Prometheus Award
Keith Lynch
MacLeod for The Stone Canal.
The Prometheus Hall of Fame award goes to Robert Heinlein for Time
Enough for Love.
--
Keith F. Lynch -- k...@clark.net -- http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Ken MacLeod
<k...@clark.net> writes
>The Prometheus Award was awarded, about a half hour ago, to Ken
>MacLeod for The Stone Canal.
>
Yee-hah!
Thank you, to all concerned.
--
Ken MacLeod 'In the Beginning all the World was America ...'
John Locke, _Second Treatise of Government_
Tim Starr
Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6qdc5c$b61$1...@callisto.clark.net>, Keith Lynch
><k...@clark.net> writes
>
>>The Prometheus Award was awarded, about a half hour ago, to Ken
>>MacLeod for The Stone Canal.
>>
>
>Yee-hah!
>
>Thank you, to all concerned.
Congrats, Ken! Now, maybe we can get the damn thing published over here.
--
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Gary Farber
: The Prometheus Award was awarded, about a half hour ago, to Ken
: MacLeod for The Stone Canal.
: The Prometheus Hall of Fame award goes to Robert Heinlein for Time
: Enough for Love.
And the Daily FreFanzine was the funniest newsletter of the con.
Possibly not always intentionally, of course.
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Brad Templeton
Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <6qdc5c$b61$1...@callisto.clark.net>, Keith Lynch
><k...@clark.net> writes
>
>>MacLeod for The Stone Canal.
>>
>
>
>Thank you, to all concerned.
I understand why you're pleased, but realize this puts you in the company
of other "winners" such as the "great" novel _Fallen Angels_.
In general, I think one should avoid giving awards that are too highly
specialized. For an award to be worthy, it really should be "an honour just
to be nominated." And that's certainly not true for a number of awards,
including the Prometheus. If any decent effort can be nominated, it is
not an honour to be nominated. If bad works can win (because generally
the 'no award' system, where it exists, has failed) the award becomes
meaningless.
(This is no comment on The Stone Canal, which I have not read.)
--
Brad Templeton http://www.templetons.com/brad/
Lizard
>In article <zBtg$KAy5C...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>,
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <6qdc5c$b61$1...@callisto.clark.net>, Keith Lynch
>><k...@clark.net> writes
>>
>>>The Prometheus Award was awarded, about a half hour ago, to Ken
>>>MacLeod for The Stone Canal.
>>>
>>
>>Yee-hah!
>>
>>Thank you, to all concerned.
>
>I understand why you're pleased, but realize this puts you in the company
>of other "winners" such as the "great" novel _Fallen Angels_.
>
What was wrong with FA? It was sociopolitical satire mixed with a lot
of fannish 'in jokes';it was not meant to be taken literally or as an
example of 'hard' SF.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Ken MacLeod
<b...@templetons.com> writes
>In article <zBtg$KAy5C...@libertaria.demon.co.uk>,
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <6qdc5c$b61$1...@callisto.clark.net>, Keith Lynch
>><k...@clark.net> writes
>>
>>>The Prometheus Award was awarded, about a half hour ago, to Ken
>>>MacLeod for The Stone Canal.
>>>
>>
>>Yee-hah!
>>
>>Thank you, to all concerned.
>
>I understand why you're pleased, but realize this puts you in the company
>of other "winners" such as the "great" novel _Fallen Angels_.
>
I thoroughly enjoyed _Fallen Angels_, and am happy to be in its company.
>In general, I think one should avoid giving awards that are too highly
>specialized. For an award to be worthy, it really should be "an honour just
>to be nominated." And that's certainly not true for a number of awards,
>including the Prometheus. If any decent effort can be nominated, it is
>not an honour to be nominated. If bad works can win (because generally
>the 'no award' system, where it exists, has failed) the award becomes
>meaningless.
>
>(This is no comment on The Stone Canal, which I have not read.)
As far as I'm concerned, it *is* 'an honour just to be nominated' for
the Prometheus.
--
Ken MacLeod
Keith A. Glass
> >I understand why you're pleased, but realize this puts you in the company
> >of other "winners" such as the "great" novel _Fallen Angels_.
> What was wrong with FA? It was sociopolitical satire mixed with a lot
> of fannish 'in jokes';it was not meant to be taken literally or as an
> example of 'hard' SF.
Indeed. Since when did SF HAVE to be hard to get an award. . . .
Andrew Plotkin
I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
lecture on tilting at straw men. Which leaves in-jokes, which weren't
funny either.
For comparison, I have an abiding fondness for _The Flying Sorcerers_.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
James Nicoll
Yes, but that was before the Brain-Eater got to so many of
the folks who wrote SF in the '60s and '70s. If Laumer, Anderson,
Pournelle, Niven, Gerrold, Clarke and Heinlein had all stopped
writing in 1980, their best works would still already have been
behind them. I blame Reagan.
--
James Nicoll
Brad Templeton <b...@templetons.com> wrote:
>
>(This is no comment on The Stone Canal, which I have not read.)
It kicks ass. One of the very few books to get pass my current
reader's block. *Not* the usual recycled shit that stocks SF shelves
these days.
Aside from abandoning fiction altogether, anyone know what to
do about reader's block?
--
Cally Soukup
read)
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Keith A. Glass (sal...@huskynet.com) wrote:
> > Lizard wrote:
> >
> > > On 12 Aug 1998 02:51:33 GMT, b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote:
> > > >I understand why you're pleased, but realize this puts you in
> > > >the company of other "winners" such as the "great" novel
> > > >_Fallen Angels_.
> > > What was wrong with FA? It was sociopolitical satire mixed with a lot
> > > of fannish 'in jokes';it was not meant to be taken literally or as an
> > > example of 'hard' SF.
> > Indeed. Since when did SF HAVE to be hard to get an award. . . .
> I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
> satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
> lecture on tilting at straw men. Which leaves in-jokes, which weren't
> funny either.
I especially liked the scene where someone breaks the ice off the
water that has frozen at 50 degrees Fahrenheit. And the fact that
important parts of the book take place in Minneapolis and Chicago,
both of which have large and thriving fannish communities, yet the
only recognizable fans were from LA and (I seem to remember) New
York. The fact that the Museum of Science and Industry was rendered
as the Museum of Science and Technology is something I would have
been inclined to overlook in the absence of all the other egregious
problems with the novel. (This isn't as trifling a detail as it
sounds -- the MoSaI is the top tourist attraction in Chicago, if
memory serves. It's hardly obscure.)
> For comparison, I have an abiding fondness for _The Flying Sorcerers_.
As do I.
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup ma...@mcs.com
Lawrence Person
Templeton) wrote:
> If bad works can win (because generally
> the 'no award' system, where it exists, has failed) the award becomes
> meaningless.
>
Well, there go the Hugos, the Nebulas, the Oscars, the Pulitzers, abd just
about any other award you can name...
--
- Lawrence Person
lawr...@bga.com
Visit the Nova Express Web Site at:
http://www.delphi.com/sflit/novaexpress/
"Crucifixion Variations" in the May 1998 Asimov's
Lame Excuse Books Catalog #3 Now Available!
Gary Farber
James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
: In article <6qqvvl$o...@fugue.clari.net>,
Read other stuff for a while, whatever interests you; don't fight it.
When you feel like it, read a bunch of sf reviews. When a book finally
sounds interesting, eventually give it a try. Keep reading other stuff so
long as it's what you feel like reading. Don't worry about it.
James Nicoll
Gary Farber <gfa...@panix2.panix.com> wrote:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom <90293362...@watserv4.uwaterloo.ca>
>James Nicoll <jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>: In article <6qqvvl$o...@fugue.clari.net>,
>: Brad Templeton <b...@templetons.com> wrote:
>:>
>:>(This is no comment on The Stone Canal, which I have not read.)
>:>--
>
>: It kicks ass. One of the very few books to get pass my current
>: reader's block. *Not* the usual recycled shit that stocks SF shelves
>: these days.
>
>: Aside from abandoning fiction altogether, anyone know what to
>: do about reader's block?
>
>Read other stuff for a while, whatever interests you; don't fight it.
>When you feel like it, read a bunch of sf reviews. When a book finally
>sounds interesting, eventually give it a try. Keep reading other stuff so
>long as it's what you feel like reading. Don't worry about it.
Yeah but this is like year ten. Used to be I could read two or
three books a day. Now one or two a week is the max.
Nonfic is great but the *supply* of nonfic isn't. Neither
is the price: there's a UoArizona space collection series that runs
C$100.00+ per book and there are *lots* of books in the series.
Editor Gerhels, I believe. Highly recommended for folks who
are as interested in the reality of space as well as the fiction.
You know what would be cool? An SF author who wrote about fictional
worlds the way John McFee writes about the real one. *Not* Robinson: if
I want infantile politics mixed with faux science and the Hundred Dullest
Layabouts in the System, I'll beat myself about the head with a poker and
write it myself.
--
Brad Templeton
Lawrence Person <lawr...@bga.com> wrote:
>In article <6qqvvl$o...@fugue.clari.net>, b...@templetons.com (Brad
>Templeton) wrote:
>
>> If bad works can win (because generally
>> the 'no award' system, where it exists, has failed) the award becomes
>> meaningless.
>>
>Well, there go the Hugos, the Nebulas, the Oscars, the Pulitzers, abd just
>about any other award you can name...
Perhaps. But you may be mistaking disagreement with the choice of the voters
on the right vote vs. the ability for truly dreadful works to win because
the category is weak.
Call it hubris, perhaps, but I think I can tell the difference between
actually bad writing and writing that is not to my taste. While of course
there are people who liked Fallen Angels -- obviously a work will not get
published unless at least some people like it -- it seems to be commonly
felt, even among those at whom the in-jokes are aimed, to be bad writing.
Indeed, I saw Niven and Pournelle, when accepting their Prometheus award,
seem to go out of their way to give the "credit" to Michael Flynn.
So while the commercial, and the formulaic may win Oscars or Hugos, and the
academically correct may win Pulitzers it's rare for these awards to
recognize true trash.
On the other hand the smaller awards like the Tiptree and the Prometheus
run the risk that, because they draw from a small pool, they will nominate
and give the award to works that many will find not simply lacking in
excellence, but actually difficult to finish. And that diminishes the
award.
Phil Fraering
> As far as I'm concerned, it *is* 'an honour just to be nominated' for
> the Prometheus.
> --
> Ken MacLeod
I haven't read your books, although I'll try to keep an eye out for them
if they're ever published here, but could part of the reason for the
awards be a sense of humor on the part of those giving the award?
I mean, I've heard them described as "Libertarianism meets Trotskyism."
I don't know how accurate that is.
(Then again, they might have more in common than many people think,
in an age where anti-ideological pragmatism reigns virtually --
and dangerously -- unquestioned).
--
Phil Fraering "THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM! But there probably
p...@globalreach.net will be."
/Will work for *tape*/
aRJay
>In article <6qqvvl$o...@fugue.clari.net>,
>Brad Templeton <b...@templetons.com> wrote:
>>
>>(This is no comment on The Stone Canal, which I have not read.)
>>--
>
> It kicks ass. One of the very few books to get pass my current
>reader's block. *Not* the usual recycled shit that stocks SF shelves
>these days.
>
> Aside from abandoning fiction altogether, anyone know what to
>do about reader's block?
My readers block was stopping me from reading books new to me (I could
still reread favourites) this has been largely cured since this years
eye test. I now (for the first time) wear glasses for reading. I think
the block was due to any reading being hard work so why work hard just
dig out an old favourite.
--
aRJay
Lizard
wrote:
>I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
>satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
>lecture on tilting at straw men. Which leaves in-jokes, which weren't
>funny either.
In a world in which Rifkin and Erlich are sought out by allegedly
respectable news media and asked to give comments on environmental
issues, there are no straw men left. There is no position so outre
that it will not be eagerly embraced, no characterization so broad
that it becomes mere caricature. (Witness the Earth First!er who has
lived for the past few hundreds days on top of a tree to protest
logging or some such). On the opposing side, it's been 15 years since
James Watt and his "Jesus is coming soon, so cut down the trees while
you can!" idiocy, and no one (to my knowledge) has taken his place.
Dan Goodman
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:28:31 GMT, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
>wrote:
>
>>I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
>>satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
>>lecture on tilting at straw men. Which leaves in-jokes, which weren't
>>funny either.
>
>In a world in which Rifkin and Erlich are sought out by allegedly
>respectable news media and asked to give comments on environmental
>issues, there are no straw men left. There is no position so outre
>that it will not be eagerly embraced, no characterization so broad
>that it becomes mere caricature. (Witness the Earth First!er who has
>lived for the past few hundreds days on top of a tree to protest
>logging or some such). On the opposing side, it's been 15 years since
>James Watt and his "Jesus is coming soon, so cut down the trees while
>you can!" idiocy, and no one (to my knowledge) has taken his place.
Nobody of his prominence, no. But read some of the letters in forestry
magazines.
Not to mention the piece in a LaRouchite publication which explained that
environmentalists are evil because: 1) if you say the environment is
sacred, you're obviously worshipping a nature goddess; and 2) therefore,
you are prepared to make human sacrifices to that goddess.
The environmental debate is not carried on with as much courtesy and
respect for opponents as the abortion debate.
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Paul Connelly
jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> Aside from abandoning fiction altogether, anyone know what to
> do about reader's block?
Don't know if this will help, but Patrick O'Brian's
Aubrey-Maturin books and Len Deighton's Bernie Samson
books are the only books that i will stay up all night
to finish even on the second or third _re-reading_!
- paul
Ed Dravecky III
> b...@templetons.com (Brad Templeton) wrote:
> > If bad works can win (because generally the 'no award' system,
> > where it exists, has failed) the award becomes meaningless.
>
> Well, there go the Hugos, the Nebulas, the Oscars, the Pulitzers,
Yeah, the "Nobel Prize for Physics" would be a *lot* more
meaningful if only they'd fail to award it every so often.
(The 'no award' system seems to have "failed" after 1942.)
And who'd want to be in the same category with people like
Richard P. Feynman or Wolfgang Pauli or Enrico Fermi or Erwin
(Erwin!) Schrodinger or Albert Einstein? And don't get me
started on the reckless Marie Curie!
--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2727/
Ken MacLeod
<p...@globalreach.net> writes
>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> As far as I'm concerned, it *is* 'an honour just to be nominated' for
>> the Prometheus.
>> --
>> Ken MacLeod
>
>I haven't read your books, although I'll try to keep an eye out for them
>if they're ever published here, but could part of the reason for the
>awards be a sense of humor on the part of those giving the award?
>
Well, the LFS judges, and many libertarian readers, have been very
enthusiastic about these two books. They didn't just give them the
awards for a laugh.
_The Star Fraction_ is now available in the US from Laissez-Faire
Books.
>I mean, I've heard them described as "Libertarianism meets Trotskyism."
>I don't know how accurate that is.
>
They take both libertarianism and socialism seriously, without (I hope)
being propaganda for either.
--
Ken MacLeod
Keith A. Glass
>
> In article <35d5489d...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:28:31 GMT, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
> >wrote:
> >
> >>I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
> >>satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
> >>lecture on tilting at straw men. Which leaves in-jokes, which weren't
> >>funny either.
> >
> >In a world in which Rifkin and Erlich are sought out by allegedly
> >respectable news media and asked to give comments on environmental
> >issues, there are no straw men left. There is no position so outre
> >that it will not be eagerly embraced, no characterization so broad
> >that it becomes mere caricature. (Witness the Earth First!er who has
> >lived for the past few hundreds days on top of a tree to protest
> >logging or some such). On the opposing side, it's been 15 years since
> >James Watt and his "Jesus is coming soon, so cut down the trees while
> >you can!" idiocy, and no one (to my knowledge) has taken his place.
>
> Nobody of his prominence, no. But read some of the letters in forestry
> magazines.
Why not quote some to us. And more importantly, since when did
lettercol
stuff control debates ???
> Not to mention the piece in a LaRouchite publication which explained that
> environmentalists are evil because: 1) if you say the environment is
> sacred, you're obviously worshipping a nature goddess; and 2) therefore,
> you are prepared to make human sacrifices to that goddess.
That assumes LaRouche and company are even somewhere NEAR the
mainstream.
From what I've seen, Alpha Centauri is closer to the mainstream than
LaRouche and Co. . . (and I live and work fairly close to their
"Compound"
in Northern Virginia. . . )
> The environmental debate is not carried on with as much courtesy and
> respect for opponents as the abortion debate.
To an extent: bombing and sabotage of abortion clinics is relatively
rare:
I've heard spiking and monkey-wrenching is proportionally more common...
Evelyn C. Leeper
Brad Templeton <b...@templetons.com> wrote:
> On the other hand the smaller awards like the Tiptree and the Prometheus
> run the risk that, because they draw from a small pool, they will nominate
> and give the award to works that many will find not simply lacking in
> excellence, but actually difficult to finish. And that diminishes the
> award.
Nitpicky question: Do you mean that diminishes the award (even before
it happens) or that it would diminish the award if it did happen?
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
All work and no play makes Jack a valued employee.
David E Romm
(Lizard) wrote:
> What was wrong with FA? It was sociopolitical satire mixed with a lot
> of fannish 'in jokes';it was not meant to be taken literally or as an
> example of 'hard' SF.
Aside from the idiotic politics, they put a Worldcon in Mpls which didn't
have any Mpls fans attending...
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
Flashback! web site http://www.visi.com/~romm/flash.html
Evelyn C. Leeper
David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
> In article <35d41054...@enews.newsguy.com>, liz...@mrlizard.com
> (Lizard) wrote:
>
> > What was wrong with FA? It was sociopolitical satire mixed with a lot
> > of fannish 'in jokes';it was not meant to be taken literally or as an
> > example of 'hard' SF.
>
> Aside from the idiotic politics, they put a Worldcon in Mpls which didn't
> have any Mpls fans attending...
You mean like Cancun might have?
Steve Brinich
> I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
> satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
> lecture on tilting at straw men.
In a world where loonie-tunes like Jeremy Rifkin are treated as if they
were actually deserving of intellectual respect, you *have* to be as
relentless as _Fallen Angels_ in order to distinguish your satire from simple
news reporting.
--
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
R. Byers
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> They take both libertarianism and socialism seriously, without (I hope)
> being propaganda for either.
Your ability to portray the the contradictions and strengths of
both ideologies (and their partisans) is one of the most powerful features
of your books. I've never found libertarians (or Trotskyists, for that
matter, although there seem to be fewer of them to find) so endearing as I
do in your stories. You make them almost human! [Insert emoticon.]
You're a bit hard on AI's, though, don't you think? Not to
mention the savage Greens.
Congratulations on the Prometheus, BTW, and here's hoping that two
of them will get you a US publisher.
(I thought about writing a review of THE CASSINI DIVISION that
started, "Somebody give this man a contract!" I mean, where's the damned
market when you need it?)
--
Randy Byers
rby...@u.washington.edu
Keith A. Glass
>
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> > I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
> > satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
> > lecture on tilting at straw men.
>
> In a world where loonie-tunes like Jeremy Rifkin are treated as if they
> were actually deserving of intellectual respect, you *have* to be as
> relentless as _Fallen Angels_ in order to distinguish your satire from simple
> news reporting.
This is Dan Randall, and the CBS Evening News. . . .
Gary Farber
Keith A. Glass <sal...@huskynet.com> wrote:
[. . .]
: To an extent: bombing and sabotage of abortion clinics is relatively
: rare:
: I've heard spiking and monkey-wrenching is proportionally more common...
You've "heard"? Please give us a reliable stat on number of people hurt
in 1997 in North America by spiking. Compare that number to number of
people injured in bombings and sabotage of abortion clinics.
C A Williams
> I mean, where's the damned
> market when you need it?)
You could try rationally and democratically planning the economy, on a
basis of workers' control...
Sorry - I couldn't resist that one. Let's hope that the evil imperialist
capitalist system finds Ken a US publisher soon - it has to be good for
something.
Chris
Keith A. Glass
> In rec.arts.sf.fandom <35D2DC...@huskynet.com>
> Keith A. Glass <sal...@huskynet.com> wrote:
> [. . .]
> : To an extent: bombing and sabotage of abortion clinics is relatively
> : rare:
> : I've heard spiking and monkey-wrenching is proportionally more common...
> You've "heard"? Please give us a reliable stat on number of people hurt
> in 1997 in North America by spiking. Compare that number to number of
> people injured in bombings and sabotage of abortion clinics.
I didn't mention people injured. I said that, proportionally, spiking
and
other forms of monkey-wrenching are more common than abortion clinic
bombings and sabotage. My evidence is purely anecdotal, from times
spent living in Maine and the Pacific Northwest: I heard of a LOT more
spiking and sabotage of lumber operations than of bombing/sabotage of
abortion clinics.
My point ? Not really sure, just that zealots tend to not care about
the
welfare of their opponents, and the easier it is not to be traceable,
the
more likely it is that a given sabotage will occur. . .
Lizard
>Not to mention the piece in a LaRouchite publication which explained that
>environmentalists are evil because: 1) if you say the environment is
>sacred, you're obviously worshipping a nature goddess; and 2) therefore,
>you are prepared to make human sacrifices to that goddess.
My point is, the LaRoachies are not called as 'experts' on the evening
news;their books are not displayed prominently at Barnes&Nobel, nor
are they interviewed in Time and Newsweek. The "lunatic fringe" of the
environmental movement parodied in FA is, in fact, the mainstream.
Overall, the "Weekly World News" has had more accurate predictions
than Erlich, but this has not discredited him in the least. There is
something *wrong* with that.
Tim Starr
Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <87btppo...@globalreach.net>, Phil Fraering
><p...@globalreach.net> writes
>>Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, it *is* 'an honour just to be nominated' for
>>> the Prometheus.
>>> --
>>> Ken MacLeod
>>
>>I haven't read your books, although I'll try to keep an eye out for them
>>if they're ever published here, but could part of the reason for the
>>awards be a sense of humor on the part of those giving the award?
>>
>
>Well, the LFS judges, and many libertarian readers, have been very
>enthusiastic about these two books. They didn't just give them the
>awards for a laugh.
>
>_The Star Fraction_ is now available in the US from Laissez-Faire
>Books.
And everybody should buy it & read it, not only because it's a great book,
but also because it's got some really cool people in the Acknowledgements. :-)
--
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Gary Farber
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 02:59:15 GMT, dsg...@visi.com (Dan Goodman) wrote:
:>Not to mention the piece in a LaRouchite publication which explained that
:>environmentalists are evil because: 1) if you say the environment is
:>sacred, you're obviously worshipping a nature goddess; and 2) therefore,
:>you are prepared to make human sacrifices to that goddess.
: My point is, the LaRoachies are not called as 'experts' on the evening
: news;their books are not displayed prominently at Barnes&Nobel, nor
: are they interviewed in Time and Newsweek. The "lunatic fringe" of the
: environmental movement parodied in FA is, in fact, the mainstream.
This turns out not to be the case.
[. . . .]
David G. Bell
ste...@access.digex.net "Steve Brinich" writes:
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>
> > I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
> > satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
> > lecture on tilting at straw men.
>
> In a world where loonie-tunes like Jeremy Rifkin are treated as if they
> were actually deserving of intellectual respect, you *have* to be as
> relentless as _Fallen Angels_ in order to distinguish your satire from simple
> news reporting.
_Fallen Angels_ puts me in mind of a lot of older SF, of all sorts.
Mack Reynolds and L. Neil Smith write with some similarities. But the
most obvious weakness is that this feels like a stretched novella.
Never mind the odd distribution of fans, and the other flaws. I suggest
that these faults would have passed without comment in the shorter,
faster-paced, less character-driven, format of an adventure novella.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Lizard
<C.A.Wi...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>You could try rationally and democratically planning the economy, on a
>basis of workers' control...
As applied to art, then, we would have every painter employed
producing Elvis on black velvet, and every writer employed scripting
"Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Friends".
John Lorentz
<dsheldonE...@netcom.com>...
> And who'd want to be in the same category with people like
> Richard P. Feynman or Wolfgang Pauli or Enrico Fermi or Erwin
> (Erwin!) Schrodinger or Albert Einstein? And don't get me
> started on the reckless Marie Curie!
>
Don't forget Hendrik Antoon Lorentz...
--
John
Gary Farber
: Ed Dravecky III <dshe...@netcom.com> wrote in article
Did he know some guy named "Fitzgerald"?
I always liked their contractions.
Paul Clarke
wrote:
[snip]
>
> You know what would be cool? An SF author who wrote about fictional
>worlds the way John McFee writes about the real one. *Not* Robinson: if
>I want infantile politics mixed with faux science and the Hundred Dullest
>Layabouts in the System, I'll beat myself about the head with a poker and
>write it myself.
Who is John McFree and (more importantly!) what has he written?
(Sorry, I don't have any helpful suggestions on the reader's block.)
Phil Fraering
> In article <87btppo...@globalreach.net>, Phil Fraering
> <p...@globalreach.net> writes
> >Ken MacLeod <k...@libertaria.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >> As far as I'm concerned, it *is* 'an honour just to be nominated' for
> >> the Prometheus.
> >> --
> >> Ken MacLeod
> >
> >I haven't read your books, although I'll try to keep an eye out for them
> >if they're ever published here, but could part of the reason for the
> >awards be a sense of humor on the part of those giving the award?
> >
>
> Well, the LFS judges, and many libertarian readers, have been very
> enthusiastic about these two books. They didn't just give them the
> awards for a laugh.
Well, I'll take your word for it, until I can get my hands on one, then;
I want to assure you, however, that I didn't mean it negatively.
Gareth Wilson
>
> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:38:28 +0100, C A Williams
> <C.A.Wi...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >You could try rationally and democratically planning the economy, on a
> >basis of workers' control...
>
> As applied to art, then, we would have every painter employed
> producing Elvis on black velvet, and every writer employed scripting
> "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Friends".
We're making amazing progress towards that goal...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gareth Wilson
Christchurch
New Zealand
e-mail gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Brinich
>Lizard wrote:
>> My point is, the LaRoachies are not called as 'experts' on the evening
>> news;their books are not displayed prominently at Barnes&Nobel, nor
>> are they interviewed in Time and Newsweek. The "lunatic fringe" of the
>> environmental movement parodied in FA is, in fact, the mainstream.
>
> This turns out not to be the case.
Ah, yes, the WASP version of "yo' mama". I suppose that this comment is
intended to close the thread as an irrefutable rebuttal of all that has gone
before.
The bottom line remains: when you have characters like Paul Ehrlich, Jeremy
Rifkin, etc. treated as legitimate experts by the mainstream media, the satire
of _Fallen Angels_ is not excessively heavy-handed, but rather is necessary in
order to *be* satire rather than documentary.
Steve Brinich
>C A Williams wrote:
>
>> You could try rationally and democratically planning the economy, on a
>> basis of workers' control...
>
> As applied to art, then, we would have every painter employed
> producing Elvis on black velvet, and every writer employed scripting
> "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Friends".
Ah, but would production quotas be assessed by weight (in which case the
Elvii would be produced on quilts) or by number (in which case the Elvii
would be produced on elbow patches).
P Nielsen Hayden
>On 12 Aug 1998 19:24:35 GMT, jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll)
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>
>> You know what would be cool? An SF author who wrote about fictional
>>worlds the way John McFee writes about the real one. *Not* Robinson: if
>>I want infantile politics mixed with faux science and the Hundred Dullest
>>Layabouts in the System, I'll beat myself about the head with a poker and
>>write it myself.
>
>Who is John McFree and (more importantly!) what has he written?
I suspect he means John McPhee, author of ORANGES, THE DELTOID PUMPKIN SEED,
COMING INTO THE COUNTRY, LEVELS OF THE GAME, BASIN AND RANGE, and many other
book-length essays on a notably wide variety of subjects.
--
Patrick Nielsen Hayden : p...@panix.com : http://www.panix.com/~pnh
Loren Joseph MacGregor
And, actually, I have a project on the back burner in which a woman
doctoral candidate saves a shipload of castaways through the survival
knowledge she's gleaned from John McPhee books.
But I still want to read either John McFee or John McFree.
-- LJM
Ed Dravecky III
> And, actually, I have a project on the back burner in which a woman
> doctoral candidate saves a shipload of castaways through the survival
> knowledge she's gleaned from John McPhee books.
If they were originally on a "three-hour tour", you're in trouble.
--
Ed Dravecky III <*>
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/2727/
Joel Rosenberg
>Loren Joseph MacGregor (lmac...@efn.org) wrote:
>> And, actually, I have a project on the back burner in which a woman
>> doctoral candidate saves a shipload of castaways through the survival
>> knowledge she's gleaned from John McPhee books.
>
>If they were originally on a "three-hour tour", you're in trouble.
>
its making me drool.
Alan Furman
Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 13:28:31 GMT, erky...@netcom.com (Andrew Plotkin)
>wrote:
>
>>I have a personal preference that satirical SF only get awards if the
>>satire is funny. _Fallen Angels_ struck me as a a particularly relentless
>>lecture on tilting at straw men. Which leaves in-jokes, which weren't
>>funny either.
>
>In a world in which Rifkin and Erlich are sought out by allegedly
>respectable news media and asked to give comments on environmental
>issues, there are no straw men left. There is no position so outre
>that it will not be eagerly embraced, no characterization so broad
>that it becomes mere caricature.
It has been said that Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ "failed as a prophecy
because it succeeded as a warning."
Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ has done the opposite.
I tried rereading bits of it a few years ago. I couldn't. When a book
written by a woman who died in 1982 ridicules next Tuesday's op-ed page
with such between-the-eyes marksmanship, it gives me the creeps.
>(Witness the Earth First!er who has
>lived for the past few hundreds days on top of a tree to protest
>logging or some such). On the opposing side, it's been 15 years since
>James Watt and his "Jesus is coming soon, so cut down the trees while
>you can!" idiocy, and no one (to my knowledge) has taken his place.
>
>*----------------------------------------------------*
>Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
>Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
>Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
>http://www.mrlizard.com
--
LEGALIZE FREEDOM http://www.lp.org UBI LIBERTAS IBI PATRIA
"There's no way to rule innocent men...When there aren't enough criminals,
one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes
impossible to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_
Del Cotter
Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote
>Gary Farber wrote:
>
>>> My point is, the LaRoachies are not called as 'experts' on the evening
>>> news;their books are not displayed prominently at Barnes&Nobel, nor
>>> are they interviewed in Time and Newsweek. The "lunatic fringe" of the
>>> environmental movement parodied in FA is, in fact, the mainstream.
>>
>> This turns out not to be the case.
>
> Ah, yes, the WASP version of "yo' mama". I suppose that this comment is
>intended to close the thread as an irrefutable rebuttal of all that has gone
>before.
Gary Farber's a WASP? LOL!
Usually "that turns out not to be the case" should be followed by an
explanation of what *does* turn out to be the case. But that's a bit of
a waste of breath when you're talking to creationists and self-styled
enviro-skeptics.
ObBooks:
John T Houghton "The Physics of Atmospheres" Cambridge Univ Press (1997)
Richard P Wayne "The Chemistry of Atmospheres" Oxford Univ Press (1985)
--
Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk
The Alien Design Bibliography
http://www.branta.demon.co.uk/alien-design/
Lizard
<gr...@student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Lizard wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:38:28 +0100, C A Williams
>> <C.A.Wi...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >You could try rationally and democratically planning the economy, on a
>> >basis of workers' control...
>>
>> As applied to art, then, we would have every painter employed
>> producing Elvis on black velvet, and every writer employed scripting
>> "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Friends".
>
>We're making amazing progress towards that goal...
Sadly true, but in a market-driven economy, niches exist, whereas, in
a democratic economy, EVERYONE gets what the MAJORITY deserve.
IOW, in a market economy, if 85% of the population wants trash and 15%
want art, then 85% of the resources go to trash and 15% go to art. In
a democratic economy, if 85% (0r 51%) of the population wants trash,
then, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the resources go to trash, just as a
candidate who has the approval of 51% of the voters gets to pass laws
affecting 100% of the voters.
Lizard
Brinich) wrote:
>Gary Farber wrote:
>>Lizard wrote:
>
>>> My point is, the LaRoachies are not called as 'experts' on the evening
>>> news;their books are not displayed prominently at Barnes&Nobel, nor
>>> are they interviewed in Time and Newsweek. The "lunatic fringe" of the
>>> environmental movement parodied in FA is, in fact, the mainstream.
>>
>> This turns out not to be the case.
>
> Ah, yes, the WASP version of "yo' mama". I suppose that this comment is
>intended to close the thread as an irrefutable rebuttal of all that has gone
>before.
In all fairness, I assumed his newsreader glitched and failed to post
his (presumed) numerous paragraphs of support material, and I eagerly
await him doing so.
Curt Hagenlocher
>Sadly true, but in a market-driven economy, niches exist, whereas, in
>a democratic economy, EVERYONE gets what the MAJORITY deserve.
>
>IOW, in a market economy, if 85% of the population wants trash and 15%
>want art, then 85% of the resources go to trash and 15% go to art. In
>a democratic economy, if 85% (0r 51%) of the population wants trash,
>then, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the resources go to trash, just as a
>candidate who has the approval of 51% of the voters gets to pass laws
>affecting 100% of the voters.
The fact that most elections in the US have a "winner-take-all" outcome
does not imply that this is a fundamental feature of democracy. In
particular,
a parliamentary form of government typically awards representation to
a political party in direct proportion to its percentage of the popular
vote.
There is no reason that a democracy could not hold elections by giving each
voters multiple votes which could be spent on a single candidate or
distributed
across multiple candidates as the voter sees fit. This would result in a
market-
oriented election that would be no less democratic than the process we have
now, and which could do a better job of protecting minority interests from
the
majority.
Several years ago, Lani Guinier was unfairly vilified for articles
expressing
exactly this idea.
--
Curt Hagenlocher
c...@earthlink.net
Paul Clarke
>In <35d2ddab.270062406@proxy0> pau...@ctxuk.citrix.com (Paul Clarke) writes:
>
>>On 12 Aug 1998 19:24:35 GMT, jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll)
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>
>>> You know what would be cool? An SF author who wrote about fictional
>>>worlds the way John McFee writes about the real one. *Not* Robinson: if
>>>I want infantile politics mixed with faux science and the Hundred Dullest
>>>Layabouts in the System, I'll beat myself about the head with a poker and
>>>write it myself.
>>
>>Who is John McFree and (more importantly!) what has he written?
>
>I suspect he means John McPhee, author of ORANGES, THE DELTOID PUMPKIN SEED,
>COMING INTO THE COUNTRY, LEVELS OF THE GAME, BASIN AND RANGE, and many other
>book-length essays on a notably wide variety of subjects.
>
Thanks. A search of on-line bookshops provided quite a few titles,
though I'm guessing that the John Roy McPhee who wrote _The
Mothproofing of Wool_ is someone else :-).
Paul Clarke
wrote:
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom P Nielsen Hayden <p...@panix.com> wrote:
>: In <35d2ddab.270062406@proxy0> pau...@ctxuk.citrix.com (Paul Clarke) writes:
>
>: >On 12 Aug 1998 19:24:35 GMT, jam...@ece.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll)
>: >wrote:
>: >
>: >[snip]
>: >>
>: >> You know what would be cool? An SF author who wrote about fictional
>: >>worlds the way John McFee writes about the real one. *Not* Robinson: if
>: >>I want infantile politics mixed with faux science and the Hundred Dullest
>: >>Layabouts in the System, I'll beat myself about the head with a poker and
>: >>write it myself.
>: >
>: >Who is John McFree and (more importantly!) what has he written?
>
>: I suspect he means John McPhee, author of ORANGES, THE DELTOID PUMPKIN SEED,
>: COMING INTO THE COUNTRY, LEVELS OF THE GAME, BASIN AND RANGE, and many other
>: book-length essays on a notably wide variety of subjects.
>
>And, actually, I have a project on the back burner in which a woman
>doctoral candidate saves a shipload of castaways through the survival
>knowledge she's gleaned from John McPhee books.
>
>But I still want to read either John McFee or John McFree.
>
Oops. My brain knew that it wanted "McFee" but my fingers, trained on
C programs, knew that between "f" and "ee" there must be an "r". You
wouldn't want to read John McFree anyway, it sounds like a pseudonym
of someone writing deservedly unpublished ripoffs of Ayn Rand.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: In article <dsheldonE...@netcom.com>, dshe...@netcom.com (Ed Dravecky
: >> And, actually, I have a project on the back burner in which a woman
: >> doctoral candidate saves a shipload of castaways through the survival
: >> knowledge she's gleaned from John McPhee books.
: >If they were originally on a "three-hour tour", you're in trouble.
: >
: I have visions of a John McPhee book on the making of Gilligan's Island, and
: its making me drool.
Especially because then we'll know The Truth as to the allegations
regarding an actress on the show.
-- LJM
(What, Me Curious?]
Lawrence Person
Templeton) wrote:
> In article <lawrence-120...@apm5-164.realtime.net>,
> Lawrence Person <lawr...@bga.com> wrote:
> >In article <6qqvvl$o...@fugue.clari.net>, b...@templetons.com (Brad
> >Templeton) wrote:
> >
> >> If bad works can win (because generally
> >> the 'no award' system, where it exists, has failed) the award becomes
> >> meaningless.
> >>
> >Well, there go the Hugos, the Nebulas, the Oscars, the Pulitzers, abd just
> >about any other award you can name...
>
> Perhaps. But you may be mistaking disagreement with the choice of the voters
> on the right vote vs. the ability for truly dreadful works to win because
> the category is weak.
To my mind, FALLING FREE was an actively bad novel, and it won the Nebula.
In the same vein, STARPLEX is a novel that displays a distressing lack of
basic technical competence, yet it was nominated for both the Hugo and the
Nebula.
--
- Lawrence Person
lawr...@bga.com
Visit the Nova Express Web Site at:
http://www.delphi.com/sflit/novaexpress/
"Crucifixion Variations" in the May 1998 Asimov's
Lame Excuse Books Catalog #3 Now Available!
Richard Brandt
>
> Lizard wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 13 Aug 1998 19:38:28 +0100, C A Williams
> > <C.A.Wi...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >You could try rationally and democratically planning the economy, on a
> > >basis of workers' control...
> >
> > As applied to art, then, we would have every painter employed
> > producing Elvis on black velvet, and every writer employed scripting
> > "Beverly Hills, 90210" and "Friends".
>
> We're making amazing progress towards that goal...
"I have one word for you, Ben. Just one word: Novelizations."
--
====== Richard Brandt is at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8720 ======
"Andreessen...taking a jab at Microsoft's announcement that Windows was
going to be used in...heart monitors--'a product that creates its own
market [because] you have heart problems just thinking about it." --
INFOWORLD, May 4, 1998
aRJay
3 Questions
1 What is/was Gilligan's Island? (Other than a show)
2 Which actress?
3 What allegations?
--
aRJay
Bob Webber
: In a world in which Rifkin and Erlich are sought out by allegedly
: respectable news media and asked to give comments on environmental
: issues, there are no straw men left. There is no position so outre
: that it will not be eagerly embraced, no characterization so broad
: that it becomes mere caricature. ...
Mr Lizard, you seem to have confused "sought out by the news media"
with "eagerly embraced [...by people concerned with `environmental
issues']."
: ... (Witness the Earth First!er who has
: lived for the past few hundreds days on top of a tree to protest
: logging or some such). On the opposing side, it's been 15 years since
: James Watt and his "Jesus is coming soon, so cut down the trees while
: you can!" idiocy, and no one (to my knowledge) has taken his place.
Yeah, that eco-freak was a real weirdo. Now those flagpole sitters
who did it for cash, that made sense. Similarly, the quieter
movement to continue exploiting resources and dump wastes to
maximize profits somehow seems more respectable to some than
James Watt's tacit acknowledgement that there might be a problem
if Jesus shows up late or not at all.
People promoting better handling of industrial sources and sinks
have to use noisy processes. Their opponents can just carry on
with business as usual.
Bob Webber
: Dan Goodman wrote:
...
: > Nobody of his prominence, no. But read some of the letters in forestry
: > magazines.
: Why not quote some to us. And more importantly, since when did
: lettercol
: stuff control debates ???
If it does, then since at least a few hundred years before Usenet
did.
...
:
: > The environmental debate is not carried on with as much courtesy and
: > respect for opponents as the abortion debate.
: To an extent: bombing and sabotage of abortion clinics is relatively
: rare:
: I've heard spiking and monkey-wrenching is proportionally more common...
Heard from whom, would you care to quote some to us, and where was
it actually published, anyway?
Bob Webber
...
: In a world where loonie-tunes like Jeremy Rifkin are treated as if they
: were actually deserving of intellectual respect, you *have* to be as
: relentless as _Fallen Angels_ in order to distinguish your satire from simple
: news reporting.
Especially if you can't just write well instead.
Bob Webber
: >> My point is, the LaRoachies are not called as 'experts' on the evening
: >> news;their books are not displayed prominently at Barnes&Nobel, nor
: >> are they interviewed in Time and Newsweek. The "lunatic fringe" of the
: >> environmental movement parodied in FA is, in fact, the mainstream.
: >
: > This turns out not to be the case.
: Ah, yes, the WASP version of "yo' mama". I suppose that this comment is
: intended to close the thread as an irrefutable rebuttal of all that has gone
: before.
No, this is the WASP version of "yo' mama:"
*plonk*
Bob Webber
: In article <35d5489d...@enews.newsguy.com>,
...
: It has been said that Orwell's _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ "failed as a prophecy
: because it succeeded as a warning."
: Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_ has done the opposite.
: I tried rereading bits of it a few years ago. I couldn't. When a book
: written by a woman who died in 1982 ridicules next Tuesday's op-ed page
: with such between-the-eyes marksmanship, it gives me the creeps.
Really? _Atlas Shrugged_ gave me the creeps years and years ago.
Lizard
<c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There is no reason that a democracy could not hold elections by giving each
>voters multiple votes which could be spent on a single candidate or
>distributed
>across multiple candidates as the voter sees fit. This would result in a
>market-
>oriented election that would be no less democratic than the process we have
>now, and which could do a better job of protecting minority interests from
>the
>majority.
Agreed. I've also considered that the present geographic method of
choosing representation really doesn't make sense in the
post-industrial era, as it did in the agricultural era when that
method was divided.
>Several years ago, Lani Guinier was unfairly vilified for articles
>expressing
>exactly this idea.
Not quite. She proposed an UNEQUAL distribution of voting power, based
on racist theories and an invalid morality based on "blood crimes" --
that is, that the descendants of criminals carried a 'criminal taint'
within them, and that they ought to be made to pay for the crimes of
their ancestors. Her concept was to mandate 'Jim Crow' style laws,
where the vote of a person of one race 'counted double', compared to
the vote of a person of another race.
Lizard
wrote:
Go down to your local 'Barnes&Noble' or 'Border' or 'BookStar'.
Count the books written by Rifkin or Abbey, both of whom advocate and
justify violence and sabotage in the name of 'saving the Earth'. Then
count the books by proponents of violence against abortion clinics.
(Or don't bother -- there will be none.)
Hell, you can find mass-market editions of the Unabomber Manifesto
more easily than you can find mass-market publications of violent
anti-abortion screeds.
Lizard says:Why can't we compromise, and have environmentalists spike
anti-abortionists?
Keith Lynch
Templeton) wrote:
> If bad works can win (because generally the 'no award' system, where
> it exists, has failed) the award becomes meaningless.
In article <lawrence-120...@apm5-164.realtime.net>,
Lawrence Person <lawr...@bga.com> wrote:
> Well, there go the Hugos, the Nebulas, the Oscars, the Pulitzers,
> abd just about any other award you can name...
"No Award" has won the Prometheus. Has it ever won the Hugos, the
Nebulas, the Oscars, or the Pulitzers?
--
Keith F. Lynch -- k...@clark.net -- http://www.clark.net/pub/kfl/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.
Evelyn C. Leeper
Keith Lynch <k...@clark.net> wrote:
> In article <6qqvvl$o...@fugue.clari.net>, b...@templetons.com (Brad
> Templeton) wrote:
> > If bad works can win (because generally the 'no award' system, where
> > it exists, has failed) the award becomes meaningless.
>
> In article <lawrence-120...@apm5-164.realtime.net>,
> Lawrence Person <lawr...@bga.com> wrote:
> > Well, there go the Hugos, the Nebulas, the Oscars, the Pulitzers,
> > abd just about any other award you can name...
>
> "No Award" has won the Prometheus. Has it ever won the Hugos, the
> Nebulas, the Oscars, or the Pulitzers?
"No Award" won for Dramatic Presentation in 1959, 1963, 1971, 1977, and
didn't even make the 1964 or 1966 ballots due to lack of interest.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
All work and no play makes Jack a valued employee.
Todd Masco
>Not quite. She proposed an UNEQUAL distribution of voting power, based
>on racist theories and an invalid morality based on "blood crimes" --
>that is, that the descendants of criminals carried a 'criminal taint'
>within them, and that they ought to be made to pay for the crimes of
>their ancestors. Her concept was to mandate 'Jim Crow' style laws,
>where the vote of a person of one race 'counted double', compared to
>the vote of a person of another race.
Uhh....
This might be totally irrelevent to your way of thinking, but...
Did you actually *read* _Tyrany Of the Majority_? Would you care to
back up the above slander with some page numbers or first-hand sources?
What she actually proposed (in the book I'm holding in my hand) was a
system where individuals could cast multiple votes and eiyther distribute
them among candidates that they liked or pool them all towards candidates
that they *really* liked. Coalitions of people could all pool their
votes into a single candidate, allowing a greater likelihood for minority
candidates to be elected.
In short, her proposals are more about protecting *any* substantial
minority, and her writings about the history of the treatments of blacks
in the US were nothing more than examples of how our current system
fails to protect minorities. The same systems that she proposed would
protect the views of, say, atheists and libertarians, as much as they
would protect those of blacks and hispanics.
I find it deeply humorous (in my cynical way) that the same people who
rail against "winner takes all" democracy are the same ones who vilify
Guinier. Good work, guys -- you're helping to maintain the status quo.
--
Todd Masco | "Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing,
cac...@hks.net | there is a field. I'll meet you there."
http://www.hks.net/~cactus/ | - Rumi, 1207-1273 CE
Curt Hagenlocher
Lizard wrote in message <35d6c9d1...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>>Several years ago, Lani Guinier was unfairly vilified for articles
>>expressing exactly this idea.
>
>Not quite. She proposed an UNEQUAL distribution of voting power, based
>on racist theories and an invalid morality based on "blood crimes" --
>that is, that the descendants of criminals carried a 'criminal taint'
>within them, and that they ought to be made to pay for the crimes of
>their ancestors. Her concept was to mandate 'Jim Crow' style laws,
>where the vote of a person of one race 'counted double', compared to
>the vote of a person of another race.
I see you've fallen for the misrepresentations made in the WSJ editorial
pages by certain persons who were upset about the failure to confirm
Robert Bork and were determined to "get" Guinier in revenge. See
http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/guinier-queen.html for a more
detailed story.
By the way, I think Bork got a raw deal as well. I think that people of
every political stripe are capable of misrepresenting the truth when it
suits them.
--
Curt Hagenlocher
c...@earthlink.net
Lizard
<c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>By the way, I think Bork got a raw deal as well.
I though that too, until I actually read some of his opinions. Keeping
that creature off the SC was the best thing the far left ever did. He
believes, among other things, that the 1A applies only to 'political'
speech, and does not protect movies, books, television, etc.
Lizard
wrote:
>Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>>Not quite. She proposed an UNEQUAL distribution of voting power, based
>>on racist theories and an invalid morality based on "blood crimes" --
>>that is, that the descendants of criminals carried a 'criminal taint'
>>within them, and that they ought to be made to pay for the crimes of
>>their ancestors. Her concept was to mandate 'Jim Crow' style laws,
>>where the vote of a person of one race 'counted double', compared to
>>the vote of a person of another race.
>
>Uhh....
>
>This might be totally irrelevent to your way of thinking, but...
>
>Did you actually *read* _Tyrany Of the Majority_? Would you care to
>back up the above slander with some page numbers or first-hand sources?
>
>What she actually proposed (in the book I'm holding in my hand) was a
>system where individuals could cast multiple votes and eiyther distribute
>them among candidates that they liked or pool them all towards candidates
>that they *really* liked. Coalitions of people could all pool their
>votes into a single candidate, allowing a greater likelihood for minority
>candidates to be elected.
Unless I am greviously mistaken, she proposed making this distribution
of votes race-based, with the general intent of permitting numerical
minorities parity by granting them 'extra' votes. If this is
incorrect, I apologize. Such a system WITHOUT racial bias is perfectly
acceptable to me.
Ray Radlein
>
> But I still want to read either John McFee or John McFree.
I hear McFree was nominated for a Prometheus Award.
- Ray R.
--
********************************************************************
"I've got three paperclips, a toaster, and some pantyhose. If
I can find a bar of chocolate and some hairspray, I can make
myself a suit of BIO-BOOSTER ARMOR!" -- MacGuyver
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
********************************************************************
Ray Radlein
> : Island, and its making me drool.
>
> Especially because then we'll know The Truth as to the allegations
> regarding an actress on the show.
<cheap shot>
You mean someone has alleged that there was an actress on that show?
</cheap shot>
mike weber
(Lizard) opined:
>On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:17:56 -0700, "Curt Hagenlocher"
><c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>By the way, I think Bork got a raw deal as well.
>
>I though that too, until I actually read some of his opinions. Keeping
>that creature off the SC was the best thing the far left ever did. He
>believes, among other things, that the 1A applies only to 'political'
>speech, and does not protect movies, books, television, etc.
Much as i generally dislike rguments of "original intent", it -does-
appear that that may have been what the Framers intended.
However, as i said, i dislike "original intent" arguments ((except
when i agree with them)), and i am of the opinion that "free speech"
ought, indeed, apply to all forms of "speech", as more recently
interpreted...
--
<mike weber> <emsh...@aol.com>
"The way you treat the ol' lady is the lesson that you
teach the kid..." -- Dory Previn
Arthur Hlavaty
: Go down to your local 'Barnes&Noble' or 'Border' or 'BookStar'.
: Count the books written by Rifkin or Abbey, both of whom advocate and
: justify violence and sabotage in the name of 'saving the Earth'. Then
: count the books by proponents of violence against abortion clinics.
: (Or don't bother -- there will be none.)
: Hell, you can find mass-market editions of the Unabomber Manifesto
: more easily than you can find mass-market publications of violent
: anti-abortion screeds.
: Lizard says:Why can't we compromise, and have environmentalists spike
: anti-abortionists?
In other words the difference between Kill for Lifers and Kill for
Earthers is that some of the latter can read and write.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius In Wile E. We Trust
\\\ E-zine available on request. ///
Keith A. Glass
> Keith A. Glass (sal...@huskynet.com) wrote:
> : Dan Goodman wrote:
>
> : > The environmental debate is not carried on with as much courtesy and
> : > respect for opponents as the abortion debate.
>
> : To an extent: bombing and sabotage of abortion clinics is relatively
> : rare:
> : I've heard spiking and monkey-wrenching is proportionally more common...
>
> Heard from whom, would you care to quote some to us, and where was
> it actually published, anyway?
I used to live in Spokane, mid-80's, and read in the local paper: saw mention
of
a monkey-wrenching incident of one sort or another every few weeks: saw perhaps
1-2 clinic bombings a year. I don't keep clippings of that sort: just recall
from my
sense of disgust at the incidents. . .
--
* Keith A. Glass, Manassas , Virginia, USA, Filker/punster at large *
* Geek Code(v3.1.2) GS/GAT d+ s+:+++ a C++ U P L E- W++ N++ w+ O- M V*
* PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+ t+/--- 5++++ X+ R tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e++ h r y+*
* Home Page: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/7281 *
Lizard
wrote:
>Sometime around Sun, 16 Aug 1998 04:37:15 GMT, liz...@mrlizard.com
>(Lizard) opined:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:17:56 -0700, "Curt Hagenlocher"
>><c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>By the way, I think Bork got a raw deal as well.
>>
>>I though that too, until I actually read some of his opinions. Keeping
>>that creature off the SC was the best thing the far left ever did. He
>>believes, among other things, that the 1A applies only to 'political'
>>speech, and does not protect movies, books, television, etc.
>
>Much as i generally dislike rguments of "original intent", it -does-
>appear that that may have been what the Framers intended.
>
Perhaps, though a lot of the writings of the Framers disagrees.
However, Bork also advocates letting Congress overrule any SC decision
by simple majority, and that SURELY isn't 'original intent' -- indeed,
it would make the SC meaningless, since every law which comes before
it has already been passed by the simple majority.
Lizard
wrote:
>In other words the difference between Kill for Lifers and Kill for
>Earthers is that some of the latter can read and write.
Nah, they just have better agents.
George D. Phillies
On 16 Aug 1998, Arthur Hlavaty wrote:
> Lizard (liz...@mrlizard.com) wrote:
> : Count the books written by Rifkin or Abbey, both of whom advocate and
> : justify violence and sabotage in the name of 'saving the Earth'. Then
> : count the books by proponents of violence against abortion clinics.
> : (Or don't bother -- there will be none.)
...
> In other words the difference between Kill for Lifers and Kill for
> Earthers is that some of the latter can read and write.
This does lead to an interesting plot hook, though not a plot, namely a
parallel world, perhaps not far in the future, in which the theological
pro-life and pro-choice lines did not happen to parallel the linguistic
lines that identify Americans prone to violence, so that one saw abortion
clinics and churches -- of particular denominations -- going up in smoke,
being flooded with acid,... at roughly equal rates, as opposed to the
situation here, in which the violence flowed in only one direction.* That
could have been extremely unpleasant as a place to live. Fortunately, it
did not happen here, at least yet.
George
*some of you may be old enough to remember the spate of church-burnings
(directed against African-Americans in the 1960s) in the south, at the
time of the voting rights movement, and the one district in which this was
brought to a sudden halt by a distinguished American whose line was
"Either we all worship inside, or we all worship outside.". For two
points, name the distinguished American, the district in which this
occurred, and the unfortunate material events that gave credence to his
words.
David E Romm
> In article <romm-13089...@15-158.dynamic.visi.com>,
> David E Romm <ro...@visi.com> wrote:
>> [...]they put a Worldcon in Mpls which didn't
> > have any Mpls fans attending...
>
> You mean like Cancun might have?
Oh, Cancun would have had Mpls fans...
--
Shockwave radio: Science Fiction/Science Fact/Weirdness Unbound
http://www.visi.com/~romm
Flashback! web site http://www.visi.com/~romm/flash.html
Todd Masco
>Unless I am greviously mistaken, she proposed making this distribution
>of votes race-based, with the general intent of permitting numerical
>minorities parity by granting them 'extra' votes. If this is
>incorrect, I apologize. Such a system WITHOUT racial bias is perfectly
>acceptable to me.
This is incorrect. From page 14-15, "Under cumulative voting, voters
get the same number of votes as there are seats or options to vote for,
and they can then distribute their votes in any combination to reflect
their preferences. Like-minded voters can vote as a solid bloc or,
instead, form strategic, cross-racial coalitions to gain mutual benefits.
This system is emphatically not racially based; it allows voters to
organize themselves on whatever basis they wish.
"Corporations use this system to ensure representation of minority
shareholders on corporate boards of directors. Similarly, some
local municipal and county governments have adopted cumulative
voting to ensure representation of minority voters. Instead of
awarding political power to geographic units called districts,
cumulative voting allows voters to cast ballots based on what they
think rather than where they live.
"...It is not a particularly radical idea; thirty states either
require or permit corporations to us this election system. ...
Both the Reagan and Bush administrations approved cumulative
voting schemes pursuant to the Voting Rights Act to protect
the rights of racial- and language-minority voters."
So-called "Conservatives" should have embraced these concepts, but
they just saw a black woman proposing changes to address inequities
and assumed that she was the "Quota Queen," without reading her
actual proposals. They saw an opportunity to "Bork" someone and
took it.
I heartily recommend reading her book, _The Tyranny Of The Majority:
Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy_. It's got some
good, Jeffersonian ideas in it.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Loren Joseph MacGregor wrote:
: >
: > In rec.arts.sf.fandom Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
: > :
: > : I have visions of a John McPhee book on the making of Gilligan's
: > : Island, and its making me drool.
: >
: > Especially because then we'll know The Truth as to the allegations
: > regarding an actress on the show.
: <cheap shot>
: You mean someone has alleged that there was an actress on that show?
: </cheap shot>
<recheap>
Yes, they alleged that she was as innocent as the character she played.
</decheap>
-- LJM
(But the pinball game was terrific)
Phil Fraering
> Loren Joseph MacGregor wrote:
> >
> > In rec.arts.sf.fandom Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > :
> > : I have visions of a John McPhee book on the making of Gilligan's
> > : Island, and its making me drool.
> >
> > Especially because then we'll know The Truth as to the allegations
> > regarding an actress on the show.
>
> <cheap shot>
>
> You mean someone has alleged that there was an actress on that show?
>
> </cheap shot>
She was a guest star on one episode.
"It was the one where that dunderhead Gilligan ruined it for everyone!"
"Oo, I don't think I've seen that one."
--
Phil Fraering "THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR ALARM! But there probably
p...@globalreach.net will be."
/Will work for *tape*/
Joel Rosenberg
>In rec.arts.sf.fandom Ray Radlein <r...@learnlink.emory.edu> wrote:
>: >
>: > In rec.arts.sf.fandom Joel Rosenberg <jo...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>: > :
>: > : I have visions of a John McPhee book on the making of Gilligan's
>: > : Island, and its making me drool.
>: >
>: > Especially because then we'll know The Truth as to the allegations
>: > regarding an actress on the show.
>
>: <cheap shot>
>
>: You mean someone has alleged that there was an actress on that show?
>
>: </cheap shot>
>
>
>Yes, they alleged that she was as innocent as the character she played.
>
></decheap>
>
>-- LJM
> (But the pinball game was terrific)
I'm totally in the dark as to what interesting (I would hope) allegation was
made regarding one of the actresses, and wouldn't mind a bit of light.
Loren Joseph MacGregor
: Sometime around Sun, 16 Aug 1998 04:37:15 GMT, liz...@mrlizard.com
: (Lizard) opined:
: >On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 18:17:56 -0700, "Curt Hagenlocher"
: ><c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
: >
: >>By the way, I think Bork got a raw deal as well.
: >
: >I though that too, until I actually read some of his opinions. Keeping
: >that creature off the SC was the best thing the far left ever did. He
: >believes, among other things, that the 1A applies only to 'political'
: >speech, and does not protect movies, books, television, etc.
: Much as i generally dislike rguments of "original intent", it -does-
: appear that that may have been what the Framers intended.
: However, as i said, i dislike "original intent" arguments ((except
: when i agree with them)), and i am of the opinion that "free speech"
: ought, indeed, apply to all forms of "speech", as more recently
: interpreted...
*sigh* The right to free speech is guaranteed. The right to make a
profit from free speech is not.
-- LJM
Rob Hansen
<sal...@huskynet.com> wrote:
> I used to live in Spokane, mid-80's, and read in the local paper: saw mention
>of a monkey-wrenching incident of one sort or another every few weeks: saw perhaps
>
>1-2 clinic bombings a year. I don't keep clippings of that sort: just recall
>from my sense of disgust at the incidents. . .
I read a report a few weeks abort abortion-clinic bombings in the US
that made for very depressing reading. Apparently, while abortion may
still be legal, due to the risks involved the number of doctors
prepared to do them anymore is plummeting and there's almost no one
learning how to do abortions in med school anymore. If the report was
correct, the majority of those still doing abortions are in the
late-50s or older. If all the above is indeed true then, in a decade
or so, it will be almost impossible to get an abortion in the US. The
battle has already been lost, it seems, and the murderers and
terrorist bombers have won.
Rob Hansen
================================================
My Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Feminists Against Censorship:
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/
Loren Joseph MacGregor
The allegations are similar to those made about an actress who played
the mom on a show about a singing family.
The actress, who was not the actress playing the actress, allegedly
had eclectic sexual appetites. Bob Denver, questioned repeatedly
about this, has remained gallantly and discretely silent.
If I knew more, I'd tell you, but I'd have to turn in my Mary Janes.
-- LJM
Morgan E. Smith
Morgan (the Other One)
Tim Starr
Todd Masco <cac...@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
>Lizard <liz...@mrlizard.com> wrote:
>>Not quite. She proposed an UNEQUAL distribution of voting power, based
>>on racist theories and an invalid morality based on "blood crimes" --
>>that is, that the descendants of criminals carried a 'criminal taint'
>>within them, and that they ought to be made to pay for the crimes of
>>their ancestors. Her concept was to mandate 'Jim Crow' style laws,
>>where the vote of a person of one race 'counted double', compared to
>>the vote of a person of another race.
>
>Uhh....
>
>This might be totally irrelevent to your way of thinking, but...
>
>Did you actually *read* _Tyrany Of the Majority_? Would you care to
>back up the above slander with some page numbers or first-hand sources?
>
>What she actually proposed (in the book I'm holding in my hand) was a
>system where individuals could cast multiple votes and eiyther distribute
>them among candidates that they liked or pool them all towards candidates
>that they *really* liked. Coalitions of people could all pool their
>votes into a single candidate, allowing a greater likelihood for minority
>candidates to be elected.
When her book was published, Clint Bolick, the man who first exposed her as
a "Quota Queen" in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, published another
op-ed in the WSJ in which he showed how she revised her articles so that they
no longer advocated voting by racial quota as they did when they were first
published in the law journals.
>In short...
In short, when caught advocating statist measures unacceptable even in the
statist quo, she promptly abandoned them, & engaged in a fraudulent bit of
historical revisionism of her own track record in the attempt to cover up
the fact that she ever advocated such measures in the first place.
The honest thing for her to have done would either have been to stick with
her guns, or to change her mind. She did neither. She has no integrity,
she's merely a power-lusting, hypocritical opportunist.
--
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Tim Starr
Curt Hagenlocher <c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Lizard wrote in message <35d6c9d1...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Several years ago, Lani Guinier was unfairly vilified for articles
>>>expressing exactly this idea.
>>
>>on racist theories and an invalid morality based on "blood crimes" --
>>that is, that the descendants of criminals carried a 'criminal taint'
>>within them, and that they ought to be made to pay for the crimes of
>>their ancestors. Her concept was to mandate 'Jim Crow' style laws,
>>where the vote of a person of one race 'counted double', compared to
>>the vote of a person of another race.
>
>
>pages by certain persons who were upset about the failure to confirm
>Robert Bork and were determined to "get" Guinier in revenge.
Lie. Yes, the "Quota Queens" op-ed did appear on the WSJ editorial page,
but its author, Clint Bolick, is no Bork supporter.
C A Williams
> IOW, in a market economy, if 85% of the population wants trash and 15%
> want art, then 85% of the resources go to trash and 15% go to art.
Only everyone has the same amount of money, and equal control over the
means of production. Not a feature of many market economies I've heard
of.
> In
> a democratic economy, if 85% (0r 51%) of the population wants trash,
> then, ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the resources go to trash, just as a
> candidate who has the approval of 51% of the voters gets to pass laws
> affecting 100% of the voters.
Not if you have proportionality in the democratic planning process.
Chris
Tim Starr
Uh-huh. How did the equivalent paragraphs appear in the original law review
articles when they were originally published?
>So-called "Conservatives" should have embraced these concepts, but
>they just saw a black woman proposing changes to address inequities
>and assumed that she was the "Quota Queen," without reading her
>actual proposals. They saw an opportunity to "Bork" someone and
>took it.
Not at all. Clint Bolick, a libertarian civil rights lawyer who was familiar
with her law review articles, wrote an article exposing her which was published
in the Wall Street Journal. That sparked the controversy which led to her
withdrawal from the nomination process. Later, she published her articles,
in revised form, in her book, & Clint Bolish wrote another article showing
how she'd tried to fraudulently cover up her previous advocacy of racial
voting quotas by altering the articles as they appeared in her book.
>I heartily recommend reading her book, _The Tyranny Of The Majority:
>Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy_. It's got some
>good, Jeffersonian ideas in it.
Too bad those good ideas weren't present in the original law review articles
the book is supposedly based on.
Todd Masco
Tim Starr <tims...@netcom.com> wrote:
>When her book was published, Clint Bolick, the man who first exposed her as
>a "Quota Queen" in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, published another
>op-ed in the WSJ in which he showed how she revised her articles so that they
>no longer advocated voting by racial quota as they did when they were first
>published in the law journals.
Primary sources, please? At this point, I assume that anything other
than primary source are FUD.
Steve Brinich
>Lizard opined:
>>Curt Hagenlocher wrote:
>> >By the way, I think Bork got a raw deal as well.
>>
>> I though that too, until I actually read some of his opinions. Keeping
>> that creature off the SC was the best thing the far left ever did. He
>> believes, among other things, that the 1A applies only to 'political'
>> speech, and does not protect movies, books, television, etc.
>
> Much as i generally dislike rguments of "original intent", it -does-
> appear that that may have been what the Framers intended.
This is not a viable defense of Bork. Inasmuch as his argument boils down
to "laws of the type that existed in the Framers' generation are ipso facto
consistent with the Constitution they wrote", Bork is of the opinion that
arrest and deportation of political dissidents (as per the Alien and Sedition
Acts) is perfectly Constitutional. He, or his defenders, may attempt to deny
this, but that would merely add dishonest to their other sins.
--
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Aahz Maruch
Loren Joseph MacGregor <lmac...@efn.org> wrote:
>
>The actress, who was not the actress playing the actress, allegedly
>had eclectic sexual appetites. Bob Denver, questioned repeatedly
>about this, has remained gallantly and discretely silent.
If he were not continuously silent, I would have expected the answer to
be out by now.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> -=> http://www.rahul.net/aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"It's 106 miles to Chicago. We have a full tank of gas, a half-pack of
cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses." "Hit it."
Lizard
absent proof, I was forced to capitulate...
Lizard
wrote:
>The
>battle has already been lost, it seems, and the murderers and
>terrorist bombers have won.
While I concur that the loss of good doctors to perform abortions is a
Bad Thing, I think you give too much credence to the terrorists and
not enough to simple economics. I suspect abortions aren't very
profitable, overall, despite the "Merchants of DEATH!!!!" propaganda
produced by the Religious Reich.
Ray Radlein
>
> I used to live in Spokane, mid-80's, and read in the local paper:
> saw mention of a monkey-wrenching incident of one sort or another
> every few weeks: saw perhaps 1-2 clinic bombings a year. I don't
> keep clippings of that sort: just recall from my sense of disgust
> at the incidents. . .
Whereas here in Atlanta, tree-spiking incidents are essentially
nonexistent, but abortion clinic bombings are big news almost every day.
Okay, so it was "bombing," not "bombings"; but it's still in the papers
every day.