateful not to be fooling around with correction fluid,
those little bits of tape that shed white bits into the typewriter,
correction cartridges, ad nauseam. But the carbon paper was pretty
benign.
I liked the smell too. Unlike the other accoutrements of my early
writing, carbon paper was not used in any of the horrid office jobs I
had, so it has no bad associations.
--
"Moreover, fantasticality does a good deal better than
sham psychology." -- Virginia Woolf
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Dean Dyer-Bennet pd...@ddb.com
AvantPop
(Ian) wrote:
>
>What is it about this newsgroup and overreactions?
Anal retentive, frustrated writers who really want anal sex? ;)
AvantPop
Maybe I was thinking of ribbons. Anyone remember ribbons, and installing them,
all that messy black ink on your fingers that had a nice smell?
Dorothy J Heydt
There were, so to speak, two generations of carbon paper. One
just had the carbon in a wax base coated on the back of the
paper. The other (invented by IBM, I think), later version had
a microsponge layer impregnated with a liquid ink. After you'd
used the carbon once you let it sit for a few minutes and the ink
crept back into the depleted parts of the sponge, and you could
re-use it for many more times than the old kind.
What's horrible
>is not being able to go back and change anything, every word set as it
>is typed, or the entire page needing retyping.
Oh, you could roll the page up (or down) over the platen and
erase or Liquid Paper each copy, blow the crumbs away or wait
till the Liquid Paper dried, roll back and re-type. It worked,
but was a pain in the neck. I was working as a secretary in the
mid-60s when Xeroxes first came in. Prior to that we'd been
using a Thermofax which was so ghastly I'll describe it another
time.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
_A Point of Honor_ is out....
AvantPop
>You are just as wrong to assume that AP's old girlfriend has a problem
>being spoken about in a newsgroup than AP might be that she doesn't care
Well: (1) Christine isn't on the net and (2) she wouldn't be offended,
considering she does amateur porn videos....Well, she used to, stopped about a
year ago after she found Carlos Castaneda.
But she wouldn't be offended; and if anyone is offended about my speaking about
it, write Jesse Helms about it, or any other right-wing fanatic of your
choice.
Mike
AvantPop
>Sigh... Not only is AvantPop arrogant, self-centred and lacking in any
>kind of consideration or empathy for the feelings of others[1], he's
>ageist too...
Two of of four ain't bad.
Ageist? Where do you get that? You're insane!
>[1] e.g. ex-girlfriends
Yeah, the ex-gf who tried to rip off my hit play, Erotic Scenes in a Cheap
Motel Room, that was playing to sell-out houses last Spring at my theater
compnay (go to www.armory.com/~thefritz) that she was in, and this fellow from
L.A. wanted to re-mount it in L.A. in a way I didn't want, so I didn't give him
the rights, but she told him behind my back, "Mike says you can have the play
for $50 a performance, just write the check," and put the money in our joint
account without telling me, attempting to put this play in L.A. without my
knowledge just so she could get out of San Diego and get to L.A. (to what? be a
pro porn star?) and make money off my play. This was halted by one phone call
from an attorney at William Morris. The same gf who tried to do *me* in the
ass by swindling my point shares from some projects I worked on at Elegant
Angel....Yeah, right. Not to mention attempting to cause a rift with my
collegaues at my theater company by spreading nasty rumors and lies. Not to
mention stealing my cat! Keeping my laptop! Breaking my heart!
Sheesh....
PMccutc103
>>In<19981211201654...@ng-fv1.aol.com> pmccu...@aol.com
>>(PMccutc103) writes:
>>
>>>I would hesitate to say that a person involved in the porn industry is
>>>automatically not a gentleman --
>>
>>I would hesitate to believe that you derived this blanket statement by the
>same
>>way you gather information about people's editorial affiliations.
>
>What blanket statement? Pete said he _wouldn't_ say that. Can you read?
>
>--
Don't jump on him too hard, Patrick. Most likely he misread or misunderstood
my statement. A simple human error of the sort that all of us are prone to
make from time to time. Being naturally generous of spirit, I am certainly
willing to forgive Mike for misreading my statement.
--
Pete McCutchen
Helen Kenyon
<ni...@tao.agoron.com> writes
>
>I say:
>You are just as wrong to assume that AP's old girlfriend has a problem
>being spoken about in a newsgroup than AP might be that she doesn't care
>Just because *you* would not like being referred to that way does *not*
>mean that all women would agree with with you (in fact, I know this to be
>false through a single counterexample of my own lover to whom I showed this
>thread) or that AP's old girl would be as offended as you are.
I was thinking of saving the poor girl embarassment -- which is
different from being offended. Besides, my reply was based on Mike's
remark that men only refrained from talking about sexual partners to
third parties if the man in question had a long term relationship and he
didn't want his partner to know he had been playing around. But
*gentlemen* (which was what was originally referred to) refrain from
talking about their sexual partners out of a delicate regard for the
feelings of others, not just fear of retribution. That was my point.
Perhaps I should have put a smiley after the "ageist" comment, but
reading between the lines, AvantPop seemed to be implying that we used
such things out of some perverse preference for doing things in a messy
way, when, of course, we were using the best methods available at the
time to do the job that had to be done.
Helen
AvantPop
> Being naturally generous of spirit, I am certainly
>willing to forgive Mike for misreading my statement.
>--
Alas, I didn't mis-read it. ;)
Zeborah
> >It's not that messy, and it has quite a pleasant smell.
>
> Maybe I was thinking of ribbons. Anyone remember ribbons, and installing
> them, all that messy black ink on your fingers that had a nice smell?
I still install ribbons on the receipt printers at Uni library. Well,
mostly I just move the ribbon along the little holder thingy to get a
new bit to use in the printing, but you still get ink on your fingers.
Don't know what it smells like; normally by the time I've finished
there's about twenty people lined up for books and I don't have time to
sniff at my fingers. (Putting new toner in the photocopiers, though, is
messier; in that case I wash my hands straight away no matter how many
people are lined up.)
Zeborah
Random
:I was thinking of saving the poor girl embarassment -- which is
:different from being offended.
I say:
More solipsism, more hypocrisy. The *only* point that is relevant is the
fact that you have no idea what AP's ex would feel about anything he
chooses to say, and you have no right to speak on her behalf. Not
everyone would be embarrased and it is wrong to insist that she would be.
You have no information and people with no information should remain silent
on the subject. If you personally were embarassed, then say that you were
embarassed, don't nominate and elect yourself Speaker For All Moral And
Upright People Whose Mamas Raised Them Right.
Helen says:
:Besides, my reply was based on Mike's remark that men only refrained from
talking about sexual :partners to third parties if the man in question had
a long term relationship and he
:didn't want his partner to know he had been playing around.
I say:
Then you also need to read more carefully before you respond, since this
wasn't his statement.
He said:
:Those who prctice "kiss and don't tell" are usually philanderers or
married men
:-- they never say anything because it's gonna get them in trouble with the
:women they are supposedly pledged too.
Usually. Not all, not for that reason only. Of course, if you actually had
a problem with his wild guess as to the motivations of people who do not
kiss and tell, you could argue it on the level of fact, not by declaring
yourself the one person who knows what would and what would not embarass
his girlfriend.
Helen:
:But *gentlemen* (which was what was originally referred to) refrain from
:talking about their sexual partners out of a delicate regard for the
:feelings of others, not just fear of retribution. That was my point.
I say:
And gentlemen take up the White Man's Burden and conquer a few dozen
countries to Christianize those darn darkies and teach them the honor of a
honest day's work. "Bwana bwana, hurry-up-quick with the baggage, Hadji!"
And gentlemen marry women whose station and class will augment their
political and business goals, who are not the women they necessarily love.
Did you once say you came from a working-class area with high unemployment?
So much for marrying a gentleman, then.
And a proper lady would never contradict a man in public.
If you're going to hold someone to a morality they don't chose to accept,
you had better be prepared to explain to the Taliban why they shouldn't
slice your hands off at the wrist for participating on USENET.
I imagine you don't want to be held to the morality that claims that the
only people who worry about kissing-and-telling and what it means to be a
gentleman are hopelessly repressed. Why not do people who disagree with
you the same favor.
AvantPop
>But
>*gentlemen* (which was what was originally referred to) refrain from
>talking about their sexual partners out of a delicate regard for the
>feelings of others, not just fear of retribution.
Unless you're subpeoned by a grand jury to "kiss and tell."
>reading between the lines, AvantPop seemed to be implying that we used
>such things out of some perverse preference for doing things in a messy
>way, when, of course, we were using the best methods available at the
>time to do the job that had to be done.
Huh? No, I was talking about pre-computer days, and what writers had to go
through, and that I had to keep this in mind while writing this novel set in
1953.
There's this academic nonsense that's been going around about the
"transgressive" novel and what the "new transgressive" novel is. Of course,
there's dozens of very bad professors-as-writers (and graduate students in
worthless MFA programs) desperately trying to come up with the "new
transgressive novel." A futile task, given that such a creature does not
exist.
I sat on a panel a little over a year ago at a conference at SDSU, where this
was discussed.
"Hogwash, flapdoodle, and poppycock," said I. "There's a whole new generation
of writers who have never worked on a typewriter. Young writers today grow up
on computers, and the days of the typewriter is a myth. In the 21st Century,
if there *is* a transgrerssive novel, it will be retro -- writers will find it
transgressive to write a novel on an old manual typewriter."
Needless to say, I thought of doing this while working on my book set in 1953.
I opted for a font that looked like an old Olumpia manual 12 point Couier
rather than my usual use of Palatino. (And yes, I underscroed for Italics
rather than jusy using Italics.)
Mike Hemmingson
Jay Random
No? Then why did you fly off the handle & react to a misreading it?
IOW, if _you_ didn't misread it, who did, the Misreading Fairy?
Jay Random
>
> >From: Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca>
>
> >
> >No? Then why did you fly off the handle & react to a misreading it?
>
> misread.
>
> You have mis-read this misinterpretation of missing facts, Jay. At
> this part of the thread, we were dicussing a different matter, the
> matter of gentlemen, pronograophy, and anal sex, not the matter of
> Permeable Press.
Wrong as usual. I am referring to your _later_ flying off the handle at
Mr. McCutchen's statement: `I would hesitate to say that a person
involved in the porn industry is automatically not a gentleman.' Note
that he was NOT asserting that a person in the porn industry cannot be a
gentleman; he was deliberately REFUSING to assert that. You misread it &
flew off the handle at the insult you thought he had offered you. That
is the `flying off the handle' to which I am referring.
Get it straight. Now you've not only misread Mr. McCutchen's remark, but
mine as well. Geez.
AvantPop
AvantPop
>Mr. McCutchen's statement: `I would hesitate to say that a person
>involved in the porn industry is automatically not a gentleman.'
Hesitating to say something is not the same as not saying something, as in: "I
would not (rush) to say (state) that..."
His hesitation is commendable in that he would take a breath first, assess that
what he is about to say may be wrong or out-of-hand, but he's going to say it
nevertheless.
And, no, I never had sexual relationships with her either, however
inappropriate my hesitant actions of freindship were! ;)
Zeborah
> Helen Kenyon says:
> :I was thinking of saving the poor girl embarassment -- which is
> :different from being offended.
>
> I say:
> More solipsism, more hypocrisy. The *only* point that is relevant is the
> fact that you have no idea what AP's ex would feel about anything he
> chooses to say, and you have no right to speak on her behalf. Not
> everyone would be embarrased and it is wrong to insist that she would be.
I really don't think Helen was insisting that the girl in question would
absolutely definitely be embarrassed, but rather pointing out that it
would be nice to avoid potential embarrassment. Of course AvantPop
*may* know for certain that the girl in question would not then, and
would not now, and will not in the future be embarrased. (But I don't
think that the fact that she does porn videos is an absolute indicator
of a lack of embarrassment either. It's a strong indicator, but not an
absolute one.)
> Helen:
> :But *gentlemen* (which was what was originally referred to) refrain from
> :talking about their sexual partners out of a delicate regard for the
> :feelings of others, not just fear of retribution. That was my point.
>
> I say:
> And gentlemen take up the White Man's Burden and conquer a few dozen
> countries to Christianize those darn darkies and teach them the honor of a
> honest day's work. "Bwana bwana, hurry-up-quick with the baggage, Hadji!"
Oh hogswash. 'Gentlemen' in this context refers to courtesy, not to
politics and religion.
Zeborah
Zeborah
> >From: Jay Random <jra...@shaw.wave.ca>
>
> >Mr. McCutchen's statement: `I would hesitate to say that a person
> >involved in the porn industry is automatically not a gentleman.'
>
> Hesitating to say something is not the same as not saying something, as
> in: "I would not (rush) to say (state) that..."
>
> His hesitation is commendable in that he would take a breath first, assess
> that what he is about to say may be wrong or out-of-hand, but he's going
> to say it nevertheless.
I'm sorry, but are you not a native speaker of English? The idiomatic
phrase "I would hesitate to say something" means something comparable
to: "*If* I were going to say such a thing then I'd hesitate a *long,
long, long* time while finding at least a tiny shred of evidence to back
it up. But probably I would never say it. Ever."
Zeborah
Random
> :I was thinking of saving the poor girl embarassment -- which is
> :different from being offended.
>
> I say:
> More solipsism, more hypocrisy. The *only* point that is relevant is the
> fact that you have no idea what AP's ex would feel about anything he
> chooses to say, and you have no right to speak on her behalf. Not
> everyone would be embarrased and it is wrong to insist that she would be.
Zeborah says:
:I really don't think Helen was insisting that the girl in question would
:absolutely definitely be embarrassed, but rather pointing out that it
:would be nice to avoid potential embarrassment.
I say:
Well no, you're wrong. Her text:
>>Not only is AvantPop arrogant, self-centred and lacking in any
>>kind of consideration or empathy for the feelings of others[1],
And the [1] refers to "ex-girlfriends" in the plural. There are no
qualifiers in the statement or the footnote. Thus, she was insisting. I
imagine that if I was as snippy as you, I'd ask if you were a native
speaker of English, like you did on another post, because there is *no*
suggestion that Helen was saying that it would be nice to avoid a potential
embarassment. In fact, Helen throws the net wider than the girlfriend we
know about to say that AP lacks consideration or empathy for more than one
ex-gf, in the absense of any statements about other gfs.
Zeborah says:
:Of course AvantPop *may* know for certain that the girl in question would
not then, and
:would not now, and will not in the future be embarrased. (But I don't
:think that the fact that she does porn videos is an absolute indicator
:of a lack of embarrassment either. It's a strong indicator, but not an
:absolute one.)
I say:
I'm not making any specific claims about AP's ex-girlfriend. You know why?
I have no information about her. I know very little about you either,
shall I suddenly declare what you like and what you do not, how you feel
and what embarasses you? If I can't, why should Helen be allowed to make
wild guesses about what would embarass, offend or annoy someone else.
> Helen:
> :But *gentlemen* (which was what was originally referred to) refrain from
> :talking about their sexual partners out of a delicate regard for the
> :feelings of others, not just fear of retribution. That was my point.
>
> I say:
> And gentlemen take up the White Man's Burden and conquer a few dozen
> countries to Christianize those darn darkies and teach them the honor of
a
> honest day's work. "Bwana bwana, hurry-up-quick with the baggage, Hadji!"
Zeborah says:
:Oh hogswash. 'Gentlemen' in this context refers to courtesy, not to
:politics and religion.
I say:
You can't separate out contexts like that. The same rules of conduct that
inform the courtesy of the social construct "gentlemen" also inform the
political and religious actions of those same people. After all, the
heathens needed Christianizing, or they would go to hell, and they were
childlike, and needed to be educated so that they wouldn't fall idle and
into the devil's hands. The same drive to protect, to know what is best
for others, to be casually discrete, informs all of the above.
AvantPop
>fter all, the
>heathens needed Christianizing, or they would go to hell, and they were
>childlike, and needed to be educated so that they wouldn't fall idle and
>into the devil's hands. The same drive to protect, to know what is best
>for others, to be casually discrete, informs all of the above.
And Jesse Helms, likewise, feels he must protect the minds of the American
public from certain forms of art. After all, if it offends him, it will
certainly offend everyone else.
God, I've been seeing that a lot lately: "THAT OFFENDS ME AND MUST BE
SQUASHED!" Some people just believe the whole world thinks the way they
do...or should.
PMccutc103
>More solipsism, more hypocrisy. The *only* point that is relevant is the
>fact that you have no idea what AP's ex would feel about anything he
>chooses to say, and you have no right to speak on her behalf. Not
>everyone would be embarrased and it is wrong to insist that she would be.
My original comment, by the way, did not relate to the feelings of AP's ex. I
think it would be an ungentlemanly, crude, unrefined statement, even if his ex
affirmatively wanted him to publicize her sexual inclinations over the 'net.
--
Pete McCutchen
PMccutc103
That is, of course, a red herring. Nobody suggested that you should be
censored, squashed, or otherwise restricted in the statements you choose to
make about your ex-girlfriend. However, the very same First Amendment which
protects your right to speak protects the right of others to object to your
utterances.
Thus, you have a constitutionally protecte right to say that your ex-girlfriend
said "I feel anal" whenever she wanted to be fucked up the ass, and I have a
constitutionally protected right to observe that this statement is boorish.
The First Amendment does not protect you from criticism or disagreement.
--
Pete McCutchen
Julian Flood
> I think it would be an ungentlemanly, crude, unrefined statement
I think it was a troll. I think it's working.
--
Julian Flood
jul...@argonet.co.uk
Life: much too important to be taken seriously. www.argonet.co.uk/users/julesf
Random
:My original comment, by the way, did not relate to the feelings of AP's
ex. I
:think it would be an ungentlemanly, crude, unrefined statement, even if
his ex
:affirmatively wanted him to publicize her sexual inclinations over the
'net.
I say:
Which is why I didn't criticize your comment. If's Helen's [1] footnote
has read "Me and people like me, who don't want to hear about this sort of
thing" I wouldn't have had a problem. But since she declared herself the
only one on earth who really knows what the feelings of a certain subset of
the population (AP's ex-gfs) are, without knowing anything about that
subset, I took her to task on it, and haven't seen any line of defense on
here that could actually defend her solipsism.
Lori Selke
PMccutc103 <pmccu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>According to his AOL member profile, he is an editor for an outfit called
>"Permeable Press," which, according to its web page, has now merged with
>something called "Cambrian Publications."
>
>They have published work by a couple of people whom I have actually heard --
>Rudy Rucker and Paul Di Filippo, so, much as I might not like to admit it, it
>looks very much like a struggling but not wholly ridiculous small press. They
>seem to publish work that probably wouldn't be my style, but the sort of
>people dye their hair green and who wear black all the time might find it
>quite appealing.
I've heard good things over the years about Permeable Press.
Local (to me -- SF Bay area), small, struggling, fairly
well-respected, was my assessment.
Lori
--
se...@midway.uchicago.edu
se...@io.com
"Enough internal dialogue! Must get out of bed!" -- Too Much Coffee Man