_Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein

[Lynn McGuire]

_Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/

Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
book as one of the Heinlein juveniles. Has not
dated itself very much except:
1. Venus is not habitable and is in fact a 1000 F
hellhole with no known native species
2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms
3. We never built a space fleet nor a space patrol
(in fact, we have not left LEO since 1975)

Really too bad about the Venus thing as an
inhabitable Venus would be totally awesome! A
plus for the book is that the cadets had portable
phones while on the planet Earth (nice prediction).

The trade paperback binding and font size are
excellent.

My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <lhn25t$1oi$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

>
> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/
>
> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
> book as one of the Heinlein juveniles. Has not
> dated itself very much except:
> 1. Venus is not habitable and is in fact a 1000 F
> hellhole with no known native species
> 2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms

May not be dated. Things swing both ways--with an effective treatment
for cancer the current antismoking hysteria will likely swing the other
way after a few generations.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in
news:MPG.2da8e359...@news.newsguy.com:

> In article <lhn25t$1oi$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
>>
>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/07653
>> 14517/
>>
>> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
>> book as one of the Heinlein juveniles. Has not
>> dated itself very much except:
>> 1. Venus is not habitable and is in fact a 1000 F
>> hellhole with no known native species
>> 2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms
>
> May not be dated. Things swing both ways--with an effective
> treatment for cancer the current antismoking hysteria will
> likely swing the other way after a few generations.

Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with cancer,
it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group of people
who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and only they)
should be able to tell other people how to live, supported by a
government that smells a lot of money. Despite their rhetoric, cancer
is not part of the real motives _at all_.)

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

I sure this is one of the two(*) books I have read the most in my life, as it
was in The Satchel Ford Elementary School library. And by "most", I mean
50 times or more. Pie with a fork. Uncle Bodie. "It goes rancid after
it's.. It goes rancid".


(*) _Raiders From The Rings_
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[lal_truckee]

On 4/4/14 1:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<lhn25t$1oi$1...@dont-email.me>,l...@winsim.com says...

>> >
>> >_Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein

...

>> >2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms

> May not be dated. Things swing both ways--with an effective treatment
> for cancer the current antismoking hysteria will likely swing the other
> way after a few generations.

Are you kidding? Why should the public have to put up with those who
stink up the common air supply? Even if it didn't kill prematurely it's
just a nasty, hostile behavior, akin to walking through a cafe and
pissing in each coffee cup.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:lhncvm$m3b$1...@dont-email.me:

About the same time as we cure cancer, we'll probably also
genetically engineer tobacco that, when burned, smells like, well,
whatever flavor your choose: cinnamon, coffee, fresh mown grass,
strippers. Hey, if they can do it with candles . . .

http://www.hotwicks.com/products/the-stripper-candle

[MajorOz]

So is being ugly.......crying babies....fat chicks in spandex....or liberals.

Or my favorite: folks who take a shower in cheap-ass cologne and then don't stay da fukkk home.

[J. Clarke]

In article <lhncvm$m3b$1...@dont-email.me>, lal_t...@yahoo.com says...

And 50 years after there is a cure for cancer the public might very well
laugh in your face if you expressed such selfish sentiments.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <XnsA30593BF3DE...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:MPG.2da8e359...@news.newsguy.com:
>
>> In article <lhn25t$1oi$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...
>>>
>>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/07653
>>> 14517/
>>>
>>> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
>>> book as one of the Heinlein juveniles. Has not
>>> dated itself very much except:
>>> 1. Venus is not habitable and is in fact a 1000 F
>>> hellhole with no known native species
>>> 2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms
>>
>> May not be dated. Things swing both ways--with an effective
>> treatment for cancer the current antismoking hysteria will
>> likely swing the other way after a few generations.
>
>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with cancer,
>it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group of people
>who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and only they)
>should be able to tell other people how to live, supported by a
>government that smells a lot of money. Despite their rhetoric, cancer
>is not part of the real motives _at all_.)

"Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray."

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[lal_truckee]

Well, let's see:
The crying babies (read: motorcycle exhaust) and the cheap-ass cologne
impinge on my personal space in such a way as can't be ignored, so I
say: cut it out, assholes - do your antisocial shit in private.
The ugly, the fat chicks in spandex, and wing-nut conservatives can all
be ignored, so go for it...

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

It's not selfish to not want to breathe something you don't like.

Drinking and eating, those are things that pretty much stay with the
person doing them. Smoke goes all over the place uncontrollably. If you
wear some kind of bubble helmet so it filters out your smoke and *no one
else* has to smell it, that's fine, smoke up a storm, but it isn't
"selfish" to want people to confine their own activities to themselves
and not involve others against their will -- which every smoker does.

I feel the same way about people who wear perfume beyond a VERY low
level. If it were my PERSONAL preference, I'd ban 'em all; I'm allergic
to tobacco (never mind the cancer) and to most "perfumes", body washes,
etc. But I'll tolerate a little of it; if you smoke outside, and not
inside, like my dad did (even when a blizzard was blowing outside),
fine. But inside a public place? No. Stale cigarette smoke doesn't go
away; it stays with you. I've been able to smell it on a shirt I wore
inside a smoky place FIVE DAYS after I HAD to pass through that place
for a mere five minutes.

No, the selfish ones are the smokers who think that because it doesn't
bother THEM, no one else should mind while they send their smoke into
the air everyone else is breathing.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 4/4/14 7:49 PM, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
> On 4/4/14 7:29 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <lhncvm$m3b$1...@dont-email.me>, lal_t...@yahoo.com says...
>>>
>>> On 4/4/14 1:42 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> In article<lhn25t$1oi$1...@dont-email.me>,l...@winsim.com says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>>> ...
>>>>>> 2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms
>>>
>>>> May not be dated. Things swing both ways--with an effective treatment
>>>> for cancer the current antismoking hysteria will likely swing the other
>>>> way after a few generations.
>>>
>>> Are you kidding? Why should the public have to put up with those who
>>> stink up the common air supply? Even if it didn't kill prematurely it's
>>> just a nasty, hostile behavior, akin to walking through a cafe and
>>> pissing in each coffee cup.
>>
>> And 50 years after there is a cure for cancer the public might very well
>> laugh in your face if you expressed such selfish sentiments.
>>
>
> It's not selfish to not want to breathe something you don't like.
>

Clarified: To not want to be FORCED TO breathe something you don't
like. The two words I left out are important.

[Lynn McGuire]

I was OK with cigarette smoke until my first heart
attack. In fact, I lived with my grandparents for
two years while growing up and my grandfather was
a three pack a dayer. He could kill a pack before
8 am. Now cigarette smoke causes my chest to
constrict and my breathing to become labored.
Very, very quickly.

And I still love the smell of a nice cigar or a
pipe. But they do not bother me like the
cigarettes do.

Lynn

[Michael R N Dolbear]

"Lynn McGuire" wrote

_Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/

> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known

[...]

> A plus for the book is that the cadets had portable
phones while on the planet Earth (nice prediction).

Not in fact really a prediction since Bell sold car phones before the pub
date

1946: First Mobile Telephone Call

http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/46mobile.html

"By 1948, wireless telephone service was available in almost 100 cities and
highway corridors. "



--
Mike D

[Michael Black]

But as I posted once before, he did mention "portable phones" early on,
maybe 1941. I just can't remember which story or book.

I posted in the Heinlein newsgroup at the time, because unlike when he
mentions them later, he actually says something about some problems to
overcome (nothing like actual cellphones, but certainly reflecting
problems with radio at that time).

That eaerlier passage is more important than the later ones, because he
did allude to technical issues, while later times, it's just a portable
phone, and really anyone could wish for that sort of thing.

Michael

[Michael Black]

That's a point, a single bit of smoke doesn't seem to be the problem.

But I'd come home from shows at smokey bars, and the minute i was in the
door I couldn't tolerate myself. In a closed space, it was really
obvious, even worse than when at the bar. I'm really glad the rules
changed here so smoking isn't allowed in bars.

But I notice the same thing, every so often someone passes by or I'm in a
store and someone stinks of smoke, they aren't even smoking. It's just
there, and it lingers heavily, and is really quite different from smelling
it initially in small doses.

Michael

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:49:08 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
<news:lhngdm$a2l$1...@dont-email.me> in
rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein:

[...]

> Stale cigarette smoke doesn't go away; it stays with you.
> I've been able to smell it on a shirt I wore inside a
> smoky place FIVE DAYS after I HAD to pass through that
> place for a mere five minutes.

There was a time when I couldn’t do that: I was a heavy pipe
smoker from about age 20 until about age 35. But I was
lucky enough to be able to quit cold one Christmas without
too much strain, and at some point -- fairly quickly, I
think -- I recovered that kind of olfactory sensitivity. I
suspect that it bothers me less than it does many
non-smokers, but I certainly do notice it, and I do prefer
to avoid it.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[MajorOz]

On Friday, April 4, 2014 6:49:08 PM UTC-5, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> No, the selfish ones are the smokers who think that because it doesn't
>
> bother THEM, no one else should mind while they send their smoke into
>
> the air everyone else is breathing.

No....

The selfish ones are.....

There is a quiet bar that has allowed smoking in it for 200+ years, and has a sign on the door saying so.

Busy body assholes will do whatever it takes to get them to change their policy or shut down......WHATEVER IT TAKES.

...when they could go elsewhere, instead.

And....no....don't give me some sob story shit about the poor single mom, who needs a job that died from lung cancer bar waitressing there.....

There are public smokers who are pricks. But almost all I ever knew were considerate.

oz, who doesn't smoke....at least since 1973....

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>But I notice the same thing, every so often someone passes by or I'm in a
>store and someone stinks of smoke, they aren't even smoking. It's just
>there, and it lingers heavily, and is really quite different from smelling
>it initially in small doses.

I remember once at a con, someone sat next to me whose clothing
stank of smoke, and I had to move away. The guy noticed me
avoiding him; he called me an old cow; Hal tried to beat him up;
I dissuaded him.

Of course, I was very pregnant at the time and ANYthing made me
sick.

[Nollaig MacKenzie]

On 2014.04.04 19:45:59,
the amazing <l...@winsim.com> declared:

> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/
>
> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
> book as one of the Heinlein juveniles. Has not
> dated itself very much except:
> 1. Venus is not habitable and is in fact a 1000 F
> hellhole with no known native species
> 2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms
> 3. We never built a space fleet nor a space patrol
> (in fact, we have not left LEO since 1975)
>
> Really too bad about the Venus thing as an
> inhabitable Venus would be totally awesome! A
> plus for the book is that the cadets had portable
> phones while on the planet Earth (nice prediction).

I remember - I was maybe 11 or 12 - reading this.
Matt & Tex are standing in line; Matt's 'phone rings.
I thought: "That's horrible! People can just call
you anytime!" And ah! it is, and they can......

> The trade paperback binding and font size are
> excellent.
>
> My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
> Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)
>
> Lynn

--
Nollaig MacKenzie
http://www.yorku.ca/nollaig

[David DeLaney]

On 2014-04-04, Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with cancer,
>>it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group of people
>>who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and only they)
>>should be able to tell other people how to live, supported by a
>>government that smells a lot of money. Despite their rhetoric, cancer
>>is not part of the real motives _at all_.)
>
> "Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray."

Agreed.

Dave, been there, kissed that, lost a T-shirt
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[lal_truckee]

On 4/4/14 10:17 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> Of course, I was very pregnant at the time

You exposed your child, in utero, to a con!?
Isn't that against the law?

[Don Kuenz]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>>But I notice the same thing, every so often someone passes by or I'm in a
>>store and someone stinks of smoke, they aren't even smoking. It's just
>>there, and it lingers heavily, and is really quite different from smelling
>>it initially in small doses.
>
> I remember once at a con, someone sat next to me whose clothing
> stank of smoke, and I had to move away. The guy noticed me
> avoiding him; he called me an old cow; Hal tried to beat him up;
> I dissuaded him.
>
> Of course, I was very pregnant at the time and ANYthing made me
> sick.

Martha (To George). Well? Aren't you going to apologize?

George (Squinting). For what, Martha?

Martha. For making the little lady throw up, what else?

George. I did not make her throw up.

Martha. You most certainly did!

George. I did not!

Honey (Papal gesture). No, now . . . no.

Martha (To George). Well, who do you think did . . . Sexy over
there? You think he made his own little wife sick?

George (Helpfully). Well, you make *me* sick.

Martha. THAT'S DIFFERENT!

_Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?_

---

Don Kuenz

[Zeb Carter]

It's required!! A couple of true stories: My son Robert was born April
3rd, 1997. The weekend before he was born, we had attended a con in
Atlanta. I had known the promoter for several years and worked
registration all that time. This time, I wasn't working the con. My wife
had gone to the doctor and although she was a couple weeks overdue
(first child), he said the baby wasn't coming anytime soon and he would
see her for induction the following week. We asked about going out of
town for the weekend. He said not to go more than a couple hours away
just in case. The con was in Atlanta; we lived in Fayetteville, NC.

The promoter met us when we came in to the hotel and when he saw how big
Helen's belly was, he nearly had a heart attack. He said you ain't
having no baby at my con! A little while later, he overheard a
conversation I was involved in where it was mentioned she was 2 weeks
overdue and Roland nearly had a stroke!! So my son started off the right
way!!

Second story: A couple years later, we were at the fall mini-version of
the same con and my wife was once again pregnant with my daughter. This
time, it was October and she wasn't due until December.

Both kids have similar but different interests in sci fi and fantasy as
compared to mine and my wife's interests. So exposure to cons in utero
is a good thing!

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <lhp6qu$6v8$1...@dont-email.me>,

Not that I've heard. In any case, he'll turn forty this year, is
married and living in New York, and appears to be doing well all
around.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <P5W%u.1230$gA2...@fx11.iad>,
Zeb Carter <zeb_c...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>....My son Robert was born April

>3rd, 1997. The weekend before he was born, we had attended a con in
>Atlanta. I had known the promoter for several years and worked
>registration all that time. This time, I wasn't working the con. My wife
>had gone to the doctor and although she was a couple weeks overdue
>(first child), he said the baby wasn't coming anytime soon and he would
>see her for induction the following week. We asked about going out of
>town for the weekend. He said not to go more than a couple hours away
>just in case. The con was in Atlanta; we lived in Fayetteville, NC.
>
>The promoter met us when we came in to the hotel and when he saw how big
>Helen's belly was, he nearly had a heart attack. He said you ain't
>having no baby at my con! A little while later, he overheard a
>conversation I was involved in where it was mentioned she was 2 weeks
>overdue and Roland nearly had a stroke!! So my son started off the right
>way!!

Well, I had a similar experience with my first pregnancy (the one
discussed upthread). A major SCA tournament, with camping out in
one of the East Bay parks, happened about a week before my due
date. We went to the tourney anyway, considering that (a) the
park was about thirty minutes' drive from the hospital, (b) one
of the attendees was a doctor who'd done his share of obstetrics;
(c) fast births are easy; difficult births are slow.

And nothing happened -- then; he went three weeks overdue and had
some trouble after he finally arrived (persistence of the fetal
circulation, cleared up after a couple of days.)

[michael]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:31:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with cancer,
>it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group of people
>who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and only they)
>should be able to tell other people how to live, supported by a
>government that smells a lot of money. Despite their rhetoric, cancer
>is not part of the real motives _at all_.)

You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
consequences. Although, as Obama seems dead set on
pushing us into socialism I suppose that the burden of their
care will devolve onto all of us officially at some point.

That having been said, however, I have to take exception with
your further rantings. I couldn't care less how they live - as long
as it doesn't negatively impinge on me, my loved ones, and our
own personal freedoms and health. The problem is that smoking
is a personal vice, giving a personal gratification (I would assume),
but the negative effects of it affect not only the user but everyone
around them. I am willing to tolerate a certain amount of discomfort
in order for others to enjoy their personal vices, but there are some
pretty definite limits. If someone wants to smoke outside, in a
well ventilated area a distance away from where I'm required to go,
then they're welcome to it. At that remove, the dilution factor is
enough that I can tolerate it. When they insist upon smoking in
enclosed spaces such as a business conference room, public
transportation, crowded restaurant, etc., their rights to their vices
simply don't outweigh mine. Period.

Come up with a practical way for them to excercise their vice that
doesn't pollute the air I have to breathe, and I'm more than willing
to smile politely and wave as the hearse goes by.

In all fairness, I have to tell you that I am pretty seriously
allergic to tobacco smoke. As a result, my tolerance level for
people who choose to inflict their personal vice upon me is just
about at the same level as my tolerance for physical assault. I
believe that either of them pretty much calls for consequences.

Mankind's lemming-like tendencies aside, I would prefer to be
in a position to regard smoking as much like any other personal
potentially self-destructive activity. I have no problem with
someone choosing to risk their health by motocross racing, bull
riding, sky diving, etc. I've done quite a number of similar things
myself. I don't even have a problem with someone drinking themself
to death - provided they keep it purely personal. If they get behind
the wheel while they're messed up and endanger everyone else
in order to cater to their personal gratifaction however, then I would
just as soon the cops just drag them over to the ditch and
put a bullet behind their ear. The same goes for any form of
substance abuse that impairs one's ability to exercise good
judgement. As soon as you hurt or endanger others to cater to
your personal gratification, then you're a problem.

Ultimately, I feel that while everyone probably needs some form
of personal vice, those vices should remain exclusively personal.
Inflicting your choices irresponsibly on those around you is
egotism on a grand scale - and way beyond the limits of
what those you hurt should have to endure.

Perhaps the real solution would be to develop a new variety
of tobacco that would double or triple the enjoyment level for
the consumer - and which would also be much more efficiently lethal
within a shorter time span. At least that way we'd stand a chance
of weeding the stupid gene out before they managed to pass it on.

[michael]

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:49:08 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> I feel the same way about people who wear perfume beyond a VERY low
>level. If it were my PERSONAL preference, I'd ban 'em all; I'm allergic
>to tobacco (never mind the cancer) and to most "perfumes", body washes,
>etc.

I have the same problems with perfumes as you do. Back in the
early 80's I took a job in Miami at the power company's head
office. At that time, perhaps 50% of the people working in the
building were of Carribean/Cuban descent - and there was
apparently a cultural bias towards truly unbelievable amounts
of cologne, perfume, etc. The women would wear 2 or 3 different
perfumes at once. They would sprinkle their clothing with perfumes
the night before wearing them and seal them up in plastic bags to
marinate overnight. The men went through massive amounts
of colognes, aftershaves, and manly body sprays. It was hell.

Getting into an elevator in the morning was out of the question -
tears would be pouring down my face within 10 seconds. Factor
in the hot, uber-humid Miami climate and the smell would get almost
to the point of being lethal. I lived on Benadryl and Nasalide.

In their defense, I don't think that they could really smell it.
That's the way that they had been raised, and a Cuban friend explained
it to me as a response to growing up with a limited supply of fresh
water for bathing. They bathed once or twice a week, and made
heavy use of various aromatics to make up the difference. They
weren't being slovenly - they had adapted to their environment.
For those of us from outside, though, it was rough. And, of
course, with Miami's climate the concept of an openable
window in an office environment was unheard of. Staff
meetings were like participating in an olfactory guerilla war.

Ultimately I got out of S. Florida. I don't know how people
manage to survive down there long term - 7 years almost
killed me.

One thing though - those people can COOK! I don't know
how any of them manage to weigh less than 300 lbs. Just
don't try their coffee - it's also used to etch metal.

[Titus G]

michael wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:31:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with cancer,
>> it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group of people
>> who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and only they)
>> should be able to tell other people how to live, supported by a
>> government that smells a lot of money. Despite their rhetoric, cancer
>> is not part of the real motives _at all_.)

> You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
> smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
> consequences. Although, as Obama seems dead set on
> pushing us into socialism I suppose that the burden of their
> care will devolve onto all of us officially at some point.

> That having been said, however, I have to take exception with
> your further rantings. I couldn't care less how they live - as long
> as it doesn't negatively impinge on me, my loved ones, and our
> own personal freedoms and health. The problem is that smoking
> is a personal vice, giving a personal gratification (I would assume),

They gain an ephemeral satisfaction from temporarily satisfying a nicotine
addiction.

snip

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <c2a0k991852frgve7...@4ax.com>,

michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:31:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
><taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with
>>cancer,

In my mother's case, the two hot spots on her lungs turned out not to
be cancerous, though they had to operate deeply to tell. The
congestive heart failure and emphysema made her utterly miserable for
the last few years of her life.

>I don't even have a problem with someone drinking themself to death -
>provided they keep it purely personal.

My brother did that -- the drinking himself to death part, at least.
The keeping it purely personal part: oh, Hell, no. I could go on for
pages about the Hell it produced for his mother, his daughter, his
employer, and anyone around him who tried to help him (in vain, and
usually at his request) ... for years. Not to mention the financial
hammering inflicted on his medical insurances, and if those hadn't
been present, on the local hospital. After this experience, I'm
inclined to say that "purely personal" is possible but unlikely.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <XnsA305A4A86BA...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>About the same time as we cure cancer, we'll probably also
>genetically engineer tobacco that, when burned, smells like, well,

>whatever flavor you choose: cinnamon, coffee, fresh mown grass,
>strippers.

"You" who? I can't think of a mechanism short of mind control that
would make someone else's smoke smell like something of *my* choice.
Without that, it may well become like someone with heavy perfume or my
first contact with vaping -- *they* think it's a nice scent, but *I*
think it's a weapon with azimuth, elevation, and throwweight.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[William December Starr]

In article <c2a0k991852frgve7...@4ax.com>,

michael <m...@here.com> said:

> You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
> smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
> consequences. Although, as Obama seems dead set on pushing us
> into socialism

snork

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <MPG.2da90a4fd...@news.newsguy.com>,

"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> said:

> In article <lhncvm$m3b$1...@dont-email.me>, lal_t...@yahoo.com says...
>

>> Are you kidding? Why should the public have to put up with those
>> who stink up the common air supply? Even if it didn't kill
>> prematurely it's just a nasty, hostile behavior, akin to walking
>> through a cafe and pissing in each coffee cup.
>
> And 50 years after there is a cure for cancer the public might
> very well laugh in your face if you expressed such selfish
> sentiments.

Only if the Randroid shits win.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <lhp7qa$gl2$1...@dont-email.me>,

Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> said:

> Martha (To George). Well? Aren't you going to apologize?
>
> George (Squinting). For what, Martha?
>
> Martha. For making the little lady throw up, what else?
>
> George. I did not make her throw up.
>
> Martha. You most certainly did!
>
> George. I did not!
>
> Honey (Papal gesture). No, now . . . no.
>
> Martha (To George). Well, who do you think did . . . Sexy over
> there? You think he made his own little wife sick?
>
> George (Helpfully). Well, you make *me* sick.
>
> Martha. THAT'S DIFFERENT!
>
> _Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?_

You mean that's _not_ a White House transcript from the 1790s?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <bq8pgs...@mid.individual.net>,
t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) said:

> (*) _Raiders From The Rings_

I remember reading and liking that book a lot from my child years
too. Today though, I have just a _few_ problems with "Woo hoo --
let's come to Earth in spaceships and kidnap women into lifetime
sexual and reproductive slavery! No worries, mate -- after a while
they like it."

-- wds

[Don Kuenz]

One of my hobbies is to fully grok Albee's George and Martha Washington
allusion. One interpretation is that dysfunctional families lead to
dysfunctional clans [1], which in turn leads to a dysfunctional nation.

Another interpretation is that America's story was all make believe
from the start. This interpretation views America's national
conversation as jazz improvised on the spot, "intuitive improvisation."
In the same manner that George and Martha make up one story after
another without end.

[1] "Clan" now appears to be more upmarket than "tribe." (Such things
are always in flux.) At any rate, my right proper City-Yankee
conditioning makes me want to be as upmarket as possible for a
person of my station.

---

Don Kuenz

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <lhrjnn$akm$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ln1kDvNVbQ
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <lhs3bp$ial$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:
>

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

>One of my hobbies is to fully grok Albee's George and Martha Washington
>allusion. One interpretation is that dysfunctional families lead to
>dysfunctional clans [1], which in turn leads to a dysfunctional nation.
>

>[1] "Clan" now appears to be more upmarket than "tribe." (Such things
> are always in flux.) At any rate, my right proper City-Yankee
> conditioning makes me want to be as upmarket as possible for a
> person of my station.

WRT George Washington, it's kind of irrelevant. Geneticists have
taken hard looks at his portraits, in light of what they know
now, and diagnosed him as an XYY male, incapable of leaving any
descendants.

[MajorOz]

On Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:24:08 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> WRT George Washington, it's kind of irrelevant. Geneticists have
>
> taken hard looks at his portraits, in light of what they know
>
> now, and diagnosed him as an XYY male, incapable of leaving any
>
> descendants.

..from his LOOKS ?

Uh.....OK.....

[Greg Goss]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:

>_Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/

>The trade paperback binding and font size are
>excellent.
>
>My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
>Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)

I've been very short on money for a decade or so. This is one of the
classics that I've spent money for the ebook on.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:59:08 -0600, Greg Goss
<go...@gossg.org> wrote in
<news:bqeijr...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein:

> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:

>>_Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/

>>The trade paperback binding and font size are
>>excellent.

>>My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
>>Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)

> I've been very short on money for a decade or so. This is
> one of the classics that I've spent money for the ebook
> on.

For me the only one that rates below it is _Rocket Ship
Galileo_. The only thing that I remember about it is that
it has a fairly fiendish logic problem.

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Greg Goss wrote:

> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>
>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/
>
>> The trade paperback binding and font size are
>> excellent.
>>
>> My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
>> Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)
>
> I've been very short on money for a decade or so. This is one of the
> classics that I've spent money for the ebook on.

Is that one of the ones with the introduction, and afterwards? I'm
tempted by that set because of the "extra material", but I put it off,
there's always other things to spend money on.

It's a shame all the Heinlein's aren't being printed by the same company
now, so they could have intros and afterwards to the full set.

Michael

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Greg Goss wrote:
>
>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>
>>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/
>>
>>> The trade paperback binding and font size are
>>> excellent.
>>>
>>> My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
>>> Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)
>>
>> I've been very short on money for a decade or so. This is one of the
>> classics that I've spent money for the ebook on.
>
>Is that one of the ones with the introduction, and afterwards?

What Heinlein books had introductions and afterwards, and were they by
Heinlein? The only one I ever saw was (paraphrasing) "On Stories
Never Written", and I think that was on the collection _Revolt in
2100_ ("'If This Goes On--'", "Coventry", and the Slipstick Libby
story).

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[michael]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 00:57:54 +0000 (UTC), tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
wrote:

>>I don't even have a problem with someone drinking themself to death -
>>provided they keep it purely personal.
>
>My brother did that -- the drinking himself to death part, at least.
>The keeping it purely personal part: oh, Hell, no. I could go on for
>pages about the Hell it produced for his mother, his daughter, his
>employer, and anyone around him who tried to help him (in vain, and
>usually at his request) ... for years. Not to mention the financial
>hammering inflicted on his medical insurances, and if those hadn't
>been present, on the local hospital. After this experience, I'm
>inclined to say that "purely personal" is possible but unlikely.
>
>--
>Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

I quite agree with you Tim. Virtually no one can self-destruct
without impacting someone. However, I was speaking
somewhat figuratively; a total stranger can self-destruct at
a distance from you, never interacting with you, and the impact
upon you would be either nonexistent or so slight as to escape
notice. However, if they choose to do it by getting trashed and
driving a truck through a schoolyard full of kids, the circle of
those damaged expands enormously.

In the real world, pretty much nobody lives in a vacuum. Virtually
everyone has relatives, friends, coworkers, etc. Heck, I'd bet
that even Speedy had a mother at some point (Starmaker I'm
not too sure about). Self abuse of this type is the ultimate
expression of both self-loathing and selfishness, and those who
go down that path usually can't see beyond themselves to the
misery they cause others.

[michael]

On Sun, 6 Apr 2014 01:02:37 +0000 (UTC), tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
wrote:

Just an FYI - nicotine isn't the only drug they're using in those
things. There are quite a few underground entrepeneurs who are
now providing what they claim to be THC e-liquids in a variety of
designer flavors. Pretty much anything that can be dissolved in
water can be pumped out of these vaporizers - and most of it
doesn't stay in the user's body when they exhale.

[Don Kuenz]

Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:

> In article <lhs3bp$ial$1...@dont-email.me>, Don Kuenz <gar...@crcomp.net> wrote:

>> One of my hobbies is to fully grok Albee's George and Martha Washington
>> allusion. One interpretation is that dysfunctional families lead to
>> dysfunctional clans [1], which in turn leads to a dysfunctional nation.
>>

>> Another interpretation is that America's story was all make believe
>> from the start. This interpretation views America's national
>> conversation as jazz improvised on the spot, "intuitive improvisation."
>> In the same manner that George and Martha make up one story after
>> another without end.

> WRT George Washington, it's kind of irrelevant. Geneticists have
> taken hard looks at his portraits, in light of what they know
> now, and diagnosed him as an XYY male, incapable of leaving any
> descendants.

Bless you Dorothy, George and Martha Washington's childless marriage was
just the clue needed to pick the best of my two intrepretations. The
second intrepretation's restored above because that's the one that best
fits with Washington's childless marriage.

George Washington is known as the "Father of Our Country (America)." In
the play, George and Martha's family symbolizes America. In the play,
George and Martha have a dysfunctional family. And they pull another
couple into their dysfunctionality. One possible interpretation is that
this symbolizes America's dysfunctionality and the way it pulls other
nations into its own dysfunctionality.

In the play, George and Martha's son has a pivotal role. Their son
symbolizes America in the second interpretation. (Both intrepretations
simultaneously work so there's probably little need to stick with only
one.) The second intrepretation actually fits with Washington's
childless marriage better.

One of the major themes of the play is "truth and illusion." The
audience is kept constantly off balance because George an Martha tell
clever lies half the time. The audience never knows when George and
Martha tells the truth or when they lie. That symbolizes how nobody
knows knows when the powers-that-be tell the truth or when they lie.

In the play George and Martha talk a lot about their son (America). By
the end of the play it is clear that they have no son (America). Sonny
boy himself is yet another one of George and Martha's Big Lies, yet
another illustion (in Albee's parlance).

The other couple in the play imagines a sonny boy (America) based upon
George and Martha's deceitful descriptions. The other couple symbolizes
how everybody uses their own vision to visualize America, in their own
image, with their own imagination.

There is no America. There is only the many illusions of America, each
unique in its own way.

Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked
like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The
blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar;
the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope;
the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree
branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a
hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is
like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant
is like a solid pipe.

---

Don Kuenz

[Michael Black]

Most of the Heinlein books are now being printed in trade paperback size.
There seems to be two publishers doing it.

One of the publishers is adding an introduction, and an afterward, to the
books they are publishing. I think that encompasses the juveniles, but
I'm not paying full attention. The other publisher seems to be just
reprinting them in the larger size.

Michael

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:n3J4q...@kithrup.com:

> In article <XnsA30593BF3DE...@69.16.186.7>,

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>"J. Clarke" <jclark...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:MPG.2da8e359...@news.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> In article <lhn25t$1oi$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com
>>> says...

>>>>
>>>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/076
>>>> 53 14517/
>>>>

>>>> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
>>>> book as one of the Heinlein juveniles. Has not
>>>> dated itself very much except:
>>>> 1. Venus is not habitable and is in fact a 1000 F
>>>> hellhole with no known native species
>>>> 2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms
>>>
>>> May not be dated. Things swing both ways--with an effective
>>> treatment for cancer the current antismoking hysteria will
>>> likely swing the other way after a few generations.

>>
>>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with

>>cancer, it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group
>>of people who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and
>>only they) should be able to tell other people how to live,
>>supported by a government that smells a lot of money. Despite
>>their rhetoric, cancer is not part of the real motives _at
>>all_.)
>

> "Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray."
>
If one is willing to view the research as fantasy, rather than
science fiction, one can just about suspend disbelief enough to buy
the propaganda about second hand smoke. But third and _fourth_ hand
smoke? Really? I'm gonna die because someone I met was around
someone who was around someone who was around someone who smoked?

Yeah, there's some smoking going on here, and it ain't tobacco.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Michael R N Dolbear" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
news:bq92ho...@mid.individual.net:

> "Lynn McGuire" wrote

>
> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/076531
> 4517/
>
>> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known

> [...]
>> A plus for the book is that the cadets had portable
> phones while on the planet Earth (nice prediction).
>
> Not in fact really a prediction since Bell sold car phones
> before the pub date
>
> 1946: First Mobile Telephone Call
>
> http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/46mobile.html
>
> "By 1948, wireless telephone service was available in almost 100
> cities and highway corridors. "
>
And ham operators had done it *long* before that (including hooking
their base unit up to the phone system).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
news:c2a0k991852frgve7...@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:31:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with
>>cancer, it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group
>>of people who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and
>>only they) should be able to tell other people how to live,
>>supported by a government that smells a lot of money. Despite
>>their rhetoric, cancer is not part of the real motives _at
>>all_.)
>
> You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
> smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
> consequences. Although, as Obama seems dead set on
> pushing us into socialism I suppose that the burden of their
> care will devolve onto all of us officially at some point.

It did, long ago, actually.

>
> That having been said, however, I have to take exception with
> your further rantings. I couldn't care less how they live - as
> long as it doesn't negatively impinge on me, my loved ones, and
> our own personal freedoms and health.

When they were talking about second hand smoke, that was a
plausible complaint (though the research is far more mixed than
folks like you would admit). But when we get to complaining that
you're going to get cancer from being around someone who was around
someone who was around someone who smoked - *fourth* hand smoke -
y'all just atarted to look fucking *retarded*. M'kay?

So take exception all you want, you're still associating yourself
with retarded dumbasses.

>
> In all fairness, I have to tell you that I am pretty seriously
> allergic to tobacco smoke.

Yeah, well, since the universe literally revolves around the egos
of people like you, then I guess we should jsut appoint you King Of
All Creation and have done with it, eh?

>
> Perhaps the real solution would be to develop a new variety
> of tobacco that would double or triple the enjoyment level for
> the consumer - and which would also be much more efficiently
> lethal within a shorter time span. At least that way we'd
> stand a chance of weeding the stupid gene out before they
> managed to pass it on.
>

Fairly typical attitude for the socialist tyrant: kill anyone you
don't like. Good luck with that.

You know how you feel about smokers? Well, I feel *exactly* the
same way about people who feel they - and only they - know what's
best for eveyrone, including me, and want to kill me if I don't
agree. *Exactly* the same way.

So, to argue that you should be able to regulate other people's
smoking, you need to also argue that I should be able to regulate
your political speech. Or admit you're a hypocrite, and your goal
is a double standard.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <XnsA3085F71A81...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>"Michael R N Dolbear" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>news:bq92ho...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> "Lynn McGuire" wrote
>>
>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/076531
>> 4517/
>>
>>> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
>> [...]
>>> A plus for the book is that the cadets had portable
>> phones while on the planet Earth (nice prediction).
>>
>> Not in fact really a prediction since Bell sold car phones
>> before the pub date
>>
>> 1946: First Mobile Telephone Call
>>
>> http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/46mobile.html
>>
>> "By 1948, wireless telephone service was available in almost 100
>> cities and highway corridors. "
>>
>And ham operators had done it *long* before that (including hooking
>their base unit up to the phone system).
>

My grandfather had the first radio in Fernandina Beach FL in the teens
or 20s. He would hook it up to the telephone so the town operator could
listen to the music. (It was battery powered, apparently with a "wet"
battery which left one table acid scarred).

That was wireless telephony of a sort..

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote in
news:lhq8qh$mtd$1...@reader1.panix.com:

> In article <c2a0k991852frgve7...@4ax.com>,
> michael <m...@here.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:31:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with
>>>cancer,
>
> In my mother's case, the two hot spots on her lungs turned out
> not to be cancerous, though they had to operate deeply to tell.
> The congestive heart failure and emphysema made her utterly
> miserable for the last few years of her life.

Which ha nothing whatsoever to do with what I said.

>
>>I don't even have a problem with someone drinking themself to
>>death - provided they keep it purely personal.
>
> My brother did that -- the drinking himself to death part, at
> least. The keeping it purely personal part: oh, Hell, no. I
> could go on for pages about the Hell it produced for his mother,
> his daughter, his employer, and anyone around him who tried to
> help him (in vain, and usually at his request) ... for years.
> Not to mention the financial hammering inflicted on his medical
> insurances, and if those hadn't been present, on the local
> hospital. After this experience, I'm inclined to say that
> "purely personal" is possible but unlikely.
>

Perhaps if you're a homeless bum with no relatives (who care).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:lhritr$1j2$1
@panix2.panix.com:

You really had to read that far to grealize he's a wingnut?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote in

news:lhq93c$n9u$1...@reader1.panix.com:

> In article <XnsA305A4A86BA...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>About the same time as we cure cancer, we'll probably also
>>genetically engineer tobacco that, when burned, smells like,
>>well, whatever flavor you choose: cinnamon, coffee, fresh mown
>>grass, strippers.
>
> "You" who? I can't think of a mechanism short of mind control
> that would make someone else's smoke smell like something of
> *my* choice.

You have a very limited imagination. Let me demonstrate:

"Hey, dude, would you mind switching to the fresh cut grass flavor?"

"Sure thing, man, no problem."

> Without that, it may well become like someone with
> heavy perfume or my first contact with vaping -- *they* think
> it's a nice scent, but *I* think it's a weapon with azimuth,
> elevation, and throwweight.
>

And yet, the vast majority of people who wear perfum or cologne go
largely unnoticed. That isn't a problem with perfume, that's a
problem with someone who doesn't know how to use it.

There are, in fact, smells that most people would not find at all
annoying, and would mostly find pleasant. I noted a few that are
available now in scented candles (the stripper one is real, BTW).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
news:5s65k9l8g6tvt7a22...@4ax.com:

Dude, you're breathing carbon dioxide all over me. You should be
killed for that.

[Scott Lurndal]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> writes:
>_Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/
>
>Very good book first published in 1948. Well known

>book as one of the Heinlein juveniles. Has not
>dated itself very much except:
>1. Venus is not habitable and is in fact a 1000 F
> hellhole with no known native species
>2. Patrol Cadets smoking in their dorm rooms

>3. We never built a space fleet nor a space patrol
> (in fact, we have not left LEO since 1975)

I was re-reading Time Traders/Galactic Derelict over the
weekend and noticed a couple of points:

- There was a paragraph talking about the post-soviet
russians expanding into neighbors, which seemed in
retrospect to be somewhat prescient.
- There was disappointment that once humanity reached
the Moon, space exploration stopped.

Not bad for a novel written 1958 (Unless baen added that
in their reprint).

scott

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA308630C392...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote

>> michael <m...@here.com> said:
>>
>>> You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
>>> smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
>>> consequences. Although, as Obama seems dead set on pushing us
>>> into socialism
>>
>> snork
>
> You really had to read that far to grealize he's a wingnut?

Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.

-- wds

[Scott Lurndal]

michael <m...@here.com> writes:
>On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:31:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
><taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with cancer,

>>it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group of people
>>who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and only they)
>>should be able to tell other people how to live, supported by a
>>government that smells a lot of money. Despite their rhetoric, cancer
>>is not part of the real motives _at all_.)
>

>You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
>smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
>consequences.

> Although, as Obama seems dead set on

>pushing us into socialism I suppose that the burden of their
>care will devolve onto all of us officially at some point.

Cite please? Please take into account the actual definition of "Socialism".

Fox news is not a valid citation.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:lhul85$6i2$1
@panix2.panix.com:

And in what universe is that not still a wingnut? Certainly not this
one.

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2014-04-07 06:11:40 +0000, tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) said:

> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Greg Goss wrote:
>>
>>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/
>>>
>>>> The trade paperback binding and font size are
>>>> excellent.
>>>>
>>>> My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
>>>> Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)
>>>
>>> I've been very short on money for a decade or so. This is one of the
>>> classics that I've spent money for the ebook on.
>>
>> Is that one of the ones with the introduction, and afterwards?
>
> What Heinlein books had introductions and afterwards, and were they by
> Heinlein?

Because my knee jerked: Afterwords. They come afterwards, in the books,
but they're still afterwords.

Similar for forewords and forwards.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[Will in New Haven]

On Monday, April 7, 2014 1:05:51 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:lhul85$6i2$1
>
> @panix2.panix.com:
>
>
>
> > In article <XnsA308630C392...@69.16.186.7>,
>
> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >
>
> >> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote
>
> >>> michael <m...@here.com> said:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
>
> >>>> smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
>
> >>>> consequences. Although, as Obama seems dead set on pushing us
>
> >>>> into socialism
>
> >>>
>
> >>> snork
>
> >>
>
> >> You really had to read that far to grealize he's a wingnut?
>
> >
>
> > Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
>
> > smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.
>
> >
>
> And in what universe is that not still a wingnut? Certainly not this
>
> one.

Maybe in a universe in which your opinion does not matter. <looks around> Looks like this one.

--
Will in New Haven

[Michael Black]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> "Michael R N Dolbear" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:bq92ho...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> "Lynn McGuire" wrote
>>
>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/076531
>> 4517/
>>
>>> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
>> [...]
>>> A plus for the book is that the cadets had portable
>> phones while on the planet Earth (nice prediction).
>>
>> Not in fact really a prediction since Bell sold car phones
>> before the pub date
>>
>> 1946: First Mobile Telephone Call
>>
>> http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/46mobile.html
>>
>> "By 1948, wireless telephone service was available in almost 100
>> cities and highway corridors. "
>>
> And ham operators had done it *long* before that (including hooking
> their base unit up to the phone system).
>

I wouldn't say that.

In 1948, you either had still pretty large equipment or something that
lacked range. I'm not sure phone patching was done that much in 1948.
It's barely passed WWII, and before WWII, most of the activity was still
CW, phone getting a real boost after WWII. At most, it likely meant
someone talking on the phone, and then relaying the message by repeting it
into the transmitter microphone (and the reverse).

Remember, one couldn't even legally connect anything to the phone line
till about 1968, and event then you were supposed to do so through a Bell
supplied DAA.

Yes, people did exotic things early on, but not commonly.

I dont' think phone patching took off till the sixties.

And while in the early sixties people were putting surplus two way radio
equipmentin their trunks, and there were some repeaters, that too took off
in the late sixties.

And that's when it became possible to dial from a hand held and phone
someone via a repeater.

It was more like hams emulating what had already been.

Michael

[Michael Black]

That sounds right. There were late versions for some reason, doing
something about the USA/USSR conflict, but I've never read those.

All or most of those Time Trader books are available at Project Gutenberg.
ANd that's the original versions, the ones we read as kids.

Michael

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org:

> I wouldn't say that.
>

I would. And did.

> Yes, people did exotic things early on, but not commonly.

Feel free to point out where I said commonly. Cuz I didn't. I said
ham operators had done it, and they had, as you admit.

Try to pay attention. Or not. You're more amusing when you're not.

[J. Clarke]

In article <bqg2se...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com
says...

>
> In article <XnsA3085F71A81...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"Michael R N Dolbear" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
> >news:bq92ho...@mid.individual.net:
> >
> >> "Lynn McGuire" wrote
> >>
> >> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein
> >> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/076531
> >> 4517/
> >>
> >>> Very good book first published in 1948. Well known
> >> [...]
> >>> A plus for the book is that the cadets had portable
> >> phones while on the planet Earth (nice prediction).
> >>
> >> Not in fact really a prediction since Bell sold car phones
> >> before the pub date
> >>
> >> 1946: First Mobile Telephone Call
> >>
> >> http://www.corp.att.com/attlabs/reputation/timeline/46mobile.html
> >>
> >> "By 1948, wireless telephone service was available in almost 100
> >> cities and highway corridors. "
> >>
> >And ham operators had done it *long* before that (including hooking
> >their base unit up to the phone system).
> >
>
> My grandfather had the first radio in Fernandina Beach FL in the teens
> or 20s.

Damnation. Tell me you're not from there. His name wasn't D'Amato by
any chance was it?

[Greg Goss]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Greg Goss wrote:

>>>> I've been very short on money for a decade or so. This is one of the
>>>> classics that I've spent money for the ebook on.
>>>
>>> Is that one of the ones with the introduction, and afterwards?

>Most of the Heinlein books are now being printed in trade paperback size.
>There seems to be two publishers doing it.
>
>One of the publishers is adding an introduction, and an afterward, to the
>books they are publishing. I think that encompasses the juveniles, but
>I'm not paying full attention. The other publisher seems to be just
>reprinting them in the larger size.

To answer the question, the version I bought was just the novel, no
additional material.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:53:48 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>

>> I was re-reading Time Traders/Galactic Derelict over the weekend and
>> noticed a couple of points:
>>
>> - There was a paragraph talking about the post-soviet
>> russians expanding into neighbors, which seemed in retrospect to be
>> somewhat prescient.
>> - There was disappointment that once humanity reached
>> the Moon, space exploration stopped.
>>
>> Not bad for a novel written 1958 (Unless baen added that in their
>> reprint).

Predicting that the Russians will aspire to conquer their neighbors is a
sure bet. They have been trying that, with varying degrees of success,
for centuries.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <MPG.2dad09d44...@news.newsguy.com>,

Nope, he was a Nolan (my Grandmother's people were Thompsons). He
was also an engineer and ran the town waterworks when the politics
worked out. (I'm unclear whether it was elective job in itself,
or a spoils job he got when his group got elected, but he went
through several cycles of in and out. When he was in, the family
would live at the waterworks on Atlantic Avenue in the house behind
the big round cistern -- both torn down in the 70s or 80s).
Unfortunately he passed in the 30s, so I never got to meet him.

Another story from the early days of Fernandina telephony: There were
originally two competing phone systems. I believe they were "Keystone"
and "Bell". If you had a Bell phone, you couldn't talk to a Keystone
customer and vice-versa. In a 1913 phonebook I saw at my aunt's house,
the Nolan phone number was something like "27".

[Don Kuenz]

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19145 Bookmarked. Thank you.

---

Don Kuenz

[Greg Goss]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 19:49:08 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> I feel the same way about people who wear perfume beyond a VERY low
>>level. If it were my PERSONAL preference, I'd ban 'em all; I'm allergic
>>to tobacco (never mind the cancer) and to most "perfumes", body washes,
>>etc.
>
>
>I have the same problems with perfumes as you do. Back in the
>early 80's I took a job in Miami at the power company's head
>office. At that time, perhaps 50% of the people working in the
>building were of Carribean/Cuban descent - and there was
>apparently a cultural bias towards truly unbelievable amounts
>of cologne, perfume, etc. The women would wear 2 or 3 different
>perfumes at once. They would sprinkle their clothing with perfumes
>the night before wearing them and seal them up in plastic bags to
>marinate overnight. The men went through massive amounts
>of colognes, aftershaves, and manly body sprays. It was hell.


It is springtime and my cats are renewing their pelts. My normally
mild allergies have kicked into high gear.

Today, in response to my sneezes and watering eyes, a client
apoligized for my allergies and offered to come back another day with
less cologne. When I explained about my cats, we finished working on
his taxes.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Most of my Heinlein books are in storage, but the books are finally
coming out on Kindle, so I'll be able to have them with me every minute
of every day.

--

JD

"Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could
never have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the superior of capital,
and deserves much the higher consideration."
--Abraham Lincoln

[J. Clarke]

In article <bqh9jk...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com

That was before my time--my folks were from Jacksonville but they bought
a house out near Black Rock in the '40s. My Dad was career Navy so we
didn't live there much until he retired and I don't have any real
recollections before the '60s. I do remember the cistern though--it was
right next door to the school and we were walked over there for a tour
one time. Never knew that there was a residence associated with the
water works, although I did know there was one associated with the
lighthouse.

Small world.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <MPG.2dad9675a...@news.newsguy.com>,

Yeah, my memories start with the 60s too. The other stuff is family
stories. I'm not clear if it was that cistern or an actual pond somewhere
associated with the waterworks, but some crazy town lady had a dream that
a kid had got in and drowned and she got enough people behind her that
my grandfather had to drain it to prove there was no body.

Now Fernandina is almost a Jackonsville suburb, but back in the day
the society column of the local paper would run stories like "The Nolan
family motored to Jax last Saturday.."

None of which has anything to do with SF except in the sense that the
past was a different world --

[michael]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:41:03 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
>news:c2a0k991852frgve7...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 14:31:26 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Since the current antismoking hysteria has nothing to do with
>>>cancer, it seems unlikely. (It has to do with a very vocal group
>>>of people who just find smoking disgusting, and feel they (and
>>>only they) should be able to tell other people how to live,
>>>supported by a government that smells a lot of money. Despite
>>>their rhetoric, cancer is not part of the real motives _at
>>>all_.)
>>
>> You are correct, Terry - to a point. I have no real concern if
>> smokers wish to give themselves cancer - their bodies, their
>> consequences. Although, as Obama seems dead set on
>> pushing us into socialism I suppose that the burden of their
>> care will devolve onto all of us officially at some point.
>
>It did, long ago, actually.

Agreed. You did notice the "officially", didn't you? I can explain
what it means if you're having difficulty.

>>
>> That having been said, however, I have to take exception with
>> your further rantings. I couldn't care less how they live - as
>> long as it doesn't negatively impinge on me, my loved ones, and
>> our own personal freedoms and health.
>
>When they were talking about second hand smoke, that was a
>plausible complaint (though the research is far more mixed than
>folks like you would admit). But when we get to complaining that
>you're going to get cancer from being around someone who was around
>someone who was around someone who smoked - *fourth* hand smoke -
>y'all just atarted to look fucking *retarded*. M'kay?
>
>So take exception all you want, you're still associating yourself
>with retarded dumbasses.

Obviously, Terry. We're debating with you. I never mentioned
3rd/4th/nth hand smoke. Incidentally, there is no such thing as
second hand smoke. Smoke is smoke, and while the concentration
in a room's general air content is probably significantly less than
when you inhale directly through a burning cigarette, it is still the
same noxious shit. Breathe it long enough and the effects will be the
same. As for the 3rd/4th, etc., it is unlikely that you could get
enough smoke that way to cause cancer. For those with allergies
and/or chemical sensitivities though (like myself), the story is
different. For years I couldn't welcome my wife home after she
visited her mother until she showered (especially the hair), changed
clothes, and brushed her teeth. The tobacco reek would stick to
everything and would make me physically ill.

>>
>> In all fairness, I have to tell you that I am pretty seriously
>> allergic to tobacco smoke.
>
>Yeah, well, since the universe literally revolves around the egos
>of people like you, then I guess we should jsut appoint you King Of
>All Creation and have done with it, eh?
>>

Nah. Too much work. Ego doesn't really figure into this, except for
the overwhelming egocentrism of someone who believes that his
personal enjoyment is justification for inflicting misery on the rest
of us against our will. Keep your vices to yourself and we'll be most
happy to let you kill yourself with them.

>> Perhaps the real solution would be to develop a new variety
>> of tobacco that would double or triple the enjoyment level for
>> the consumer - and which would also be much more efficiently
>> lethal within a shorter time span. At least that way we'd
>> stand a chance of weeding the stupid gene out before they
>> managed to pass it on.
>>
>Fairly typical attitude for the socialist tyrant: kill anyone you
>don't like. Good luck with that.
>

It has apparently worked well for millenia, but I frankly don't feel
any need to go down that particular path. I never advocated
killing anyone in that statement; I did suggest that they might
weed themselves out of the gene pool by their own stupid choices.

.
>You know how you feel about smokers? Well, I feel *exactly* the
>same way about people who feel they - and only they - know what's
>best for eveyrone, including me, and want to kill me if I don't
>agree. *Exactly* the same way.
>

You quite obviously have no clue whatsoever about how I feel. I just
handed you the biggest blank check in history - self destruct any way
you like, just don't take the rest of us with you. I'll even
contribute something nice for the eulogy, and maybe a nice flower
arrangement.. How's that?

>So, to argue that you should be able to regulate other people's
>smoking, you need to also argue that I should be able to regulate
>your political speech. Or admit you're a hypocrite, and your goal
>is a double standard.

Not at all. There is a rather obvious difference between censoring
someone's speech and the chemical warfare you've apparently chosen to
employ against the rest of us. You're welcome to all the freedom of
speech you like - until such time as it becomes injurious to the rest
of us. Are there any maladies you can get from listening to Terry?
Perhaps Hearing Aids; I think you get it from listening to assholes.

xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

[michael]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:55:18 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>
>> Although, as Obama seems dead set on
>>pushing us into socialism I suppose that the burden of their
>>care will devolve onto all of us officially at some point.
>
>Cite please? Please take into account the actual definition of "Socialism".
>
>Fox news is not a valid citation.

I will respond to this, but am a bit short on time right now. Stay
tuned.

[michael]

On Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:50:04 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Just an FYI - nicotine isn't the only drug they're using in
>> those things. There are quite a few underground entrepeneurs
>> who are now providing what they claim to be THC e-liquids in a
>> variety of designer flavors. Pretty much anything that can be
>> dissolved in water can be pumped out of these vaporizers - and
>> most of it doesn't stay in the user's body when they exhale.
>>
>Dude, you're breathing carbon dioxide all over me. You should be
>killed for that.
>
>--
>Terry Austin

It's been tried. Seriously, Terry - are you really this worked up
over the facts that I 1) have declined to accompany you and the
rest of the lemmings to the cliff, and 2) am willing to actively
resist being dragged there to suit your whim? By all means,
dive off the edge if you wish. We'll watch it on Animal Planet
and marvel at the spectacle while lamenting the waste. Go Lemmings
Go!

[michael]

On 7 Apr 2014 12:54:29 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December

Starr) wrote:

>Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
>smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.

Actually, I'm probably closer to libertarian than republican or
democrat. None of the parties really resonates that well for me.
I prefer to do my own thinking and make my own decisions - traits
which most political organizations (and religions) I've come across
seem to find subversive and/or dangerous.

Socially, I'm fairly liberal; Fiscally, very conservative. I also
am convinced that our government is way too damned big, expensive,
and pervasive into our daily lives.

I always rather liked Prof's philosophy from The Moon Is A Harsh
Mistress - rational anarchy. I doubt it would work in the real world,
but it sounded interesting. "If they smoke they die, fuck 'em" -
succinctly put, a bit blunt for my tastes, but OK.

[MajorOz]

On Tuesday, April 8, 2014 9:54:43 AM UTC-5, michael wrote:
>
> I always rather liked Prof's philosophy from The Moon Is A Harsh
>
> Mistress - rational anarchy. I doubt it would work in the real world,
>
> but it sounded interesting. "If they smoke they die, fuck 'em" -
>
> succinctly put, a bit blunt for my tastes, but OK.

As a fellow libertarian, I agree with most of what you have posted above.

Our only point of disagreement might be, though I may have misinterpreted your views, is that I see you picketing outside a bar that allows smoking, even though you would never think of entering, whereas, I would join the legal team protecting their right.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
news:ajv7k91bjnl61sih2...@4ax.com:

You have a funny definition of "debate."

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
news:tg18k953i2cm16nuf...@4ax.com:

Heh.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
news:l028k91frdk859em6...@4ax.com:

And you probably think the famous lemming scene was real, too.]

Loser.

(At thst point, I actually have no idea waht your point is. You've
become completely incoherent. Not surprising for your sort.)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
news:6s28k9pqagchne7f1...@4ax.com:

> On 7 Apr 2014 12:54:29 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William
> December Starr) wrote:
>
>>Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
>>smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.
>
> Actually, I'm probably closer to libertarian than republican or
> democrat.

Like I said, wingnut.

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Tim McDaniel wrote:
>
>> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
>> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 6 Apr 2014, Greg Goss wrote:
>>>

>>>> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> _Space Cadet_ by by Robert A. Heinlein

>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Space-Cadet-Robert-A-Heinlein/dp/0765314517/
>>>>
>>>>> The trade paperback binding and font size are
>>>>> excellent.
>>>>>
>>>>> My rating: 4.4 out of 5 stars
>>>>> Amazon rating: 4.1 out of 5 stars (50 reviews)
>>>>
>>>> I've been very short on money for a decade or so. This is one of
>>>> the classics that I've spent money for the ebook on.
>>>
>>> Is that one of the ones with the introduction, and afterwards?
>>
>> What Heinlein books had introductions and afterwards, and were they
>> by Heinlein? The only one I ever saw was (paraphrasing) "On
>> Stories Never Written", and I think that was on the collection
>> _Revolt in 2100_ ("'If This Goes On--'", "Coventry", and the
>> Slipstick Libby story).
>
>Most of the Heinlein books are now being printed in trade paperback
>size. There seems to be two publishers doing it.
>
>One of the publishers is adding an introduction, and an afterward, to
>the books they are publishing.

For anyone who has seen them: review, please? Who writes the
introductions and the afterwOrds, what are they about, and what are
they like?

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[J. Clarke]

In article <bqi7r8...@mid.individual.net>, t...@loft.tnolan.com

I heard that tale from the guy who was running the waterworks during the
tour. He left out the part about it being a false rumor. I suspect
that he was just stirring things up. Or maybe he was trying to
discourage us from sneaking in and climbing the tower.

> Now Fernandina is almost a Jackonsville suburb, but back in the day
> the society column of the local paper would run stories like "The Nolan
> family motored to Jax last Saturday.."

Ah, the good old News-Leader. Friend of mine was a stringer for them in
high school. Going to Jacksonville was an all day affair. Ten years
later I was commuting to Jacksonville.

> None of which has anything to do with SF except in the sense that the
> past was a different world --

True. I remember picking up a Hartford Courant the other day (for those
who don't know, the Courant is a major metropolitan daily newspaper and
the oldest US newspaper in continuous operation since its founding). I
remember noting how thin it was with the thought "cripes, it looks like
the News-Leader".

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <MPG.2dadd7ca6...@news.newsguy.com>,

Yep. Same with Columbia's "The State", as I had occasion to note
recently. It's pretty dramatic when you put a new issue side by side
with an old one:

http://columbiaclosings.com/wordpress/?p=6059

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA30866B7DC7...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:

>>> You really had to read that far to grealize he's a wingnut?
>>

>> Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
>> smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.
>

> And in what universe is that not still a wingnut? Certainly not
> this one.

I've always thought that "right-wing" was a required element of
"wingnut". "Fuck 'em if they want to kill themselves slowly"
doesn't necessarily imply an alignment with the contingent that
believes what they hear on Fox News. ("A political organization
that employs reporters." I wish I could remember where I saw that.)

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <6s28k9pqagchne7f1...@4ax.com>,

michael <m...@here.com> said:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
>> smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.
>
> Actually, I'm probably closer to libertarian than republican or
> democrat. None of the parties really resonates that well for me.
> I prefer to do my own thinking and make my own decisions - traits
> which most political organizations (and religions) I've come
> across seem to find subversive and/or dangerous.

You think that "Obama seems dead set on pushing us into socialism."
That's wingnuttery.

-- wds

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
news:li36em$c9r$1...@panix2.panix.com:

> In article <XnsA30866B7DC7...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>>> You really had to read that far to grealize he's a wingnut?
>>>
>>> Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If
>>> they smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.
>>
>> And in what universe is that not still a wingnut? Certainly not
>> this one.
>
> I've always thought

I have doubts.

> that "right-wing" was a required element of
> "wingnut".

Only a geek or a nerd would argue there's a difference between geek
and nerd. But we can call him a moonbat, if you prefer.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:li36hd$59p$1
@panix2.panix.com:

> In article <6s28k9pqagchne7f1...@4ax.com>,
> michael <m...@here.com> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
>>> smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.
>>
>> Actually, I'm probably closer to libertarian than republican or
>> democrat. None of the parties really resonates that well for me.
>> I prefer to do my own thinking and make my own decisions - traits
>> which most political organizations (and religions) I've come
>> across seem to find subversive and/or dangerous.
>
> You think

There's no evidence to suppor that.

That's twice you've used that word when you probably should have used
"believe." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <li36em$c9r$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>I've always thought that "right-wing" was a required element of "wingnut".

Speaking as a left-wing person, I would have no problem applying
"wingnut" to left-wing people.

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

tm...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel) wrote in
news:li422a$eft$1...@reader1.panix.com:

> In article <li36em$c9r$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>I've always thought that "right-wing" was a required element of
>>"wingnut".
>
> Speaking as a left-wing person, I would have no problem applying
> "wingnut" to left-wing people.
>

The traditional term for a leftie wingnut is, I believe, moonbat,
where, if one makes such a disnction, the righties are wingnuts. For
me, I see the political spectrum as more circular than linear, so the
extreme right and extreme left meet on the other side, and are thus
indstinguisable. They're all fucking crazy, and would be believable
as characters in a sit-com, unless Charlie Sheen were in it.

[Brian M. Scott]

On 9 Apr 2014 06:12:38 -0400, William December Starr
<wds...@panix.com> wrote in
<news:li36em$c9r$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein:

[...]

> I've always thought that "right-wing" was a required
> element of "wingnut". "Fuck 'em if they want to kill
> themselves slowly" doesn't necessarily imply an alignment
> with the contingent that believes what they hear on Fox
> News. ("A political organization that employs
> reporters." I wish I could remember where I saw that.)

I’m not sure that it’s accurate. Not having TV, I’ve been
spared Fox News, but judging by what I read, it’s a
political organization that employs people who play
reporters on TV.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[MajorOz]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 5:12:38 AM UTC-5, William December Starr wrote:

("A political organization that employs reporters." I wish I could remember where I saw that.)

Probably in Newsweek Magazine's only honest editorial in their history: fall of (IIRC) 1994, in which they finally admitted they were no longer a news organization and simply an advocacy group.

...something everyone west of the Hudson always knew...

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:1fnbyetbzuq39
$.1rq71botmhdtf$.d...@40tude.net:

> On 9 Apr 2014 06:12:38 -0400, William December Starr
> <wds...@panix.com> wrote in
> <news:li36em$c9r$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein:
>
> [...]
>
>> I've always thought that "right-wing" was a required
>> element of "wingnut". "Fuck 'em if they want to kill
>> themselves slowly" doesn't necessarily imply an alignment
>> with the contingent that believes what they hear on Fox
>> News. ("A political organization that employs
>> reporters." I wish I could remember where I saw that.)
>
> I’m not sure that it’s accurate. Not having TV, I’ve been
> spared Fox News, but judging by what I read, it’s a
> political organization that employs people who play
> reporters on TV.
>

That gets in to the disctinctioni between a reporter and a
journalist. A reporter . . . reports what happens, with the
implication being of unbaised accounting of the facts. A journalist
keeps a journal, which is a personal document in which one records
one's opinions and beliefs, and various evidence and arguments to
support those beliefs, The only purpose of conflicting arguments is
to refute them.

So "people who play reporters" is a fair call, but I think
"journalists" would be more accurate, IMO.

[MajorOz]

On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 3:24:51 PM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> That gets in to the disctinctioni between a reporter and a
>
> journalist. A reporter . . . reports what happens, with the
>
> implication being of unbaised accounting of the facts. A journalist
>

> keeps a journal....

Perhaps....back in the day.

However, the modern distinction is:

1. A reporter -- like Jim McKay and Ed Murrow -- focuses on and reports the news.

2. A journalist -- like Dan Rather and Mike Wallace -- focuses on himself and wants to BE the news.

The extreme example is Wolf -- look at me, look at me -- Blitzer.


Commentators, usually political (Maddow/O'Reiley), are a whole 'nuther thing. Attracting attention is a necessary part of the job

[Tim McDaniel]

In article <1fnbyetbzuq39$.1rq71botmhdtf$.d...@40tude.net>,

Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>On 9 Apr 2014 06:12:38 -0400, William December Starr
><wds...@panix.com> wrote in
><news:li36em$c9r$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
>rec.arts.sf.written,alt.fan.heinlein:
>
>[...]
>
>> I've always thought that "right-wing" was a required
>> element of "wingnut". "Fuck 'em if they want to kill
>> themselves slowly" doesn't necessarily imply an alignment
>> with the contingent that believes what they hear on Fox
>> News. ("A political organization that employs
>> reporters." I wish I could remember where I saw that.)
>
>I'm not sure that it's accurate. Not having TV, I've been
>spared Fox News, but judging by what I read, it's a
>political organization that employs people who play
>reporters on TV.

That employs white men and white blondes who play &c.
http://www.stevedennie.com/those-foxnews-blondes/
That dates to 26 January 2012, though, so I don't know if it has
changed. He also writes, "Yes, you'll occasionally see a Hispanic,
and there's Michelle Malkin to represent Asians. Roger Ailes lets them
keep their dark hair. But with few exceptions, if you're a white woman
and your name is not Sarah Palin, he requires that you be blonde, or
at least heavily highlighted."

--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com

[michael]

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:30:33 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
<taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>michael <m...@here.com> wrote in
>news:6s28k9pqagchne7f1...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 7 Apr 2014 12:54:29 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William
>> December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>>Up till then he _might_ have been a somewhat apolitical "If they
>>>smoke they die, fuck 'em" libertarian.
>>
>> Actually, I'm probably closer to libertarian than republican or
>> democrat.
>
>Like I said, wingnut.

As I understand it, from the rather limited documentation I could find
with a quick google search, "wingnut" is generally associated with
extreme right-wing alignments. I don't care for their extremism any
more than I do for the liberals, and I certainly haven't seen anything
to indicate that they have more of a clue than anyone else. How,
exactly, does that qualify as a wingnut? Be specific, and leave the
petty slurs out of it. If you can.

You seized upon my comment earlier in this thread about Obama being
determined to push us into socialism. I've had a bit of time to
research the matter now, and I appear to owe an apology. I found
several differing definitions for Socialism, and I've boiled them down
to be a system in which the resources and materials, along with the
means of production and distribution are owned collectively by the
people in the form of their government. Private property and
enterprise are frowned upon, if not forbidden outright.

Clearly, that isn't what our beloved president isn't pushing for at
this time - I stand corrected, and I apologize. What I was thinking
of when I made my statement was the ever-increasing number of
government programs which require those of us who actually earn a good
living to fork over a substantial percentage of it to a government
that doles it out in the form of entitlement programs, welfare, ACA
subsidies, etc., ad nauseum.

I don't object to helping out the less fortunate. I contribute to
charities, donate my time to organizations, and have been known to
swing a hammer building homes for those who have none. I DO object,
however, to a scenario in which my government decides which programs
I should fund, at what rate, and then sends me what appears to be a
damned exhorbitant bill for what THEY deem to be my "fair share" of
it. There are even mixed scenarios in which I get hit from multiple
directions with a cost that ultimately funds someone else's gain -
Obamacare/ACA was just such a situation.

There is an immediate and obvious cost to the taxpayer to fund
Obamacare in the form of subsidies for low-income citizens, etc.
That money has to come from somewhere, and my taxes are ultimately
going to pay for it in one way or another. There has been a much
more immediate and larger cost for me personally, however, in terms
of increased expense for my insurance, coupled with a reduction in my
insurance benefits. Do you remember the "If you have insurance you
like, you can keep it" lie that Obama handed us? I do. In November,
my insurance company sent me a letter to tell me that my policy was
being cancelled because it didn't meet the minimum requirements for
Obamacare. Not to worry, though - they were rolling me over into a
new policy that met the Obamacare requirements to the letter. Of
course, that raised my monthly premiums from $326 to $510, and
increased my annual deductable from $5000 to $16000.

When I called the company to question this ridiculous hike, it was
explained to me that the difference in my premiums reflected the fact
that under Obamacare they were no longer allowed to turn away higher
risk customers because of things like pre-existing conditions, health
risk factors such as smoking, etc. They did make a big thing of the
fact that my new policy included maternity care, as mandated by
Obamacare (or so they said - I haven't had the free time to research
it). I'm a 52 year old male - what the hell do I need with maternity
care? Yet, thanks to the changes, I'm required to fund it for
everyone else. My deductible was more than TRIPLED, virtually
guaranteeing that short of catastrophic health problems all my medical
expenses are going to be coming out of what is rapidly becoming a
pretty shallow pocket. I'm paying more for less - and I assure you,
that wasn't by my choice. Of course, also thanks to Obamacare, I no
longer have the option of dropping out of the insurance system even
though I will be paying out of pocket for essentially all of my health
care. I don't know if the correct term is Socialism, Fascism,
Welfareism, or whatever. I do know that I resent the hell out it.
Thanks, DNC. May your sphincters grow shut.

My biggest issue with the current brand of politics being practiced by
the "liberals" (a bad term - Jefferson is out there somewhere with his
head in a bag) is that they appear to be embracing what I would
generally characterize as Robin Hood sociopolitical economics. They
rob from the makers/producers to give to the consumers/takers. While
that in itself could be spun to appear as a "helping hand" for the
less fortunate, I really can't believe that they're doing it for
altruistic motives. The implied contract seems to be "vote for us and
we'll give you things you haven't earned - for FREE! - and we'll make
those rich jerks pay for it all." Maybe I'm wrong, but that doesn't
really sound like a viable long-term way to run a country.

There's a quote I remember from my college days (MANY years ago). I
remember it as being attributed to Benjamin Franklin, though a quick
google search just now failed to turn it up. It could just as easily
have been Jefferson or a host of others - or just something someone
made up. It went something like this, and I'm undoubtedly getting
the wording wrong after these many years:
"This fledgling nation that we've created, this great Democracy, is a
noble experiment - but one which is predestined to fail. For when
the masses learn to vote themselves unearned treasures from the common
purse the nation will begin an inescapable slide into ruin."

I can't seem to find it on the internet. A google search for
"unearned treasures" and "common purse" (I'm pretty sure of those two
phrases) yielded no results. Perhaps one of you political experts
can locate it. Perhaps it was in a Science Fiction book - I really
can't remember. I would appreciate it if any of you can find the
reference.

It does seem to apply to our society today, though. The current
situation is unstable; if this trend continues then at some point
those who actually produce something will have a strong incentive to
do it elsewhere. That, of course, would mean the death of the system.
Faced with that, nationalization of the resources and industry would
be a likely next step - and that sounds very much like the definition
of socialism we started out with at the beginning of this post.

Michael

[michael]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:59:31 -0500, michael <m...@here.com> wrote:

>Clearly, that isn't what our beloved president isn't pushing for at
>this time - I stand corrected, and I apologize.

Oops. A typo got past me. Replace the second isn't with is.
Apologies.

[Scott Lurndal]

Not only blonde, but prototypical dumb blonde. Take Megyn kelly. Please.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <XnsA3086384EA7...@69.16.186.7>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are, in fact, smells that most people would not find at all
> annoying, and would mostly find pleasant. I noted a few that are
> available now in scented candles (the stripper one is real, BTW).

Scented candles that smell like a stripper?!

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.