-[I]- "New" Heinlein, also Robinson
Lesley Weston
first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and
far too many themes for one story, but just as obviously it's the first
novel of someone who would become very much better at his craft.
As to the preachiness of it, I like his ideas and always have, since
long before I knew they were his; to me, the Utopia presented in FUTL
seems pretty much the way things should be. However, each is described
in far too much detail in one place, so that each idea is presented as
an indigestible lump, rather than being integrated into the story as he
did later.
I was really surprised to find (in the Afterword) that his fiscal
arrangements are the basis of Social Credit, the infamous political
party that rules BC (only now the same politicians call themselves
Liberals). As practiced here, Socred (now Liberal) philosophy is the
archetypal right-wing disaster whose principle is "Screw everybody else
and especially the workers: if you're unprincipled enough to be One of
Us, then your virtue lies in getting as rich as you can as fast as you
can". So I really can't see how they got from banks having to hold their
reserves for real and a State pension paid to everyone to what they are now.
I also read the Spider Robinson one, /Very Hard Choices/, by way of
light relief. It's much less distressing than its predecessor, /Very Bad
Deaths/, and makes a welcome return to his former style and type of
content. So I don't have to stop reading him after all, which is nice
since the SF authors I like are already too few and can't write fast
enough to keep up with my reading. Perhaps I wasn't the only one who
objected to his new-found interests.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Nigel Stapley
> So I have now stopped putting off reading Heinlein's newly-published
> first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
> with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and
> far too many themes for one story,
No, that just makes it very obviously a *Heinlein* novel.
<g,d & r>
(come out fighting, Genghis Zakes!)(1)
(1)A Roy Harper reference, in case anyone didn't know.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
William Black
"Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
news:Ud2dnVnt6rqZHGXU...@posted.plusnet...
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> So I have now stopped putting off reading Heinlein's newly-published
>> first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
>> with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and far
>> too many themes for one story,
>
> No, that just makes it very obviously a *Heinlein* novel.
You beat me to it...
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Nigel Stapley
> "Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:Ud2dnVnt6rqZHGXU...@posted.plusnet...
>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>> So I have now stopped putting off reading Heinlein's newly-published
>>> first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
>>> with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and far
>>> too many themes for one story,
>> No, that just makes it very obviously a *Heinlein* novel.
>
> You beat me to it...
>
It's OK - that just means that *I'm* the one who's going to get the
kicking... :-)
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>> "Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ud2dnVnt6rqZHGXU...@posted.plusnet...
>>> Lesley Weston wrote:
>>>> So I have now stopped putting off reading Heinlein's newly-published
>>>> first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
>>>> with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and
>>>> far too many themes for one story,
>>> No, that just makes it very obviously a *Heinlein* novel.
>>
>> You beat me to it...
>>
>
> It's OK - that just means that *I'm* the one who's going to get the
> kicking... :-)
From a Heinlein fan?
As a general rule they're not that bright.
Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
Esmeraldus
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gtaauj$7tj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> From a Heinlein fan?
>
> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>
> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
The Heinlein Centennial had a pretty high density of advanced degrees per
capita. Oh, I know. The ability to get a doctorate in <whatever> doesn't
mean you're "smart."
But if we aren't using that definition, we're using yours. I suspect to you
"bright" means whatever William Black says it means--people who have the
skills and attitudes of which you approve.
steveski
> Lesley Weston wrote:
>> So I have now stopped putting off reading Heinlein's newly-published
>> first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
>> with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and
>> far too many themes for one story,
>
> No, that just makes it very obviously a *Heinlein* novel.
>
> <g,d & r>
>
> (come out fighting, Genghis Zakes!)(1)
>
> (1)A Roy Harper reference, in case anyone didn't know.
Lightweight [1]
--
Steveski
[1] Ask Roy about it [2]
[2] At the Old Gungeon Ghyll (about 15 years ago) :-)
Arthur Hagen
> So I have now stopped putting off reading Heinlein's newly-published
> first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
> with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and
> far too many themes for one story, but just as obviously it's the
> first novel of someone who would become very much better at his craft.
>
> As to the preachiness of it, I like his ideas and always have, since
> long before I knew they were his; to me, the Utopia presented in FUTL
> seems pretty much the way things should be. However, each is described
> in far too much detail in one place, so that each idea is presented as
> an indigestible lump, rather than being integrated into the story as
> he did later.
>
> I was really surprised to find (in the Afterword) that his fiscal
> arrangements are the basis of Social Credit, the infamous political
> party that rules BC (only now the same politicians call themselves
> Liberals). As practiced here, Socred (now Liberal) philosophy is the
> archetypal right-wing disaster whose principle is "Screw everybody
> else and especially the workers: if you're unprincipled enough to be One
> of
> Us, then your virtue lies in getting as rich as you can as fast as you
> can". So I really can't see how they got from banks having to hold
> their reserves for real and a State pension paid to everyone to what
> they are now.
Heinlein was always a right-wing-nutter politically. Excellent writer, but
political nincompoop. Unfortunately, "give people freedom and they'll do
the right thing" is something that many people *want* to believe.
Regards,
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gtaauj$7tj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> From a Heinlein fan?
>>
>> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>>
>> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
>
> The Heinlein Centennial had a pretty high density of advanced degrees
> per capita. Oh, I know. The ability to get a doctorate in <whatever>
> doesn't mean you're "smart."
Repeat after me: "Correlation is not causation".
I bet you'll find a pretty high density of advanced degrees per capita in a
Barbara Cartland convention too. A quite possible cause is that people with
higher degrees have, on average, more opportunities to keep their interest
in their favourite pastime, and more time, money and flexibility to actually
attend such events.
And below, you build a strawman:
> But if we aren't using that definition, we're using yours. I suspect
> to you "bright" means whatever William Black says it means--people
> who have the skills and attitudes of which you approve.
Do you think that the N hundred people at the Centennial convention are
representative for the tens of millions of people who bought the books?
I speculate that the average buyer wanted cheap escapism, and was already
"into" SciFi from radio shows, pulp magazines and Sputnik scaring the living
shit out of them. Throw in that Heinlein's books were pretty raunchy for
the time, always had "slogans" that fans could repeat to each other, and
it's no surprise that they sold exceedingly well.
History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were written, and
some have quite interesting stories that are worth reading today too. But
that doesn't mean that Heinlein's sometimes brilliance rubs off on the
readers. A chav is a chav whether he reads Heinlein or Mickey Mouse.
--
*Art
Daibhid Ceanaideach
> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:gtaauj$7tj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> From a Heinlein fan?
>>>
>>> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>>>
>>> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
>>
>> The Heinlein Centennial had a pretty high density of advanced degrees
>> per capita. Oh, I know. The ability to get a doctorate in <whatever>
>> doesn't mean you're "smart."
>
> Repeat after me: "Correlation is not causation".
> I bet you'll find a pretty high density of advanced degrees per capita
> in a Barbara Cartland convention too. A quite possible cause is that
> people with higher degrees have, on average, more opportunities to
> keep their interest in their favourite pastime, and more time, money
> and flexibility to actually attend such events.
IOW, the subsection of the tens of millions who *aren't* the "everyone
normal" who "stopped reading them at about age 18"?
> And below, you build a strawman:
>> But if we aren't using that definition, we're using yours. I suspect
>> to you "bright" means whatever William Black says it means--people
>> who have the skills and attitudes of which you approve.
>
> Do you think that the N hundred people at the Centennial convention
> are representative for the tens of millions of people who bought the
> books?
Do they need to be to disprove the assertation that Heinlein *fans* (not
"people who bought the books") "aren't that bright"?
> I speculate that the average buyer wanted cheap escapism, and was
> already "into" SciFi from radio shows, pulp magazines and Sputnik
> scaring the living shit out of them. Throw in that Heinlein's books
> were pretty raunchy for the time, always had "slogans" that fans could
> repeat to each other, and it's no surprise that they sold exceedingly
> well.
>
> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were
> written, and some have quite interesting stories that are worth
> reading today too. But that doesn't mean that Heinlein's sometimes
> brilliance rubs off on the readers. A chav is a chav whether he reads
> Heinlein or Mickey Mouse.
Which also makes William's initial statement (that lack of inteligence is
implied by Heinlein fandom) falacious, surely?
Personally, I've never been that keen on Heinlein. Unlike some people, I
don't believe that gives me the authority to make blanket statements
about people who are.
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Lesley Weston
I thought so too until I read FUTL: "Give everybody a state pension
that's enough to live on" and "Let everybody make whatever sexual
arrangements they like" and "An thou harmst no-one, do what thou wilt
shall be the whole of the law" really don't sound all that right-wing.
William Black
"Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were written,
I don't suppose you have some proof of that rather remarkable assertion do
you?
--
William Black
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.
William Black
"Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gtf4ka$dma$1...@mud.stack.nl...
> I thought so too until I read FUTL: "Give everybody a state pension that's
> enough to live on" and "Let everybody make whatever sexual arrangements
> they like" and "An thou harmst no-one, do what thou wilt shall be the
> whole of the law" really don't sound all that right-wing.
Libertarian twaddle.
Probably inspired by that other well known nutter Ayn Rand.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>
> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gtf4ka$dma$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>
>> I thought so too until I read FUTL: "Give everybody a state pension
>> that's enough to live on" and "Let everybody make whatever sexual
>> arrangements they like" and "An thou harmst no-one, do what thou wilt
>> shall be the whole of the law" really don't sound all that
>> right-wing.
>
> Libertarian twaddle.
>
> Probably inspired by that other well known nutter Ayn Rand.
Yes indeed. We lefties want strict rules preventing most people from
having sex, and an end to all these dole scroungers.
Esmeraldus
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:gtaauj$7tj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>> From a Heinlein fan?
>>>
>>> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>>>
>>> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
>>
>> The Heinlein Centennial had a pretty high density of advanced degrees
>> per capita. Oh, I know. The ability to get a doctorate in <whatever>
>> doesn't mean you're "smart."
>
> Repeat after me: "Correlation is not causation".
> I bet you'll find a pretty high density of advanced degrees per capita in
> a Barbara Cartland convention too. A quite possible cause is that people
> with higher degrees have, on average, more opportunities to keep their
> interest in their favourite pastime, and more time, money and flexibility
> to actually attend such events.
Yeah, yeah. Now go after Black for his blanket assertion.
I suppose you could argue that *really* bright people aren't "normal"
either, technically. Or at least not average, by definition.
You have this thing where you gleefully jump on my failure to make a formal
argument, when I'm pointing out something that I haven't failed to point
out. Black says normal people stopped reading Heinlein at 18. Now, depending
on what he means by normal, that might be true. But based on the "not that
bright" part of the post, I don't really think he meant dead average. I
could be wrong. <shrug>
So I'm pointing out that a lot of people who are pretty smart read Heinlein
after the age of 18.
Anticipating that someone will say that the ability to get a graduate degree
isn't a measure of intelligence, I just wanted to head off that stupid
argument, because I *know* that the things I value aren't the only measure
of intelligence.
> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were written,
> and some have quite interesting stories that are worth reading today too.
Interesting. What is this monolithic "history" of which you speak? As much
as I love Heinlein--and that's a lot--fans and critics I know are arguing
the relevance of Heinlein's work today, and for how much longer it will be
useful as anything but historical context.
So "history" isn't exactly unified on this. Once your generation dies
Heinlein may be a footnote. Or a chapter in a history book, but something a
few people read rather than something everyone into SF reads. Don't think
this pleases me--I named my son after the man. But the question of
Heinlein's continuing relevance to the field was just the subject of a panel
at an academic/fan panel at a recent con, and the results surprised me.
William Black
"Esmeraldus" <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
news:gtfn76$p7i$1...@mud.stack.nl...
> Yeah, yeah. Now go after Black for his blanket assertion.
If you wish you may call me 'Mr Black' or 'William' or even 'Bill'.
'Black' is reserved for the men I went to school with.
Esmeraldus
>
> "Esmeraldus" <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:gtfn76$p7i$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>
>> Yeah, yeah. Now go after Black for his blanket assertion.
>
>
> If you wish you may call me 'Mr Black' or 'William' or even 'Bill'.
>
> 'Black' is reserved for the men I went to school with.
Actually, I think we'd both be happier if we avoided addressing each other
at all.
It's funny that you are making a thing of it, since that form of address
implies courtesies to which you are not entitled, either--I don't *remember*
serving with you.
I'm not actually sure why I used it, but it was something I could live with
at the moment.
Arthur Hagen
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>
>> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
>> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were
>> written,
>
> I don't suppose you have some proof of that rather remarkable
> assertion do you?
Apart from what SFWA and notable individuals like Harlan Ellison and Philip
K. Dick have written on the topic of notable SF authors in the golden age,
probably no.
But does it matter anyhow, or have you made up your mind everything he's
written must be utterly without value?
Regards,
--
*Art
Arthur Hagen
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:gtaauj$7tj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>> From a Heinlein fan?
>>>>
>>>> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>>>>
>>>> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
>>>
>>> The Heinlein Centennial had a pretty high density of advanced
>>> degrees per capita. Oh, I know. The ability to get a doctorate in
>>> <whatever> doesn't mean you're "smart."
>>
>> Repeat after me: "Correlation is not causation".
>> I bet you'll find a pretty high density of advanced degrees per
>> capita in a Barbara Cartland convention too. A quite possible cause
>> is that people with higher degrees have, on average, more
>> opportunities to keep their interest in their favourite pastime, and
>> more time, money and flexibility to actually attend such events.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Now go after Black for his blanket assertion.
Oh, I have. :-)
> I suppose you could argue that *really* bright people aren't "normal"
> either, technically. Or at least not average, by definition.
Interesting argument, but not mine.
> You have this thing where you gleefully jump on my failure to make a
> formal argument, when I'm pointing out something that I haven't
> failed to point out. Black says normal people stopped reading
> Heinlein at 18. Now, depending on what he means by normal, that might
> be true. But based on the "not that bright" part of the post, I don't
> really think he meant dead average. I could be wrong. <shrug>
Just because I think you are somewhat wrong doesn't mean I don't think he is
somewhat wrong too.
> So I'm pointing out that a lot of people who are pretty smart read
> Heinlein after the age of 18.
I /know/ there are pretty smart people reading Heinlein. I'm convinced that
he's popular enough to attract readers from all over the scale, including
both geniuses and nincompoops.
> Anticipating that someone will say that the ability to get a graduate
> degree isn't a measure of intelligence, I just wanted to head off
> that stupid argument, because I *know* that the things I value aren't
> the only measure of intelligence.
I'm not even going /there/, but I don't think someone's degree is relevant
whether you believe it's a measure of intelligence or not.
>> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
>> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were
>> written, and some have quite interesting stories that are worth
>> reading today too.
>
> Interesting. What is this monolithic "history" of which you speak? As
> much as I love Heinlein--and that's a lot--fans and critics I know
> are arguing the relevance of Heinlein's work today, and for how much
> longer it will be useful as anything but historical context.
>
> So "history" isn't exactly unified on this. Once your generation dies
> Heinlein may be a footnote. Or a chapter in a history book, but
> something a few people read rather than something everyone into SF
> reads.
But none of this contradicts the assertion "for the time it was written".
It wasn't written for the 2010's and 2030's, and might end up being
completely irrelevant, but that doesn't change how several of the novels
were important in the 1950's and 60's, does it?
> Don't think this pleases me--I named my son after the man. But
> the question of Heinlein's continuing relevance to the field was just
> the subject of a panel at an academic/fan panel at a recent con, and
> the results surprised me.
I sincerely doubt that anyone can convincingly state an argument for SiaSL
and TMiaHM /not/ being important documents for the time they were written.
Today, they might not be relevant, and tomorrow even less so, but let's not
kick the man just because he's dead. (Let's kick him for what he deserves
to be kicked for, like his altruism and oedipus complex.)
I personally think he was great *sometimes*, but not always. And that this
doesn't imply he /wasn't/ great. But what Arthur Hagen thought back in 2009
is doubtlessly going to be lost in history, and I'm fine with that :-)
Regards,
--
*Art
William Black
That's not actually what I said.
I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about 18.
It is, at best, juvenile fiction.
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gtfnjm$1p7$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "Esmeraldus" <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>> news:gtfn76$p7i$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>>
>>> Yeah, yeah. Now go after Black for his blanket assertion.
>>
>>
>> If you wish you may call me 'Mr Black' or 'William' or even 'Bill'.
>>
>> 'Black' is reserved for the men I went to school with.
>
> Actually, I think we'd both be happier if we avoided addressing each other
> at all.
Do you require instruction in the use of the kill file?
> It's funny that you are making a thing of it, since that form of address
> implies courtesies to which you are not entitled, either--I don't
> *remember* serving with you.
What in? The boy mscouts?
> I'm not actually sure why I used it, but it was something I could live
> with at the moment.
Pompous pratt...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:gtfrur$ped$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>
>>>> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
>>>> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were
>>>> written,
>>>
>>> I don't suppose you have some proof of that rather remarkable
>>> assertion do you?
>>
>> Apart from what SFWA and notable individuals like Harlan Ellison and
>> Philip K. Dick have written on the topic of notable SF authors in the
>> golden age, probably no.
>>
>> But does it matter anyhow, or have you made up your mind everything
>> he's written must be utterly without value?
>
> That's not actually what I said.
>
> I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about 18.
Or, lest we forget, "not that bright".
Which do you consider Mr Dick?
William Black
"Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BFEF32D2DC5Eda...@130.133.1.4...
> On 01 May 2009, "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>> news:gtfrur$ped$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>>
>>>>> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
>>>>> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were
>>>>> written,
>>>>
>>>> I don't suppose you have some proof of that rather remarkable
>>>> assertion do you?
>>>
>>> Apart from what SFWA and notable individuals like Harlan Ellison and
>>> Philip K. Dick have written on the topic of notable SF authors in the
>>> golden age, probably no.
>>>
>>> But does it matter anyhow, or have you made up your mind everything
>>> he's written must be utterly without value?
>>
>> That's not actually what I said.
>>
>> I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about 18.
>
> Or, lest we forget, "not that bright".
Have you met many bright 18 year olds?
Esmeraldus
>
> "Esmeraldus" <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:gtfpu1$qvb$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>>
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:gtfnjm$1p7$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>>>
>>> "Esmeraldus" <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
>>> news:gtfn76$p7i$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>>>
>>>> Yeah, yeah. Now go after Black for his blanket assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you wish you may call me 'Mr Black' or 'William' or even 'Bill'.
>>>
>>> 'Black' is reserved for the men I went to school with.
>>
>> Actually, I think we'd both be happier if we avoided addressing each
>> other at all.
>
> Do you require instruction in the use of the kill file?
I can manage fine, but thank you for the offer.
>> It's funny that you are making a thing of it, since that form of address
>> implies courtesies to which you are not entitled, either--I don't
>> *remember* serving with you.
>
> What in? The boy mscouts?
The Navy.
I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts, although through a technicality
I was a member for a short while--it turns out the Marine Biology Explorers
fall under the administration of the Boy Scouts of America.
>> I'm not actually sure why I used it, but it was something I could live
>> with at the moment.
>
> Pompous pratt...
You're not, with that whole business? I was being casual, and you started
talking "you may call me."
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BFEF32D2DC5Eda...@130.133.1.4...
>> On 01 May 2009, "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gtfrur$ped$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many
>>>>>> of Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they
>>>>>> were written,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't suppose you have some proof of that rather remarkable
>>>>> assertion do you?
>>>>
>>>> Apart from what SFWA and notable individuals like Harlan Ellison
>>>> and Philip K. Dick have written on the topic of notable SF authors
>>>> in the golden age, probably no.
>>>>
>>>> But does it matter anyhow, or have you made up your mind everything
>>>> he's written must be utterly without value?
>>>
>>> That's not actually what I said.
>>>
>>> I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about
>>> 18.
>>
>> Or, lest we forget, "not that bright".
>
> Have you met many bright 18 year olds?
Yes, as it happens. But I expect that to be filed alongside "Esmeraldus
knows intelligent adults who like Heinlein" and "PKD thought he was a
noteable author" as something that contradicts your opinions and
therefore Can't Be So.
In any case, I'm not sure of the relevence; your original post seemed to
be classifying Heinlein fans over the age of 18 as "not that bright",
while your second one seems to deny their existence altogether[1], and my
post was intended partly to point out this apparent contradiction. I
don't think the claim that "under 18" is a subsection of "not that
bright" actually resolves this.
[1]You see that, Esmeraldus? He can't be insulting you, because you don't
exist!
Esmeraldus
> [1]You see that, Esmeraldus? He can't be insulting you, because you don't
> exist!
No, he acknowledged I'm a pompous pratt. So I definitely exist.
William Black
Get a room boys...
David Chapman
> I expect that to be filed alongside "Esmeraldus
> knows intelligent adults who like Heinlein"
I know intelligent adults who like Heinlein too. But intelligent adults
liking shitty books
doesn't mean the books stop being shitty.
Arthur Hagen
For /at least/ three reasons.
You may be eligible for the Rosicrucians, though.
>> Pompous pratt...
>
> You're not, with that whole business? I was being casual, and you
> started talking "you may call me."
I think we should stop feeding the troll. If we ignore it, it may turn blue
and 'plode.
Regards,
--
*Art
Lesley Weston
> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
> news:gtfrur$ped$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>
>>>> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
>>>> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were
>>>> written,
>>> I don't suppose you have some proof of that rather remarkable
>>> assertion do you?
>> Apart from what SFWA and notable individuals like Harlan Ellison and
>> Philip K. Dick have written on the topic of notable SF authors in the
>> golden age, probably no.
>>
>> But does it matter anyhow, or have you made up your mind everything he's
>> written must be utterly without value?
>
> That's not actually what I said.
>
> I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about 18.
>
> It is, at best, juvenile fiction.
>
him the leisure to work on his excellent novels for adults.
Lesley Weston
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BFEF32D2DC5Eda...@130.133.1.4...
>> On 01 May 2009, "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gtfrur$ped$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> "Arthur Hagen" <a...@broomstick.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:gterjg$jrd$1...@tree.broomstick.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> History is the real judge, and history has indeed said that many of
>>>>>> Heinlein's works are important documents for the time they were
>>>>>> written,
>>>>> I don't suppose you have some proof of that rather remarkable
>>>>> assertion do you?
>>>> Apart from what SFWA and notable individuals like Harlan Ellison and
>>>> Philip K. Dick have written on the topic of notable SF authors in the
>>>> golden age, probably no.
>>>>
>>>> But does it matter anyhow, or have you made up your mind everything
>>>> he's written must be utterly without value?
>>> That's not actually what I said.
>>>
>>> I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about 18.
>> Or, lest we forget, "not that bright".
>
> Have you met many bright 18 year olds?
>
>
evidence of brightness so far in this discussion.
Lesley Weston
> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gtf4ka$dma$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>
>> I thought so too until I read FUTL: "Give everybody a state pension that's
>> enough to live on" and "Let everybody make whatever sexual arrangements
>> they like" and "An thou harmst no-one, do what thou wilt shall be the
>> whole of the law" really don't sound all that right-wing.
>
> Libertarian twaddle.
Which? Heinlein's ideas or me saying those ideas aren't right-wing?
William Black
> William Black wrote:
>> "Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:gtf4ka$dma$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>>
>>> I thought so too until I read FUTL: "Give everybody a state pension
>>> that's enough to live on" and "Let everybody make whatever sexual
>>> arrangements they like" and "An thou harmst no-one, do what thou wilt
>>> shall be the whole of the law" really don't sound all that right-wing.
>>
>> Libertarian twaddle.
>
> Which? Heinlein's ideas or me saying those ideas aren't right-wing?
His ideas.
Your misunderstanding of where he got them from is your problem.
William Black
Why does the name 'Annagraminta' suddenly spring into my mind...
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Since I've already stated I don't like Heinlein much myself, I won't
disagree.
I have no argument with Mr Black's opinion of Heinlein's books (except
the bit where he thinks the welfare state and hippy free love are crazy
right wing ideas simply because Heinlein had them), I simply take issue
with his characterisation of the people who read them.
Richard Bos
> "Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
> > Lesley Weston wrote:
> >> So I have now stopped putting off reading Heinlein's newly-published
> >> first novel, /For Us, the Living/. It's very obviously a first novel,
> >> with wooden characters, embarrassing dialogue, not much of a plot and far
> >> too many themes for one story,
> >
> > No, that just makes it very obviously a *Heinlein* novel.
>
> You beat me to it...
And me...
Which is inappropriate, since Heinlein's perversions were multiple-level
incest and redheads with big tits, not (AFAIAA) flagellation.
Richard
William Black
> I have no argument with Mr Black's opinion of Heinlein's books (except
> the bit where he thinks the welfare state and hippy free love are crazy
> right wing ideas simply because Heinlein had them), I simply take issue
> with his characterisation of the people who read them.
The 'free love' thing is right out of the right wing Anarchists list of
things that make them almost acceptable.
Try reading the Illuminatus Trilogy.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BFFA58956D00da...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> I have no argument with Mr Black's opinion of Heinlein's books
>> (except the bit where he thinks the welfare state and hippy free love
>> are crazy right wing ideas simply because Heinlein had them), I
>> simply take issue with his characterisation of the people who read
>> them.
>
> The 'free love' thing is right out of the right wing Anarchists list
> of things that make them almost acceptable.
>
> Try reading the Illuminatus Trilogy.
Oh, I have. Tried, that is; I'm afraid I didn't get very far. I'm sure
it's an excellent book, but just reading the summary on Wikipedia is
enough to give me a headache.
But yes, I'll concede there are right wing groups that believe in free
love. I disagree that that makes it a right wing idea - it's more to do
with the authoritarian-libertarian axis of the political compass than the
left-right one.
Carol Hague
> "Esmeraldus" <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote in message
> news:gtfpu1$qvb$1...@mud.stack.nl...
>
> > I'm not actually sure why I used it, but it was something I could live
> > with at the moment.
>
> Pompous pratt...
If there's one thing I've learned from my years on Usenet is that if you
wish to convince someone of the rightness of your argument, the way to
do so is not with insults.
Especially when you can't even spell them correctly...
--
Carol. www.mullimages.com
"This might as well say "bing tiddle tiddle bong".
It's complete gibberish," - Rodney McKay, Stargate: Atlantis
Carol Hague
>
> From a Heinlein fan?
>
> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>
> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
I think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you're the
arbiter of what "normal" is. Here's a clue - different people ike
different things, and the fact that you dislike something doesn't make
other people stupid for liking them.
William Black
"Carol Hague" <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote in message
news:1iz3o2p.1vjuwkxv4voz7N%ca...@wrhpv.com...
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> From a Heinlein fan?
>>
>> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>>
>> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
>
> I think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you're the
> arbiter of what "normal" is. Here's a clue - different people ike
> different things, and the fact that you dislike something doesn't make
> other people stupid for liking them.
There's a shocking echo in this Newsgroup...
William Black
> On 02 May 2009, "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Try reading the Illuminatus Trilogy.
>
> Oh, I have. Tried, that is; I'm afraid I didn't get very far. I'm sure
> it's an excellent book, but just reading the summary on Wikipedia is
> enough to give me a headache.
It is very much 'of its time', and probably hasn't aged well.
> But yes, I'll concede there are right wing groups that believe in free
> love. I disagree that that makes it a right wing idea - it's more to do
> with the authoritarian-libertarian axis of the political compass than the
> left-right one.
If you believe that there is such a thing.
The extreme right wing seems to have more of a catastrophe curve than a
'compass'.
They seem to flip straight from " 'Tomorrow Belongs To Me', jackboots,
nasty xenophobic ideas and invading Poland" over to "Freedom to do
everything, you have what you can hold, nuclear arms for the rich and
drugs for everyone but only if you can afford them."
Mind you, nationalistic jackbooted drug-crazed xenophobes who believe in
free love sound pretty scary...
Thomas Zahr
Neither does it mean the intelligent adults stop being intelligent. BTW,
Heinlein works extremely well as audiobooks I find.
--
Cheers,
Thomas =:-)
Richard Bos
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > On 01 May 2009, "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about 18.
> >
> > Or, lest we forget, "not that bright".
>
> Have you met many bright 18 year olds?
I was one.
I could add that I was brighter at 18 than you seem to be now, but then,
the same can be said for 8, so that's not much of a statement.
> --
> William Black
>
> Razors pain you;
> Rivers are damp;
> Acids stain you;
> And drugs cause cramp.
> Guns aren't lawful;
> Nooses give;
> Gas smells awful;
> You might as well live.
McQ is four by eighty, by the way. I realise that counting is hard, but
do try.
Richard
Carol Hague
> "Carol Hague" <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote in message
> news:1iz3o2p.1vjuwkxv4voz7N%ca...@wrhpv.com...
> > William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> From a Heinlein fan?
> >>
> >> As a general rule they're not that bright.
> >>
> >> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
> >
> > I think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you're the
> > arbiter of what "normal" is. Here's a clue - different people ike
> > different things, and the fact that you dislike something doesn't make
> > other people stupid for liking them.
>
> There's a shocking echo in this Newsgroup...
If, by that, you mean that several people have told you the same thing,
perhaps you might consider taking another look at your arguments.
Naturally, more than one person telling you something doesn't guarantee
that they're right and you're wrong, but it usually indicates an
increase in the odds of that being the case.
I doubt that you'll care, but you're currently teetering precariously on
the edge of my killfile. I don't give a monkey's if you think Heinlein
is a load of toss, but I don't like people who are unnecessarily rude,
especially to people I like and respect.
William Black
"Richard Bos" <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:49fc71a8...@news.xs4all.nl...
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > On 01 May 2009, "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think that he is of no interest to people over the age of about 18.
>> >
>> > Or, lest we forget, "not that bright".
>>
>> Have you met many bright 18 year olds?
>
> I was one.
>
> I could add that I was brighter at 18 than you seem to be now, but then,
> the same can be said for 8, so that's not much of a statement.
Lack of any content noted...
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Carol Hague" <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote in message
>> news:1iz3o2p.1vjuwkxv4voz7N%ca...@wrhpv.com...
>> > William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> From a Heinlein fan?
>> >>
>> >> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>> >>
>> >> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
>> >
>> > I think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you're the
>> > arbiter of what "normal" is. Here's a clue - different people ike
>> > different things, and the fact that you dislike something doesn't make
>> > other people stupid for liking them.
>>
>> There's a shocking echo in this Newsgroup...
>
> If, by that, you mean that several people have told you the same thing,
> perhaps you might consider taking another look at your arguments.
>
> Naturally, more than one person telling you something doesn't guarantee
> that they're right and you're wrong, but it usually indicates an
> increase in the odds of that being the case.
>
> I doubt that you'll care, but you're currently teetering precariously on
> the edge of my killfile. I don't give a monkey's if you think Heinlein
> is a load of toss, but I don't like people who are unnecessarily rude,
> especially to people I like and respect.
Lack of any meaningful content noted
Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
Dom
>
> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
Do you honestly think we care what you think?
--
Dom
CCA
wrote:
> Have you met many bright 18 year olds?
Lots. I used to be one, and I went to school with them and had one as
a sister, for a start.
CCA
William Black
"Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> William Black wrote:
>>
>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>
> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of anything
much?
Daibhid Ceanaideach
Lack of any meaningful content noted.
I think the answer to your question might be in the phrase "I doubt
you'll care..."
William Black
Possibly.
Geoff Field
> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>
> For /at least/ three reasons.
You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
At least, they have in Australia.
OTOH, there *is* still an age limit.
Geoff
--
Geoff Field
Professional Geek,
Amateur Stage-Levelling Gauge
jester
<willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> William Black wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>>
>> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
>
>Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of anything
>much?
>
he's probably closer than you are.
--
Andy Brown
Hardware, n.:
The parts of a computer system that can be kicked.
Esmeraldus
"Geoff Field" <geoff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49fcc377$0$7111$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>>
>> For /at least/ three reasons.
>
> You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
> At least, they have in Australia.
They haven't in the US, as far as I know.
> OTOH, there *is* still an age limit.
I was thinking about the three reasons in the shower a little while ago, and
I thought "There's the obvious, and there's that other thing they REALLY
wouldn't like, but what's the third?"
And I finally remembered age was a factor.
Now, perversely, I wonder if there are any other ways I could disqualify
myself, short of death.
William Black
"jester" <use...@jester.nu> wrote in message
news:slrngvpg52...@angel.jester.nu...
> On Sat, 2 May 2009 22:36:24 +0100, William Black
> <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>"Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>>>
>>> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
>>
>>Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of anything
>>much?
>>
>
> he's probably closer than you are.
Quite possibly
Carol Hague
> Lack of any meaningful content noted
I salute your incisive and witty rebuttal of my points. Who could fail
to be impressed by such masterful debating skills?
> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
I rather thought I just said that I didn't.
So not only are you rude, you apparently have problems with reading for
comprehension, also.
Bored now. Bye.
Arthur Hagen
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>>
>> For /at least/ three reasons.
>
> You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
> At least, they have in Australia.
The International Scouting Association has, but the /Boy/ Scouts of America
hasn't.
Regards,
--
*Art
Larry Moore
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>>
>> For /at least/ three reasons.
>
> You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
> At least, they have in Australia.
>
> OTOH, there *is* still an age limit.
>
> Geoff
>
In both the Cub pack and the Scout troup I belonged to, yonks
ago, two of my scout leaders were of the female persuasion
(official uniforms and all.)
I don't know if the volunteer officials have the same
requirements for religiosity.
Perhaps she could now qualify as a Boy Scout now?
--
Men in great place are thrice servants: servants of the sovereign or
state; servants of fame; and servants of business. Francis Bacon
Gid Holyoake
decided to share with us..
Snippetry..
> The extreme right wing seems to have more of a catastrophe curve than a
> 'compass'.
If you unblinker yourself I think you might like to modify that
statement to read:
"All extremes seem to have more of a catastrophe curve than a
'compass'."
Fundamentalism should be stressed on the last four syllables..
Here in the UK at the moment we have a left wing Prime Mentalist..
--
Gid
Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)
Eric Jarvis
says...
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Lack of any meaningful content noted
>
> I salute your incisive and witty rebuttal of my points. Who could fail
> to be impressed by such masterful debating skills?
>
May I suggest any intelligent 18 year old? Actually scratch that, any
intelligent 8 year old.
It's not even as if it's a difficult argument to get across. Heinlein
mostly wrote two types of books. Young adult sf which was of a very high
standard. Adult fiction in which he mostly concentrated on exploring
libertarian political ideas (and given his background mostly right wing
libertarian ideas) and a number of his odd sexual "obsessions". Many of
us find the adult books uncomfortably self indulgent, and for those of us
who disagree with his politics by nature that makes them unpleasant and
pointless to read. If his prose style and characterisation were strong
enough then they would be worth reading anyway. However they aren't, he
has to stand and fall by his ideas and plots. Unless those appeal the
novels seem worthless.
It's not a matter of intelligence. It's down to politics. Do your
experiences and your background fit you to enjoy Heinlein or do they lead
you to despise his books. I find much of the politics and the morality to
make no sense to me at all. I have heard others say the same sort of
thing about JG Ballard, or Kurt Vonnegut. I don't think enjoying their
books makes me stupid. So I don't believe that enjoying Heinlein's books
makes somebody any less intelligent than I am, it's just that they are
completely wrong, that's all.
--
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>"Geoff Field" <geoff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:49fcc377$0$7111$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>>>
>>> For /at least/ three reasons.
>>
>> You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
>> At least, they have in Australia.
>
>They haven't in the US, as far as I know.
Well, that depends how you define your terms. There's the category
Explorer Scouts, which is co-ed and is part of the Boy Scouts of
America -- my daughter was both a Girl Scout and a Boy Scout at
various times -- but the regular Boy Scout program is still all male.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Esmeraldus
"Lawrence Watt-Evans" <l...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:eh5qv4l9rp3kqch6q...@nntp.motzarella.org...
> On Sat, 2 May 2009 18:27:19 -0400, "Esmeraldus"
> <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
>>"Geoff Field" <geoff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:49fcc377$0$7111$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>>> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>>>>
>>>> For /at least/ three reasons.
>>>
>>> You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
>>> At least, they have in Australia.
>>
>>They haven't in the US, as far as I know.
>
> Well, that depends how you define your terms. There's the category
> Explorer Scouts, which is co-ed and is part of the Boy Scouts of
> America -- my daughter was both a Girl Scout and a Boy Scout at
> various times -- but the regular Boy Scout program is still all male.
Right. I mentioned upthread that I was, briefly, a member of the Boy Scouts
through a technicality because I was a Marine Biology Explorer in high
school. But the traditional "Boy Scouts" have not gone co-ed, as you say.
Dom
>
> "Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> William Black wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>>
>> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
>
> Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of anything
> much?
There's something you don't know?
Oh my! Please tell me it isn't so...
--
Dom
David Chapman
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gti17b$hg7$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9BFFB2553D81Cda...@130.133.1.4...
>> On 02 May 2009, "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Try reading the Illuminatus Trilogy.
>>
>> Oh, I have. Tried, that is; I'm afraid I didn't get very far. I'm sure
>> it's an excellent book, but just reading the summary on Wikipedia is
>> enough to give me a headache.
>
> It is very much 'of its time', and probably hasn't aged well.
And suffers badly from being a five book series abandoned after three due to
Author Existence Failure.
David Chapman
> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
Obvious troll is obvious.
Please do not get the impression that people refusing to talk with you means
you've won the argument. They're refusing to talk with you for the same
reason they don't talk to the drunken, belligerent soccer fan who has pissed
and shat himself.
Nigel Stapley
>
> Here in the UK at the moment we have a left wing Prime Mentalist..
>
You can't possibly mean The Broon here? 'Left-wing'? As Chancer of The
Exchequer and Sub-Prime Minister, he's pursued policies which
pre-Thatcher Conservatives would have considered more than a bit iffy.
He and his mob aren't 'left wing', they're just Managerialist like all
the govs we've had since at least '79.
--
Regards
Nigel Stapley
<reply-to will bounce>
CCA
> Fundamentalism should be stressed on the last four syllables..
>
> Here in the UK at the moment we have a left wing Prime Mentalist..
One of my favourite Uxbridge English Dictionary Words:
Fundamentalist - to give money to David Icke.
CCA
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> Lack of any meaningful content noted
>
> I salute your incisive and witty rebuttal of my points. Who could fail
> to be impressed by such masterful debating skills?
I'll take that as an admission that I was correct...
William Black
"Gid Holyoake" <ab...@brynamman.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2467027f3...@news.btinternet.com...
> In article <gti17b$hg7$1...@news.motzarella.org>, William Black generously
> decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> The extreme right wing seems to have more of a catastrophe curve than a
>> 'compass'.
>
> If you unblinker yourself I think you might like to modify that
> statement to read:
>
> "All extremes seem to have more of a catastrophe curve than a
> 'compass'."
>
> Fundamentalism should be stressed on the last four syllables..
>
> Here in the UK at the moment we have a left wing Prime Mentalist..
Left wing!
This is a man who wants to privatise the Post Office, something even
Thatcher never considered...
William Black
You should use 'Irony' flags.
Don't forget there are Americans reading this...
William Black
"David Chapman" <jedit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtjlbd$3u$1...@mud.stack.nl...
It does come to a conclusion though.
I believe that originally it was a lot longer but was cut down considerably
to make it saleable.
William Black
The problem here is that theya re talking to me.
This leave me to conclude that either your Newsreader needs its settings
looking at or you're in denial...
The Stainless Steel Cat
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>"Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> William Black wrote:
>>>
>>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>>
>> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
>
>Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of anything
>much?
Dom was nomiated Collective Voice about the same time you were appointed
the judge of what is normal...
On the actual topic of Heinlein rather than insults to Heinlein fans, I
think his Future History stories set the pattern for a lot of today's epic
novelists like Peter F Hamilton and Alistair Reynolds. I also have a soft
spot for his later novels, if only because I actually know an unfeasibly
beautiful, intelligent and multi-talented red-head who happens to be
married to one of my best friends.
Some of his very last books OTOH make me want to go and have a scrub...
Cat.
Bri Tze
> "Geoff Field" <geofffi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:49fcc377$0$7111$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> > Arthur Hagen wrote:
>
> >>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>
> >> For /at least/ three reasons.
>
> > You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
> > At least, they have in Australia.
>
> They haven't in the US, as far as I know.
>
> > OTOH, there *is* still an age limit.
>
> I was thinking about the three reasons in the shower a little while ago, and
> I thought "There's the obvious, and there's that other thing they REALLY
> wouldn't like, but what's the third?"
>
> And I finally remembered age was a factor.
>
> Now, perversely, I wonder if there are any other ways I could disqualify
> myself, short of death.
Lack of interest, perhaps? It was the reason I left the Boy Scouts 60
years ago.
William Black
"The Stainless Steel Cat" <catof...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:C623636F...@192.168.0.2...
> In article <gtiecf$gjd$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>>>
>>> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
>>
>>Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of anything
>>much?
>
> Dom was nomiated Collective Voice about the same time you were appointed
> the judge of what is normal...
I am entitled to my opinion, despite those here who seem to think I am not.
He is not entitled to promote himself...
> Some of his very last books OTOH make me want to go and have a scrub...
Is that the rather sordid incest or his unnatural desire to keep his heroes
alive even though the narrative symmetry of the novel says they should die?
Lesley Weston
> In article <gti17b$hg7$1...@news.motzarella.org>, William Black generously
> decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> The extreme right wing seems to have more of a catastrophe curve than a
>> 'compass'.
>
> If you unblinker yourself I think you might like to modify that
> statement to read:
>
> "All extremes seem to have more of a catastrophe curve than a
> 'compass'."
>
> Fundamentalism should be stressed on the last four syllables..
>
> Here in the UK at the moment we have a left wing Prime Mentalist..
>
bit. He seems to be clone of Blair so far, and Blair was Thatcher's
favourite child.
--
Lesley Weston
The addy above is real, but I won't see anything posted to it for a long
time. To reach me, use leswes att shaw dott ca, adjusting as necessary.
Lesley Weston
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Carol Hague" <ca...@wrhpv.com> wrote in message
>>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> From a Heinlein fan?
>>>>>
>>>>> As a general rule they're not that bright.
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone normal stopped reading them at about age 18...
>>>> I think you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you're the
>>>> arbiter of what "normal" is. Here's a clue - different people ike
>>>> different things, and the fact that you dislike something doesn't make
>>>> other people stupid for liking them.
>>> There's a shocking echo in this Newsgroup...
>> If, by that, you mean that several people have told you the same thing,
>> perhaps you might consider taking another look at your arguments.
>>
>> Naturally, more than one person telling you something doesn't guarantee
>> that they're right and you're wrong, but it usually indicates an
>> increase in the odds of that being the case.
>>
>> I doubt that you'll care, but you're currently teetering precariously on
>> the edge of my killfile. I don't give a monkey's if you think Heinlein
>> is a load of toss, but I don't like people who are unnecessarily rude,
>> especially to people I like and respect.
>
> Lack of any meaningful content noted
>
>
>
a good time.
Lesley Weston
> In article <gtiecf$gjd$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> "Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> William Black wrote:
>>>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>>> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
>> Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of anything
>> much?
>
> Dom was nomiated Collective Voice about the same time you were appointed
> the judge of what is normal...
>
> On the actual topic of Heinlein rather than insults to Heinlein fans, I
> think his Future History stories set the pattern for a lot of today's epic
> novelists like Peter F Hamilton and Alistair Reynolds.
Yes of course. He's very much a "without whom..." figure, whatever one's
opinion of his work. I like his writing - even his rather-clumsy first
novel, the origin of this discussion, has many redeeming features and I
read it through to the end. Even though the only 3-D character is the cat.
> I also have a soft
> spot for his later novels, if only because I actually know an unfeasibly
> beautiful, intelligent and multi-talented red-head who happens to be
> married to one of my best friends.
So did he. According to what I've read, that's a description of his
third and final wife, Virginia.
>
> Some of his very last books OTOH make me want to go and have a scrub...
I don't go that far; after all I subscribe to the idea that people
should organise their sex lives in whatever way all concerned choose.
But I agree that in his later novels the hard science, elegant writing
and fun get somewhat lost in the sexual fantasies bit.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>
> "The Stainless Steel Cat" <catof...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:C623636F...@192.168.0.2...
>> In article <gtiecf$gjd$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
>> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>"Dom" <dom...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:LB2Ll.23139$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> William Black wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you honestly think I care if you run away?
>>>>
>>>> Do you honestly think we care what you think?
>>>
>>>Who's this 'we' and since when are you the collective voice of
>>>anything much?
>>
>> Dom was nomiated Collective Voice about the same time you were
>> appointed the judge of what is normal...
>
> I am entitled to my opinion, despite those here who seem to think I
> am not.
I'd like the names of the people who think you're not entitled to an
opinion, because I think I missed that bit. I've noticed a few people who
disagree with your opinion, and a steadily increasing number of people
who may actually agree with your opinion, but disagree with your chosen
method of stating it.
Frankly I'm not entirely sure what anyone expects to gain from continuing
this discussion. The situation, as I see it, is as follows:
1. Several people think Mr Black is acting like a bit of a jerk.
2. Mr Black doesn't care what they think, and in fact, seems to be
deliberately emphasising the behaviour they're objecting to in his
replies to their objections, just to make the point[1].
3. This leads to more people thinking he's acting like a jerk.
4. And some stuff about Heinlein and politics, but that seems to have
fallen by the wayside.
Seriously, where can this go from here except a continuing spiral sucking
more people in?
[1] No-one does the "accusing people who kf of 'running away'" bit except
particularly obnoxious trolls, and people who are duplicating troll
behavior for reasons of their own.
--
Dave
"All those with psychokinesis, raise my hand."
The Room With No Doors, Kate Orman
Lesley Weston
> In article <1iz45fb.mtzhq8131qyulN%ca...@wrhpv.com>, ca...@wrhpv.com
> says...
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Lack of any meaningful content noted
>> I salute your incisive and witty rebuttal of my points. Who could fail
>> to be impressed by such masterful debating skills?
>>
>
> May I suggest any intelligent 18 year old? Actually scratch that, any
> intelligent 8 year old.
>
> It's not even as if it's a difficult argument to get across. Heinlein
> mostly wrote two types of books. Young adult sf which was of a very high
> standard. Adult fiction in which he mostly concentrated on exploring
> libertarian political ideas (and given his background mostly right wing
> libertarian ideas)
Not in this first novel, though. Those are very much left-wing ideas,
though I suppose one could say that they are so far to the left (much
further left than even the most extreme Communist ideal) that they've
come full circle and could be seen as right. Which might answer my own
question as to how such ideas could have morphed into those of the
ultra-right Socred party.
His views in this novel on America's place in the world do seem rather
odd, though. In 1938 he was obviously strongly opposed to the Nazis and
disgusted by their ideology, (and this is when no-one not involved in
them knew about the camps), yet he thought that America should not take
part in the coming war. Later, once his fictional Europe has reduced
itself to the Stone Age, America has no further dealings with them. The
other continents are simply not mentioned.
But I still don't see how "Give everybody without exception an adequate
State pension and don't require them to work for it" could be seen as
right-wing by anybody.
> and a number of his odd sexual "obsessions".
Yes, those are embarrassing. The corollary to "Whatever floats your
boat" is "But don't keep going /on/ about it".
> Many of
> us find the adult books uncomfortably self indulgent, and for those of us
> who disagree with his politics by nature that makes them unpleasant and
> pointless to read. If his prose style and characterisation were strong
> enough
I like his style, though not so much his characterisation.
> then they would be worth reading anyway. However they aren't, he
> has to stand and fall by his ideas and plots. Unless those appeal the
> novels seem worthless.
There's no reason why you or anybody else should read him if you don't
want to.
Dom
<snippage of Blackage>
> It's already been suggested that we stop feeding the troll. Now might be
> a good time.
Good idea, it's not even a very good troll. I reckon it's really a fake
made out of plaster.
--
Dom
Lesley Weston
> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>> For /at least/ three reasons.
>
> You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
> At least, they have in Australia.
And in Canada. It became a Charter issue, so the Guides amalgamated
with the Scouts. My grandson is a Cub Scout and so could his sister be,
but she is instead a Spark. Boys are also welcome in the Sparks, but the
uniform is pink and the emphasis, along with the usual stuff, is on
girls being able to do anything they choose. Their parents deliberately
chose the two organisations so that each child would have something that
is entirely his or her own, without having to share it with the other.
>
> OTOH, there *is* still an age limit.
But then you can become a Scoutmaster. Scoutmistress gives the wrong
impression, perhaps.
What's the third reason?
Lesley Weston
>
> "Geoff Field" <geoff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49fcc377$0$7111$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> Arthur Hagen wrote:
>>> Esmeraldus <muclu...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really eligible for the boy scouts,
>>>
>>> For /at least/ three reasons.
>>
>> You do know they've gone co-ed, don't you?
>> At least, they have in Australia.
>
>
>
> and I thought "There's the obvious, and there's that other thing they
> REALLY wouldn't like,
In Canada that would be a Charter issue too. We take these things seriously.
Alister
> His views in this novel on America's place in the world do seem
> rather odd, though. In 1938 he was obviously strongly opposed to the
> Nazis and disgusted by their ideology, (and this is when no-one not
> involved in them knew about the camps), yet he thought that America
> should not take part in the coming war. Later, once his fictional Europe
> has reduced itself to the Stone Age, America has no further dealings
> with them. The other continents are simply not mentioned.
>
I thought that this isolationist view was quite a common in the America
of the late 30's though?
Or is this just a misrepresentation from my (UK) upbringing.
Alister
William Black
> 4. And some stuff about Heinlein and politics, but that seems to have
> fallen by the wayside.
Which is a pity, but in this medium people seem to prefer to throw insults
than discuss politics.
Which is interesting in itself...
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
Gid Holyoake
Snippetry..
> Not what I would call left-wing, though I'm not disputing the Mentalist
> bit. He seems to be clone of Blair so far, and Blair was Thatcher's
> favourite child.
This is the problem.. Tony Blair was a right winger masquerading as a
left winger and mostly getting things right.. Drongo is a left winger
trying to masquerade as a right winger and mostly getting things
horrendously wrong..
--
Gid
Current Project: Bragdy'r Ddraenen Wen
(if it ever stops raining for long enough)
Daibhid Ceanaideach
>
> "Daibhid Ceanaideach" <daibhidc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C00B7B208EB0da...@130.133.1.4...
>
>> 4. And some stuff about Heinlein and politics, but that seems to have
>> fallen by the wayside.
>
> Which is a pity, but in this medium people seem to prefer to throw
> insults than discuss politics.
>
> Which is interesting in itself...
I've seen some fascinating discussions of politics in this group.
I've never seen one engendered by a claim that anyone who disagrees with
the poster's taste (or distaste) in fiction is mentally abnormal.
Nigel Stapley
> In article <gtkho8$g19$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston generously
> decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
>> Not what I would call left-wing, though I'm not disputing the Mentalist
>> bit. He seems to be clone of Blair so far, and Blair was Thatcher's
>> favourite child.
>
> This is the problem.. Tony Blair was a right winger masquerading as a
> left winger and mostly getting things right..
Iraq, Afghanistan, Database State, 'Faith' Schools, Wur On Trrr,
Mandelson (1) (x2), Blunkett (x2), Complicity in torture (2), etc., etc.
> Drongo is a left winger
> trying to masquerade as a right winger and mostly getting things
> horrendously wrong..
>
Brown *might* have been on the left before he got Career, but given that
he was Chancer for 9 years he would have had ample time to show if he
still was. Sucking up to the CBI, the IoD and other crank organisations
demonstrates that he certainly wasn't by that time.
He's merely a careerist who has been found out.
(1) Or as Philip Constable (http://www.thecurmudgeonly.blogspot.com)
calls him, "Lord Mandelbrot the Infinitely Recurring"
(2) See (inter alia)
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/04/nobody_can_hear.html
William Black
"Nigel Stapley" <un...@judgemental.plus.com> wrote in message
news:gLGdnX8FKPj-dGDU...@posted.plusnet...
> Gid Holyoake wrote:
>> In article <gtkho8$g19$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston generously decided
>> to share with us..
>>
>> Snippetry..
>>
>>> Not what I would call left-wing, though I'm not disputing the Mentalist
>>> bit. He seems to be clone of Blair so far, and Blair was Thatcher's
>>> favourite child.
>>
>> This is the problem.. Tony Blair was a right winger masquerading as a
>> left winger and mostly getting things right..
>
> Iraq, Afghanistan, Database State, 'Faith' Schools, Wur On Trrr, Mandelson
> (1) (x2), Blunkett (x2), Complicity in torture (2), etc., etc.
>
>> Drongo is a left winger trying to masquerade as a right winger and mostly
>> getting things horrendously wrong..
>>
>
> Brown *might* have been on the left before he got Career, but given that
> he was Chancer for 9 years he would have had ample time to show if he
> still was. Sucking up to the CBI, the IoD and other crank organisations
> demonstrates that he certainly wasn't by that time.
>
> He's merely a careerist who has been found out.
>
>
> (1) Or as Philip Constable (http://www.thecurmudgeonly.blogspot.com) calls
> him, "Lord Mandelbrot the Infinitely Recurring"
Mandleson's back because he wins elections.
The rest of it, including war (and remember, before 'New Labour' the
Labour Party's loud boast was that they'd never gone to war with anyone
while in power) was all discussed at great length in the left wing political
press.
I remember one article, written by the late Robin Cook I seem to recall,
that talked about 'military action being a nettle we may have to grasp'.
The one thing none of us can pretend is that they did anything they didn't
say they were going to do.
Their one great failure has been their inability to merge the Lib Dems
within the Labour Party, which was actually what the original 'New Labour
Project', designed by Mandleson and Campbell and Paddy Ashdown, was about.
If they'd got away with that then they'd have been in power for a generation
whatever happened...
John S. Wilkins
> In article <gtkho8$g19$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston generously
> decided to share with us..
>
> Snippetry..
>
> > Not what I would call left-wing, though I'm not disputing the Mentalist
> > bit. He seems to be clone of Blair so far, and Blair was Thatcher's
> > favourite child.
>
> This is the problem.. Tony Blair was a right winger masquerading as a
> left winger and mostly getting things right.. Drongo is a left winger
> trying to masquerade as a right winger and mostly getting things
> horrendously wrong..
Getting things right as in "Let's invade Iraq and let the Taliban have
an untramelled resurgence in Afghanistan, comnpounding the problem we
had in the first place because George Bush says so"?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
William Black
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1iz6gh3.1w54l8f16whlf2N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> Getting things right as in "Let's invade Iraq and let the Taliban have
> an untramelled resurgence in Afghanistan, comnpounding the problem we
> had in the first place because George Bush says so"?
British governments are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the
more lunatic military adventures of the United States.
If they go along they get bad publicity and dead soldiers, usually to no
very good purpose.
If they don't then the USA threatens to withdraw intelligence cooperation,
which is what is usually thought to be what allows the UK to 'punch above
its weight' in international matters.
To balance things needs someone with the political ability of Harold Wilson
at the height of his powers, as he showed over Vietnam...
Tony Blair always was a man of enthusiasms rather than a wily political
animal...
John S. Wilkins
> "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> news:1iz6gh3.1w54l8f16whlf2N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>
> > Getting things right as in "Let's invade Iraq and let the Taliban have
> > an untramelled resurgence in Afghanistan, comnpounding the problem we
> > had in the first place because George Bush says so"?
>
> British governments are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the
> more lunatic military adventures of the United States.
>
> If they go along they get bad publicity and dead soldiers, usually to no
> very good purpose.
>
> If they don't then the USA threatens to withdraw intelligence cooperation,
> which is what is usually thought to be what allows the UK to 'punch above
> its weight' in international matters.
>
> To balance things needs someone with the political ability of Harold Wilson
> at the height of his powers, as he showed over Vietnam...
>
> Tony Blair always was a man of enthusiasms rather than a wily political
> animal...
How much worse is it for Australia? We have no leverage apart from moral
persuasion with the US, and so we go to every war they have (except
Grenada) since 1914, sometimes as their only English-speaking allies for
a short while. We just recently increased the number of troops we send
to Afghanistan (although that is, I think, a proper decision). This
means we can buy the Joint Strike Fighter thingy, which won't work well.
Hoorah for Australia.
There are days I think we should just import Russian military hardware.
Arthur Hagen
Gid Holyoake
Wilkins generously decided to share with us..
>
> Gid Holyoake <ab...@brynamman.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <gtkho8$g19$1...@mud.stack.nl>, Lesley Weston generously
> > decided to share with us..
> >
> > Snippetry..
> >
> > > Not what I would call left-wing, though I'm not disputing the Mentalist
> > > bit. He seems to be clone of Blair so far, and Blair was Thatcher's
> > > favourite child.
> >
> > This is the problem.. Tony Blair was a right winger masquerading as a
> > left winger and mostly getting things right.. Drongo is a left winger
> > trying to masquerade as a right winger and mostly getting things
> > horrendously wrong..
>
> Getting things right as in "Let's invade Iraq and let the Taliban have
> an untramelled resurgence in Afghanistan, comnpounding the problem we
> had in the first place because George Bush says so"?
I did say "mostly" if you'd care to look..
The Stainless Steel Cat
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
>news:1iz6gh3.1w54l8f16whlf2N%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>
>> Getting things right as in "Let's invade Iraq and let the Taliban have
>> an untramelled resurgence in Afghanistan, comnpounding the problem we
>> had in the first place because George Bush says so"?
>
>British governments are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the
>more lunatic military adventures of the United States.
>
>If they go along they get bad publicity and dead soldiers, usually to no
>very good purpose.
>
>If they don't then the USA threatens to withdraw intelligence cooperation,
>which is what is usually thought to be what allows the UK to 'punch above
>its weight' in international matters.
Just a thought... Why do we need (or want) to "punch above our weight in
interntional matters"?
Is it just prestige? Because I'd rather the country was thought of as a
little has-been nation of shopkeepers or whatever, and still had alive
however many soldiers have been killed in the last few years. We could do
quite a lot with the money we currently pay the USA to hire our nuclear
weapons too.
Cat.
Daibhid Ceanaideach
The idea of a "National Stupidity Deficit" in Jasper Fforde's "First
Amongst Sequels" was, I believe, inspired by Fforde's perception that the
Labour Government had done a number of profoundly sensible things ... and
then had to do something *really* stupid to balance things out.
David Chapman
> The problem here is that theya re talking to me.
You appear to have confused "some people" with "all people".
Now, it's been a while since we last had a troll, but if I remember Chapter
4 of the Troll Handbook correctly, this is where you start gloating about
how the people killfiling you are "dancing to your tune" in a grotesque
overestimation of your inherent worth (which, for the record, is slightly
lower than that of the constituent chemicals of your body). Frantic
masturbation is optional. Have fun.
David Chapman
"Lesley Weston" <brightly_co...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gtkij7$glq$1...@mud.stack.nl...
> I subscribe to the idea that people should organise their sex lives in
> whatever way all concerned choose.
I've always had a problem organising my sex life. Do you prefer to do it
alphabetically, or is the Dewey Decimal system more accessible?
Nigel Stapley
OK, on top of what I said in an earlier post, how about:
handing over billions of pounds of public money to 'management
consultants' to 'modernise' our public services (with no effect other
than to cut front-line staff numbers and demoralise and infantilise
those who are left);
creating cadre upon cadre of box-ticking managers in those same
services, whose only purpose is to micro-manage everything down to the
paper-clip level, using MBA-bollocks-speak that they learned,
parrot-fashion from a PowerPoint(TM) presentation given by those same
'management consultant' voodooists;
PFI, PPP and all the other 'partnership' garp which means handing over
*even more* of our tax money to private corporations to guarantee their
profits for between 10 and 50 years;
concomitantly, doing sod all to stop those corporations from exporting
their profits to tax-dodge paradises (1);
the deliberate creation of fear and panic in order to induce the
population to accept ever-more draconian interference in the minutiae of
their lives;
allowing the police and petty officials down to town council level
deliberately to misuse 'anti-terror' legislation for purposes the
government insisted it would not be used;
the creation of thousands of new criminal offences in the rush to make
it look to the tabloid-admass as if they are 'doing something', but
which are intended to discourage dissenting activity;
the politicisation of the upper reaches of the civil service by the
importation of 'special advisors' (i.e. hired liars) and senior
executives bussed in from such knowledgeable companies as British Gas
and O2;
the Tax Credits fiasco, which replaced a comparatively straightforward
system of allowances with an expensive, bureaucratic nightmare...
And so on and so on. Even the few measures the Blairites did sort-of get
right have gone off at half-cock: a minimum wage set so low that people
can't live on it without claiming Tax Credits (q.v.); and a devolution
settlement which was designed to placate national sentiment in Wales and
Scotland by giving them something which *looked* like a parliament but
wasn't one, underpinned by an electoral system which was intended to
*look* fairer than outright FPTP, but was in fact skewed so far in
favour of the FPTP constituency votes as to give (in theory) the Labour
party permanent control (admittedly, this hasn't quite worked in the
last couple of years, but that's only because Labour has become so
deeply unpopular that not even a twisted form of PR could save them).
So, Gid, you were saying? And I thought you were an Anchovist?
(1) example: Mapeley, the company which effectively owns all of Revenue
& Customs' buildings, is based in Bermuda