Hugo winners
David Goldfarb
I don't have a printed list of the winners in front of me, so I'll
have to go from memory -- forgive me if I omit a category or get
something wrong.
To sum up: this was not a year of big surprises.
Best Fan Artist: Teddy Harvia.
Best Fan Writer: David Langford.
Best Fanzine: ANSIBLE.
Best LOCUS^H^H^H^H^H Semi-Prozine: LOCUS.
Best Website: LOCUS online; Mark Kelly accepting.
Best Related Work: _The Art of Chesley Bonestell_ by two no-doubt
worthy fellows whose names escape me. Sorry.
Best Professional Editor: Ellen Datlow.
Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
Best Short Story: "The Dog Said Bow-Wow" by Michael Swanwick.
Best Novelette: "Hell Is the Absence of God" by Ted Chiang. (Yes!)
Best Novella: "Fast Times at Fairmont High" by Vernor Vinge. (On
what other occasions has the Writer Guest of Honor won a Hugo? There
must be some.)
Best Novel: _American Gods_ by Neil Gaiman.
Campbell Award for Best New Writer:
JO WON!!! JO WON!!! YES! YES!! YES!!! WOO-HOO!!!
Ahem. Sorry. It took all my self-control not to make that last line
the "Subject:".
As some of you may know, Lucy Kemnitzer and I accepted the award in
Jo's place. (Her budget does not stretch to a transatlantic move
*and* a Worldcon trip all in the same year.) As Stanley Schmidt read
off the list of nominees, I had a sudden and vivid impression of what
it must be like to *be* Schrodinger's Cat. I hallucinated that the
world had split in two, and in one half Schmidt was saying, "...and the
award goes to Ken Wharton" and in the other half he was saying "...goes
to Jo Walton".
Then the wave function collapsed. And the right way, even.
So Lucy and I went up on stage, and we gave the speech that Jo had sent
us. I took the first paragraph, and Lucy took the second, and then we
alternated lines on the sonnet. People laughed in the right places, and
applauded in the right places. Afterwards people smiled and gave
thumbs-up gestures.
Afterwards we went to the Hugo party, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden lent
us his cell phone to make the call. After a bunch of rings, Jo finally
answered. I gave her the news. She said, "Gosh."
It was cool. It was one of the coolest things I've done this century,
if not in my whole life. I want to congratulate Jo in public, and thank
her for letting me be a part of it.
--
David Goldfarb <*>| "You can't do only one thing."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- John W. Campbell, Jr.
Raymond Chuang
news:akvdaj$b6g$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> I haven't seen a list of the Hugo winners posted yet. Unfortunately,
> I don't have a printed list of the winners in front of me, so I'll
> have to go from memory -- forgive me if I omit a category or get
> something wrong.
The full list is available now on Locus Online at:
http://www.locusmag.com/2002/News/News09Log1.html
You forgot to mention that the movie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship
of the Ring won Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo. This was kind of a small
surprise to me given the vocal support for the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer
episode "Once More With Feeling," which was nominated for this award.
--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, California USA
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> So Lucy and I went up on stage, and we gave the speech that Jo had sent
> us. I took the first paragraph, and Lucy took the second, and then we
> alternated lines on the sonnet. People laughed in the right places, and
> applauded in the right places. Afterwards people smiled and gave
> thumbs-up gestures.
Any chance of Jo letting you post it?
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Lucy Kemnitzer
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>Campbell Award for Best New Writer:
>JO WON!!! JO WON!!! YES! YES!! YES!!! WOO-HOO!!!
>
>Ahem. Sorry. It took all my self-control not to make that last line
>the "Subject:".
If you had not beat me to the keyboard (no doubt because you didn't
have to drive over a minor mountain range to get to it), I would have
made that the subject line. I mean, all those other things are very
nice and all very well, but this was the big one!
>
>As some of you may know, Lucy Kemnitzer and I accepted the award in
>Jo's place. (Her budget does not stretch to a transatlantic move
>*and* a Worldcon trip all in the same year.) As Stanley Schmidt read
>off the list of nominees, I had a sudden and vivid impression of what
>it must be like to *be* Schrodinger's Cat. I hallucinated that the
>world had split in two, and in one half Schmidt was saying, "...and the
>award goes to Ken Wharton" and in the other half he was saying "...goes
>to Jo Walton".
>
>Then the wave function collapsed. And the right way, even.
>
>So Lucy and I went up on stage, and we gave the speech that Jo had sent
>us. I took the first paragraph, and Lucy took the second, and then we
>alternated lines on the sonnet. People laughed in the right places, and
>applauded in the right places. Afterwards people smiled and gave
>thumbs-up gestures.
David Goldfarb has the most beautiful voice, and the sonnet is triple
A excellent and means more the more you read it. So when we got to
read it over again to Mary Kay who had been working in the wings and
couldn't hear it I was glad.
>
>Afterwards we went to the Hugo party, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden lent
>us his cell phone to make the call. After a bunch of rings, Jo finally
>answered. I gave her the news. She said, "Gosh."
I think she said some other things but it was noisy and I couldn't
hear her.
>
>It was cool. It was one of the coolest things I've done this century,
>if not in my whole life. I want to congratulate Jo in public, and thank
>her for letting me be a part of it.
>
Oh yes. It was ever so wonderful to get to say those words to that
audience for her.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Kevin J. Maroney
<rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You forgot to mention that the movie
Given the main purpose of this posting, I doubt he *forgot*.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Ailsa Ek
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
WaHOOO! Happy happy joy joy happy happy joy joy happy happy joy joy
happy happy joy joy!
Er, ahem, yes, that does sound like fun. Congratulations all around.
--
What can you do with your days but work and hope, Ailsa C. Ek
Let your dreams bind your work to your play? ail...@mac.com
What can you do with every moment of your life Sharon, MA
But love 'til you love it away? - Bob Franke http://pages.ivillage.com/ailsaek
Jo Walton
He didn't forget, he didn't mention it because he was there
representing me so he didn't notice it existed.
Now _that_'s the sort of representation I appreciate. :]
Jo
Kate Nepveu
>So Lucy and I went up on stage, and we gave the speech that Jo had sent
>us. I took the first paragraph, and Lucy took the second, and then we
>alternated lines on the sonnet. People laughed in the right places, and
>applauded in the right places. Afterwards people smiled and gave
>thumbs-up gestures.
A sonnet? Gosh indeed. Jo, if you're back on Usenet, post it,
please?
--
Kate Nepveu
E-mail: kne...@steelypips.org *new*
Home: http://www.steelypips.org/
Book log: http://www.steelypips.org/weblog/
Priscilla Ballou
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 03:41:00 -0700, "Raymond Chuang"
> <rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >You forgot to mention that the movie
>
> Given the main purpose of this posting, I doubt he *forgot*.
Ah! <sound of penny dropping>
Priscilla
--
"Love is not something wonderful that you feel; it is something
difficult that you do." -- Elizabeth Goudge
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
For the winner:
Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
Whelan wins on points.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Thomas Yan
> gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> >So Lucy and I went up on stage, and we gave the speech that Jo had sent
> >us. I took the first paragraph, and Lucy took the second, and then we
Woo hoo!
> >alternated lines on the sonnet. People laughed in the right places, and
> >applauded in the right places. Afterwards people smiled and gave
> >thumbs-up gestures.
>
> A sonnet? Gosh indeed. Jo, if you're back on Usenet, post it,
> please?
AOL.
Cally Soukup
> Best Fan Writer: David Langford.
Another rocket for the collection!
> Best Fanzine: ANSIBLE.
And yet another! (Pushed you out of the house, yet, have they?)
> Campbell Award for Best New Writer:
> JO WON!!! JO WON!!! YES! YES!! YES!!! WOO-HOO!!!
Woo-hoo! I know Jo's not reading Rasseff anymore, but YEAAAAAH!
> Ahem. Sorry. It took all my self-control not to make that last line
> the "Subject:".
> As some of you may know, Lucy Kemnitzer and I accepted the award in
> Jo's place. (Her budget does not stretch to a transatlantic move
> *and* a Worldcon trip all in the same year.) As Stanley Schmidt read
> off the list of nominees, I had a sudden and vivid impression of what
> it must be like to *be* Schrodinger's Cat. I hallucinated that the
> world had split in two, and in one half Schmidt was saying, "...and the
> award goes to Ken Wharton" and in the other half he was saying "...goes
> to Jo Walton".
> Then the wave function collapsed. And the right way, even.
> So Lucy and I went up on stage, and we gave the speech that Jo had sent
> us. I took the first paragraph, and Lucy took the second, and then we
> alternated lines on the sonnet. People laughed in the right places, and
> applauded in the right places. Afterwards people smiled and gave
> thumbs-up gestures.
Will Jo let you post her speech here?
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
David Bilek
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 03:41:00 -0700, "Raymond Chuang"
><rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>You forgot to mention that the movie
>
>Given the main purpose of this posting, I doubt he *forgot*.
I understand, but in a list purporting to be the "Hugo Winners", it
should probably include all the Hugo Winners.
-David
David Langford
>David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote in article <akvdaj$b6g$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>:
>
>> Best Fan Writer: David Langford.
>
>Another rocket for the collection!
>
>> Best Fanzine: ANSIBLE.
>
>And yet another! (Pushed you out of the house, yet, have they?)
Thanks ever so much for good cheer -- and to lots of other fans too. You
know, I was entirely convinced that =this= time the voters would throw the
rascally Langford out! Hazel is pointing out that we're running out of
space on all the vast Victorian mantelpieces in this house, and I am
engaged in reasoned refutation by putting pencils up my nose and saying
"Wibble wibble wibble."
>> Campbell Award for Best New Writer:
>> JO WON!!! JO WON!!! YES! YES!! YES!!! WOO-HOO!!!
>
>Woo-hoo! I know Jo's not reading Rasseff anymore, but YEAAAAAH!
Me too. Gosh wow. Wonderful!
> Will Jo let you post her speech here?
I don't know, but I myself have no shame. Whether or not my hero
representatives departed from the One True Text, I can tell you what I
=suggested= they say ...
FANWRITER (accepted by Martin Hoare)
I know Dave Langford will be amazed and grateful that despite his efforts
to alienate fandom by quoting all your favourite writers in Thog's
Masterclass, you've still given him another Hugo. In fact I'm going to ring
him right here from the stage, waking him up in the small hours of British
time, and I'm betting he'll be stunned and astonished. [PAUSE FOR BUSINESS
WITH PHONE] Yes, he says: "Dave Langford is amazed, stunned and astonished
by this very welcome Hugo award. Please leave your message after the beep."
Thanks again from Dave, to everyone.
FANZINE: Ansible (accepted by Tobes Valois -- who I can only hope did not
stagger on to the stage while nailed to a cross)
Dave Langford thanks you all very, very much ... although he's begun to
worry whether _Ansible_ qualifies for the Fanzine Hugo. Its total
circulation, including e-mail, is now something like three and a half
thousand -- and although he's a cheapskate, Dave _sometimes_ buys his
contributors drinks, so they get paid "other than in copies of the
publication". These two embarrassing facts mean that according to the Hugo
rules, _Ansible_ is a semiprozine. When someone told Dave this, all he'd
say was, "Look out, Charlie Brown, here we come!"
Thanks again from Dave, to everyone.
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.co.uk/
Kris Hasson-Jones
following for all the world to see:
Yay for Jo!
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Arthur D. Hlavaty
If only representative government could work like that.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Arthur D. Hlavaty
wrote:
Historians will look at the Hugo winner lists and conclude that Fan
Writers are like Vampire Slayers: In each generation there is one.
Greg Pickersgill is an excellent choice for Fan GoH: a good writer
with years of service to zine fandom. Sheckley is an even better
choice.
Ray Radlein
> >> "David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> >> > I haven't seen a list of the Hugo winners posted yet.
> >> > Unfortunately, I don't have a printed list of the winners in
> >> > front of me, so I'll have to go from memory -- forgive me if I
> >> > omit a category or get something wrong.
> >>
> >> The full list is available now on Locus Online at:
> >>
> >> http://www.locusmag.com/2002/News/News09Log1.html
> >>
> >> You forgot to mention that the movie The Lord of the Rings: The
> >> Fellowship of the Ring won Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo. This
> >> was kind of a small surprise to me given the vocal support for
> >> the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer episode "Once More With Feeling,"
> >> which was nominated for this award.
> >
> >He didn't forget, he didn't mention it because he was there
> >representing me so he didn't notice it existed.
> >
> >Now _that_'s the sort of representation I appreciate. :]
>
> If only representative government could work like that.
When was the last time you heard Bush mention THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE
RING, huh?
- Ray R.
--
***********************************************************************
"Nero? Galba? Otho? Vitellius? All jerks. 'Nuff said."
- Taciturn, "Histories" 1:1
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
***********************************************************************
Kevin J. Maroney
>rules, _Ansible_ is a semiprozine. When someone told Dave this, all he'd
>say was, "Look out, Charlie Brown, here we come!"
Oh, just what I would bloody need: Losing to Locus *and* Ansible, year
in and year out. At least I'd feel better about it.
Congrats, Dave.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, The New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Richard Horton
<vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>
>For the winner:
>
>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>
>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>Whelan wins on points.
I hope this doesn't sound dog-in-the-manger or anything, and I'll
emphasize that I do really like Whelan's work. (While noting that I
voted for Giancola this year.)
What this looks like to me is a case of name recognition winning out
-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
David Bilek
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:09:17 +0200, Vlatko Juric-Kokic
><vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>>
>>For the winner:
>>
>>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>>
>>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>>Whelan wins on points.
>
>I hope this doesn't sound dog-in-the-manger or anything, and I'll
>emphasize that I do really like Whelan's work. (While noting that I
>voted for Giancola this year.)
>
>What this looks like to me is a case of name recognition winning out
>-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
>of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
>they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
I thought Whelan stopped doing covers years ago?
-David
Andrew Plotkin
> Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>What this looks like to me is a case of name recognition winning out
>>-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
>>of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
>>they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
> I thought Whelan stopped doing covers years ago?
Nope. Did the most recent Sarah Zettel cover, and, mm, what else have
I seen... oh, I'll just check the Net... Mmm, so I can't find a good
list.
Anyway, Zettel's _Kingdom of Cages_ was a recent Whelan cover.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Richard Horton
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Anyway, Zettel's _Kingdom of Cages_ was a recent Whelan cover.
Though as I understand it, it was an original, not drawn to fit the
story. The art director (or someone) liked it so much they asked to
be allowed (after paying appropriately, of course) to use it for
Zettel's book.
LAFF
gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
> To sum up: this was not a year of big surprises.
>
> Best Fanzine: ANSIBLE.
Again? Or as they say on _Teletubbies_, "Again! Again!"
Congratulations, Dave.
<much other news snipped>
And, saving the best till last:
> Campbell Award for Best New Writer:
> JO WON!!! JO WON!!! YES! YES!! YES!!! WOO-HOO!!!
Yay! Woo-hoo! Hooray! Congratulations! Yee-haw! Yippee! Good show! and
more words to that effect.
> Ahem. Sorry. It took all my self-control not to make that last line
> the "Subject:".
We'll forgive you. This time.
> As some of you may know, Lucy Kemnitzer and I accepted the award in
> Jo's place. (Her budget does not stretch to a transatlantic move
> *and* a Worldcon trip all in the same year.) As Stanley Schmidt read
> off the list of nominees, I had a sudden and vivid impression of what
> it must be like to *be* Schrodinger's Cat. I hallucinated that the
> world had split in two, and in one half Schmidt was saying, "...and the
> award goes to Ken Wharton" and in the other half he was saying "...goes
> to Jo Walton".
>
> Then the wave function collapsed. And the right way, even.
A wonderful description.
> So Lucy and I went up on stage, and we gave the speech that Jo had sent
> us. I took the first paragraph, and Lucy took the second, and then we
> alternated lines on the sonnet. People laughed in the right places, and
> applauded in the right places. Afterwards people smiled and gave
> thumbs-up gestures.
Add mine to the votes for posting the sonnet.
> Afterwards we went to the Hugo party, and Patrick Nielsen Hayden lent
> us his cell phone to make the call. After a bunch of rings, Jo finally
> answered. I gave her the news. She said, "Gosh."
>
> It was cool. It was one of the coolest things I've done this century,
> if not in my whole life. I want to congratulate Jo in public, and thank
> her for letting me be a part of it.
Sorry I couldn't have been there, but I'm having to spend all the money
I would have spent going to Worldcon in getting my car fixed. (I am
hoping to make it to Toronto next year, though.)
--
Lois Fundis lfu...@weir.net
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/9377/handy-dandy.html
"Perhaps the two most valuable and satisfactory products of American
civilization are the librarian on the one hand and the cocktail
in the other." -- attributed to Louis Stanley Jast
Marilee J. Layman
<erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>Here, David Bilek <dbi...@attbi.com> wrote:
>> Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>>What this looks like to me is a case of name recognition winning out
>>>-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
>>>of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
>>>they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
>
>> I thought Whelan stopped doing covers years ago?
>
>Nope. Did the most recent Sarah Zettel cover, and, mm, what else have
>I seen... oh, I'll just check the Net... Mmm, so I can't find a good
>list.
>
>Anyway, Zettel's _Kingdom of Cages_ was a recent Whelan cover.
But did you like the book? I have it in the to-read pile and someone
else who read it said it wasn't as good as her others.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Steven H Silver
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:09:17 +0200, Vlatko Juric-Kokic
><vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>>
>>For the winner:
>>
>>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>>
>>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>>Whelan wins on points.
>
>I hope this doesn't sound dog-in-the-manger or anything, and I'll
>emphasize that I do really like Whelan's work. (While noting that I
>voted for Giancola this year.)
>
>What this looks like to me is a case of name recognition winning out
>-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
>of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
>they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
Also interesting is the number of Chesley's Donato Giancola took home
this year (three).
Steven
Steven H Silver
http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag
Windycon XXIX Chairman
http://www.windycon.org
Midwest Construction 1 Chairman
http://www.sfsite.com/~silverag/Midwest_Construction.html
Andrew Plotkin
I read the first several pages, and put it back on the shelf.
(Incidentally saying "Damn, I *love* that cover. Who...? Oh, I should
have recognized.")
I haven't been interested by *any* of Zettel's books since _Fool's
War_. (Or, for that matter, by the one she wrote before _Fool's War_.)
I really liked _FW_, but for some reason that's it. I read other first
chapters and say "Blah."
In the case of _KoC_, I think my reaction was "Alert... mawkish
sentimentality ahead, mixed with straw-man evil corporations..." Or
maybe evil governments. Or maybe I'm mixing it up with some other book
entirely. If so, ignore this paragraph.
O Deus
wierdly enough, Deja has linked this to a 1995 post of the same title,
thus causing me to be rather confused when I read that the following
had won...
"From Intersection, here are this year's Hugo Winners. Please note
that this
is not an official list and I am not posting them out of any official
capacity; I just got them from GEnie and figured I'd spread the news.
I'm sure
something official will be posted soon.
Campbell Award -- Jeff Noon (VURT)
Best Fanzine -- Ansible edited by Dave Langford
Best Fan Writer -- Dave Langford
Best Fan Artist -- Teddy Harvial
Best Semi-Prozine -- Interzone edited by David Pringle
Best Dramatic Presentation -- STAR TREK: All Good Things
Best Original Artwork -- Brian Froud for LADY COTTINGTON'S PRESSED
FAIRY BOOK
Best Artist -- Jim Burns
Best Professional Editor -- Gardner Dozois
Best Non-fiction Book -- I, ASIMOV
Best Short Story -- "None so Blind" by Joe Haldeman
Best Novelette -- "The Martian Child" by David Gerrold
Best Novella -- "Seven Views of Olduvai Gorge"by Mike Resnick
Best Novel -- MIRROR DANCE by Lois McMaster Bujold"
> Best Novel: _American Gods_ by Neil Gaiman.
I realize Gaiman is hot now, but this is almost as ridiculous as
Forever Peace winning. Besides Douglas Adams, Long Dark Teatime of the
Soul was a much better take on the subject.
O Deus
> The full list is available now on Locus Online at:
>
> http://www.locusmag.com/2002/News/News09Log1.html
>
> You forgot to mention that the movie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship
> of the Ring won Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo. This was kind of a small
> surprise to me given the vocal support for the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer
> episode "Once More With Feeling," which was nominated for this award.
Not any kind of a surprise. Buffy may have a limited passionate
fanbase, but Lord of the Rings would have won against anything
including the Bible. It really is the fantasy bible.
O. Deus
>> If only representative government could work like that.
>
>When was the last time you heard Bush mention THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE
>RING, huh?
He does talk about the axis of evil and seems to play Gandalf to the
Saruman's of the ACLU.
Raymond Chuang
news:2cn7nuc146sekgs5u...@4ax.com...
> Oh, just what I would bloody need: Losing to Locus *and* Ansible, year
> in and year out. At least I'd feel better about it.
So, when will the New York Review of Science Fiction actually _win_ the
Semi-Prozine Hugo? :-)
At the rate things are going Speculations will get there first. :-/
--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, California USA
David Goldfarb
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 03:41:00 -0700, "Raymond Chuang"
><rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
Um, I'm not even sure what you are implying there.
In fact, I did forget. I was concentrating on getting all the fan
and non-fiction categories in there, plus it was late at night. Best DP
just slipped through the cracks.
On the other hand, I think most could have inferred that one simply
from my line that it wasn't a night of surprises.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"To the general public "calories" are not units
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |of measurement but evil creatures that live in
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |tasty food and make people fat."
| -- Bill Jennings on rec.arts.comics.misc
David Goldfarb
Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
>He didn't forget, he didn't mention it because he was there
>representing me so he didn't notice it existed.
>
>Now _that_'s the sort of representation I appreciate. :]
Oh. *That's* what Kevin meant.
Much as I would like to take credit for being clever in this way,
in fact I did just forget.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"...encountering useless and ephemeral information
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |through compulsive science fiction reading and the
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |use of prodigious memory faculties for the arcane
aste...@slip.net |and irrelevant somehow strikes me as borderline."
| -- Edwin Thorpe
David Goldfarb
Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>
>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>
>For the winner:
>
>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>
>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>Whelan wins on points.
You're missing a very important line:
Frank Kelly Freas 129 129 145 189
What I heard was that in the next-to-last round, Whelan was originally
*tied* with Freas, meaning that both of them were eliminated and *Giancola*
was the winner. And then, since it was so close, they decided to recount,
and this time they found two ballots that were stuck together. The extra
ballot ranked Whelan above Freas, resulting in his victory.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"Hello, this is Leslie Down with the daily home
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | astrology report.
| TAURUS: Contemplate domestic turmoil.
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | AQUARIUS: Abandon hope for future plans." -- TMBG
Kip Williams
> In article <4v87nuct0iu9k97qm...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>>
>>For the winner:
>>
>>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>>
>>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>>Whelan wins on points.
>
>
> You're missing a very important line:
>
> Frank Kelly Freas 129 129 145 189
>
> What I heard was that in the next-to-last round, Whelan was originally
> *tied* with Freas, meaning that both of them were eliminated and *Giancola*
> was the winner. And then, since it was so close, they decided to recount,
> and this time they found two ballots that were stuck together. The extra
> ballot ranked Whelan above Freas, resulting in his victory.
I'm just glad they kicked Nader off the ballot.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Freedom! Terrible, terrible freedom!" --ants in space; "The Simpsons"
Kevin J. Maroney
>-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
>of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
>they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
There are always examples of that. This year, in the Novel category,
Perdido Street Station received fewer nominations than Passage or The
Curse of Chalion, indicating that it wasn't as widely read as those
two novels by multiple-Hugo winning authors; it then got more
first-place votes than either of them, indicating that the people who
read it, tended to like it more; and it finished in fourth place,
behind those two, indicating that the name-recognition of Willis and
Bujold is more powerful than the name-recognition of Mie'ville.
Nomination count:
NOVEL VOTERS: 486 ITEMS: 226 VOTES: 1,469
121 American Gods (Neil Gaiman; Morrow)
78 Passage (Connie Willis; Bantam)
71 Curse of Chalion (Lois McMaster Bujold; Eos)
64 Perdido Street Station (China Miéville; Macmillan, Del Rey)
44 Cosmonaut Keep (Ken MacLeod; Orbit, Tor)
44 The Chronoliths (Robert Charles Wilson; Tor)
Vote breakdowns at
< http://www.conjose.org/wsfs/hugo_breakdown.htm#novel >
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Kevin J. Maroney
<rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>So, when will the New York Review of Science Fiction actually _win_ the
>Semi-Prozine Hugo? :-)
Beats the hell out of me. It's an honor just to be nominated.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Kate Schaefer
> In article <4v87nuct0iu9k97qm...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
> Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
> >(David Goldfarb) wrote:
> >
> >>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
> >>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
> >
> >For the winner:
> >
> >Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
> >Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
> >
> >It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
> >Whelan wins on points.
>
> You're missing a very important line:
>
> Frank Kelly Freas 129 129 145 189
>
> What I heard was that in the next-to-last round, Whelan was originally
> *tied* with Freas, meaning that both of them were eliminated and
*Giancola*
> was the winner. And then, since it was so close, they decided to
recount,
> and this time they found two ballots that were stuck together. The
extra
> ballot ranked Whelan above Freas, resulting in his victory.
And it makes sense that voters who prefer Freas would also like Whelan;
not for stylistic reasons, but for sentimental reasons.
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
[regarding omitting a certain film from his list of Hugo victors]
> In article <dbf92905.020...@posting.google.com>,
> Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
> >He didn't forget, he didn't mention it because he was there
> >representing me so he didn't notice it existed.
> >
> >Now _that_'s the sort of representation I appreciate. :]
>
> Oh. *That's* what Kevin meant.
>
> Much as I would like to take credit for being clever in this way,
> in fact I did just forget.
Recommend you cancel this posting. The story enhances your reputation.
"Print the legend."
--
Bill Higgins | "We have *always*
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | been at war
| with New Zealand."
Internet: | --Jo Walton,
hig...@fnal.gov | winner of 2002 Campbell Award
Kate Schaefer
news:Pine.SGI.4.31.0209031...@fsgi01.fnal.gov...
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, David Goldfarb wrote:
> [regarding omitting a certain film from his list of Hugo victors]
>
> > In article <dbf92905.020...@posting.google.com>,
> > Jo Walton <blu...@vif.com> wrote:
> > >He didn't forget, he didn't mention it because he was there
> > >representing me so he didn't notice it existed.
> > >
> > >Now _that_'s the sort of representation I appreciate. :]
> >
> > Oh. *That's* what Kevin meant.
> >
> > Much as I would like to take credit for being clever in this way,
> > in fact I did just forget.
>
> Recommend you cancel this posting. The story enhances your reputation.
> "Print the legend."
Modest as well as accurate in his representation of Jo. David's
reputation grows no matter how self-effacing he attempts to be.
Ron Henry
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:14:03 -0700, "Raymond Chuang"
> <rch...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >So, when will the New York Review of Science Fiction actually _win_
the
> >Semi-Prozine Hugo? :-)
>
> Beats the hell out of me. It's an honor just to be nominated.
And of course some of us place a vote for you all that you might
appreciate just as much as a Hugo vote -- that re-subscription check I
send in every year.
Ron Henry
Douglas Berry
as gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU (David Goldfarb) warmed at our fire and
told this tale:
>Campbell Award for Best New Writer:
>JO WON!!! JO WON!!! YES! YES!! YES!!! WOO-HOO!!!
I covered the Hugos for the dot.Con Daily, and it was all I could do
to not headline it "RASSF wins Hugo!"
PNH looks good in a suit, BTW.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Niall McAuley
> PNH looks good in a suit, BTW.
Everyone looks good in a suit...
*if it fits properly*!
<g,d&r>
--
Niall
James Nicoll
Well, perhaps not everyone. When I get dressed, there follows
immediately the sound of cloth rumbling itself and the sound of every
cat hair within the building migrating to my clothing.
--
"Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
depth."
"Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."
Mary Kay Kare
>
> Thanks ever so much for good cheer -- and to lots of other fans too. You
> know, I was entirely convinced that =this= time the voters would throw the
> rascally Langford out! Hazel is pointing out that we're running out of
> space on all the vast Victorian mantelpieces in this house, and I am
> engaged in reasoned refutation by putting pencils up my nose and saying
> "Wibble wibble wibble."
You made me laugh out loud with that last line there, thanks. And as
Patrick said later that night at the Hugo Losers I Mean Nominees Party,
we happen to be living during the productive years of one of fandoms
best and most prolific writers. To which my reply was, "Oh darn."
Congratulations.
>
MKK
--
You want rock & roll that isn't rude?
I thought that's what it was for.
-Arthur Hlavaty
Mary Kay Kare
Welcome back and congratulations. I was standing backstage behind the
curtains doing the happy dance.
David Goldfarb
>"Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey" <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
>> "Print the legend."
>
>Modest as well as accurate in his representation of Jo. David's
>reputation grows no matter how self-effacing he attempts to be.
LOL.
Still, I can't deny that the subject line up there gives me egoboo.
Let's have some more postings with it. Hmm...
Did everyone see the chocolate cats at the rasseff party? Weren't they
cool? I especially liked the way Mary Kay put a dark-chocolate face
and ears on the milk chocolate cat to give a Siamese effect. I was
guilty of misinforming people; I said that they were Scharffen Berger,
but they were Ghirardelli. (Although I thought the Ghirardelli chocolate
had the texture improved by the process of melting and molding.) I'm
pretty sure that the Stars of David were in fact Scharffen Berger, however.
At the Hugo Losers' party, Jon Singer had some 85% chocolate that was
very interesting, if a bit too cacao for my palate. (But then I knew
going in that 85% was going to be that.)
I'm told that Hal and Dorothy Heydt brought Sebastian to the con, but I
didn't get a chance to meet him.
I saw _The Graduate_ a while ago and I noticed that they had Dustin Hoffman
driving on the upper deck of the Bay Bridge going eastward -- he must have
been in an alternate universe where the directions are reversed. (Not to
mention one where you cross the bridge at all when driving from LA to
Berkeley.) They also had locations in the UCLA campus pretending to be
UC Berkeley.
At the Nielsen Haydens' kaffeeklatsch, Teresa said that the moment she
knew the Internet *wasn't* going to change everything was finding out
that there are pieces of the True Cross being auctioned every week on
Ebay. (I checked: it's true.)
(OK, that last one isn't *Jewish* minutiae as such, but it's not that
far away, and it's cool.)
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"I'm reconsidering my desire to go to college, as
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | from what I've seen on this group it drives one
| immediately and incurably insane."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Aili Contini-Morava, on rec.arts.comics.xbooks
Brad Templeton
Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:09:17 +0200, Vlatko Juric-Kokic
><vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>
>>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>>
>>For the winner:
>>
>>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>>
>>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>>Whelan wins on points.
>
>emphasize that I do really like Whelan's work. (While noting that I
>voted for Giancola this year.)
>
>-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
>of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
>they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
This is considered by some to be a flaw in the Aussie ballot system.
In a close race, the winner is decided by the ballots that ranked the
works in question 4th and 5th vs. 5th and 4th (or similar poor
rankings.) Ie. in many cases, by people who didn't care as much about
their decision on the matter.
That's why if you don't care a lot you should not rank works at all, and
you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
However, this can't necessarily be called a flaw because it is in part
the purpose of the preferential ballot. We are supposed to let the 3rd
and 4th place choices mean something. The flaw would be in people not
putting as much care into those choices.
--
Alice Pascal -- free Pascal IDE with syntax directed editor
http://www.templetons.com/brad/alice.html
Niall McAuley
> At the Hugo Losers' party, Jon Singer had some 85% chocolate that was
> very interesting, if a bit too cacao for my palate. (But then I knew
> going in that 85% was going to be that.)
I was in France for my summer holidays, and one of the hypermarchés
had something labelled 99% chocolate. I tried to buy some, but I
was overtaken by an unnameable dread, and only managed to grab
some Nestlé Noir 85% as I fled those eldritch aisles.
I did manage to bring back 50 bottles of claret and burgundy, though.
Oh, and yes, I've heard about the breast feeding Africans thing from
1960, and no it doesn't put me off Nestlé chocolates.
--
Niall
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Oh, and yes, I've heard about the breast feeding Africans thing from
> 1960, and no it doesn't put me off Nestlé chocolates.
Nestlè produces chocolate? The good stuff?
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Niall McAuley
> Nestlè produces chocolate? The good stuff?
Well, not the amazing stuff, but they do produce those little
flat black squares of 85% yummm which you eat with espresso.
Up there with Lindt, if you ask me.
I was, of course, running out of the hypermarché in indescribable
panic at the time, with only a case of Mercurey and a case of
Pauillac to show that I, or that unwholesome, eldritch hypermarché
had ever been there.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Ed Dravecky III
> At the Nielsen Haydens' kaffeeklatsch, Teresa said that the
> moment she knew the Internet *wasn't* going to change everything
> was finding out that there are pieces of the True Cross being
> auctioned every week on Ebay. (I checked: it's true.)
They're signed, rare, OOP, and come with COAs, of course.
--
Ed Dravecky III
Addison, Texas
sfre...@nospamsff.net
<shsi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Also interesting is the number of Chesley's Donato Giancola took home
>this year (three).
Actually, four.
Best Gaming-Related Illustration: Donato Giancola for Shivan Dragon
(card art for Magic: Seventh Edition)
Best Cover: Paperback: Donato Giancola for The Hobbit by
J.R.R.Tolkien, Charles Dickson, Sean Deming & David Wenzel
(Ballantine Del Rey, June ‘01)
Best Cover: Hardback: Donato Giancola for Ashling by Isobelle Carmody
(Tor, September ‘01)
Award for Artistic Achievement: Donato Giancola
Keith
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In article <WE8d9.13327$zX3....@news.indigo.ie>,
> Niall McAuley <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
> >"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:sd4anugl7gtng5r84...@4ax.com...
> >> PNH looks good in a suit, BTW.
> >
> >Everyone looks good in a suit...
> >
> >*if it fits properly*!
> >
> ><g,d&r>
>
> Well, perhaps not everyone. When I get dressed, there follows
> immediately the sound of cloth rumbling itself and the sound of every
> cat hair within the building migrating to my clothing.
You have sensitive ears.
--
"The next test of the Thaad antimissile interceptor | Bill Higgins
will be crucial if the Pentagon is to meet | Fermilab
its latest target of initial deployment in 2004..." | Internet:
--Joseph C. Anselmo, *AvWeek* 14 Oct 1996 p.68 | hig...@fnal.gov
(Meeting targets is pretty important in this project, I guess.)
Loren Joseph MacGregor
-Very- object-oriented programming.
-- LJM
--
+-----------------------+
| Loren J MacGregor |
| The Churn Works |
| System Administration |
|Technical Documentation|
| churn...@att.net |
+-----------------------+
Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey
> In article <al2uup$vha$0...@216.39.145.104>, Kate Schaefer <ka...@oz.net> wrote:
> >"Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey" <hig...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> >> Recommend you cancel this posting. The story enhances your reputation.
> >> "Print the legend."
> >
> >Modest as well as accurate in his representation of Jo. David's
> >reputation grows no matter how self-effacing he attempts to be.
>
> LOL.
>
> Still, I can't deny that the subject line up there gives me egoboo.
> Let's have some more postings with it. Hmm...
>
> Did everyone see the chocolate cats at the rasseff party?
Now THIS is blatant, blatant manipulation.
> At the Hugo Losers' party, Jon Singer had some 85% chocolate
[...]
> I'm told that Hal and Dorothy Heydt brought Sebastian to the con, but I
> didn't get a chance to meet him.
>
> I saw _The Graduate_ a while ago and I noticed that they had Dustin Hoffman
> driving on the upper deck of the Bay Bridge going eastward --
[...]
> Teresa said that the moment she
> knew the Internet *wasn't* going to change everything was finding out
> that there are pieces of the True Cross being auctioned every week on
> Ebay. (I checked: it's true.)
So is this.
I wouldn't be so grumpy if I had gotten any of the chocolate.
--
Bill Higgins | "Audience members are requested
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory | to hum stirring music
| during the dramatic parts
Internet: | of this film."
hig...@fnal.gov | --1955 JPL (silent) documentary
Kevin J. Maroney
<ronh...@SPAMOFFclarityconnect.com> wrote:
>And of course some of us place a vote for you all that you might
>appreciate just as much as a Hugo vote -- that re-subscription check I
>send in every year.
Oh, yes. Yes indeed.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
>Niall McAuley <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
>> Oh, and yes, I've heard about the breast feeding Africans thing from
>> 1960, and no it doesn't put me off Nestlé chocolates.
>Nestlè produces chocolate? The good stuff?
"En Ee Es Tee El Ee Es, Nestle's makes the very best
<foghorn>chocolate</foghorn>"
Sorry, brief childhood memory....
Kevin J. Maroney
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>At the Hugo Losers' party, Jon Singer had some 85% chocolate that was
>very interesting, if a bit too cacao for my palate. (But then I knew
>going in that 85% was going to be that.)
My interest tops out somewhere around 65%.
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
No, it doesn't.
No Award is *never* eliminated--putting anything below it is, literally,
a waste of ink, but that's all it is.
>
>
>However, this can't necessarily be called a flaw because it is in part
>the purpose of the preferential ballot. We are supposed to let the 3rd
>and 4th place choices mean something. The flaw would be in people not
>putting as much care into those choices.
That's a potential problem in any system of voting, of course.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Vicki Rosenzweig
+0100:
>
>FANZINE: Ansible (accepted by Tobes Valois -- who I can only hope did not
>stagger on to the stage while nailed to a cross)
>
>Dave Langford thanks you all very, very much ... although he's begun to
>worry whether _Ansible_ qualifies for the Fanzine Hugo. Its total
>circulation, including e-mail, is now something like three and a half
>thousand -- and although he's a cheapskate, Dave _sometimes_ buys his
>contributors drinks, so they get paid "other than in copies of the
>publication". These two embarrassing facts mean that according to the Hugo
>rules, _Ansible_ is a semiprozine. When someone told Dave this, all he'd
>say was, "Look out, Charlie Brown, here we come!"
>
>Thanks again from Dave, to everyone.
You're welcome. It may be, of course, that this posting makes Ansible
a semiprozine, depending on how people choose to interpret "declared".
David Dyer-Bennet
> That's why if you don't care a lot you should not rank works at all, and
> you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
> that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
> after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
Calling it a "1st place vote" is rather misleading. If you have a
preference between the works below no award, it still makes sense to
specify it. Furthermore, especially with the special no award test
required for Hugo voting, there are other benefits to ranking works
below no award as well.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net / New TMDA anti-spam in test
John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
Book log: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/Ouroboros/booknotes/
New Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info
Matt Austern
> Did everyone see the chocolate cats at the rasseff party? Weren't they
> cool? I especially liked the way Mary Kay put a dark-chocolate face
> and ears on the milk chocolate cat to give a Siamese effect. I was
> guilty of misinforming people; I said that they were Scharffen Berger,
> but they were Ghirardelli.
It was good chocolate, but I have to admit that I found it pretty
disconcerting to see their little kitty heads cut off, sliced up, and
eaten.
And surely you haven't forgotten the Winged Victory of Samothrace?
Mary Kay Kare
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
> (David Goldfarb) wrote:
> >At the Hugo Losers' party, Jon Singer had some 85% chocolate that was
> >very interesting, if a bit too cacao for my palate. (But then I knew
> >going in that 85% was going to be that.)
>
> My interest tops out somewhere around 65%.
Have you had Scharffenberger 70%? I think it's probably the best
chocolate I've ever eaten.
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>> That's why if you don't care a lot you should not rank works at all, and
>> you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
>> that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
>> after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
>
>Calling it a "1st place vote" is rather misleading. If you have a
>preference between the works below no award, it still makes sense to
>specify it. Furthermore, especially with the special no award test
>required for Hugo voting, there are other benefits to ranking works
>below no award as well.
Yes. I believe--I've seen the numbers, but they elude me now--that
Brad is on to a kernal of truth, though. If you don't want to give
*any* support to a work--if you really, truly don't want to give it
any chance to win--*don't list it*.
If your preference is as follows:
Foo
Bar
No Award
Baz
Frobish
there may be circumstances under which you will be helping Baz win. If
you think that neither Baz nor Frobish should win under any
circumstances and don't really care which of them you hate more, you
should vote
Foo
Bar
No Award
and nothing else.
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>> My interest tops out somewhere around 65%.
>
>Have you had Scharffenberger 70%? I think it's probably the best
>chocolate I've ever eaten.
I've had Valronas in the 70% range which were fine. I don't think I've
had Scharffenberger of any potency.
Raymond Chuang
news:ndm9nusof92f4fjbk...@4ax.com...
> Beats the hell out of me. It's an honor just to be nominated.
I'm hoping the NYRSF does win one of these days. After all, remember when
Andy Porter won for Science Fiction Chronicle (back when it was a
semi-prozine) in 1993? The whole place where the ceremony was held literally
erupted in a standing ovation because of that win. :-)
--
Raymond Chuang
Mountain View, California USA
Richard Horton
wrote:
>In article <QrRc9.643$zi7.14...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
>Richard Horton <rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>>On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 20:09:17 +0200, Vlatko Juric-Kokic
>><vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>>>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>>>
>>>For the winner:
>>>
>>>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>>>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>>>
>>>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>>>Whelan wins on points.
>>
>>I hope this doesn't sound dog-in-the-manger or anything, and I'll
>>emphasize that I do really like Whelan's work. (While noting that I
>>voted for Giancola this year.)
>>
>>What this looks like to me is a case of name recognition winning out
>>-- when the last ballot stage was reached, there were probably a bunch
>>of people who knew of Whelan and had never heard of Giancola. Thus,
>>they would put Whelan on the ballot, and leave out Giancola.
>
>
>This is considered by some to be a flaw in the Aussie ballot system.
>
It's a difficult thing.
I believe it is a flaw when people are truly unfamiliar with some of
the nominees, as in this case. (Or, I should say, as I believe to be
the case here.)
On the other hand, when the voters are generally familiar with all the
nominees, I think the Aussie ballot works very well -- by, as you note
below, making the 3rd and 4th place votes important.
>In a close race, the winner is decided by the ballots that ranked the
>works in question 4th and 5th vs. 5th and 4th (or similar poor
>rankings.) Ie. in many cases, by people who didn't care as much about
>their decision on the matter.
>
Exactly.
>
>That's why if you don't care a lot you should not rank works at all, and
>you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
>that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
>after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
>
Very true. Here voter education is important. Until a few years ago,
I used to rank the works I considered to be below "No Award", because
I didn't sufficiently understand the voting system. I rather suspect
it was you, Brad, who reeducated me, for which thanks.
>
>However, this can't necessarily be called a flaw because it is in part
>the purpose of the preferential ballot. We are supposed to let the 3rd
>and 4th place choices mean something. The flaw would be in people not
>putting as much care into those choices.
Right. But in some cases such care is hard -- when one artist is a
guy you know used to be good (i.e. Freas), or you know is good but
doesn't do much these days (i.e. Whelan), while another artist is
somebody you've never heard of (i.e., I suspect, for many people,
Giancola).
What are people going to do? Lots of them will vote 3. Whelan, 4.
Freas. And then either No Award or blanks. And I can't blame them --
I do the same in categories in which I know only 4 of the nominees.
(I try not to vote when I don't know at least 4, but I'm sure there
are occasions I've violated that stricture too.)
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Tony von Krag
Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Sep 2002 01:56:48 GMT, mar...@kare.ws (Mary Kay Kare)
> wrote:
> >Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> My interest tops out somewhere around 65%.
> >
> >Have you had Scharffenberger 70%? I think it's probably the best
> >chocolate I've ever eaten.
>
> I've had Valronas in the 70% range which were fine. I don't think I've
> had Scharffenberger of any potency.
This IMO is one of the best cooking and baking chocolates going.
Texture, taste, grain size, color and many others are great. I've used
the Scharffenbergers and like them too but, still, Valronas are still a
cut ahead.
--
Chef Anthony von Krag ACF retired
Have spices & cast iron cookware, will travel
User of sharp knives, Washer of hands and cutting boards
You want Me!!! To cook *THAT* well done?
Brad Templeton
Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>>you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
>>that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
>>after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>
>No Award is *never* eliminated--putting anything below it is, literally,
>a waste of ink, but that's all it is.
I'm afraid you're simply incorrect. Or, if you believe you are correct,
the Hugo administrators have been processing the votes incorrectly, and
you should file a protest with them about it.
The software used by recent hugo administrators does elminate No Award
when it is last among candidates, and redistributes any No Award ballots
which foolishly had works ranked beneath No Award to those works.
People still did it (but only a few) even though the ballot this year
had explanations of why you almost surely did not want to rank works
below No Award.
The Hugo rules do call for a special test to make sure that the winner
beats No Award at the end, even after No Award was eliminated in its
usual first-round departure. That test has never gone well for No
Award as far as I know. This is not the same as never eliminating it.
If you don't believe me, go look at the Hugo voting results. They
clearly show No Award being eliminated, and in the next round, some
ballots from No Award transferred to choices that came after NA on those
ballots. For example, this year somebody ranked No Award first, and
Perdido Street Station 2nd, so when No Award was eliminated (1st round
as usual) Perdido got an extra vote.
Had Perdido won, the extra test would have been applied, but it would
not have had enough ballots ranking No Award above Perdido or
exclusively, and thus had no effect.
Once again, I repeat my advice. You really never, ever want to rank
works after No Award on your ballot, as you could, in a close race, be
the vote that gives one the Hugo over another, or over a work you didn't
rank because you didn't read it.
If you want to rank everything, the right order is:
a) Works you like in order
b) Works you didn't read, in random order
c) No Award
d) Works you feel did not qualify for the award
If you feel ill at ease casting votes for works you did not read, then
you should no rank No Award at all.
--
A version of "The Rules" for guys
http://www.templetons.com/brad/rulesguys.html
Brad Templeton
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>
>> That's why if you don't care a lot you should not rank works at all, and
>> you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
>> that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
>> after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
>
>Calling it a "1st place vote" is rather misleading. If you have a
>preference between the works below no award, it still makes sense to
>specify it. Furthermore, especially with the special no award test
>required for Hugo voting, there are other benefits to ranking works
>below no award as well.
No. The special No Award test counts a ballot that ranks No Award and
does not rank the potential winner exactly the same as a ballot that
ranks No Award above the potential winner. There is no benefit gained
by placing it there.
The only reason to rank works below no award is if you are saying,
"Well, these works don't deserve the Hugo, but if one of them _has_ to
get it, my preference is in this order."
However, if you don't rank a work, because you didn't read it (as is
common practice) then you get into real trouble.
If your ballot is:
1) No Award
2) Sucky Book
Unranked: Unread Book
And the final round without your ballot is:
Sucky Book and Unread Book tied
Then your ballot becomes a ballot for Sucky Book. You give it the Hugo
over the book you didn't read! (Except in the very unlikely case that
so many others ranked No Award and didn't rank Sucky book that it fails
the special test. No work has ever failed the special test.)
This is probably not what you intended.
I have often felt, to clear things up, that there should be a mark for
"Did not read."
If there were, then ranking below No Award would be tolerable, with a
revision of the rules to say that if it's a contest between a did not
read and a below-no-award, your ballot should be discarded. This is
what happens of course if you rank neither work.
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>Kevin J. Maroney <k...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:38:01 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>> (David Goldfarb) wrote:
>> >At the Hugo Losers' party, Jon Singer had some 85% chocolate that was
>> >very interesting, if a bit too cacao for my palate. (But then I knew
>> >going in that 85% was going to be that.)
>>
>> My interest tops out somewhere around 65%.
>
>Have you had Scharffenberger 70%? I think it's probably the best
>chocolate I've ever eaten.
I now have my very own Jon Singer story. Somebody was telling me that
Scharffenberger's was the only factory in the US making fine chocolate
from nibs with European methods, etc. etc. I said this was patently
not true because I knew of a place in Santa Cruz that did that. --
they're sort of around the corner, up the hill, and up the street from
me. The nice fellow wants to give boxes of it to various inlaws.
Because he's a _nice_ fellow, you see.
Fifteen minutes later, utterly unconnected conversation -- this
stranger comes up and seeing the Scharffenberger chocolate he says
"Have you ever had the Donnelly chocolate from Santa Cruz? They carry
it at the Oak Grove grocery."
Then Mary Kay introduces me.
He knows Donnelly, or somebody who knows him.
I don't know whether the Oak Grove grocery is the grocery in Oak
Grove, or a grocery store called Oak Grove, or if it is the Oak Grove
in California or an Oak Grove somewhere else -- I was too upset about
all this coincidence thing.
At least I got some comfort when I challenged him to come up with more
Santa Cruz connections: they were people who actually live in Austin,
which is the center of the world, unless Minneapolis or Seattle is.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Michael J. Lowrey
> You forgot to mention that the movie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship
> of the Ring won Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo. This was kind of a small
> surprise to me given the vocal support for the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer
> episode "Once More With Feeling," which was nominated for this award.
The Tolkien win was a foregone conclusion; but I am stunned
that the Buffy came in dead last, barely ahead of No Award!
Any reactions from others?
--
Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> "Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote...
> > PNH looks good in a suit, BTW.
>
> Everyone looks good in a suit...
>
> *if it fits properly*!
>
> <g,d&r>
NOT THAT THREAD!
NOT THAT THREAD!
NOT THAT THREAD!
NOT THAT THREAD!
--
Orange Mike
unsuited for the strain
James Nicoll
I think that might affect how people remember even the less
bad episodes.
--
"Frankly, Captain, I feel interstellar diplomacy is out of our
depth."
"Ah, hence the nuclear weapons."
Brad Templeton
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <3D758584...@uwm.edu>,
>Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>>Raymond Chuang wrote:
>>> You forgot to mention that the movie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship
>>> of the Ring won Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo. This was kind of a small
>>> surprise to me given the vocal support for the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer
>>> episode "Once More With Feeling," which was nominated for this award.
>>
>>The Tolkien win was a foregone conclusion; but I am stunned
>>that the Buffy came in dead last, barely ahead of No Award!
>>Any reactions from others?
>>
> Wasn't Buffy, over-all, pretty much crap this season?
>
> I think that might affect how people remember even the less
>bad episodes.
>
No Award seems to be used most in the dramatic presentation category.
In particular, a comparatively large number of voters ignored the
instructions and ranked items after No Award.
13 Ballots ranked LotR first and then No Award. 12 others had No Award
first. Of those 25, 11 had other items after No Award and quickly
became votes for that item.
Curiously, in the exciting and meaningless battle for 4th vs 5th place,
Monsters Inc was actually behind Buffy in the first round, but when No
Award was eliminated, there were 3 ballots with Buffy after No Award,
and 10 ballots with Monsters after No Award, so the people who did the
latter ended up giving Monsters Inc (which they didn't like) the higher
position.
Lucy Kemnitzer
<oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>Niall McAuley wrote:
>>
>> "Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> > PNH looks good in a suit, BTW.
>>
>> Everyone looks good in a suit...
>>
>> *if it fits properly*!
>>
>> <g,d&r>
>
>NOT THAT THREAD!
>
>NOT THAT THREAD!
>
>NOT THAT THREAD!
>
>NOT THAT THREAD!
>
But there are threads - - -
Speaking of threads, I did see a guy at the convention wearing that
workman's kilt we were talking about here a while back. It was a kind
of richer version of khaki color: I think it's the color that looked
orange to me in the online catalog photo, but alas in real life it
looked not orange at all.
And speaking of the color orange.
You know my son has been wearing orange a lot, right? For his organic
chemistry class this summer he wore orange every day. He has orange
shirts, orange pants and shorts, and orange Converse tennis shoes. He
was referred to by his fellow students, and the TAs, as "Orange Guy."
But on the day of the final exam, he went to school wearing what he
called "performance art" -- a Green Lantern t shirt, green sweats, a
green jacket (the beauty of living in our climate is that it is rarely
too hot to wear a jacket and rarely too cold to go without one), and
black boots. He was gratified -- many people, including the
professor, commented. They Fell Into His Trap.
No, I don't know why he wanted to do this.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Lucy Kemnitzer
The people who were voting for the dramatic hugos were not television
oriented?
Lucy Kemnitzer
Mark Jones
blew up like an imploding submarine, but the following SOS was heard:
>In article <3D758584...@uwm.edu>,
>Michael J. Lowrey <oran...@uwm.edu> wrote:
>>Raymond Chuang wrote:
>>> You forgot to mention that the movie The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship
>>> of the Ring won Best Dramatic Presentation Hugo. This was kind of a small
>>> surprise to me given the vocal support for the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer
>>> episode "Once More With Feeling," which was nominated for this award.
>>
>>The Tolkien win was a foregone conclusion; but I am stunned
>>that the Buffy came in dead last, barely ahead of No Award!
>>Any reactions from others?
>>
> Wasn't Buffy, over-all, pretty much crap this season?
Yes, yes it was.
> I think that might affect how people remember even the less
>bad episodes.
I think so. When I stumble across Buffy reruns from this
season (or last), I _don't_ watch them. That wasn't true of the first
four seasons.
--
Mark Jones
"You don't expect governments to obey the law because of some
higher moral development. You expect them to obey the law because
they know that if they don't, those who aren't shot will be hanged."
-Michael Shirley
Kevin J. Maroney
> Wasn't Buffy, over-all, pretty much crap this season?
That's a bit harsh, and has no particular bearing on the fact that the
nominated episode was, by most accounts, really quite good indeed.
What amazes me was the margin by which The Movie That Dare Not Speak
Its Name Around Jo dominated the category. It got twice as many
first-place votes as the other candidates *combined*.
Mary Kay Kare
>
> Fifteen minutes later, utterly unconnected conversation -- this
> stranger comes up and seeing the Scharffenberger chocolate he says
> "Have you ever had the Donnelly chocolate from Santa Cruz? They carry
> it at the Oak Grove grocery."
>
Oakville Grocery actually. A small chain in Napa/the Bay Area.
John Lorentz
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>In article <4v87nuct0iu9k97qm...@news.cis.dfn.de>,
>Vlatko Juric-Kokic <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>>On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 10:08:19 +0000 (UTC), gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>>
>>>Best Professional Artist: Michael Whelan. (I've heard a rumor that
>>>this was a very narrow win, decided on a recount.)
>>
>>For the winner:
>>
>>Michael Whelan 124 124 146 190 281
>>Donato Giancola 148 148 176 203 251
>>
>>It's interesting. Giancola had the lead till the last round. And then
>>Whelan wins on points.
>
>You're missing a very important line:
>
>Frank Kelly Freas 129 129 145 189
>
>What I heard was that in the next-to-last round, Whelan was originally
>*tied* with Freas, meaning that both of them were eliminated and *Giancola*
>was the winner. And then, since it was so close, they decided to recount,
>and this time they found two ballots that were stuck together. The extra
>ballot ranked Whelan above Freas, resulting in his victory.
That's exactly it (except that I really recounted _every_ vote, not
just that category). The first pass through, two ballots from the
same family (and almost identical votes) stuck together and only one
was counted.
I discovered this during the second pass, and made sure the extra
vote got counted. That person voted for Whelan in 1st...this meant
instead of Whalan & Freas tying at 145 and both being eliminated,
Freas's votes were redistributed, and more of his voters like Michael
rather than Kelly.
That one vote changed the name on the Hugo...which is why I'd
counted every ballot twice. (Also Swanwick beat Le Guin in Short
Story by only 5 votes out many hundreds cast. Every vote really _did_
count.)
--
John (ConJose Hugo Counter, retired)
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 03 Sep 2002 19:18:48 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
> >b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> >
> >> That's why if you don't care a lot you should not rank works at all, and
> >> you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
> >> that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
> >> after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
> >
> >Calling it a "1st place vote" is rather misleading. If you have a
> >preference between the works below no award, it still makes sense to
> >specify it. Furthermore, especially with the special no award test
> >required for Hugo voting, there are other benefits to ranking works
> >below no award as well.
>
> Yes. I believe--I've seen the numbers, but they elude me now--that
> Brad is on to a kernal of truth, though. If you don't want to give
> *any* support to a work--if you really, truly don't want to give it
> any chance to win--*don't list it*.
You should always rank your *last* choice last. If you don't, you
miss the chance of having your ballot counted against it.
> If your preference is as follows:
>
> Foo
> Bar
> No Award
> Baz
> Frobish
>
> there may be circumstances under which you will be helping Baz win. If
> you think that neither Baz nor Frobish should win under any
> circumstances and don't really care which of them you hate more, you
> should vote
>
> Foo
> Bar
> No Award
>
> and nothing else.
Except then you can't count against Baz in the special extra no award
check.
It's true that your ballot may be in the Frobish pile if you rank
Frobish at all, but wanting to avoid that is an emotional rection
rather than a rational one. Your ballot does, at worst, no more to
make Frobish win than if you left Frobish off. And I believe with the
extra no award check, it can help defeat it.
David Goldfarb
Niall McAuley <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
>"David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message news:al36j9$1bp1$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
>> At the Hugo Losers' party, Jon Singer had some 85% chocolate that was
>> very interesting, if a bit too cacao for my palate. (But then I knew
>> going in that 85% was going to be that.)
>
>had something labelled 99% chocolate. I tried to buy some, but I
>was overtaken by an unnameable dread, and only managed to grab
>some Nestlé Noir 85% as I fled those eldritch aisles.
As you may recall, a bunch of us went and took the Scharffen Berger
factory tour on the Wednesday before ConJose started. (The tour was
really interesting, by the by, and I recommend it to anyone who has
the opportunity.) On the tour we sampled all three chocolates that
Scharffen Berger makes -- including the 99%.
It was an interesting experience. I'd had unsweetened chocolate only
once before. That one was very rough and bitter. The Scharffen Berger
was much smoother, with better mouthfeel. It *was* quite bitter, with
earthy flavors; after a time, subtler notes of fruit became apparent.
I was glad to have sampled it, primarily because it made an interesting
contrast with the more edible 70%. The fact is that 99% chocolates are
primarily intended for baking.
Actually even 70% is just a little too strong for me (although I will
not refuse 70% or even 85% if offered); my palate finds a semi-sweet
62% such as Scharffen Berger's or Valrhona's "Le Noir" optimal.
>I did manage to bring back 50 bottles of claret and burgundy, though.
That sounds like fun.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"I see more than you, child. I see an end to hell.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | What do you see?"
| "I see a man in a lot of pain."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu |"Pain? Yes. Consider it a preview." -- _Zot!_ #18
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" <ada...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:1fhyjwl.1l435c0fjyrk0N%ada...@despammed.com... > Nestlè produces
> chocolate? The good stuff?
>
> Well, not the amazing stuff, but they do produce those little
> flat black squares of 85% yummm which you eat with espresso.
> Up there with Lindt, if you ask me.
Eee, we only get the Lindt here.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
English blog: http://annafdd.blogspot.com/
Blog in italiano: http://fulminiesaette.blogspot.com
Kip Williams
> Niall McAuley wrote:
>
>>"Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>>>PNH looks good in a suit, BTW.
>>
>>Everyone looks good in a suit...
>>
>>*if it fits properly*!
>>
>><g,d&r>
>
>
> NOT THAT THREAD!
>
> NOT THAT THREAD!
>
> NOT THAT THREAD!
>
> NOT THAT THREAD!
Don't pull on the thread, or the suit will unravel.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at members.cox.net/kipw
"Freedom! Terrible, terrible freedom!" --ants in space; "The Simpsons"
Doug Wickstrom
<3D7585BB...@uwm.edu>
"Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> excited the ether to say:
>Niall McAuley wrote:
>>
>> "Douglas Berry" <grid...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>> > PNH looks good in a suit, BTW.
>>
>> Everyone looks good in a suit...
>>
>> *if it fits properly*!
>>
>> <g,d&r>
>
>NOT THAT THREAD!
Heh. I ran across an orange dress shirt at Sam's Club; it wasn't
large enough or I'd have sent it to you.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@attbi.com>
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
--Albert Einstein
Lucy Kemnitzer
Feruglio Dal Dan) wrote:
>Niall McAuley <gnmc...@iol.ei.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Anna Feruglio Dal Dan" <ada...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>> news:1fhyjwl.1l435c0fjyrk0N%ada...@despammed.com... > Nestlè produces
>> chocolate? The good stuff?
>>
>> Well, not the amazing stuff, but they do produce those little
>> flat black squares of 85% yummm which you eat with espresso.
>> Up there with Lindt, if you ask me.
>
>Eee, we only get the Lindt here.
>
You know, that's okay. Nestle could produce ambrosia, the most
lovely, the most hauntingly beautiful, the most wonderful stuff in the
world, and it would taste like ashes to me.
The world is full of wonderful things: not all of them are produced in
concert with conspiracy to kill children.
Lucy Kemnitzer
James Nicoll
>> Wasn't Buffy, over-all, pretty much crap this season?
>
>That's a bit harsh, and has no particular bearing on the fact that the
>nominated episode was, by most accounts, really quite good indeed.
Well, I can't say as I may not have seen the episode in
question. (google) Oh, the musical episode. I only saw the truncated
version. I think it's a real asset for a musical if the singers can
sing and while I am just guessing here I don't think singing ability
was one of the things they looked for in the Buffy cast six years ago.
Head was ok, though. Otherwise, eh. Tolerable music ruined by inappropriate
casting.
And I do think if a show goes into the crapper, people may have
a hard time remembering the one gem in amongst the other material. They
may never have seen it because all the "whine whine whine look at my
'Goldfish in a too small turtle neck' expression, for I apparently
failed the Joey Tribbiani School of Acting" episodes drove the viewers
away before it aired. Anyone know what the ratings for Buffy were like
last season?
>What amazes me was the margin by which The Movie That Dare Not Speak
>Its Name Around Jo dominated the category. It got twice as many
>first-place votes as the other candidates *combined*.
And there I think 'I can't believe it did not stink like a week
old corpse in a Louisiana August heatwave' factor might have come into
play, giving it a boost in how people rank it. If you compare it to
the previous movie version, it looks really good.
Douglas Berry
rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) warmed at our fire and told this
tale:
>Speaking of threads, I did see a guy at the convention wearing that
>workman's kilt we were talking about here a while back. It was a kind
>of richer version of khaki color: I think it's the color that looked
>orange to me in the online catalog photo, but alas in real life it
>looked not orange at all.
That might have been our friend David.
--
Douglas E. Berry grid...@mindspring.com
http://gridlore.home.mindspring.com/
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Jeffrey L. Copeland
Brad Templeton <b...@templetons.com> wrote:
>In article <a7ianu81mltgu7aap...@news.panix.com>,
>Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>>>you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
>>>that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
>>>after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
>>
>>No, it doesn't.
>>
>>No Award is *never* eliminated--putting anything below it is, literally,
>>a waste of ink, but that's all it is.
>
>I'm afraid you're simply incorrect. Or, if you believe you are correct,
>the Hugo administrators have been processing the votes incorrectly, and
>you should file a protest with them about it.
As I explained to Vicki in e-mail, you're right Brad. Since I wrote the
software that a generation of Hugo administrators have used, I believe I
can claim some small amount of authority in this matter.
But the simpler way to put your explanation, is this: your ballot is
involved in the election as long as candidates you ranked haven't been
eliminated.
For example, if you marked your 1975 Dramatic Presentation ballot
The Questor Tapes
No Award
Flesh Gordon
your ballot would count still for Questor Tapes if No Award was eliminated
first. Your ballot then would count for Flesh Gordon when Questor Tapes
was eliminated in the next round. It would stay in the Flesh Gordon pile
when Zardoz (which you didn't mark) was eliminated. It would then be
taken out of play when Flesh Gordon was eliminated, and Young Frankenstein
went on to win. (I'm making up the actual elimination order here: I have
the list of candidates from Locus' web site up in another window, but they
don't have the corresponding tallies.)
Niall McAuley
> The world is full of wonderful things: not all of them are produced in
> concert with conspiracy to kill children.
Nestlé can't even give free baby milk formula to hospitals in the
Third world which need it because of people like Lucy. The hospitals
have to buy it.
--
Niall [real address ends in se, not es.invalid]
Joel Rosenberg
> "Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message news:3d760d2...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>> The world is full of wonderful things: not all of them are produced in
>> concert with conspiracy to kill children.
>
> Nestlé can't even give free baby milk formula to hospitals in the
> Third world which need it because of people like Lucy.
Nah. It's because of companies like Nestle, which poisoned the well
by overmarketing their milk formula in the Third World in ways and to
people that were (as they should have known, and probably did know)
were very detrimental to many of the children of the people targeted.
"You can't do just one thing" -- making them stop was pretty much
guaranteed to have negative sideffects, as well as beneficial ones.
You don't have to be a lactomaniac to know that, in most cases, the
best nutrition for infants is mother's milk, and that getting a mother
and child hooked on alternatives isn't, in most cases, even vaguely in
that mother's or child's interest.
--
The NEA says the lessons to be learned from the terrorist attacks are:
"Appreciating and getting along with people of diverse backgrounds
and cultures, the importance of anger management and global
awareness." Let's see. Some seriously angry people murder almost
3,000 people in America and Americans need to work on managing their
anger?
-- George F. Will
------------------------------------------------------------
http://islamthereligionofpeace.blogspot.com
Andrew Plotkin
The LOTR movie had a combination of things going for it.
- It was darn good.
- It showed tremendous respect and love for Tolkien's writing.
- It was up against the Harry Potter movie, which was not all that
good.
- It was not *actually* up against the Harry Potter novel from last
year -- but it felt as if it were. A lot of people were irritated by
that Best Novel award. (It irritated *me*, although I don't claim the
award is "invalid" or anything.) There was an element of backlash.
- It was way better than Bakshi's LOTR movie. (And then there was the
Rankin&Bass thing, oy.)
- It was way better than many of the classic-book movie-ifications of
the past few years. (Starship Troopers, Battlefield Earth, etc.)
- It was way better than many big-budget fantasy movies. (Willow,
Dragonheart, Reign of Fire, ... how many *are* there?)
There were, in short, a *whole lot* of axes to compare Jackson's
_Fellowship_ with other works, and it aced all of those comparisons.
(No, these are not all uniformly-held opinions; but they are all
strong majority opinions among the people I've talked to, here and
elsewhere.)
Frankly I'd expect any one of those factors to translate into a win.
(I came out of the Hugo ceremony last year saying "Okay, three movie
awards for Peter Jackson.") All together, well, too bad for Buffy.
I honestly don't know if it *will* be three awards. I fully expect
_The Two Towers_ to excel, but there could be competition. Familiarity
breeds contempt, or at least some boredom (and a certain amount of
embarrassment, maybe).
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <m2admyy...@gw.dd-b.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
> >
> >> That's why if you don't care a lot you should not rank works at all, and
> >> you should never, ever, ever rank works below "no award" because what
> >> that almost always does is pass a 1st place vote to an unworthy work
> >> after no award is eliminated in the 1st round.
> >
> >Calling it a "1st place vote" is rather misleading. If you have a
> >preference between the works below no award, it still makes sense to
> >specify it. Furthermore, especially with the special no award test
> >required for Hugo voting, there are other benefits to ranking works
> >below no award as well.
>
> No. The special No Award test counts a ballot that ranks No Award and
> does not rank the potential winner exactly the same as a ballot that
> ranks No Award above the potential winner. There is no benefit gained
> by placing it there.
The relevant piece is:
3.11.3: After a tentative winner is determined, then unless "No Award"
shall be the winner, the following additional test shall be
made. If the number of ballots preferring "No Award" to the
tentative winner is greater than the number of ballots preferring
the tentative winner to "No Award", then "No Award" shall be
declared the winner of the election.
so this seems to hinge on the interpretation of "preferring". Do the
Hugo administrators consider a ballot ranking a book but not no award
to prefer that book to no award? And one ranking no award but not a
book to prefer no award to that book? It's not an obviously crazy
interpretation, but it's not the obvious one; the obvious one is that
if they don't express a preference for both, then you don't know what
their preference is between them.
> The only reason to rank works below no award is if you are saying,
> "Well, these works don't deserve the Hugo, but if one of them _has_ to
> get it, my preference is in this order."
Depending on the above, anyway. But I generally *do* have opinions
even between works I rank below no award, so it seems completely
proper and natural to express them.
> However, if you don't rank a work, because you didn't read it (as is
> common practice) then you get into real trouble.
>
> If your ballot is:
>
> 1) No Award
> 2) Sucky Book
>
> Unranked: Unread Book
>
> And the final round without your ballot is:
>
> Sucky Book and Unread Book tied
>
> Then your ballot becomes a ballot for Sucky Book. You give it the Hugo
> over the book you didn't read! (Except in the very unlikely case that
> so many others ranked No Award and didn't rank Sucky book that it fails
> the special test. No work has ever failed the special test.)
>
> This is probably not what you intended.
I wasn't thinking about books you hadn't read, that does complicate
things. But doesn't come up very often for me.
> I have often felt, to clear things up, that there should be a mark for
> "Did not read."
And instructions for how to count such ballots.
Alan Braggins
> I was in France for my summer holidays, and one of the hypermarchés
> had something labelled 99% chocolate.
I saw some in the window of a closed shop in Britanny last
year. Called "Noir Absolu" or something similar.
Kevin J. Maroney
<Niall....@eei.ericsson.es.invalid> wrote:
>"Lucy Kemnitzer" <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote in message news:3d760d2...@cnews.newsguy.com...
>> The world is full of wonderful things: not all of them are produced in
>> concert with conspiracy to kill children.
>
>Nestlé can't even give free baby milk formula to hospitals in the
>Third world which need it because of people like Lucy. The hospitals
>have to buy it.
By "people like Lucy", I can only assume you mean "people who object
to Nestle conducting business in such a way as to inevitably lead to
the malnourishment and death of babies".
David Dyer-Bennet
Unfortunately, it's the only one of the DP nominees that I haven't
seen. But I do wonder if perhaps a number of the voters were in that
same position?
Lots of people seemed to be in doubt about the Tolkien win. I mostly
try to avoid having strong opinions about the future, but I felt it
was *clearly* the best of the 4 movies, by a lot. So I rather
expected it. Especially since none of the others were hardcore SF.
Not only did FotR win, it won in the first round of counting, which is
really quite rare.
Avram Grumer
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote:
> The NEA says the lessons to be learned from the terrorist attacks
> are: "Appreciating and getting along with people of diverse
> backgrounds and cultures, the importance of anger management and
> global awareness." Let's see. Some seriously angry people murder
> almost 3,000 people in America and Americans need to work on managing
> their anger?
> -- George F. Will
And when the NEA wrote it, what they were referring to wasn't making
nicey-nice with al Qaeada, but refraining from turning on innocent
Muslims and Arabs in the US. I guess George Will either didn't bother
to actually read what he's criticizing, or he did and actually wants to
mock the ideal of different religious and ethnic groups living together
peacefully. And, by extension, since you're quoting him, same for you,
Joel.
--
Avram Grumer / "There will never be
av...@grumer.org / a technology that beats
www.PigsAndFishes.org / having lunch..."
www.livejournal.com/users/agrumer/ -- Jakob Nielsen
Andrew Plotkin
This refers to 99% cocoa solids, right?
I have a can of 100% cocoa solids on my shelf, and I can't say it's
all that pleasant to eat. Is there sugar in the stuff you're
describing?