The past as a foreign country
David Cowie
that most strongly reminded me that this is an old novel is the speed of
communications. Basically, no-one knew what was going on unless they were
right on top of it.
The first martian ship crashes down near Woking, which is in turn not far
from London, one of the biggest cities in the world and the capital of the
Top Nation of the time. When it all kicks off and the Martians start using
the Heat Ray on irriatating bystanders, people only a couple of miles away
know nothing. No TV, no radio, and no one came running to their door.
There's nothing in the London papers the next day, because the telegraph
line was cut and no reports could get through by press time. Reports are
getting into the papers by the second day, but it's a Sunday, and Wells
tells us that "very few Londoners read the Sunday papers." So an alien
invasion is taking place 30 miles or so from London, and hardly anyone in
London knows about it.
Them were different days, all right.
Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
We Do Things Now?
Bonus points if it's not something that Must Be Changed.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 13468:10
GSV Three Minds in a Can
wonderful person David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> said
>I recently read _The War of the Worlds_ (1898) by HG Wells, and the thing
>that most strongly reminded me that this is an old novel is the speed of
>communications. Basically, no-one knew what was going on unless they were
>right on top of it.
That and the fact that HGW seems to equate the destruction of most of
the SE of England to 'the fall of the human race' (unless I'm
remembering, I haven't re-read it for ages). Of course, these days, it's
the destruction of the USA that is so equated.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
>and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
>We Do Things Now?
>Bonus points if it's not something that Must Be Changed.
I've mentioned this before, but of all the anachronisms in the "Sector
General" series, the only one that actually jarred me is when a male
character, discussing the nurses - all of whom were female and some of
whom were present, actually uses the term "pretty little heads" (or a
close equivalent) /right in front of them/. And no one (including the
nurses!) even blinks.
--Craig
--
"I have no sex appeal, a rum-pa-pum-pum," sang Gabe Fenton, in spirit
with the season. "My social skills are nil, a rum-pa-pum-pum."
"Did that actually rhyme?" asked Tuck. -- Christopher Moore,
"He's a bright guy," said Theo. _The Stupidest Angel_
Matt Hughes
wrote:
>Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
>and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
>We Do Things Now?
I recently picked up an Ed McBain police procedural in a hospital
waiting area. It was a modern paperback but I was about a quarter
into it when I flipped back and looked at the publication details and
found that it was a reprint from 1957 or so.
Some little things: every elevator had an operator; when the cops in
the squad room wanted to call someone, they had to ask the desk
sergeant for an outside line; outside, they used police call boxes to
check in; all the principal actors -- cops, lawyers, etc. -- were
male; and the kicker was the murderer's motive. She was the wife of
a powerful businessman and she had killed his mistress out of a fear
that he meant to divorce her and leave her destitute. This was a
college educated, mature woman, but her upbringing had prepared her
to be only an upper middle class wife and that was all she knew.
I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
veterinarian because "you're a girl."
Matt Hughes
Current BSP: my novel, Black Brillion (Tor), is shortlisted for the
Aurora Award, Canadian equivalent of the Hugo. First chapter at
http://www.archonate.com/black-brillion
James Nicoll
Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:20:25 +0100, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
>>and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
>>We Do Things Now?
>>Bonus points if it's not something that Must Be Changed.
>
>I've mentioned this before, but of all the anachronisms in the "Sector
>General" series, the only one that actually jarred me is when a male
>character, discussing the nurses - all of whom were female and some of
>whom were present, actually uses the term "pretty little heads" (or a
>close equivalent) /right in front of them/. And no one (including the
>nurses!) even blinks.
>
character later were packed with anti-virility drugs and laxitives.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
James Nicoll
David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
>and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
>We Do Things Now?
Old police procedural where the cops had a hell of a time
finding one of the witnesses. When they do find her, they find out
that she was dodging them because she was afraid that she'd be
prosecuted under LA's laws against passing for white.
Del Cotter
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> said:
>David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
>>and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
>>We Do Things Now?
>
> Old police procedural where the cops had a hell of a time
>finding one of the witnesses. When they do find her, they find out
>that she was dodging them because she was afraid that she'd be
>prosecuted under LA's laws against passing for white.
See also _Earth Abides_ by George R. Stewart, where much angst about a
relationship, between a white man and a woman who turns out to have been
"passing", is resolved with the thought that such things probably don't
matter so much, now that 99.9999% of the population has died of disease.
An old SF magazine of the late 40s, that I have since given away, had a
short story set in a future World War III scenario, in which a doctor
contemplates having sex with his nurse even though they are not married
to each other, reasoning that it's maybe not so unthinkable under the
circumstances (i.e. world coming to an end).
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the recent increase in UBE, I will soon be ignoring email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Bitstring <pan.2005.05.28....@privacy.net>, from the
> wonderful person David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> said
>>I recently read _The War of the Worlds_ (1898) by HG Wells, and the thing
>>that most strongly reminded me that this is an old novel is the speed of
>>communications. Basically, no-one knew what was going on unless they were
>>right on top of it.
>
> That and the fact that HGW seems to equate the destruction of most of
> the SE of England to 'the fall of the human race' (unless I'm
> remembering, I haven't re-read it for ages). Of course, these days,
> it's the destruction of the USA that is so equated.
Well, that's what he *shows*. He does also mention Martians landing
elsewhere; but the communication from far away is even worse, of
course.
And of course the English characters of the period would mostly have
been rather anglo-centric.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
David Dyer-Bennet
> On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:20:25 +0100, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
>>and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
>>We Do Things Now?
>>Bonus points if it's not something that Must Be Changed.
>
> I've mentioned this before, but of all the anachronisms in the "Sector
> General" series, the only one that actually jarred me is when a male
> character, discussing the nurses - all of whom were female and some of
> whom were present, actually uses the term "pretty little heads" (or a
> close equivalent) /right in front of them/. And no one (including the
> nurses!) even blinks.
Well, did they have eyelashes?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
David Dyer-Bennet
> I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
> became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
> change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
> women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
> anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
> about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
> retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
> school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
> veterinarian because "you're a girl."
And my co-valedictorian in 1972 *became* a veterinarian. I suspect
there was *some* local variation between where you were and where I
was (Northfield, MN), it wasn't that that entire bit of change
happened in those 5 years, though. Another female classmate served on
the Minnesota Supreme Court for a while and is now a Federal judge.
Yes, it's a huge change, even from my slightly later perspective (I'm
50 now). I got the whole "door opening" wars, too.
Steve Brooks
<snip>
> Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old
> story and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different
> from How We Do Things Now?
> Bonus points if it's not something that Must Be Changed.
Asimov and tobacco. I love the old man's work but it does stick out that
everyone is forever lighting up. Even on board space ships.
--
SB
David Cowie
>
> Old police procedural where the cops had a hell of a time
> finding one of the witnesses. When they do find her, they find out
> that she was dodging them because she was afraid that she'd be
> prosecuted under LA's laws against passing for white.
I've read a piece of fiction (length forgotten) where something very like
that happened, but I had assumed that it was recently written, and that
the author was Making A Point. Was the woman called Agnes, and was the
detective black?
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 13490:00
James Nicoll
No, the detective was a Mexican-American named Mendoza.
Bit of a fop, as I recall, enabled by a recent inheritance from
an uncle (?) whose source of wealth was not properly documented.
The book was from around 1960 and the police were a little
surprised when they learned why the woman was dodging them, because
sure, the law was on the books but it hadn't been enforced in years.
I think her boyfriend (who thought she was Italian) was just as
surprised at her fear of his reaction. Since this wasn't an Easy
Rawlins novel, I am pretty sure that they stayed together.
James Nicoll
Craig Richardson
wrote:
>Matt Hughes <mhu...@mars.ark.com> writes:
>
>> I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
>> became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
>> change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
>> women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
>> anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
>> about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
>> retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
>> school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
>> veterinarian because "you're a girl."
>
>And my co-valedictorian in 1972 *became* a veterinarian. I suspect
>there was *some* local variation between where you were and where I
>was (Northfield, MN), it wasn't that that entire bit of change
>happened in those 5 years, though. Another female classmate served on
>the Minnesota Supreme Court for a while and is now a Federal judge.
My grandmother became a pharmacist in 1923. Although I guess it's OK
because it can be seen as a kind of combination of nurse and retail
clerk, so it doesn't press the same buttons as, say, prosecuting
attorney...
David Cowie
>
> No, the detective was a Mexican-American named Mendoza.
> Bit of a fop, as I recall, enabled by a recent inheritance from
> an uncle (?) whose source of wealth was not properly documented.
>
I'm sure that the detective in "my" novel was black, but he was also
independently wealthy, and a fancy dresser. I don't remember if his source
of wealth was specified or not.
> The book was from around 1960 and the police were a little
> surprised when they learned why the woman was dodging them, because
> sure, the law was on the books but it hadn't been enforced in years.
> I think her boyfriend (who thought she was Italian) was just as
> surprised at her fear of his reaction. Since this wasn't an Easy
> Rawlins novel, I am pretty sure that they stayed together.
>
Pretending to be Italian comes into my version too, but I don't remember
if it's what she has been doing, or what the detective tells her to do.
No reason why the same plot can't have been used more than once, of
course. If I really cared, I suppose I could try asking on a mystery
newsgroup.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 13490:46
Dorothy J Heydt
Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 May 2005 11:24:38 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Matt Hughes <mhu...@mars.ark.com> writes:
>>
>>> I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
>>> became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
>>> change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
>>> women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
>>> anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
>>> about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
>>> retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
>>> school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
>>> veterinarian because "you're a girl."
>>
>>And my co-valedictorian in 1972 *became* a veterinarian. I suspect
>>there was *some* local variation between where you were and where I
>>was (Northfield, MN), it wasn't that that entire bit of change
>>happened in those 5 years, though. Another female classmate served on
>>the Minnesota Supreme Court for a while and is now a Federal judge.
>
>My grandmother became a pharmacist in 1923. Although I guess it's OK
>because it can be seen as a kind of combination of nurse and retail
>clerk, so it doesn't press the same buttons as, say, prosecuting
>attorney...
My maternal aunt, born 1900 I believe, became an M.D. and
specialized as an ophthalmologist, also in the 1920s. Can't pass
that off as a kind of nurse or retail clerk. And about
seventy-five years later I mentioned her to another
ophthalmologist, young, female, who was taking my medical
history, and her reaction was, "Wow! YOU knew DOROTHY
MACDONALD?!?!?!"
So I guess she had a bit of fame among her peers.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
Keith Morrison
Any book, movie or TV show where a character getting plastered and
driving his car (and it's almost always a he) doesn't get much of a
comment.
--
Keith
Emma Pease
I'm not sure when all California racial laws were rendered null[1] but
the California Supreme Court ruled the miscegenation law prohibiting
marriages between races null in 1948 (Perez vs. Sharp) though the US
Supreme Court was not to rule them null nationwide until Loving
vs. Virginia (1967).
Emma
[1] I've looked at the Perez Sharp opinion
http://www.multiracial.com/government/perez-v-sharp.html
which gives some of the history of these laws in California.
California was passing miscegnation laws as late as 1933 (adding in
Malays as a group who couldn't marry whites). The court was also
divided (3 judges dissented and it is interesting to read the
dissent for a peek into a past that is a foreign country).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
David Cowie
>
> Any book, movie or TV show where a character getting plastered and
> driving his car (and it's almost always a he) doesn't get much of a
> comment.
That's something that I noticed about _The Great Gatsby_. It would be an
exaggeration to say that everyone drives drunk all the time, but it's
common. In _The Big Sleep_, I'm sure Philip Marlowe sits in his car,
waiting and watching, and drinking whiskey.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 13492:17
Mike Schilling
"Keith Morrison" <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote in message
news:ag8k9153i4ouqldng...@4ax.com...
>
> Any book, movie or TV show where a character getting plastered and
> driving his car (and it's almost always a he) doesn't get much of a
> comment.
"Sideways", made in 2004?
Matt Hughes
wrote:
>Matt Hughes <mhu...@mars.ark.com> writes:
>
>> In 1967, as a senior in high
>> school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
>> veterinarian because "you're a girl."
>
>And my co-valedictorian in 1972 *became* a veterinarian. I suspect
>there was *some* local variation between where you were and where I
>was (Northfield, MN), it wasn't that that entire bit of change
>happened in those 5 years, though.
She was in Vancouver, Canada.
Actually, I do think an enormous change took place in those five
years. The late sixties were a cusp upon which many things turned,
i.e.,"living in sin" became just "living together." The philosophy of
"doing your own thing," as opposed to doing the socially approved
thing, also took root, especially in Canada.
In some ways, the whole world changed but we were too busy to notice.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/
Matt Hughes
Heydt) wrote:
>My maternal aunt, born 1900 I believe, became an M.D. and
>specialized as an ophthalmologist, also in the 1920s. Can't pass
>that off as a kind of nurse or retail clerk.
Sure, there were exceptions. I remember being examined by a female
public health physician in 1962. She was the first woman doctor I'd
ever met or heard of. They were there, but they were rare. Today,
they're everywhere.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/
Matt Hughes
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <pan.2005.05.28....@privacy.net>,
>David Cowie <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>Would anyone care to share their own experiences of reading an old story
>>and seeing the writer casually relate something wildy different from How
>>We Do Things Now?
>
> Old police procedural where the cops had a hell of a time
>finding one of the witnesses. When they do find her, they find out
>that she was dodging them because she was afraid that she'd be
>prosecuted under LA's laws against passing for white.
I was in the Vancouver Public Library a few years back reading
microfilmned copies of the local paper from the late 1960s for a book
I was working on. I remember a headline concerning an early
transsexual -- not Christine Jorgensen -- who had recently resurfaced
after a few years. The headline was something like "Sex Change Woman
Marries Negro" and the newsworthiness of the item was that this woman
who used to be a man had made what they used to call "a mixed
marriage." These days, Michael Jackson manages to do just about all
of that all by himself.
Actually, when Canadian used to the phrase "mixed marriage" before the
late sixties, they were usually talking about Protestants marrying
Catholics. That used to be a pretty big deal..
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/
Steve
the SE of England to 'the fall of the human race' (unless I'm
remembering, I haven't re-read it for ages). Of course, these days,
it's the destruction of the USA that is so equated."
-- it would be unnatural for human beings not to attach more importance
to their own country and people than to distant foreigners. Unnatural
and unhealthy.
Steve
>Asimov and tobacco. I love the old man's work but it does stick out that
everyone is forever lighting up. Even on board space ships.
-- You don't have to travel in time to get that. Just fly to Paris.
Craig Richardson
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <9b4k91lh8c43j8ad5...@4ax.com>,
>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 29 May 2005 11:24:38 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Matt Hughes <mhu...@mars.ark.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
>>>> became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
>>>> change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
>>>> women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
>>>> anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
>>>> about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
>>>> retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
>>>> school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
>>>> veterinarian because "you're a girl."
ObSF: _Ishmael_, where a female worked as a doctor in a 1860s San
Francisco charity hospital but was addressed/paid as a nurse because
the board, if they could afford another doctor, would just hire a
male. When she moves to frontier Seattle, which has no doctor at the
time, prejudice is much looser.
>>>And my co-valedictorian in 1972 *became* a veterinarian. I suspect
>>>there was *some* local variation between where you were and where I
>>>was (Northfield, MN), it wasn't that that entire bit of change
>>>happened in those 5 years, though. Another female classmate served on
>>>the Minnesota Supreme Court for a while and is now a Federal judge.
>>
>>My grandmother became a pharmacist in 1923. Although I guess it's OK
>>because it can be seen as a kind of combination of nurse and retail
>>clerk, so it doesn't press the same buttons as, say, prosecuting
>>attorney...
>
>My maternal aunt, born 1900 I believe, became an M.D. and
>specialized as an ophthalmologist, also in the 1920s. Can't pass
>that off as a kind of nurse or retail clerk.
I have a suspicion that it was easier for women/minorities to break in
to "supporting" roles in medicine. Like pharmacy (where they were
following orders written by a white male) or opthamology (which
provides a clear benefit but doesn't involve cutting people open or
probing private places).
how...@brazee.net
up.
Wayne Throop
:: My maternal aunt, born 1900 I believe, became an M.D. and
:: specialized as an ophthalmologist, also in the 1920s.
: Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net>
: I have a suspicion that it was easier for women/minorities to break in
: to "supporting" roles in medicine. Like pharmacy (where they were
: following orders written by a white male) or opthamology (which
: provides a clear benefit but doesn't involve cutting people open or
: probing private places).
Also, I think in many ways, the '20s and '30s were actually
less repressive than the '40s and '50s. In the '40s and '50s,
WWII tended to polarize gender roles, "rosie the riveter"
notwithstanding.
Or... so it seems to me, with no backing statistics;
just a general impression I get from film and reading this-n-that.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Sean O'Hara
> In _The Big Sleep_, I'm sure Philip Marlowe sits in his car,
> waiting and watching, and drinking whiskey.
>
Marlowe is a robot, alcohol doesn't affect him.
I mean, how else do you explain the number of times he gets knocked
upside the head hard enough to pass out, yet never suffers a concussion?
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Doctor: Logic, my dear Zoe, merely enables one to be wrong with
authority.
-Doctor Who
Dorothy J Heydt
>
>Also, I think in many ways, the '20s and '30s were actually
>less repressive than the '40s and '50s. In the '40s and '50s,
>WWII tended to polarize gender roles, "rosie the riveter"
>notwithstanding.
During the 30s there was a gradual relaxing of the restrictions
(I'm talking about attitudes more than laws) on what women could
and couldn't do. It was all coming along nicely, and then World
War II happened.
All of a sudden (at a date depending on where you lived and hence
where the war started for you, 1939 or 1941 or ...), the men all
marched off to war and the women were holding down all kinds of
traditionally masculine jobs. And in many cases they discovered
that independence was cool, and making a living was great, but
they weren't getting paid all that much (the men hadn't been
either) and that most jobs are not glamorous life-fulfilling
careers, they're just dreary little gopher-pits of jobs, even as
they had been for the men, even as most jobs are to this very day.
And they missed their menfolk; this is understandable. They
wanted their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, and boyfriends to
come back and life to go back to normal. A rather surprised (female)
sociologist remarked on this at the time in an article for which
I cannot at present find the cite, darn it. It began "With a
unanimity that would have surprised their suffragette mothers--"
they seriously dreamed about that little rose-covered cottage, the
husband and kids, the traditional roles that didn't involve overalls
and riveting.
So when peace came, most of the women cheerfully quit their jobs
and went back to the status quo ante. Those few who had
preferred working and would've rather stayed on the job, had to
give the job up in any case because the man who'd given it up to
go to war had returned and taken it back.
So we had the, um, shall we say retrograde, 1950s. Think of a
pendulum that's been slowly swinging of its own accord, suddenly
jerked way over to the south. As soon as you let go of it, it's
going to swing back as far north as it went south and then swing
back again, and here the pendulum analogy breaks down because
instead of a fairly homogenous opinion (at least in this one
country) you've got a splintering between women who want to work
and say it's horrible for women to stay home; women who want to
stay home and say it's horrible for women to work; and women who
would like to do one or the other or maybe both but are willing
to be reasonable about it if they can. And that's not getting
into the opinions of their menfolk at all.
I was born in 1942 and saw, not the shove southward, but the
violent swing back to north and the oscillating ever since.
Dorothy J Heydt
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>Apparently Roger Zelazny's characters lit up cigarettes when he was lighting
>up.
That is the classical example of "a Dischism" in the Turkey City
Lexicon. I don't know if it's fair to blame it on Disch, but a
Dischism is when you don't know what your character should do
next, you have him do whatever you're doing.
Scott Robinson
wrote:
I've heard a med student claim that the women outnumber the men in her
class. She didn't seem to think this was atypical.
Scott
Robert Hutchinson
True. It has no bearing on then portraying such as "the fall of the human
race". But true.
--
Robert Hutchinson | The Twenty is just so evil. The very name gloats
| over our suffering and powerlessness. It's a
| boot stomping on a human face for twenty minutes.
| -- Shaenon K. Garrity
lal_truckee
>
> I mean, how else do you explain the number of times he gets knocked
> upside the head hard enough to pass out, yet never suffers a concussion?
Huh? He's fully concussed throughout his career - how else do you
explain his behavior; and all that talking to himself?
lal_truckee
I missed that - time for another visit.
James Nicoll
That would be my parents.
I've read my father's letters that touch on his new relatives*
and I have to say the fact that they never weighed him down with heavy
chains before dumping him in the Strait of Canso says a lot about their
self-control.
James Nicoll
* "They have nothing and yet they are proud! How very odd!" Timed, hmmm,
just after the town's economy imploded because of regional infrastructure
improvements.
Larry M Headlund
>late sixties, they were usually talking about Protestants marrying
>Catholics. That used to be a pretty big deal..
That use of the term "mixed marraige" was also common in the US. William
Manchester in his sprawling history _The Glory and the Dream_, which
covers 1932-1972 remarks on it.
As I remember the term was even used to refer to marriages between
persons from sufficiently far apart doctrinally Protestant churches.
Sufficiently far apart would be in the eye of the beholder, of
course.
With the exception of cases like the heir to the throne of England
I don't know of any laws prohibiting Protestants and Catholics from
marrying but it could be that my education is deficient.
--
--
Larry Headlund l...@world.std.com Mathematical Engineering, Inc.
(617) 242 7741
Unix, X and Motif Consulting Speaking for myself at most.
Keith Morrison
>I'm not sure when all California racial laws were rendered null[1] but
>the California Supreme Court ruled the miscegenation law prohibiting
>marriages between races null in 1948 (Perez vs. Sharp) though the US
>Supreme Court was not to rule them null nationwide until Loving
>vs. Virginia (1967).
One of the men filing suit in case in New York concerning gay marriage
the was the son of a couple who had to go to California in order to
get married.
--
Keith
John Schilling
>On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:20:25 +0100, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
>became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
>change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
>women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
>anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
>about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
>retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
>school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
>veterinarian because "you're a girl."
Oh, but that's one of the things that *hasn't* changed. Whatever
future is best suited for you, whatever future you are best suited
for, whatever dream you might actually have a hope of fullfilling,
a high school guidance counselor or the eqiuvalent will find a
reason to crush. Unless you are completely unaware of the potential
congruence of self, dream, and future, in which case they will just
quietly steer you in a different direction.
Assuming, that is, that you are foolish enough to pay any attention
to a high school guidance counselor. I hope that your wife was wiser
than that.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
r.r...@thevine.net
Heydt) wrote:
>And they missed their menfolk; this is understandable. They
>wanted their fathers, brothers, sons, husbands, and boyfriends to
>come back and life to go back to normal. A rather surprised (female)
>sociologist remarked on this at the time in an article for which
>I cannot at present find the cite, darn it. It began "With a
>unanimity that would have surprised their suffragette mothers--"
>they seriously dreamed about that little rose-covered cottage, the
>husband and kids, the traditional roles that didn't involve overalls
>and riveting.
>
>So when peace came, most of the women cheerfully quit their jobs
>and went back to the status quo ante. Those few who had
>preferred working and would've rather stayed on the job, had to
>give the job up in any case because the man who'd given it up to
>go to war had returned and taken it back.
ObSF: _The Ladies of Mandrigyn_.
Rebecca
Mike Schilling
"Sean O'Hara" <sean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Su2dneVTcrL...@comcast.com...
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful David Cowie declared:
>> In _The Big Sleep_, I'm sure Philip Marlowe sits in his car,
>> waiting and watching, and drinking whiskey.
>>
>
> Marlowe is a robot, alcohol doesn't affect him.
>
> I mean, how else do you explain the number of times he gets knocked upside
> the head hard enough to pass out, yet never suffers a concussion?
Rye is a specific against concussion.
Mike Schilling
"lal_truckee" <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:PTvme.232$wy1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Just outside Paris, I would think, at Euro-Tomorrowland.
Matt Hughes
wrote:
>In article <6t9i91pvpblle3nnr...@4ax.com>, Matt Hughes says...
>
>>On Sat, 28 May 2005 22:20:25 +0100, David Cowie <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>
>>I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
>>became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
>>change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
>>women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
>>anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
>>about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
>>retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
>>school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
>>veterinarian because "you're a girl."
>
>
>Oh, but that's one of the things that *hasn't* changed. Whatever
>future is best suited for you, whatever future you are best suited
>for, whatever dream you might actually have a hope of fullfilling,
>a high school guidance counselor or the eqiuvalent will find a
>reason to crush.
The man who said it to her was a vet.
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com/
dpgo...@yahoo.com
It's fun to watch old movies and compare them to Law and Ordger.
No Miranda warnings. No DNA. And of course the phone call trace that
goes on forever, but cuts off just a second too soon.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <1ffk91t2qoqugkp2g...@4ax.com>,
> Matt Hughes <mhu...@mars.ark.com> wrote:
>>
>>Actually, when Canadian used to the phrase "mixed marriage" before the
>>late sixties, they were usually talking about Protestants marrying
>>Catholics. That used to be a pretty big deal..
>
> That use of the term "mixed marraige" was also common in the US. William
> Manchester in his sprawling history _The Glory and the Dream_, which
> covers 1932-1972 remarks on it.
>
> As I remember the term was even used to refer to marriages between
> persons from sufficiently far apart doctrinally Protestant churches.
> Sufficiently far apart would be in the eye of the beholder, of
> course.
And now we use it to describe marriages between fans and non-fans.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd...@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
Peter Bruells
Peter Bruells
Keith Morrison
There has got to be a comedy story about the master criminal
transported from, say, 1975 to 2005. Society hasn't changed enough to
be unrecognizable, but enough things have to make it really amusing.
"This is a warning! I want $100,000 or I'll blow up your store!"
"Is this John DuEvil?"
"...uh, no"
"Well, you're calling from John DuEvil's number. My husband's on the
other line with the police right now."
--
Keith
Peter Bruells
> There has got to be a comedy story about the master criminal
> transported from, say, 1975 to 2005. Society hasn't changed enough to
> be unrecognizable, but enough things have to make it really amusing.
>
> "This is a warning! I want $100,000 or I'll blow up your store!"
>
> "Is this John DuEvil?"
>
> "...uh, no"
>
> "Well, you're calling from John DuEvil's number. My husband's on the
> other line with the police right now."
$100.000? Wouldn't a 1975 criminal ask for a another sum? Like ONE
MILLION DOLLARS?
A.G.McDowell
>
>Actually, when Canadian used to the phrase "mixed marriage" before the
>late sixties, they were usually talking about Protestants marrying
>Catholics. That used to be a pretty big deal..
>
Ireland - a reminder that you can sometimes find frozen versions of the
bad old days if you move in space, rather than time.
Cross-religion marriages may sometimes be a big deal long after people
have stopped being prejudiced about skin colour and gone back to being
prejudiced about accent, or clothing, or some other marker of cultural
differences. What religion should the children be brought up in? That is
a big question for the parents to settle. Unfortunately, it may also be
a question for which the parents' families, peers, and religious leaders
all have an answer.
OTOH suppose we had just a little bit of genetic engineering available,
and parents could choose something that looked like a racial marker. Mr
and Mrs White: I have a way we can reduce your child's risk of cancer.
Yes, as it happens, it is the risk of skin cancer I'm talking about.
Well, yes, it does involve a certain "natural tan", more than justified
by the reduced risk of melanoma: think of the good of the child. You're
not going to be easy to convince, are you?
--
A.G.McDowell
David Cowie
>
> OTOH suppose we had just a little bit of genetic engineering available,
> and parents could choose something that looked like a racial marker. Mr
> and Mrs White: I have a way we can reduce your child's risk of cancer.
> Yes, as it happens, it is the risk of skin cancer I'm talking about.
> Well, yes, it does involve a certain "natural tan", more than justified
> by the reduced risk of melanoma: think of the good of the child. You're
> not going to be easy to convince, are you?
ObSF: a Greg Egan story (don't remember which one) in which a medical
treatment becomes available which enables white people to produce much
more melanin. Being a "neo-black" becomes very popular in Australia, and
racists get tied up in knots about it. This is part of the story
background, not the point of the story.
--
David Cowie
Containment Failure + 13506:59
Ray Cunningham
martians, what hope would anyone else have?
how...@brazee.net
On 29-May-2005, l...@TheWorld.com (Larry M Headlund) wrote:
> As I remember the term was even used to refer to marriages between
> persons from sufficiently far apart doctrinally Protestant churches.
> Sufficiently far apart would be in the eye of the beholder, of
> course.
Or of the church. Let the churches define marriage as they will. It
should be their business, not the state's.
Christopher J. Henrich
<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> In article <36tme.3356$MI4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >Apparently Roger Zelazny's characters lit up cigarettes when he was lighting
> >up.
>
> That is the classical example of "a Dischism" in the Turkey City
> Lexicon. I don't know if it's fair to blame it on Disch, but a
> Dischism is when you don't know what your character should do
> next, you have him do whatever you're doing.
>
"Conan got up, stretched, sat down, and rolled a clean sheet of paper
into his typewriter."
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Albany, California
> djh...@kithrup.com
--
Chris Henrich
http://www.mathinteract.com
God just doesn't fit inside a single religion.
Dorothy J Heydt
We can't tell, can we, from the words Keith posted. He seems to
have been typing very hastily (note the splintered syntax) and
maybe he meant filing a counter-suit, in support of it.
Dorothy J Heydt
Christopher J. Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>In article <IHA4w...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
><djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <36tme.3356$MI4...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> >Apparently Roger Zelazny's characters lit up cigarettes when he was lighting
>> >up.
>>
>> That is the classical example of "a Dischism" in the Turkey City
>> Lexicon. I don't know if it's fair to blame it on Disch, but a
>> Dischism is when you don't know what your character should do
>> next, you have him do whatever you're doing.
>>
>"Conan got up, stretched, sat down, and rolled a clean sheet of paper
>into his typewriter."
No, you modify it a tiny tad. "Conan got up, stretched, sat
down, and reached moodily for the next beribboned, ornately
sealed sheet of parchment." (From the first draft of _King
Conan_, obviously.)
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> Oh, but that's one of the things that *hasn't* changed. Whatever
> future is best suited for you, whatever future you are best suited
> for, whatever dream you might actually have a hope of fullfilling,
> a high school guidance counselor or the eqiuvalent will find a
> reason to crush. Unless you are completely unaware of the potential
> congruence of self, dream, and future, in which case they will just
> quietly steer you in a different direction.
I don't recall our high school guidance counselor recommending
any career to anyone. He did present a calculation showing
that a journeyman electrician would have a higher lifetime
income than the average college graduate up to age 45 or so.
One friend did become an electrician - after he failed out
of the math program - and did have second thoughts about
going back to school because the salary was high. But
the lure of a PhD in math (which he attained with ease)
proved too much.
The only explicit advice I recall getting from our guidance
counselor was utterly wrong. A valuable lesson in itself.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Wayne Throop
: OTOH suppose we had just a little bit of genetic engineering
: available, and parents could choose something that looked like a
: racial marker. Mr and Mrs White: I have a way we can reduce your
: child's risk of cancer. Yes, as it happens, it is the risk of skin
: cancer I'm talking about. Well, yes, it does involve a certain
: "natural tan", more than justified by the reduced risk of melanoma:
: think of the good of the child. You're not going to be easy to
: convince, are you?
What about my vitamin D production? Can you make me photo-grey?
No, wait; I'm already photo-grey. Well, photo-sepia or something.
Maybe shorten the conversion period to a few minutes, like the
glasses coating, though. That'd be nice. Hrm.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Keith Morrison
> We lacked guidance counsellors, but one year several schools organized a
> Career Day, with presentations by various local working people on their
> profession/job. My sister went to the one presented by the Mounties. The
> Mountie looked around the room, and before he started his talk, said 'I
> notice there are a number of girls here. Girls are not admitted to the
> Mounties, and never will be.' Then he went on with his speech.
>
> This was around 1968 or 69. My sister went on to a completely different
> career, and the Mounties started admitting women in 1974.
It was 1979 for the Canadian Military Colleges.
Interestingly, when I went into the CMC system in 1989 they were still
working out some of the bugs in the system, 10 years on. The rules for
cadets had previously stipulated that relationships between male and
female cadets were verboten, full stop. When I got there some sanity
reigned and they had changed it to no relationships between cadets who
were in some kind of direct chain of command, no sex on base[1], and no
displays of affection while in uniform.
I don't know how well that worked out given examples like the day after
graduation one year when two newly-minted second lieutenants (one
the former Cadet Wing Commander, the other a former Cadet Squadron
Commander) tied the knot in one of the campus chapels with the whole
sword-arch bit and the senior officers attending.
1. Yes, with a campus full of physically fit, intelligent, aggressive
and generally hormone-soaked people in their late teens and early 20s,
that rule worked out about as well as you can imagine.
--
Keith
Keith Morrison
>>OTOH suppose we had just a little bit of genetic engineering available,
>>and parents could choose something that looked like a racial marker. Mr
>>and Mrs White: I have a way we can reduce your child's risk of cancer.
>>Yes, as it happens, it is the risk of skin cancer I'm talking about.
>>Well, yes, it does involve a certain "natural tan", more than justified
>>by the reduced risk of melanoma: think of the good of the child. You're
>>not going to be easy to convince, are you?
>
> ObSF: a Greg Egan story (don't remember which one) in which a medical
> treatment becomes available which enables white people to produce much
> more melanin. Being a "neo-black" becomes very popular in Australia, and
> racists get tied up in knots about it. This is part of the story
> background, not the point of the story.
ObAnotherSF: _Crown of Slaves_ mentions two planets settled by African
black supremacists who tweaked the genes of the settlers so as to
produce physically superior children. Unfortunately they screwed up
slightly and the said physically superior children ended up with white
skin and light hair.
To be fair, another planet in the Honorverse was settled by white
supremacists. They didn't make a similar mistake, but the planet,
ending up in Haven ownership, became a poor dirtball that was most
renowned for having the best-looking prostitutes in the region.
--
Keith
Keith Morrison
>>>>I'm not sure when all California racial laws were rendered null[1] but
>>>>the California Supreme Court ruled the miscegenation law prohibiting
>>>>marriages between races null in 1948 (Perez vs. Sharp) though the US
>>>>Supreme Court was not to rule them null nationwide until Loving
>>>>vs. Virginia (1967).
>>>
>>>One of the men filing suit in case in New York concerning gay marriage
>>>the was the son of a couple who had to go to California in order to
>>>get married.
>>
>>Filing suit against gay marriage?
>
> We can't tell, can we, from the words Keith posted. He seems to
> have been typing very hastily (note the splintered syntax) and
> maybe he meant filing a counter-suit, in support of it.
Actually cutting and pasting when I modified what I had originally
typed.
He was one of the people filing suit to force the State of New York to
recognize his relationship and rights. The judge who ruled the state
had to do so specifically mentioned his parents as an example of how
what defined marriage has always changed over time.
--
Keith
James Nicoll
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> wrote:
>
>
>To be fair, another planet in the Honorverse was settled by white
>supremacists. They didn't make a similar mistake, but the planet,
>ending up in Haven ownership, became a poor dirtball that was most
>renowned for having the best-looking prostitutes in the region.
Note to self: convince the Heritage Front to settle Altair V,
and let natural selection take its course.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Dorothy J Heydt
I don't remember ever encountering a guidance counselor at all.
But I and all my crowd were OBviously college-bound so the
decision could be postponed.
William December Starr
how...@brazee.net said:
>> As I remember the term was even used to refer to marriages
>> between persons from sufficiently far apart doctrinally
>> Protestant churches. Sufficiently far apart would be in the eye
>> of the beholder, of course. [Larry M Headlund]
>
> Or of the church. Let the churches define marriage as they will.
> It should be their business, not the state's.
Let the churches define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-church as
they will, and states define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-state
as they will.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <yv7zll5w...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> > The only explicit advice I recall getting from our guidance
> > counselor was utterly wrong. A valuable lesson in itself.
>
> I don't remember ever encountering a guidance counselor at all.
We saw him once a week, or possibly once a month for the
first couple of years. Then again for a while as graduation
drew near. With all respect to the man, who seemed a decent
sort, I do wonder what he did to qualify for a paycheck.
> But I and all my crowd were OBviously college-bound so the
> decision could be postponed.
That may answer the above question. His primary work may
have been with people who needed it more.
Carl Dershem
I never saw one, either, and given poor performance in the school I'd
transferred from (where 'learn on your own' was given higher priority than
'show up for class') it would have made a big difference. Heck - just
noticing the transcripts were self-contradictory should have set off an
alert for someone.
Not all counselors are worth their pay.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Carl Dershem
@panix3.panix.com:
Sorry - that's a rational conclusion, and therefore not allowed.
Carl Dershem
Hmmm... SPF-30G - you go out into the sun, and you turn grey (or some
other color, starting next year). You come back inside, and the coloring
fades.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
the wonderful person Ray Cunningham <ray...@gmail.com> said
>But if the might of the British Empire can't stand against the
>martians, what hope would anyone else have?
That was my point .. and while it was probably true at that time, it
does date the novel IMO.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
Peter Meilinger
>I don't remember ever encountering a guidance counselor at all.
>But I and all my crowd were OBviously college-bound so the
>decision could be postponed.
When I was in high school - late 80's - information on various
colleges was one of the main things guidance counselors provided.
I don't remember any vocational guidance at all, though I'm
sure it was there at least in the "If you want to be a doctor
go to X" sense. All of my friends were college-bound, too,
though, so I wouldn't have even second-hand experience with
advice to those who weren't.
As far as helping students deal with stress and all that
rot, the counselor I was assigned to was pretty useless.
I never went to him with a real problem, thank God, but
all the small problems I had he was no use whatsoever.
He bent over backwards for the athletes, though, just
like the rest of the administration. It wasn't as
pervasive and obvious as in other schools I've heard
about (or read about in Chris Crutcher YA novels,
come to think of it) but it was there.
Pete
James Nicoll
GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Bitstring <1117456950.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, from
>the wonderful person Ray Cunningham <ray...@gmail.com> said
>>But if the might of the British Empire can't stand against the
>>martians, what hope would anyone else have?
>
>That was my point .. and while it was probably true at that time, it
>does date the novel IMO.
>
one that is forgivable given the nature of Mars. They've smashed
the army but the military strength of the UK isn't the army but
the Royal Navy. The fight between the Thunderchild and the tripod
suggests that they will not as well against the RN as they did
against the army units that they ran into.
And once they get to the continent, they get to face proper-
sized armies, which should be a giggle.
Emma Pease
> On Sun, 29 May 2005 19:25:04 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
> Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <9b4k91lh8c43j8ad5...@4ax.com>,
>>Craig Richardson <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 29 May 2005 11:24:38 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Matt Hughes <mhu...@mars.ark.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I just turned 56 so I have seen a fair number of changes since I
>>>>> became aware of the world, but without a doubt the most far-reaching
>>>>> change in society that I have witnessed has been the emancipation of
>>>>> women. It is so taken for granted now that women can do virtually
>>>>> anything, that it is hard to believe that when I was a teenager just
>>>>> about the only jobs available to women were nurse, teacher, librarian,
>>>>> retail clerk ("shop girl") or typist. In 1967, as a senior in high
>>>>> school my wife was told on career day to forget about being a
>>>>> veterinarian because "you're a girl."
>
> ObSF: _Ishmael_, where a female worked as a doctor in a 1860s San
> Francisco charity hospital but was addressed/paid as a nurse because
> the board, if they could afford another doctor, would just hire a
> male. When she moves to frontier Seattle, which has no doctor at the
> time, prejudice is much looser.
Don't even have to go that far back. Dr. Frances Conley,
neurosurgeon, Stanford, (starting in the 1970s) encountered doctors
changing rooms and nurses changing rooms (an inferior setup). She as
a woman had to use the nurses changing room.
My aunt who got her MD in the late 1940's went to Tanganyika later
Tanzania to work since she was unlikely to get as a good a job in
England.
Also an oft told story about Sandra Day O'Connor was that while
applying for jobs after graduating from Stanford Law School, no
private law firms would hire her as a lawyer (though one offered her a
job as a legal secretary if her typing was good enough).
So what has changed in the US over the decades and centuries
male/female roles (men becoming nurses, women becoming doctors, policemen)
The position of gays/lesbians in society
The position of Americans of African and Asian descent (further back
those of Irish or Italian descent) and Native Americans.
The position of Catholics and Jews
Acceptance of sexual relations outside of legal marriage
Acceptance of marriage between "whites" and "non-whites"
Acceptance of marriage between people of different religions
Discussions of pregnancy and sex in mixed company and the media
Acceptance of Smoking
Attitudes towards Drinking (under 21s, hard liquor, driving)
?Gated communities
?micro-managing of children's time
Marital Rape being illegal (people seem to forget how recently this
was legal in the US)
Age of marriage (my neighbors when I was growing up had been married
at age 14 back in the 1920s or possibly the 1910s).
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Del Cotter
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> said:
>GSV Three Minds in a Can <G...@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>the wonderful person Ray Cunningham <ray...@gmail.com> said
>>>But if the might of the British Empire can't stand against the
>>>martians, what hope would anyone else have?
>>
>>That was my point .. and while it was probably true at that time, it
>>does date the novel IMO.
>>
> Mind you, the Martians are making a big mistake, although
>one that is forgivable given the nature of Mars. They've smashed
>the army but the military strength of the UK isn't the army but
>the Royal Navy. The fight between the Thunderchild and the tripod
>suggests that they will not as well against the RN as they did
>against the army units that they ran into.
One bog-standard tripod lost, versus one top-of-the-range battleship.
Sounds like the Martians got the best of the deal.
>And once they get to the continent, they get to face proper-
>sized armies, which should be a giggle.
IIRC, Wells specifically described the choice of Southern England as
being as much about "bridgehead" as about "decapitation strike". I
think he said something about settling in to the island and building up
strength before spreading out to the continent and planet.
That's the Watsonian explanation of course, the Doyleist explanation is
that he was writing an allegory of white men wiping about the
Tasmanians, from the point of view of the Tasmanians. He needed to set
it where his English readers would be horrified by the destruction, and
the Martian invasion of Korea or Florida or Sri Lanka, or even Ireland,
wouldn't have had as much of an impact.
--
Del Cotter
Thanks to the recent increase in UBE, I will soon be ignoring email
sent to d...@branta.demon.co.uk. Please send your email to del2 instead.
lal_truckee
Why should states define "marriage" at all? On the other hand, if states
believe a particular set of pre-defined contractual arrangements between
pairs of people serve a state purpose, the can so legislate.
how...@brazee.net
On 30-May-2005, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> > Or of the church. Let the churches define marriage as they will.
> > It should be their business, not the state's.
>
> Let the churches define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-church as
> they will, and states define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-state
> as they will.
Why should the state care? Child support? Alimony? Those are no longer
dependent upon being officially married.
Where it matters nowadays is in insurance - such as FICA. And it
shouldn't. If I want to make my handicapped brother, or niece, or neighbor
to be my insurance beneficiary, why should the state say I can't just
because I am not married to him or her?
The state should not give special benefits to married people. Without
these special benefits, it doesn't need to define marriage.
Dorothy J Heydt
<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>On 30-May-2005, wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> > Or of the church. Let the churches define marriage as they will.
>> > It should be their business, not the state's.
>>
>> Let the churches define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-church as
>> they will, and states define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-state
>> as they will.
>
>Why should the state care? Child support? Alimony? Those are no longer
>dependent upon being officially married.
Well, the state *used* to care about inheritance of property.
There used to be a whole legal structure in place, going way way
back in history and intended to prevent kin-strife and so on,
defining the children of the senior wife in a polygamous
arrangement, the children of the wife vs. the nonwives in an
officially monogamous arrangement, the male vs. the female
children of the wife, and the eldest [surviving] male child of
the wife as distinguished from all the other children the guy
might have sired during a long and busy life. (Cf.
"primogeniture," "entailed property".)
As long as the default of the law was to let legitimate, not
illegitimate, offspring inherit property, the state, which was
interested in keeping chunks of property together rather than
splitting it up, and in preventing wars and/or legal battles over
who got what, was *extremely* interested in who was legally
married and who wasn't.
Inheritance laws and customs have changed and the state no longer
has a *practical* interest in who inherits what or who is married
to whom. The people who make up the state, however, and the
people who run it frequently have cultural attitudes (also going
way way back in history) about what is appropriate behavior for
citizens of that state and what isn't.
how...@brazee.net
On 30-May-2005, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> Inheritance laws and customs have changed and the state no longer
> has a *practical* interest in who inherits what or who is married
> to whom. The people who make up the state, however, and the
> people who run it frequently have cultural attitudes (also going
> way way back in history) about what is appropriate behavior for
> citizens of that state and what isn't.
I agree. Now that it doesn't actually matter - be conservative and return
to the not too distant ways of letting churches define the marrying. Those
with attitudes that require certain types of marriages can support those
churches whose values agree with theirs.
David Johnston
wrote:
>William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <buEme.2442$s64...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> how...@brazee.net said:
>>
>>
>>>>As I remember the term was even used to refer to marriages
>>>>between persons from sufficiently far apart doctrinally
>>>>Protestant churches. Sufficiently far apart would be in the eye
>>>>of the beholder, of course. [Larry M Headlund]
>>>
>>>Or of the church. Let the churches define marriage as they will.
>>>It should be their business, not the state's.
>>
>>
>> Let the churches define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-church as
>> they will, and states define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-state
>> as they will.
>
>Why should states define "marriage" at all?
Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
aRJay
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes
>One bog-standard tripod lost, versus one top-of-the-range battleship.
>Sounds like the Martians got the best of the deal.
I suspect you are being influenced (probably subconsciously) by the Jeff
Wayne version of the story here.
In the book the Thunderchild takes out two[1] tripods one with it's guns
and the other by ramming, also the ship is described specifically as a
ram and later a torpedo_ram but generally as an Ironclad and I always
had the impression that it was, especially as it was so close inshore, a
more modest vessel than a battleship.
Either version almost always gets to me though quite why I have never
worked out.
--
aRJay
"In this great and creatorless universe, where so much beautiful has
come to be out of the chance interactions of the basic properties of
matter, it seems so important that we love one another."
- Lucy Kemnitzer
Wayne Throop
:: Why should states define "marriage" at all?
: Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
: concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
OK, but that's a good reason for the state
to get *OUT* of the marriage business.
how...@brazee.net
On 30-May-2005, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> >Why should states define "marriage" at all?
>
> Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
> concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
Which happen whether or not the marriage got sanctified with a paper.
Create legal partnerships with better defined responsibilities for each
party - as we do with everything else in life. Or is marriage not
important enough for that?
Del Cotter
>Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes
>>One bog-standard tripod lost, versus one top-of-the-range battleship.
>>Sounds like the Martians got the best of the deal.
>
>I suspect you are being influenced (probably subconsciously) by the
>Jeff Wayne version of the story here.
>
>In the book the Thunderchild takes out two[1] tripods one with it's
>guns and the other by ramming, also the ship is described specifically
>as a ram and later a torpedo_ram but generally as an Ironclad and I
>always had the impression that it was, especially as it was so close
>inshore, a more modest vessel than a battleship.
>
>Either version almost always gets to me though quite why I have never
>worked out.
I do think if we ever do get invaded by baby elephants from Alpha
Centauri, and we build an Orion to take the fight to them, it's got to
be called _Thunder Child_.
William December Starr
Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> said:
> I do think if we ever do get invaded by baby elephants from
> Alpha Centauri, and we build an Orion to take the fight to
> them, it's got to be called _Thunder Child_.
I prefer the _You Fucking Baby Elephants From Alpha Centauri,
We're Going To Fucking KILL You_ myself.
David Johnston
wrote:
>: rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>:: Why should states define "marriage" at all?
>
>: Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
>: concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
>
>OK, but that's a good reason for the state
>to get *OUT* of the marriage business.
I don't see how. Or did you imagine the property and custodial issues
would vanish without government's involvement?
Peter Meilinger
Wells' WOTW Martians...
> And once they get to the continent, they get to face proper-
>sized armies, which should be a giggle.
Armies, hell. According to the history faithfully recorded by
Howard Waldrop in "Night Of The Cooters" they couldn't even
handle an old Texas sheriff and a bunch of half-assed deputies.
Pete
Mike Schilling
"lal_truckee" <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ljLme.491$wy1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> William December Starr wrote:
>> Let the churches define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-church as
>> they will, and states define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-state
>> as they will.
>
> Why should states define "marriage" at all? On the other hand, if states
> believe a particular set of pre-defined contractual arrangements between
> pairs of people serve a state purpose, the can so legislate.
They do: it's called "marriage".
Wayne Throop
::: Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
::: concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
:: OK, but that's a good reason for the state to get *OUT* of the
:: marriage business.
: rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
: I don't see how. Or did you imagine the property and custodial issues
: would vanish without government's involvement?
No. I imagine that they would be simplified. No more worries about
this person being legitimate, and that one not, no license-issuing,
record-keeping or fact-checking, no attempts to sneak in by "palimony",
no issue of polygamy, a whole series of issues that come up in these
legal wranglgings gone missing. All the other ones still occur, of
course. And once upon a time one could pretend the other issues didn't
exist by fiat; inheritance doesn't occur unless you can establish that a
marriage existed and all like that. But that function broke down long
ago, and it's no longer a simplification, but a complication.
I could be wrong, of course. But so it seems to me. So I imagine.
Mike Schilling
"Wayne Throop" <thr...@sheol.org> wrote in message
news:11174...@sheol.org...
> :::: Why should states define "marriage" at all?
>
> ::: Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
> ::: concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
>
> :: OK, but that's a good reason for the state to get *OUT* of the
> :: marriage business.
>
> : rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
> : I don't see how. Or did you imagine the property and custodial issues
> : would vanish without government's involvement?
>
> No. I imagine that they would be simplified. No more worries about
> this person being legitimate, and that one not, no license-issuing,
> record-keeping or fact-checking, no attempts to sneak in by "palimony",
> no issue of polygamy, a whole series of issues that come up in these
> legal wranglgings gone missing. All the other ones still occur, of
> course. And once upon a time one could pretend the other issues didn't
> exist by fiat; inheritance doesn't occur unless you can establish that a
> marriage existed and all like that. But that function broke down long
> ago, and it's no longer a simplification, but a complication.
It's a simplification when marriage is replaced by a twisty maze of
marriage-like contracts, all different?
Wayne Throop
:: states believe a particular set of pre-defined contractual
:: arrangements between pairs of people serve a state purpose, the can
:: so legislate.
: They do: it's called "marriage".
Sure. But why limited to pairs? If it's important for the state
to keep track of, why try afterwards to figure out whether the same
contractual obligations occur for people without the license
(ie, palimony)? If it's for ensuring parental support, why blood
tests to establish paternity, the license exists or not?
And so on.
Seems to me, all these other things are tracked independently,
and the marriage license mostly just complicates things.
Wayne Throop
: It's a simplification when marriage is replaced by a twisty maze of
: marriage-like contracts, all different?
That part's already happened. What's simpler is leaving off
pretending it hasn't happened. NAICT.
Gettin' clear o' dirtiness, gettin' done with mess,
Gettin' shut o' doin' things rather-more-or-less;
how...@brazee.net
On 30-May-2005, rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
> >: Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
> >: concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
> >
> >OK, but that's a good reason for the state
> >to get *OUT* of the marriage business.
>
> I don't see how. Or did you imagine the property and custodial issues
> would vanish without government's involvement?
I see that it will mean that along with a marriage, a civil contract will
become more popular.
But custodial issues don't vanish for people who choose to live together.
Where legal obligations are desired, legal contracts should be written.
how...@brazee.net
On 30-May-2005, "Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's a simplification when marriage is replaced by a twisty maze of
> marriage-like contracts, all different?
Like business contracts - explicitly written out instead of implied via
different cultures and traditions.
Mike Schilling
> : It's a simplification when marriage is replaced by a twisty maze of
> : marriage-like contracts, all different?
>
> That part's already happened. What's simpler is leaving off
> pretending it hasn't happened.
No; now there's to 80 (or more) percent case, plus the oddities. You're
proposing 100% oddities.
Mike Schilling
<how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:guOme.4077$MI4....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Explicitly written out, all contingencies addressed, no ambiguities, no need
to litigate disputes.
Uh-huh.
lal_truckee
Since you didn't bother to read that far, I'll quote from my next
sentence: "if states believe a particular set of pre-defined contractual
arrangements between pairs of people serve a state purpose, they can so
legislate."
Done properly there are no "property and custodial issues of marriage" -
"property and custodial issues" are part of the state pre-defined
contractual arrangements between pairs of people.
Basically the whole thing goes away if the states use a word processor
replacement tool to replace "marriage" with "domestic partnership" in
the state code. Let the churches deal with "marriage" and the states
worry about the contractual arrangements of two people co-mingling their
lifes, assets, and offspring. Separate the two, and let the nutcases
argue over at the churches instead of in the ballot box.
Wayne Throop
: Basically the whole thing goes away if the states use a word processor
: replacement tool to replace "marriage" with "domestic partnership" in
: the state code. Let the churches deal with "marriage" and the states
: worry about the contractual arrangements of two people co-mingling
: their lifes, assets, and offspring. Separate the two, and let the
: nutcases argue over at the churches instead of in the ballot box.
You still seem to be left with strange restrictions on domestic
partnerships; it, why only pairs? And why this man/woman thing?
But yes, conflation of issues is an ... issue.
Beter to keep pair-bonding and nyookyoular families
and so on and so on out of domestic contracts, and
custodial issues separate as well (in the sense that they
aren't tied to the current domestic tie-ins, because, in fact,
they aren't).
Dorothy J Heydt
Substitute "more" for "all" and "reduced" for "no" and you might
have a better case.
David Johnston
wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2005 21:10:41 GMT, lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>William December Starr wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <buEme.2442$s64...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>>>>how...@brazee.net said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>As I remember the term was even used to refer to marriages
>>>>>>between persons from sufficiently far apart doctrinally
>>>>>>Protestant churches. Sufficiently far apart would be in the eye
>>>>>>of the beholder, of course. [Larry M Headlund]
>>>>>
>>>>>Or of the church. Let the churches define marriage as they will.
>>>>>It should be their business, not the state's.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let the churches define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-church as
>>>>they will, and states define marriage-as-recognized-by-that-state
>>>>as they will.
>>>
>>>Why should states define "marriage" at all?
>>
>>
>> Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
>> concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
>
>Since you didn't bother to read that far, I'll quote from my next
>sentence: "if states believe a particular set of pre-defined contractual
>arrangements between pairs of people serve a state purpose, they can so
>legislate."
They already have. That's marriage.
David Johnston
wrote:
>:::: Why should states define "marriage" at all?
>
>::: Because more than half of the legal wrangles in North America are
>::: concerned with the property and custodial issues of marriage.
>
>:: OK, but that's a good reason for the state to get *OUT* of the
>:: marriage business.
>
>: rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston)
>: I don't see how. Or did you imagine the property and custodial issues
>: would vanish without government's involvement?
>
>No. I imagine that they would be simplified.
They would in fact be complicated.
No more worries about
>this person being legitimate, and that one not,
Instead nobody has any clear claim.
no license-issuing,
>record-keeping or fact-checking, no attempts to sneak in by "palimony",
On the contrary. It will all be "palimony" then.
>no issue of polygamy,
Settling inheritance issues in a polygamous marriage can be an unholy
nightmare.
a whole series of issues that come up in thes
>legal wranglgings gone missing. All the other ones still occur, of
>course. And once upon a time one could pretend the other issues didn't
>exist by fiat; inheritance doesn't occur unless you can establish that a
>marriage existed and all like that. But that function broke down long
>ago, and it's no longer a simplification, but a complication.
Most people still die intestate.