OT: Sturgeon's Law?
The Divine Ms. D
Sturgeon's Law prov. "Ninety percent of everything is crap". Derived from a
quote by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, "Sure, 90% of
science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud." Oddly, when
Sturgeon's Law is cited, the final word is almost invariably changed to `crap'.
-------------------------
This, from a science fiction writer, who never attributed this comment
specifically to human beings. Funny how SEF twisted this quote to suit his own
agenda.
--Sharon
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/STRATQUEEN/index.html">Stratqueen's Page</A>
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."
SEFSTRAT
>
>Sturgeon's Law prov. "Ninety percent of everything is crap". Derived from a
>quote by science fiction author Theodore Sturgeon, who once said, "Sure, 90%
>of
>science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud." Oddly,
>when
>Sturgeon's Law is cited, the final word is almost invariably changed to
>`crap'.
>
Originally said at a symposium, where he likely censored his terminology. When
asked about it later, it is my uinderstanding that he used the other word.
>This, from a science fiction writer, who never attributed this comment
>specifically to human beings. Funny how SEF twisted this quote to suit his
>own
>agenda.
>
>--Sharon
I see. Your definition of "everything" doesn't include people.
Steve
SEFSTRAT
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
DougDoug51
>From: sefs...@aol.comnospam (SEFSTRAT)
>Date: Sun, 07 November 1999 02:56 PM EST
>Message-id: <19991107145655...@ng-cm1.aol.com>
I wonder if anyone knows the whether or not "everything" was meant to mean that
90% of each part of everything was also 90% of it's own component....(yeah, I
know...couldn't find better words to express the thought): 90%of the earth, 90%
of people, 90% of the universe, and so on...or that 100% of people could be in
the 10% of everything that is NOT crud, or crap. Seems to me that people
easily make up far less than 10% of everthing...so I wonder what he really
meant?
Regards,
Doug
Les Cargill
His meaning was that 90% of science fiction is ... not so good. So by that
token, the
extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ... substandard.
Of course, around here*, *everything* is above average.
*"here" means in real life, not rmmg.
>
> Regards,
>
> Doug
--
Les Cargill
http://home.att.net/~lcargill/
John Sheehy
Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>His meaning was that 90% of science fiction is ... not so good. So by that
>token, the
>extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ... substandard.
Crap is crap, OK?
Only 10% of anything is in the 90th percentile, or above. That's a
fact.
The fact that 90% of everything is crap is self-evident.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Dan Stanley
John Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:sYcnOJgI0BQZDm...@4ax.com...
> In message <38277524...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>
> >His meaning was that 90% of science fiction is ... not so good. So by
that
> >token, the
> >extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ...
substandard.
>
> Crap is crap, OK?
>
> Only 10% of anything is in the 90th percentile, or above. That's a
> fact.
>
> The fact that 90% of everything is crap is self-evident.
What about really good crap? I mean, like there has to be some crap that is
really not crap, you know, or is SO crappy that it sort of transcends crap,
man, you know? Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
SDan
SEFSTRAT
token, the
extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ... substandard.
>>
I actually think he meant it in the extended sense. Yes, it was tongue in
cheek.....but only sort of.
The Divine Ms. D
<stan...@tiac.net> writes:
>What about really good crap? I mean, like there has to be some crap that is
>really not crap, you know, or is SO crappy that it sort of transcends crap,
>man, you know? Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
>it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
>
Dan, honey, it's off to bed with you now...
:::::::::pats Dan on the butt and sends him off to bed:::::::
fast...@my-deja.com
John Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In message <38277524...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Crap is crap, OK?
>
> Only 10% of anything is in the 90th percentile, or above. That's a
> fact.
>
> The fact that 90% of everything is crap is self-evident.
> --
It certainly is. But in the case of actual crap, for example .......
what is the other 10%?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Matt I.
Dan Stanley wrote:
> Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
> it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
Yes, we think you and Fender are both special, Dan.
I'm sorry, but you put that one on the tee...
Matt I.
speaking only for myself
Ron Thompson
>
> Dan Stanley wrote:
>
> > Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
> > it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
>
> Yes, we think you and Fender are both special, Dan.
>
> I'm sorry, but you put that one on the tee...
You know, I went out for a walk the other night, fired up a FINE Nat Sherman,
and I was thinking that the whole world was beginning to line up correctly,
now that The Evil Matt I had outted himself regarding A.Fuentes. But this?
THIS?
Man. I am shaken to me roots I am. I'm not sure I can ever get over this.
We REALly need some #$% fodder now, man.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.
Matt I.
Ron Thompson wrote:
> You know, I went out for a walk the other night, fired up a FINE Nat Sherman,
> and I was thinking that the whole world was beginning to line up correctly,
> now that The Evil Matt I had outted himself regarding A.Fuentes. But this?
I had a tasty A.Fuente last night, myself. It helped me win my pool league
match.
> THIS?
No, that.
> Man. I am shaken to me roots I am. I'm not sure I can ever get over this.
I'm sorry to have hurt you. There's a country some here somewhere.
"I trusted him like a brother
When I found he loved fine cigars
But then that bastard had to go
And trash my beloved guitars."
(pedal steel solo)
> We REALly need some #$% fodder now, man.
I know, I know. I've been meaning to finish up that comparison review so I could
get railed to high heaven. I'm working on it. I've got bidness, places to go,
people to see (yes, she is).
Ron Thompson
>
> Ron Thompson wrote:
>
> > You know, I went out for a walk the other night, fired up a FINE Nat Sherman,
> > and I was thinking that the whole world was beginning to line up correctly,
> > now that The Evil Matt I had outted himself regarding A.Fuentes. But this?
>
> I had a tasty A.Fuente last night, myself. It helped me win my pool league
> match.
Excellent. I don't shoot much of the billiards myself, but I can imagine
that a ナne A.ブente would help matters greatly. Besides, SHE IS HOT.
> > THIS?
>
> No, that.
What?
> > Man. I am shaken to me roots I am. I'm not sure I can ever get over this.
>
> I'm sorry to have hurt you.
Really? I have email that says otherwise, but I guess I'll have to take your word
for it.
> There's a country some here somewhere.
I'm sure there is...something...but I can't quite decipher the above.
> "I trusted him like a brother
> When I found he loved fine cigars
> But then that bastard had to go
> And trash my beloved guitars."
>
> (pedal steel solo)
I'm gettin all misty here man.
> > We REALly need some #$% fodder now, man.
>
> I know, I know. I've been meaning to finish up that comparison review so I could
> get railed to high heaven. I'm working on it. I've got bidness, places to go,
> people to see (yes, she is).
Enjoy it while yer young. Guitar reviews can wait. In the meantime, we'll just idly
make stuff up about how crappy it is.
twang
Dan Stanley wrote in message <8089v9$1...@news-central.tiac.net>...
>
>John Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:sYcnOJgI0BQZDm...@4ax.com...
>> In message <38277524...@worldnet.att.net>,
>> Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>>
>that
>> >token, the
>> >extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ...
>substandard.
>>
>>
>> Only 10% of anything is in the 90th percentile, or above. That's a
>> fact.
>>
>> The fact that 90% of everything is crap is self-evident.
>
>really not crap, you know, or is SO crappy that it sort of transcends crap,
>it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
>
>
You've been down there too long, Norton.
Ralph.
Matt I.
Ron Thompson wrote:
> Excellent. I don't shoot much of the billiards myself, but I can imagine
> that a ナne A.ブente would help matters greatly. Besides, SHE IS HOT.
Mmmm... hot.
> What?
Oh, never mind.
> Really? I have email that says otherwise, but I guess I'll have to take your word
> for it.
You and your phantom emails.
> > There's a country some here somewhere.
> I'm sure there is...something...but I can't quite decipher the above.
Err...I meant a country *song* here somewhere. I think I have netlawyer's disease. I
need to hire some inferior people to type for me.
> I'm gettin all misty here man.
I have that effect on people.
> Enjoy it while yer young.
I plan to. :)
> Guitar reviews can wait.
Can I get a 'hell yeah?'
> In the meantime, we'll just idly make stuff up about how crappy it is.
Oh, the bad stuff is all made up anyway.
Ron Thompson
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999, "Matt I." <lo...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >> You know, I went out for a walk the other night, fired up a FINE Nat Sherman,
>
>
> the E-string on the Strat. There has to be a trick to it, I guess...
I hate when that happens.
> Heck, at least Teles come with "ashtrays"...
> Now if I just had a cup holder on the guitar for the drink...
Drink it man, you won't need a holder anymore.
Ron Thompson
>
> Ron Thompson wrote:
>
> > Excellent. I don't shoot much of the billiards myself, but I can imagine
> > that a ナne A.ブente would help matters greatly. Besides, SHE IS HOT.
>
> Mmmm... hot.
She is. Doin a great job of runnin that company too.
> > What?
>
> Oh, never mind.
Zactly.
> > Really? I have email that says otherwise, but I guess I'll have to take your word
> > for it.
>
> You and your phantom emails.
Takin the high road...
> > > There's a country some here somewhere.
> > I'm sure there is...something...but I can't quite decipher the above.
>
> Err...I meant a country *song* here somewhere. I think I have netlawyer's disease. I
> need to hire some inferior people to type for me.
Pronto.
> > I'm gettin all misty here man.
>
> I have that effect on people.
Really? I usually cause their appendix to fail. I gotta work on that.
> > In the meantime, we'll just idly make stuff up about how crappy it is.
>
> Oh, the bad stuff is all made up anyway.
Are you saying you got a テnder?
Dan Stanley
Matt I. <lo...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:38284451...@staff.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> Dan Stanley wrote:
>
> > Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
> > it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
>
<sniff>..Thanks, man, because, like, I wasn't sure where I fit in...where I,
you know...<sob> BELONGED.
Now I feel like, I don't know, Sally Field or something..she was the chick
in "Carrie", right?
SDan
Giri Iyengar
> >really not crap, you know, or is SO crappy that it sort of transcends crap,
> >it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
You mean like #$% guitars?
..Giri
John Sheehy
"Dan Stanley" <stan...@tiac.net> wrote :
>What about really good crap? I mean, like there has to be some crap that is
>really not crap, you know, or is SO crappy that it sort of transcends crap,
>man, you know? Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
>it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
SHUT UP, BEAVIS! [Whack!!!!]
terry
John S. Shinal <jsh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:382c8bef....@news.mindspring.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999, "Matt I." <lo...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >> You know, I went out for a walk the other night, fired up a FINE Nat
Sherman,
>
> >I had a tasty A.Fuente last night, myself. It helped me win my pool
league
>
> I can't get the &*%&#!! Bauzas Robusto to stay tucked under
> the E-string on the Strat. There has to be a trick to it, I guess...
>
> Now if I just had a cup holder on the guitar for the drink...
>
what are ya, a dude ?
cource the really kewl players have the beer hat ;P
Matt I.
Giri Iyengar wrote:
> You mean like #$% guitars?
No, there's *4* characters in FMIC.
Hope this helps.
The Divine Ms. D
<stan...@tiac.net> writes:
><sniff>..Thanks, man, because, like, I wasn't sure where I fit in...where I,
>you know...<sob> BELONGED.
>Now I feel like, I don't know, Sally Field or something..she was the chick
>in "Carrie", right?
>
Sissy Spacek, honeypie.
SAC Geology
> <sniff>..Thanks, man, because, like, I wasn't sure where I fit in...where I,
> you know...<sob> BELONGED.
> Now I feel like, I don't know, Sally Field or something..she was the chick
> in "Carrie", right?
No, she WAS in the "King and I", but she looked very different with a
shaved head.
You must be thinkng of Meryl Streep.
pH
Dan Stanley
SAC Geology <hug...@mail.rsccd.org> wrote in message
news:3828B5...@mail.rsccd.org...
> Dan Stanley wrote:
>
> > <sniff>..Thanks, man, because, like, I wasn't sure where I fit
in...where I,
> > you know...<sob> BELONGED.
> > Now I feel like, I don't know, Sally Field or something..she was the
chick
> > in "Carrie", right?
>
> No, she WAS in the "King and I", but she looked very different with a
> shaved head.
I thought that was Audie Murphy?
> You must be thinkng of Meryl Streep.
Not since I saw Susan Sarandon in "Bull Durham", I haven't.
SDan
John Sheehy
fast...@my-deja.com wrote :
>It certainly is. But in the case of actual crap, for example .......
> what is the other 10%?
The cream of the crap.
David C
> What about really good crap? I mean, like there has to be some crap that
is
> really not crap, you know, or is SO crappy that it sort of transcends
crap,
> man, you know? Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
> it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
>
Like a vintage Fender Mustang?
Les Cargill
"John S. Shinal" wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999, "Matt I." <lo...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> >> You know, I went out for a walk the other night, fired up a FINE Nat Sherman,
>
> >I had a tasty A.Fuente last night, myself. It helped me win my pool league
>
> I can't get the &*%&#!! Bauzas Robusto to stay tucked under
> the E-string on the Strat. There has to be a trick to it, I guess...
>
> Heck, at least Teles come with "ashtrays"...
> Now if I just had a cup holder on the guitar for the drink...
There's one on the computer.
>
> John S. Shinal
> jsh...@mindspring.com
>
> The Internet is where lunatics are internetworked
> worldwide at the speed of light. *This* is progress ?
Les Cargill
John Sheehy wrote:
>
> In message <38277524...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>
> >His meaning was that 90% of science fiction is ... not so good. So by that
> >token, the
> >extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ... substandard.
>
> Crap is crap, OK?
>
> Only 10% of anything is in the 90th percentile, or above. That's a
> fact.
>
> The fact that 90% of everything is crap is self-evident.
But not everything is normally distributed. 90% of all Steinway pianos or
Martin Guitars are not crap. Depends on the sample.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
--
Les Cargill
http://home.att.net/~lcargill/
Les Cargill
Dan Stanley wrote:
>
> John Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:sYcnOJgI0BQZDm...@4ax.com...
> > In message <38277524...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
> >
> > >His meaning was that 90% of science fiction is ... not so good. So by
> that
> > >token, the
> > >extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ...
> substandard.
> >
> > Crap is crap, OK?
> >
> > Only 10% of anything is in the 90th percentile, or above. That's a
> > fact.
> >
> > The fact that 90% of everything is crap is self-evident.
>
> What about really good crap? I mean, like there has to be some crap that is
> really not crap, you know, or is SO crappy that it sort of transcends crap,
> man, you know? Like, the crappiest crap is really sort of special, because
> it is , like, you know, so crappy that it has value? You know?
Like Danelectros.
>
> SDan
John Sheehy
Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>But not everything is normally distributed. 90% of all Steinway pianos or
>Martin Guitars are not crap. Depends on the sample.
I was being facetious. The logic of my post was crap.
Dan Stanley
Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3828D9DF...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> John Sheehy wrote:
> >
> > In message <38277524...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
> >
> > >His meaning was that 90% of science fiction is ... not so good. So by
that
> > >token, the
> > >extended statement implies that 90% of any given genre is also ...
substandard.
> >
> > Crap is crap, OK?
> >
> > Only 10% of anything is in the 90th percentile, or above. That's a
> > fact.
> >
> > The fact that 90% of everything is crap is self-evident.
>
> Martin Guitars are not crap. Depends on the sample.
I also distribute my crap very carefully.
SDan
Dan Stanley
> In message <3828D9DF...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>
> >But not everything is normally distributed. 90% of all Steinway pianos or
> >Martin Guitars are not crap. Depends on the sample.
>
> --
You do that better than anybody, so it was indeed in the top 10% of all
logically crappy posts, and therefore you are awarded The Ordure of Merit.
I'll be leaving it on your doorstep in the morning. It will be flaming.
SDan
Dan Stanley
> "John S. Shinal" wrote:
> >
> > x-no-archive: yes
> > On Tue, 09 Nov 1999, "Matt I." <lo...@staff.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > >> You know, I went out for a walk the other night, fired up a FINE Nat
Sherman,
> >
> > >I had a tasty A.Fuente last night, myself. It helped me win my pool
league
> >
> > I can't get the &*%&#!! Bauzas Robusto to stay tucked under
> > the E-string on the Strat. There has to be a trick to it, I guess...
> >
> > Heck, at least Teles come with "ashtrays"...
> > Now if I just had a cup holder on the guitar for the drink...
>
> There's one on the computer.
Heck, I just set mine down on Thompson's amp. He don't mind too much.
SDan
The Divine Ms. D
<stan...@tiac.net> writes:
>
>You do that better than anybody, so it was indeed in the top 10% of all
>logically crappy posts, and therefore you are awarded The Ordure of Merit.
>
>I'll be leaving it on your doorstep in the morning. It will be flaming.
>
You crack me up!
The Divine Ms. D
<lcar...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>But not everything is normally distributed. 90% of all Steinway pianos or
>Martin Guitars are not crap. Depends on the sample.
>
Aha! I knew you could find a good example, Les. ;-)
Les Cargill
John Sheehy wrote:
>
> In message <3828D9DF...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Les Cargill <lcar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote :
>
> >But not everything is normally distributed. 90% of all Steinway pianos or
> >Martin Guitars are not crap. Depends on the sample.
>
> I was being facetious. The logic of my post was crap.
Sorry. I can usually spot facetious. 90% of the time.
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
--
Les Cargill
http://home.att.net/~lcargill/
Steve
represented by SEF, is extremely observant and intelligent.
For a fish.
Steve Sklar
SEFSTRAT
For a fish.
Steve Sklar>>
You might want to check out his writing credentials as an author before
expressing your opinion.
Steve
SEFSTRAT
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
Steve
But if, as you've stated, he believes that 90% of everything is crap,
then he's wrong. It's gotta be higher. Right?
Relax, man. Don't be an upt/ght assph&k'er. ;-)
Steve
Les Cargill
Steve wrote:
>
> I'm coming to the conclusion that this Sturgeon fellow, at least as
> represented by SEF, is extremely observant and intelligent.
>
> For a fish.
It's a tough roe to hoe.
>
> Steve Sklar
Steve
Steve
Les Cargill
Steve wrote:
>
> Heh...took me a second. I'm gonna show this joke to my friend Milt ;-)
I dunno. I thought it smelt.
SEFSTRAT
>>
>> Heh...took me a second. I'm gonna show this joke to my friend Milt ;-)
>
>I dunno. I thought it smelt.
>
Stop yer carpin'.