Well, that's a relief.
I suspect he was disappointed when instead of being shocked by
all the F-words we giggled.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
>
>In article <19990703150218...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
>Andrue <and...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Won't even look at this newsgroup again.
>
>Well, that's a relief.
>
>I suspect he was disappointed when instead of being shocked by
>all the F-words we giggled.
>
>Dorothy J. Heydt
A pity, I suppose, that he's probably going to lose his account anyway. Oh
well.
A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be to
shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
we produce the desired effect these days?
V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
Revised in subtle ways, Feb. 12, 1999
>Won't even look at this newsgroup again.
Perhaps when you get some maturity ...
Perhaps it is just me but doesn't anybody feel sorry for the kid?
Granted that he is a jerk (and that he has a long way to go to begin to
be a writer) but after all ...
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-978-369-3911
My goals in life are to bring small wisdom to small minds
and to bring everyone a bit closer to the Twilight Zone
>
> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be to
>shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
>get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
>we produce the desired effect these days
Racebaiting and threats, maybes. I suspect that we wouldn't be
laughing so hard if he said something like "I'll kill all you
n*gger-lovers, and your f*gg*t friends too!"
Luckily, he wasn't that....um..creative?
Steve
Klyfix wrote:
> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in
> part to be to shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered
> persons we just don't get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're
> more likely to laugh. How do we produce the desired effect these
> days?
--
Samuel S. Paik | http://www.webnexus.com/users/paik/
3D and multimedia, architecture and implementation
Solyent Green is kitniyot!
--
Reverend Sean O'Hara
You two can be an ordained minister: http://ulc.org/ulc
"L'an mil neuf cens nonante neuf sept mois,
Du ciel viendra un grand Roi Deffraieur.
Resusciter le grand Roi d'Angolmois,
Avant que Mars regner par bonheur."
Michel d'Nostradame Century X:LXXII
If you look up the Rodney King riots on a calendar you will see that it
all wound down by 0800 hrs Friday morning. The word was quietly
circulated on the street: "No civil order, no Welfare checks." They
were lined up for blocks around the last remaining Post Office. Oh Mr.
Pavlov...
Strategy and tactics are nice, but you can do some amazing things in a
war if you control logistics. (One wonders whether Humvees have
distributor caps.)
--
Uncle Al Schwartz
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
http://www.guyy.demon.co.uk/uncleal/
http://uncleal.within.net/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Klyfix wrote:
>
> In article <FEB96...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
> writes:
>
> >
> >In article <19990703150218...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
> >Andrue <and...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>Won't even look at this newsgroup again.
> >
> >Well, that's a relief.
> >
> >I suspect he was disappointed when instead of being shocked by
> >all the F-words we giggled.
> >
> >Dorothy J. Heydt
>
> A pity, I suppose, that he's probably going to lose his account anyway. Oh
> well.
>
> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be to
> shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
> get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
> we produce the desired effect these days?
It's kind of funny that seeing the "f" word posted again and
again for no reason was annoying the same way that any other
word posted over and over would be an annoyance and I *wasn't*
shocked. But Bujold uses the word "bugshit" in her newest book
and I *was* shocked, or at least found myself blushing just
a little and thinking that she'd been rather brave. And *then*
I thought of how silly I was being. (It's not like she hasn't
used the word shit before.)
Go figure.
--Julie
Shocking readers through the written word is context dependent--today
most writers can't do it to most readers through the mere use of
vulgar language.
>Shocking readers through the written word is context dependent--today
>most writers can't do it to most readers through the mere use of
>vulgar language.
No, but vulgar language from the mouths of fictional children can
still do it. (Just saw the South Park film, today... Whoah, dude.
Some of the songs were rather catchy, though.)
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
Hopefully so. Even more hopefully it was his father's a/c and he'll get
his backend warmed too 8>.
>
> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be to
>shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
>get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
>we produce the desired effect these days?
We propose Terry Brooks for a Hugo for his latest part of the Shanarra
epic (to say nothing of the TPM book), and suggest RAH was a lesbian ??
>V.S. Greene : kly...@aol.com : Boston, near Arkham...
>Eckzylon: http://members.aol.com/klyfix/eckzylon.html
>RPG and SF, predictions, philosophy, and other things.
>Revised in subtle ways, Feb. 12, 1999
GCU Cultural Attache:
I've been told (but haven't checked it out, so I don't know how true it
is) that people with Tourette Syndrome now find themselves compelled to
use racial and ethnic insults rather than the old naughty words.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Seen the South Park movie yet?
I walked out on it, myself. Not because of the movie - because of the
commercials before it. But that's a matter for another thread.
Joe
>In article <FEB96...@kithrup.com>, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>writes:
>
>>
>>In article <19990703150218...@ng-ck1.aol.com>,
>>Andrue <and...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Won't even look at this newsgroup again.
>>
>>Well, that's a relief.
>>
>>I suspect he was disappointed when instead of being shocked by
>>all the F-words we giggled.
>>
>>Dorothy J. Heydt
>
> A pity, I suppose, that he's probably going to lose his account anyway. Oh
>well.
>
> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be to
>shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
>get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
>we produce the desired effect these days?
In my opinion access to usenet ought to be restricted to users running
Internet Explorer; people running obsolete versions of windows should
not be permitted access to the net. All usenet postings should be
filtered by Microsoft.
"And a 1000 elephants!"
--
Ross Smith ....................................... Auckland, New Zealand
<mailto:r-s...@ihug.co.nz> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
"For ten years Caesar ruled with an iron hand, then with a wooden
foot, and finally with a piece of string." -- The Goon Show
<snip, go look for it>
problem is, Sam, coming from you we know, even though you didn't
nicely label it, that it was an illustration, a bit of data to be
discussed, and not a conversational gambit in its own right, so
only someone coming on it out of context will react to it:
biggest problem is, somebody will come on it out of context, and
we're going to have a rumble.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Wouldn't surprise me. As we all grow up we learn how to talk and
how *not* to talk, and we must have little hedges (metaphorically
speaking) fencing off the topics we've been told most often to
avoid. And the Tourette's patient is irresistably drawn to those
hedges.
There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
themselves drawn?
If overpopulation is seen as A Big Problem, "triplet" might be one nasty
word.
> kly...@aol.com (Klyfix) wrote:
>
> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
> >
-snip-
> >>I suspect he was disappointed when instead of being shocked by
> >>all the F-words we giggled.
-snip-
> > A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to
> >be to shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just
> >don't get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh.
> >How do we produce the desired effect these days?
>
> In my opinion access to usenet ought to be restricted to users running
> Internet Explorer; people running obsolete versions of windows should
> not be permitted access to the net. All usenet postings should be
> filtered by Microsoft.
I think that's the wrong sort of shocking, sure it shocks the hell out
of me, and it's enough to make me look for the guys in the white coats
and butterfly nets (until I notice you're using FFA), but it doesn't
offend me, which is I think part of what they want.
--
John Moreno
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
Calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
>
>There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
>taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
>been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
>themselves drawn?
>
I'm reminded of comedian Elaine Boosler's observation that the
F-word actually describes something rather nice, and perhaps a
better curse would be something like "Audit you!".
It plays a major part in Greg Bear's _Slant_.
--
Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> http://www.hyperbooks.com
CORPS Apocalypse now available!
If it gets too far off topic Terry will happily point it back at his ego.
-- Jens Hage
You are allowed to integrate over time!
You still have a chance to get your money's worth. 8>.
(Do you ever get embarrassed by some of your .AOL.COM colleagues?)
GCU Cultural Attache:
>(Do you ever get embarrassed by some of your .AOL.COM colleagues?)
Very little of my sense of self-worth is bound up in my choice of ISP.
I am sometimes embarrassed for _humanity_ because of them, though.
hahaha
>I can't think of any stories that include Tourette's syndrome,
One of Robinson's Callahan stories involves a Tourette's patient
who would love to hang out at the bar but whose conversation is,
um, not socially acceptable even at Callahan's. They rig him up
a pair of linked terminals so he can stay home and still converse
with the guys at the bar, with the benefit of destructive
backspace.
>but in Sturgeon's "Granny Doesn't Knit" eating is a taboo subject,
It's "Granny Won't Knit," and it's bodily functions generally.
The protagonist goes into a private cubicle called a "flower
shop" and relieves himself, washes, shaves, and eats. Later on
he goes to a shop called a "decorator" to buy some roses for his
grandmother, and then he asks an impulse question:
Roan: "What did they call a place where you buy roses before
they called it a decorator?"
Shopkeeper (glances from side to side, whispers) "Flower shop."
(giggles)
Roan: "Then why do they call you-know-what a flower shop?"
Shopkeeper: "I don't know. I suppose because they used to make
dirty jokes about it. Like nowadays with flower shops."
And the swear words available to Roan are words like "petals" and
"stamens."
>In article <VKzf3.1115$U5.2...@ptah.visi.com>,
>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>
>>I've been told (but haven't checked it out, so I don't know how true it
>>is) that people with Tourette Syndrome now find themselves compelled to
>>use racial and ethnic insults rather than the old naughty words.
>
>Wouldn't surprise me. As we all grow up we learn how to talk and
>how *not* to talk, and we must have little hedges (metaphorically
>speaking) fencing off the topics we've been told most often to
>avoid. And the Tourette's patient is irresistably drawn to those
>hedges.
>
>There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
>taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
>been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
>themselves drawn?
That's a _great_ story idea.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
It's possible that suggesting that someone won the War of 1812 (or lost
it) would lead to a fight, but we've already been through that *twice*,
and rasfw may be burnt out on the topic.
>Seven years from now, when Andrue is editing New New Worlds
>and starting the New New Wave, boy are y'all gonna be sorry.
Heh.
Every so often I contemplate what my life would have been like if Usenet
had existed when I was sixteen years old. Then I have to go get a cold
cloth and lie down for a while.
> I suspect that we wouldn't be
> laughing so hard if he said something like "I'll kill all you
> n*gger-lovers, and your f*gg*t friends too!"
> Luckily, he wasn't that....um..creative?
Luckily for him. I've heard that in US such letters can cause a visit
from nice and friendly FBI men^Wpersons...
Jo'Asia
--
< Joanna SÅ‚upek http://rassun.art.pl >
< To write me replace '@rasun.' with '@rassun.' in my e-mail >
< ----------------------------------------------------------------- >
< This novel wasn't released - it escaped!
>
Correction: "Granny Won't Knit".
Tourette Syndrome is used in Greg Bear's novel "Slant".
Too long? I sat through about 10-15 minutes of commercials and trailers yesterday
at a showing of Wild Wild West.
-JM
> No, but vulgar language from the mouths of fictional children can
> still do it. (Just saw the South Park film, today... Whoah, dude.
> Some of the songs were rather catchy, though.)
When I watched the first South Park episode (I forget when) they didn't shock
me-I laughed my ass off. The only time I was truly shocked by 'vulgar'
language was when I got a little ways into Slant and the first fuck threw me
for a second because I hadn't expected it. Other than that, I believe that
most aren't as affected (right usage?) by vulgar language as they were maybe
20 or 30 years ago. When at school, it's a part of my dialogue that I really
don't pay attention to, just vernacular, nothing more.
-JM
>In article <378522cf...@news.artnet.net>,
>Terry Austin <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>kly...@aol.com (Klyfix) wrote:
>>>
>>> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be to
>>>shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
>>>get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
>>>we produce the desired effect these days?
>>>
>>Strictly speaking, this group is among the easier to troll, for someone who
>>reads it for a bit. Something as simple as "Is Pern science fiction or
>>fantasy," for instance.
>>
>I dunno. The most recent "what is science fiction?" thread produced a
>very modest amount of discussion.
usenet sf fandom is dead if it can no longer produce a rousing good
fight over "what is science fiction". It's just a burnt out hulks
twitching aimlessly in front of keyboards.
Send in the droids.
>It's possible that suggesting that someone won the War of 1812 (or lost
>it) would lead to a fight, but we've already been through that *twice*,
>and rasfw may be burnt out on the topic.
The French.
>> No, but vulgar language from the mouths of fictional children can
>> still do it. (Just saw the South Park film, today... Whoah, dude.
>> Some of the songs were rather catchy, though.)
>When I watched the first South Park episode (I forget when) they didn't shock
>me-I laughed my ass off.
The _episodes_ don't shock me at all.
A few of the lines in the film did.
But this is not a complaint.
Ths may label me, but I laughed until I cried at some scenes in the
movie.
--
John S. Novak, III j...@concentric.net
The Humblest Man on the Net
>
>Bitstring <19990703225349...@ng-cc1.aol.com> from the
>wonderful Coyu <co...@aol.com> asserted
>>If a man is judged by the quality of his enemies, then I want a refund.
>
>You are allowed to integrate over time!
>You still have a chance to get your money's worth. 8>.
>
>(Do you ever get embarrassed by some of your .AOL.COM colleagues?)
>
I have noticed that often one must overcome an AOLer stigma; the default
assumption seems to be that "AOL" = "ignorant jackasses". And the famed
As***** On Line" and so on. The problem is that it's a huge mass market online
service that pitches to people who have no experience with computers or
the Internet (I'm waiting for the ad that says "I can't make toast, but I'm on
AOL"); of course there's going to be a fair number of twits.
On the other hand, WebTVers appear to have displaced us at the bottom
of the pecking order. :)
I did elect to see if "Andrue" had an AOL profile, Much to my surprise,
there
were multiple people with varients of that name, but none matching him. Well,
there was a gentlemen whose profile was all in caps and consisted of a vain
attempt at an "in your face" rant, but not quite the same screen name.
>
>Seven years from now, when Andrue is editing New New Worlds
>and starting the New New Wave, boy are y'all gonna be sorry.
>
> hahaha
>
Considering a few (a minority of course) of New Wave stories it's not
entirely
impossible or implausible.:) I recall that a few were pretentious gibberish.
>
>> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be
>to
>>shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
>>get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
>>we produce the desired effect these days
>
>Racebaiting and threats, maybes. I suspect that we wouldn't be
>laughing so hard if he said something like "I'll kill all you
>n*gger-lovers, and your f*gg*t friends too!"
>
>Luckily, he wasn't that....um..creative?
>
Well, threats of violence go back to at least our close to chimp
forebearers,
so I wouldn't have given him much in the way of points. :)
>
>Klyfix <kly...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to be
>to
>>shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just don't
>>get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh. How do
>>we produce the desired effect these days?
>
>Seen the South Park movie yet?
>
Not a huge "South Park" myself; my overall assessment is that it's better
than it has any right to be. It perhaps gets a bit of at least surprise factor
from
the little kids with foul language and of course Kenny's inevitable fate, but
on
the other hand little kids these days often really use language like that. Part
of
why it's not shocking really; it's been trivialised.
>I walked out on it, myself. Not because of the movie - because of the
>commercials before it. But that's a matter for another thread.
>
Hmm, I'm not quite rich enough to walk out on a movie 'cause of
advertising. :)
>
>On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 22:44:19 -0700, Samuel Paik <pa...@webnexus.com> wrote:
>
>>Shocking readers through the written word is context dependent--today
>>most writers can't do it to most readers through the mere use of
>>vulgar language.
>
>No, but vulgar language from the mouths of fictional children can
>still do it. (Just saw the South Park film, today... Whoah, dude.
>Some of the songs were rather catchy, though.)
>
Hmm, don' know 'bout that for sure. I'm reminded of riding on the Orange
Line (Boston subways are convienently color coded, sort of) while some
little kid was yelling (think this is the word) "Poontang!" repeadedly, and
then
saying stuff about killing folk (which of course might have been rap lyrics).
My
reaction was less shock than annoyance, and a wish that somebody would
whack him upside the head. Since children, alas, do talk that way (not usually
in front of their parents) is it all that shocking?
>
>>I dunno. The most recent "what is science fiction?" thread produced a
>>very modest amount of discussion.
>
>usenet sf fandom is dead if it can no longer produce a rousing good
>fight over "what is science fiction". It's just a burnt out hulks
>twitching aimlessly in front of keyboards.
>
>Send in the droids.
>
Hmm, I think there's been a few sort of rousing arguments over the nature
of
science fiction over in rec.arts.sf.tv, mainly over whether there really _is_
such a
thing as real science fiction on TV.
>>It's possible that suggesting that someone won the War of 1812 (or lost
>>it) would lead to a fight, but we've already been through that *twice*,
>>and rasfw may be burnt out on the topic.
>
>The French.
>
>
Hmm, sounds good to me. Oh, and add American textile manufacturers,
if I recall correctly.
I just find the way the net polices itself ever more fascinating. But
then again, I just finished _Distraction_ by Bruce Sterling, and now I'll
see anarchical societies everywhere for a few days. Even where they
actually do exist.
But I'm wondering what the morality is here. Andrue came on. Broke some
social convnetions, was oblvious to all cues that he had broken social
conventions, and then was driven from rec.arts.sf.written. Now that the
process has been effective, there's a minor backlash, a kind of reality
check against the methods used.
Interesting.
Maureen McHugh
> The _episodes_ don't shock me at all.
> A few of the lines in the film did.
> But this is not a complaint.
>
> Ths may label me, but I laughed until I cried at some scenes in the
> movie.
Label you as what? Entertainment Weekly gave the movie an A- so I wouldn't be
embarassed by having said I saw it (and I hope to see it soon, but probably won't
be able to til it comes out on video *sigh*).
-JM
>
>I just find the way the net polices itself ever more fascinating. But
>then again, I just finished _Distraction_ by Bruce Sterling, and now I'll
>see anarchical societies everywhere for a few days. Even where they
>actually do exist.
>
>But I'm wondering what the morality is here. Andrue came on. Broke some
>social convnetions, was oblvious to all cues that he had broken social
>conventions, and then was driven from rec.arts.sf.written. Now that the
>process has been effective, there's a minor backlash, a kind of reality
>check against the methods used.
>
>Interesting.
>
Let us not forget that he called for someone who had criticized him to
lose
his account; it's not quite a case of a poor little child getting beat up.
>Richard Harter <c...@tiac.net> wrote:
>> kly...@aol.com (Klyfix) wrote:
>>
>> >djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>> >
>-snip-
>> >>I suspect he was disappointed when instead of being shocked by
>> >>all the F-words we giggled.
>-snip-
>> > A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to
>> >be to shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just
>> >don't get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh.
>> >How do we produce the desired effect these days?
>>
>> In my opinion access to usenet ought to be restricted to users running
>> Internet Explorer; people running obsolete versions of windows should
>> not be permitted access to the net. All usenet postings should be
>> filtered by Microsoft.
>I think that's the wrong sort of shocking, sure it shocks the hell out
>of me, and it's enough to make me look for the guys in the white coats
>and butterfly nets (until I notice you're using FFA), but it doesn't
>offend me, which is I think part of what they want.
It's just not short enough. Bad words, when they were still forbidden in
polite speech, hit the hindbrain before the forebrain. Such shots have to
be very short, because it doesn't take long for the rational brain to kick
in and start analyzing the contect. For the shock value, you have to
violate a taboo abruptly, and a sentence is far too long to gain that kind
of effect.
--
----
Lydia Nickerson ly...@ddb.com
> >There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
> >taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
> >been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
> >themselves drawn?
>
> That's a _great_ story idea.
And a source of almost endless agravation for me (and perhaps others): What
do you use for swear words and curses in a world without organized religion?
It *really* stretches the mind.
cd
You use swear words that refer to taboo subjects. In English, for
most people, the taboo areas include sexual intercourse, excretion,
and christianity. I very much doubt that any culture would be without
a few taboo areas. In a society without organized religion, perhaps
calling someone a "god-fearing puritan" would be fighting words (or as
someone suggested 'audit').
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
In most of the English-speaking world, sexual terms are more powerful than
religious ones. But ethnic slurs seem to be displacing them, to some
extent. And references to various handicaps are also powerful.
Oh, I have an idea. If I write it up (it's a story-length idea,
not a novel-sized idea, sorry, Patrick) I'll be able to show
several very short words that will shock the hell out of the
culture in which they are spoken. (And it's even got organized
religion, but the shocking words are not blasphemous. In fact,
several of them are acceptable *only* when spoken by God.)
<sounds of wheels going round in head, accompanied by evil
chuckling)>
He edits an original-anthology series: Starlight.
I'll be able to show
>several very short words that will shock the hell out of the
>culture in which they are spoken. (And it's even got organized
>religion, but the shocking words are not blasphemous. In fact,
>several of them are acceptable *only* when spoken by God.)
>
><sounds of wheels going round in head, accompanied by evil
>chuckling)>
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote in <FEBrD...@kithrup.com>:
>
>>In article <VKzf3.1115$U5.2...@ptah.visi.com>,
>>Dan Goodman <dsg...@visi.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>I've been told (but haven't checked it out, so I don't know how true it
>>>is) that people with Tourette Syndrome now find themselves compelled to
>>>use racial and ethnic insults rather than the old naughty words.
>>
>>Wouldn't surprise me. As we all grow up we learn how to talk and
>>how *not* to talk, and we must have little hedges (metaphorically
>>speaking) fencing off the topics we've been told most often to
>>avoid. And the Tourette's patient is irresistably drawn to those
>>hedges.
>>
>>There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
>>taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
>>been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
>>themselves drawn?
>
>That's a _great_ story idea.
Non-religious people use religious swear words to ample effect.
So maybe the words won't make as big a change, as fast, as all
that.
Lucy Kemnitzer
The Crush Andrue threads eventually mutate. Flame detritus generates
discussions of, among other things, non-propagated newsgroups,
Tourette's Syndrome, and a French novel that excludes the letter e.
Life is good.
> Let us not forget that he called for someone who had criticized him to
> lose
> his account; it's not quite a case of a poor little child getting beat up.
This actually suggests to me that he was just a harmless brat. I
can't imagine that a real troll would shoot himself in the foot so
badly.
I suppose my original point was something like, "Take it easy.
Somebody somewhere on usenet is smarter than you too."
So then you go and knock a hole in my keen New New Wave joke.
Thanks a lot.
>
>Klyfix wrote:
>
>> Let us not forget that he called for someone who had criticized him to
>> lose
>> his account; it's not quite a case of a poor little child getting beat up.
>
>This actually suggests to me that he was just a harmless brat. I
>can't imagine that a real troll would shoot himself in the foot so
>badly.
Well, he's just so much like folk I've seen on local BBSs in the past. He's
probably ultimately redeemable.
>I suppose my original point was something like, "Take it easy.
>Somebody somewhere on usenet is smarter than you too."
>So then you go and knock a hole in my keen New New Wave joke.
>Thanks a lot.
>
My comments were a bit redundent, admittedly. :/
There was an sf story in which "rape" was used as a curse word, but I
can't remember author or title.
--
Nancy Lebovitz na...@netaxs.com
Calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
Terry Austin will just have to figure out his own trolling.
Apparently god-control has replaced gun-control for the nonce.
>Terry Austin will just have to figure out his own trolling.
You may be confident of his abilities in that regard.
I've seen it used in certain newsgroups as the key part of an insult
(I'm not going to say how, as I don't wish to propogate the meme).
It's very very effective at creating shock and outrage.
--
\S -- si...@chiark.greenend.org.uk -- http://www.chaos.org.uk/~sion/
___ | "Frankly I have no feelings towards penguins one way or the other"
\X/ | -- Arthur C. Clarke
| If music be the food of love, bring me a doggie bag.
Have you read "The Hacker Crackdown" by Sterling?
Should get you thinking again.
ObSF: I'm reading "Schismtrix" (sp?), the revised longer edition with the
shorts in it too - for some reason I'm finding it hard to get engaged.
Normally I adore Sterling's stuff.
> But I'm wondering what the morality is here. Andrue came on. Broke some
> social convnetions, was oblvious to all cues that he had broken social
> conventions, and then was driven from rec.arts.sf.written.
Seems okay to me. That's pretty much the way human society works overall
too.
And as for 'driven from', well, that's strong. He chose to leave.
Even if he stayed there's nothing we can do to make him leave.
Well, not true, there's always kill filing, but that makes for
a personal reality, not a real reality. Which is in someways an
interesting idea - we can now chose not to see someone and really
not seem them anymore.
> Now that the
> process has been effective, there's a minor backlash, a kind of reality
> check against the methods used.
This bit is interesting, and it's an important part of the more
adult newsgroups. Those without it just descend into flame and
chaos.
--
David Kennedy, | kenn...@nortelnetworks.com
Northern Ireland Telecommunications | ESN: 6 751 2678
Engineering Centre (NITEC), | Phone: 01232 362678
Nortel Networks | Fax: 01232 363170
No, that's also just laughable. There's too many people who DO
believe and espouse that honestly (as honestly as any uninformed opinion
formed entirely from advertising can be) to make it shocking.
Still, "Microsoft" makes a good curse word to replace "bullshit" (esp.
on the "spreading misinformation" sense). I think I'll start using
that.
-- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
I'm annoyed by him for being off-topic, not for being a jerk or not
being a skilled writer yet. Or I would be, if I hadn't killfiled
everyone from AOL (I do pull out the "cool people" when I notice them
being replied to, but the default is Score: -9999).
The correct place for that kind of posting was
rec.arts.sf.composition. There he might have received some sympathy and
support and help. Instead he blundered onto the field at Gallipoli.
> The correct place for that kind of posting was
>rec.arts.sf.composition. There he might have received some sympathy and
>support and help. Instead he blundered onto the field at Gallipoli.
Actually, if he turns up with a different ID (or even a recognizably similar
one, if he waits a month or two) and behaves better, he'll probably find
Usenet a remarkably forgiving medium. If only because nobody will be able to
remember the specific name of "that kid with the stupid novel" without
actually consulting DejaNews.
> I'm annoyed by him for being off-topic, not for being a jerk or not
>being a skilled writer yet. Or I would be, if I hadn't killfiled
>everyone from AOL (I do pull out the "cool people" when I notice them
>being replied to, but the default is Score: -9999).
>
> The correct place for that kind of posting was
>rec.arts.sf.composition. There he might have received some sympathy and
>support and help. Instead he blundered onto the field at Gallipoli.
No, it is NOT rec.arts.sf.composition -- the limit there is "a few
paragraphs," not six long pages, and then only with the CRIT prefix on
the subject line, asking for critiquing.
Rec.arts.prose would be okay.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 4/24/99
Which is how the people in Anderson's _The Winter of the World_
(who are not quite human) treat all miscreants/socially inept
people. ~"You, as a person, refuse to have anthying to do with
him, as a person."~
> The correct place for [Andrue's] kind of posting was
>rec.arts.sf.composition.
Well, no, it isn't. You do not post lengthy chunks of text (and
more than a screenful is definitely too lengthy) on r.a.sf.c.
>There he might have received some sympathy and
>support and help. Instead he blundered onto the field at Gallipoli.
No, if he'd done the same thing there the same things would have
happened: somebody would have said, "Excuse me, this is not the
right group to post your work for critique,' and he would have
blown up and screamed "CENSORSHIP" and demanded in harsh language
that somebody's account be pulled. And THEN the big guns would
have opened fire.
> P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
>
> > >There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
> > >taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
> > >been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
> > >themselves drawn?
> >
> > That's a _great_ story idea.
>
> And a source of almost endless agravation for me (and perhaps others): What
> do you use for swear words and curses in a world without organized religion?
> It *really* stretches the mind.
if family is really important in that society than using insults that relate to
the victim's family would probably get a fight going.
-JM
Well, the Pernese use "Shells!", "Shards!", "Fardles!", etc.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
> Seven years from now, when Andrue is editing New New Worlds
> and starting the New New Wave, boy are y'all gonna be sorry.
Well this does answer the question, how do you really shock people, now
that 4-letter words are pretty well worn out?
Chris Henrich
The hani use "gods-rotted" and "gods-be-feathered", plus anything
to do with "sons" because sons are a liability in their culture.
Andrue is a better writer already than any of you?
>In article <3780A57B...@europem01.nt.com>,
>Kennedy, David (EXCHANGE:IRE07:GC42) <kenn...@europem01.nt.com> wrote:
>>Maureen McHugh wrote:
>>>
>>And as for 'driven from', well, that's strong. He chose to leave.
>>Even if he stayed there's nothing we can do to make him leave.
>>Well, not true, there's always kill filing, but that makes for
>>a personal reality, not a real reality. Which is in someways an
>>interesting idea - we can now chose not to see someone and really
>>not seem them anymore.
>
>Which is how the people in Anderson's _The Winter of the World_
>(who are not quite human) treat all miscreants/socially inept
>people. ~"You, as a person, refuse to have anthying to do with
>him, as a person."~
The beliefs of some tribes of the innuit can be described as "Bears are
people; some human beings, however, are not."
>
>> And a source of almost endless agravation for me (and perhaps others):
>What
>> do you use for swear words and curses in a world without organized
>religion?
>> It *really* stretches the mind.
>
>if family is really important in that society than using insults that relate
>to
>the victim's family would probably get a fight going.
Hmm, so something along the lines of "your momma"?
> Still, "Microsoft" makes a good curse word to replace "bullshit" (esp.
> on the "spreading misinformation" sense). I think I'll start using
> that.
I don't think so, it's just too long. :)
BTW, that reminds me...
In Febuary on a convention a cxontest was held. Three teams, a mage, a
warrior and a bard in each of them. In one part of the contest warriors
had to abuse each other but without using harsh language. The first one
started with "You Microsoft user!" and got an applause, but it was
vetoed since "M*ft" isn't a word you use in public. :)
Jo'Asia
--
< Joanna SÅ‚upek http://rassun.art.pl >
< To write me replace '@rasun.' with '@rassun.' in my e-mail >
< -----------X-Mozilla-Status: 0009-------------------------------- >
< Better a mutie than a moron! (Lord Mark Pierre Vorkosigan) >
<Snip>
I'd give him 'A' for effort, and confidence/willingness to post his
output. G* for grammar, layout, content, plot, characterization and
suchlike, but you can't have everything in a first novel 8>.
(* B- if we redefine his style as New Wave, and publish in Dangerous
Visions 99 8>.)
*I* was annoyed because he reacted so badly to friendly advice ('Take it
elsewhere'), then tried the old 'put my other hat on and support myself'
trick, and finally filled up the NG with meaningless one letter swear
word postings (*that* was the final straw that dispatched the LOU Arm of
God in his direction).
> The correct place for that kind of posting was
>rec.arts.sf.composition.
Maybe for one page, if he wanted help, but if he wanted to post it all
then they would not have welcomed it either. The right place was a
private webpage, (or after careful review, I venture to suggest: /nul.)
> There he might have received some sympathy and
>support and help.
For one page only!
> Instead he blundered onto the field at Gallipoli.
.. Found some barbed wire, wrapped it round his neck, tied one end to a
tree, and then jumped on a land mine. Think of it as evolution in
action.
>
>-- <a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
GCU Cultural Attache:
Another one (don't remember the author or title) where "Don't sweat it!"
was considered extremely vulgar...
Justin was shocked. They were words staff meticulously avoided
using. Born-men. Annies. The Yard. It was always CITs; azi;
the Town. Grant was pronouncedly drunk.
> >if family is really important in that society than using insults that relate
> >to
> >the victim's family would probably get a fight going.
>
> Hmm, so something along the lines of "your momma"?
a little bit worse than standard fare, though that -was- probably offensive when
it was first introduced. it would have to depend on the society for what it
would find offensive. Like nowadays, someone mentioned how most 'vulgar' words
are about sex, excretion, and something else, and those were made vulgar by the
influence of the Church (not directly, just culturally). Someone's already given
this link, but in Straight Dope, there's an article on what different cultures
find as cuss words or phrases:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_238.htmlWhatever is taboo to talk about
in the culture you'd set this story in would be a good place to making up
'vulgar' phrases. If people have really bad athlete's foot, talking about it
could be considered rude therefore, to insult someone, you could comment on
their fungus and the color there of. And yes, I've been outside too long today
so the heat -has- gotten to me.
-JM
The last six pages I wrote, I did not post them anywhere.
This puts me ahead of Andrue slightly. Or at least I break even.
> There was an sf story in which "rape" was used as a curse word, but
> I can't remember author or title.
That made the phrase "Rape the passengers" jump into my mind... I read
it -- used where one might say "fuck the passengers" or "screw the
passengers," _not_ as a literal imperative -- in an sf novel once
upon a time... I want to say _Mote In God's Eye_, of all things, but
that just doesn't sound right for that pseudo-British Navy culture.
(Something by Heinlein? Doesn't sound like him either; I'm probably
keying off of the bit in _Starman Jones_ where the spacemen's slang
use of "beast" and "animal" is discussed -- an animal is just an
animal, whereas a "beast" is a passenger. Or do I have it backwards?)
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
That this is what he sought to achieve doesn't mean we can't be big about
it, and it's not a weakness, but a strength. If we refrained from feeling
forgiveness just to do the opposite of what he wanted, now *that* would be
weakness.
For myself, I say I hope he returns in another incarnation :-)
PS. BTW, what's with the follow-up? DS.
--
M. Northstar
"Science starts as speculation. Speculation begins with fantasy."
>In article <7lq236$a...@netaxs.com>,
>na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) said:
>
>> There was an sf story in which "rape" was used as a curse word, but
>> I can't remember author or title.
>
>That made the phrase "Rape the passengers" jump into my mind... I read
>it -- used where one might say "fuck the passengers" or "screw the
>passengers," _not_ as a literal imperative -- in an sf novel once
>upon a time... I want to say _Mote In God's Eye_, of all things, but
>that just doesn't sound right for that pseudo-British Navy culture.
In _Gripping Hand_, the sequel to Mote, the expression "rape my lizard"
is current slang - seemingly as very mild cussing. The fact that the
moties wouldn't know it (not being in use during the Mote visit) is a
minor plot element.
>(Something by Heinlein? Doesn't sound like him either; I'm probably
>keying off of the bit in _Starman Jones_ where the spacemen's slang
>use of "beast" and "animal" is discussed -- an animal is just an
>animal, whereas a "beast" is a passenger. Or do I have it backwards?)
>
>-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
>
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
In many African countries, it would be 'your papa!'
>Justin was shocked. They were words staff meticulously avoided
>using. Born-men. Annies. The Yard. It was always CITs; azi;
>the Town. Grant was pronouncedly drunk.
A drunken Grant would disturb me no matter what language he was using.
--
Phil Fraering "What are we going to do tonight, Miles?"
p...@globalreach.net "Same thing we do every night, Ivan,
/Will work for tape/ try to take over the Imperium!"
MADAM IM ADAM
>>I've been told (but haven't checked it out, so I don't know how true it
>>is) that people with Tourette Syndrome now find themselves compelled to
>>use racial and ethnic insults rather than the old naughty words.
> Wouldn't surprise me. As we all grow up we learn how to talk and
> how *not* to talk, and we must have little hedges (metaphorically
> speaking) fencing off the topics we've been told most often to
> avoid. And the Tourette's patient is irresistably drawn to those
> hedges.
"I'm carrying a bomb onto the airplane I'm carrying a bomb onto the
airplane"?
> There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
> taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
> been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
> themselves drawn?
Fyunch-CLICK!
>>>> A thought. The point of most such language seems at least in part to
>>>>be to shock, and except for perhaps some really sheltered persons we just
>>>>don't get shocked by naughty words anymore. We're more likely to laugh.
>>>>How do we produce the desired effect these days?
>>> In my opinion access to usenet ought to be restricted to users running
>>> Internet Explorer; people running obsolete versions of windows should
>>> not be permitted access to the net. All usenet postings should be
>>> filtered by Microsoft.
> It's just not short enough. Bad words, when they were still forbidden in
> polite speech, hit the hindbrain before the forebrain. Such shots have to
> be very short, because it doesn't take long for the rational brain to kick
> in and start analyzing the contect. For the shock value, you have to
> violate a taboo abruptly, and a sentence is far too long to gain that kind
> of effect.
I've found myself cursing "blood and death" (disgust/disappointment),
"severed head on a STICK!" (awe/disbelief), and "kill mangle mutilate
rip head off of destroy destroy destroy deSTROY..." (seething low-level
rage - fortunately, not an emotional state I experience too frequently).
One of Roberto Alomar's justifications for spitting in an umpire's face
was that the umpire had called him a "m*****f*****", and that isn't
something a Latin will stand for.
Tanj! Tanj! Tanj! Tanj! Shards! Shards! Ga-Lax-y, man! Kark it!
Well, now, there's just another example of a word that's shocking
to some hearers eliciting boredom in others.
I regularly use "God Bless America" as a curse (it's identifable as a
curse by the pronunciation). The effect is, uh, interesting.
> In article <7lq236$a...@netaxs.com>,
> na...@unix3.netaxs.com (Nancy Lebovitz) said:
>
> > There was an sf story in which "rape" was used as a curse word, but
> > I can't remember author or title.
>
> That made the phrase "Rape the passengers" jump into my mind... I read
> it -- used where one might say "fuck the passengers" or "screw the
> passengers," _not_ as a literal imperative -- in an sf novel once
> upon a time... I want to say _Mote In God's Eye_, of all things, but
> that just doesn't sound right for that pseudo-British Navy culture.
"Rape my Lizard", a phrase used as an ident code by the up-n-coming
generation of The Gripping Hand, since it arose after the first contact
with the Motie system.
--
Brian Love
Blizzard Entertainment
> That made the phrase "Rape the passengers" jump into my mind... I read
> it -- used where one might say "fuck the passengers" or "screw the
> passengers," _not_ as a literal imperative -- in an sf novel once
> upon a time... I want to say _Mote In God's Eye_, of all things, but
> that just doesn't sound right for that pseudo-British Navy culture.
Rape them is indeed used somwhere in :Mote:, I think with regard to a
piece of ship's equipment when MacArthur is intercepting the sundiving
Motie probe. It worked well enough as an expletive to stick in my mind.
--
'ric
>Every so often I contemplate what my life would have been like if Usenet
>had existed when I was sixteen years old. Then I have to go get a cold
>cloth and lie down for a while.
Usenet did exist when I was sixteen. I was even posting to it then.
Now I need to go get a cold cloth and lie down a while. Thanks heaps.
Kevin Maroney | kmar...@crossover.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor
The New York Review of Science Fiction
http://ebbs.english.vt.edu/olp/nyrsf/nyrsf.html
Klono's. Not generic at all; specific to the Lensman universe.
Don't forget "Gods rot it!"
> J. Moreno <pl...@newsreaders.com> wrote:
> >Mike Schilling <mi...@forte.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Tanj! Tanj! Tanj! Tanj! Shards! Shards! Ga-Lax-y, man! Kark it!
> >
> >By Kronos brass balls (hmn, maybe to generic).
>
> Klono's. Not generic at all; specific to the Lensman universe.
Klono, right (I knew that, see it's just that the "l" and the "r" are so
close on the key board..., don't believe me huh? neither do I).
But I was talking about the "brass balls" and that seems a bit generic.
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djh...@kithrup.com
> http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
How about adding a sigdash so that we don't have to delete your sig by
hand? Two dashes and a space.
--
John Moreno
> carl Dershem wrote:
> >
> > P Nielsen Hayden wrote:
> >
> > > >There's a story in that. N centuries in the future, when the
> > > >taboos are different, and if (Deus prohibeat) Tourette's hasn't
> > > >been cured yet, to what taboo subjects will the patients find
> > > >themselves drawn?
> > >
> > > That's a _great_ story idea.
> >
> > And a source of almost endless agravation for me (and perhaps others):
> > What do you use for swear words and curses in a world without organized
> > religion? It *really* stretches the mind.
>
> If you really, really want to shock people, to shock them badly,
> regardless of culture (but they have to be of the species Homo
> Sapiens Sapiens, else I can't guarantee it works), make an
> explicit reference to the sexual exploitation and abuse of
> a very young child (not a young teenager, but an obviously
> pre-pubescent child. Age 7-8 works best, I'll guess). To
> reach a larger percentage of the audience, also suggest
> serious torture and mutilation of the child. And since some
> people believe that parents own their children and can
> do with them what they wish (including conditioning the
> child to be obedient and non-thinking, or using the
> child for sex), be sure to make it clear that the person
> torturing and abusing the child is a stranger, not a
> parent or relative. I'm sure 99.9% of the people listeing
> will be utterly shocked, now, anyplace on Earth, and
> also in the future.
>
> The suggestive mentioning of such practices will cause revulsion
> in anyone hearing about it, so it cannot be used for an
> everyday curse like "fuck" or "hell". Only if you really, really
> need to grab attention and stir up some emotions in people.
Put it in the 5th Millennium and it's everyday practice, it seems
mistaken and wrong headed to most but it doesn't seem to shock anybody.
--
John Moreno
Direct, personal threats of violence are not protected speech; the
First Amendment doesn't give you the right to threaten someone with
death. However, context matters enormously in how threat-like language
is interpreted, and a newsgroup post addressed to the group at large
is far less likely to be interpreted that way than, say, an email sent
directly to an individual, or posts to a university-specific newsgroup
or bulletin board, which threaten violence agains specific, named
people or groups of people at the university--and the latter is the
recent case I suspect Jo'Asia is somewhat uninformedly extrapolating
from. (And it wasn't the FBI; in fact, I believe it was a civil suit,
not criminal at all.)
Lis Carey