Cover Art for WoT
pamurphy70
the WoT books, who would it be?
To start, I would pick Michael Whelan. Any comments?
Pat Murphy
pamurphy70
Richard Boye'
I've started to find Whelan somewhat stale.
I honestly think that someone like Stephen Hickman, who does exotic and
richly rendered buildings of alien and baroque detail would do wonders
with the White Tower, or the Stone of Tear. His figures are fine, as
well, and certainly better than Sweet's twisted homunculii.
However, I think that James Gurney (of Dinotopia fame), who used to be a
staff illustrator for National Geographic, would be my first choice.
--
Richard M. Boye' * wa...@webspan.net
Typing into the Void:
http://www.webspan.net/~waldo/books/blogger.html
"Some men lead lives of quiet desperation.
My desperation makes a pathetic whining sound."
Robert Oliver
"pamurphy70" <pamur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cf732574.03100...@posting.google.com...
> If people in the group had a choice of illustrators for the cover of
> the WoT books, who would it be?
>
> To start, I would pick Michael Whelan. Any comments?
Drew Struzan.
Cats 898
a
>staff illustrator for National Geographic, would be my first choice.
GOD YES! He would make beautiful drawings for WOT.
Natasha
Leigh Butler
wrote:
>pamurphy70 wrote:
>>
>> If people in the group had a choice of illustrators for the cover of
>> the WoT books, who would it be?
>>
>> To start, I would pick Michael Whelan. Any comments?
>
>I've started to find Whelan somewhat stale.
>
>I honestly think that someone like Stephen Hickman, who does exotic and
>richly rendered buildings of alien and baroque detail would do wonders
>with the White Tower, or the Stone of Tear. His figures are fine, as
>well, and certainly better than Sweet's twisted homunculii.
>
>However, I think that James Gurney (of Dinotopia fame), who used to be a
>staff illustrator for National Geographic, would be my first choice.
Links?
--
Leigh Butler
Richard Boye'
Jennifer Winters
news:3F81D0...@webspan.net...
> Leigh Butler wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:42:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <wa...@webspan.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >pamurphy70 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If people in the group had a choice of illustrators for the cover of
> > >> the WoT books, who would it be?
> > >>
> > >> To start, I would pick Michael Whelan. Any comments?
> > >
> > >I've started to find Whelan somewhat stale.
> > >
> > >I honestly think that someone like Stephen Hickman, who does exotic and
> > >richly rendered buildings of alien and baroque detail would do wonders
> > >with the White Tower, or the Stone of Tear. His figures are fine, as
> > >well, and certainly better than Sweet's twisted homunculii.
> > >
> > >However, I think that James Gurney (of Dinotopia fame), who used to be
a
> > >staff illustrator for National Geographic, would be my first choice.
> >
> > Links?
>
> http://www.dinotopia.com
>
> Tada!
Oooh, pretty....*drool*
--
Jennifer Winters
Nerd in babe's clothing
Richard Boye'
I recommend picking up his first two books. _Dinotopia_ and _The World
Beneath_ are just fantastic, book three, enh, not so much.
Waterfall City, btw, was ripped up by George Lucas when creating Theed,
capitol of Naboo.
Leigh Butler
wrote:
>"Richard Boye'" <wa...@webspan.net> wrote in message
>news:3F81D0...@webspan.net...
>> Leigh Butler wrote:
>> > On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:42:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <wa...@webspan.net>
>> > wrote:
>> > >pamurphy70 wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> If people in the group had a choice of illustrators for the cover of
>> > >> the WoT books, who would it be?
>> > >>
>> > >> To start, I would pick Michael Whelan. Any comments?
>> > >
>> > >I've started to find Whelan somewhat stale.
Agreed.
>> > >I honestly think that someone like Stephen Hickman, who does exotic and
>> > >richly rendered buildings of alien and baroque detail would do wonders
>> > >with the White Tower, or the Stone of Tear. His figures are fine, as
>> > >well, and certainly better than Sweet's twisted homunculii.
Ah, yes, this is the guy who did the Brust covers. Very cool.
>> > >However, I think that James Gurney (of Dinotopia fame), who used to be
>> > >staff illustrator for National Geographic, would be my first choice.
>> >
>> > Links?
>>
>> http://www.dinotopia.com
>>
>> Tada!
>
>
>Oooh, pretty....*drool*
Very nice. I'm impressed. Kind of looks like the style popular right
before Impressionism got big, or you know, some period I could be more
specific about if I knew shit about art history. Which makes the
inclusion of dinosaurs that much more startling.
Gah, this is bothering me now. Come on, guys, what style is that?
Neo-classical? Rococo? I don't know. It's the one that has lots and
lots of triumphant processional scenes with grapes and flowers and
people cavorting in togas and shit.
--
Leigh Butler
Jennifer Winters
Already have _Dinotopia_ . Also managed to see an exhibit of his work at an
art gallery once (unfortunately I forget which city).
Richard Boye'
What I like is his ability to swap architectural and cultural motiffs.
Pagodas next Parthanons, treehouses next to temples.
> Gah, this is bothering me now. Come on, guys, what style is that?
> Neo-classical? Rococo? I don't know. It's the one that has lots and
> lots of triumphant processional scenes with grapes and flowers and
> people cavorting in togas and shit.
Neoclassiscism?
Andrew Brandon
Hmm its quite nice has elements of Neoclassicism and Romanticism.
Though I would Suggest Amano Yoshitaka as he has a very fantastic
style that would portray some of the more exotic elements of WoT, i
especially like the way his work was influenced by Gustav Klimt and
how it shows in the Arabesque nature of his lines. He has done some
amazing things illustrating for Final Fantasy and Romancing Saga.
I also could Guarantee that Tuon would have absolutely no resemblance
to Gary Coleman if he was to do the Illustrations ;)
Andrew Brandon.
Kay-Arne Hansen
Richard Boye' wrote:
>
<snip lots>
Speaking of art...drawing anything these days, Richard?
--
KAH
Melissa Devnich
<leigh_...@paramount.com> wrote:
[Dinotopia]
> Very nice. I'm impressed. Kind of looks like the style popular right
> before Impressionism got big, or you know, some period I could be more
> specific about if I knew shit about art history. Which makes the
> inclusion of dinosaurs that much more startling.
>
> Gah, this is bothering me now. Come on, guys, what style is that?
> Neo-classical? Rococo? I don't know. It's the one that has lots and
> lots of triumphant processional scenes with grapes and flowers and
> people cavorting in togas and shit.
Pre-Raphaelite?
Check out Lawrence Alma-Tadema and see if that's what you had in mind.
http://www.artmagick.com/artists/tadema.aspx
Aha, wrong guess; I found another site that calls his stuff Classicist.
--
Melissa Devnich
mdevnich at yahoo dot com
Leigh Butler
<mdev...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>In article <3f849be5...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Leigh Butler
><leigh_...@paramount.com> wrote:
>
>[Dinotopia]
>
>> Very nice. I'm impressed. Kind of looks like the style popular right
>> before Impressionism got big, or you know, some period I could be more
>> specific about if I knew shit about art history. Which makes the
>> inclusion of dinosaurs that much more startling.
>>
>> Gah, this is bothering me now. Come on, guys, what style is that?
>> Neo-classical? Rococo? I don't know. It's the one that has lots and
>> lots of triumphant processional scenes with grapes and flowers and
>> people cavorting in togas and shit.
>
>Pre-Raphaelite?
>
>Check out Lawrence Alma-Tadema and see if that's what you had in mind.
>http://www.artmagick.com/artists/tadema.aspx
That's pretty close.
What I was thinking of specifically is this whole collection of
pastoral cavorting scenes they've got in one particular room of the
Getty, but naturally I can't remember what section I was in at the
time, and also naturally their website is no help at all.
Though this one is kinda neat:
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz584.html
>Aha, wrong guess; I found another site that calls his stuff Classicist.
My admittedly scanty knowledge of nineteenth-century art suggests that
all the periods leading up to Impressionism were actually pretty
similar, and then Impressionism came along and knocked everything into
a cocked hat, paving the way for all the twentieth century weirdness.
I'm sure art critics and historians everywhere just started screaming
in pain without knowing quite why.
--
Leigh Butler
Melissa Devnich
<leigh_...@paramount.com> wrote:
> What I was thinking of specifically is this whole collection of
> pastoral cavorting scenes they've got in one particular room of the
> Getty, but naturally I can't remember what section I was in at the
> time, and also naturally their website is no help at all.
And I've never looked at any of the Getty collection; I only go for
Meier's buildings and the gardens. So, also no help.
Andrew Brandon
> On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:22:44 GMT, Melissa Devnich
> <mdev...@earthlink.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <3f849be5...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Leigh Butler
> ><leigh_...@paramount.com> wrote:
> >
> >[Dinotopia]
> >
> >> Very nice. I'm impressed. Kind of looks like the style popular right
> >> before Impressionism got big, or you know, some period I could be more
> >> specific about if I knew shit about art history. Which makes the
> >> inclusion of dinosaurs that much more startling.
> >>
> >> Gah, this is bothering me now. Come on, guys, what style is that?
> >> Neo-classical? Rococo? I don't know. It's the one that has lots and
> >> lots of triumphant processional scenes with grapes and flowers and
> >> people cavorting in togas and shit.
> >
> >Pre-Raphaelite?
Realism was the big thing before Impressionism, we had Manet running
around painting Bar scenes and using Prostitutes as models, he tried
to move away from all that idealised stuff that Romanticism produced.
Ingres women were Goddesses without flaws, perfect skin and an
exageration of the bodies natural proportion to make the perfect women
someone to put on a pedestal. Manet did away with all that, he painted
as he saw it.
(think of it like this Neo-Classical with some Romanticised elements
and a big lump of Art Nouveau some Baroque and Rococo Architectural
elements too)
> >
> >Check out Lawrence Alma-Tadema and see if that's what you had in mind.
> >http://www.artmagick.com/artists/tadema.aspx
>
> That's pretty close.
>
> What I was thinking of specifically is this whole collection of
> pastoral cavorting scenes they've got in one particular room of the
> Getty, but naturally I can't remember what section I was in at the
> time, and also naturally their website is no help at all.
>
> Though this one is kinda neat:
>
> http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz584.html
>
> >Aha, wrong guess; I found another site that calls his stuff Classicist.
>
> My admittedly scanty knowledge of nineteenth-century art suggests that
> all the periods leading up to Impressionism were actually pretty
> similar, and then Impressionism came along and knocked everything into
> a cocked hat, paving the way for all the twentieth century weirdness.
>
> I'm sure art critics and historians everywhere just started screaming
> in pain without knowing quite why.
When we talk of periods in art history, what we are really talking
about is different Movements(In the 1800 - Neo-Classicism,
Romanticism, Realism, Art Nouveau, Impressionism and Post
Impressionism with a whole host of other movements - the Barbizon,
Pointilism, Pre-Raphaelites, Luminism, Aesthecism, the Fauves, Nabis,
Neo-Impressionism, Symbolism et all)and usually movements arise due to
the cultural, political and social conditions of the time as well as
percieved weaknesses in the predecessor movements.
Neo-Classicism for example really rose out of the utter excesses of
the Baroque and Rococo periods, it was an attempt to return to the
classical expressionistic structures, and if you consider what was
happening in the world at the time, the French Revolution for example
then when we look at the artists of the time and their works it is'nt
hard to recognise the political and social symbolism that was used
(Jacques Louis David's - the death of Marat for example)
Romanticism was an attempt to escape from the more rational structured
paintings of Neo-classicism and attempted to inject a more emotional,
spontaneous and imaginitive form in its place, it was characterised by
its avoidance of classical forms and rules and placed emphasis on the
emotional and spiritual, representation of the unattainable ideal,
nostalgia for the grace of past ages, and a predilection for exotic
themes.
in my opinion Impressionism is really a product of the technologies
the industrial revolution produced, for the first time artists could
take their art out of the studio, there was no longer any requirement
to grind your own pigments to make your oils and you were no longer
limited to having a huge palette to build up you colours on. Paints
could now be made cheaply(relatively, i believe that French
Ultramarine still require the grinding of lapis lazuli) and packaged
in tubes for ease of use. Thus they could now get out the door, the
more important time i think is post impressionism with Van Gogh
introducing the use of the paint surface as an expressive medium and
Cezanne paving the way for cubism and a more cerebral view of art
around the turn of the century.
All that twentieth century weirdness was the backlash to the sheer
horror of the earlier part of the 20th century, especially with two
World Wars, the Holocaust and a host of other depravities that drove
art away from social commentary and self expression into a more
emotive and less figurative mediums of Abstract and Expressionistic
movements, then it became less fashionable to portray political or
commentary works as people really did'nt want to dwell to much on how
much damage we did to each other.
Andrew Brandon
Mike Kozlowski
Andrew Brandon <thesacr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[A whole bunch of interesting stuff]
Cool. Now I don't need to take an art history class.
--
Mike Kozlowski
http://www.klio.org/mlk/
G J
> Leigh Butler wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:42:56 -0400, Richard Boye' <wa...@webspan.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >pamurphy70 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If people in the group had a choice of illustrators for the cover of
> > >> the WoT books, who would it be?
> > >>
> > >> To start, I would pick Michael Whelan. Any comments?
> > >
> > >I've started to find Whelan somewhat stale.
I think we can all agree that his work is still technically very
impressive, very detailed, but I don't get much of an emotional charge
out of his latest stuff. That being said, every once and a while I
throw a Whelan image up as my wallpaper - much of his stuff is still
very cool. And at least his character portraits are fairly consistent
with the plot material.
> > >I honestly think that someone like Stephen Hickman, who does exotic and
> > >richly rendered buildings of alien and baroque detail would do wonders
> > >with the White Tower, or the Stone of Tear. His figures are fine, as
> > >well, and certainly better than Sweet's twisted homunculii.
http://www.stephenhickman.com/fantasy.html
Although improvement on Sweet is not a difficult achievement, I agree
that his paintings are spiffy. Does he tend to deviate far from the
plot material, or can he restrain himself?
> > >However, I think that James Gurney (of Dinotopia fame), who used to be a
> > >staff illustrator for National Geographic, would be my first choice.
> >
> > Links?
>
> http://www.dinotopia.com
>
> Tada!
Nice.
Andrew Brandon
> In article <f57106d2.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> Andrew Brandon <thesacr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [A whole bunch of interesting stuff]
>
> Cool. Now I don't need to take an art history class.
if i could say it in under 200 words, it really is'nt worth knowing
about - or if i could spend 800,000 words and not say anything(the
last 4 books of WoT) then i need to get a better editor.
J
Richard Boye'
>
> Geoff Taylor
Yes?
What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
Mitchell Swan
>
> J wrote:
> >
> > Geoff Taylor
>
> Yes?
>
> What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
>
Timmy fell in the well!
--
Mitch
Scissors Kills Paper, Rock;
Turns Blade On Self
-the ONION
Duncan J Macdonald
> Richard Boye' wrote:
> >
> > J wrote:
> > >
> > > Geoff Taylor
> >
> > Yes?
> >
> > What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
> >
>
> Timmy fell in the well!
<sfx - fade to commercial - vox over "And we'll be _right_ back!>
--
Duncan J Macdonald
duncan.m...@navy.mil
macdo...@comcast.net
Adam Canning
says...
> Richard Boye' wrote:
> >
> > J wrote:
> > >
> > > Geoff Taylor
> >
> > Yes?
> >
> > What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
> >
>
> Timmy fell in the well!
Timmy was pushed.
--
Adam
David Chapman
By Lassie.
--
I spent six months in the cheese bin!
John Anderson
@hotmail.com says...
> Adam Canning did not say this. Adam Canning was not here:
> > In article <3F8A9BB3...@raytheon.com>,
> > Mitchel...@raytheon.com says...
> >> Richard Boye' wrote:
>
> >>> What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
>
> >> Timmy fell in the well!
> >
> > Timmy was pushed.
>
> By Lassie.
>
>
--
John Anderson
WTF?
J
> J wrote:
> >
> > Geoff Taylor
>
> Yes?
>
> What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
My goodness. I made two errors ( first i responded to the wrong post
and second i snipped what i was replying to).
Mistakes happen. Judging from your smart ass reply you are either very
very bored or my errors offended you, and you are using sarcasm to try
and chastise and ridicule me.
Whatever your motives, FUCK YOU. It was obvious to all i made a
mistake. Things like this happen. No need to be an ass hole about it.
J.
Richard Boye'
Jiminy.
Lighten up.
However, since you seem to be taking an inordinate ammount of umbrage, I
apologize.
For whatever you deem that worth.
J.Hamby
Thin skin syndrome is easily addressed by not taking yourself so seriously,
'J'. It was a joke. And _not on you_. Unless you and Rich share a rich,
bitter history outside of, what...two posts?!?!
---
JSH
J
look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
"nettiquette" (sp?).
e.g. Maggie's reply to the thread "Actually I agree with Her", as well
as Richard Boye's reply to my post above.
These smart ass replies to errors in "nettiquette" aren't even mildly
amusing, so rather than "letting the baby have its bottle" i told him
to fuck off.
My reply reflected how tired i am of pathetic jibes being cast across
usenet.
J.
Richard Boye'
>
> jha...@cub.kcnet.org (J.Hamby) wrote in message news:<cbdd023e.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > mynamei...@hotmail.com (J) wrote in message news:<b729f388.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Richard Boye' <wa...@webspan.net> wrote in message news:<3F89B3...@webspan.net>...
> > > > J wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoff Taylor
> > > >
> > > > Yes?
> > > >
> > > > What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
> > >
> > > My goodness. I made two errors ( first i responded to the wrong post
> > > and second i snipped what i was replying to).
> > >
> > > Mistakes happen. Judging from your smart ass reply you are either very
> > > very bored or my errors offended you, and you are using sarcasm to try
> > > and chastise and ridicule me.
> > >
> > > Whatever your motives, FUCK YOU. It was obvious to all i made a
> > > mistake. Things like this happen. No need to be an ass hole about it.
> > >
> > Damn. In the words of my three-year-old nephew: 'Practice what you preach.'
> >
> > Thin skin syndrome is easily addressed by not taking yourself so seriously,
> > 'J'. It was a joke. And _not on you_. Unless you and Rich share a rich,
> > bitter history outside of, what...two posts?!?!
[...]
> look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
> opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
> "nettiquette" (sp?).
Dude, if I wanted to jump down your throat, I would have. I don't know
you from a hole in the wall. I don't even have a name to attach to you.
Your post doesn't convey any cogitation or even a personality. I have
one post from you, throwing a name blankly into the void, stripped of
the context to which you were replying. You didn't even bother providing
your own context as in "I think that Geoff Taylor would do a fine job."
Whatever. If you care so much about the way you are being treated, you
would make better efforts to engage your potential audience. It wasn't a
"mistake." You know that. A mistake is forgetting to provide context,
or posting to wrong group. A mistake is a typographical error or
clicking "send" before you meant to. You clearly intended to respond the
way you did - not a mistake.
I would apologize again if meant ameliorating your overly melodramatic
sense of indignation, but I see that you are probably not worth it.
> These smart ass replies to errors in "nettiquette" aren't even mildly
> amusing, so rather than "letting the baby have its bottle" i told him
> to fuck off.
You'll forgive me if I don't hasten to comply.
G J
> look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
> opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
> "nettiquette" (sp?).
>
> e.g. Maggie's reply to the thread "Actually I agree with Her", as well
> as Richard Boye's reply to my post above.
>
> These smart ass replies to errors in "nettiquette" aren't even mildly
> amusing, so rather than "letting the baby have its bottle" i told him
> to fuck off.
>
> My reply reflected how tired i am of pathetic jibes being cast across
> usenet.
>
> J.
Fine, but please maintain a little decorum; we're civilized here.
- Geoff
Maggie
mynamei...@hotmail.com says...
> look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
> opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
> "nettiquette" (sp?).
>
> e.g. Maggie's reply to the thread "Actually I agree with Her", as well
> as Richard Boye's reply to my post above.
Funny, I don't recall jumping down anyone's throat.
Whould you care to show me where I did so?
I explained that Usenet was not a message board, and that she would need
to do certain things to make sure people knew what she was talking about.
That's called "helping the newbies", which is usually preferable to
letting them shout pointlessly into the void and think that everyone is
ignoring them.
You seem to be intent on being an asshole just for the sake of being an
asshole. Your pardon if I am unimpressed.
--
Maggie UIN 10248195
http://www.darkfriends.net
"And what the, expletive very much included, FUCK do you want?" - Richard
O'Brien, _Revenge of the Old Queen_
Frank van Schie
J wrote:
>
> These smart ass replies to errors in "nettiquette" aren't even mildly
> amusing, so rather than "letting the baby have its bottle" i told him
> to fuck off.
>
> My reply reflected how tired i am of pathetic jibes being cast across
> usenet.
news:alt.fan.robert-jordan is right down the hall, and the people are
*much* nicer there than here. You'll fit right in, I have no doubt, and
not just because they are an amorphous blob that could absorb a raging
elephant in heat without making an effort.
And to borrow a phrase: Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord
split ya.
--
Frank
J
> In article <b729f388.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> mynamei...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
> > opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
> > "nettiquette" (sp?).
> >
> > e.g. Maggie's reply to the thread "Actually I agree with Her", as well
> > as Richard Boye's reply to my post above.
>
> Funny, I don't recall jumping down anyone's throat.
>
> Whould you care to show me where I did so?
> I explained that Usenet was not a message board, and that she would need
> to do certain things to make sure people knew what she was talking about.
> That's called "helping the newbies", which is usually preferable to
> letting them shout pointlessly into the void and think that everyone is
> ignoring them.
Sara's post was fine. If you bothered to read it properly you'd see
that. She did not require your "assistance".
Did you not even read the replies to your post in the thread
"Actually, I agree with her" ?!
I'll quote Ilya Popov here :
"Can't you read? What're you harping on about? Shut up, read the
words,
and stop harping on about every little thing that bothers you,you
enema sucking knave.Iesu, what are you, two and a half years old? "
I couldn't care less if you're not impressed.
J
I can't believe this is still going on ....*sigh*
i won't reply again to anything in this thread (im sure many of you
are thanking whatever deities you worship for this) so please no smart
ass comments in reply.
1) lame ass attempts at humor in response to usenet fuck ups are
very, very boring.
2) these pathetic jibes happen far too often in this news group.
3)i beleive that Geoff Taylor could create some amazing covers for the
Wheel of Time books.
My favorite piece of cover art by Geoff Taylor is the cover of "A
Kings Buccaneer" which is a book by Raymond E Feist (the only author i
believe to be better than Robert Jordan).
I apologise for snipping and responding to the wrong post. I meant to
simply state Geoff Taylor in reply to Pat Murphy's original post in
this thread.Robert Oliver did so and that seemed fine.
So... yes Richard (or perhaps Dick would be a more fitting name) you
are right, i did mean to reply in the manner i did.
Jerome.
"Good night America ... wherever you are"
Maggie
mynamei...@hotmail.com says...
> Maggie <maggie...@darkfriends.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.19f687697...@News.Individual.NET>...
> > In article <b729f388.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> > mynamei...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> > > look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
> > > opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
> > > "nettiquette" (sp?).
> > >
> > > e.g. Maggie's reply to the thread "Actually I agree with Her", as well
> > > as Richard Boye's reply to my post above.
> >
> > Funny, I don't recall jumping down anyone's throat.
> >
> > Whould you care to show me where I did so?
>
> > I explained that Usenet was not a message board, and that she would need
> > to do certain things to make sure people knew what she was talking about.
> > That's called "helping the newbies", which is usually preferable to
> > letting them shout pointlessly into the void and think that everyone is
> > ignoring them.
>
> Sara's post was fine. If you bothered to read it properly you'd see
> that. She did not require your "assistance".
No, it wasn't.
Her post, in its entirety, is here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D20535A36
Who, precisely, is Sara referring to? With whom does she agree?
See, there's this thing called context, which she did not provide. It's
considered good Usenet practice to provide same, to keep the discussion
organized and easy to follow.
> Did you not even read the replies to your post in the thread
> "Actually, I agree with her" ?!
>
> I'll quote Ilya Popov here :
Don't bother. He's in my killfile, and you're fixing to join him. I
have no inclination to waste my time with clueless lackwits.
If you'd prefer to join the ranks of ignored trolls, be my guest. I'll
echo Frank's sentiment that you'd perhaps be happier in alt.fan.robert-
jordan, where such nonsense is welcomed and encouraged.
Frank van Schie
J wrote:
>
> > And to borrow a phrase: Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord
> > split ya.
>
> I can't believe this is still going on ....*sigh*
I replied on the same day. This is not long for a thread to continue.
> 1) lame ass attempts at humor in response to usenet fuck ups are
> very, very boring.
So we should let newbies continue to fuck up. Check.
> 2) these pathetic jibes happen far too often in this news group.
So go to another newsgroup, like our cesspit cousin,
news:alt.fan.robert-jordan. They have much lower standards of civilised
discourse! Whee.
> 3)i beleive that Geoff Taylor could create some amazing covers for the
> Wheel of Time books.
>
> My favorite piece of cover art by Geoff Taylor is the cover of "A
> Kings Buccaneer" which is a book by Raymond E Feist (the only author i
> believe to be better than Robert Jordan).
Now see, that would've made a good reply, if you'd provided a bit of
context. Just blurting out "Geoff Taylor" without *any* context would've
shamed a Neanderthal's communicative talents.
Can't find that cover on his site, but the rest of the artwork looks
solid, and great. Very moody, nice animals and people, I don't love the
architecture (it all being spires and such), but the overall covers look
great. So hey, I agree.
Now lose the chip on your shoulder until you get playfully assaulted
when you *haven't* made a mistake.
--
Frank
Chucky & Janica
11:56:52 +0200, a big jerkass called Frank van Schie
<frank...@email.it> opened their mouths and this happened:
>> 2) these pathetic jibes happen far too often in this news group.
>
>So go to another newsgroup, like our cesspit cousin,
>news:alt.fan.robert-jordan. They have much lower standards of civilised
>discourse! Whee.
Frank's right. You know the old saying. "When in Rome, piss on each
other and drink vomit and fuck your own sisters."
We are, currently, in Rome. So we have to stop acting like prissy
little squeamish barbarians, and get busy.
Or something.
C&J
--
13 & 13b of the CMM Collective
"OK, Angels. Let's show this man what
six collective breasts can do to evil."
- Forsaken_1, "Charlie's Angels".
Now go here: www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
Frank van Schie
Chucky & Janica wrote:
>
> >So go to another newsgroup, like our cesspit cousin,
> >news:alt.fan.robert-jordan. They have much lower standards of civilised
> >discourse! Whee.
>
> Frank's right. You know the old saying. "When in Rome, piss on each
> other and drink vomit and fuck your own sisters."
>
> We are, currently, in Rome. So we have to stop acting like prissy
> little squeamish barbarians, and get busy.
>
> Or something.
> Now go here: www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
Indeed. It's a pity I'm potty trained, have only vomited three, maybe
four, times in conscious memory, and have no sisters to cavort with.
Even these limitations don't need to hold anyone back.
Anyway, C&J, even you have to admit that communication styles are...
looser in afrj. And I'm sure you see how they occasionally make
communication[1] more difficult on the part of the reader.
[1]: On the verbal level, not the "I mangle my native language like a
six year old[2]" level.
[2]: The author does not accept responsibility for any mangled six year
olds that may result from this, or any other, postings.
--
Frank
Chucky & Janica
<frank...@email.it> opened their mouths and this happened:
>Indeed. It's a pity I'm potty trained, have only vomited three, maybe
>four, times in conscious memory, and have no sisters to cavort with.
>Even these limitations don't need to hold anyone back.
It's a metaphor.
Sorry, I shouldn't have brought *that* up.
>Anyway, C&J, even you have to admit that communication styles are...
>looser in afrj.
That's why I said, above, "Frank's right". To imply, subtly, that you
were right.
>And I'm sure you see how they occasionally make
>communication[1] more difficult on the part of the reader.
Not for a smart reader.
I say this as distinct from an intelligent reader, which rec.arts has
in spades and alt.fan may have somewhere under the stairs.
>[2]: The author does not accept responsibility for any mangled six year
>olds that may result from this, or any other, postings.
Why mangle a six-year-old when there are babies going begging?
Ilya Popov
> In article <b729f388.03101...@posting.google.com>,
> mynamei...@hotmail.com says...
> > Maggie <maggie...@darkfriends.net> wrote in message news:<MPG.19f687697...@News.Individual.NET>...
> > > In article <b729f388.0310...@posting.google.com>,
> > > mynamei...@hotmail.com says...
> > >
> > > > look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
> > > > opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
> > > > "nettiquette" (sp?).
> > > >
> > > > e.g. Maggie's reply to the thread "Actually I agree with Her", as well
> > > > as Richard Boye's reply to my post above.
> > >
> > > Funny, I don't recall jumping down anyone's throat.
> > >
> > > Whould you care to show me where I did so?
>
> > > I explained that Usenet was not a message board, and that she would need
> > > to do certain things to make sure people knew what she was talking about.
> > > That's called "helping the newbies", which is usually preferable to
> > > letting them shout pointlessly into the void and think that everyone is
> > > ignoring them.
> >
> > Sara's post was fine. If you bothered to read it properly you'd see
> > that. She did not require your "assistance".
>
> No, it wasn't.
Which part would you like me to explain to you? The part where she
calls the people on this group rude, the part where she talks about
Seanchan as USA, or the part about various classes?
See? It's not hard. You just have to read it.
> Her post, in its entirety, is here:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?D20535A36
>
> Who, precisely, is Sara referring to? With whom does she agree?
You're diverting the point away from what she's actually saying, which
is, rather clearly stated, that you fucks are rude little cunts.
Fatty parler Anglais?
> See, there's this thing called context, which she did not provide. It's
> considered good Usenet practice to provide same, to keep the discussion
> organized and easy to follow.
She wasn't proposing any sort of complex thesis. If you can't follow
what she's saying, then you shouldn't bother whinging on about it.
> > Did you not even read the replies to your post in the thread
> > "Actually, I agree with her" ?!
> >
> > I'll quote Ilya Popov here :
>
> Don't bother. He's in my killfile, and you're fixing to join him. I
> have no inclination to waste my time with clueless lackwits.
>
> If you'd prefer to join the ranks of ignored trolls, be my guest. I'll
> echo Frank's sentiment that you'd perhaps be happier in alt.fan.robert-
> jordan, where such nonsense is welcomed and encouraged.
And I quote Frank van Schie:
"news:alt.fan.robert-jordan is right down the hall, and the people are
*much* nicer there than here."
See? Frankie makes the argument for me quite nicely - by contrast to
AFRJ, Sara is correct in her general assertation that you're all rude
little cunts.
Ilya
Ilya Popov
> Chucky & Janica wrote:
> >
> > >So go to another newsgroup, like our cesspit cousin,
> > >news:alt.fan.robert-jordan. They have much lower standards of civilised
> > >discourse! Whee.
> >
> > Frank's right. You know the old saying. "When in Rome, piss on each
> > other and drink vomit and fuck your own sisters."
> >
> > We are, currently, in Rome. So we have to stop acting like prissy
> > little squeamish barbarians, and get busy.
> >
> > Or something.
> > Now go here: www.afrj-monkeyhouse.org
>
> Indeed. It's a pity I'm potty trained, have only vomited three, maybe
> four, times in conscious memory, and have no sisters to cavort with.
> Even these limitations don't need to hold anyone back.
You would never hold back for us.
> Anyway, C&J, even you have to admit that communication styles are...
> looser in afrj. And I'm sure you see how they occasionally make
> communication[1] more difficult on the part of the reader.
Because the act of kill-filling one another in rec.arse is indicative
of a strong and clear ability to communicate?
> [1]: On the verbal level, not the "I mangle my native language like a
> six year old[2]" level.
> [2]: The author does not accept responsibility for any mangled six year
> olds that may result from this, or any other, postings.
*gets out baby torturing utilities*
Ilya
Chucky & Janica
-0700, a big jerkass called Q...@wotmania.com (Ilya Popov) opened their
mouths and this happened:
>And I quote Frank van Schie:
>
>"news:alt.fan.robert-jordan is right down the hall, and the people are
>*much* nicer there than here."
He's right, it is much nicer there in terms of people-people, which is
really saying something when you consider how much we shout at each
other and say "cunt" a lot.
>See? Frankie makes the argument for me quite nicely - by contrast to
>AFRJ, Sara is correct in her general assertation that you're all rude
>little cunts.
And that, too, is saying something.
I don't know how complementary the whole comparison is to either side.
That's one reason it doesn't really pay to compare the groups.
Ilya Popov
> A long time ago, in a galaxy just over there, on 17 Oct 2003 11:13:48
> -0700, a big jerkass called Q...@wotmania.com (Ilya Popov) opened their
> mouths and this happened:
>
> >And I quote Frank van Schie:
> >
> >"news:alt.fan.robert-jordan is right down the hall, and the people are
> >*much* nicer there than here."
>
> He's right, it is much nicer there in terms of people-people, which is
> really saying something when you consider how much we shout at each
> other and say "cunt" a lot.
And still manage to never really get offended.
Except when confused. Or when Cassie.
> >See? Frankie makes the argument for me quite nicely - by contrast to
> >AFRJ, Sara is correct in her general assertation that you're all rude
> >little cunts.
>
> And that, too, is saying something.
In a language rec.arses will never ever understand.
> I don't know how complementary the whole comparison is to either side.
> That's one reason it doesn't really pay to compare the groups.
>
Kind of like comparing the diets of omnivores to vegetarians.
Sort of.
*drinks free trade coffee*
>
> C&J
Ilya
J.Hamby
> jha...@cub.kcnet.org (J.Hamby) wrote in message news:<cbdd023e.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > mynamei...@hotmail.com (J) wrote in message news:<b729f388.03101...@posting.google.com>...
> > > Richard Boye' <wa...@webspan.net> wrote in message news:<3F89B3...@webspan.net>...
> > > > J wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Geoff Taylor
> > > >
> > > > Yes?
> > > >
> > > > What is it, boy? Are you trying top tell us something?
> > >
> > > My goodness. I made two errors ( first i responded to the wrong post
> > > and second i snipped what i was replying to).
> > >
> > > Mistakes happen. Judging from your smart ass reply you are either very
> > > very bored or my errors offended you, and you are using sarcasm to try
> > > and chastise and ridicule me.
> > >
> > > Whatever your motives, FUCK YOU. It was obvious to all i made a
> > > mistake. Things like this happen. No need to be an ass hole about it.
> > >
> > Damn. In the words of my three-year-old nephew: 'Practice what you preach.'
> >
> > Thin skin syndrome is easily addressed by not taking yourself so seriously,
> > 'J'. It was a joke. And _not on you_. Unless you and Rich share a rich,
> > bitter history outside of, what...two posts?!?!
> >
>
>
> look, there are people on this news group who take the slightest
> opportunity to jump down someone's throat over a breach of
> "nettiquette" (sp?).
>
> e.g. Maggie's reply to the thread "Actually I agree with Her", as well
> as Richard Boye's reply to my post above.
>
Sorry, but in no way do I see Richard's reply a "jump down someone's
throat". Maybe I am just de-sensitized to this place. But his joke,
wasn't even a direct attack, really. Trust me when I tell you, that had
anyone, and I mean _anyone_ made the error you did, he would have
replied in the same manner. ACtually had it been anyone he truly
has a sense for, it probably would have been much 'worse'.
> These smart ass replies to errors in "nettiquette" aren't even mildly
> amusing, so rather than "letting the baby have its bottle" i told him
> to fuck off.
>
1.And telling him to fuck off raises the standard of "netiquette" let alone
establishes any sense of real dialogue in what way?
2.Would it have truly killed you to take what you perceive to be the
higher road? Tit for tat seems so pointless in the general anonymity
of usenet. And getting into such a high dudgeon over something like
this completely baffles me.
3.If it really bothered you, why didn't you approach Rich via his
email address. He actually provides his own full name and his own personal
email address. While this does not make him 'better' than the rather
broad anonymity that you enjoy, your response seems rather much.
4.Is it having said errors pointed out that bothers you, or
the fact that such errors are even considered as such in the first
place? Everyone that you seem to take issue with, actually is
very generous and only points out errors to help make accessing
this particular group (and others) easier for everyone.
If someone correcting you is also an issue, perhaps others are correct
in saying that another newsgroup might be to your liking.
I think though, that the so-called "netiquette" rules help everyone
as they are a standard that lets you make sense of everything.
> My reply reflected how tired i am of pathetic jibes being cast across
> usenet.
So, you are so tired that you not only cast another jibe, but you
do so in a manner that seems rather vitriolic in contrast. No one
_has_ to get along. But either sucking up a jibe or just ignoring them
seems to be a rather hard path to tread for many. In truth, I think
the ten second rule (or close the windown and wait a day in this case),
often applies.
If your feelings are
going to be hurt over such, then I do hope that you consider thinking
twice over posting to an unmoderated forum that pretty much lets anyone
say what they want. Or you can spend your whole time descending into
hiddy-fit 'screaming' matches that really prove no point and
make it rather easy for many to dismiss you regardless of what else
you might have to say.
In all seriousness, using a hotmail account with just an initial
seems to make the issue of a 'jibe' thrown your way to be a little
bit like spoiling for a fight. Rise above it, if you really want to.
No else can do that for you.
---
JSH
Chucky & Janica
>> He's right, it is much nicer there in terms of people-people, which is
>> really saying something when you consider how much we shout at each
>> other and say "cunt" a lot.
>
>And still manage to never really get offended.
>
>Except when confused. Or when Cassie.
You called Cassie an STD vending machine. I think he was right to be
offended. You were obviously high or pretending to be high. I find
*that* offensive, but I didn't make an issue of it because I'm not an
STD vending machine.
Chucky & Janica
-0700, a big jerkass called jha...@cub.kcnet.org (J.Hamby) opened
their mouths and this happened:
>1.And telling him to fuck off raises the standard of "netiquette" let alone
>establishes any sense of real dialogue in what way?
Why is it always the "clueless newbie" who is for some bizarre reason
expected to raise the standard of anything? Surely there are more
experienced e-diplomats out there.
J.Hamby
> A long time ago, in a galaxy just over there, on 19 Oct 2003 14:15:19
> -0700, a big jerkass called jha...@cub.kcnet.org (J.Hamby) opened
> their mouths and this happened:
>
> >1.And telling him to fuck off raises the standard of "netiquette" let alone
> >establishes any sense of real dialogue in what way?
>
> Why is it always the "clueless newbie" who is for some bizarre reason
> expected to raise the standard of anything? Surely there are more
> experienced e-diplomats out there.
>
>
I was taught such long before I touched my first keyboard.
But we aren't talking some general martyred movement of the
persecuted newbie. I am responding to this individual's reaction
to Richard's post. Real simple without having to drag the
Protection of Clueless Newbies Society into it. Of course
making it some part of a general martyred movement absolves
_anyone_ of any responsibility. Ends up being convenient
but basically removes any real identity from someone willing
to cower under such. What an incredibly easy out. Kind of
like some fairy godmother waving a wand and *poof* it all
goes away.
---
JSH
J
.
>
> Can't find that cover on his site, but the rest of the artwork looks
> solid, and great. Very moody, nice animals and people, I don't love the
> architecture (it all being spires and such), but the overall covers look
> great. So hey, I agree.
>
Go here:
http://www.stud.hum.ku.dk/rosengd/billeder/tkb2.jpg
This is my favorite piece of work that he has done. It is also my favorite Book.
Chucky & Janica
>> >1.And telling him to fuck off raises the standard of "netiquette" let alone
>> >establishes any sense of real dialogue in what way?
>>
>> Why is it always the "clueless newbie" who is for some bizarre reason
>> expected to raise the standard of anything? Surely there are more
>> experienced e-diplomats out there.
>
>What does being a newbie have to do with courtesy?
>
>I was taught such long before I touched my first keyboard.
My point exactly. Why are some people exempt from setting an example?
Were they perhaps not raised as well as they could have been?
>Kind of
>like some fairy godmother waving a wand and *poof* it all
>goes away.
'Poof'? Was that some sort of homophobic slur?
*grin*
Since we're talking about easy escapes from arguments at hand, how's
that one?
J.Hamby
> A long time ago, in a galaxy just over there, on 20 Oct 2003 16:04:26
> -0700, a big jerkass called jha...@cub.kcnet.org (J.Hamby) opened
> their mouths and this happened:
>
> >> >1.And telling him to fuck off raises the standard of "netiquette" let alone
> >> >establishes any sense of real dialogue in what way?
> >>
> >> Why is it always the "clueless newbie" who is for some bizarre reason
> >> expected to raise the standard of anything? Surely there are more
> >> experienced e-diplomats out there.
> >
> >What does being a newbie have to do with courtesy?
> >
> >I was taught such long before I touched my first keyboard.
>
> My point exactly. Why are some people exempt from setting an example?
> Were they perhaps not raised as well as they could have been?
>
people rude. I just respond to it in the manner as I see
fit. And while you claim that your point is that rudeness
is not tolerated; you still seemed to adopted a system that
argues 'J' was justified in what he did. How unique. Oh well
to you, your own.
---
JSH
Chucky & Janica
>Well I don't really care in the long run just what makes
>people rude. I just respond to it in the manner as I see
>fit. And while you claim that your point is that rudeness
>is not tolerated; you still seemed to adopted a system that
>argues 'J' was justified in what he did. How unique. Oh well
>to you, your own.
I don't see why I should have a problem with J. He or she did not piss
in my cornflakes.
And if he or she did, I would be pleased. I'd rather have sausages
anyway.
Stang
rob.o...@verizon.net says...
>
> "pamurphy70" <pamur...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cf732574.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > If people in the group had a choice of illustrators for the cover of
> > the WoT books, who would it be?
> >
> > To start, I would pick Michael Whelan. Any comments?
>
> Drew Struzan.
>
> http://www.drewstruzan.com/
>
>
>
Frank Frazetta
Ilya Popov
> A long time ago, in a galaxy just over there, on 19 Oct 2003 10:45:46
> -0700, a big jerkass called Q...@wotmania.com (Ilya Popov) opened their
> mouths and this happened:
>
> >> He's right, it is much nicer there in terms of people-people, which is
> >> really saying something when you consider how much we shout at each
> >> other and say "cunt" a lot.
> >
> >And still manage to never really get offended.
> >
> >Except when confused. Or when Cassie.
>
> You called Cassie an STD vending machine.
Yep.
> I think he was right to be
> offended.
Offended for himself, or offended for Cassie?
> You were obviously high or pretending to be high.
I was?
> I find
> *that* offensive, but I didn't make an issue of it because I'm not an
> STD vending machine.
>
Offended that you think I was high? Or that I called Cassie an STD vending machine?
>
> C&J
Ilya
Chucky & Janica
-0800, a big jerkass called Q...@wotmania.com (Ilya Popov) opened their
mouths and this happened:
>> I find
>> *that* offensive, but I didn't make an issue of it because I'm not an
>> STD vending machine.
>
>Offended that you think I was high? Or that I called Cassie an STD vending machine?
Take your pick.
Ilya Popov
> A long time ago, in a galaxy just over there, on 27 Oct 2003 11:10:57
> -0800, a big jerkass called Q...@wotmania.com (Ilya Popov) opened their
> mouths and this happened:
>
> >> I find
> >> *that* offensive, but I didn't make an issue of it because I'm not an
> >> STD vending machine.
> >
> >Offended that you think I was high? Or that I called Cassie an STD vending machine?
>
> Take your pick.
>
I'll take both for 300 Alex.
>
> C&J
Ilya