Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Getting Laid at cons...(was: some word I can't spell)

212 views
Skip to first unread message

Eugenia

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

[Doing the swiping from another server thing...]
>In article <654e0i$6...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>>aa...@netcom.com (Aahz) wrote:
>>>In article <651qk8$d...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I've met some gentlemen at cons and I've met some real sleaze
>>>> who think part of the programming is finding a suitable partner(s)
>>>> for the night.
>>>What's wrong with belonging to both groups?
>> I'm not a participant in that portion of the programming and have
>> no desire to volunteer.
>
>So? I have no interest in playing ma-jong at cons, but I don't think
>that people who do are necessarily sleazy.

I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
"getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.

BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive sexual
atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is on
the "informal program" and most people will participate.

There IS sleaze out there wandering the halls of a con. I don't
like dealing with it. I'm tired of it. Yep, I've have some bad
experiences at cons which I don't EVER want to REPEAT, and if it
means bluntly telling someone: "No, I don't want to go somewhere
private to 'talk'." I'll do it. (Makes me crabby, just like having
to defend myself from the implied "We're not sleaze!" posts.)

I don't spend hours trying to get guys to go to the Regency Dances
or the participate in the Masquerades; why should I waste hours of
my time with some NiceGuy(tm) (akin to LONGIF?) whose main goal is
getting laid and keeping me from doing something I want to do at the
con?

So, any of you guys having the heebie-jeebies about my opinion on
this (and you should know me better from other groups on the "sleaze
issue") have anything you want to confess?

P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:

> I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.

"Private room parties" means "getting laid"?

> BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive sexual
> atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is on
> the "informal program" and most people will participate.

Those are some pretty breathtaking generalizations about "U.S. cons" and "most
people."

I begin to suspect that your heated attitude about this might be solved by
attending a better grade of con.

-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh

Morgan Gallagher

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> writes

> I don't spend hours trying to get guys to go to the Regency Dances
> or the participate in the Masquerades; why should I waste hours of
> my time with some NiceGuy(tm) (akin to LONGIF?) whose main goal is
> getting laid and keeping me from doing something I want to do at the
> con?
>
> So, any of you guys having the heebie-jeebies about my opinion on
> this (and you should know me better from other groups on the "sleaze
> issue") have anything you want to confess?


Well, I do agree the sleazebuckets are a pain in the butt. Thankfully,
the UK appears to have less of them than the USA (from your post) -
perhaps due to the differing sizes of the fandoms?

LONGIFs soul reason for existence is not to get laid, BTW, it's just one
feature - that they tend not to (get laid), rather than it's their
defining reason for existence!


--
Morgan

"Nunc demum intellego," dixit Winnie ille Pu. "Stultus et
delusus fui," dixit "et ursus sine ullo cerebro sum."

Maurena Kincaida Spella pro candido Transatlantico Fanatico Copia suffragari!

P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

In article <2LEZjGAT...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>, Morgan Gallagher
<Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> writes
>> I don't spend hours trying to get guys to go to the Regency Dances
>> or the participate in the Masquerades; why should I waste hours of
>> my time with some NiceGuy(tm) (akin to LONGIF?) whose main goal is
>> getting laid and keeping me from doing something I want to do at the
>> con?
>>
>> So, any of you guys having the heebie-jeebies about my opinion on
>> this (and you should know me better from other groups on the "sleaze
>> issue") have anything you want to confess?
>
>Well, I do agree the sleazebuckets are a pain in the butt. Thankfully,
>the UK appears to have less of them than the USA (from your post) -
>perhaps due to the differing sizes of the fandoms?

This is how folklore about the differences between US and UK fandom gets
started. See my other post to Eugenia on this subject.

But heaven forbid I should stop anyone from jumping to huge gaseous
conclusions based on tiny shreds of anecdotal data.

Jason Stokes

unread,
Nov 24, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/24/97
to

In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:

> I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.
>

> BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive sexual
> atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is on
> the "informal program" and most people will participate.

Oh, Ok. I have no real experience of the US con scene, but I'm just
imagining people complaining "they just ASSUMED we were going to have
sex at that con!" Somehow I can't picture it. I'm also thinking about
that "permissive" atmosphere -- does that mean cons say, in effect,
"you have our PERMISSION to get laid?" If so, give me a con with a
permissive atmosphere any day.

> I don't spend hours trying to get guys to go to the Regency Dances
> or the participate in the Masquerades; why should I waste hours of
> my time with some NiceGuy(tm) (akin to LONGIF?) whose main goal is
> getting laid and keeping me from doing something I want to do at the
> con?

I guess there's a point at which you've had enough, but let me point
out that if there weren't propositions nobody would ever get laid. And
one of the main points of a con is socialising; I would say it's not
the case that guys have just one thing on their mind, but rather that
they are interested in testing the waters with any number of people.

But yes, you don't have to waste your time with some NiceGuy(tm), which
is why the solution is that magic word "no."

--
Jason Stokes: j.stokes (at) bohm.anu.edu.au

I use a spam block. Replace (at) with @ to discover my email address.

Vicki Rosenzweig

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>
> [Doing the swiping from another server thing...]
>>In article <654e0i$6...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>>>aa...@netcom.com (Aahz) wrote:
>>>>In article <651qk8$d...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I've met some gentlemen at cons and I've met some real sleaze
>>>>> who think part of the programming is finding a suitable partner(s)
>>>>> for the night.
>>>>What's wrong with belonging to both groups?
>>> I'm not a participant in that portion of the programming and have
>>> no desire to volunteer.
>>
>>So? I have no interest in playing ma-jong at cons, but I don't think
>>that people who do are necessarily sleazy.
>
> I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.

I've been to a few private room parties in my years in fandom. They
weren't euphemisms for sex. They were people throwing parties for
some of their friends at a con. At one end of the spectrum are the
birthday parties Mark Kennedy used to throw at Lunacon, to which
he would invite dozens of people, and make no particular effort to
keep anyone out, but which weren't in any of the con party lists.
Somewhere in the middle is the children's story reading my partner
and I hosted at a Boskone--we told people we knew who we thought
would be interested, and invited them to bring anyone else they
thought appropriate. We got about a dozen people, and spent an
hour or an hour and a half eating cookies and reading to each other.
The far end would be impromptu gatherings of three or four or six
people who decided that the public convention spaces were too
noisy to talk, or too crowded for us to be able to sit down, and
repaired to someone's room for group conversation, perhaps with
someone making occasional expeditions in search of refreshment.
I suppose someone might refer to getting laid as a "private room
party"--the supply of euphemisms is endless--but it's not what I
think of if I hear that term.

>
> BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive sexual
> atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is on
> the "informal program" and most people will participate.
>

> There IS sleaze out there wandering the halls of a con. I don't
> like dealing with it. I'm tired of it. Yep, I've have some bad
> experiences at cons which I don't EVER want to REPEAT, and if it
> means bluntly telling someone: "No, I don't want to go somewhere
> private to 'talk'." I'll do it. (Makes me crabby, just like having
> to defend myself from the implied "We're not sleaze!" posts.)
>

Nothing wrong with saying "No, I don't want to go somewhere private
to 'talk'" if you don't--it lets you find someone who is actually interested
in talking, and lets the person with something else on their agenda
know that they're wasting their time.

<rest snipped>


Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning.
--Susanna Sturgis

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Vicki Rosenzweig phosphorized:

> Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>>
> > I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> > "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> > etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.
>
> I've been to a few private room parties in my years in fandom. They
> weren't euphemisms for sex. They were people throwing parties for
> some of their friends at a con. At one end of the spectrum are the
> birthday parties Mark Kennedy used to throw at Lunacon, to which
> he would invite dozens of people, and make no particular effort to
> keep anyone out, but which weren't in any of the con party lists.
> Somewhere in the middle is the children's story reading my partner
> and I hosted at a Boskone--we told people we knew who we thought
> would be interested, and invited them to bring anyone else they
> thought appropriate. We got about a dozen people, and spent an
> hour or an hour and a half eating cookies and reading to each other.
> The far end would be impromptu gatherings of three or four or six
> people who decided that the public convention spaces were too
> noisy to talk, or too crowded for us to be able to sit down, and
> repaired to someone's room for group conversation, perhaps with
> someone making occasional expeditions in search of refreshment.
> I suppose someone might refer to getting laid as a "private room
> party"--the supply of euphemisms is endless--but it's not what I
> think of if I hear that term.

Me, neither. Beyond that I think it was just a poor choice of words.
Hard to believe that anyone, Eugenia included, would equate "private
room party" as a common euphemism for bonking.

Beyond the ones you note (the latter being the most common type I've
encountered) I've also seen private room parties for a specific group
of people, like f'rinstance the members and waitlisters of an apa.

> > There IS sleaze out there wandering the halls of a con. I don't
> > like dealing with it. I'm tired of it. Yep, I've have some bad
> > experiences at cons which I don't EVER want to REPEAT, and if it
> > means bluntly telling someone: "No, I don't want to go somewhere
> > private to 'talk'." I'll do it. (Makes me crabby, just like having
> > to defend myself from the implied "We're not sleaze!" posts.)
> >
> Nothing wrong with saying "No, I don't want to go somewhere private
> to 'talk'" if you don't--it lets you find someone who is actually interested
> in talking, and lets the person with something else on their agenda
> know that they're wasting their time.

That's good enough advice. And there's nothing which says "going
somewhere private to talk" is *necessarily* a euphemism, either. You
can tell the difference merely by the presentation. I've often gone
off to a hotel room to actually talk with a woman, be comfortable, and
be away from the crowd noise and the interruptions.

---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin

Ray Radlein

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Eugenia wrote:
>
> I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.

But what about people who want to attend "bid parties" (aka "orgies,"
"gang bangs," "daisy chains," etc., etc.)?


- Ray R.


--
*********************************************************************
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Uh, I think so, Brain, but peanut butter and hecto jelly on toast?
I mean, wouldn't it be flammable?"

Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
*********************************************************************


Ray Radlein

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Rogers wrote:
>
> X-No-Archive: Yes

Ha ha! Your x-no-archive cannot save you now!

> Morgan Gallagher <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Well, I do agree the sleazebuckets are a pain in the butt.
> >Thankfully, the UK appears to have less of them than the USA (from
> >your post) - perhaps due to the differing sizes of the fandoms?
>

> Probably. As an American, I would be *much* more likely to hit on
> female conventiongoers if my fandom was bigger.

But can you do push-ups with it?

Morgan Gallagher

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

In article <34855655....@news.se.mediaone.net>, Rogers
<nos...@prefect.com> writes
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>On Mon, 24 Nov 1997 22:13:39 +0000, Morgan Gallagher

><Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Well, I do agree the sleazebuckets are a pain in the butt. Thankfully,
>>the UK appears to have less of them than the USA (from your post) -
>>perhaps due to the differing sizes of the fandoms?
>
>Probably. As an American, I would be *much* more likely to hit on
>female conventiongoers if my fandom was bigger.
>
>Rogers
>


'Tis not the size of your fandom, but the skill factor of your fandom.

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

In <347A7E...@learnlink.emory.edu> Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:

: Eugenia wrote:
: >
: > I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
: > "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
: > etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.

: But what about people who want to attend "bid parties" (aka "orgies,"
: "gang bangs," "daisy chains," etc., etc.)?

They're nothing like the people who want to attend "pro parties" (aka
"alt.bondage parties," "soc.bdsm parties," "asb parties," "waterpipe
parties").
--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC

Eugenia

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:

[...]

>I begin to suspect that your heated attitude about this might be solved by
>attending a better grade of con.

Oh, maybe you guys are right...

Maybe it's just a viewpoint thing and I just attract the
"sleaze" at a con...

A place far from ones regular social circle, badges with the
identity of ones choice, a membership that has been in the past
predominantly male, people openly walking around chatting about
bondage and S&M, alcohol is being freely distributed, internet
threads about "who are those people in leather and why are cons
attracting these 'fringe fans'?", etc.

I'm not one of those rabid "men are out to get one thing" women,
but I'm not stupid.

If it makes you feel any better, I used to think SF cons were one
of the few places I could go alone WITHOUT worrying about the
"sleaze". A few unpleasant experiences and THAT thinking went out
the window.

I have hear strange tales of the long-time fen not bothering to
attend panels or masquerades or other events in preference to
hanging out with each other in things called "publisher parties"
and SMOF-ing, while silly me stills attends the con with the
common folks.

Feel free to show me the "better grade" of fandom at the next
Worldcon.


Steve

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Eugenia wrote:

> Maybe it's just a viewpoint thing and I just attract the
> "sleaze" at a con...

Or seek it out?

> A place far from ones regular social circle, badges with the
> identity of ones choice, a membership that has been in the past
> predominantly male, people openly walking around chatting about
> bondage and S&M, alcohol is being freely distributed, internet
> threads about "who are those people in leather and why are cons
> attracting these 'fringe fans'?", etc.

What a hodge-podge. Are you describing a con? Last one I
went to had rather few of these things available without
some degree of active search.

> If it makes you feel any better, I used to think SF cons were one
> of the few places I could go alone WITHOUT worrying about the
> "sleaze". A few unpleasant experiences and THAT thinking went out
> the window.

Sorry to hear it, but I do think that's an uncommon scenario.

> Feel free to show me the "better grade" of fandom at the next
> Worldcon.

You have to be willing to see it, for anyone to able to show
it to you. Last Worldcon I attended I met a very attractive
and charming young woman who spent about half the week in my
company, partly because none of her friends had joined and
she was a bit shy about making new ones. We ended up next to
each other in an autograph session waiting line, and got to
know each other. She was 17 and I was 36. Despite her high
intelligence, she seemed to me to be not-yet-fully-mature.
Consequently, I became slightly paternal (apologies to those
offended by this) and asked her a few questions designed to
determine if she would be able, on her own, to avoid being
victimized by whatever sleaze was among the membership. For
the most part, I got the impression she could take care of
herself. I was, however, slighly concerned that she might
be better off not going alone to any parties late at night,
and I told her this. She took it gracefully and that was all
we said to each other about it. For the next few days, I met
her in the halls or at panels, almost always at random. She
never reported having anything but a wonderful time.

One day before the close, we were at a panel and she saw
someone nearby that she recognized. She had a slightly
panicky reaction and quickly explained that she had met this
man at a late night party she had attended alone. When she
left, he offered to escort her to the bus stop (she was a
local, and lived a bus ride away). While waiting, he had
become physically aggressive in some way that she was able
to resist, but that had left her very upset.

I'm no crisis counselor, but I do care about people's
problems, so I asked her a few questions and tried to be
sure she was feeling safe at that moment and that she was
aware of her options regarding complaints and how to avoid
dealing with him again. Not sure of my success, I sought
out another, slightly older, woman I'd met and had the two
of them spend a few minutes alone, chatting (Nicole, if you
read this: Thanks, you're a gem). She didn't seem to either
of us to be unreasonably upset, and did want to see the end
of the con, so the three of us strolled around together from
then on.

Yes, she did encounter a sleazy guy, late at night, after a
party, alone at the bus stop. It happens. She also had
already made a friend who could help a bit, who, in turn,
had made another friend willing to devote time to the
welfare of a stranger.

Now you tell me which side better describes a Worldcon?

(BTW, if the man in question reads this: The woman you
picked on is a close relative of a _very_ high-ranking
member of the relevant nation's government. Buddy, you
have no idea how lucky you are that she didn't want to
make an issue out of it.)

Kevin J. Maroney

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:

>I begin to suspect that your heated attitude about this might be solved by
>attending a better grade of con.

Or at least a different grade.

Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html


Chris Malme

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to rec.arts.sf.fandom

In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:

> I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.

Damn. I should have known I was going to the wrong room parties!

Chris

David G. Bell

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

In article <347A7E...@learnlink.emory.edu>
rad...@ibm.net "Ray Radlein" writes:

> Eugenia wrote:
> >
> > I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> > "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> > etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.
>

> But what about people who want to attend "bid parties" (aka "orgies,"
> "gang bangs," "daisy chains," etc., etc.)?

So that's why they were making so much noise....

--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..


Steven McDonald

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Eugenia wrote
>
> Maybe it's just a viewpoint thing and I just attract the
> "sleaze" at a con...

That's certainly possible. I know more than a few folks whose antennae are
up around attractive persons, opposite sex or otherwise.


>
> A place far from ones regular social circle, badges with the
> identity of ones choice, a membership that has been in the past
> predominantly male

<Sweeney Todd snips away>

> common folks.


>
> Feel free to show me the "better grade" of fandom at the next
> Worldcon.

Fandom, that cheerfully alternate world, is no better, no worse than the,
errrrrr, real world. As far as it goes, I don't much bother with cons
anymore, unless I'm part of the program; with this last TusCon, I turned up
in time for my first panel, checked out the art show, shopped in the
dealer's room, said hi to a few folks, did my last panel, and went home.
Didn't even stop for the wine and cheese party. As far as it goes, cons are
relatively boring, from my point of view.

<shrug> I've never had an impression at any of the cons I've been at that
the sleaze factor is unusually high or that a disproportionate number of
people are looking for nothing more than to get laid. Nor, even, that the
B&D S&M leather drag Dorsai Klingon weirdnet folks have increased in number
(only, alas, in their desperate tackiness.)

Steve
--
Steven McDonald
Guitarist, Raconteur, Rogue
The Jazz, Blues, Folk & World Music Forum
on the Microsoft Network
http://forums.msn.com/jazz
Are you listening to AirStorm?
Have you read EVENT HORIZON?

Laurie D. T. Mann

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Steve wrote:
> Last Worldcon I attended I met a very attractive
> and charming young woman who spent about half the week in my
> company...She was 17 and I was 36. Despite her high

> intelligence, she seemed to me to be not-yet-fully-mature.
> Consequently, I became slightly paternal...

> For the next few days, I met
> her in the halls or at panels, almost always at random. She
> never reported having anything but a wonderful time.

My daughter, 16 last August, attended her first Worldcon in 5 years
this year. While the vast majority of fen
are fine folks, I know there are a few sleezes out there who
prey on teenagers. She hung out in the gaming room most of the
weekend, frequently the only teenaged female there, and sometimes
the only female, period. She said she had a wonderful time, and
had no problems at all.

Flashback over 20 years to my early days in fandom. When I was
18, I was thinner than I am now, but felt terribly fat. I had
a lot of male attention in fandom, which I really enjoyed.
HOWEVER, maybe it's because fannish men are basically smarter
or just more considerate but I never ever had to fight
my way out of any "potentially dangerous" situation.
Fannish women are generally assertive enough to say "No" and
fannish men are generally smart enough to understand what that
means without needing additional translation. Any guy who needs
the "additional translation" has flunked the fannish intelligence
test.

--
Laurie D. T. Mann *** lm...@ISPcity-net.com
(Delete all caps to spam-bust the E-mail address.)
Dead People Server: http://www.city-net.com/~lmann/dps

Lawrence Person

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

In article <65ej54$s...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) wrote:

>
> : But what about people who want to attend "bid parties" (aka "orgies,"


> : "gang bangs," "daisy chains," etc., etc.)?
>

> They're nothing like the people who want to attend "pro parties" (aka
> "alt.bondage parties," "soc.bdsm parties," "asb parties," "waterpipe
> parties").

When I was evry young, I thought that joining SFWA would be a surefire
groupie magnet.

Sadly, this is not the case . . .

--
- Lawrence Person
lawr...@bga.com

New Book Catalog Available! E-mail for a hard or soft copy.
Visit the Nova Express Web Site at:
http://www.delphi.com/sflit/novaexpress/

Janice Gelb

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

In article 2...@ux2.isu.edu, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> writes:
>
> BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive sexual
> atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is on
> the "informal program" and most people will participate.
>

What cons are you referring to here? Last cons I saw this happening
at were about 15 years ago...

> There IS sleaze out there wandering the halls of a con. I don't
> like dealing with it. I'm tired of it. Yep, I've have some bad
> experiences at cons which I don't EVER want to REPEAT, and if it
> means bluntly telling someone: "No, I don't want to go somewhere
> private to 'talk'." I'll do it. (Makes me crabby, just like having
> to defend myself from the implied "We're not sleaze!" posts.)
>

> I don't spend hours trying to get guys to go to the Regency Dances
> or the participate in the Masquerades; why should I waste hours of
> my time with some NiceGuy(tm) (akin to LONGIF?) whose main goal is
> getting laid and keeping me from doing something I want to do at the
> con?
>

I don't mean to belittle your experiences or anything, but no guy
can waste hours of your time unless you let him. If you have something
else you want to do, why don't you just go do it if you're not
interested in the guy?


********************************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
janic...@eng.sun.com | message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html

"The legal system prevents us from killing each other. The etiquette
system prevents us from driving each other crazy."
-- Miss Manners

********************************************************************************

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

In <65f69g$9...@reader1.news> Steven McDonald <s...@dm.net> wrote:
[. . .]
: That's certainly possible. I know more than a few folks whose antennae are

: up around attractive persons, opposite sex or otherwise.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for short).

[. . .]

: Fandom, that cheerfully alternate world, is no better, no worse than the,


: errrrrr, real world. As far as it goes, I don't much bother with cons
: anymore, unless I'm part of the program; with this last TusCon, I turned up
: in time for my first panel, checked out the art show, shopped in the
: dealer's room, said hi to a few folks, did my last panel, and went home.
: Didn't even stop for the wine and cheese party. As far as it goes, cons are
: relatively boring, from my point of view.

Cons are remarkably different from each other, from my point of view,
these days, by regional differences and by categorical differences (though
this is not an imperative ;-)).

: <shrug> I've never had an impression at any of the cons I've been at that


: the sleaze factor is unusually high

I have. And at others, I've seen almost none. Without pausing to define
the term "sleaze," since that's unnecessary to this point, I do note that
I think it unwise, given today's hundreds of cons, and the huge variances
of what people know as "fandom," to generalize upon this (or many other)
point about "sf cons."

What *does* a Creationcon, and World Fantasy Con, say, have in common,
other than in the most superficial fashion? Without belaboring the point
of how different each WFC can be from any other (I can't speak to how
widely Creation "cons" differ).

[. . . .]

Steven McDonald

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Lawrence Person wrote

>
>When I was evry young, I thought that joining SFWA would be a surefire
>groupie magnet.
>
>Sadly, this is not the case . . .

To my consternation, I've discovered that wearing a Great Kilt and being in
a Celtic band does the trick very well.... Mind you, the cachet of being A
Writer also seems effective in places. Ended up getting me married off, in
fact.

Personally, I expect the Babe Magnet effect will wear off around the time
Sylvia starts with the Smallpipes. Just something about the way a woman
handles a chanter....

Steven McDonald

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Gary Farber wrote

>"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for short).
>

Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies, and used most of that
up in Los Angeles -- a city from which I'm gladly alienated. Besides, with
some of these folks, one should not be narrowmindedly species-specific, I'm
sure; my mistake ... oops.

>
>Cons are remarkably different from each other, from my point of view,
>these days, by regional differences and by categorical differences (though
>this is not an imperative ;-)).
>

Well, that was an expression of *my* point of view. Thanks for sharing
yours. Yes, there are differences between cons, regional and otherwise, not
to mention the size difference between a Worldcon (monumentally irritating)
and a relaxacon (mildly boring and slightly annoying.) Your POV doesn't
matter as much to me as mine does, though, and I imagine (and hope) the
opposite is true for you. (You know how it is. One World, five billion
points of view -- it's amazing anything gets agreed on.)

I've been to enough cons over the years that I know they are not my favorite
experience, despite some enjoyable times. I'm not going to claim I have
more of a life than anyone else, either ... I'm a professional mushroom,
despite the band.

>: <shrug> I've never had an impression at any of the cons I've been at
that
>: the sleaze factor is unusually high
>
>I have. And at others, I've seen almost none. Without pausing to define
>the term "sleaze," since that's unnecessary to this point, I do note that
>I think it unwise, given today's hundreds of cons, and the huge variances
>of what people know as "fandom," to generalize upon this (or many other)
>point about "sf cons."
>

I harped upon my experiences, not a generalization. Perhaps I need to
adjust my sleaze ratings -- after a decade in Los Angeles, I suppose it
takes a great deal to twitch the needle on my sleazemeter. This is still
from my POV, however, not from an omniscient standpoint -- IMNSFHO, in other
words.

>What *does* a Creationcon, and World Fantasy Con, say, have in common,
>other than in the most superficial fashion? Without belaboring the point
>of how different each WFC can be from any other (I can't speak to how
>widely Creation "cons" differ).
>

What do CretinCons have to do with the world in general? I know cons vary
in every way imaginable, from type to the amount of C4 needed to blow up the
entire premises (not that I advise this last, mind you.) Once again ... my
POV. YMMV.

Cally Soukup

unread,
Nov 25, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/25/97
to

Laurie D. T. Mann <lm...@city-net.com> wrote:

> Flashback over 20 years to my early days in fandom. When I was
> 18, I was thinner than I am now, but felt terribly fat. I had
> a lot of male attention in fandom, which I really enjoyed.
> HOWEVER, maybe it's because fannish men are basically smarter
> or just more considerate but I never ever had to fight
> my way out of any "potentially dangerous" situation.
> Fannish women are generally assertive enough to say "No" and
> fannish men are generally smart enough to understand what that
> means without needing additional translation. Any guy who needs
> the "additional translation" has flunked the fannish intelligence
> test.


For what it's worth, in my approximately 20 years in fandom, though
I've had a lot of offers, I've never had a guy (or a gal, for that
matter) fail to take "no thanks" for an answer, even in what could
have been considered a "compromising situation" like getting a
backrub, or, believe it or not, sharing a bed or a floor. Yes, I've
slept with quite a few people at conventions -- but I've never had
sex (by even the most inclusive definition of the term) at a
convention with anyone other than my husband. And I've been kissed
against my will at a convention exactly once.

--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup ma...@mcs.com

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Janice Gelb phosphorized:

> In article 2...@ux2.isu.edu, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> writes:
> >
> > BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive sexual
> > atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is on
> > the "informal program" and most people will participate.
> >
>
> What cons are you referring to here? Last cons I saw this happening
> at were about 15 years ago...

At least. On 11/16 I asked "Is fandom still in the '60s and '70s in
that regard? Or less so?" Less so is what I see.


> > There IS sleaze out there wandering the halls of a con. I don't
> > like dealing with it. I'm tired of it. Yep, I've have some bad
> > experiences at cons which I don't EVER want to REPEAT, and if it
> > means bluntly telling someone: "No, I don't want to go somewhere
> > private to 'talk'." I'll do it. (Makes me crabby, just like having
> > to defend myself from the implied "We're not sleaze!" posts.)
> >
> > I don't spend hours trying to get guys to go to the Regency Dances
> > or the participate in the Masquerades; why should I waste hours of
> > my time with some NiceGuy(tm) (akin to LONGIF?) whose main goal is
> > getting laid and keeping me from doing something I want to do at the
> > con?
>
> I don't mean to belittle your experiences or anything, but no guy
> can waste hours of your time unless you let him. If you have something
> else you want to do, why don't you just go do it if you're not
> interested in the guy?

Nancy Reagan said: "Just say no." George Carlin said: "Don't be
rude; just say no thank you."

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In <65g9e2$944$1...@wheel.two14.lan> Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> wrote:
[. . .]

: For what it's worth, in my approximately 20 years in fandom, though


: I've had a lot of offers, I've never had a guy (or a gal, for that
: matter) fail to take "no thanks" for an answer, even in what could
: have been considered a "compromising situation" like getting a
: backrub, or, believe it or not, sharing a bed or a floor. Yes, I've
: slept with quite a few people at conventions -- but I've never had
: sex (by even the most inclusive definition of the term) at a
: convention with anyone other than my husband. And I've been kissed
: against my will at a convention exactly once.

I greatly fear that Eugenia will note a High Sleaze Factor to this post,
but I *so* rarely get to use this line: Y'know, I slept with your sister
at a con, and we had No Sex At All.

;-) ;-) ;-) ;-)

Gary "it was in the Eighties, see, so it was no longer allowed" Farber

Aahz

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:
>
> I don't think people who want to have "private room parties" (aka
> "getting laid", "rogering", "shagging", "bonking", "having sex",
> etc, etc, etc.) are necessarily sleazy.
>
> BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive sexual
> atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is on
> the "informal program" and most people will participate.

Primary clause, check. Subordinate clause, no check. If it's assumed
that I'm going to participate, I'd love to know where to sign up. I'm
not looking for any shoulders, but even with multiple partners, I could
chop off all my fingers and toes and still be able to count the number
of times I've gotten laid at a con in the last couple of years.

> I don't spend hours trying to get guys to go to the Regency Dances
> or the participate in the Masquerades; why should I waste hours of
> my time with some NiceGuy(tm) (akin to LONGIF?) whose main goal is
> getting laid and keeping me from doing something I want to do at the
> con?

No reason why you should. Honestly, though, this discussion reminds me
the threads about wanna-fucks from netnews. Some women seem to have a
problem with it, some don't; while there are contributing factors, I've
yet to see any strong correlation with any of them. A great difficulty
in assessing the statistics is that different people have different
reactions -- which in turn leads to different situational dynamics.

Quite honestly, despite knowing you for several years, it's not clear to
me whether you're overreacting, somehow behaving in a manner which those
men think is a come-on, or just having bad luck.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het

"I won't accept a model of the universe in which free will, omniscient
gods, and atheism are simultaneously true." -- M

Ray Radlein

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Steve wrote:
>
> (BTW, if the man in question reads this: The woman you picked on is
> a close relative of a _very_ high-ranking member of the relevant
> nation's government. Buddy, you have no idea how lucky you are that
> she didn't want to make an issue out of it.)

Wow! Chelsea really *is* into SF!

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Steven McDonald phosphorized:

> Gary Farber wrote
>
> >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for short).
> >
> Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies

That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too. Besides, I kept
getting it mixed up with the Niven/Pournelle canon, and found that
disconcerting.

Jo Walton

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <65gcbo$m...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com "Gary Farber" writes:

[to Cally]

> I greatly fear that Eugenia will note a High Sleaze Factor to this post,
> but I *so* rarely get to use this line: Y'know, I slept with your sister
> at a con, and we had No Sex At All.

You know, that's the second time Gary's admitted to sleeping with someone,
and the other time it was also a Hugo winner.

I think he has a Thing about them.

YKIOK. :]

--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.


P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <lawrence-251...@apm5-161.realtime.net>,
lawr...@bga.com (Lawrence Person) wrote:

>When I was evry young, I thought that joining SFWA would be a surefire
>groupie magnet.

Hadn't met many SFWA members, had you?

-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh

Steve

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Jo Walton wrote:

> You know, that's the second time Gary's admitted to sleeping with someone,
> and the other time it was also a Hugo winner.

> I think he has a Thing about them.

Or they about him, eh?

Steve

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Dave Locke wrote:
> Steven McDonald phosphorized:
> > Gary Farber wrote

> > >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for short).

> > Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies

> That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too.

Mine as well. Gary, how dare you exclude those of us who might
want the last word in the plural?

Ulrika

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <65crpp$2...@ux2.isu.edu>, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> writes:

> BUT I'm also aware that U.S. SF cons have a VERY permissive >sexual
atmosphere where it tends to be assumed that this activity is >on the
"informal program" and most people will participate.

Interestingly, the most gracelessly insistent, will-not-take-no-for-
an-answer chatting up I've ever been subjected to was by an
Englishman, in the SFWA suite party at the '86 Worldcon. He
persisted in thinking for quite some time that I didn't understand him,
and that once I did, I would say, 'yes.' Then, once we had it straight
that I understood him and was trying to decline gracefully and kindly,
he had to know *why* I was declining, and then try to change my mind.
I don't think I was quite forced to the 'Will you please just bugger off?"
stage, but it was a near thing. I imagine he may have been operating under the
same misapprehension about U.S. cons that you are, and was determined to find a
way to get in on all that permissive sexual atmosphere.

In general, I haven't seen too many approaches over the years that
I thought were sleazy at all. Most of them are pretty darned inoffensive and
easy to dispense with, in my experience. But perhaps this is
partly because when an unwashed cretin walks up to me and says,
"Gee, you look strong," I say, "That's nice, " and keep walking. You
don't actually owe any of your time to total strangers, and it's perfectly
possible to politely tell them so. I find I have a much harder time
coping with bores whom I already know, and who aren't especially
trying to get me in the sack but just want to regale me with whatever
endless tale of pointless episodes strung together has most
recently impressed itself on their sensoria. The very best proposition
I ever turned down was extended on the heels of the proposer having
rescued me, very gracefully, from just such a bore.

I dunno, maybe Britons looking to get laid are just more obnoxiously
persistent than Americans, but maybe you just need to practice
cutting to the chase and getting on with your convention. Polite
but firm will get you a long way with most people, blunt and explicit
will take care of most of the rest, and calling ops or simply removing
yourself should take care of anyone who isn't an actual psycopath.

Ulrika O'Brien, Philosopher Without Portfolio

***ulr...@aol.com***

Morgan Gallagher

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <880537...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, Jo Walton
<J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> writes

>In article <65gcbo$m...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com "Gary Farber" writes:
>
>[to Cally]
>> I greatly fear that Eugenia will note a High Sleaze Factor to this post,
>> but I *so* rarely get to use this line: Y'know, I slept with your sister
>> at a con, and we had No Sex At All.
>
>You know, that's the second time Gary's admitted to sleeping with someone,
>and the other time it was also a Hugo winner.
>
>I think he has a Thing about them.
>
>YKIOK. :]


Another reason to try and win an Hugo!

Steven McDonald

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Morgan Gallagher wrote

>>You know, that's the second time Gary's admitted to sleeping with someone,
>>and the other time it was also a Hugo winner.
>>
>>I think he has a Thing about them.
>>
>

>Another reason to try and win an Hugo!
>
>

Or to absolutely attempt not to. Then again, I shall be brave and forge
ahead in my ambitions, even if I then have to sleep with Gary Farber without
having sex with him. Such are the sacrifices. I just hope he doesn't mind
me snoring (it'll only get worse by the time I win one, you know.)

Steven McDonald

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Ulrika wrote

>Interestingly, the most gracelessly insistent, will-not-take-no-for-
>an-answer chatting up I've ever been subjected to was by an
>Englishman, in the SFWA suite party at the '86 Worldcon.

<snip>


>same misapprehension about U.S. cons that you are, and was determined to
find a
>way to get in on all that permissive sexual atmosphere.

Then again, he may just have been a complete fugghead -- the English breed
'em just as well as anyone else, though perhaps not as well as the French.
When it comes to sex, the British can be very peculiar (as can the Irish;
the Scots see it as a good time in general -- akin the tossing telephone
poles around and eating haggis; the Welsh know nothing of sex, they merely
reproduce by mitosis....)

>I dunno, maybe Britons looking to get laid are just more obnoxiously
>persistent than Americans, but maybe you just need to practice

Depends on the Briton. No one size fits all there, either.

>cutting to the chase and getting on with your convention. Polite
>but firm will get you a long way with most people, blunt and explicit
>will take care of most of the rest, and calling ops or simply removing
>yourself should take care of anyone who isn't an actual psycopath.

There you go. Alas, I've known a few of the actual psychopath types in my
time, and that list includes convention-goers (it's amazing what sort of
lengths this type will go to, as well.)

If all else fails, "Fuck off!" often works well.

Avedon Carol

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

On 25 Nov 1997 16:01:53 GMT, Eugenia <HORN...@isu.edu> wrote:

>p...@panix.com (P Nielsen Hayden) wrote:

>>I begin to suspect that your heated attitude about this might be solved by
>>attending a better grade of con.
>

> Oh, maybe you guys are right...


>
> Maybe it's just a viewpoint thing and I just attract the
> "sleaze" at a con...
>

> A place far from ones regular social circle, badges with the
> identity of ones choice, a membership that has been in the past

> predominantly male, people openly walking around chatting about

> bondage and S&M, alcohol is being freely distributed, internet

> threads about "who are those people in leather and why are cons
> attracting these 'fringe fans'?", etc.
>

> I'm not one of those rabid "men are out to get one thing" women,
> but I'm not stupid.

Well, I _am_ stupid, so could you please explain what you're talking
about here?


Avedon
ave...@cix.co.uk

Note: The reply field lies.

Avedon Carol

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

On 25 Nov 1997 22:43:46 -0600, Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> wrote:

>Laurie D. T. Mann <lm...@city-net.com> wrote:
>
>> Flashback over 20 years to my early days in fandom. When I was
>> 18, I was thinner than I am now, but felt terribly fat. I had
>> a lot of male attention in fandom, which I really enjoyed.
>> HOWEVER, maybe it's because fannish men are basically smarter
>> or just more considerate but I never ever had to fight
>> my way out of any "potentially dangerous" situation.
>> Fannish women are generally assertive enough to say "No" and
>> fannish men are generally smart enough to understand what that
>> means without needing additional translation. Any guy who needs
>> the "additional translation" has flunked the fannish intelligence
>> test.
>
>

>For what it's worth, in my approximately 20 years in fandom, though
>I've had a lot of offers, I've never had a guy (or a gal, for that
>matter) fail to take "no thanks" for an answer, even in what could
>have been considered a "compromising situation" like getting a
>backrub, or, believe it or not, sharing a bed or a floor. Yes, I've
>slept with quite a few people at conventions -- but I've never had
>sex (by even the most inclusive definition of the term) at a
>convention with anyone other than my husband. And I've been kissed
>against my will at a convention exactly once.

Well, I was grabbed by Isaac Asimov, once; does that count as
"sleaze"?

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In <65i8n2$g...@reader1.news> Steven McDonald <s...@dm.net> wrote:
[. . .]
: Or to absolutely attempt not to. Then again, I shall be brave and forge

: ahead in my ambitions, even if I then have to sleep with Gary Farber without
: having sex with him. Such are the sacrifices. I just hope he doesn't mind
: me snoring (it'll only get worse by the time I win one, you know.)

I doubt your snoring matches Chip Delany's. Alas, but I've been
developing my own snoring skills in recent years. Clearly Our Field needs
a Snore-Off Competition, and, of course, an award for Best Snoring (quite
different from the competition for Book That Causes Best Snoring).

Gary "love means never snarling 'you're snoring!'" Farber

Bernadette Bosky

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In article <65i9od$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

Gary Farber <gfa...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <65i8n2$g...@reader1.news> Steven McDonald <s...@dm.net> wrote:
>[. . .]
>: Or to absolutely attempt not to. Then again, I shall be brave and forge
>: ahead in my ambitions, even if I then have to sleep with Gary Farber without
>: having sex with him. Such are the sacrifices. I just hope he doesn't mind
>: me snoring (it'll only get worse by the time I win one, you know.)
>
>I doubt your snoring matches Chip Delany's. Alas, but I've been
>developing my own snoring skills in recent years. Clearly Our Field needs
>a Snore-Off Competition, and, of course, an award for Best Snoring (quite
>different from the competition for Book That Causes Best Snoring).
>
>Gary "love means never snarling 'you're snoring!'" Farber
>--
B.E. (Before Earplugs), Arthur was very good about me waking him
up, if his snoring was too bad, so that he could turn over (possibly
ending the snoring & certainly pointing it away from me). For a while, I
would not just tell him he was snoring, but make a game of finding le mot
just: "You are snoring like a rock-drill under a pool of mucous; could yu
please turn over?" or "You sound like a bee caught in a roll of toiler
paper," or "some viscous substance being pushed up and down a narrow
drain." It was not meant badly, and I think Arthur often got a chuckle
out of it, too. But earplugs have been better.

Bernadette Bosky

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In <347C35...@erols.com> Steve <just...@erols.com> wrote:

Obviously, if y'all don't like the term, y'all won't use it, but while
you're obviously trying to be funny, Steve, obviously a member of the
appropriate sex for a specific person to have sex with will be just that,
a member of the appropriate sex, which is inclusive of any sexual
definition one cares to use. So, no offense, but the joke doesn't work
here. Any implication that the usage is singular is one you are
inserting, not one that is present.

I guess probably none of you will give a tinker's damn, but you all appear
to be completely ignorant of the fact that more newsgroups than I can list
off the top of my head have been using "MOTSS" as part of their name for
a longer number of years than rec.arts.sf.fandom has existed, including
soc.motss, alt.motss, alt.personals.motss, pnw.motss, sdnet.motss, etc.,
etc., etc.

It's a terribly useful exercise to at least once skim the list of netnews
newsgroups, and it shouldn't take more than about ten minutes or so to do
so once.

The terms "MOTAS," "MOTOS," and "MOTSS" have been in use on various
newsgroups, including loads besides those with "motss" in their
hierarchical name, including such as alt.polyamory, soc.bi, soc.men,
soc.women, alt.feminism, and on and on and on, for years.

If y'all feel like it, any of you are free to go tell these hundreds of
thousands of people that they've been using "PC buzzies" for years and
should find more Politically Correct terminology to meet with your
approval, rather than terms they've found most useful. Of course, to be
consistent, we should probably stop using such more recently invented
"artificial" words, which are used by far fewer people, as "rass-eff" or
such artificial buzzie words as "fan" or "fanzine" or "filk" or "gafia,"
"Norman Spinrad," or. . . .

And we probably don't want to get them *too* pissed off at us, since they
outnumber regular posters to this newsgroup by about 500 to one, and
could easily beat the crap out of us.

Oh, and don't forget to tell net.sexuality.motss to change their name.

Me, I find "motos," "motss," and "motas" to be the easiest, clearest,
simplest, usage, which is, of course, the only possible argument for using
them. But if you don't, please suggest better usages?

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

In <65iej6$c...@panix.com> Bernadette Bosky <b...@panix.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: B.E. (Before Earplugs), Arthur was very good about me waking him

: up, if his snoring was too bad, so that he could turn over (possibly
: ending the snoring & certainly pointing it away from me). For a while, I
: would not just tell him he was snoring, but make a game of finding le mot
: just: "You are snoring like a rock-drill under a pool of mucous; could yu
: please turn over?" or "You sound like a bee caught in a roll of toiler
: paper," or "some viscous substance being pushed up and down a narrow
: drain." It was not meant badly, and I think Arthur often got a chuckle
: out of it, too. But earplugs have been better.

Earplugs are the best solution I know of, though I haven't yet really
looked into those "stretch your nose" strips. I don't seem to have a few
thousand laying around for the laser surgery option.

However, some folks seem to find the earplugs insufficient. Further,
often turning over is perfectly useless at relieving snoring: so far as I
can tell, my own snoring is affected by various factors out of my control,
and I can produce them in any position, no matter how water I drink, no
matter what side I'm on. So waking me up to tell me "you're snoring"
accomplishes little more than interrupting my sleep, possibly multiple
times all night, which is an ancient form of torture, of course. Then I'm
either unable to get back to sleep for a long time, which might please my
partner, but isn't great for me, or I promptly fall asleep again, unable
to do anything about the snoring, and am promply re-awakened. Repeat as
desired to add to the torture.

Myself, I got used to my own father's immensely loud snoring at a very
early age, which penetrated the door to my parents bedroom, down the hall,
and through my door, and I'm just used to very loud snores. Sometimes it
will be disturbing, yes, and I use earplugs, and just get through it. To
the best of my memory, I've yet to ever wake anyone up to helpfully inform
them that they are snoring, no matter that they consistently snore, and
louder than me; I've always just lived with it.

And I've slept with some very very heavy snorers. Major decibels.

Steve

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:

> In article <347ff196...@news.pipeline.com>, Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Steven McDonald phosphorized:
> >> Gary Farber wrote

> >> >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for short).

> >> Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies

> >That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too.

> Dave, Steve, can one of you suggest a reasonably brief word or phrase
> that conveys the same meaning as MOTAS but that you would prefer?

How about "friends"?

Steve

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Dave Locke wrote:

> ["MOTAS" deconstruction/reduction/induction essay.]
> Five words. No PC buzzie. Plain English. Accept no PC substitute...

Having married into a large Jewish family, and having
found acceptance within it, I have acquired the license
necessary to utter this reaction to Dave's post: Oy.

Folks, lighten up. It was just an acronym, and one
based on established Usenet traditions.

Steve

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Michael R Weholt wrote:

> Not to mention, of course, that "PC" is one of the Great Buzzies of
> the 20th Century.

Truth be known: I have always had to set aside my first
translation of "PC" whenever I've seen it: Personal Computer.

Cally Soukup

unread,
Nov 26, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/26/97
to

Morgan Gallagher <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <880537...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, Jo Walton
> <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <65gcbo$m...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com "Gary Farber" writes:
> >
> >[to Cally]
> >> I greatly fear that Eugenia will note a High Sleaze Factor to this post,
> >> but I *so* rarely get to use this line: Y'know, I slept with your sister
> >> at a con, and we had No Sex At All.
> >
> >You know, that's the second time Gary's admitted to sleeping with someone,
> >and the other time it was also a Hugo winner.
> >
> >I think he has a Thing about them.
> >
> >YKIOK. :]

> Another reason to try and win an Hugo!

Would it spoil everything at this point to casually mention that
Martha has been *nominated* for a bunch of Hugos, but hasn't yet won
one? And while she has won the Nebula, she isn't actually in
possession of it, because the title of her story was mis-engraved,
and now nobody admits to knowing where it is? (The last I heard, it
was rumored to be in the trunk of a car halfway up some mountain. Go
figure.)

Vicki Rosenzweig

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <347ff196...@news.pipeline.com>, Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Steven McDonald phosphorized:
>
>> Gary Farber wrote
>>
>> >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for short).
>> >
>> Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies
>
>That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too. Besides, I kept
>getting it mixed up with the Niven/Pournelle canon, and found that
>disconcerting.
>
>---

Dave, Steve, can one of you suggest a reasonably brief word or phrase


that conveys the same meaning as MOTAS but that you would prefer?

(I'd also question the PCness of a term that implicitly assumes that
everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual, that is, that there are
no bisexuals. Or I would if "PC" were a useful category, rather than a
label used by certain people to try to restrict the field of discussion.)

Vicki Rosenzweig
v...@interport.net | http://www.users.interport.net/~vr/
Typos are Coyote padding through the language, grinning.
--Susanna Sturgis

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Vicki Rosenzweig phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Steven McDonald phosphorized:
> >
> >> Gary Farber wrote
> >>
> >> >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for short).
> >> >
> >> Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies
> >
> >That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too. Besides, I kept
> >getting it mixed up with the Niven/Pournelle canon, and found that
> >disconcerting.
>

> Dave, Steve, can one of you suggest a reasonably brief word or phrase
> that conveys the same meaning as MOTAS but that you would prefer?
> (I'd also question the PCness of a term that implicitly assumes that
> everyone is either heterosexual or homosexual, that is, that there are
> no bisexuals. Or I would if "PC" were a useful category, rather than a
> label used by certain people to try to restrict the field of discussion.)

Steve McDonald wrote: "attractive persons, opposite sex or otherwise"
to which Gary Farber suggested "'Members Of The Appropriate Sex'"
would be "a useful term".

I found the MOTA term ambiguous, nebulous, and really reaching, not to
mention silly. It could have been slightly less, of each, and
slightly more communicative if phrased as "members of the attractive
sex". Still, notice that with six words (attractive persons, opposite
sex or otherwise) Steve actually communicated what he meant, where
Gary's suggestion of a five word substitute (members of the
appropriate sex) saved all of one word but did so at the expense of a
free-flowing communication. Even "members of the attractive sex", in
five words, is more awkward than what Steve said in six.

It's all a matter of context as to how you phrase something. Steve's
context was: "I know more than a few folks whose antennae are up
around attractive persons, opposite sex or otherwise."

Using hindsight, if it were me, I might have said: "I know more than
a few folks whose antennae are up around persons they find sexually
attractive."

Five words. No PC buzzie. Plain English. Accept no PC substitute...

---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin
"In my country, there is a belief -- and rightly so -- that the only
thing separating us from the animals is mindless superstitions and
pointless rituals." -- Andy Kaufman, "Taxi"

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Gary Farber phosphorized:

> Steve <just...@erols.com> wrote:


> : Dave Locke wrote:
> : > Steven McDonald phosphorized:
> : > > Gary Farber wrote
>
> : > > >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here
> : > > >(MOTAS, for short).
>
> : > > Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies
> :
> : > That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too.
>

> : Mine as well.
>
...snip...

>
> I guess probably none of you will give a tinker's damn, but you all appear
> to be completely ignorant of the fact that more newsgroups than I can list
> off the top of my head have been using "MOTSS" as part of their name for
> a longer number of years than rec.arts.sf.fandom has existed

You're right about that one. Many of us don't give a tinker's damn, I
mean. A PC buzzie is a PC buzzie, and one thing we're not ignorant
about is that entire truckloads of people try to avoid them like the
plague. I mean, avoid them like the cliché. When you suggest a 5
word PC buzzie to replace a 6 word workaround, I think most people in
the fleet will tell you what Steven did: "Sorry, but I have a limited
capacity for PC buzzies."

> It's a terribly useful exercise to at least once skim the list of netnews
> newsgroups, and it shouldn't take more than about ten minutes or so to do
> so once.

Zzzzzzzz zzzz zzz



> The terms "MOTAS," "MOTOS," and "MOTSS" have been in use on various
> newsgroups, including loads besides those with "motss" in their
> hierarchical name, including such as alt.polyamory, soc.bi, soc.men,
> soc.women, alt.feminism, and on and on and on, for years.

Zzzzzzzz zzzz zzz zzz zz z



> If y'all feel like it, any of you are free to go tell these hundreds of
> thousands of people that they've been using "PC buzzies" for years and
> should find more Politically Correct terminology to meet with your
> approval, rather than terms they've found most useful.

No, we're telling them to leave us alone with our workarounds and to
go in peace with their PC buzzies. We're doing anything *but*
suggesting they find some other PC buzzies. Whether they do, or not,
relates back to that "tinker's damn" business. It's you who was
suggesting a PC buzzie to someone who chose not to use it, and then
getting torqued when they said no thanks.

> Me, I find "motos," "motss," and "motas" to be the easiest, clearest,
> simplest, usage, which is, of course, the only possible argument for using
> them. But if you don't, please suggest better usages?

Wouldn't dream of it. Use what you want. Return the favor.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Michael R Weholt phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> >I found the MOTA term ambiguous, nebulous, and really reaching, not to
> >mention silly.
>

> Well, but Dave ... the term "PC" is ambiguous, nebulous and really
> reaching -- in particular, perpetually reaching for a meaning beyond
> the vague notion that certain words and phrases are used by certain
> people only because those people are tremulous dopes.

I most often find PC buzzies being used by the mindless, or by the
lazy, or by the MeToo!ers. Originally a sound idea, the development
and proliferation of buzzies has in general led me to look at them
much as I do at smilies... As an occasional shorthand, some of them
are fine.



> Not to mention, of course, that "PC" is one of the Great Buzzies of
> the 20th Century.

PC is the name on the top folder of the tree, and all the little
branches are buzzies.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Steve phosphorized:

> Dave Locke wrote:
>
> > ["MOTAS" deconstruction/reduction/induction essay.]

> > Five words. No PC buzzie. Plain English. Accept no PC substitute...
>

> Having married into a large Jewish family, and having
> found acceptance within it, I have acquired the license
> necessary to utter this reaction to Dave's post: Oy.

Such a noise...



> Folks, lighten up. It was just an acronym, and one
> based on established Usenet traditions.

Precisely. No need for anyone to get their shorts in a knot when
someone says no thanks to using one, especially when their own words
convey what they want to say.

Robert Sneddon

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <3481a87a...@news.demon.co.uk>
ave...@thirdworld.uk "Avedon Carol" writes:

>
> Well, I was grabbed by Isaac Asimov, once; does that count as
> "sleaze"?

It depends - who was he aiming for when he missed and got you instead?

--
To reply via email, remove the string "hormel" from my address.
New Web pages at http://xoom.com/nojay/ - con reports and links
Robert (nojay) Sneddon


Bridget Hardcastle

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <65igub$1c0...@port.net.interport.net>, v...@interport.net
(Vicki Rosenzweig) wrote:

> In article <347ff196...@news.pipeline.com>, Dave Locke <davelock


> e...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Steven McDonald phosphorized:
> >
> >> Gary Farber wrote
> >>
> >> >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for
> short).
> >> >
> >> Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies
> >

> >That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too. Besides, I kept
> >getting it mixed up with the Niven/Pournelle canon, and found that
> >disconcerting.
> >

> >---


>
> Dave, Steve, can one of you suggest a reasonably brief word or phrase
> that conveys the same meaning as MOTAS but that you would prefer?

Shwing magnets if you're a boy, spung magnets if you're a girl?

I have nothing against the phrase "members of the appropriate sex", but
see its acronym infrequently and wouldn't use it in rasff. If I posted
to a group where it was frequently used, I would use it there. If I
posted to that same group about fannish things I wouldn't expect them to
immediately understand exactly what I meant by "fanzine", "FIAWOL", or
"fannish", so would phrase my remarks to them rather differently from
the way I'd phrase them on rasff.

My impression is that there is a "Usenet Community" who read lots of
different groups and are well aware of the many shorthand terms used,
and that there is a lot of cross-fertilisation between groups that
brings these terms into "common usage".

My guess is that rasff has a larger proportion of readers who read
only that group than is common of newsgroups in general (I only read
rasff and alt.fandom.cons) so it has more of an APA feeling, and less a
sense of its connectedness with the "Usenet Community", and we like
using fannish abbreviations our group knows about, but not using other
acronyms common in Usenet that aren't well-used already among us.

My 5p worth.

Bug

Morgan Gallagher

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <memo.19971127...@bugshaw.compulink.co.uk>, Bridget
Hardcastle <sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk> writes

>(I only read
>rasff and alt.fandom.cons)


Me too!

David G. Bell

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <SeIAmdAn...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk "Morgan Gallagher" writes:

> In article <880537...@bluejo.demon.co.uk>, Jo Walton
> <J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk> writes
> >In article <65gcbo$m...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com "Gary Farber"
> writes:
> >
> >[to Cally]
> >> I greatly fear that Eugenia will note a High Sleaze Factor to this post,
> >> but I *so* rarely get to use this line: Y'know, I slept with your sister
> >> at a con, and we had No Sex At All.
> >
> >You know, that's the second time Gary's admitted to sleeping with someone,
> >and the other time it was also a Hugo winner.
> >
> >I think he has a Thing about them.
> >
> >YKIOK. :]
>
>
> Another reason to try and win an Hugo!

For some of us...


--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..


P Nielsen Hayden

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

>My impression is that there is a "Usenet Community" who read lots of
>different groups and are well aware of the many shorthand terms used,
>and that there is a lot of cross-fertilisation between groups that
>brings these terms into "common usage".
>
>My guess is that rasff has a larger proportion of readers who read
>only that group than is common of newsgroups in general (I only read
>rasff and alt.fandom.cons) so it has more of an APA feeling, and less a
>sense of its connectedness with the "Usenet Community", and we like
>using fannish abbreviations our group knows about, but not using other
>acronyms common in Usenet that aren't well-used already among us.

I think this is pretty precisely correct. Gary has often served very
constructively as a bridge between the two groups, but at times he lapses into
chiding rassf's fannish types for being insufficiently hip to the Usenet Way,
and at those times he gets negative and stubborn reactions. This is one of
those times.

-----
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh

Lowell Gilbert

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber) writes:
> Obviously, if y'all don't like the term, y'all won't use it, but while
> you're obviously trying to be funny, Steve, obviously a member of the
> appropriate sex for a specific person to have sex with will be just that,
> a member of the appropriate sex, which is inclusive of any sexual
> definition one cares to use.

Oops, there you go, using that "inclusive" term again. Get with the
'90's, Gary; now that Political Correctness has been shown to be an
Evil Liberal Plot, making any verbal acknowledgement of people
different from yourself is taboo.

Good thing the anti-PC forces were there to save us from the dangerous
fannish traditions of accommodation. I mean, it sounded to me like
avoidance of sounding PC was required in a way that amounted to PC
itself, and I thought that you were using a phrase that was no more
clumsy than what it replaced (and, indeed, virtually identical), and
the added generality was germane to the conversation, so I might have
been sucked in to this un-American (unfortunate I have to assume
everyone here is from the same country I am, but anything else would
be -- ptui -- PC) deviancy.

I think I'll go eat my Thanksgiving turkey now and muse on freedom...

Be well.
--
Lowell Gilbert low...@world.std.com
"The first cup of coffee recapitulates phylogeny." -- Ted Sturgeon, allegedly


Steven McDonald

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Gary Farber wrote

>
>I doubt your snoring matches Chip Delany's. Alas, but I've been
>developing my own snoring skills in recent years. Clearly Our Field needs
>a Snore-Off Competition, and, of course, an award for Best Snoring (quite
>different from the competition for Book That Causes Best Snoring).

Having met a few champion snorers in my time, I'd have to agree with you.
As regards Chip, well, I've never had the pleasure of sleeping with him or
the displeasure of competing in a snoring contest with him, but, hey,
considering that kind of precocious and highly ranked company, no problem.

My snoring has been worsening over the years (hmm, is this one of those male
competetive things that we're engaging in here? Perhaps we have to Bond
afterwards...) and now generally results in my wife waking me up and asking
to realign the snore projector in some harmless direction away from her.
I've discovered that exhaustion brings with it the ability to fall asleep
just about anywhere (my favorite being at the supermarket cash register)
with the penalty often being that I awaken myself with a resounding snort
that offends even my ears, never mind frightening the cats and causing the
guinea pig to race around in circles for five minutes (I've rarely managed
belches of this sort of magnitude, though one inadvertant explosive
eructation caused all three of our daughters to simultaneously fall from
their barstools.)

>Gary "love means never snarling 'you're snoring!'" Farber

Well, that's you...! I often found myself being roused from the depths of
sleep with a stern "Turn over! You're snoring!" On the other hand, a more
kindly approach results in a lot of burbling and a certain amount of
drooling, without any cocomitant action, so I understand this technique.

Steven McDonald

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Bernadette Bosky wrote

> B.E. (Before Earplugs), Arthur was very good about me waking him

<snip>


>drain." It was not meant badly, and I think Arthur often got a chuckle
>out of it, too. But earplugs have been better.
>

Earplugs might work. Usually the "turn over!" works very well, and once
Sylvia's asleep, it rarely matters -- I sleep fitfully, but she sleeps
solidly.

More annoying to me is the undeniable fact that my snoring will give me away
when I conk out, even if I'm unaware of having gone to sleep for any period
of time (usually looking at a clock will set me straight on this question;
I'll argue it until then though.) I need to learn stealth napping.

Daniel B. Holzman

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <347CEA...@erols.com>, Steve <just...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>How about "friends"?

The set of "your friends" is so much larger than the set of "your MOTAS"
that the former is talking about something entirely different than the
latter.

Aahz

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <memo.19971127...@bugshaw.compulink.co.uk>,

Bridget Hardcastle <sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>My impression is that there is a "Usenet Community" who read lots of
>different groups and are well aware of the many shorthand terms used,
>and that there is a lot of cross-fertilisation between groups that
>brings these terms into "common usage".
>
>My guess is that rasff has a larger proportion of readers who read
>only that group than is common of newsgroups in general (I only read
>rasff and alt.fandom.cons) so it has more of an APA feeling, and less a
>sense of its connectedness with the "Usenet Community", and we like
>using fannish abbreviations our group knows about, but not using other
>acronyms common in Usenet that aren't well-used already among us.

That is, unfortunately, more true than it used to be. And I, for one,
have little interest in accomodating the changes in newsgroup
membership.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)

Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het

"I won't accept a model of the universe in which free will, omniscient
gods, and atheism are simultaneously true." -- M

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Michael R Weholt did ruminate:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >Michael R Weholt phosphorized:
> >> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >> >I found the MOTA term ambiguous, nebulous, and really reaching, not to
> >> >mention silly.
> >>
> >> Well, but Dave ... the term "PC" is ambiguous, nebulous and really
> >> reaching -- in particular, perpetually reaching for a meaning beyond
> >> the vague notion that certain words and phrases are used by certain
> >> people only because those people are tremulous dopes.
> >
> >I most often find PC buzzies being used by the mindless, or by the
> >lazy, or by the MeToo!ers.
>

> Those who dismiss what someone says by calling it "PC" are being, imo,
> just as lazy and mindless, and in some cases just as MeToo-ish, as
> those who resort to what we are calling buzzies.

That's true but I don't think anywhere along the way, as this
discussion gets out of the gate, are we dismissing what anyone says.
We're not even dissing how they say it, except from the standpoint
that "no thank you" might not be good enough to those who would
suggest that we use PC buzzies, too.

> In the Olde Days, if someone said something that could be regarded
> as lazy or mindless, either by virtue of the inanity of the thought or
> the insipidness of its expression, people used to say something
> along the line of: "That's trite" or "This is simply received wisdom"
> or "Who are you trying to suck up to" or what-all. In other words,
> they used to state their objections to what was said, or how
> something was said, with *specificity*. And, if they were careful and
> thoughtful writers themselves, they would go on to explain *why*
> their objections had merit. Nowadays, people settle for saying:
> "That's PC."

Wasn't what happened here, but it might make a better defense...
Certainly, when I responded to Vicki Rosenzweig's "can one of you


suggest a reasonably brief word or phrase that conveys the same

meaning as MOTAS but that you would prefer?", my response contained so
much "specificity" that it prompted Steve to comment "Oy"...

> >Originally a sound idea, the development and proliferation of buzzies
> > has in general led me to look at them much as I do at smilies... As an
> > occasional shorthand, some of them are fine.
> >
> >> Not to mention, of course, that "PC" is one of the Great Buzzies of
> >> the 20th Century.
> >
> >PC is the name on the top folder of the tree, and all the little
> >branches are buzzies.
>

> Right. Which makes it the worst buzzy of all.

I'd never heard of the term 'PC buzzie' before this (I lead a
sheltered life); only 'PC'. If, while I was off reading the new
"Richard Stark" novel (first one in 20 years), this became a trite
expression then I'll be more creative the next time I refer to it...

Amerind, Dutch, English, Irish, Scotch | "Proud to be a mammal"

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <3488ed1f...@news.pipeline.com> Dave Locke
<dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: When you suggest a 5

: word PC buzzie to replace a 6 word workaround, I think most people in
^^^^^^^^^^

One word (an acronym becomes a word): MOTAS or "motas." So you're saying
that you'd rather strain to use six words or more (since that six-word
usage is not usable as a fungible noun), a self-labeled "workaround," than
use one word, solely for political reasons.

If that's not "political correctness," what is?

[. . .]

: No, we're telling them to leave us alone with our workarounds and to


: go in peace with their PC buzzies. We're doing anything *but*
: suggesting they find some other PC buzzies.

You were explaining why the usage was objectionable, offensive, "made your
ass pinch shut," and so on. Obviously, neither I nor anyone else could,
or is trying to, force you to use that or any other term. if you indeed,
simply wanted to be let alone, you would have not said a word. Instead,
you proceeded to explain how offensive, objectionable, etc., the term was:
if you are not attempting to explain why others should't use it, why are
you voicing these objections and insults?

: Whether they do, or not,


: relates back to that "tinker's damn" business. It's you who was
: suggesting a PC buzzie to someone who chose not to use it,

No, I suggested a term when someone was contorting about trying to say
something awkwardly at excessive and unclear length: you yourself call it
a "six word workaround.". It was then rejected, which is fine. For the
fifth time: don't like it, don't use it. I don't know how to be more clear
than that. But if you want to start projecting offensively as to others'
motivations, and implying what their usages should be, don't be surprised
at a response arguing with those conclusions and implications and
characterizations.

Was I giving any implication as to political position taken by Steven or
anyone else whe I offered "MOTAS"? No? So why bring that into the
conversation, save to insult?

Or can you or Steven explain that "PC buzzie" is not meant as an insult,
but is a perfectly neutral term?

: and then


: getting torqued when they said no thanks.

See above three paragraphs.

: > Me, I find "motos," "motss," and "motas" to be the easiest, clearest,


: > simplest, usage, which is, of course, the only possible argument for using
: > them. But if you don't, please suggest better usages?

: Wouldn't dream of it. Use what you want. Return the favor.

How could I not?

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <3489f422...@news.pipeline.com> Dave Locke
<dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: I most often find PC buzzies being used by the mindless, or by the

: lazy, or by the MeToo!ers.

Could you clarify if that is what you are therefore calling, say, me,
Michael, and Vicki, for starters, please?

Or would you care to take another stab at this, maybe?

[. . . .]

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Steven McDonald phosphorized:

> Earplugs might work. Usually the "turn over!" works very well, and once
> Sylvia's asleep, it rarely matters -- I sleep fitfully, but she sleeps
> solidly.

I sleep like a Washington Irving character and snore like a chainsaw.
Usually just being touched will bring me far enough back along the
path to wakefulness to change position without quite waking up and
sometimes without remembering the event.

Making noise at me doesn't work. My father once emptied the clip on a
30-30 out my bedroom window at a skunk and I didn't wake up. At
least, I didn't until the final bullet clipped the sac at which point
I discovered something else that could wake me up quickly.



> More annoying to me is the undeniable fact that my snoring will give me away
> when I conk out, even if I'm unaware of having gone to sleep for any period
> of time (usually looking at a clock will set me straight on this question;
> I'll argue it until then though.) I need to learn stealth napping.

Yeah, I hate it that I can't fake sleeping to anyone who knows what I
really sound like asleep...

Steve

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

> >How about "friends"?

True. By which reasoning I was attempting to make an
arrogantly judgmental point about the differences between
prey and possibilities.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Bridget Hardcastle phosphorized:

> My impression is that there is a "Usenet Community" who read lots of
> different groups and are well aware of the many shorthand terms used,
> and that there is a lot of cross-fertilisation between groups that
> brings these terms into "common usage".

Probably depends on which groups you read and participate in.
Although I've trimmed back considerably, I'm familiar with a couple of
dozen groups and of those this is the only one where a lot of
shorthand terms are used which aren't particular to the specific
group.

> ... we like using fannish abbreviations our group knows about, but


> not using other acronyms common in Usenet that aren't well-used
> already among us

Of course, being aware of shorthand terms and not particularly wanting
to use them can be two separate matters. In my case, I generally
avoid using fannish abbreviations, too. I have no objection to
someone else using any acronym they please, but when they start
suggesting that someone else use them instead of plain English my
"prepare to repel boarders" alarm goes off...

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Gary Farber phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
> : I most often find PC buzzies being used by the mindless, or by the
> : lazy, or by the MeToo!ers.
>
> Could you clarify if that is what you are therefore calling, say, me,
> Michael, and Vicki, for starters, please?

Sure, read my other posts in this thread.

> Or would you care to take another stab at this, maybe?

Nah, I've been explicit enough. If you want, I could attempt stating
it all in PC buzzies, though.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Gary Farber phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> : When you suggest a 5 word PC buzzie to replace a 6 word workaround
>

> One word (an acronym becomes a word): MOTAS or "motas." So you're
> saying that you'd rather strain to use six words or more (since that six-word
> usage is not usable as a fungible noun), a self-labeled "workaround," than
> use one word, solely for political reasons.

Fungible noun...

Delete "strain" and "solely for political reasons" and the answer is
yes. I strongly dislike acronyms. I like PC buzzie acronyms even
less.



> If that's not "political correctness," what is?

Huh?



> : No, we're telling them to leave us alone with our workarounds and to
> : go in peace with their PC buzzies. We're doing anything *but*
> : suggesting they find some other PC buzzies.
>
> You were explaining why the usage was objectionable, offensive, "made your
> ass pinch shut," and so on.

No, what I said and the *entirety* of what I said was: "That one made


my ass pinch shut for a minute, too. Besides, I kept getting it mixed

up with the Niven/Pournelle canon, and found that disconcerting." If
you want to view that as "objectionable, offensive, 'made your ass
pinch shut', and so on", then obviously you're far too damned used to
reading meaning into acronyms to understand plain English anymore.

> Obviously, neither I nor anyone else could, or is trying to, force you to
> use that or any other term. if you indeed, simply wanted to be let alone,
> you would have not said a word. Instead, you proceeded to explain
> how offensive, objectionable, etc., the term was: if you are not
> attempting to explain why others should't use it, why are you voicing
> these objections and insults?

All total crap. My throwaway two-line funny in response to your
attempt to impose a buzzie on Steve was part of what prompted your
overreaction. I reserve the right to make a throwaway two-line funny
instead of not saying a word. Now you're trying to backpeddle onto
safer ground.

> : Whether they do, or not, relates back to that "tinker's damn"
> : business. It's you who was suggesting a PC buzzie to someone
> : who chose not to use it,
>
> No, I suggested a term when someone was contorting about trying to say
> something awkwardly at excessive and unclear length: you yourself call it
> a "six word workaround.". It was then rejected, which is fine.

It wasn't awkward at all. It was plain English and not at all, like
your suggestion, a PC speed-bump along the road to scanning. And if
you thought the rejection was fine, you wouldn't have posted what you
did in followup.

> For the fifth time: don't like it, don't use it.

Once again, thanks, I'm not into PC buzzies...

> I don't know how to be more clear than that.

Being clear doesn't appear to be a good term to express your tortured
path on the subject.

> Or can you or Steven explain that "PC buzzie" is not meant as an insult,
> but is a perfectly neutral term?

It's expressive. If it carries baggage for you, that might be another
matter.



> : > Me, I find "motos," "motss," and "motas" to be the easiest, clearest,
> : > simplest, usage, which is, of course, the only possible argument for using
> : > them. But if you don't, please suggest better usages?

Easy, yes. Simple, certainly. Suggest better usages? See, now
there's an important distinction. I don't want canned wordage to pull
down off the shelf. You do. I don't need it to communicate. You
don't either, but you like the shorthand. But then, you like smilies,
too...



> : Wouldn't dream of it. Use what you want. Return the favor.
>
> How could I not?

A good place to leave it, old sock...

"I ain't here to make life a la carte for you."
-- Meldrick Lewis

Steve

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Dave Locke wrote:

> Although I've trimmed back considerably, I'm familiar with a couple of
> dozen groups and of those this is the only one where a lot of
> shorthand terms are used which aren't particular to the specific
> group.

Isn't that a self-contradiction? If the terms aren't particular
to this group, then some other group must use them as well, meaning
this is not the only such group.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Steve phosphorized:

Let me rephrase my point, then. Each group develops its own
shorthand, just like any group of individuals will. Of the groups I'm
familiar with, this is the only one where any significant amount of
shorthand pops up which was not specifically developed/evolved for
this group. Just an observation, sidebarred from my comment that it
probably all depends on which groups you're familiar with.

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <3483b837...@news.pipeline.com>
Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Of course, being aware of shorthand terms and not particularly wanting

: to use them can be two separate matters. In my case, I generally
: avoid using fannish abbreviations, too. I have no objection to
: someone else using any acronym they please, but when they start
: suggesting that someone else use them instead of plain English my
: "prepare to repel boarders" alarm goes off...

Dave, the entire paragraph you were and are responding to is this:

:"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for
: short).

That's not even a *suggestion* save by implication. May I respectfully
suggest that your "'prepare to repel boarders' alarm" might just possibly
be set a tad high, and that responding with implicit suggestions that
people who mention terms you are unfamiliar with are "brainless,"
"MeTooers," etc. might just possibly be not met with warmly as neutral
statements?

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <347fc539...@news.demon.co.uk> Rob Hansen
<r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: On Wed, 26 Nov 1997 15:44:31 -0700, "Steven McDonald" <s...@dm.net>
: wrote:
: >Morgan Gallagher wrote
: >
: >>>You know, that's the second time Gary's admitted to sleeping with someone,

: >>>and the other time it was also a Hugo winner.
: >>>
: >>>I think he has a Thing about them.
: >>>
: >>
: >>Another reason to try and win an Hugo!
: >>
: >
: >Or to absolutely attempt not to. Then again, I shall be brave and forge
: >ahead in my ambitions, even if I then have to sleep with Gary Farber without
: >having sex with him.

: I did this 13 years ago in San Francisco, so where's my Hugo?

Mathematical equivalency functions in this: you already sleep on a regular
basis with a Hugo nominee, so that suffices.

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <3483b837...@news.pipeline.com>
Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: Of course, being aware of shorthand terms and not particularly wanting
: to use them can be two separate matters. In my case, I generally
: avoid using fannish abbreviations, too. I have no objection to
: someone else using any acronym they please, but when they start
: suggesting that someone else use them instead of plain English my
: "prepare to repel boarders" alarm goes off...

Dave, the entire paragraph you were and are responding to is this:

:"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for
: short).

That's not even a *suggestion* save by implication. May I respectfully
suggest that your "'prepare to repel boarders' alarm" might just possibly
be set a tad high, and that responding with implicit suggestions that

people who mention terms you are unfamiliar with are "mindless," "lazy,"

"MeTooers," etc. might just possibly be not met with warmly as neutral
statements?

--

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <3485bb71...@news.pipeline.com>
Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: > If that's not "political correctness," what is?

: Huh?

You're saying that you have a political agenda, and you wish to enforce it
by picking and choosing language on a political basis. If "political
correctness" has any meaning beyond "a meaningless way of avoiding thought
by labeling a term and rejecting it without any stated logic," that's it.

If your sole objection was, in fact, that you simply generally disliked
all acronyms, and that was all, I think it unlikely we'd be having this
argument, but you've consistently repeated over and over and over how you
reject "PC buzzies," not "acronyns," and thus made clear your desire to,
in fact, enforce your own version of political correctness in language,
which appears to be unclear to you.

[. . .]

: Easy, yes. Simple, certainly. Suggest better usages? See, now


: there's an important distinction. I don't want canned wordage to pull
: down off the shelf. You do. I don't need it to communicate.

Oh, wow. Feglede gibbitworm, myarnti, sneefqupnners!

See, neither do I.

You make up each word anew every time you use it. *Kewl*!

I'm *really* impressed.

[. . . .]

David G. Bell

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <880591...@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk>
no...@ibfs.hormeldemon.co.uk "Robert Sneddon" writes:

> In article <3481a87a...@news.demon.co.uk>
> ave...@thirdworld.uk "Avedon Carol" writes:
>
> >
> > Well, I was grabbed by Isaac Asimov, once; does that count as
> > "sleaze"?
>
> It depends - who was he aiming for when he missed and got you instead?

Well, depending on who else he grabbed for, the story might be classed
as psycho-history, but I don't think that you would need to be a psycho
to want to grab for Avedon.

At least, not the first time.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Gary Farber phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> [. . .]

> : Of course, being aware of shorthand terms and not particularly wanting
> : to use them can be two separate matters. In my case, I generally
> : avoid using fannish abbreviations, too. I have no objection to
> : someone else using any acronym they please, but when they start
> : suggesting that someone else use them instead of plain English my
> : "prepare to repel boarders" alarm goes off...
>
> Dave, the entire paragraph you were and are responding to is this:
>
> :"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here (MOTAS, for
> : short).
>
> That's not even a *suggestion* save by implication. May I respectfully
> suggest that your "'prepare to repel boarders' alarm" might just possibly
> be set a tad high

And then the entirety of what Steve said was "Sorry, but I have a
limited capacity for PC buzzies" and then the entirety of what I said


was "That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too. Besides, I
kept getting it mixed up with the Niven/Pournelle canon, and found

that disconcerting" and then you came out with your
<65imcc$c...@panix2.panix.com> lengthy pompous whine about our
ignorance and how we were trying to tell people how to phrase things
(!).

And that's when the alarm went off.

I'm not certain who you think you're snowing with your revisionist
view of cause and effect here, but I know who you aren't.

Gary Farber phosphorized, in a post made three minutes later:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:


You wrote:
> : > If that's not "political correctness," what is?
>
> : Huh?
>
> You're saying that you have a political agenda, and you wish to enforce it
> by picking and choosing language on a political basis. If "political
> correctness" has any meaning beyond "a meaningless way of avoiding thought
> by labeling a term and rejecting it without any stated logic," that's it.

Is everything a political agenda to you? Am I trying to enforce
anything by saying no thanks to PC buzzies, even if I take a swack at
them in passing? Is it not my right to pick and choose my language?
What is this twaddle you're propagating here?



> If your sole objection was, in fact, that you simply generally disliked
> all acronyms, and that was all, I think it unlikely we'd be having this
> argument, but you've consistently repeated over and over and over how you
> reject "PC buzzies," not "acronyns," and thus made clear your desire to,
> in fact, enforce your own version of political correctness in language,
> which appears to be unclear to you.

Let's see now. I repeat myself to get my point across to you after
you get your shorts in a knot, and this attempt is therefore proof of
a desire to impose my own version of political correctness. Nice try,
Gary, but I doubt you could sway a 5th grade debating team with a
tactic like this.



> : Easy, yes. Simple, certainly. Suggest better usages? See, now
> : there's an important distinction. I don't want canned wordage to pull
> : down off the shelf. You do. I don't need it to communicate.
>
> Oh, wow. Feglede gibbitworm, myarnti, sneefqupnners!
>
> See, neither do I.
>
> You make up each word anew every time you use it. *Kewl*!
>
> I'm *really* impressed.

You're really something, all right, but that isn't the word I'd
choose.

I view language as a constant battle between the need to express
complexity of thought and the desire to maintain simplicity of
expression. But I don't coin new words, and I seldom use buzzies or
acronyms. So sue me.

"Others have a way of shifting your beliefs around a
bit to make themselves more comfortable with them."
-- Edward Whittemore, NILE SHADOWS

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <3488ddde...@news.pipeline.com>
Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[. . .]

: Is everything a political agenda to you?

Dave, *you're* the one who brought "politics" into this -- well, Steven
McDonald did first, but he's apparently withdrawn from the conversation,
and you're the one arguing that this is "political": not me, save that
I've been trying to get you to see the silliness of, in your phrase,
"getting your shorts in a twist" by turning a simple suggestion of a
useful phrase into a "political" debate.

I'm *delighted* at the least implication that you might be willing to
withdraw politics from the discussion, though at this point, there is
likely little we have left to say to each other on the topic, since you
appear to be increasing the gain on your insulting characterizations
("whine," etc.), rather than turning it down, and are merely becoming more
and more hostile in insisting both that you have no political agenda, but
that you are defending against others' Evil Political Correctness.

: Am I trying to enforce


: anything by saying no thanks to PC buzzies, even if I take a swack at
: them in passing?

In the small sense that you are insisting upon bringing a political agenda
into the discussion and making a point of publically expressing your
disapproval, yes, though no more so than anyone's public expression of
disapproval of anything, including my disapproval of your disapproval.

: Is it not my right to pick and choose my language?

Of course. Since I've responded to this six times now, I must point out
that this is a red herring you keep repeating.

: What is this twaddle you're propagating here?

[. . .]

: You're really something, all right, but that isn't the word I'd
: choose.

I'm sorry you're choosing to be so unpleasant and that you feel it
appropropriate to make such personal characterizations. I'm disappointed.

: I view language as a constant battle between the need to express


: complexity of thought and the desire to maintain simplicity of
: expression. But I don't coin new words,

I'm not aware anyone asked you to. Do you feel it necessary to insult
people who use new words or acronyms? Why not, as you've entirely
reasonably asked for yourself, allow others to pick and choose their own
language, without insulting them for it? Is this too much to ask for?

: and I seldom use buzzies or
: acronyms. So sue me.

I'm tempted to start shouting that I couldn't care less what words you use
or not, since simply stating it over and over appears unclear to you, but
I'll merely point out that you are using this red herring over and over
and over.

By the way, would you care to define "buzzies," and point out a dictionary
source for this old word, since you, of course, "don't coin new words"
and don't like them so?

Is "buzzies" a "buzzie"?

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <347dacd2...@news.pipeline.com>
Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: Michael R Weholt did ruminate:
[. . .]
: > Those who dismiss what someone says by calling it "PC" are being, imo,
: > just as lazy and mindless, and in some cases just as MeToo-ish, as
: > those who resort to what we are calling buzzies.

Yes, precisely.

: That's true but I don't think anywhere along the way, as this


: discussion gets out of the gate, are we dismissing what anyone says.

Um, I thought that your entire point was to reject the usage of "MOTAS,"
diss it, and dismiss it as a "PC buzzie" (a term Steven McDonald
introduced, to be sure). If that is not your point, could you please
state your point?

: We're not even dissing how they say it,

!

"Lazy," "mindless," "MeTooism" "whining" "total crap" is not "dissing"?

I must not understand what "my ass pinched shut" means, and what your
entire reaction to "MOTAS" and the people who use it is.

Have I missed the post where you said instead "thank you, I dislike
acronyms, so I prefer not to use them," which would be a non-dismissive,
non-dissing, polite response that didn't engage in unpleasant
characterizations of the people you are conversing with?

: except from the standpoint


: that "no thank you" might not be good enough to those who would
: suggest that we use PC buzzies, too.

Who was "no thank you" not good enough for? Who has said any variant of
"no, you really should use these terms"? We must not have received those
posts at Panix yet.

: > In the Olde Days, if someone said something that could be regarded
: > as lazy or mindless, either by virtue of the inanity of the thought or
: > the insipidness of its expression, people used to say something
: > along the line of: "That's trite" or "This is simply received wisdom"
: > or "Who are you trying to suck up to" or what-all. In other words,
: > they used to state their objections to what was said, or how
: > something was said, with *specificity*. And, if they were careful and
: > thoughtful writers themselves, they would go on to explain *why*
: > their objections had merit. Nowadays, people settle for saying:
: > "That's PC."

: Wasn't what happened here,

I suppose one could consider that a matter of perspective, given Usenet is
a continuing discussion. I said "-here's a useful term-"; Steven McDonald
dismissed the term, "MOTAS," as a "PC buzzie"; you agreed with the
characterization, simply saying that it "made [your] ass pinch shut"; you
got a couple of responses to that, and you did then amplify that you


"found the MOTA term ambiguous, nebulous, and really reaching, not to

mention silly" and suggested some rewordings.

So you can legitimately state that it didn't "happen here" if you jump to
your later statement, ignore your first statement, ignore Steven's
statement, and consider "ambiguous, nebulous and really reaching" to be
fair and useful specific criticisms, which obviously you do.

On the other hand, other folks might legitimately, you know, not ignore
Steven's statement, not ignore your first statement, not ignore your many
many later repeated uses of "PC" as if that were a meaningful word (er, I
thought you didn't like and didn't use acronyms?) and meaningful
criticism, find "ambiguous, nebulous and really reaching" to be entirely
subjective in this case, and thus legitimately state that it did "happen
here."

You concluded your first "explanatory" post by saying:

: Five words. No PC buzzie. Plain English. Accept no PC substitute...

I suggest that "PC buzzie" is a PC buzzie, and that you consider following
your own advice.

[. . . .]

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to
[. . .]
: Certainly, when I responded to Vicki Rosenzweig's "can one of you

: suggest a reasonably brief word or phrase that conveys the same
: meaning as MOTAS but that you would prefer?", my response contained so
: much "specificity" that it prompted Steve to comment "Oy"...

Incidentally, that post of Steven's has quite literally, so far as I can
see, not yet shown up at Panix.

Avram Grumer

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In article <3484bacd...@news.pipeline.com>, Dave Locke
<dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> I most often find PC buzzies being used by the mindless,
> or by the lazy, or by the MeToo!ers.

What an astonishing coincidence. I most often find the term "PC" being
used by just those very same kinds of people.

--
Avram Grumer av...@interport.net
http://www.users.interport.net/~avram/
In the future, everyone's web server will be down for fifteen minutes.

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <SeIAmdAn...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
Morgan Gallagher <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[. . .]

: Another reason to try and win an Hugo!

How do you feel about relationships with complex BDSM aspects where your
partner tries to Top you by instructing you to never "try and. . ."
anything, but insists that you must "try *to*. . ." instead, and gives you
a reward for the Proper Usage?

How do you feel about copyediting discussions in bed as a general rule. .
. ? :-)

Gary "oohhh, that was proper use of past imperfect in a transitional
flashback! Yes! Yes! Oh, it's so GOOD!" Farber

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <e3CTMHAP...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> Morgan Gallagher

: Depends if my partner's dick is as big as his ego. ;-)

My dear, I won't pull a Terry Hill, but I'll note that I'm a small man,
and am proportional. My dick is tiny in comparison to my ego.

: Oh yes, and it dpends on what the reward is.

This can be tailored.

: >
: >How do you feel about copyediting discussions in bed as a general rule. .
: >. ? :-)
: >
: Depends on how well he can also use his tongue. ;-)

Again, people vary in their preferences, but I've generally gotten
excellent marks and references. It as all that practice at collating
three thousand copies of a fanzine, and I had to lick each stamp, of
course, that did it. Of course, lips are also very important.

: >Gary "oohhh, that was proper use of past imperfect in a transitional


: >flashback! Yes! Yes! Oh, it's so GOOD!" Farber

: Oh dear, I'm only ever going to be a disappointment to you, ain't I

Not if it proves best to never find out. ;-)

(Notes in her doessier: not into sophisticated Dirty Talking).

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <65itnn$aln$1...@wheel.two14.lan> Cally Soukup <ma...@mcs.com> wrote:
[. . .]

: Would it spoil everything at this point to casually mention that
: Martha has been *nominated* for a bunch of Hugos, but hasn't yet won
: one? And while she has won the Nebula, she isn't actually in
: possession of it, because the title of her story was mis-engraved,
: and now nobody admits to knowing where it is? (The last I heard, it
: was rumored to be in the trunk of a car halfway up some mountain. Go
: figure.)

Here's the scary part: I'd never given a moment's thought before in my
life to linking the topics of "who I've slept with" and "sf awards given
to people" or to correlating them.

This thread forced me, for the first time, to think about the subject.
Without getting into precise numbers (think low double digits), let alone
tacky lists of names, I really that fully a third of my sexual partners
have been Hugo or Nebula nominated; I then further note that if we then
include whether each of my entire list of lovers have otherwise had sex
with another Hugo or Nebula winner, almost the entire list qualifies: I'm
left with, I think, three lovers who don't qualify, one of who was my
first and who was not involved in the field, and one of whom was a
one-night stand also not involved in the field.

However, the vast majority of lovers I've had sex with who have been Hugo
or Nebula nomiated received said nominations *after* sleeping with me.

Thusly demonstrating that you will indeed increase your chances of being
Hugo or Nebula nominated by having sex with me.

Simple logic.

I'll try not to mention this too often from now on.

Gary Farber

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

In <34993da4...@news.pipeline.com> Dave Locke
<dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: Gary Farber phosphorized:

: > Morgan Gallagher <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: >
: > : Depends if my partner's dick is as big as his ego. ;-)


: >
: > My dear, I won't pull a Terry Hill, but I'll note that I'm a small man,
: > and am proportional. My dick is tiny in comparison to my ego.

: How much would you charge to follow me around all day and give out
: straight lines like that?

How much would you pay?

Steve

unread,
Nov 27, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/27/97
to

Dave Locke wrote:

> Dave, celebrating Thanksgiving by getting a better class of takeout...

Heh. I laughed at this and my wife asked me what I had
laughed at. I read your signature line to her, and she
asked, "Does that mean he's spending the evening with a
more expensive escort?"

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Gary Farber phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:


>
>Gary wrote:
>
> you are defending against others' Evil Political Correctness.

Yeah, right, Gary.

> : Am I trying to enforce anything by saying no thanks to PC buzzies,
> : even if I take a swack at them in passing?
>
> In the small sense that you are insisting upon bringing a political agenda
> into the discussion and making a point of publically expressing your
> disapproval, yes

As the large sense consists of my effort to make you follow a
throwaway point instead of adding your own baggage to it, I can see
why you're distorting it into "making a point of publically expressing
your disapproval". In the small sense that any discussion of a little
point makes it seem like a bigger point.

> ... though no more so than anyone's public expression of


> disapproval of anything, including my disapproval of your disapproval.

I'm glad to see you got the point of that, at least.



> : Is it not my right to pick and choose my language?
>
> Of course. Since I've responded to this six times now, I must point out
> that this is a red herring you keep repeating.

Since you kept waving it away, that's why I kept shoving it at you.
It's not a red herring. It a wake-up call to you. Your counter
records the number of rings, but doesn't get the message.

Gary Farber also phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> : except from the standpoint that "no thank you" might not be good enough to
> : those who would suggest that we use PC buzzies, too.
>
> Who was "no thank you" not good enough for?

Some fellow named Farber, who made the following very irritating post.
You obviously don't remember it.

not snipped
____________________
In <347C35...@erols.com> Steve <just...@erols.com> wrote:
: Dave Locke wrote:
: > Steven McDonald phosphorized:
: > > Gary Farber wrote

: > > >"Members Of The Appropriate Sex" is a useful term here
: > > >(MOTAS, for short).

: > > Sorry, but I have a limited capacity for PC buzzies
:
: > That one made my ass pinch shut for a minute, too.

: Mine as well. Gary, how dare you exclude those of us who might
: want the last word in the plural?

Obviously, if y'all don't like the term, y'all won't use it, but while
you're obviously trying to be funny, Steve, obviously a member of the
appropriate sex for a specific person to have sex with will be just
that, a member of the appropriate sex, which is inclusive of any
sexual definition one cares to use. So, no offense, but the joke
doesn't work here. Any implication that the usage is singular is one
you are inserting, not one that is present.

I guess probably none of you will give a tinker's damn, but you all
appear to be completely ignorant of the fact that more newsgroups than
I can list off the top of my head have been using "MOTSS" as part of
their name for a longer number of years than rec.arts.sf.fandom has
existed, including soc.motss, alt.motss, alt.personals.motss,
pnw.motss, sdnet.motss, etc., etc., etc.

It's a terribly useful exercise to at least once skim the list of
netnews newsgroups, and it shouldn't take more than about ten minutes
or so to do so once.

The terms "MOTAS," "MOTOS," and "MOTSS" have been in use on various
newsgroups, including loads besides those with "motss" in their
hierarchical name, including such as alt.polyamory, soc.bi, soc.men,
soc.women, alt.feminism, and on and on and on, for years.

If y'all feel like it, any of you are free to go tell these hundreds
of thousands of people that they've been using "PC buzzies" for years
and should find more Politically Correct terminology to meet with your
approval, rather than terms they've found most useful. Of course, to
be consistent, we should probably stop using such more recently
invented "artificial" words, which are used by far fewer people, as
"rass-eff" or such artificial buzzie words as "fan" or "fanzine" or
"filk" or "gafia," "Norman Spinrad," or. . . .

And we probably don't want to get them *too* pissed off at us, since
they outnumber regular posters to this newsgroup by about 500 to one,
and could easily beat the crap out of us.

Oh, and don't forget to tell net.sexuality.motss to change their name.


Me, I find "motos," "motss," and "motas" to be the easiest, clearest,
simplest, usage, which is, of course, the only possible argument for
using them. But if you don't, please suggest better usages?

--
--
Copyright 1997 by Gary Farber; Experienced Web Researcher; Nonfiction
Writer, Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC

____________________

And now that we've had this fun argument, which probably could have
all been boiled down to some cute acronym if only we'd known it, or
which could largely have been shortstopped if only I'd learn not to
keep pressing your obtuseness button when you put on your Mr. Usenet
cape, let's reverse the escalation.

Besides, we're off topic...

Give me a smilie if you've gotten any lately...

--


Dave, celebrating Thanksgiving by getting a better class of takeout...

---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin

Morgan Gallagher

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <3482b43f...@news.pipeline.com>, Dave Locke
<dave...@bigfoot.com> writes

>Making noise at me doesn't work. My father once emptied the clip on a
>30-30 out my bedroom window at a skunk and I didn't wake up. At
>least, I didn't until the final bullet clipped the sac at which point
>I discovered something else that could wake me up quickly.


My at the time seven year old cousin once rolled out of a caravan
window, onto the roof of the car parked beneath it, onto the bonnet and
whence tot he ground without waking up. She was in a sleeping bag and
there was three inches of snow outside. Her Dad heard the 'thump' and
went out and rescued her, and put her back inthe top bunk and locked the
window she's rolled out of. She's still nto sure she beleives us.


--
Morgan

"Nunc demum intellego," dixit Winnie ille Pu. "Stultus et
delusus fui," dixit "et ursus sine ullo cerebro sum."

Maurena Kincaida Spella pro candido Transatlantico Fanatico Copia suffragari!

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Morgan Gallagher phosphorized:

> Dave Locke <dave...@bigfoot.com> writes
> >Making noise at me doesn't work. My father once emptied the clip on a
> >30-30 out my bedroom window at a skunk and I didn't wake up. At
> >least, I didn't until the final bullet clipped the sac at which point
> >I discovered something else that could wake me up quickly.
>
> My at the time seven year old cousin once rolled out of a caravan
> window, onto the roof of the car parked beneath it, onto the bonnet and
> whence tot he ground without waking up. She was in a sleeping bag and
> there was three inches of snow outside. Her Dad heard the 'thump' and
> went out and rescued her, and put her back inthe top bunk and locked the
> window she's rolled out of. She's still nto sure she beleives us.

Your story wins...

Morgan Gallagher

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <65lceq$h...@panix2.panix.com>, Gary Farber
<gfa...@panix.com> writes
>In <SeIAmdAn...@sidhen.demon.co.uk>
>Morgan Gallagher <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>[. . .]
>
>: Another reason to try and win an Hugo!
>
>How do you feel about relationships with complex BDSM aspects where your
>partner tries to Top you by instructing you to never "try and. . ."
>anything, but insists that you must "try *to*. . ." instead, and gives you
>a reward for the Proper Usage?

Depends if my partner's dick is as big as his ego. ;-)

Oh yes, and it dpends on what the reward is.

>


>How do you feel about copyediting discussions in bed as a general rule. .
>. ? :-)
>

Depends on how well he can also use his tongue. ;-)

>Gary "oohhh, that was proper use of past imperfect in a transitional
>flashback! Yes! Yes! Oh, it's so GOOD!" Farber

Oh dear, I'm only ever going to be a disappointment to you, ain't I

Gary?

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Gary Farber phosphorized:

> Morgan Gallagher <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> : Depends if my partner's dick is as big as his ego. ;-)


>
> My dear, I won't pull a Terry Hill, but I'll note that I'm a small man,
> and am proportional. My dick is tiny in comparison to my ego.

How much would you charge to follow me around all day and give out
straight lines like that?

---
Dave | dave...@bigfoot.com | http://www.angelfire.com/oh/slowdjin

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Steve phosphorized:

> Dave Locke wrote:
>
> > Dave, celebrating Thanksgiving by getting a better class of takeout...
>

> Heh. I laughed at this and my wife asked me what I had
> laughed at. I read your signature line to her, and she
> asked, "Does that mean he's spending the evening with a
> more expensive escort?"

Is "takeout" what you kids call that these days...?

Went to Boston Market for turkey and fixings, instead of getting on
the phone and ordering pizza or hoagies or traditional Italian fare,
and instead of running out for sandwiches or burgers or el cheapo
Mexican.

The sky's the limit; throw the canary another seed.

Ulrika

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <65i9gs$g...@reader1.news>, "Steven McDonald" <s...@dm.net> writes:

>If all else fails, "Fuck off!" often works well.

I think that falls under my heading of 'blunt and explicit,' actually.


Ulrika O'Brien, Philosopher Without Portfolio

***ulr...@aol.com***

Loren MacGregor

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu, 27 Nov 1997 21:23:55 GMT,
dave...@bigfoot.com (Dave Locke) said:

>I view language as a constant battle between the need to express
>complexity of thought and the desire to maintain simplicity of

>expression. But I don't coin new words, and I seldom use buzzies or
>acronyms. So sue me.

Isn't "buzzie" a buzzie?

-- LJM

Loren MacGregor
lmac...@efn.org

Ulrika

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <65k13m$1hc...@mrw.panix.com>, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R
Weholt) writes:

>Those who dismiss what someone says by calling it "PC" are
>being, imo, just as lazy and mindless, and in some cases just as
>MeToo-ish, as those who resort to what we are calling buzzies.

This is going to get horribly recursive, but I think the "PC doesn't
really mean anything, it's just a lazy form of ad hominem" stance
is lazy, too. For one thing, it fails to engage the accusation actually
being made, and attempts to undermine the criticism in exactly
the same lazy way it claims use of the term 'PC' does. Political
Correctness, so called, is that tendency which attempts to seize
the moral high ground and use guilt as a bludgeon to enforce acceptance of
uglier-but-more-inclusive terminology on the grounds
that non-use is a sign of overt bigotry. The cries of "Ad hominem!"
nicely take the focus off the self-righteous moral bludgeoning
being done and throws the one who called bullshit back on the
defensive. Dave, insofar as I can tell, isn't disregarding what anyone
is saying because of how they say it, he's merely declining to
accept a usage that has the savor of the moral bludgeon. He isn't
saying, 'You're using PC terms, I won't listen to you, he's simply
declining to use them himself. His priviledge, I'd say.

Look, if 'PC' was really meaningless, do you really think the
-Politically Correct Fairy Tales- series and their ilk would be so
successful and so bitingly funny? They work on the simple principle
of taking language that refers to color, race, sex, sexual preference,
or which otherwise might be seen as exclusionary, and substituting
clunkier, uglier phrases that eliminate any possibly pejorative reference to
difference or exclusion. Think of it, if you will, as a modern
form of Bowdlerization, only with the prudery aimed at any possible
perception of sexism, racism, ethno-centrism, heterocentrism,
rather than mere sex.

>In the Olde Days, if someone said something that could be
>regarded as lazy or mindless, either by virtue of the inanity of the
>thought or the insipidness of its expression, people used to say
>something along the line of: "That's trite" or "This is simply received
> wisdom" or "Who are you trying to suck up to" or what-all. In other
> words, they used to state their objections to what was said, or how
>something was said, with *specificity*. And, if they were careful and
>thoughtful writers themselves, they would go on to explain *why*
>their objections had merit. Nowadays, people settle for saying:
>"That's PC."

But as far as I can tell, calling PC does have a fine and marvelous
specificity. It refers to a particular type of Bowdlerization of the
language. But I'm sure you're right that our reverend ancestors never
resorted to anything so low as specialized jargon for the sake of brevity.

>Well, I've despised this phrase for a very long time now, for reasons
>stated above, and though I often pipe up about it, I suppose I must
>resign myself to its staying power. It's such a concise and powerful
>trick -- the old switcheroo, you know -- the ancient magician's game
>of talking fast while pointing the other way. It seems so conclusive,
>so Telling It Like It Is, so Saying It Straight Out, when in fact it
>says nothing at all, except perhaps: "You are a tremulous dope" -- a
>thought which very well might deserve expression, of course, but there
>are so many other, much more amusing ways of saying it besides
>resorting to this cardboard phrase. I'm astonished where I see it,
>astounded when I see it employed by writers whose work I respect.
>Just this morning I was reading further about the Rushdie/Le Carre
>brou-boo-hoo, and about how Le Carre had earlier stated that various
>advocates of Political Correctness had accused him of being an
>anti-Semite. I like Le Carre's writing very much; I just shake my
>head when I see him stooping to such a feeble formulation.

Yes, and I find it just as sad when otherwise thoughtful writers brush
the term aside as meaningless rather than deal with its actual implications.

Ulrika

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <65kj6t$s...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
writes:

>You're saying that you have a political agenda, and you wish to
>enforce it by picking and choosing language on a political basis. If
>"political correctness" has any meaning beyond "a meaningless way
> of avoiding thought by labeling a term and rejecting it without any
>stated logic," that's it.

No, it isn't.

Arthur Hlavaty

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Ulrika (ulr...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <65k13m$1hc...@mrw.panix.com>, awnb...@panix.com (Michael R
: Weholt) writes:

: >Those who dismiss what someone says by calling it "PC" are
: >being, imo, just as lazy and mindless, and in some cases just as
: >MeToo-ish, as those who resort to what we are calling buzzies.

: This is going to get horribly recursive, but I think the "PC doesn't
: really mean anything, it's just a lazy form of ad hominem" stance
: is lazy, too. For one thing, it fails to engage the accusation actually
: being made, and attempts to undermine the criticism in exactly
: the same lazy way it claims use of the term 'PC' does. Political
: Correctness, so called, is that tendency which attempts to seize
: the moral high ground and use guilt as a bludgeon to enforce acceptance of
: uglier-but-more-inclusive terminology on the grounds
: that non-use is a sign of overt bigotry. The cries of "Ad hominem!"
: nicely take the focus off the self-righteous moral bludgeoning
: being done and throws the one who called bullshit back on the
: defensive. Dave, insofar as I can tell, isn't disregarding what anyone
: is saying because of how they say it, he's merely declining to
: accept a usage that has the savor of the moral bludgeon. He isn't
: saying, 'You're using PC terms, I won't listen to you, he's simply
: declining to use them himself. His priviledge, I'd say.

Surely not _all_ the suggested changes to more inclusive terminology are
uglier than what they are supposed to replace. Are you saying that only
the esthetically offensive changes are "PC"?

--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///

Amanda Frances Bankier

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

Avedon Carol (ave...@thirdworld.uk) wrote:

: Well, I was grabbed by Isaac Asimov, once; does that count as
: "sleaze"?

No, it counts as routine! -AFB-


--
Amanda Bankier
cx...@torfree.net

Robert Sneddon

unread,
Nov 28, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/28/97
to

In article <65le0u$j...@panix2.panix.com> gfa...@panix.com "Gary Farber" writes:

> My dear, I won't pull a Terry Hill, but I'll note that I'm a small man,
> and am proportional. My dick is tiny in comparison to my ego.

And he still needs a wheelbarrow...

--
To reply via email, remove the string "hormel" from my address.
New Web pages at http://xoom.com/nojay/ - con reports and links
Robert (nojay) Sneddon


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages