The VhiizuBagga (was =Flight= considered ...
FitchDonS
In article <19970930014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
borgf...@aol.com (BorgFreeee) wrote:
<snip>
>Tell us, ..um, about the "overdresed" for an SF convention
>hehheehheee (anyone who's been to one can laugh with me)...
Oops! Sorry if I typoed "overdressed"... but I do think the most
common usage of that word is just what I intended -- something
like "dressed too formally for the occasion". There is, of
course, no Dress Code for sf Conventions, other than
local/municipal laws (and sometimes for the Hotel's Fancy
Expensive Restaurant -- the one into which almost no fans would
go), but the overwhelmingly customary attire is /s/l/o/p/p/y/
informal/casual/at-home style, and Ms.B. was wearing (IIRC -- I
don't normally pay much attention to people's clothes or external
appearance) something remarkably more UpScale and Stylish (more
restrained than Fashionable, perhaps) and ...ummm...more expensive-
appearing than is customary at Cons nowadays (with the possible
exception of the Hugo Awards Ceremony, where some people do still
Dress Up for the Event).
--
Don Fitch
<fitc...@aol.com>
SAGstarpix
>From: fitc...@aol.com (FitchDonS)
>Date: Mon, Oct 6, 1997 02:55 EDT
You forget there are plenty of pictures of Vanna Bonta at SF conventions. I'm
laughing at this chatter with Borgfree. The pictures I've seen show Miss B. in
1) jeans with flashing vest...available at any supermarket Halloween costume
stand 2) spandex silver space jumper and combat boots 3) white tee shirt,
army fatigues. Next to her people are milling around dressed as angels,
werewolves, Klingons, Star Trek crew and very very eleborate and (pricey) get
ups. I guess a picture is worth a thousand words. It's worth more than a
million fabricated impressions.
J. Chasman
T Nielsen Hayden
In article <19971009213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
sagst...@aol.com (SAGstarpix) wrote:
> You forget there are plenty of pictures of Vanna Bonta at SF conventions. I'm
> laughing at this chatter with Borgfree. The pictures I've seen show
Miss B. in
> 1) jeans with flashing vest...available at any supermarket Halloween costume
> stand 2) spandex silver space jumper and combat boots 3) white tee shirt,
> army fatigues. Next to her people are milling around dressed as angels,
> werewolves, Klingons, Star Trek crew and very very eleborate and (pricey) get
> ups. I guess a picture is worth a thousand words. It's worth more than a
> million fabricated impressions.
Yeah. She's looking pretty shopworn, isn't she? I think that close-up
taken in Florence is the worst, but you can definitely see an age spread
in the shots over all.
::tnh::fwa
FitchDonS
sagst...@aol.com (SAGstarpix) [J. Chasman], in message
<19971009213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
(References: <19971006065...@ladder02.news.aol.com>)
Posted:
<snip cite from "BorgFreeee">
>You forget there are plenty of pictures of Vanna Bonta at SF
>conventions.
No. I didn't know this previously. But then, I don't keep up
with the photos in either Algol or Locus.
>I'm laughing at this chatter with Borgfree.
She might well have been chattering, as well as tittering; I
thought I was talking, somewhat seriously.
>The pictures I've seen show Miss B. in 1) jeans with flashing
>vest...available at any supermarket Halloween costume stand 2)
>spandex silver space jumper and combat boots 3) white tee shirt,
>army fatigues. Next to her people are milling around dressed as
>angels, werewolves, Klingons, Star Trek crew and very very
>eleborate and (pricey) get ups.
This passage seems to imply that Miss Bonta has a large stock of
strikingly different costumes, and assumes varied ones frequently,
at least when in contact with sf fandom. This is something I find
moderately interesting, but not in the least surprising.
>I guess a picture is worth a thousand words. It's worth more than
>a million fabricated impressions.
The second, and more original, of these sentences seems to me to
be certainly true, but by placing it at the end of a response to a
statement in which I elaborated on my impressions of someone, you
appear to be attempting to imply or indirectly suggest that _my_
impressions were "fabricated".
/M/y/ /S/e/c/o/n/d/s/ /w/i/l/l/ /c/a/l/l/
I can, of course, offer no concrete evidence to the contrary, and
there's abundant evidence in both the fanzine and the OnLine
archives that my memory is ...errr... somewhat less than
infallible (mostly in chronology, I hope), but I believe that this
same evidence will demonstrate that I'm reasonably conscientious
about differentiating between factual observation and
opinion/impressions. In the former, I'm usually fairly accurate;
in the latter, I may, of course, be "wrong" in some objective
sense, and certainly am idiosyncratic; people may discount these
as they wish, but to suggest that I consciously create them out of
whole cloth implies (incorrectly, IMO) both dishonesty on my part,
and a degree of interest and willingness to do Intellectual Work
which I rarely achieve.
My initial (one-time, and therefor possibly-misleading/inaccurate)
impression was that the woman I saw wearing the "Vanna Bonta"
nametag (I cannot be more precise than this) was dressed more like
the VP of a mid-level Corporation, at a Stockholders' Meeting,
than like a fan at a convention. This is understandable if she
was considering herself a Pro, I suppose. Most of the Pros I know
aren't nearly that dressy at fan events, but neither do many of
them go in for either Hall or Masquerade Costumes (nor do many of
the fans with whom I usually associate), so your description of
the photos of Miss Bonta suggests that she tries to play the part
of a fan (or what she believes to be a fan) at least sometimes
during Cons. Or (and I'm now thinking this more probable) they're
posed publicity stills, though the rationale behind such cliches
as "1) jeans with flashing vest...available at any supermarket
Halloween costume stand 2) spandex silver space jumper and combat
boots 3) white tee shirt, army fatigues" escapes me.
Miss Bonta may well be a perfectly charming and delightful
individual, in person, and probably has some good ideas (most
people do) but none of her writing I've seen quoted OnLine causes
me to consider that she's a writer of significant Natural Talent
(if there be such a thing), and several factors lead me to suspect
and at least tentatively believe that she's much less interested
in developing her writing skill and craftsmanship than in
Promoting herself by way of manipulative and misleading
publicity/Public Relations activities. That works very well in
Hollywood, I understand, and sometimes reasonably well in The
Publishing Industry, but a little of it goes a long way in the in
The Literary Field, the written sf genre, and in fandom.
The analogy that comes to my mind is that of plant and animal
breeders' shows. They all have Standards of Perfection, and
Disqualifying Characteristics that enable the Judges to glance at
a prospective entry and (sometimes) say something like "That one
obviously does not come even close to the Standards expected in
this National Show; you would do better to enter it in a local
one, or perhaps the 4-H Club Fair next month".
Obviously, this analogy is not precise. The sf genre does not
have God-like Appointed & Certified Judges whose decisions may not
be Disputed (in public, anyhow). Here, the judging is done --
well, actually, by everyone, but most powerfully by the people
who've attended the Show for enough years to know a great deal
about the Standards, and considerable weight is given, by the rest
of us, to the decisions of those who are commonly considered to be
frequently right. Among the half-dozen members of this NG who
rank high for their critical ability are both Patrick and Teresa
Nielsen-Hayden (who are, by some strange coincidence, also
professional Editors of good repute). If one of them off-handedly
mentions that someone's book or writing style is great, I might or
might not _like_ the work, but there's a greater-than-90-percent
probability that I'll respect it. And if either of them says
something is terrible, I might like it -- for reasons that, to me,
outweigh the "terrible" aspects -- but this does not diminish my
respect for their critical acumen.
If you've studied the history and literature associated with the
Hugos, you understand that these are _popular_ or democratic
awards, acknowledging that serious sf readers/fans are expected to
possess a significant level of LitCrit skill. IIRC, all of the
people in this group who have commented on Miss Bonta's prose
style, and whose critical standards I understand through long
familiarity & with which I generally agree, have rung in with some
version of the (metaphorical) "-Try the 4-H club fair, where the
competition is with other beginners; it will not be accepted here
because it does not meet the Standards for Professional sf Writing
that have been developed over the past half-century-".
That seems to me to be excellent advice.
--
Don Fitch
<fitc...@aol.com>
SwankiVY1
t...@panix.com:
>Yeah. She's looking pretty shopworn, isn't she? I think that close-up
>taken in Florence is the worst, but you can definitely see an age spread
>in the shots over all.
How sweet of you. :)
--swankivy
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <19971012081...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
fitc...@aol.com (FitchDonS) wrote:
>No. I didn't know this previously. But then, I don't keep up
>with the photos in either Algol or Locus.
I know what you mean. I'm behind on reading ENERGUMEN, CRY OF THE NAMELESS,
and THE VOICE OF THE IMAGI-NATION myself.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Book Magic
>From: fitc...@aol.com (FitchDonS)
>Date: Sun, Oct 12, 1997 04:13 EDT
>Message-id: <19971012081...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>
>
>sagst...@aol.com (SAGstarpix) [J. Chasman], in message
><19971009213...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>(References: <19971006065...@ladder02.news.aol.com>)
>Posted:
>
><snip cite from "BorgFreeee">
>
>>You forget there are plenty of pictures of Vanna Bonta at SF
>>conventions.
>
>No. I didn't know this previously. But then, I don't keep up
>with the photos in either Algol or Locus.
>
>
Chas-
>>The pictures I've seen show Miss B. in 1) jeans with flashing
>>vest...available at any supermarket Halloween costume stand 2)
>>spandex silver space jumper and combat boots 3) white tee shirt,
>>army fatigues. Next to her people are milling around dressed as
>>angels, werewolves, Klingons, Star Trek crew and very very
>>eleborate and (pricey) get ups.
>
>This passage seems to imply that Miss Bonta has a large stock of
>strikingly different costumes, and assumes varied ones frequently,
>at least when in contact with sf fandom. This is something I find
>moderately interesting, but not in the least surprising.
It doesn't follow that jeans, fatigues and a space suit (at an SF con) are a
"large stock" of "costumes"-- or that, based on Chas's observation of most 2
occassions, we conclude Vanna Bonta "assumes varied ones frequently". Jeans
and fatigues are comfortable clothes. I have met her personally and have
worked with her. I never really noticed what she was wearing as being anything
extraordinary. She's an inspiring presence and made me feel comfortable.
Interesting to note I didn't worry about what I was wearing, either--often not
the case when meeting people professionally, when we think we have to make an
impression. I would say it's safe to say she has fun with clothes, even if she
has some respect for convetion (i.e. she has good manners which my assistant
mistook for being 'formal'.)
Chas-
>>I guess a picture is worth a thousand words. It's worth more than
>>a million fabricated impressions.
Don- [snip very amiable and excellent treatise on accuracy of memory and intent
being honest]
>My initial (one-time, and therefor possibly-misleading/inaccurate)
>impression was that the woman I saw wearing the "Vanna Bonta"
>nametag (I cannot be more precise than this) was dressed more like
>the VP of a mid-level Corporation, at a Stockholders' Meeting,
>than like a fan at a convention. This is understandable if she
>was considering herself a Pro, I suppose. Most of the Pros I know
>aren't nearly that dressy at fan events, but neither do many of
>them go in for either Hall or Masquerade Costumes (nor do many of
>the fans with whom I usually associate), so your description of
>the photos of Miss Bonta suggests that she tries to play the part
>of a fan (or what she believes to be a fan) at least sometimes
>during Cons. Or (and I'm now thinking this more probable) they're
>posed publicity stills, though the rationale behind such cliches
>as "1) jeans with flashing vest...available at any supermarket
>Halloween costume stand 2) spandex silver space jumper and combat
>boots 3) white tee shirt, army fatigues" escapes me.
It's hard for me to imagine her ever looking corporate, but then I've spoken
with her. She is an unabashed fan of what she loves, too, she doesn't have to
pretend. This based on what I have seen. I may not be an expert, but I have
had more direct experience than possibly anyone in here.
>Miss Bonta may well be a perfectly charming and delightful
>individual, in person, and probably has some good ideas (most
>people do) but none of her writing I've seen quoted OnLine causes
>me to consider that she's a writer of significant Natural Talent
>(if there be such a thing),[snip interest sems to be in pormotion rather than
writing] That works very well in
>Hollywood, I understand, and sometimes reasonably well in The
>Publishing Industry, but a little of it goes a long way in the in
>The Literary Field, the written sf genre, and in fandom.
The Literary Field and the written sf genre are not so near cousins. I know
Vanna Bonta was invited to attend a couple of cons. I need to correct Chas who
says he has seen many pictures of many conventions. To my knowledge there have
only been three or four conventions. I know there has been a problem with
Vanna Bonta disliking to do publicity and promotions. I discussed this with
someone who had worked with her who said she is very sensitive to other people
and doesn't have many of the "barriers" that most people have in public. What
she does enjoy is communicating ideas, and this was the "trick" or "method"
that was used to get her to agree to do more appearances than she felt
inclined to do.
As for talent and the "Literary Field", you refer to it very eruditely and as
though it's exclusive of Ms. Bonta because of her work in Hollywood... She has
sold several scripts, and she does work in the movies. But her first literary
agent in New York wanted to know what someone such as herself was doing in
Hollywood. I can see where they would want to know that. She's a poet who has
been true to her art in every way. I don't feel at liberty to share some of
the exchanges we had, nor are the stories fare for some of the vultures in
here, but suffice to say nothing but a true poet would have lived it the way
she has. She's among the most unambitious, undemanding persons I've met, but
with an uncanny strength that comes from intelligence, not shrewdness. Her
drive is not motivated by personal gain. As for the pros, Vanna has been
writing professionally since she was nineteen. She told me some anecdotes
about her first editors at her first newspaper jobs. One can't get much more
professional than something being her/his profession.
>The analogy that comes to my mind is that of plant and animal
>breeders' shows. They all have Standards of Perfection, and
>Disqualifying Characteristics that enable the Judges to glance at
>a prospective entry and (sometimes) say something like "That one
>obviously does not come even close to the Standards expected in
>this National Show; you would do better to enter it in a local
>one, or perhaps the 4-H Club Fair next month".
That may be an easier feat to accomplish accurately when judging gait or fur,
or the color of a leaf.
>Obviously, this analogy is not precise. The sf genre does not
>have God-like Appointed & Certified Judges whose decisions may not
>be Disputed (in public, anyhow). Here, the judging is done --
>well, actually, by everyone, but most powerfully by the people
>who've attended the Show for enough years to know a great deal
>about the Standards, and considerable weight is given, by the rest
>of us, to the decisions of those who are commonly considered to be
>frequently right.
That's interesting information. Another thing I noted, which is why in no way
does the characterizaiton fit that she may have dressed up in a space suit
"pretending to be (or dress up as) a fan", is that she's seems to be loner.
She has respect for tradition, convention, to a point. She has a genuine
ability to appreciate and admire people and things or qualities. I don't
think she's seeking acceptance from SF committees. But she is a big fan of
Gene Roddenberry's (and a couple of other writers, who she was quick to say
she doesn't consider "strictly SF writers.) Oddly enough, it's primarily the
established and successful artists (writers, creators, producers) who have
positive response to Bonta.
>Among the half-dozen members of this NG who
>rank high for their critical ability are both Patrick and Teresa
>Nielsen-Hayden (who are, by some strange coincidence, also
>professional Editors of good repute). If one of them off-handedly
>mentions that someone's book or writing style is great, I might or
>might not _like_ the work, but there's a greater-than-90-percent
>probability that I'll respect it. And if either of them says
>something is terrible, I might like it -- for reasons that, to me,
>outweigh the "terrible" aspects -- but this does not diminish my
>respect for their critical acumen.
Understood and respected. They do rank very high for critical ability, in more
ways than one. Structure and plot cannot be judged by reading a chapter. My
only experiece with these two editors are a few comments I've browsed through
over my cafe au lait this morning. They fire off editorial opinion based on a
few extrapolated sentences. Their judgements are clearly tainted by ridicule
and misinformation of friends. I am sure your experience and their credits
would reflect their editorial ability to perform otherwise, but I don't see
it.
>If you've studied the history and literature associated with the
>Hugos, you understand that these are _popular_ or democratic
>awards, acknowledging that serious sf readers/fans are expected to
>possess a significant level of LitCrit skill. IIRC, all of the
>people in this group who have commented on Miss Bonta's prose
>style, and whose critical standards I understand through long
>familiarity & with which I generally agree, have rung in with some
>version of the (metaphorical) "-Try the 4-H club fair, where the
>competition is with other beginners; it will not be accepted here
>because it does not meet the Standards for Professional sf Writing
>that have been developed over the past half-century-".
>
>That seems to me to be excellent advice.
>
>--
>Don Fitch
><fitc...@aol.com>
>
No offense, but I don't think anyone is seeking acceptance in here. Yes, Ms.
Bonta would seem to be quite a bit younger than some of the gray-haired
gentlemen and ladies here. One recurring theme in a folder I reviewed was that
impact of Bonta's voice on some of the larger houses. Two editors (Harcourt
Brace Sen Editor and Simon & Schuster) were up until early morning to finish
her book. One letter said not even "veteran writers" pulled off an ending the
way Bonta did in Flight. It has quite a story, but opinion aside, so much
ignorance in here in the form of personal insults and abuse is really
astounding to me. It's astounding to anyone looking in, but moreso to someone
having first-hand knowledge.
Those who considerBonta brilliant (yes, it is a strong word) and who are
touched by her work have a bit of an edge on you; they have read the entire
work, and many deal with more than the SF genre. A few who have read the
entire work have also been extremely angered by it. It isn't that your
opinions aren't valid. You're correct per your standards.
Marilee Layman has been obsessed about Vanna Bonta since she first saw her
picture and fans chatting about the book. She puts a lot of energy into
drumming up so-called facts while putting her friends up to hours of research
on Bonta and Flight, publisher, fans, you name it. Her obsession to discredit
Flight fans and Bonta appears psychologial (more than garden-variety envy.) By
the way, what background qualifies her? I notice she's a dicussion leader in the AOL SF Forum. --EJ
Ethan Jorrel
N.Y. CA
Book Magic
>From: t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden)
>Date: Sat, Oct 11, 1997 23:40 EDT
>Message-id: <tnh-111097...@tnh.dialup.access.net>
>> laughing at this chatter with Borgfree. The pictures I've seen show
>Miss B. in
>> 1) jeans with flashing vest...available at any supermarket Halloween
>costume
>> stand 2) spandex silver space jumper and combat boots 3) white tee shirt,
>> army fatigues. Next to her people are milling around dressed as angels,
>> werewolves, Klingons, Star Trek crew and very very eleborate and (pricey)
>get
>> million fabricated impressions.
>
>Yeah. She's looking pretty shopworn, isn't she? I think that close-up
spread
in the shots over all.
Ladies, ladies. That cinches it. Your claws are showing. Perhaps if you were
sweeter you wouldn't be as frustrated, your husband might even be more
attentive to you.
My sister tells me women get mean when they approach "the change"; they become
especially nasty toward beautiful, younger women. (Add intelligence to beauty
and rage becomes radioactive.) Your doctor can give you something for that.
You're obviously not interested in intelligent discussion here. All I can say
is what I tell my girlfriend, it's what's on the inside that counts. My
condolences, Teresa Hayden but it's never too late to start on that.
Ethan
Ethan Jorrel
N.Y. CA
Dave Locke
Book Magic drooled onto his keyboard:
> She's a poet who has been true to her art in every way. I don't feel at liberty
> to share some of the exchanges we had, nor are the stories fare for some
> of the vultures in here, but suffice to say nothing but a true poet would
> have lived it the way she has.
Vultures know rot when they encounter it.
> I don't think she's seeking acceptance from SF committees. But she is a
> big fan of Gene Roddenberry's (and a couple of other writers, who she
> was quick to say she doesn't consider "strictly SF writers.) Oddly enough,
> it's primarily the established and successful artists (writers, creators,
> producers) who have positive response to Bonta.
Name some. Wait, we asked that a few dozen times already, and finally
gave up expecting a real answer. Sorry, I forgot.
> Structure and plot cannot be judged by reading a chapter. My only
> experiece with these two editors are a few comments I've browsed through
> over my cafe au lait this morning. They fire off editorial opinion based on a
> few extrapolated sentences.
Do you realize how many metric tons of "Flight" is quoted on that
website. A rhetorical question.
> Their judgements are clearly tainted by ridicule and misinformation of
> friends.
Their judgements are clearly tainted by the great volume of "Flight"
excerpts and the factual records in DejaNews.
> No offense, but I don't think anyone is seeking acceptance in here.
That's good. Trolling rarely achieves it.
> Yes, Ms. Bonta would seem to be quite a bit younger than some of the
> gray-haired gentlemen and ladies here.
I pulled this sentence, which had nothing before or after it that had
anything to do with generating or justifying it, just to ask if you
have a random sentence generator.
> Marilee Layman has been obsessed about Vanna Bonta since she first saw
> her picture and fans chatting about the book. She puts a lot of energy into
> drumming up so-called facts while putting her friends up to hours of research
> on Bonta and Flight, publisher, fans, you name it. Her obsession to discredit
> Flight fans and Bonta appears psychologial (more than garden-variety envy.)
> By the way, what background qualifies her? I notice she's a dicussion leader
> in the AOL SF Forum.
Yup, here comes the typical Marilee boilerplate. "obsessed ...
so-called facts ... putting her friends up to hours of research ...
obsession to discredit Flight fans and Bonta appears psychologial".
Same typos, same arguments, same horseshit.
Give it up. Us vultures can smell your shambling carcass as soon as
we hit the download button.
My own fault. I just double-checked Teresa's list and discovered two
names I'd overlooked putting in the killfile. Yours was one of them.
I'll correct both oversights right now.
*zap* *zap*
---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin
It's good to see that we're back to the best part of the group:
pointless and nasty attacks on fuckheads. -- Russ Kepler
Marilee J. Layman
In <19971012144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, book...@aol.com
(Book Magic) wrote:
>But she [VB] is a big fan of
> Gene Roddenberry's
Oh my.
>Marilee Layman has been obsessed about Vanna Bonta since she first saw her
> picture and fans chatting about the book. She puts a lot of energy into
> drumming up so-called facts while putting her friends up to hours of research
> on Bonta and Flight, publisher, fans, you name it. Her obsession to discredit
> Flight fans and Bonta appears psychologial (more than garden-variety envy.) By
> the way, what background qualifies her? I notice she's a dicussion leader in the AOL SF Forum. --EJ
LOL Hardly. I hadn't even thought about her for more than a year
until the ad posts showed up here again and I've never seen her
picture. I have made the same point over and over again: a book that
has to be publicized by duplicitious means is not worth reading. The
only excerpts I've read have been here in rasff. I don't *care* what
the contents of the book are; I think that the fact that people
pretend to be other people to make the book sound good makes the book
bad. I think it's interesting that you claim I'm envious. Of what?
No, Ethan, I think maybe you're still on VB's payroll. You were her
publicist last year (said so in your profile until I called you on it)
and this is an awful lot of defense for someone who isn't paid for it.
And again, please read more carefully. I'm one of three co-leaders of
the O*W*C. The O*W*C is in the larger Fictional Realm area, as is the
SF forum.
--
Marilee J. Layman Co-Leader, The Other*Worlds*Cafe
RELM Mu...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group
**New** Web site: http://home.virtual-pc.com/outland/owc/index.html
AOL keyword: FR > Science Fiction > The Other*Worlds*Cafe (listbox)
T Nielsen Hayden
In article <34506ac9...@news.erols.com>, mjla...@erols.com (Marilee
J. Layman) wrote:
> In <19971012144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, book...@aol.com
> (Book Magic) wrote:
>
> >But she [VB] is a big fan of
> > Gene Roddenberry's
>
> Oh my.
>
> >Marilee Layman has been obsessed about Vanna Bonta since she first saw her
> > picture and fans chatting about the book. She puts a lot of energy into
> > drumming up so-called facts while putting her friends up to hours of
research
> > on Bonta and Flight, publisher, fans, you name it. Her obsession to
discredit
> > Flight fans and Bonta appears psychologial (more than garden-variety
envy.) By
> > the way, what background qualifies her? I notice she's a dicussion
leader in the AOL SF Forum. --EJ
>
> LOL Hardly. I hadn't even thought about her for more than a year
> until the ad posts showed up here again and I've never seen her
> picture. I have made the same point over and over again: a book that
> has to be publicized by duplicitious means is not worth reading. The
> only excerpts I've read have been here in rasff. I don't *care* what
> the contents of the book are; I think that the fact that people
> pretend to be other people to make the book sound good makes the book
> bad. I think it's interesting that you claim I'm envious. Of what?
> No, Ethan, I think maybe you're still on VB's payroll. You were her
> publicist last year (said so in your profile until I called you on it)
> and this is an awful lot of defense for someone who isn't paid for it.
>
> And again, please read more carefully. I'm one of three co-leaders of
> the O*W*C. The O*W*C is in the larger Fictional Realm area, as is the
> SF forum.
Sure, Marilee -- Bookmagic's a fraud and claqueur, has been all along;
s/he/it's yet another online personality with no interests outside the
glorification of Vanna Bonta. You can find Bookmagic "quoting"
merid...@aol.com (another VB publicist -- excuse me, the "Meridian
House" publicist):
> Subject: Re: password & where to get the last of FLIGHT
> From: book...@aol.com (Book Magic)
> Date: 1996/04/14
> Message-Id: <4kqdql$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> Newsgroups: ucb.market.books
>
> >>Subject: password & where to get the last of FLIGHT
> From: merid...@aol.com (MERIDIANOL)
> Date: 11 Apr 1996 18:04:41 -0400
> Message-ID: <4kjvlp$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>
> Practicing for April 3rd, 2000
>
> The author of FLIGHT: A Quantum Fiction Novel, Vanna Bonta, joined in
> requests to sing with readers and FLIGHT enthusiasts on April 3rd this
> year. Without giving away the ending of the novel, on that day in the
> year 2000, at exactly 3:30 PM eastern time, an unprecedented show of unity
> in the history of mankind occurs on planet Earth.
>
> This year, April 3rd fell on a Wednesday. Nonetheless, many claimed they
> marked their calendars and, no matter where they were or what they were
> doing, opened their mouths in song; some hummed one note, at exactly 3:30
> eastern time.
>
> Author Bonta contends the ending of her novel is actually possible. "After
> all," she claims, referring to the definition of 'quantum fiction',
> "reality eventually catches up to fiction."
>
> If reality does indeed catch up to fiction, April 3, 2000 promises to not
> be a ho-hum day.
>
> Susan
> visit http://members.aol.com/AiraFlight/space.htm
> tip- At the site, FIND the PASSWORD and the 800# to get the last of this
> novel's hardcover first editions for $15
>
> << Thanks. Definitely.
Or on rec.arts.books.marketplace, scamming up the appearance of public
demand for VB's books:
> Subject: ***site pass word for discount***
> From: book...@aol.com (Book Magic)
> Date: 1996/04/14
> Message-Id: <4kqi8i$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.books.marketplace
>
> About the web site. It was Meridian House. FLIGHT: quantum fiction
> It has a password where the last of some hardcovers with hologram cover
> can be obtained for $15 through an 800 #. I sold one for $35.
> That was at http://members.aol.com/AiraFlight/space.htm
>
> Also, seeking "Degrees" by same author.
But so far Bookmagic's been used chiefly in the "Lauren Vaughn" scam,
which takes a bit of explaining. You can find the basic Lauren Vaughn
letter all over the nets (the Veebs have seen to that), but most easily on
the =Flight= website, in the "Reader Rips and Raves" section:
> Submit your review. Rave on or Rip it up!
>
> Date: 96-1-19 17:44:57 EST
> From: Lauren Vaughn, Educator/Highschool Literature
> Learning Disability Specialist
> FLIGHT: A Quantum Fiction novel, Vanna Bonta.
> I have taught literature and study skills to learning disabled
> highschool students for the past five years. I have been blessed with an
> inquisitive and creative group of students who have helped me grow in
> ways I find difficult to put into words. I am always looking for
> innovative and provocative teaching tools which will promote the
> development of my students. I found a gem! Recently I began a weekend
> reading group with some of my brightest students. We are currently
> reading FLIGHT by the incomparable Vanna Bonta.
> I am compelled to write this letter so that others are aware of the
> momentous gift made available to young minds through this
> ground-breaking novel. My students enthusiastically participate in the
> enfoldment of this beautiful story. I must tell you that for most of my
> students reading is an arduous task. Their learning differences are
> language-based and, therefore, fear is the first emotion they experience
> when they pick up a book. However, once we began to read FLIGHT, fear
> diminished and gave way to awe, excitement, and hunger for knowledge of
> a world much greater than the one in which their limitations reign. The
> transformation has been truly miraculous. My students come to my house
> on a Sunday morning to read!!! They love this novel and I know it is the
> beginning of a new way of thinking for them.
> FLIGHT exemplifies the truth which I have tried to teach all my
> students. It offers a world in which all the offspring of fearlack,
> pain, limitation, addiction, and darkness - are reborn into the healing
> glory of light. This eloquent story is a priceless learning tool. It
> allows my students to see the world as it truly is: a safe place to
> share their brilliance. In fact, it teaches that the world needs their
> brilliance.
> Thank you for your time. Lauren Vaughn
This is of course a patent fraud, since adults who are very facile readers
have trouble hacking their way through Vanna Bonta's paragraphs. It also
sounds like no special ed. teacher I've ever heard, but never mind.
Lauren Vaughn is one of the two VB creations (the other's Shadow Wolfe)
who doesn't have an AOL account. Instead, stell...@aol.com,
book...@aol.com, and merid...@aol.com go about "quoting" Lauren
Vaughn:
> Subject: Book site that sparks
> From: book...@aol.com (Book Magic)
> Date: 1996/04/14
> Message-Id: <4kqfpe$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> Newsgroups: tnn.books
>
> What I like about the Meridian House site is the news flash and photos.
> It takes literary life into the realm where it belongs, real magic. Most
> of the entertainment magazines feature dumb, admiration-starved people.
> Nothing more pathetic than someone some of those so-called "celebrities"
> all dressed up and pampered with nothing to be important about! Anyway,
> the url is
> http://members.aol.com/AiraFlight/space.htm
> Subject: Not EMPTY and ambition starved
> From: book...@aol.com (Book Magic)
> Date: 1996/04/14
> Message-Id: <4kqiv3$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> Newsgroups: relcom.education
> [More Headers]
>
> FLIGHT is deifnitely a cool site and book. Magic to literature! Authors
> ARE cool. I for one am sick of celebrities that are ambition-starved in
> most magazines. All dressed up with nothing to be important about. I
> like what Lauren Vaughn said about her students wanting to read now and
> loving the book, meeting on Sunday. It's posted in there too in the Book
> Review section. It's at http://members.aol.com/AiraFlight/space.htm
> Subject: Any Italian Translations of Vanna Bonta?
> From: book...@aol.com (Book Magic)
> Date: 1996/04/14
> Message-Id: <4kqjm9$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.italian
>
> Please see the web site where it does state so. It's at
> http://members.aol.com/AiraFlight/space.htm
> I for one am sick of celebrities that are ambition-starved in most
> magazines. All dressed up with nothing to be important about. I like
> what Lauren Vaughn said about her students wanting to read now and loving
> the book, meeting on Sunday. The fact that Bonta's writing does this
> alone is good enough for me. It's posted in there too in the Book Review
> section. I don't know if Bonta wrote in Italian or was simply
> translated, or translated herself. I'm interested in any of the above.
> Thanks. Viva Arte and Poesia. EJ
> Subject: Internet schooling, co-eration skills elsehwere
> From: book...@aol.com (Book Magic)
> Date: 1996/04/14
> Message-Id: <4kqhvq$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> Newsgroups: misc.education.home-school.misc
>
> Home schooling is a thing of the future. The only thing that will need to
> be compensated will be activities in which children learn inter-action,
> co-operation skills.
> I like what Lauren Vaughn described using the Meridian House site for her
> students in English
> http://members.aol.com/AiraFlight/space.htm
At some point you have to stop and wonder who's paying all these
"publicists", since VB's published one very minor novel and a few books of
poetry (which latter cannot have been profitable), and has only had a
handful of bit parts in movies and TV over the last fifteen years, plus a
little voice work.
This doesn't exhaust the subject -- for instance, there's Bookmagic's
self-evidently false description of VB's interaction with a Real Literary
Agent -- but I'll have to leave it for later. It's Monday morning, and I
have to go work on real books.
:: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::
:: t...@panix.com ::: fwa ::
T Nielsen Hayden
In article <19971012144...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
book...@aol.com (Book Magic) wrote:
> >From: fitc...@aol.com (FitchDonS)
> >Date: Sun, Oct 12, 1997 04:13 EDT
> >Message-id: <19971012081...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
> >
> >Miss Bonta may well be a perfectly charming and delightful
> >individual, in person, and probably has some good ideas (most
> >people do) but none of her writing I've seen quoted OnLine causes
> >me to consider that she's a writer of significant Natural Talent
> >(if there be such a thing),[snip interest sems to be in pormotion rather than
> writing] That works very well in
> >Hollywood, I understand, and sometimes reasonably well in The
> >Publishing Industry, but a little of it goes a long way in the in
> >The Literary Field, the written sf genre, and in fandom.
(...)
> As for talent and the "Literary Field", you refer to it very eruditely and as
> though it's exclusive of Ms. Bonta because of her work in Hollywood...
To the extent that it's exclusive of VB, it's because she's not a writer
of any particular merit or significance. Whether she's worked in Hollywood
is perfectly irrelevant -- quite a few real writers have done so, indeed
are doing so right now.
> She has
> sold several scripts, and she does work in the movies. But her first literary
> agent in New York wanted to know what someone such as herself was doing in
> Hollywood.
See above. Not only are there lots of good writers doing all or part of
their work for the film industry, but all the real agents know perfectly
well that that's the case.
> I can see where they would want to know that. She's a poet who has
> been true to her art in every way. I don't feel at liberty to share some of
> the exchanges we had, nor are the stories fare for some of the vultures in
> here, but suffice to say nothing but a true poet would have lived it the way
> she has. She's among the most unambitious, undemanding persons I've met, but
> with an uncanny strength that comes from intelligence, not shrewdness. Her
> drive is not motivated by personal gain. As for the pros, Vanna has been
> writing professionally since she was nineteen. She told me some anecdotes
> about her first editors at her first newspaper jobs. One can't get much more
> professional than something being her/his profession.
To state the obvious, true poets are people who write true poetry. (I have
read all the VB poetry available on her website. There's a lot of it. A
few bits of it would be printable as fillers.) And true professionals are
people who make their living from their writing, which VB can't possibly
be doing.
> >The analogy that comes to my mind is that of plant and animal
> >breeders' shows. They all have Standards of Perfection, and
> >Disqualifying Characteristics that enable the Judges to glance at
> >a prospective entry and (sometimes) say something like "That one
> >obviously does not come even close to the Standards expected in
> >this National Show; you would do better to enter it in a local
> >one, or perhaps the 4-H Club Fair next month".
>
> That may be an easier feat to accomplish accurately when judging gait or fur,
> or the color of a leaf.
Why do bad writers think we can't tell their writing is bad? We're forever
hearing from hapless hopefuls who just =know= we can't possibly judge
their book from reading three sample chapters -- though in truth, with
most of them we don't need to read more than a few pages. (This leads to
maneuvers like "aging the slush", where you let swiftly-rejected
manuscripts sit on the shelf unmailed for a few weeks so the authors won't
think you rejected their books by accident and submit them again.)
> >Obviously, this analogy is not precise. The sf genre does not
> >have God-like Appointed & Certified Judges whose decisions may not
> >be Disputed (in public, anyhow). Here, the judging is done --
> >well, actually, by everyone, but most powerfully by the people
> >who've attended the Show for enough years to know a great deal
> >about the Standards, and considerable weight is given, by the rest
> >of us, to the decisions of those who are commonly considered to be
> >frequently right.
> That's interesting information. Another thing I noted, which is why in no way
> does the characterizaiton fit that she may have dressed up in a space suit
> "pretending to be (or dress up as) a fan", is that she's seems to be loner.
> She has respect for tradition, convention, to a point. She has a genuine
> ability to appreciate and admire people and things or qualities. I don't
> think she's seeking acceptance from SF committees. But she is a big fan of
> Gene Roddenberry's (and a couple of other writers, who she was quick to say
> she doesn't consider "strictly SF writers.) Oddly enough, it's primarily the
> established and successful artists (writers, creators, producers) who have
> positive response to Bonta.
Name three.
Or perhaps there's some aspect of her genius that doesn't show up in her
written work.
> >Among the half-dozen members of this NG who
> >rank high for their critical ability are both Patrick and Teresa
> >Nielsen-Hayden (who are, by some strange coincidence, also
> >professional Editors of good repute). If one of them off-handedly
> >mentions that someone's book or writing style is great, I might or
> >might not _like_ the work, but there's a greater-than-90-percent
> >probability that I'll respect it. And if either of them says
> >something is terrible, I might like it -- for reasons that, to me,
> >outweigh the "terrible" aspects -- but this does not diminish my
> >respect for their critical acumen.
>
> Understood and respected. They do rank very high for critical ability, in more
> ways than one. Structure and plot cannot be judged by reading a chapter.
See remarks, above, about writers who think we can't judge a book from a sample.
If a writer can't consistently write good sentences, good paragraphs, good
descriptions, and good dialogue, their structure and plot don't matter.
("If the fabric is dead ugly, it doesn't matter whether the dress fits.")
Unfortunately, writers who can't write good sentences, paragraphs,
descriptions, and dialogue always believe that the plot is what matters.
Odd datum: most of them can't write good plots either.
> My
> only experiece with these two editors are a few comments I've browsed through
> over my cafe au lait this morning. They fire off editorial opinion based on a
> few extrapolated sentences.
Yup.
> Their judgements are clearly tainted by ridicule
> and misinformation of friends. I am sure your experience and their credits
> would reflect their editorial ability to perform otherwise, but I don't see
> it.
>
> >If you've studied the history and literature associated with the
> >Hugos, you understand that these are _popular_ or democratic
> >awards, acknowledging that serious sf readers/fans are expected to
> >possess a significant level of LitCrit skill. IIRC, all of the
> >people in this group who have commented on Miss Bonta's prose
> >style, and whose critical standards I understand through long
> >familiarity & with which I generally agree, have rung in with some
> >version of the (metaphorical) "-Try the 4-H club fair, where the
> >competition is with other beginners; it will not be accepted here
> >because it does not meet the Standards for Professional sf Writing
> >that have been developed over the past half-century-".
> >
> >That seems to me to be excellent advice.
> >
>
> No offense, but I don't think anyone is seeking acceptance in here. Yes, Ms.
> Bonta would seem to be quite a bit younger than some of the gray-haired
> gentlemen and ladies here.
Since =Beastmaster= came out fifteen years ago, the youngest estimate I
can make of VB's age puts her not far short of forty. That is, she's old
enough to be the mother of at least one full-fledged Tor SF editor. She is
younger than Don Fitch, though.
> One recurring theme in a folder I reviewed was that
> impact of Bonta's voice on some of the larger houses. Two editors (Harcourt
> Brace Sen Editor and Simon & Schuster) were up until early morning to finish
> her book. One letter said not even "veteran writers" pulled off an ending the
> way Bonta did in Flight.
No, they didn't.
As I said to various rasff regulars in e-mail shortly after the VBs first
showed up here, =Flight= is a perfectly recognizable specimen of a certain
sub-variety of slush. I saw my first book of its kind in the early 80s,
when I was reading slush for an editor at another house, and whenever I've
read slush and second-string agented submissions in the ensuing years I've
seen its ilk cross my desk several times a month.
Honest and true, no hyperbole: =Flight= is the woo-woo novel equivalent of
the short story about the man and woman named Adam and Eve who are the
sole survivors of a spaceship crash on another planet. Apart from my
e-mail correspondence, at intervals since this dustup in rasff started
I've been talking to other editors (Tor and otherwise) about it, and their
single commonest reaction has been fits of giggles. To quote one
distinguished editor: "Oh God! It's =that= book! I don't believe it! I
must have seen that book a hundred times! I gotta check this out on the
web!" Said distinguished editor then had a look at the =Flight= website,
read all the sample texts plus additional bits forwarded from the rasff
discussions, and confirmed that yes, it was indeed That Book, or rather
one of the innumerable incarnations of That Book.
Some characteristics: Inadequately transformed and developed
wish-fulfillment fantasy. Main character clearly an idealized version of
author. Bad romance, worse sex. Substitution of transformation and
personal realization for objective externalized action. Defective
causality and logic in what action there is. Severely underdeveloped
secondary characters. Gross failure to understand cutting-edge science,
with bonus score for belief in the magical and plot-convenient properties
of quantum phenomena. Lack of familiarity with the concrete details of the
external universe, esp. those not commonly shown in movies and on TV. Less
than intimate relationship with the English language. Much flourishing of
dime-store non-insights about space, time, and spirit ("Time is not
linear!") that never add up to anything. Clear belief on part of writer
that this is diamond-pure revelatory brilliance.
I doubt that adds up to a clear picture for most of you, but I swear by my
good right hand and my editorial ear that what I am describing is a
genuine subspecies of slush, and =Flight= unmistakably belongs in it.
Let's go back to Bookmagic's:
> One recurring theme in a folder I reviewed was that
> impact of Bonta's voice on some of the larger houses. Two editors (Harcourt
> Brace Sen Editor and Simon & Schuster) were up until early morning to finish
> her book. One letter said not even "veteran writers" pulled off an ending the
> way Bonta did in Flight.
Again: no, they didn't.
For starters, an editorial assistant who referred an ineptly-written first
novel like =Flight= to a senior editor at Harcourt, Brace or Simon &
Schuster would be doing their career prospects a world of harm. But for
the moment let's just ignore =Flight='s merits, and concentrate instead on
the plausibility of the story.
I can imagine two senior editors at H,B and S&S sitting up all night to
read a book, but only if I assume that Jesus Christ reappeared and did
simultaneous submissions of his memoirs preparatory to sending the
manuscript to auction.
But maybe they didn't both stay up the same night. What we have, then, are
two very senior editors, each of whom had an extraordinary reaction to a
book, neither of whom made an offer on that book. Again: no way no how.
Finally argument in this section: I don't believe two experienced editors
from any trade fiction house reacted that way to =Flight=, because if
they're in a position to be reading raw slush and low-level agented
submissions they'll have seen and rejected =Flight='s spiritual kindred a
hundred times over.
I am not making this up.
> It has quite a story, but opinion aside, so much
> ignorance in here in the form of personal insults and abuse is really
> astounding to me. It's astounding to anyone looking in, but moreso to someone
> having first-hand knowledge.
>
> Those who considerBonta brilliant (yes, it is a strong word) and who are
> touched by her work have a bit of an edge on you; they have read the entire
> work, and many deal with more than the SF genre. A few who have read the
> entire work have also been extremely angered by it. It isn't that your
> opinions aren't valid. You're correct per your standards.
I've seen those who consider Vanna Bonta brilliant, like "Gateworld":
>> Subject: Re: Science Fiction Books
>> From: gate...@aol.com (Gateworld)
>> Date: 1996/02/05
>> Message-Id: <4f4hrk$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>> Newsgroups: alt.books.reviews
>>
>> You cannot go wrong with
>>
>> Ray Bradbury Robert Heinlein
>>
>> Orson Scott Card Vanna Bonta
Or that fellow who by now needs no introduction in rasff, "BunkySatch":
>> Subject: Re: new FLIGHT stuff: Photos of First Hugo & free poster
>> From: bunky...@aol.com (BunkySatch)
>> Date: 1997/09/20
>> Message-Id: <19970920103...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>> Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
>>
>> >Arthur Hlavaty <hla...@panix.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So _that's_ what Phil Dick's been doing since he died.
>> >
>> >Now they're forevermore going to claim that a major reviewer compared Vanna
>> >Bonta to PKD.
>>
>> If you truly knew what we were about, you would know that such a
>> comparison would be next meaningless. Greatness *is* -- it doesn't need to
>> be compared to something else.
>>
>> Bunky Satchel (Jim Nuzum)
>> "IMPOSSIBILTY is the only illusion"
But for a real appreciation of Vanna Bonta, you can't beat the identical
messages "StenoScoop" posted to two newsgroups in one day, partly quoting
"Gateworld":
>> Subject: Men! Wouldn't you know it!!!
>> From: steno...@aol.com (StenoScoop)
>> Date: 1996/03/01
>> Message-Id: <4h64cc$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>>
>> Subject: *+*Beauty*+* and Brains
>> From: steno...@aol.com (StenoScoop)
>> Date: 1996/03/01
>> Message-Id: <4h64pm$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>> Newsgroups: soc.women
>>
>> In perusing a discussion folder about "Flight: a quantum fiction novel" by
>> Vanna Bonta I came across some discussions where a man expressed surprise
>> of the author's brilliance once he had seen pictures of her -- the gyst
>> was something like "How can someone who looks beautiful be so brilliant as
>> to have written that work?" At first I felt anger on reading Mr. Rick and
>> Mr. Gateworld's comments about Vanna Bonta. I thought "Men! wouldn't you
>> know it?" I catch myself and admit, I'm vulnerable to the same weakness
>> of thinking in too broad categorizations!! So, apologies guys.
<Remainder snipped, because even my stomach isn't that strong.>
Avram Grumer
In article <tnh-131097...@tnh.dialup.access.net>, t...@panix.com (T
Nielsen Hayden) quoted:
>> From: Lauren Vaughn, Educator/Highschool Literature
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> My students enthusiastically participate in the
>> enfoldment of this beautiful story.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> Their learning differences are language-based...
Is it any wonder?
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer/ Work: agr...@crossover.com
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards,
for they are kludgy and can reformat your hard drive.
SwankiVY1
I think this is exactly what I've been talking about all this time. I'm not
quoting this to be mean or to attack anyone, but it is a perfect example of
why I am still here; because people still think like this.
Marilee (mjla...@erols.com) says:
> I have made the same point over and over again: a book that
>has to be publicized by duplicitious means is not worth reading.
A couple things wrong with this, if I may say. First of all, it's not being
publicized by duplicitous means. You only suspect that, and I don't really
know why. Secondly . . . why should you assume that a book is bad because of
the people who say they like it? Especially if you don't *know* those people
in the first place? You've assumed that most of us are not real people and
base your opinion of the book solely on that. That is exactly what I could be
said to be "attacking," if anything.
> I don't *care* what
>the contents of the book are
That's fine, but you still are convinced that it's a load of horse shit. If
you don't care what the contents are, then how can you be so convinced of how
bad it is? It simply doesn't make sense. I'm not saying you should read it.
I'm saying you shouldn't slam it unless you've read it...
>The
>only excerpts I've read have been here in rasff.
Which means you haven't read it. Nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is the
bashing.
>I think that the fact that people
>pretend to be other people to make the book sound good makes the book
>bad.
A couple things, again. First, you don't know people are pretending to be
other people; I can attest that most of us aren't, if any of us. That makes
the basis of this accusation fly right out the window. Also, our response to
it does not change what the book is. Who likes it does not make the book good
or bad. Nothing makes the book good or bad except the author and whatever the
editor does to it. We're not trying to make the book look good. We're not
trying to make it look anything. We simply say we like it.
>No, Ethan, I think maybe you're still on VB's payroll.
I disagree; I don't think he is on any payroll. Chances are, he just likes the
book. I'm not getting paid for any of this either. I don't think you could
pay me to do this if I didn't want to.
>this is an awful lot of defense for someone who isn't paid for it.
YOu are misunderstanding his reasons, then. And mine. Not everyone has to be
paid to give an opinion, and not every opinion is bought. In fact . . . most
aren't. Most people truly have feelings about things totally independantly of
currency of any type.
I am truly sorry if I have offended you in any way, Marilee. But I want you to
understand why I have a problem with what you have been saying. I don't want
to bitch and moan; I want you to understand. I really hope you do, and that
this does not spur another shitload of hate mail. I'm stating what I think is
right . . . and I think a lot of people will agree that if what I'm saying is
the truth, it's justified in many opinions. Thank you for your time. I'm
sincerely sorry for any kind of problems this causes. Especially for those of
you who have been so patient. :)
Later.
--swankivy
T Nielsen Hayden
In article <avram-14109...@avram.port.net>, av...@interport.net
(Avram Grumer) wrote:
> In article <tnh-131097...@tnh.dialup.access.net>, t...@panix.com (T
> Nielsen Hayden) quoted:
>
> >> From: Lauren Vaughn, Educator/Highschool Literature
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> My students enthusiastically participate in the
> >> enfoldment of this beautiful story.
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
> >> Their learning differences are language-based...
>
> Is it any wonder?
It is neither wonder nor doubt.
:tnh
Marilee J. Layman
In <19971014064...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, swan...@aol.com
(SwankiVY1) wrote:
>I think this is exactly what I've been talking about all this time. I'm not
> quoting this to be mean or to attack anyone, but it is a perfect example of
> why I am still here; because people still think like this.
>
>Marilee (mjla...@erols.com) says:
>> I have made the same point over and over again: a book that
>>has to be publicized by duplicitious means is not worth reading.
>
>A couple things wrong with this, if I may say. First of all, it's not being
> publicized by duplicitous means. You only suspect that, and I don't really
> know why. Secondly . . . why should you assume that a book is bad because of
> the people who say they like it? Especially if you don't *know* those people
> in the first place? You've assumed that most of us are not real people and
> base your opinion of the book solely on that. That is exactly what I could be
> said to be "attacking," if anything.
Julie, you're doing what the others do -- misquoting. I said that
some folks had posted in more than one name and that has happened even
here on rasff -- the person tripped up and got caught. I *do* think
if people have to lie to publicize a book, the book is bad. If it was
a good book, the truth should be adequate.
>> I don't *care* what
>>the contents of the book are
>
>That's fine, but you still are convinced that it's a load of horse shit. If
> you don't care what the contents are, then how can you be so convinced of how
> bad it is? It simply doesn't make sense. I'm not saying you should read it.
> I'm saying you shouldn't slam it unless you've read it...
No, I really don't care about the contents. The fact that people lie
to publicize it makes me think it's a bad book. I've also refused to
read books that were advertised to me by someone who found "science
fiction" in my AOL profile. I feel strongly about this. There are
appropriate ways to advertise and the FLIGHT folks (and other authors)
have violated those ways.
<snip>
>>No, Ethan, I think maybe you're still on VB's payroll.
>
>I disagree; I don't think he is on any payroll. Chances are, he just likes the
> book. I'm not getting paid for any of this either. I don't think you could
> pay me to do this if I didn't want to.
I know he used to be on VB's payroll; I believe he still is.
<snip>
>I am truly sorry if I have offended you in any way, Marilee. But I want you to
> understand why I have a problem with what you have been saying.
Julie, I think you're naive. I'm not offended, after all, your
conclusions are wrong and that's pretty evident. You're welcome to
disagree with what I say, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop saying
it.
SwankiVY1
Subject: Re: Further data points (was: Not Some Other Subject Line)
From: ro...@visi.com (David E Romm)
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 1997 02:58 EDT
Message-id: <romm-14109...@13-216.dynamic.visi.com>
In article <19971012210...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ulr...@aol.com
(Ulrika) wrote:
> This would also account for the persistence of ivy, since that persona
> is among the least discredited. I do point out, though, that judging
> by methods of 'quoting,' the posts of ivy and the one who invokes
> the Screen Actor's Guild in vain appear to be typed by the same
> person.
david (ro...@visi.com) said:
>On the other hand, Ivy's web site is kinda fun. Links to Pez, News of the
>Weird and IQ tests. Lots of dumb college pics and sound files from Monty
>Python, Animaniacs and her singing Tori Amos songs. Lots and lots of pages
>spread out over several servers. More to the point: No mention of VB or
>Flight (at least in the pages I read).
>I can understand a publicist from a vanity press lying about his/her job.
>I can't figure why anyone would fake a large web site to establish
credentials for someone who doesn't talk about VB much.
Thanks a lot. :) It's all true, except the part where you said I didn't
mention flight. It is mentioned in my favorite books. But then, there's a
lot more than flight there. :) It's hardly a single-minded site.
--swankivy
SwankiVY1
On 14 Oct 1997 07:03:18 GMT, swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
>Teresa:
>
>>It's implied by your saying it at all, when you say it in response to
>>Marilee's characterization of =Flight= as "self-published". Language works
>>like that.
>
>You're wrong. I didn't mean that. When someone said "self-published," I
> offered the name of the publisher.
Lawrence:
>Then you're unaware that most self-publishers invent names for
themselves?
>
>For example, Dave Sim publishes CEREBUS THE AARDVARK under the name
>Aardvark-Vanaheim Press. He also campaigns vigorously for
self-publishing, and makes no attempt to hide the fact that he,
>personally, is Aardvark-Vanaheim Press. (At one time it was himself
>and his wife, but since the divorce it's just him.)
>So the fact that there's a publisher's name on a book doesn't mean
it's not self-published.
>Did you not know this?
*sigh* Guess I gotta say it again.
As people have been posting in here pretty much random information about Vanna
Bonta (where she's been sighted and with what and wearing what at cons, what
her aunt writes, what's on her website, and how much makeup she wears), I
figured it would not be off-topic to mention, when it was said that she was
"self-publishsed," that her book's publishing company was called "Meridian
House." I was not saying it was NOT self published. I was not saying that
because her publishing house has a name it meant she was more prestigious and
should be respected. I MEANT that the name of her publishing house is
Meridian House. I didn't say anything else about it. Okay?
--swankivy
SwankiVY1
Subject: Re: Further data points (was: Not Some Other Subject Line)
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 1997 13:03 EDT
Message-id: <8768447...@dejanews.com>
In article <19971014062...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
>
> AOL's Ulrika says:
>
> >This would also account for the persistence of ivy, since that persona
> >is among the least discredited.
>
> Thank you for acknowledging me as "one of the least discredited."
>Damning with faint praise. It doesn't imply that you have any positive
>credibility, it just means that several people are reserving judgment.
>I am not one of them.
I know. You judged me immediately and have no interest in listening to
anything that might change your mind. Point made.
> > I do point out, though, that judging
> >by methods of 'quoting,' the posts of ivy and the one who invokes
> >the Screen Actor's Guild in vain appear to be typed by the same
> >person.
>
> This, however is wrong. I don't even know what you're talking about. I
> assure you I've never posted under another name.
See previous comment. Your assurances are not meaninful to me,
as any number of them are clearly duplicitous.
"Clearly," huh? Then prove it. You all want proof of things; why not prove
that I'm really more than just swankivy and I really do post elsewhere under
other names. Prove. It.
--swankivy
SwankiVY1
Subject: Re: Further data points (was: Not Some Other Subject Line)
Date: Tue, Oct 14, 1997 09:57 EDT
Message-id: <87683744...@aleytys.pc.my>
In article <tnh-141097...@tnh.dialup.access.net> t...@panix.com writes:
>I'm wondering about Swank. I made a remark a few days ago to which s/he/it
>returned a brief dismissal, but which rendered Bookmagic stratospherically
>postal a day and a half later. Or maybe it just took that long for it to
>sink in.
>The annoying thing about Swank is that several times just as I was about
>to decide that she was real [for certain values of real] she would say
>something stupid which convinced me otherwise. Could Swank be doing a
>_Valdimir Formin_ i.e. the reverse of the AOL screename trick i.e. several
>people posting from the same account?
Nope. Whaddaya mean by that, though? What was somethign stupid I said? I'm
curious now.
>However I am conviced that her dumb bunny act _is_ an act, basically
>because somebody really that stupid wouldn't have the persistence to stick
>in here for this length of time. Um, would they? No, don't answer. I'd
>rather not know.
What's my dumb bunny act? what did I do?
--swankivy
SwankiVY1
Subject: Re: new FLIGHT stuff: Photos of First Hugo & free poster
Message-id: <romm-14109...@13-216.dynamic.visi.com>
In article <19971014044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
> Phil says:
> >Not on rasff. Geez if you want to be a real fan you have to learn the
> >lingo here. Most of us here can convey the concept without having to
> >telegraph it.
> Oh, please! A "real fan"? I see. So you're telling me that in order to be
> considered a fan of science fiction, I have to talk and show my thoughts
like
> other people who also like science fiction? That's pretty incongruous.
>Well, no, it's not incongruous, but it is the current state of a
long-raging debate.
What I mean by that is that you want me to express my own opinions and then you
want me to be like everyone else and talk the same. but then...if I did,
you'd think I was the same as someone else. that's what's incongruous about
it.
> I see absolutely
> no reason why I should notate anything exactly the way someone else does.
> ":)" and *grin* both mean the same thing, and that's really all I'm
concerned
> about. Okay?
>They *do* mean different things. The former might not be understood by
>anyone outside the Usenet/Internet culture. Do you see that? Do you see
>how that same concept might apply to sf fandom?
-
I see how it could be interpreted as a colon and a smiley face by a
non-internet educated person. But most people learn that pretty quickly.
This "fan speak" is sort of learned by osmosis, I take it, not by saying ":)"
means "smile." I should know. I just taught my grandparents emoticons.
--swankivy-
Ulrika
In article <19971015041...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) writes:
>"Clearly," huh? Then prove it. You all want proof of things; why not
>prove that I'm really more than just swankivy and I really do post
>elsewhere under other names. Prove. It.
Try looking up "duplicitous". You're supposed to be in college,
after all.
Ulrika O'Brien, Philosopher Without Portfolio
***ulr...@aol.com***
uaob...@uci.edu
In article <19971015042...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: new FLIGHT stuff: Photos of First Hugo & free poster
> From: ro...@visi.com (David E Romm)
> Date: Tue, Oct 14, 1997 02:37 EDT
> Message-id: <romm-14109...@13-216.dynamic.visi.com>
>
> In article <19971014044...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
>
> > Phil says:
> > >Not on rasff. Geez if you want to be a real fan you have to learn the
> > >lingo here. Most of us here can convey the concept without having to
> > >telegraph it.
>
> > Oh, please! A "real fan"? I see. So you're telling me that in order to be
> > considered a fan of science fiction, I have to talk and show my thoughts
> > like other people who also like science fiction? That's pretty incongruous.
>
> >Well, no, it's not incongruous, but it is the current state of a
> long-raging debate.
>
> What I mean by that is that you want me to express my own opinions and
> then you want me to be like everyone else and talk the same. but then...if I
> did, you'd think I was the same as someone else. that's what's incongruous
> about it.
I suspect that the word you want here is either 'contradictory' or perhaps
'inconsistent.' 'Incongruous' means something else.
Moreover, I think your irony detector has failed you again, and that
Phil is unlikely to clue you on his own.
HTH,
--Ulrika
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
SwankiVY1
Marilee (mjla...@erols.com) said:
>Julie, you're doing what the others do -- misquoting. I said that
>some folks had posted in more than one name and that has happened even
>here on rasff -- the person tripped up and got caught. I *do* think
>if people have to lie to publicize a book, the book is bad. If it was
>a good book, the truth should be adequate.
I think you're wrong about people posting on more than one name and "getting
caught." I think that some people assume other people ARE other people
without KNOWING that. But I do assume that a couple people have probably been
"caught" under different screen names. What I assert in this case is that
they probably weren't trying to make it seem like they were two different
people. If I had two screen names, I would probably come here under both of
them. If someone has claimed to be two different people and then has been
proven to be or has admitted to be one person, then I apologize because I have
missed that. But I don't believe people post under different names just to
drum up "fake praise"...especially since it's obvious people in this newsgroup
aren't going to read the book. Why would they waste their time?
I think you're assuming too much, I really do. You assume this is fake praise
since it comes from two screen names. That does not mean it HAS to get
support that way, or that it's a bad book. At this point, though, it's pretty
much moot, because you're not going to read it; the water is already poisoned.
It doesn't matter anymore, so I'm willing to stop talking about it if you
are.
>No, I really don't care about the contents. The fact that people lie
>to publicize it makes me think it's a bad book.
I don't think people are lying, that's all.
>I know he [Ethan] used to be on VB's payroll; I believe he still is.
And I know he used to be as well. I just don't think he still is, or if he
was, that it was necessarily BECAUSE he is or ever was being paid that he is
saying good things about it now. That's all.
>Julie, I think you're naive.
In some ways, I am.
>I'm not offended, after all, your
>conclusions are wrong and that's pretty evident.
It can't be very evident if you missed some of my points. Those are the ones I
reasserted above.
>You're welcome to
>disagree with what I say, that doesn't mean I'm going to stop saying
>it.
Yes, ditto.
I really hate to offend people, and have them get their panties in a tizzy.
That's really not what I'm about. I didn't mean to insult you by saying that
you might get worked up over such a small rasff glitch as I am, or to make
myself sound important enough to piss you off. I really hate being the cause
for misunderstandings, and I'm not saying this to be sweet. I simply don't
like to be a bitch when it matters. And this matters to me, even if it's a
game for some others.
Last thing: I'd like to thank you, Marilee, for being quite civil to me
compared to some of the crap I've witnessed. Your tone in your posts sounded
very much like you were willing to resolve misunderstandings rather than to
continue to argue with me. I'm very grateful for people who are willing to
work things out. So while I disagree with you on many of your reasonings and
would like to explain further (if it is unclear) what my thoughts are on WHY
your reasoning might be wrong, I still appreciate you dealing with me without
being particularly snippy.
--swankivy
Philip Chee
In article <19971015042...@ladder01.news.aol.com> swan...@aol.com writes:
>phi...@aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee) muttered in <87683744...@aleytys.pc.my>:
>>The annoying thing about Swank is that several times just as I was about
>>to decide that she was real [for certain values of real] she would say
>>something stupid which convinced me otherwise. Could Swank be doing a
>>_Valdimir Formin_ i.e. the reverse of the AOL screename trick i.e. several
>>people posting from the same account?
>Nope. Whaddaya mean by that, though? What was somethign stupid I said? I'm
> curious now.
>>However I am conviced that her dumb bunny act _is_ an act, basically
>>because somebody really that stupid wouldn't have the persistence to stick
>>in here for this length of time.
>What's my dumb bunny act? what did I do?
Don't tell me. You are related to Ivan Vorpatril, aren't you?
It's like this. A lot of the threads here in rasff are meta-discussions
in that they are occuring at several different levels simultaneously. All
I've seen you respond to is the surface text and you seem oblivious to the
sub-text.
Another thing. Rasffers delight in making obscure and esoteric references
and try to top each other. Even if we don't know what's going on we don't
admit it. Instead we just followup with another obscure and esoteric
reference[1].
Whenever you followup on something you, um, tend to sound out of your
depth. Not always, but enough times to make me wonder if SwankIVY is just
a construct being stretched a bit thin.
[1] And sometimes if we can't think of one, we just make one up. But don't
tell *them* I told you this else they'll start bombarding me with the
Orbital Mind Control Lasers - either that or send the Boy Sprouts to beat
me up.
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
þ 10026.96 þ Boldly going Forward because we can't find Reverse!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 15 Oct 1997 04:09:35 GMT, swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
> I figured it would not be off-topic to mention, when it was said that she was
> "self-publishsed," that her book's publishing company was called "Meridian
> House." I was not saying it was NOT self published. I MEANT that the name of her publishing house is
> Meridian House. I didn't say anything else about it. Okay?
Oh, okay. No problem. Just wasn't clear.
--
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997, $24.95
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 8/5/97
Kevin J. Maroney
t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>> >> From: Lauren Vaughn, Educator/Highschool Literature
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> My students enthusiastically participate in the
>> >> enfoldment of this beautiful story.
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
>It is neither wonder nor doubt.
"Enfoldment" 's a perfectly krefulent word! Maximumly krefulent, even.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html
Avram Grumer
>Another thing. Rasffers delight in making obscure and esoteric
>references and try to top each other. Even if we don't know
>what's going on we don't admit it. Instead we just followup
>with another obscure and esoteric reference[1].
>
>Whenever you followup on something you, um, tend to sound out
>of your depth. Not always, but enough times to make me wonder
>if SwankIVY is just a construct being stretched a bit thin.
That's right. No real ~20-year-old could possibly fail to follow obscure
references culled from the 60-year history of an esoteric subculture.
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer/ Work: agr...@crossover.com
The plight at the end of the carpal tunnel may be an oncoming strain.
Gary Farber
In <34486d41...@news.crossover.com> Kevin J. Maroney
<kmar...@crossover.com> wrote:
: t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
: >> >> From: Lauren Vaughn, Educator/Highschool Literature
: >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
: >> >> My students enthusiastically participate in the
: >> >> enfoldment of this beautiful story.
: >> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
: >It is neither wonder nor doubt.
: "Enfoldment" 's a perfectly krefulent word! Maximumly krefulent, even.
Don't dilapidate words without good reason, Kevin, or I'll use my
subliminal sarcasm on you.
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC
Lenny Bailes
In my perception, the first "Phil" paragraph parses as earnest
criticism of "unfannishness", rather than ironic deprecation
of "fan lingo."
From the Microsoft Word 97 thesaurus:
incongruous
[meanings]
inappropriate, inconsonant, inconsistent,
strange
inconsistent
[replace with]
[...] incongruous
"My Dear! Do you play ... croquet?"
"No, no, that's Bill Gates' game. Everyone knows he's
the devil."
--- ---
Lenny Bailes len...@slip.net
The accursed shall
be entitled to speedy trial.
SwankiVY1
Ulrika (uaob...@uci.edu) said:
>I suspect that the word you want here is either 'contradictory' or perhaps
>'inconsistent.' 'Incongruous' means something else.
Sorry, but incongrous really was the word I meant. One of its many definitions
is "not constant." As it is very "not constant" for someone to tell me to be
an individual and then turn around and bitch that I don't sound like the rest
of you, I believe the word is more than appropriate.
--swankivy
Morgan Gallagher
In article <87692932...@aleytys.pc.my>, Philip Chee
<phi...@aleytys.pc.my> writes
>[1] And sometimes if we can't think of one, we just make one up. But don't
>tell *them* I told you this else they'll start bombarding me with the
>Orbital Mind Control Lasers - either that or send the Boy Sprouts to beat
>me up.
Boy Sprouts was last year. This year it's Mung Bean Sprouts.
Do try to keep up.
--
Morgan
"Nunc demum intellego," dixit Winnie ille Pu. "Stultus et
delusus fui," dixit "et ursus sine ullo cerebro sum."
David E Romm
In article <tnh-141097...@tnh.dialup.access.net>, t...@panix.com (T
Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
> Some characteristics:
> Substitution of transformation and
> personal realization for objective externalized action.
Yeah, I was going to mention that, too.
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
"I"m impressed that you were able to write so legibly on your own butt."
-- The Simpsons
Ulrika
>In my perception, the first "Phil" paragraph parses as earnest
>criticism of "unfannishness", rather than ironic deprecation
>of "fan lingo."
I appear to have clipped the relevant passage of Phil's. As in
a number of things, our perceptions differ, and I'm happy to
persist in my belief that Phil was partly ironic in intent.
>From the Microsoft Word 97 thesaurus:
>
>incongruous
>[meanings]
>inappropriate, inconsonant, inconsistent,
>strange
>
>inconsistent
>[replace with]
>[...] incongruous
I don't want to get in the way of your rush to demonstrate
the whiteness of your hat and your trufannish broadmindedness,
of course, but do you really want to back yourself into the
rather untenable position that synonym listings from a thesaurus
will be universally intersubstitutable without loss, or change,
of meaning? My Merriam Webster -Webster's Collegiate- also
lists "mirage" as a synonym for "hallucination." Had any LSD
triggered mirages lately?
In the particular case at hand, ivy clearly means to point out
a case of mutually incompatible ideas or positions, an argumentative
inconsistency. "Incongruous," while it does mean inconsistent,
doesn't mean that *kind* of inconsistency, and isn't correctly
applicable to argumentative weaknesses. Incongruity refers to
inconsistency with context, expectations, or predictive norms;
it does not refer to a self-contradictory argument.
But by all means proceed to encourage her to misuse the language.
Wouldn't want anyone to think we weren't broadminded.
Aahz
In article <624e4a$9...@panix2.panix.com>,
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <19971016065...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>Ulrika <ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>: But by all means proceed to encourage her to misuse the language.
>: Wouldn't want anyone to think we weren't broadminded.
>
I prefer depillation of words, myself.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question,
but to post the wrong information.
Joel Rosenberg
Hmm... a lot of the criticism of the various Vannabontanyms comes down to
the pretty clearly fair take that, regardless of in which guise she
appears, she just isn't remotely good enough to solicit willing
suspension of disbelief.
On the Internet nobody has to know you're a dog -- but if you're
this clumsy, they not only know you're a dog, they know you're all the same
dog.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg | For news about upcoming books, | My opinions are mine.
jo...@winternet.com | finger jo...@winternet.com | Whose are yours?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Chee
In article <19971016065...@ladder02.news.aol.com> ulr...@aol.com writes:
>In article <3445A1...@slip.net>, Lenny Bailes <len...@slip.net> writes:
>>In my perception, the first "Phil" paragraph parses as earnest
>>criticism of "unfannishness", rather than ironic deprecation
>>of "fan lingo."
>I appear to have clipped the relevant passage of Phil's. As in
>a number of things, our perceptions differ, and I'm happy to
>persist in my belief that Phil was partly ironic in intent.
Um. Actually I was just being overly snide as usual. However if two
extremely discerning individuals such as Lenny Bailes and Ulrika for TAFF
O'Brien want to read some deep metaphysical meaning into my words, who am
I to disagree!
Hmm. I had always thought that the concept of Orientals being inscrutable
to be vastly improbable, however this latest exchange might force me to re
evaluate, or at least start practicing.
Hong Kong Phooey
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ž 9960.01 ž Call me if you need my phone number!
Philip Chee
In article <avram-15109...@avram.port.net> av...@interport.net writes:
>In article <87692932...@aleytys.pc.my>, phi...@aleytys.pc.my wrote:
>>Whenever you followup on something you, um, tend to sound out
>>of your depth. Not always, but enough times to make me wonder
>>if SwankIVY is just a construct being stretched a bit thin.
>That's right. No real ~20-year-old could possibly fail to follow obscure
>references culled from the 60-year history of an esoteric subculture.
[I was not specifically refering to fannish subculture but in a wider
context: see following. Also I wasn't casting aspersions on her knowledge
base but on her somewhat superficial approach to intellectual discourse]
Well depends on the type of ~20 year-olds you hung around with. When I
went to university I joined CUSFS which being a university based society
was populated mostly by 18-23 year-olds. On a typical Thursday night
there would be Bernard in one corner doing a 2 hour deconstruction on
Thomas Covenant. Colin and a bunch in that corner trying to use quantum
superstring theory to formulate a metalevel sprodzoom game ruleset. In
the alcove over there another noisy group are playing thermonuclear war
but this being CUSFS it is being played as part of a round of Illuminati.
Dave is bouncing the latest twist of his fictional Secret Conspiracy that
Rules the World before committing it on paper for his APA. (What ever
happened to COMBI anyway?). Meanwhile Jonathan is proving that he can
recall from memory all 79 members of the Legion of Superheroes - including
The Legion of Subsitute Heroes, the Academy, The Auxillaries, the, the....
whatever. Hmm, 2/3 of the Plokta Cabal were busy being nascent then I
seem to recall.
What I mean is that in the ~20 year fans that I was familiar with, there
was this common wide ranging interest in all sorts of odd - if totally
useless information and this odd habit of trying to combine diseparate
bits into unusual structures. Ideas would bounce around and mutate into
strange and unusual shapes at the slightest opportunity.
Strange. I seem to be describing rasff. Which brings me back to the
point. SwankIVY1 seems to be constantly going HuhWossat? It's as if she
can't see ultra violet like the rest of us. It's as if she has a
defective irony detector (Oh wait she's American) or her tendrils had
been anaesthetized cutting her off from normal telepathic channels.
Um. Am I being unkind? Nasty? Cruel? Probably. Probably she just needs
to grow up a bit or practice bending her brain around interesting ideas.
I do think she could eventually develop into a passable fan, but I suspect
that it would take a lot of work.
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ž 9927.51 ž Help! I'm parked diagonally in a parallel universe.
Aahz
{All right, I've sat on this bon mot long enough.}
In article <joelr.8...@winternet.com>,
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>
> My opinions are mine. Whose are yours?
Yours, of course.
SwankiVY1
Lenny (len...@slip.net) said:
>If you weren't picking on this particular sentence that Swankivy
>posted, you'd be picking on something else. All I wanted to do
>was demonstrate to you that your zealousness in picking her apart
>crosses over the line from pedantics to gratuitous meanness.
>
>You're annoyed because you feel the VB spam almost drove Teresa
>out of this newsgroup (not actually the case). You've accepted
>Teresa's impressive research that some VB spammers have hidden
>agendas and may be bogus aliases, and used it as a club. Vis-a-vis
>"I can be as contemptuous as I want to be toward a person who
>doesn't really exist."
>
>It says more about you, to me, than it does about Swankivy. Teresa
>is annoyed by her, too, but she does allow about .0005 microns of
>slack, just in case this happens to be a real person. Your
>slack quotient is in the negative numbers.
>
>You can tell me you were just trying to make a rhetorical point
>about the English language in your last post to Swankivy, but
>I don't believe it. Check your own agenda. Would you post that
>way to someone who hadn't said they admire Vanna Bonta's writing?
Thanks for understanding. I'm glad some people see that a lot is being done on
principle here and not on actual content. I'm very pleased that this post
was...posted. Thank you, Lenny.
--swankivy
SwankiVY1
ulrika from aol says:
>But by all means proceed to encourage her to misuse the language.
>Wouldn't want anyone to think we weren't broadminded.
Oh, thank you. *batting eyelashes*
Since I took the time to explain what I meant by "incongruous," I don't it's
relevant any longer to say that I've confused the meaning by using the
not-quite-appropriate word. Now you all know what I meant, so unless you'd
like to continue to belittle me, I guess it ends here.
--swankivy
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <344674...@slip.net>, Lenny Bailes <len...@slip.net> wrote
[addressing Ulrika]:
>If you weren't picking on this particular sentence that Swankivy
>posted, you'd be picking on something else.
Lenny, I think this is really, really out of line.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Lenny Bailes
Ulrika wrote:
len...@slip.net wrote
>
> >From the Microsoft Word 97 thesaurus:
> >
> >incongruous
> >[meanings]
> >inappropriate, inconsonant, inconsistent,
> >strange
> >
> >inconsistent
> >[replace with]
> >[...] incongruous
>
> I don't want to get in the way of your rush to demonstrate
> the whiteness of your hat and your trufannish broadmindedness,
> of course, but do you really want to back yourself into the
> rather untenable position that synonym listings from a thesaurus
> will be universally intersubstitutable without loss, or change,
> of meaning? My Merriam Webster -Webster's Collegiate- also
> lists "mirage" as a synonym for "hallucination." Had any LSD
> triggered mirages lately?
>
> In the particular case at hand, ivy clearly means to point out
> a case of mutually incompatible ideas or positions, an argumentative
> inconsistency. "Incongruous," while it does mean inconsistent,
> doesn't mean that *kind* of inconsistency, and isn't correctly
> applicable to argumentative weaknesses. Incongruity refers to
> inconsistency with context, expectations, or predictive norms;
> it does not refer to a self-contradictory argument.
>
My post allowed for the thought that Microsoft's blessing in
substituting "inconsistent" for "incongruous" may not be the
final word on the subject.
That's not the point, really. Allow me to temporarily remove
the mask you'd like to affix to the face of my postings. It's
not about my being a "white-knight", either. It's about my
being annoyed with your bullying disguised as pedanticism.
If you weren't picking on this particular sentence that Swankivy
SwankiVY1
>Um. Am I being unkind? Nasty? Cruel? Probably. Probably she just needs
>to grow up a bit or practice bending her brain around interesting ideas.
>I do think she could eventually develop into a passable fan, but I suspect
>that it would take a lot of work.
Welllll....
I think a lot of my inability to sometimes understand some of you is due to my
"newbie" stature, but it still doesn't mean I'm retarded. I *do* have an
intellect, and I know some of you know that. Others would rather pretend I
belong in special ed, but most of you know the truth.
I read things, and sometimes, since I don't know the person, it seems like
something it might not be. A certain amount of misinterpretation occurs
normally. I seem to remember it happening a lot the other way around,
too...since some of you have mistaken my words to mean otherwise. The fact
is, we don't know each other well enough to always perceive the nuances in
each other's speech. I'm not saying it's right. I'm just saying it happens,
and it should be tolerated, since there's no way it's NOT going to happen.
As for "bending my brain" around interesting ideas...I've got a hold of that,
actually. Bending my brain is something I like to do.
This isn't really related (disclaimer, so I won't get flamed for going off
subject!), but once in a while I do a brain-bending exercise I make up,
like...writing a haiku about songs I hear on the radio. Just listening to the
radio and writing a haiku about each song until it gets boring. *shrug* I AM
open to new ideas, and I live somewhat creatively. I notice a lot of the fans
of science fiction sometimes become so serious about the "symbols" of their
fandom that the fun, what it's all about, becomes nonexistent. I don't know
if this has happened to any of you, but I do know quite a lot of people that,
say, would rather collect Magic cards than play with them. People are taking
symbols for the things themselves. Like "fan-speak." People do it because
they're fans, and a certain kind of speech evolves. But you don't learn
fan-speak to be a fan. That's backwards.
--swankivy
Alison Scott
phi...@aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee) wrote:
>Well depends on the type of ~20 year-olds you hung around with. When I
>went to university I joined CUSFS which being a university based society
>was populated mostly by 18-23 year-olds. On a typical Thursday night
>there would be Bernard in one corner doing a 2 hour deconstruction on
>Thomas Covenant. Colin and a bunch in that corner trying to use quantum
>superstring theory to formulate a metalevel sprodzoom game ruleset. In
>the alcove over there another noisy group are playing thermonuclear war
>but this being CUSFS it is being played as part of a round of Illuminati.
>Dave is bouncing the latest twist of his fictional Secret Conspiracy that
>Rules the World before committing it on paper for his APA. (What ever
>happened to COMBI anyway?). Meanwhile Jonathan is proving that he can
>recall from memory all 79 members of the Legion of Superheroes - including
>The Legion of Subsitute Heroes, the Academy, The Auxillaries, the, the....
>whatever. Hmm, 2/3 of the Plokta Cabal were busy being nascent then I
>seem to recall.
Ah, that brings back memories. But only 2/8 of the cabal to be honest.
Steve was doing something similar somewhere similar (Aston?). Giulia
was being a tempestuous Italian-Tasmanian siren somewhere different
(Hobart? It's a wonderful town, speaking of crap music). Steven was at
Oxford failing to find similar soulmates in OUSFG. Sue was hanging
around with devious reprobates like, eg, Morgan. Marianne was only
around if you believe in whatever the female equivalent of the
homunculus. And George was probably a twinkle in his father's eye.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
I was assimilated by the Bontapus and all I got was this lousy novel
Lenny Bailes
P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> In article <344674...@slip.net>, Lenny Bailes <len...@slip.net> wrote
> [addressing Ulrika]:
>
> >posted, you'd be picking on something else.
>
>
It's what I believe, Patrick, based on the content of the last 5 or 10
of Ulrika's posts to Swankivy. I don't want to go back and excerpt them
now. I've always liked Ulrika in this group and the few times we've
talked at
conventions. I can accept contempt (and even meanness), when I feel
it's been earned. I have a hard time with what looks to me like
unearned bullying.
If I had more time and skill, I might be able to find a better
way to say "I don't like this -- it's unearned meanness."
(What -- correcting someone's grammar? Well, sometimes, if it
seems excessively zealous and follows a string of dispassionate
observations that your prose fails the Turing Test.)
I'm much happier about recent posts that Teresa and Marilee have made
in adding footnotes to the VhiizuBagga.
(Maybe it's egotistical to talk about other people's posts in terms
of "this makes me frustrated and angry" vs. "this makes me happy."
But it's usually one emotion or the other that makes me delurk.)
---
Lenny Bailes len...@slip.net
Gary Farber
: Wouldn't want anyone to think we weren't broadminded.
More delapidation of people's words. Tsk, tsk.
Ulrika
In article <19971016042...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) writes:
As in all things, you may believe what you like, of course.
T Nielsen Hayden
In article <19971015035...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
> Marilee (mjla...@erols.com) said:
> >Julie, you're doing what the others do -- misquoting. I said that
> >some folks had posted in more than one name and that has happened even
> >here on rasff -- the person tripped up and got caught. I *do* think
> >if people have to lie to publicize a book, the book is bad. If it was
> >a good book, the truth should be adequate.
>
> I think you're wrong about people posting on more than one name and "getting
> caught." I think that some people assume other people ARE other people
> without KNOWING that. But I do assume that a couple people have
probably been
> "caught" under different screen names. What I assert in this case is that
> they probably weren't trying to make it seem like they were two different
> people. If I had two screen names, I would probably come here under both of
> them. If someone has claimed to be two different people and then has been
> proven to be or has admitted to be one person, then I apologize because
I have
> missed that. But I don't believe people post under different names just to
> drum up "fake praise"...especially since it's obvious people in this
newsgroup
> aren't going to read the book. Why would they waste their time?
>
> I think you're assuming too much, I really do. You assume this is fake praise
> since it comes from two screen names. (...)
<snip>
A little history, Julie:
Back when airaf...@aol.com first started posting to Internet newsgroups,
she represented herself as fictional:
:: Subject: Aira F*light Fan Club
:: From: airaf...@aol.com (AIRAFLIGHT)
:: Date: 1995/11/24
:: Message-Id: <49554r$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
:: Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
::
:: Hooray! I now have a **Home** here on Earth. Visit the Web site and join
:: the fan club! Here is the FLIGHT internet address:
:: http://home.aol.com/AIRAFLIGHT
::
:: I'm thought-reaching Bonta my creator to schedule me for a live chat
:: session in the FLIGHT Lounge (can only be accessed through my Home site
:: headquarters). I am convincing her I have a life of my own now.
:: Come enjoy the midi-music, the Well of Wisdom and Fortune, news flashes,
:: reviews, excerpts, and more. Celebrate with me!
:: Loving glows*********, Aira Flight
AiraFlight's web page also says she's fictional, a character in a book:
:: Home Page for AIRAFLIGHT
:: Information About Me
::
:: Screen Name: AIRAFLIGHT
:: Member Name: Aira Flight, super-heroine of FLIGHT by Vanna Bonta
:: Location: Milky Way Galaxy, Earth
:: Birth Date: Time is not linear
:: Sex: No Response
:: Marital Status: No Response
:: Computers: http://members.aol.com/AiraFlight FLIGHT: A Quantum
:: Fiction Novel by Vanna Bonta
:: Hobbies: cosmic fan club
:: Occupation: Literary Art & Entertainment site; books reading meta-
:: physics poetry English education paranormal sci fi UFO
:: extraterrestrial TV movies celebrity Real Audio
:: Quote: "And the people knew what made them human; it was not their
:: shortcomings, but their hearts." - FLIGHT
:: Searchable by: AOL and Internet
:: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
:: CLICK TO ENTER the Literary/Entertainment site featuring "Flight: A
:: Quantum Fiction Novel" by Vanna Bonta. Book reviews, news & pictures,
:: message boards to related science/UFO themes, Real Audio broadcast of
:: extraterrestrial encounters, live chat, cool links and more.
:: ------------------------------------------------------------------------
:: Changes last made on: Sunday June 02, 1996 03:56 EDT
But in the time since AiraFlight's earliest posts, her .sig has become
changeable and less self-evidently fictional:
:: SELECTED POSTINGS OF AIRAF...@AOL.COM:
::
:: date newsgroup signed title thread
:: ====== ============= =============== ======== =========================
:: 951110 rec.arts.b.m* Aira . . . . . . . F**LIGHT** Home Page
:: 951110 rec.arts.b.m* Aira . . . . . . . F**LIGHT** Home Page
:: 951124 it.cultura . . . . . . . . . . Nipote di Ugolini/ BO [2]
:: 951124 it.notizie . . . . . . . . . . *VOLO* di Vanna Bonta [2]
:: 951124 it.notizie . . . . . . . . . . Nipote di Ugolini/ BO [2]
:: 951124 it.spettacolo . . . . . . . . . *VOLO* di VANNA BONTA [2]
:: 951124 la.general . Aira Flight . . . . . "F*light" now at BODH
:: 951124 rasfm*. . . Aira Flight . . . . . Aira F*light...I'm he
:: 960118 soc.cult.ital* . . . . . . . . . STATUA di VANNA BONTA [2]
:: 960118 soc.cult.ital* . . . . . . . . . STATUA di VANNA BONTA [2]
:: 960512 alt.journalism Bill Scott . . . . . Wanted: stories
:: 961112 it.cultura . . . . . . . . . . Rivista DaDa -- artic [2]
:: 961112 it.cultura . . . . . . . . . . Re: sito di poesia [2]
:: 961112 it.cultura . . . . . . . . . . Re: sito di poesia [2]
:: 961112 it.cultura . . . . . . . . . . Re: A chi interessere [2]
:: 961112 it.cultura . . . . . . . . . . Re: A chi interessere [2]
:: 961125 rasff*. . . Scott William . fcp*. . Free FLIGHT poster for
:: 961214 rasff*. . . Scott William . fcp*. . "FLIGHT fans, new stuf
:: 961220 rasff*. . . Scott William . fcp*. . "Flight Fans, Vanna Bo
:: 961231 alt.teens. . Butch & William. fcps&ecs* BULLETIN! Live Chat wi
:: 961231 la.general . Butch & William. fcps&ecs* Vanna Bonta/ Jan 1st t
:: 961231 rasff* . . Butch & William. fcps&ecs* "FLIGHT fans, live cha
:: 961231 rasff* . . Butch & William. fcps&ecs* Talk Amercia satellite
:: 970102 alt.teens Butchy [3] . . . . . BULLETIN! Live Chat wi
:: 970102 rasff* . . Butch [1]. . . fcps&ecs* "Re: FLIGHT fans, liv
:: 970616 it.notizie . . . . . . . . . . Romanzo di un ESSERE [2]
:: 970616 soc.cult.ital . . . . . . . . . Romanzo di un ESSERE [2]
:: 970909 alt.teens scott . . . . fc&ec* . People who Glow -- for
:: 970909 alt.para.ufo* scott . . . . fc&ec* . Vanna Bonta in Flight
:: 970909 alt.show.gos* scott . . . . fc&ec* . Vanna Bonta in Flight
:: 970909 rasff* . . scott . . . . fc&ec* . New FLIGHT stuff: Phot
:: 970909 rasff* . . scott . . . . fc&ec* . Vanna Bonta chat, FLIG
:: 970919 alt.conscious* Scott . . . . fc&ec* . Great lecture series,
:: 970919 rasff* . . Scott . . . . fc&ec* . Re: new FLIGHT stuff:
:: 970920 rasff* . . scott . . . . fc&ec* . Re: new FLIGHT stuff:
::
:: ______________________________
::
:: * Abbreviations:
::
:: alt.conscious = alt.consciousness
:: alt.para.ufo = alt.paranet.ufo
:: alt.show.gos = alt.showbiz.gossip
:: fc&ec = fan club & earth coordinator
:: fcp = fan club president
:: fcp&ec = fan club president & earth coordinator
:: fcps&ecs = fan club presidents & earth coordinators
:: rasff = rec.arts.sf.fandom
:: rasfm = rec.arts.sf.marketplace
:: rec.arts.b.m = rec.arts.books.marketplace
:: soc.cult.ital = soc.culture.italian
::
:: [1] Signed butch;.sig said "Butch & William, fan club
:: presidents & earth coordinators".
::
:: [2] Posting written in Italian.
::
:: [3] As quoted by borgfreeee, alt.teens, 970104.
This tends to give the impression that "AiraFlight" is a flag of
convenience for VB boosters, besides being occasionally used by the
Veebster herself to post to Italian newsgroups. ("Vanna Bonta e' di madre
d'origine Italiana, ed e` la nipote dello scrittore Fiorentino Luigi
Ugolini. La bionda scrittricie/attrice/poetessa...")
The names themselves are a bit odd -- Is Scott the same person as Scott
William, and is Scott William the same person as Bill Scott? Is Scott
William the William of Butch & William, or is the William of Butch &
William another William entirely? Furthermore, are any of the Williams
sometimes known as Bill?
To add to the confusion, there's a posting by sagst...@aol.com:
:: Subject: Re: new FLIGHT stuff: Photos of First Hugo & free poster
:: From: sagst...@aol.com (SAGstarpix)
:: Date: 1997/09/16
:: Message-Id: <19970916103...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
:: Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
::
:: <20 lines snipped>
::
:: There is some pattern to your avid reactions to Vanna Bonta and any
:: praise anyone breathes of her or her work. quite interesting. Pet peeve?
:: You try to make it seem like the *entire SF community* hates her, and
:: that's just plain... rabid. (besides grossly untrue)
Which was followed a few days later by:
:: Subject: Re: new FLIGHT stuff: Photos of First Hugo & free poster
:: From: airaf...@aol.com (AIRAFLIGHT)
:: Date: 1997/09/17
:: Message-Id: <19970917080...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
:: Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.fandom
::
:: I wrote: >>There is some pattern to your avid reactions to Vanna
:: Bonta and any
:: >>praise anyone breathes of her or her work. quite interesting. Pet peeve?
:: >> You try to make it seem like the *entire SF community* hates her, and
:: >>that's just plain... rabid. (besides grossly untrue)
(There's you case where "someone has claimed to be two different people
and then has been proven to be or has admitted to be one person", Julie.)
So (1.) AiraFlight a corporate account, and (2.) AiraFlight is also
SAGstarpix? Things are looking odd.
Further muddle: AiraFlight turned up on rasff in September, posting
messages signed "Scott", whereupon Bookmagic, BorgFreeee, and BunkySatch
responded by addressing AiraFlight as "Butch". AiraFlight hadn't signed
postings "Butch" since January 1997.
And here, just to round things off, is the extremely plausible-sounding
first meeting of BorgFreeee and AiraFlight:
:: Subject: Butch, look here, you're cutest guy on web!
:: From: borgf...@aol.com (BorgFreeee)
:: Date: 1997/01/04
:: Message-Id: <19970104004...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
:: Newsgroups: alt.teens
::
:: On Date: 2 Jan 1997 09:14:48 GMT airaf...@aol.com (AIRAFLIGHT) sez:
::
:: <<Maybe you have amnesia like most humans and Aira Flight, the character
:: in
:: "Flight" by Vanna Bonta :) (who is an author)
:: I guess you haven't read her book. or maybe you forgot you did:)
:: She's going to be on TalkAmerica on January 2nd, satellite plus internet
:: worldwide there or square. Hey Sarafina, if you're a writer, you might
:: enjoy it.
:: Butchy
:: * * F LIGHT * * *
:: http://members.aol.com/airaflight
:: >>
::
:: Are you the Butchy whose picture is at
:: http://members.aol.com/airaflight/order.htm You're the cutest guy on the
:: web. I haven't read Flight yet but can I join the fan club anyway?
:: Resistance is not futile. Borg-freeeeeeeeeeee
One begins to get the impression that the Veeb's fictional universe is as
modular as the corridor walls in =Doom=.
Onward, finally, to a certain 1995 VB press release, which I'm about to
quote for two reasons: (1.) It's pertinent to the argument. (2.) It reads
exactly like a piece from =The Onion=, and thus is too good not to share.
:: From: PR Newswire, October 12, 1995, Thursday
:: Section: Entertainment, Television, and Culture
:: Distribution: (Entertainet) To Entertainment and Book Editors
:: Length: 453 words
::
:: Headline: Vanna Bonta in Robbery -
:: Author's Fiction Becomes Reality
::
:: Summary: Author Vanna Bonta of popular novel "Flight" was a customer
:: at Coast Federal Bank in Los Angeles when it was robbed last
:: week. Two men entered the bank just past noon armed with an Uzi
:: and a handgun and ordered everyone to the floor. One thief held
:: a semiautomatic weapon to a teller's head and the other to a
:: pregnant teller's stomach to demand money.
::
:: BURBANK, Calif., Oct. 12
::
:: "It is humiliating to find yourself on your hands and knees crawling
:: for your life," Bonta said, "but we're all naked in that desire to
:: live. What's missing is the shame those two men need to feel to revive
:: their dead hearts."
::
:: "My elbows have rug burns on them," stated the young author who
:: said she began to involuntarily shake from fear as she crawled under
:: a desk for cover. Ironically, the hero of her new novel is a writer
:: who believes everything he writes comes true and in one chapter of
:: "Flight," the hero is assaulted and robbed. "It was eerie," Bonta
:: admits about the parallel with her novel.
::
:: Bonta describes one "indelible" moment was when she and a bank
:: executive were huddled under the desk. "We didn't know if these were
:: our last minutes on Earth," said Bonta, "and this woman, in the
:: middle of her own terror, put her hand on mine and asked if I was
:: okay -- to comfort me."
::
:: Bonta concluded, "Death isn't about getting old or your body going.
:: It happens on the inside first, like with criminals. I'll never
:: agree crime is normal. It's a sickness of the heart and soul."
::
:: Bonta's novel "Flight: a quantum fiction novel" (Meridian House,
:: ISBN 0-912339-10-1) is about keeping "spirit" alive in a material
:: world. Publisher's Weekly reviewed, "Whatever 'quantum fiction' is,
:: we need more of it."
::
:: While the novel, which has created a new genre, is gaining popularity
:: through word-of-mouth, bookstores across the country cannot stock it
:: fast enough. Wendi Chasman of Susan Smith & Associates in Beverly
:: Hills just inked to rep the author for film rights. Rock legend
:: Spencer Davis inaugurated the release of the book which features the
:: song "Dream Lover" as a theme. Bonta has also appeared in film and
:: performed voices for Disney.
::
:: When questioned further about incidents in her novel actually
:: happening, Bonta managed a smile after the ordeal, "Good thing the
:: book has a very happy ending for the whole world."
:: References: novel "Flight: a quantum fiction novel" (Meridian
:: House, ISBN 0-912339-10-1), Publisher's Weekly review, SEE Publishers
:: Weekly June 26, 1995.
:: Robbery: Coast Federal Bank, Valley Branch California, Tuesday
:: Oct. 2, 1995.
::
:: William Scott at the number listed below./
:: CONTACT: William Scott, 818-594-2610
::
:: LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
The release is a thinly-disguised advertisement for =Flight=, and beyond
that contains several atrocious fibs; but the real point of interest is at
the end: Once again, there's William Scott (Scott William William Spam
Butch Spam Scott Scott eggs and Spam Scott), in the role of (yet another)
VB publicist.
So, Julie, does this prove all the VBs are the same person? It doesn't. We
do have the current AiraFlight's own word that s/he/it is also SAGstarpix.
But on the other hand we don't know who the current AiraFlight actually
is; so while the Snark is a Boojum, God knows what that means.
We may guess that when AiraFlight is posting in Italian s/he/it is Vanna
Bonta, and note that Italian-language posts are chronologically mixed in
with Scott-Bill-and-Butch posts, but we don't know what that means either.
(Possibly that Scott/Bill/Butch and VB either live together or are in
close contact, so they know not to log on to that account when the other
is using it. Or maybe not.)
Even if we assume that all the VBs are individuals, and that they are not
primarily trying to advertise =Flight=, it nevertheless remains that they
are an in-group that has disrupted a general conversation by importing
their own privately-coded conversation into it, which is unpleasant and
rude.
And I don't think we should assume that, considering how much cryptospam
has been posted to the Internet on behalf of =Flight=, and the persistent
presence of smaller VB-related frauds like the "Dora Books" imprint and
"85p" cover price on =Degrees= when it was demonstrably published by
Meridian House, or the forged CIP data on =Flight='s copyright page.
Whoops, nearly forgot to mention: you know how VB supposedly wrote a
screenplay (called I believe "Somewhen") for =Star Trek: The Next
Generation=? I mentioned it when I was having lunch yesterday with John
Ordover (who runs the Star Trek program for Pocket books) and Glenn Hauman
and Kim Kinja (who're doing the =Star Trek Encyclopedia= CD-ROM), and they
all said nope, no way, no such episode; and for that matter, they'd never
heard of her in connection with =Star Trek= in any other capacity.
Sorry about that.
I think you're indignant because you don't think you've personally done
anything wrong, and are getting flak anyway. That may be so. But you're
keeping dubious company, and you might as well learn now instead of later
that people really will judge you on the company you keep -- and though
they might be mistaken in a given judgement, they'll be right overall in
judging on that basis.
:: Teresa Nielsen Hayden ::
:: t...@panix.com ::: fwa ::
David E Romm
In article <19971016235...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
> To quote the Beatles,
> "Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans."
Ah, but they only said this *backwards* in Revolution #9! How could you
know about hidden messages made a decade before you were supposedly born
unless.... SwankIvy is the late Brian Epstein!
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
"It's hard not to take tv seriously. Its spent so much more time raising us than you have." -- Bart to Homer
JamesAB5
t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>Whoops, nearly forgot to mention: you know how VB supposedly wrote a
>screenplay (called I believe "Somewhen") for =Star Trek: The Next
>Generation=? I mentioned it when I was having lunch yesterday with John
>Ordover (who runs the Star Trek program for Pocket books) and Glenn Hauman
>and Kim Kinja (who're doing the =Star Trek Encyclopedia= CD-ROM), and they
>all said nope, no way, no such episode; and for that matter, they'd never
>heard of her in connection with =Star Trek= in any other capacity.
I was curious about this, but since I didn't have access to a complete listing
of TNG episodes/writers, I couldn't say anything about it. But with
confirmation that there was never any such episode/credit, my own knowledge of
the Star Trek script process, and a note from VB on the subject, I think I can
shed some light to what this really means. (My apologies to the person that I
promised I'd avoid fanning flames, but I'll try to keep the light/heat ratio
high with this post.)
Anyway, this is VB's response to a query about "Somewhen" and not being able to
find it in the ST Encyclopedia:
--------------------- forward message ---------------
Subj: Re:Somewhen
Date: 97-09-23 15:35:01 EDT
From: VannaBonta
I was invited to submit a story and was sent the bible. (The 'bible', for those
of you who may not know, is the reference book for any ongoing TV series. It
contains scads of details and information about characters, locations, and
anything recurring. Its purpose is to ensure continuity from episode to
episode-- so, for example, in one episode Wesley's favorite color isn't
'blue', and in another it's 'red.') I submitted three stories. One of them,
'Somewhen' was selected by Gene Roddenberry. They purchased it outright, and I
developed it into five acts. My contract stipulated that from that point on,
the material was theirs to do with as they pleased. (TV writer's joke: "Hey, I
wrote that word!)
It was a privilege to work for and with Mr. Roddenberry. After they purchased
the story,in my first meeting with him, he told me that as we worked he didn't
want me to feel intimidated or give any particular weight to any suggestions
for the story because he was Executive Producer. He said that on his Sears
credit card application, under 'Occupation', it says 'writer', and he was a
writer, just like me. I was impressed, put at ease, and my admiration
increased.
One time he told about when he created Spock's mind, he "walked through it" for
an hour.
By the way [name deleted], the term wouldn't be 'pseudonym', it would be 'pen
name'. But no, the byline was and the check was made out to 'Vanna Bonta'.
------------------ end forward message -------------------
OK, now this actually makes some kind of sense if you know how ST has handled
outside submissions. Star Trek since the beginning of TNG has been unique in
Hollywood in that they are the only production that allows scriptwriters
without a WGA (West) affiliated agent to submit spec scripts to the show by
signing a release form. If they like the full spec script, they *may* buy it,
but more likely they'll ask the writer to "pitch" story ideas to the
producers. With the right connections, you can also be invited to pitch
without submitting a spec script.
This is what VB's "meeting" with Gene Roddenberry sounds like, and the bit
about making her feel comfortable is SOP from stories of friends of mine who
have gone through the process (one time with a story that I collaborated on
<brag, brag>).
There are 4 possible results coming from a pitch. 1) They don't buy anything
then either do or don't invite a return. 2) They buy a "premise" for ~$1000
which means they like a single element and may use it as part of another story
without credit (this may happen retroactively as well if they later decide to
do a story that independently uses elements pitched earlier -- they'd rather
just pay the grand than worry about being accused of stealing the idea). 3)
They buy the story, asking the writer to write a story treatment in regular
prose boken into acts, then have one of their regular writers write the script
(Pitcher get ~$10k and "story by" credit with "sceenplay by" credit going to
another writer). 4) They buy the story and ask the Pitcher to also do the
script (~$10k for the story + ~$20k for the script + exclusive "written by"
credit).
Now, taking VB at her word, it sounds like ST did half of option 3 above. They
bought the story, but never used it as is in an episode. They may or may not
have used specific elements as part of other episodes -- no way of knowing
without independent confirmation. There would be no official credit listed
anywhere except in internal documents.
Now personally, I find that kind of story much more interesting than the
half-stated truth as it stands on the web page -- just which bits *did* make
it into which episode, or even if it got completely dropped. To be fair,
that's what she implied in her above post, but by leaving out the specifics,
and tacking on the "byline" statement, she leaves favorable misinterpretations
open, and that unsurprisingly follows the established pattern.
And I'll leave it at that before I go spouting off again. <g>
Best,
Jim Bailey (jame...@aol.com)
----------------------------------------------
Short Fiction Roundup with 1996/1997
SF/Fantasy Short Story Author Index
http://www.sff.net/people/jbailey/roundup/
SwankiVY1
>swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
>
>> Wow, seems neat!
Teresa (t...@panix.com) wrote:
>No, it doesn't, and you don't think so.
>
>Spare me the disingenuous twaddle.
It's really hard to believe you're responding like this. I guess I should have
expected this when expressing any amount of positive feelings towards anything
you've written. You apparently think that I denounce everything you say
simply because you're the one who wrote it. I do not. I take things at face
value, which I suppose is why many people have called me "naive." Just
because others in this newsgroup do not do the same is no reason for me to
overlook positive things in a person's writings when I disagreed with other
things that same person has written.
I *did* think it was neat. I had no idea that the name AIRAFLIGHT had such a
history, and learning about it was something interesting to me. Why would you
think I don't think so? I'm interested because I've had contact with two
people who use the name, and didn't know there had been more. You presented
me with a whole history that I didn't even know existed! And you really,
truly think I wouldn't find it interesting?
I really resent that. I know you don't care, but I do. Especially you trying
to second-guess me like that. You just don't know me, so...don't take that
liberty, please. You don't know what I'm about, so don't assume I mean things
I didn't say, and especially don't assume I meant the opposite.
--swankivy
Emshandar
From: jo...@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg)
>On the Internet nobody has to know you're a dog -- but if you're
>this clumsy, they not only know you're a dog, they know you're all the same
>dog.
In the "Kevin&Kell" online comic strip, there was an arc involving Kell's
predator forum... She's chatting with someone who's going "Hi. I'm a big bad
wolf!! Be my friend, please?? Would you be my friend? Huh, huh, would you?"
To which Kell replies "You're a poodle, aren't you?"... and the other guy
responds "AM NOT!!! (Darn -- forgot to not use all capitals...)"
--
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com>
Avram Grumer
In article <tnh-161097...@tnh.dialup.access.net>, t...@panix.com (T
Nielsen Hayden) wrote:
>So (1.) AiraFlight a corporate account, and (2.) AiraFlight is also
>SAGstarpix? Things are looking odd.
>
>Further muddle: AiraFlight turned up on rasff in September, posting
>messages signed "Scott", whereupon Bookmagic, BorgFreeee, and BunkySatch
>responded by addressing AiraFlight as "Butch". AiraFlight hadn't signed
>postings "Butch" since January 1997.
If I remember correctly, William Scott was the original Golden Age
AiraFlight, who handed his costume off to his son, Bill, after WWII.
Scott William was the Earth 2 AiraFlight, the one whose powers involved
phlogiston instead of quantum mechanics. The alien SAGstarpix adopted the
AiraFlight persona in issue #275 of _Adventures in the Z-Zone_, published
in 1972, and was later killed off in the Crisis on Infinite Earths. It's
widely known that Grant Morrison used her as the inspiration for his Vesta
Boson character in the recursive fiction issue of _Untouchables_. The
current AiraFlight, as everyone knows, is really Superman, having been
given energy powers, amnesia, and a sex change by a hunk of red kryptonite
as part of DC's latest attempts to substitute attention-getting flash for
story-telling.
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer/ Work: agr...@crossover.com
Come the Revolution, Comrade, you _will_ want to send a fax from the beach!
Gary Farber
In <19971017045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
: I don't know how many times I've corrected Gary Farber on his persistent
: conflation of criteria/criterion, and I do love him dearly, honest I do,
: but that particular plural/singular error drives me bats.
Um, without commenting upon the larger debate, I don't actually recall
either your making that correction to *me*, nor my making that error,
which I'm quite clear about. I absolutely grant, of course, that this may
merely be, and likely is, a case of my poor memory, and that I'm capable
as well of making that error carelessly, though not ignorantly.
And I love you, Ulrikaflight. I am awake now!
StarsaGary
[. . . .]
Gary Farber
In <romm-17109...@13-143.dynamic.visi.com>
David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: And you are incredibly sensitive about your own misuse of words. You
: weren't being reasonable so I just dropped the thread on 'modernism' but
: you seriously screwed that one up.
Wow, that's amazingly wrong; you were the one who had no clue what
Modernism is, yet who proceeded to attempt to discuss it.
: (No, I don't want to get into it
: again; last time you flew off the handle when I merely asked you to define
: your terms.)
She did kinda get impatient with the way you were discussing something you
proudly proclaimed you didn't know anything about.
Ulrika
In article <romm-17109...@13-143.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
(David E Romm) writes:
>And you are incredibly sensitive about your own misuse of words.
>You weren't being reasonable so I just dropped the thread on
>'modernism' but you seriously screwed that one up. (No, I don't want
>to get into it again; last time you flew off the handle when I merely
>asked you to define your terms.)
I am agog. Truly, do you perpetually inspire my Sensawonda.
Words utterly and completely fail me.
Maureen Kincaid Speller
> Steven was at
>Oxford failing to find similar soulmates in OUSFG.
When was Steven at Oxford, Alison? I was in OUSFG for a number of
years but don't recall Steven at all. I dropped out sometime in 1984,
I think.
Maureen
Maureen Kincaid Speller
m...@acnestis.demon.co.uk
Ulrika O'Brien for TAFF
Ulrika
In article <344712...@slip.net>, Lenny Bailes <len...@slip.net> writes:
>Ulrika wrote:
>
>Some questions about my motivation in challenging her
>authority and intent as a correctress.
To whatever degree these remarks of yours are supposed to
be concilliatory, Lenny, I think they would be much likelier to
succeed if you didn't address me in the Third Person Absent.
Also, if you object to issues of motivation being added to the
meal, perhaps you shouldn't bring them in, yourself.
>I also object to the word "misuse" as applied to
>your criticism of Swankivy's choice of adjectives.
Yes, but "misuse" is what I mean. I mean she's used the
word incorrectly. I realize you disagree, but reasserting it
isn't in itself an especially convincing argument. I'll stand
by the term, thanks. Objection noted, but then, this is not
news.
>While I might not have chosen the word "incongruous"
>to describe a set of apparently contradictory expectations,
>I believe Webster's New School & Office Dictionary
>also justifies this usage. (You could look it up,
>or come back at me with a bigger dictionary, whatever.
>Based on your last post, I'm willing to believe that you enjoy
>grammatical pedantry of this kind.)
Yes, but I generally need something to argue against. I've
stated my reasons and my reasoning. This is not a substantive
address of either, but simply a bald reassertion of your disagreement.
You may naturally draw your own conclusions, but unless there is something
new on the table, I see no point in repeating myself in turn.
>But for me, your credibility as a correctress suffers
>from your wanting to press this point and from your
>interpretation of P Chee's post.
I have no idea whatsoever what sort of bearing this is supposed
to have, nor how you normally go about assessing credibility.
You seem to want to call me a liar without being quite so blunt about it.
Fair enough, noted. Frankly, I am not especially moved to go to any
greater lengths to demonstrate my sincerity to you, but the sausage is
somewhat enlightened in re your methods of judging character and their
likely efficacy. Information is always good.
>And my faith in you as a potential teacher
>suffers after reading threads like this one:
I have a deep seated suspicion that if closely examined, you would
find we have quite divergent views on the nature and scope of pedagogy,
and its best applications. Thus if I fail to meet your standards, it may
not have much bearing on my ability to meet my
own. In particular, I find it specious to judge a teacher's ability to
teach in a non-teaching context and venue, in the same way that I
would find it specious to judge an auto mechanic by her ability to
play the piano. And while the warm, fuzzy, loving huggy self-esteem
first model of teaching currently popular among education theorists
may have some limited utility, it has failed spectacularly in a great
many applications, and I personally judge it to be largely intellectually
bankrupt. Even if it weren't, I don't see Usenet as the place for it.
You may, of course, go forth and disseminate and apply your own preferred memes.
>> In article <19971015041...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>> swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) writes:
>>
>> >"Clearly," huh? Then prove it. You all want proof of things; why not
>> >prove that I'm really more than just swankivy and I really do post
>> >elsewhere under other names. Prove. It.
>>
>> Try looking up "duplicitous". You're supposed to be in college,
>> after all.
>
>In this exchange, you seem to have forgotten that you've just
>been telling a human being that they don't really exist.
No, if you check back, I think you'll find that I had been telling her
that I didn't find she had any credibility. A less than fine-grained
distinction, I would have thought. Or are you trying to tell me I
don't exist.
>You
>bypass an emotional response that seems pretty understandable to
>me by an indirect allusion to the fact that you think something
>else she said may have been inconsistent. As if, (you'll forgive
>me here, Swankivy, I hope), all 19-year old teenagers are always
>perfectly consistent in everything they say -- and all perfect,
>self-introspective masters of expository clarity.)
Ah, so it's my job to baby her along and exercise different standards
because of her age, is it? We really do have different notions of
effective pedagogy. I don't happen to believe that you get people to
perform by expecting less of them. What I was doing, in my rather typical
terse and telegraphic way, was pointing out that she had misunderstood me,
and that I hadn't been addressing issues of identity but of veracity and
credibility. I'm sorry if I didn't meet your standards of catering to her
emotional responses and addressing the whole person.
I'll try to model myself after your own exemplary behavior in future.
>I'm also irritated by your patronizing scorn for me.
Ah. Well, I'll see if I can't imitate your respectful tone in future.
>Enough so that this response and several others
>have been colder and less friendly than I would have
>liked. Perhaps I'm also guilty of withholding respect,
>as Patrick suggests
Yes, perhaps you are.
> I didn't
>really want to pick a fight with you. You hit some of my
>buttons, but not the ones you think you did. I'm not a White
>Knight; I'm a philosopher _with_ portfolio (albeit a pretty
>small one).
I have no idea whatsoever what sort of credentials you are
attempting to leverage here, but again, you may find that
our standards diverge on what qualifies as a philosopher,
or a portfolio for one.
> I hope this is the end of this exchange. (I'll
>try to make it so, from my end.)
Have I mentioned how irritating, petty, and passive-aggressive
I find the whole "I've had my say so I hope you'll shut up now"
to be? If you wish to absent yourself from the conversation, that
is your privilege, but please don't presume to usurp my right
to reply.
Ulrika
In article <009BBE23...@SSRL04.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU ("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") writes:
>If you want to nail her in an actual error, observe the use of the word
>"eddification" in her address to Lenny about Swankivy. I can only
>assume this means the process of turning something into a
>Scandinavian saga collection.
Ouch. As you well know, that would be eddafication. One of the
signs of my encroaching senility is that I grow increasingly unable
to tell when I should double consonants, and when I should single
them. Perhaps a judicious application of mockery will help slow
the process, though. Thanks.
Gary Farber
In <19971017090...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
[. . .]
: Ouch. As you well know, that would be eddafication. One of the
: signs of my encroaching senility is that I grow increasingly unable
: to tell when I should double consonants, and when I should single
: them.
Not to mention when you should verb them.
: Perhaps a judicious application of mockery will help slow
: the process, though. Thanks.
I shall continue to dilapidate as necessary.
Garyyyy
Dave Locke
Ulrika phosphorized (and I quote out of context):
> Random nastiness is something I'm way too good at.
"What's the situation?"
"Sergeant, we've got a sniper on the clock tower."
"What kind of weapon does she have, a deer rifle?"
"No, a megaphone."
<clocktower>"Check your own lily white agendas, honey
bunny."</clocktower>
"She just got another one, Sarge."
---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin
"This thread is a riot. It really brings the dewy-eyed innocents out
of the tall grass, where they can be picked off at leisure."
--Tim Scott
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 17 Oct 1997 10:58:13 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
wrote:
>In article <19971017045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> Ulrika <ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>If I didn't think
>>there was a molecule of hope, I wouldn't waste my breath unless it seemed
>>likely to eddify the listening masses. You see, I don't consider
>>correction an unkindness.
>
>My kind deed for the day: "edify".
Oh, I thought "eddify" meant "to stir up," creating eddies.
Live and loin.
--
TOUCHED BY THE GODS: Hardcover, Tor Books, November 1997, $24.95
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Updated 8/5/97
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 08:23:56 GMT, win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
("Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr") wrote:
>That particular dog won't hunt, DavE. (Although there might be a Clue in
>your using 'modernism' whle the rest of the thread was talking 'Modernism.')
>
>Just read an excellent book, _The Geography of Nowhere_, which discusses, among
>other things, the horrors of Modernist architecture and why Le Corbusier's
>crackpot Radiant City design has destroyed community, the economy, and the
>environment. (Kunstler, I think, is the name of the author.) Angry, funny,
>erudite, and generally better than what I've seen of =Flight=.
Damn, I missed a discussion of Modernism in architecture? I may need
to check Dejanews.
Architectural Modernism is why I'm a writer -- it was my fallback
after getting kicked out of Princeton, and I got kicked out of
Princeton when I stopped going to classes, and I stopped going to
classes when I realized that with one exception the architecture
faculty (I was an architecture student) was Modernist, i.e., deranged
and stupid.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 17 Oct 1997 02:46:37 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
wrote:
>There is no Vanna Bonta listed in my latest Membership directory
>for WGA, west (1995). I *believe* if you sell a story to a
>signatory company (which Paramount is), you have to become a
>member.
No, you get one freebie, on the theory that a single sale might just
be a fluke. You just can't sell a second time without joining.
I made my one sale to CBS back in the 1980s and got this all explained
to me. Haven't made a second sale (haven't tried), and I never
joined.
Daniel Blum
In rec.arts.sf.fandom Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> On 17 Oct 1997 10:58:13 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
> wrote:
> >In article <19971017045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > Ulrika <ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>If I didn't think
> >>there was a molecule of hope, I wouldn't waste my breath unless it seemed
> >>likely to eddify the listening masses. You see, I don't consider
> >>correction an unkindness.
> >
> >My kind deed for the day: "edify".
> Oh, I thought "eddify" meant "to stir up," creating eddies.
And *I* thought it had something to do with getting people's writing to
be more like the Eddas, althought that seemed unlikely.
> Live and loin.
--SnorriFlight
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@mcs.net
"Let it be granted that a controversy may be raised about any question,
and at any distance from that question." - Lewis Carroll
Ulrika
In article <627gc5$1...@news1.panix.com>, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R
Weholt) writes:
>My kind deed for the day: "edify".
Indeed it is, but it should have been your kind deed for
yesterday. As it is, Alan Winston beat you to it. I knew we'd
have to beat out the rumphle-mumphle fershluginnah Panix
goddamn jiant freakin' pipes received-before-sent bleeding
propagation trope someday by all being on the Left Coast,
but little did I know I would be the cause. I am so honored.
Ulrika
In article <344c55d3...@news.clark.net>, lawr...@clark.net
(Lawrence Watt-Evans) writes:
>Damn, I missed a discussion of Modernism in architecture? I may
>need to check Dejanews.
We can start another one. That might be better, honest.
>Architectural Modernism is why I'm a writer -- it was my fallback
>after getting kicked out of Princeton, and I got kicked out of
>Princeton when I stopped going to classes, and I stopped going to
>classes when I realized that with one exception the architecture
>faculty (I was an architecture student) was Modernist, i.e., deranged
>and stupid.
I knew I loved you for a reason. Marry me?
uaob...@uci.edu
In article <avram-17109...@avram.port.net>,
av...@interport.net (Avram Grumer) wrote:
> If I remember correctly, William Scott was the original Golden Age
> AiraFlight, who handed his costume off to his son, Bill, after WWII.
> Scott William was the Earth 2 AiraFlight, the one whose powers involved
> phlogiston instead of quantum mechanics. The alien SAGstarpix adopted the
> AiraFlight persona in issue #275 of _Adventures in the Z-Zone_, published
> in 1972, and was later killed off in the Crisis on Infinite Earths. It's
> widely known that Grant Morrison used her as the inspiration for his Vesta
> Boson character in the recursive fiction issue of _Untouchables_. The
> current AiraFlight, as everyone knows, is really Superman, having been
> given energy powers, amnesia, and a sex change by a hunk of red kryptonite
> as part of DC's latest attempts to substitute attention-getting flash for
> story-telling.
This is brilliant. It is also so close to the sinsiter truth that my
race memory was triggered and I realized: AiraFlight is a Timelord.
--Ulrika
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Lawrence Watt-Evans
I don't think Julie and the kids would like that.
Philip Chee
In article <34470829...@news.demon.co.uk> m...@acnestis.demon.co.uk writes:
>On Thu, 16 Oct 97 17:23:40 GMT, phi...@aleytys.pc.my (Philip Chee)
>wrote:
>>Well depends on the type of ~20 year-olds you hung around with. When I
>>went to university I joined CUSFS which being a university based society
>>was populated mostly by 18-23 year-olds. On a typical Thursday night
[...long snip about Thursday Nights at New Hall Bar...]
>We've met too ... I was the Oxford fan who used to come over to
>Cambridge for Jomsveizlas and various other things, a friend of
>Peter-Fred Thompson
>Maureen Kincaid Speller
Oooh yes. But I know you better from your LoCs to _Reading Matters_.
Wanted to go to this year's Eastercon but couldn't get away. Anyway hope
to catch up with you sometime this century.
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Cement Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
... Bad Borg, Bad Borg. Watcha gonna do when they assimilate you?
---
* 9999.18 *
Douglas A. Wickstrom
David E Romm wrote:
Much snipped as irrelevant to straightline.
> What Follows Post-Modernism?
Neo-Modernism?
Gary Farber
In <19971017144...@ladder02.news.aol.com> Ulrika
<ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
: In article <627gc5$1...@news1.panix.com>, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R
: Weholt) writes:
: >My kind deed for the day: "edify".
: Indeed it is, but it should have been your kind deed for
: yesterday. As it is, Alan Winston beat you to it. I knew we'd
: have to beat out the rumphle-mumphle fershluginnah Panix
: goddamn jiant freakin' pipes received-before-sent bleeding
: propagation trope someday by all being on the Left Coast,
: but little did I know I would be the cause. I am so honored.
I should fall on one of your verbal tropes before I reveal that Alan's
comment made it here within five minutes, as usual, and that this is
merely a case of the order of the messages that Michael read.
No, wait, I know! I won't tell you! That's it!
Pshew.
Alison Scott
m...@acnestis.demon.co.uk (Maureen Kincaid Speller) wrote:
>When was Steven at Oxford, Alison? I was in OUSFG for a number of
>years but don't recall Steven at all. I dropped out sometime in 1984,
>I think.
1977-80, only went to a meeting once, but got a friend to borrow books
from the OUSFG library regularly. Spent his time at Oxford playing
badminton and socialising with other mathematicians and other friends.
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
Rather typical homepage: www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Cutting-edge fanzine: www.moose.demon.co.uk/plokta
Vicki Rosenzweig
Michael R Weholt wrote:
>
> In article <344996ff...@news.clark.net>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
> >On 17 Oct 1997 14:47:28 GMT, ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
>
> >>I knew I loved you for a reason. Marry me?
> >
> >I don't think Julie and the kids would like that.
>
>
> Didn't anyone tell Lawrence about the annual Winter Shuffle
> wherein all regular posters to rasff rotate among themselves
> their alliances, relationships, jobs, sexual orientations and
> selections of underwear? The children are redistributed by
> lottery, of course.
>
> Who's on The Newsletter committee? What is going on here? This
> is not acceptable.
>
> Please accept our apologies, Lawrence. To make amends, you may
> just this once express a preference regarding where you would
> like to live in 1998. We have a nice opening in Kuala Lumpur, if
> you've a taste for that. Or what about Saskatoon?
>
> --
> mrw
Dibs on Seattle! And I want at least two additional cats.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning.
--Susanna Sturgis
Lawrence Watt-Evans
On 17 Oct 1997 20:01:44 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
wrote:
>
>In article <344996ff...@news.clark.net>,
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>On 17 Oct 1997 14:47:28 GMT, ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
>
>>>I knew I loved you for a reason. Marry me?
>>
>>I don't think Julie and the kids would like that.
>
>Wait.
>
>Didn't anyone tell Lawrence about the annual Winter Shuffle
>wherein all regular posters to rasff rotate among themselves
>their alliances, relationships, jobs, sexual orientations and
>selections of underwear? The children are redistributed by
>lottery, of course.
Oh, okay -- but I keep the same cat, right? I mean, let's not go TOO
far.
>Please accept our apologies, Lawrence. To make amends, you may
>just this once express a preference regarding where you would
>like to live in 1998. We have a nice opening in Kuala Lumpur, if
>you've a taste for that. Or what about Saskatoon?
Saskatoon should do. I won't need to learn a new language.
T Nielsen Hayden
In article <34478b4...@news.demon.co.uk>, al...@bortas.demon.co.uk
(Alan Woodford) wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Oct 1997 09:39:49 -0400, t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden)
> wrote:
>
> --snip--
> >
> >I'm offended and disappointed. This is a poor return for having tried to
> >address you as a thoughtful individual.
>
> ---snip---
>
> I have tried hard to keep out of this thread, but this is too much.
>
>
> From a previous post
>
> Teresa said to SwankIvy
>
> >Spare me the disingenuous twaddle.
>
> If that is addressing someone as a thoughtful individual, then I'd
> hate to see what you do to someone you really disapprove of.
You must have been at least partly successful in keeping out of this
thread, since otherwise you'd have known I was referring to the post
previous to that.
Your reading comprehension is not my problem.
::tnh::fwa
T Nielsen Hayden
In article <3447DD...@slip.net>, Lenny Bailes <len...@slip.net> wrote:
> T Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> >
> > In article <19971017031...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> > swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
> >
> > > It's really hard to believe you're responding like this. I guess I
> > > should have
> > > expected this when expressing any amount of positive feelings towards
> > > anything you've written.
> >
> > You can spare me the tearful reproaches, too; that dog won't hunt.
> >
> > Also, a restrained use of the gosh-wow gee-whiz trope is much more
> > effective than laying it on thick, since a single instance of perceptible
> > excess will infallibly undercut the credibility of the whole.
> >
> > If you'll keep these techniques in mind the next time you do this trick,
> > it'll do wonders for your verisimilitude.
> >
> > (...)
>
> In fairness, I need to say that this bothers me as much as Ulrika's
> earlier postings in this vein, (which were influenced by your sometimes
> variable conviction that Swankivy doesn't exist).
>
> I'm not saying it's impossible that you're right. But I can't see how
> the probabilities justify this kind of dialog. The tradeoff behind being
> right (and using your x-ray vision to tongue-lash the mutant chameleon
> Vanna Bonta), and being wrong (abusing a rasff contributor whose actual
> posting content is devoid of viciousness and ill-will) just isn't worth
> the cost in my world. (Certainly "BookMagic" was deceitful and abusive
> to you: a worthy target for your cold logic whether he/they are one person,
> a conglomerate, a huckster, or just a Hollywood hack attacking you
> because you ragged on his girlfriend.)
>
> You must be very sure that you're right about Swankivy.
> I don't see what you see in her writing. The worst crime I
> can see her committing is being less conscious of
> her inner processes and the implications of her words than
> you or Ulrika. The question I have is this:
> "What do you gain by treating your chameleon hypothesis
> as established fact versus what you lose if you're wrong?"
Lenny, what I'm sure I'm right about is me, and I'm feeling hurt,
disappointed, and repulsed. You're one of the kindest people I've ever
known, so it's no wonder that your kindness extends to Swankivy. But from
my point of view, I wrote a long, considered post, and got a response that
I can't for the life of me see as anything but crudely disingenuous.
Heretofore Swankivy hasn't been nearly that dumb, and some of the points
she affects to have missed were damned near unmissable. And as for that
bouncy, peppy tone -- Lenny, I don't think there's a woman in this
newsgroup who doesn't know how to do that routine. The rest of us just
loathe it, is all.
This has nothing to do with Vanna Bonta. It has everything to do with
Swankivy. My trust was not lightly or casually extended. And I really do
have feelings, just like everyone else.
::tnh::fwa
uaob...@uci.edu
In article <344996ff...@news.clark.net>,
lawr...@clark.net (Lawrence Watt-Evans) wrote:
>
> On 17 Oct 1997 14:47:28 GMT, ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
>
> >(Lawrence Watt-Evans) writes:
> >
> >>Architectural Modernism is why I'm a writer -- it was my fallback
> >>after getting kicked out of Princeton, and I got kicked out of
> >>Princeton when I stopped going to classes, and I stopped going to
> >>classes when I realized that with one exception the architecture
> >>faculty (I was an architecture student) was Modernist, i.e., deranged
> >>and stupid.
> >
>
> I don't think Julie and the kids would like that.
Don't worry about it, it's a soc.singles thing. It's mostly meant to wing
unalloyed, generalized approval in your general direction. I shudder to
think what would happen if all my immoderate Usenet proposals came
home to roost. One wedding was probably enough stress of that
type for my lifetime.
Emshandar
From: t...@panix.com (T Nielsen Hayden)
>In article <19971016235...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
>swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
>
>> Wow, seems neat!
>
>
>No, it doesn't, and you don't think so.
>
>Spare me the disingenuous twaddle.
>
>
Actually, i suspect our kitten is growing claws -- sounds more like "sarcasm"
than "disingenuous twaddle" to me...
--
mike weber <emsh...@aol.com>
Ulrika
In article <19971016204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) writes:
>Since I took the time to explain what I meant by "incongruous," I don't
> it's relevant any longer to say that I've confused the meaning by
>using the not-quite-appropriate word
It's relevant as long as you're misusing the word, actually. Your
having explained the way you are misusing it doesn't actually
make it any more correct. This is not Wonderland and words do
not mean just what we want them to mean.
> Now you all know what I meant, so unless you'd
> like to continue to belittle me, I guess it ends here.
Expecting you to be corrigible is not belittling. Assuming you
cannot learn is. Ending conversations by fiat and attempts at
passive-aggressive manipulation seldom work, on Usenet or
anywhere else.
Ulrika
In article <344674...@slip.net>, Lenny Bailes <len...@slip.net> writes:
>You can tell me you were just trying to make a rhetorical point
>about the English language in your last post to Swankivy, but
>I don't believe it. Check your own agenda. Would you post that
>way to someone who hadn't said they admire Vanna Bonta's writing?
Ah, and you say this isn't about your personal White Knight act? Check
your own lily white agendas, honey bunny.
Yes, Lenny, I really am that fucking pedantic, I really do, as an aside,
criticise people's misuses of the language when they happen to
fall especially inside my own bailiwick. Yes, I really am willing to
argue the untenability of your defense, just because i find it so. If you
want to make use of dejanews you can find me waxing tedious on the proper
meaning and use of the word 'logic' quite some months ago on alt.polyamory.
I don't know how many times I've corrected Gary Farber on his persistent
conflation of criteria/criterion, and I do love him dearly, honest I do,
but that particular plural/singular error drives me bats.
Correcting a painful misuse of the language was a minor aside to my main
point which was that I thought Ivy was taking Phil too literally, and I
assure you that the fact that I bother to address her at all, let alone
trouble to correct her on the assumption that she is educable, is
indicative of more slack than you give me credit for. If I didn't think
there was a molecule of hope, I wouldn't waste my breath unless it seemed
likely to eddify the listening masses. You see, I don't consider
correction an unkindness. I haven't used it in a while, but I used to run
a .sig that quoted David Brin saying "Criticism is the only known antidote
to error." Criticism and correction and antithesis are a *blessing*, a
*favor*, in my regard. I can't get better without them. So your clever
little deconstruction of my so-called agenda cracks up on the rocks of my
actual beliefs about what correcting people signifies.
The correction did not come to be an issue of any moment whatever in my
mind until you turned it into a crusade. Believe me, if I wanted to be
vicious at Ivy out of annoyance or spite, I have better means at my
disposal. Random nastiness is something I'm way too good at.
But that's probably a good thing. Even getting a false glimmering of it
allows you to really get into this role of Defender of the Downtrodden
properly. How would you do that without an evil, nasty troll to defend against?
Lenny Bailes
Ulrika wrote:
Some questions about my motivation in challenging her
authority and intent as a correctress.
I also object to the word "misuse" as applied to
your criticism of Swankivy's choice of adjectives.
While I might not have chosen the word "incongruous"
to describe a set of apparently contradictory expectations,
I believe Webster's New School & Office Dictionary
also justifies this usage. (You could look it up,
or come back at me with a bigger dictionary, whatever.
Based on your last post, I'm willing to believe that you enjoy
grammatical pedantry of this kind.)
But for me, your credibility as a correctress suffers
from your wanting to press this point and from your
interpretation of P Chee's post.
And my faith in you as a potential teacher
suffers after reading threads like this one:
> In article <19971015041...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) writes:
>
> >"Clearly," huh? Then prove it. You all want proof of things; why not
> >prove that I'm really more than just swankivy and I really do post
> >elsewhere under other names. Prove. It.
>
> Try looking up "duplicitous". You're supposed to be in college,
> after all.
In this exchange, you seem to have forgotten that you've just
been telling a human being that they don't really exist. You
bypass an emotional response that seems pretty understandable to
me by an indirect allusion to the fact that you think something
else she said may have been inconsistent. As if, (you'll forgive
me here, Swankivy, I hope), all 19-year old teenagers are always
perfectly consistent in everything they say -- and all perfect,
self-introspective masters of expository clarity.)
I'm also irritated by your patronizing scorn for me.
Enough so that this response and several others
have been colder and less friendly than I would have
liked. Perhaps I'm also guilty of withholding respect,
as Patrick suggests. I didn't
really want to pick a fight with you. You hit some of my
buttons, but not the ones you think you did. I'm not a White
Knight; I'm a philosopher _with_ portfolio (albeit a pretty
small one). I hope this is the end of this exchange. (I'll
try to make it so, from my end.)
---
Lenny Bailes len...@slip.net
Maureen Kincaid Speller
>Well depends on the type of ~20 year-olds you hung around with. When I
>went to university I joined CUSFS which being a university based society
>was populated mostly by 18-23 year-olds. On a typical Thursday night
>there would be Bernard in one corner doing a 2 hour deconstruction on
>Thomas Covenant. Colin and a bunch in that corner trying to use quantum
>superstring theory to formulate a metalevel sprodzoom game ruleset. In
>the alcove over there another noisy group are playing thermonuclear war
>but this being CUSFS it is being played as part of a round of Illuminati.
>Dave is bouncing the latest twist of his fictional Secret Conspiracy that
>Rules the World before committing it on paper for his APA. (What ever
>happened to COMBI anyway?). Meanwhile Jonathan is proving that he can
>recall from memory all 79 members of the Legion of Superheroes - including
>The Legion of Subsitute Heroes, the Academy, The Auxillaries, the, the....
>whatever. Hmm, 2/3 of the Plokta Cabal were busy being nascent then I
>seem to recall.
We've met too ... I was the Oxford fan who used to come over to
Cambridge for Jomsveizlas and various other things, a friend of
Peter-Fred Thompson
Maureen
Maureen Kincaid Speller
m...@acnestis.demon.co.uk
Ulrika O'Brien for TAFF
Ulrika
In article <626rp3$l...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
writes:
>In <19971017045...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
>Ulrika <ulr...@aol.com> wrote:
>[. . .]
>: I don't know how many times I've corrected Gary Farber on his
>: persistent conflation of criteria/criterion, and I do love him dearly,
>: honest I do, but that particular plural/singular error drives me bats.
>
>Um, without commenting upon the larger debate, I don't actually recall
>either your making that correction to *me*, nor my making that error,
>which I'm quite clear about. I absolutely grant, of course, that this may
>merely be, and likely is, a case of my poor memory, and that I'm
>capable as well of making that error carelessly, though not ignorantly.
Sorry darling, but you do it not infrequently, and it may be that
I've only corrected you a couple of times on the theory that it was
a typing tic and not ignorance. At least once Seth (I think) rushed
to your defense as it was a case where the sentence was a bit
ambiguous about number.
>And I love you, Ulrikaflight. I am awake now!
I can't tell you how Happy this makes me. *glow*
>StarsaGary
Ulriiiiika
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
In article <romm-17109...@13-143.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
(David E Romm) writes:
[To Ulrika]
>
>And you are incredibly sensitive about your own misuse of words. You
>weren't being reasonable so I just dropped the thread on 'modernism' but
>you seriously screwed that one up. (No, I don't want to get into it
>again; last time you flew off the handle when I merely asked you to define
>your terms.)
>
That particular dog won't hunt, DavE. (Although there might be a Clue in
your using 'modernism' whle the rest of the thread was talking 'Modernism.')
Just read an excellent book, _The Geography of Nowhere_, which discusses, among
other things, the horrors of Modernist architecture and why Le Corbusier's
crackpot Radiant City design has destroyed community, the economy, and the
environment. (Kunstler, I think, is the name of the author.) Angry, funny,
erudite, and generally better than what I've seen of =Flight=.
What may never have gotten cleared up is that everybody else in that thread was
talking about a particular known school of architecture called Modernism, and
you attempted to defend generically modern architecture on the basis of
functionality, with no indication that you even knew what the rest of them were
talking about. You will not be able to successfully use that as an example of
Ulrika's incredible sensitivity about her own misuse of words. [Also, the
tactic of bringing up an issue only to deny that you want to talk about it is
remarkably passive-aggressive, and contra-indicated in civilized discourse.]
If you want to nail her in an actual error, observe the use of the word
"eddification" in her address to Lenny about Swankivy. I can only assume this
means the process of turning something into a Scandinavian saga collection.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 415/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
David E Romm
In article <009BBE23...@SSRL04.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>,
win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU wrote:
> That particular dog won't hunt, DavE. (Although there might be a Clue in
> your using 'modernism' whle the rest of the thread was talking 'Modernism.')
Yup, descending to being picky about capitalization is exactly what I
thought might happen if I opened that particular can of worms. *sigh*
Never mind.
Though it does give me a chance to mention my favorite article title
encountered in a web search on the subject:
What Follows Post-Modernism?
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
"Civilization means conforming to a standard of behavior that may not seem natural to us." -- Andy Rooney, 11/17/96
T Nielsen Hayden
> >swan...@aol.com (SwankiVY1) wrote:
> >
> >> Wow, seems neat!
> Teresa (t...@panix.com) wrote:
> >No, it doesn't, and you don't think so.
> >
> >Spare me the disingenuous twaddle.
>
> It's really hard to believe you're responding like this. I guess I
should have
> expected this when expressing any amount of positive feelings towards
anything
> you've written.
You can spare me the tearful reproaches, too; that dog won't hunt.
Your performance was not a positive response. It was an exercise in
deliberately and repeatedly missing the point. And while its tone and
language might conceivably be that of =some= nineteen-year-old (though
sixteen or seventeen is more like it; that's high-school diction), it's
not the nineteen-year-old you commonly affect to be. In fact, the single
most nineteen-year-old thing about that performance is your belief that it
is convincing.
I'm offended and disappointed. This is a poor return for having tried to
address you as a thoughtful individual. Since that was not a gift you
valued, I'll give you another you're likelier to use:
Real people, faced with a set of points they don't completely grasp, tend
to understand some tolerably well, partially misconstrue others,
misinterpret further points in consequence of their misconstructions,
correct some misconstructions on the basis of the points they have
understood, and arrive at a synthesis (stated or implicit) of all these
states of understanding, confusion, and cross-reading. They do not,
generally speaking, misconstrue their points separately and equally, and
their tone is not quite so uniform throughout.
Also, a restrained use of the gosh-wow gee-whiz trope is much more
effective than laying it on thick, since a single instance of perceptible
excess will infallibly undercut the credibility of the whole.
If you'll keep these techniques in mind the next time you do this trick,
it'll do wonders for your verisimilitude.
(...)
I suppose I'll have to analyze and compare the two postings at length. But
not right now. This is quite enough for now.
::tnh::fwa
Ulrika
In article <34483bac...@news.pipeline.com>, dave...@bigfoot.com
(Dave Locke) writes:
>Ulrika phosphorized (and I quote out of context):
>
>> Random nastiness is something I'm way too good at.
>
>"What's the situation?"
>
>"Sergeant, we've got a sniper on the clock tower."
>
>"What kind of weapon does she have, a deer rifle?"
>
>"No, a megaphone."
>
><clocktower>"Check your own lily white agendas, honey
>bunny."</clocktower>
>
>"She just got another one, Sarge."
*titter* Reminds me of one of my favorite lines from -The Truth
About Cats & Dogs- : "Something the matter?" "Nothing that
a tall building and a high-powered rifle wouldn't fix."
Lenny Bailes
Ulrika wrote:
> len...@slip.net wrote:
>>While I might not have chosen the word "incongruous"
>>to describe a set of apparently contradictory expectations,
>>I believe Webster's New School & Office Dictionary
>>also justifies this usage. (You could look it up,
>>or come back at me with a bigger dictionary, whatever.
>>Based on your last post, I'm willing to believe that you enjoy
>>grammatical pedantry of this kind.)
>Yes, but I generally need something to argue against. I've
>stated my reasons and my reasoning. This is not a substantive
>address of either, but simply a bald reassertion of your disagreement.
>You may naturally draw your own conclusions, but unless there is >something new on the table, I see no point in repeating myself
>in turn.
Okay, I give up. The fact that the dictionary (in addition
to Microsoft's thesaurus) lists "inconsistent" as a synonym
for "incongruous" (with "absurd" offered as another alternate
definition) means nothing. I have not made the point that your
subjective feel for what words should mean may not _always_
correspond to some absolute lock on "correct grammatical usage."
>>But for me, your credibility as a correctress suffers
>>from your wanting to press this point and from your
>>interpretation of P Chee's post.
>I have no idea whatsoever what sort of bearing this is supposed
>to have, nor how you normally go about assessing credibility.
P. Chee has subsequently posted that he wasn't aware of
attempting to convey any subtle irony in his remarks. You
thought you saw it and sought to impress upon Swankivy the
notion that she was a deficient reader for failing to see what
you saw.
>I have a deep seated suspicion that if closely examined, you would
>find we have quite divergent views on the nature and scope of
>pedagogy and its best applications. Thus if I fail to meet your >standards, it may not have much bearing on my ability to meet my
>own. In particular, I find it specious to judge a teacher's
ability >to teach in a non-teaching context and venue.
You never claimed to be attempting to "teach" Swankivy
anything about communication after you abandoned your
lofty perch as a Replicant Examiner. (As you may be able
to guess from my choice of words, here, I'm still angry
about your attempts to banish her from the group disguised as
an objective linguistic analysis of AI output.)
I don't have time for any more of this, right now. Sorry.
We can talk about B.F. Skinner, Carl Rogers, and the need for
Authority, some other day.
Aahz
>want to make use of dejanews you can find me waxing tedious on the proper
>meaning and use of the word 'logic' quite some months ago on alt.polyamory.
And if you don't want to check DejaNews, I'll be happy to vouch that
Ulrika was interminably tedious.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
The best way to get information on Usenet is not to ask a question,
but to post the wrong information.
Ulrika
>Okay, I give up. The fact that the dictionary (in addition
>to Microsoft's thesaurus) lists "inconsistent" as a synonym
>for "incongruous" (with "absurd" offered as another alternate
>definition) means nothing.
We already went over this. Synonyms are not mutually interchangable
into all particular sentential contexts without loss of meaning. The
example I used was the intersubstitution of synonyms "hallucination"
and "mirage." Using 'mirage' instead of 'hallucination' would be
incorrect usage in many instances, as, for instance, when discussing false
perceptions triggered by use of certain drugs. The meanings of the two
words are similar, but they diverge on the specific matter of
the source of false perception, and in contexts where the source of
perception is at issue, the two words are not functional synonyms.
Likewise, 'incongruous' is a synonym of 'inconsistent', but incongruity
is a particular species of inconsistency. There are other species
of inconsistency, to which 'inconsistent' will always apply, but the
substitution of the name of one species for that of another will be
incorrect. Analogously, one might well find 'horse' and 'mount' synonymous
in many contexts, but nonetheless you cannot correctly apply the term
'mount' to a harness-racing trotter, because 'mount', unlike 'horse' is
more nearly synonymous with *saddle*horse, an animal one rides, whereas
trotters are neither saddled nor ridden, they are driven and often not even
broken to the saddle. If I observed someone at a harness-racing event
point out one of the horses as "a fine mount"
I would assume that person was a foreigner who had not grasped all
the subtleties of correct usage, because the usage would surely
be wrong.
But as I say, we've been this way before.
> I have not made the point that your
>subjective feel for what words should mean may not _always_
>correspond to some absolute lock on "correct grammatical usage."
Not in my observation, no, you haven't. But as a point, it doesn't
seem very much likely to demonstrate that my instincts as a
competent user of English are incorrect in this instance. In matters
of usage, it is rare that there are absolute authorities. Authority
is built by consensus, by practice, by historical origins, application
to etymology and linguistic scholarship and so forth, but in a norm
setting game, the understanding of competent users does matter,
and is a legitimate datum. So again, unless you have something
more to offer than a slightly more adult version of "You're not
always right, you know!" I'm still at a loss as to how this offers me
any substantive reason to reconsider.
> >>But for me, your credibility as a correctress suffers
> >>from your wanting to press this point and from your
> >>interpretation of P Chee's post.
>
>>I have no idea whatsoever what sort of bearing this is supposed
>>to have, nor how you normally go about assessing credibility.
>
> P. Chee has subsequently posted that he wasn't aware of
>attempting to convey any subtle irony in his remarks. You
>thought you saw it and sought to impress upon Swankivy the
>notion that she was a deficient reader for failing to see what
>you saw.
Ah, I see. So in general, you're saying that my ability to read
tone and subtext is no better than Ivy's based on this one
error? "He who is without sin," is that basically it?
> >I have a deep seated suspicion that if closely examined, you would
> >find we have quite divergent views on the nature and scope of
>>pedagogy and its best applications. Thus if I fail to meet your
>>standards, it may not have much bearing on my ability to meet my
> >own. In particular, I find it specious to judge a teacher's
>ability >to teach in a non-teaching context and venue.
>
>You never claimed to be attempting to "teach" Swankivy
>anything about communication after you abandoned your
>lofty perch as a Replicant Examiner.
Yes, to the best of my recollection, this is quite correct.
Perhaps I've had a brain cloud, in which case I'm sure
several people will leap in with chapter and verse, but AFAIK,
I did not make such a claim.
>(As you may be able
>to guess from my choice of words, here, I'm still angry
>about your attempts to banish her from the group disguised as
>an objective linguistic analysis of AI output.)
Honestly, you aren't doing very well at second guessing my
motives or intent, you might want to give it up as a bad job.
Moreover, I'll give you a solid gold plated clue if you've the
good sense to take it. If you're angry with me about my behavior,
you will almost always stand a much better chance of getting
a positive response from me by addressing me directly, and
specifically, about what it is that bothers you, and why. This
passive-aggressive business of harping on vague generalities
and what amounts to misdirection, and taking your own sweet
time about naming names in favor of declaiming to the open
air which you have, apparently, been engaged in for quite some
time in lieu of addressing what specifically was bugging you,
is almost preternaturally tailored to getting my back up.
You wanna take me to task for telling Ivy to her face I didn't
think she had any credibility? Fine, fair cop, that was pointless
and stupid of me, I agree. Some other specific instances of
things I have said were overboard, and unneccessarily unkind.
A lot of others were just Usenet normal, and get used to it, and
this business of psychoanalyzing my motives for offering a
correction is bullshit, ditto the long, heartfelt screeds about the
delicate senisbilities of teenagers, and a generally aggrieved
air aimed at some unnamed mean persons. If you have something
to say to me, say it, and get to the bleeding point. Hardly anything
pisses me off faster than getting the sense that someone is
beating around the bush trying to get some response out of me
by indirection, misdirection, and manipulation rather than simply
being honest about it.
I don't think you could have done worse, in terms of getting my sympathy
for your anger, than by homing in on an instance
of my treating Ivy as if she were a competent adult capable of
coping with the group, and decrying it as deceitful wickedness
and torture, and attempting to get me to fess up to something I
wasn't doing rather than having addressed legitimate grievances
as they came up. It leaves a bad taste of intellectual dishonesty
in my mouth, especially in the wake of your getting on the high
horse about What If You're Wrong About Ivy. Gee, Lenny,
What If You're Wrong About Ulrika? Or are your tendrils more
infallible that Teresa's?
>I don't have time for any more of this, right now. Sorry.
>We can talk about B.F. Skinner, Carl Rogers, and the need for
>Authority, some other day.
Well, this *less* of a passive-aggressive attempt to shut down
conversation, but not out of the woods yet.
Avram Grumer
In article <romm-17109...@13-195.dynamic.visi.com>, ro...@visi.com
(David E Romm) wrote:
>Though it does give me a chance to mention my favorite article title
>encountered in a web search on the subject:
>
>What Follows Post-Modernism?
Retro-Futurism?
--
Avram Grumer Home: av...@interport.net
http://www.crossover.com/agrumer/ Work: agr...@crossover.com
"Homer, the sea isn't wine-colored." "D'oh!"
Maureen Kincaid Speller
>m...@acnestis.demon.co.uk (Maureen Kincaid Speller) wrote:
>
>>When was Steven at Oxford, Alison? I was in OUSFG for a number of
>>years but don't recall Steven at all. I dropped out sometime in 1984,
>>I think.
>
>1977-80, only went to a meeting once, but got a friend to borrow books
>from the OUSFG library regularly. Spent his time at Oxford playing
>badminton and socialising with other mathematicians and other friends.
>
Ah ... before my time ... I tracked them down late 1979 (usual
disclaimer about not knowing anything about the 1979 Worldcon) so we
obviousls never met.
Barnaby
SwankiVY1 wrote in article <19971016235...@ladder02.news.aol.com>.
..
>[whole article about Vanna Bonta being in a bank robbery]
>
>Hm. I think it was definitely turned into an ad for Flight, but it
wasn't
> staged or anything. I doubt that newspapers would publish that a bank
robbery
> had occurred just to promote a book. I just don't think they would, but
you
> might think differently.
Isn't this form of argument--a rebuttal of something that no one ever said;
a rebuttal of a fictitious, invented charge that is, by obvious
implication, falsely attributed to the person being rebutted--something
we've all seen before? Most recently in posts by "Stanblount" and
"SAGstarpix"?
Barnaby Rapoport
Dave Locke
Barnaby phosphorized:
> SwankiVY1 wrote:
>
> >[whole article about Vanna Bonta being in a bank robbery]
> >
> >Hm. I think it was definitely turned into an ad for Flight, but it
> >wasn't staged or anything. I doubt that newspapers would
> >publish that a bank robbery had occurred just to promote a
> >book. I just don't think they would, but you might think differently.
>
> Isn't this form of argument--a rebuttal of something that no one ever said;
> a rebuttal of a fictitious, invented charge that is, by obvious
> implication, falsely attributed to the person being rebutted--something
> we've all seen before? Most recently in posts by "Stanblount" and
> "SAGstarpix"?
You want the short answer?
Ayuh.
---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin
P Nielsen Hayden
In article <34489...@news1.ibm.net>, "Barnaby" <hra...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> SwankiVY1 wrote in article <19971016235...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
>
>>
>>Hm. I think it was definitely turned into an ad for Flight, but it
>>wasn't staged or anything. I doubt that newspapers would publish that a
>>bank robbery had occurred just to promote a book. I just don't think
>>they would, but you might think differently.
>
>Isn't this form of argument--a rebuttal of something that no one ever said;
>a rebuttal of a fictitious, invented charge that is, by obvious
>implication, falsely attributed to the person being rebutted--something
>we've all seen before? Most recently in posts by "Stanblount" and
>"SAGstarpix"?
>
Why, yes, indeed it is, Barnaby. What a coincidence.
-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Morgan Gallagher
In article <62ac0b$n...@news1.panix.com>, Michael R Weholt
<awnb...@panix.com> writes
>
>In article <34485ec3...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Maureen Kincaid Speller <m...@acnestis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 18 Oct 1997 00:22:02 GMT, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R Weholt)
>>wrote:
>>>In article <3447ec5...@news.clark.net>,
>>>Lawrence Watt-Evans <lawr...@clark.net> wrote:
>>>>Oh, okay -- but I keep the same cat, right? I mean, let's not go TOO
>>>>far.
>>>
>>>the Shuffle when they first instituted it -- that they would get
>>>all the benefits and pleasures of World Travel without ever
>>>having to change laps.
>>
>>Laps ... sit on laps ...whatever would we want to do that for? That's
>>boring!
>>
>>Snufkin, Smudge and Bandit
>
>Yes, if we recall correctly, you three were in the Loyal
>Opposition arguing against laps and for bathtubs. You lost, we
>won. Eat litter.
Leave them alone unless you want to face the conbined strength of The
Norse Saga.
Loki, Balder, Freya and Rig
Kiyy Litter Rules. Using the garden is common.
Maureen Kincaid Speller
On Sat, 18 Oct 1997 15:33:28 +0100, Morgan Gallagher
<Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <62aehl$n...@news1.panix.com>, Michael R Weholt
><awnb...@panix.com> writes
>>
>>In article <TfVQ2CAn...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>,
>>As always, your arguments read like a diagnosis of Feline
>>Urologic Syndrome. You are all Inappropriate Squats.
>>
>>>Kiyy Litter Rules. Using the garden is common.
>>
>>Even better when you manage to hit the box, Sharpshooter.
>>
>>Pud & Jeff
>>
>
>
>Ever seen velocorapters hunt? Why don't you follow nice cute Loki down
>the garden, she's just a cute girl, and couldn't do you any harm?
>
>
>Freya
>
><Wondering if Snufkin, Smudge and Bandit got the where to meet
>instructions.>
>
We'll be there
S,S & B