Doc Weir Award
Steve Glover
I was just thinking (no, honest, I do sometimes) on the way back from
Manchester that there's recently been a development in the Doc Weir
Award that we should, perhaps, View with Alarm.
No, I don't mean the blatantly over-the-top canvassing by or on behalf
of young Tobes (anyway, the flier was as lovely a piece of self-serving
wriggling as I've seen in many a long year), but the way the announcer
of the award not so much implied as directly stated that the award was
for Unsung Heroism *at conventions*.
This, to me, is just plain wrong, and one step away from a "Buggin's
Turn" approach (clarification added on re-reading: I don't think it
shouldn't go to at-con heroes, just that folk should remember that there
are other sorts of hero(ine) not being sung).
Steve, posting here rather than to Rassfuck on the grounds that it's
going to go all slow for a while...
--
Steve Glover
Bernard Peek
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <lt7cODAi...@fell.demon.co.uk>,
Steve Glover <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes
>I was just thinking (no, honest, I do sometimes) on the way back from
>Manchester that there's recently been a development in the Doc Weir
>Award that we should, perhaps, View with Alarm.
>
>No, I don't mean the blatantly over-the-top canvassing by or on behalf
>of young Tobes (anyway, the flier was as lovely a piece of self-serving
>wriggling as I've seen in many a long year), but the way the announcer
>of the award not so much implied as directly stated that the award was
>for Unsung Heroism *at conventions*.
This is what one of the con newsletters said, but there was a retraction
the next day.
I'm more worried about the statements that some people were making, that
they will pack the vote next year to ensure that Tobes wins. The aim is
to show that the way the award is voted on is flawed and should be
replaced with something else. The suggestions were either to make the
award a gift of the concom, or to appoint an awards committee. I'd
prefer the award to be abandoned before either of these ideas were
adopted.
The Ken MacIntyre award is in an even worse state. It wasn't mentioned
in the con publications this year and wasn't awarded. The award was
originally intended to be for fanzine art. The conditions laid down for
choosing the recipient makes it very difficult to administer. Because
it's theoretically possible to meet the conditions, no Eastercon feels
that it has the authority to change the rules.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Ulrika
In article <lt7cODAi...@fell.demon.co.uk>, Steve Glover
<st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Steve, posting here rather than to Rassfuck on the grounds that it's
>going to go all slow for a while...
Er, glub? Does this mean that Pam's secret mailing list of Just the People Pam
Wants to Talk To is now operational, and, more to
the point, that I'm not on it?
--Ulrika, wondering if pouting would be effective at this point
Ulrika O'Brien, Philosopher Without Portfolio
***ulr...@aol.com***
Morgan Gallagher
In this post <199804181854...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, Ulrika
<ulr...@aol.com> said:
>In article <lt7cODAi...@fell.demon.co.uk>, Steve Glover
><st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Steve, posting here rather than to Rassfuck on the grounds that it's
>>going to go all slow for a while...
>
>Er, glub? Does this mean that Pam's secret mailing list of Just the People Pam
>Wants to Talk To is now operational, and, more to
>the point, that I'm not on it?
Dang, she found out.
hell to pay now. I suspect.
;-)
--
Morgan
"Nunc demum intellego," dixit Winnie ille Pu. "Stultus et
delusus fui," dixit "et ursus sine ullo cerebro sum."
Brian Jordan
In article <lt7cODAi...@fell.demon.co.uk>, Steve Glover
<st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes
>Steve, posting here rather than to Rassfuck on the grounds that it's
>going to go all slow for a while...
Dunno about the Award - I was last interested just after Doc was around.
But tell me about Rassfuck! You've posted to r.a.sf.f instead, so what
is Rassfuck, and where's everyone from there going to be? Am I missing
something?
Brian
--
Brian Jordan - who shamefully didn't go to Eastercon when it was local :-(
Mary Kay Kare
In article <199804181854...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
> In article <lt7cODAi...@fell.demon.co.uk>, Steve Glover
> <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >Steve, posting here rather than to Rassfuck on the grounds that it's
> >going to go all slow for a while...
>
> Er, glub? Does this mean that Pam's secret mailing list of Just the
People Pam
> Wants to Talk To is now operational, and, more to
> the point, that I'm not on it?
>
> --Ulrika, wondering if pouting would be effective at this point
Err, yes. I also requested to be on it as I know some few UK fans, but
never even had a reply to my email...
MK
--
Mary Kay Kare
On the other hand, you have different fingers
John Richards
Steve Glover wrote:
>
> I was just thinking (no, honest, I do sometimes) on the way back from
> Manchester that there's recently been a development in the Doc Weir
> Award that we should, perhaps, View with Alarm.
>
> No, I don't mean the blatantly over-the-top canvassing by or on behalf
> of young Tobes (anyway, the flier was as lovely a piece of self-serving
> wriggling as I've seen in many a long year), but the way the announcer
> of the award not so much implied as directly stated that the award was
> for Unsung Heroism *at conventions*.
>
> Turn" approach (clarification added on re-reading: I don't think it
> shouldn't go to at-con heroes, just that folk should remember that there
> are other sorts of hero(ine) not being sung).
>
> going to go all slow for a while...
> Steve Glover
Yup, Plain wrong is what it is. Indeed a correction was made in the
Intuition news letter. The Doc Weir is for all around "good eggs" in
whatever part of fandom they might be found.
The apparent attention given to "at-con" heroes may be a result of the
fact that the award is voted for at Eastercon and also that "conrunners"
are the majority or those who actually bother to vote.
___
JFW Richards South Hants Science Fiction Group
Portsmouth, Hants 2nd and 4th Tuesdays
England. UK. The Magpie, Fratton Road, Portsmouth
Chris Croughton
Mary Kay Kare wrote:
>
> In article <199804181854...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
>
> > In article <lt7cODAi...@fell.demon.co.uk>, Steve Glover
> > <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > >going to go all slow for a while...
> >
> People Pam
> > Wants to Talk To is now operational, and, more to
> > the point, that I'm not on it?
> >
> > --Ulrika, wondering if pouting would be effective at this point
>
> Err, yes. I also requested to be on it as I know some few UK fans, but
> never even had a reply to my email...
Right, this is a Formal Request to She What Owns It All to please
please with chocolate on let Mary Kay and Ulrika into our little
elitist mailing list thingy.
(I wonder if I spelt 'Vacuous.Tart' correctly? If so then it's
emailed[1] as well as posted...)
[1] If she wants it enamelled, that is...
Chris C
Alison Scott
ka...@sirius.com (Mary Kay Kare) wrote:
>Err, yes. I also requested to be on it as I know some few UK fans, but
>never even had a reply to my email...
This happened to me the first time, but I seem to be on the mailing
list now. If you email Chris Malme he ought to be able to sought you
out.
Cheers
Alison
--
Alison Scott ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk
Rather typical homepage: www.fuggles.demon.co.uk
Cutting-edge fanzine: www.moose.demon.co.uk/plokta
Mary Kay Kare
In article <35451244....@news.demon.co.uk>,
ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk wrote:
> ka...@sirius.com (Mary Kay Kare) wrote:
>
> >Err, yes. I also requested to be on it as I know some few UK fans, but
> >never even had a reply to my email...
>
> This happened to me the first time, but I seem to be on the mailing
> list now. If you email Chris Malme he ought to be able to sought you
> out.
>
I'm intrigued to know just what soughting me out might entail. Especially
since I remember Chris as being downright cute...
MK
PS Thanks for the tip. If Chris C's request doesn't work, I'll tackle
the other Chris.
Bridget Hardcastle
In article <353B80...@amc.de>, crou...@amc.de (Chris Croughton)
wrote:
> (I wonder if I spelt 'Vacuous.Tart' correctly? If so then it's
> emailed[1] as well as posted...)
Nope, it's spelt 'Vacuous_Tart'
Bug
Bridget Hardcastle
In article <fXVTZRAz...@intersec.demon.co.uk>,
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk (Bernard Peek) wrote:
> The Ken MacIntyre award is in an even worse state. It wasn't mentioned
> in the con publications this year and wasn't awarded. The award was
> originally intended to be for fanzine art. The conditions laid down for
> choosing the recipient makes it very difficult to administer. Because
> it's theoretically possible to meet the conditions, no Eastercon feels
> that it has the authority to change the rules.
We tried to administer the Ken MacIntyre award at the 1996 Eastercon. Both
the original and the published form of the artwork need to be displayed,
and must be judged by a panel of five people including (I think - my brain
is being severely dredged at this point) a con committee member, a Knight
of St Fanthony, a member of some other group (either Brum, BSFA or FoF, I
forget) and two other people chosen in an arcane manner. Ken Slater and
Rog Peyton were two of the judges in 1996 - one of them was keen for the
award to be revived and publicised to encourage more entrants, the other
thought it might be better if it died quietly. We could not award the
prize that year, as there was only one entrant.
Bug
Pam Wells
> Mary Kay Kare wrote:
> >
> > In article <199804181854...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> > ulr...@aol.com (Ulrika) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <lt7cODAi...@fell.demon.co.uk>, Steve Glover
> > > <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > >Steve, posting here rather than to Rassfuck on the grounds that it's
> > > >going to go all slow for a while...
> > >
> > > Er, glub? Does this mean that Pam's secret mailing list of Just the
> > People Pam
> > > Wants to Talk To is now operational, and, more to
> > > the point, that I'm not on it?
> > >
> > > --Ulrika, wondering if pouting would be effective at this point
> >
> > Err, yes. I also requested to be on it as I know some few UK fans, but
> > never even had a reply to my email...
>
> Right, this is a Formal Request to She What Owns It All to please
> please with chocolate on let Mary Kay and Ulrika into our little
> elitist mailing list thingy.
OK, I'm way behind on rass-eff, so I apologise for not spotting any
of this sooner, but:
1. I have just subscribed Ulrika, Brian and Mary Kay to rassfuck.
2. It isn't exactly a 'secret' mailing list: I've mentioned it on
rass-eff several times now, and invited people to join. If you
are reading this and would like to join, please e-mail me.
3. While it's not exactly 'Just The People Pam Wants To Talk To', it
*is* an 'elitist' list, in the sense that I get to decide what's
OK there and what isn't. If you've got a problem with that, you
probably won't enjoy it.
> (I wonder if I spelt 'Vacuous.Tart' correctly? If so then it's
> emailed[1] as well as posted...)
No, you didn't. It's Vacuous_Tart. That full-stop there will have
made your message undeliverable. (Practically anything sent to
bitch.demon.co.uk will get to me, but not if there are full stops
in the bit preceding the @ sign, for some reason.)
> [1] If she wants it enamelled, that is...
It would have been very helpful to get this in e-mail, since I'm
so far behind with rass-eff. (Enamelling optional, of course.)
*sigh* best laid plans, an'all that.... But if anyone else is
feeling ignored (concerning rassfuck, that is!), please e-mail me
and I'll sort it out.
--
Pam Wells Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk http://www.bitch.demon.co.uk
Pam Wells
In article <35451244....@news.demon.co.uk>
ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk "Alison Scott" writes:
> This happened to me the first time, but I seem to be on the mailing
> list now. If you email Chris Malme he ought to be able to sought you
> out.
But he'll forward all requests to join the list to me, because even
though Chris does all the work, I'm the one who actually gets to let
people in! (Nice work if you can get it, eh?)
Once again, a gazillion thanks to Chris for feeding my ego like this!
Chris Croughton
Pam Wells wrote:
> OK, I'm way behind on rass-eff, so I apologise for not spotting any
> of this sooner, but:
That's why I tried to email it as well, and why I got the address
wrong (I couldn't find a message from you).
> 1. I have just subscribed Ulrika, Brian and Mary Kay to rassfuck.
Thanks...
> 2. It isn't exactly a 'secret' mailing list: I've mentioned it on
> rass-eff several times now, and invited people to join. If you
> are reading this and would like to join, please e-mail me.
It's one of those "open secret" thingies (in other words, 'secret' is
an in-joke, like 'elitist')...
> 3. While it's not exactly 'Just The People Pam Wants To Talk To', it
> *is* an 'elitist' list, in the sense that I get to decide what's
> OK there and what isn't. If you've got a problem with that, you
> probably won't enjoy it.
I trust you'll tell us when we get to the "not OK' stage, you haven't
said anything yet so I guess we aren't there yet...
> > (I wonder if I spelt 'Vacuous.Tart' correctly? If so then it's
> > emailed[1] as well as posted...)
>
> No, you didn't. It's Vacuous_Tart. That full-stop there will have
> made your message undeliverable. (Practically anything sent to
> bitch.demon.co.uk will get to me, but not if there are full stops
> in the bit preceding the @ sign, for some reason.)
<sigh> I should have sent it to 'postmaster'.
Hmm, my first guess (that you were using Turnpike) was wrong, it
looks as though you're using KA9Q (one of the few of us still using
it, it seems). In that case, I don't know why you can't get anything
with a dot in the name, it works for me...
> > [1] If she wants it enamelled, that is...
>
> It would have been very helpful to get this in e-mail, since I'm
> so far behind with rass-eff. (Enamelling optional, of course.)
Sorry about that. (BTW, the German word 'email' translates to
English as 'enamel' - it's pronounced 'e-mile' with a short 'e'
as in 'pet'...)
Chris C
Pam Wells
In article <353DB2...@amc.de> crou...@amc.de "Chris Croughton" writes:
> Pam Wells wrote:
>
> > 3. While it's not exactly 'Just The People Pam Wants To Talk To', it
> > *is* an 'elitist' list, in the sense that I get to decide what's
> > OK there and what isn't. If you've got a problem with that, you
> > probably won't enjoy it.
>
> I trust you'll tell us when we get to the "not OK' stage, you haven't
> said anything yet so I guess we aren't there yet...
I'm sure that not everyone on rassfuck would agree with your assertion
there; I *have* made some criticisms and set some guidelines on the
list. But, you know, it's really difficult to insist that everyone only
posts bright, witty and insightful essays and bon-mots. (Which is what
I want, of course, and there have indeed been some very nice examples.)
I'm not up to rating every contribution as if I was a schoolmarm or
something, although clearly some messages are more to my taste than
others. I was saddened when a few of the people who I rilly, rilly
wanted rassfuck to be for decided to unsubscribe because they
considered it was 'boring' or 'too much like rass-eff'. Guess I've
gotta face the fact that there ain't no way to create a group of
'Just The People Pam Wants To Talk To' -- at least, not all in the
same place at the same time. *sigh*
Serious question: now that the UK group looks like happening on
Usenet real soon now, do we still want to keep the rassfuck list
going? (As a joke, it's made its point already, I feel.) Let me know
via e-mail or on rassfuck; I'll make an announcement here if we do
decide to bury it.
> Hmm, my first guess (that you were using Turnpike) was wrong, it
> looks as though you're using KA9Q (one of the few of us still using
> it, it seems). In that case, I don't know why you can't get anything
> with a dot in the name, it works for me...
My version of KA9Q must be broken, I guess.
Tim Illingworth
KA9Q is trying to create VACUOUS..TXT (and VACUOUS..LCK) and not
getting very far. I have mailed Pam a suitable REWRITE file to fix
the problem.
Tim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Illingworth t...@smof.demon.co.uk Go not to Usenet for advice, for
Chessington, tim...@compuserve.com they will say both 'No' and 'Yes'
Surrey, UK 10014...@compuserve.com and 'Try Another Newsgroup'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Walton
In article <893267...@bitch.demon.co.uk>
Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk "Pam Wells" writes:
> Serious question: now that the UK group looks like happening on
> Usenet real soon now, do we still want to keep the rassfuck list
> going? (As a joke, it's made its point already, I feel.) Let me know
> via e-mail or on rassfuck; I'll make an announcement here if we do
> decide to bury it.
That's not a group for British fans, that's a group for British
people who read the uk.media.sf groups and want to socialise,
Mike was attacked by some of them for saying that using fan in
that context was confusing to some of us.
I wish that group could be called something else, but I'm not sure
I have a strong enough case for objecting to it, especially as
some fans seem to think it'll meet their purposes rather than
entirely blocking the idea of having a British fan group.
> My version of KA9Q must be broken, I guess.
My version won't do that either, I think the combination of UNIX and
DOS it appears to be doesn't like multiple dots in filenames. Not
that it's a problem as the only people who send me mail with dots
in the first bit are spammers.
I think KA9Q is a good program, generally, I like it, and I'm not
just saying that because it's listening. :]
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - Blood of Kings Poetry; rasfw FAQ;
Reviews; Interstichia; Momentum - a paying market for real poetry.
Pam Wells
> My version of KA9Q must be broken, I guess.
But, thanks to Tim Illingworth, I now have a suggestion for how to
mend it! (And, no, this is not an encouragement for people to send
e-mail to my address with full stops where they didn't oughtta be.
I am a technical dweeb, and there's no guarantee that I'll apply
the fix properly....)
Morgan Gallagher
In this post <893267...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam Wells <Vacuous_Tart@b
itch.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>Serious question: now that the UK group looks like happening on
>Usenet real soon now, do we still want to keep the rassfuck list
>going?
Yes.
there is a place for knowing you can't be tracked on Dejanews!
David Goldfarb
Morgan Gallagher <Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
)there is a place for knowing you can't be tracked on Dejanews!
If that's a concern, why not just put "X-no-archive: Yes"
in your header? Although I guess you would still have to worry
about followup posts quoting you.
David Goldfarb <*>|"Given enough time and the right audience,
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | the darkest of secrets scum over into
aste...@slip.net | mere curiosities."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- Neil Gaiman, _Sandman_ #53
Philip Chee
In article <kjkdpGAW...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk writes:
>In this post <893267...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam Wells <Vacuous_Tart@b
>itch.demon.co.uk> said:
>>Serious question: now that the UK group looks like happening on
>>Usenet real soon now, do we still want to keep the rassfuck list
>>going?
>Yes. there is a place for knowing you can't be tracked on Dejanews!
But you can still be tracked by Reference.com .
Phil
---=====================================================================---
Philip Chee: Tasek Corporation Berhad, P.O.Box 254, 30908 Ipoh, MALAYSIA
e-mail: phi...@aleytys.pc.my Voice:+60-5-545-1011 Fax:+60-5-547-3932
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
---
ž 10075.68 ž What if there were no hypothetical questions?
Aahz Maruch
In article <89334518...@aleytys.pc.my>,
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>In article <kjkdpGAW...@sidhen.demon.co.uk> Mor...@sidhen.demon.co.uk writes:
>>In this post <893267...@bitch.demon.co.uk>, Pam Wells <Vacuous_Tart@b
>>itch.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>>>Serious question: now that the UK group looks like happening on
>>>Usenet real soon now, do we still want to keep the rassfuck list
>>>going?
>>
>>Yes. there is a place for knowing you can't be tracked on Dejanews!
>
>But you can still be tracked by Reference.com .
I was tempted to make the same comment, then remembered that rassfuck
adds new subscribers by hand. Not too likely, in that case.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 <*> http://www.bayarea.net/~aahz
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het
"Rhapsody: Now Macintosh can be just like Windows -- an OS running on
top of another OS." -- Stef
Alison Scott
sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk (Bridget Hardcastle) wrote:
>We tried to administer the Ken MacIntyre award at the 1996 Eastercon. Both
>the original and the published form of the artwork need to be displayed,
>and must be judged by a panel of five people including (I think - my brain
>is being severely dredged at this point) a con committee member, a Knight
>of St Fanthony, a member of some other group (either Brum, BSFA or FoF, I
>forget) and two other people chosen in an arcane manner.
A con committee member, a Knight of St. Fanthony, a representative of
the BSFA, Rog Peyton (representing only himself!) and AN Other.
Jolly hard, I agree.
Mike Ford
>In article <893267...@bitch.demon.co.uk>
> Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk "Pam Wells" writes:
>
>> Serious question: now that the UK group looks like happening on
>> Usenet real soon now, do we still want to keep the rassfuck list
>> going? (As a joke, it's made its point already, I feel.) Let me know
>> via e-mail or on rassfuck; I'll make an announcement here if we do
>> decide to bury it.
>
>That's not a group for British fans, that's a group for British
>people who read the uk.media.sf groups and want to socialise,
>Mike was attacked by some of them for saying that using fan in
>that context was confusing to some of us.
Easy one here: just take rasff on tour to uk.people.sf-fans for
a week or two and swamp them into retreating to *yet another*
(better named) group ;-)
--
Mike Ford -- Leeds, UK -- m...@mcgoff.karoo.co.uk
Maureen Kincaid Speller for TAFF
Gary Farber
In <354249dd....@news.demon.co.uk> Alison Scott <ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk> wrote:
: sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk (Bridget Hardcastle) wrote:
: >We tried to administer the Ken MacIntyre award at the 1996 Eastercon. Both
: >the original and the published form of the artwork need to be displayed,
: >and must be judged by a panel of five people including (I think - my brain
: >is being severely dredged at this point) a con committee member, a Knight
: >of St Fanthony, a member of some other group (either Brum, BSFA or FoF, I
: >forget) and two other people chosen in an arcane manner.
: A con committee member, a Knight of St. Fanthony, a representative of
: the BSFA, Rog Peyton (representing only himself!) and AN Other.
: Jolly hard, I agree.
Has no one the authority to change these criteria? The Knights of St.
Fanthony is not exactly a hyper-active group these days -- is *anyone*
left of the group who still attends Eastercon?
If it would be possible for someone (Rob?) to sketch in a brief history of
the award, I'm probably the only one here who would be interested. ;-)
--
--
Copyright 1998 by Gary Farber; Web Researcher; Nonfiction Writer,
Fiction and Nonfiction Editor; gfa...@panix.com; B'klyn, NYC, US
Chris Croughton
Jo Walton wrote:
>
> In article <893267...@bitch.demon.co.uk>
> Vacuou...@bitch.demon.co.uk "Pam Wells" writes:
>
> > Serious question: now that the UK group looks like happening on
> > Usenet real soon now, do we still want to keep the rassfuck list
> > going? (As a joke, it's made its point already, I feel.) Let me know
> > via e-mail or on rassfuck; I'll make an announcement here if we do
> > decide to bury it.
>
> That's not a group for British fans, that's a group for British
> people who read the uk.media.sf groups and want to socialise,
Wrong. It is a group for British fans whatever media they like.
> Mike was attacked by some of them for saying that using fan in
> that context was confusing to some of us.
He was criticised for saying that media fans can't mix with
non-media fans because they'd have nothing to talk about in
common.
> I wish that group could be called something else, but I'm not sure
> I have a strong enough case for objecting to it, especially as
> some fans seem to think it'll meet their purposes rather than
> entirely blocking the idea of having a British fan group.
Since you'll never have a British fan group with a sensible name
(the uk.* admins like to have SF at the bottom of the heirarchy
so we get uk.*.*.sf) I and most of the other posters feel that
it's better than not having it at all.
> > My version of KA9Q must be broken, I guess.
>
> My version won't do that either, I think the combination of UNIX and
> DOS it appears to be doesn't like multiple dots in filenames. Not
> that it's a problem as the only people who send me mail with dots
> in the first bit are spammers.
Got it! OK, KA9Q won't "default deliver" to names with dots in
because DOS filenames can only contain one dot (and KA9Q puts .TXT
on the end). My setup contains aliases for my names with dots in
it (c.croughton@..., chris.croughton@... etc.).
> I think KA9Q is a good program, generally, I like it, and I'm not
> just saying that because it's listening. :]
It certainly is. I'm using it for my private German node as well as
for my Demon one...
Chris C
Chris Croughton
Tim Illingworth wrote:
>
> In article <353DB2...@amc.de> crou...@amc.de "Chris Croughton" writes:
>
> >Hmm, my first guess (that you were using Turnpike) was wrong, it
> >looks as though you're using KA9Q (one of the few of us still using
> >it, it seems). In that case, I don't know why you can't get anything
> >with a dot in the name, it works for me...
>
> KA9Q is trying to create VACUOUS..TXT (and VACUOUS..LCK) and not
> getting very far. I have mailed Pam a suitable REWRITE file to fix
> the problem.
Yes, I realised it when Jo mentioned it. I have aliases rather than
REWRITE:
c.croughton chris
chris.croughton chris
etc. I believed that setting the default to a named mailbox also
works (but it's been years since I tried it)...
Chris C
John Richards
Gary Farber wrote:
> Has no one the authority to change these criteria? The Knights of St.
> Fanthony is not exactly a hyper-active group these days -- is *anyone*
> left of the group who still attends Eastercon?
I'm not sure but I think that Ken Slater is a Knight.
--
Mike Scott
On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:23:38 +0200, Chris Croughton <crou...@amc.de>
wrote:
>He was criticised for saying that media fans can't mix with
>non-media fans because they'd have nothing to talk about in
>common.
This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. Rather than repeat the
arguments here, I suggest anyone interested should search in Dejanews.
--
Mike Scott
mi...@moose.demon.co.uk
http://www.moose.demon.co.uk
Bernard Peek
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <6hop5v$j...@panix2.panix.com>, Gary
Farber <gfa...@panix.com> writes
>In <354249dd....@news.demon.co.uk> Alison Scott
><ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>: sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk (Bridget Hardcastle) wrote:
>
>: >We tried to administer the Ken MacIntyre award at the 1996 Eastercon. Both
>: >the original and the published form of the artwork need to be displayed,
>: >and must be judged by a panel of five people including (I think - my brain
>: >is being severely dredged at this point) a con committee member, a Knight
>: >of St Fanthony, a member of some other group (either Brum, BSFA or FoF, I
>: >forget) and two other people chosen in an arcane manner.
>
>: A con committee member, a Knight of St. Fanthony, a representative of
>: the BSFA, Rog Peyton (representing only himself!) and AN Other.
>
>: Jolly hard, I agree.
>
No.
Perhaps that needs some elaboration.
The KM award is one of the few that has had a definite set of rules.
There is no mechanism in those rules by which they can be changed.
Of course the Eastercon committee could change the rules if their
constitution permitted it, but there is no constitution.
> The Knights of St.
>Fanthony is not exactly a hyper-active group these days -- is *anyone*
>left of the group who still attends Eastercon?
Not many, Peter Mabey is the only regularly attending Knight that I know
of.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Bridget Hardcastle
In article <6hop5v$j...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
wrote:
<The Ken McIntyre Award is judged by>
> : A con committee member, a Knight of St. Fanthony, a representative of
> : the BSFA, Rog Peyton (representing only himself!) and AN Other.
> Has no one the authority to change these criteria?
Con committees have (recently, at least) been able to not bother with the
award and have no one complain about it. It would seem not unfeasible to
get a member of the BSFA, Ken Slater, and Rog Peyton together for a few
minutes (during a quiet time in the Dealers' Room?) to decide whether to
formally discontinue the award as being irrelevant to today's fandom or
whether one of them would be willing to find a champion to rekindle
interest in it for future years.
> The Knights of St. Fanthony is not exactly a hyper-active group these
> days -- is *anyone* left of the group who still attends Eastercon?
Ken Slater definitely, isn't Peter Weston also a Knight?
Bug
Chris Croughton
Mike Scott wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:23:38 +0200, Chris Croughton <crou...@amc.de>
> wrote:
>
> >He was criticised for saying that media fans can't mix with
> >non-media fans because they'd have nothing to talk about in
> >common.
>
> This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. Rather than repeat the
> arguments here, I suggest anyone interested should search in Dejanews.
From DejaNews:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: RFD: uk.people.sf-fans
From: mi...@moose.demon.co.uk (Mike Scott)
Date: 1998/04/01
Message-ID: <3526801b...@news.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: uk.net.news.config
<snip>
Meanwhile, since you seem to have clarified that you see this primarily
as a social group, perhaps you could just explain for those of us who
have not yet found it clear from your earlier posts exactly what
commonality is shared by, let us say, fans of :The Prisoner: and fans of
the works of Anne McCaffrey that will render their conversation in some
way more useful or worthwhile than a similar discussion that one could
have just as well on uk.misc. There are a number of successful social
groups, but they all draw upon a fairly narrow cultural basis -- unless,
of course, you can name a couple that don't.
<snip>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was one of the posts to which I replied on the subject, because
it's certainly true that many fans of "The Prisoner" have a lot in
common with fans of Anne McCaffrey. Of course, it wasn't the /only/
stupid straw man you brought up (the one about the 99% of people
who watch SF TV shows not being interested in doing anything socially
involving SF was particularly amusing)...
But by all means, have a look in DejaNews. Select the newsgroup and
subject as above...
Chris C
Maureen Kincaid Speller
On 25 Apr 1998 09:14:56 GMT, sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk (Bridget
Hardcastle) wrote:
Also Peter Mabey, I thought ... but may be wrong here
Maureen
Maureen Kincaid Speller
m...@acnestis.demon.co.uk
http://www.acnestis.demon.co.uk
Bernard Peek
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <memo.1998042...@bugshaw.compuli
nk.co.uk>, Bridget Hardcastle <sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk> writes
>In article <6hop5v$j...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
>wrote:
>> In <354249dd....@news.demon.co.uk> Alison Scott
>> <ali...@fuggles.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><The Ken McIntyre Award is judged by>
>
>> : A con committee member, a Knight of St. Fanthony, a representative of
>> : the BSFA, Rog Peyton (representing only himself!) and AN Other.
>
>> Has no one the authority to change these criteria?
>
>Con committees have (recently, at least) been able to not bother with the
>award and have no one complain about it.
Let me put the record straight about Intuition. I've had a letter from
Mark Plummer. He points out that the Kem McIntyre award *was* mentioned
in PR3, in an article by Pat McMurray. I obviously missed that. There
was no mention in the programme book because it proved impossible to
find out much more about it. There's no printed list of winners
anywhere, or very much in print at all.
The contents of this thread is probably the most that's been written
about it in years.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Mike Scott
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:19:46 +0200, Chris Croughton <crou...@amc.de>
wrote:
>That was one of the posts to which I replied on the subject, because
>it's certainly true that many fans of "The Prisoner" have a lot in
>common with fans of Anne McCaffrey. Of course, it wasn't the /only/
>stupid straw man you brought up (the one about the 99% of people
>who watch SF TV shows not being interested in doing anything socially
>involving SF was particularly amusing)...
You are confusing the general and the specific. My example, which you
quoted, of the enormous diversity and breadth of the modern SF field
happened to use examples from TV and from books. This does not make it a
generic statement about media and literary SF and their respective
fandoms. Perhaps instead of a kneejerk "Oh look he's putting down the
media fans" reaction you might have cared to address the substantive
point contained in the post instead. No one did.
David Langford
On Sat, 25 Apr 1998 17:29:34 +0100, Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
John Dallman was asking last year about the Ken McIntyre Award (presented
at Eastercons for fanzine art) and whether it was worth reviving. I had no
trouble in locating a copy of the rules. Here's my August 97 reply to John,
for what it's worth:
Thanks for the discussion sheet, which gave me the sensation of a bony,
spectral hand clutching me by the goolies as I reflected that it's twenty
years since I arranged the reform of the Nova Awards.... Well done,
anyway. Some rethinking is certainly needed.
Ken McIntyre was before my time, too (by about five years), and I
remember first really noticing the award when I produced the 1978
Eastercon programme book. One striking contrast with the Doc Weir --
which has survived better -- was that there didn't seem to be any
tradition of recording those who had been honoured. Presumably they're
all engraved on the award, but Eastercon members at large never see the
roll of honour.
The main reason that I was typing up the Weir and McIntyre award rules
for Skycon was the simple principle of "monkey see, monkey do": this was
something that Eastercons always did, and I copied the text from the
Eastercon '77 programme book. This, I think, carried through all the way
to Beccon in 1987. The ball was then dropped by Follycon '88, and neither
Contrivance nor Eastcon '90 picked it up again. Now, though admittedly
lacking a complete set, I can't find a 1990s programme book with the
traditional Award Rules section. Some daft Mornington Crescent rules
propagated briefly in its place.
So if the award is to be revitalized, the tradition of printing the rules
in the programme book should be reinstated and -- according to me -- a
list of past winners added. The poor old artists don't even get to keep
the trophy on their mantelpieces: let them have =some= permanent egoboo.
... That was based on the assumption that the award would continue. I
remember Alan Dorey stating years ago that the trophy turned out to be
solid silver and quite valuable, which made it embarrassing to suggest
cancelling the presentations. If they are to go on, I think a quorum of
those qualified judges should agree on updated rules -- it can hardly have
been intended that the award should automatically cease with the passing of
the BSFA (which very nearly did die in the 1970s), Rog Peyton (still
blooming) or the seemingly moribund Knights of St Fantony.
It's true that the rules contain no provision for changing the rules. But
what the hell -- it's not the US Constitution, just some rather
short-sighted provisions for a minor art award. Either make the thing
workable in the longer term, or wind it up and put the trophy on display at
the SF Foundation where a few visitors might at last discover who the past
winners were.
Reforms? Three judges would be easier to find: say, one a con committee
member and the others to be chosen from the remaining specified categories
or the pool of past winners, as available. (Whoever the past winners are.
My little brother -- later of the Mekons -- won it once.) Perhaps the
requirement for display of both the original artwork and its fanzine
appearance is over-fiddly (you know how it is: the original has been lost
by the editor or has gone back to the artist, who lacks a spare copy of the
fanzine): displaying the original with a note of where it appeared, or the
fanzine page, seems adequate to me.
Dave
--
David Langford
ans...@cix.co.uk | http://www.ansible.demon.co.uk/
John Dallman
In article <$iHQADAu...@intersec.demon.co.uk>,
> Let me put the record straight about Intuition. I've had a letter from
> Mark Plummer. He points out that the Kem McIntyre award *was* mentioned
> in PR3, in an article by Pat McMurray. I obviously missed that. There
> was no mention in the programme book because it proved impossible to
> find out much more about it. There's no printed list of winners
> anywhere, or very much in print at all.
Well, both Msrs Plummer and McMurray got copies of the small fanzine I did
about it, and a list of the winners can be obtained by reading them off
the trophy, which the fanzine pointed out was in my possession. After the
feedback I got on the fanzine (Dave Langford's is in this thread, Tim
Illingworth suggested some rule tweaks, D.West and Greg Pickersgill
treated itas a zombie from the past and tried to drive stakes into it and
Keith Freeman said "err, sorry I haven't done anything", I concluded that
there wasn't enough general interest (including mine) to do anything about
it. I didn't hear from any of the people who'd expressed interest in
reform and thus received it, notably Rog Peyton.
> The contents of this thread is probably the most that's been written
> about it in years.
Yup! Putting it on display at the Foundation is the best idea, I reckon.
---
John Dallman j...@cix.co.uk
Bernard Peek
In rec.arts.sf.fandom, article <35430ef1...@news.demon.co.uk>,
David Langford <ans...@cix.co.uk> writes
>John Dallman was asking last year about the Ken McIntyre Award (presented
>at Eastercons for fanzine art) and whether it was worth reviving. I had no
>trouble in locating a copy of the rules. Here's my August 97 reply to John,
>for what it's worth:
> Ken McIntyre was before my time, too (by about five years), and I
> remember first really noticing the award when I produced the 1978
> Eastercon programme book. One striking contrast with the Doc Weir --
> which has survived better -- was that there didn't seem to be any
> tradition of recording those who had been honoured. Presumably they're
> all engraved on the award, but Eastercon members at large never see the
> roll of honour.
I believe that the award went missing for some years, so having the
winners' names engraved on it would have been no help.
>
> The main reason that I was typing up the Weir and McIntyre award rules
> for Skycon was the simple principle of "monkey see, monkey do": this was
> something that Eastercons always did, and I copied the text from the
> Eastercon '77 programme book. This, I think, carried through all the way
> to Beccon in 1987. The ball was then dropped by Follycon '88, and neither
When I was looking for information about the award for Beccon 87 I
couldn't find anything in writing, nor could the other committee
members. I only got the full details when I spoke to Rog Peyton. At that
time there was a lot less continuity between Eastercons than there is
now. I don't think any of the Beccon committee members had been on an
Eastercon committee before.
[...]
>... That was based on the assumption that the award would continue. I
>remember Alan Dorey stating years ago that the trophy turned out to be
>solid silver and quite valuable, which made it embarrassing to suggest
>cancelling the presentations. If they are to go on, I think a quorum of
>those qualified judges should agree on updated rules -- it can hardly have
>been intended that the award should automatically cease with the passing of
>the BSFA (which very nearly did die in the 1970s), Rog Peyton (still
>blooming) or the seemingly moribund Knights of St Fantony.
The Doc Weir award is a solid silver goblet about 8" high. Its value
fluctates wildly, particularly when someone is trying to corner the
market in silver. The Ken McIntyre award has no intrinsic value.
>
>It's true that the rules contain no provision for changing the rules. But
>what the hell -- it's not the US Constitution, just some rather
>short-sighted provisions for a minor art award. Either make the thing
>workable in the longer term, or wind it up and put the trophy on display at
>the SF Foundation where a few visitors might at last discover who the past
>winners were.
Suggestion: Two-year bidding gives some sense of stability to the
Eastercons. Why don't the next two Eastercon committees just get
together and make a decision. Their decision will stand until at least
Ester 2001, by which time it will have become a firmly established
tradition.
>
>Reforms? Three judges would be easier to find: say, one a con committee
>member and the others to be chosen from the remaining specified categories
>or the pool of past winners, as available. (Whoever the past winners are.
>My little brother -- later of the Mekons -- won it once.) Perhaps the
>requirement for display of both the original artwork and its fanzine
>appearance is over-fiddly (you know how it is: the original has been lost
>by the editor or has gone back to the artist, who lacks a spare copy of the
>fanzine): displaying the original with a note of where it appeared, or the
>fanzine page, seems adequate to me.
In many cases now there are no originals, the art is entirely
electronic.
--
Bernard Peek
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Alison Scott
Bernard Peek <b...@intersec.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In many cases now there are no originals, the art is entirely
>electronic.
Many? A few, certainly; and it was suggested that Steve should put
either the Farber Dollar or the fillo "New Plokta, New Danger" into
the Ken McIntyre for just that reason. The latter, in particular, had
no original, but every one of the copies was hand-coloured.
But I'm not sure there's yet a lot of electronic art knocking around,
particularly not in UK fandom.
Bill Burns
In article <memo.1998042...@bugshaw.compulink.co.uk>, sch...@bugshaw.cix.co.uk wrote:
>In article <6hop5v$j...@panix2.panix.com>, gfa...@panix.com (Gary Farber)
>> The Knights of St. Fanthony is not exactly a hyper-active group these
>> days -- is *anyone* left of the group who still attends Eastercon?
>
>Ken Slater definitely, isn't Peter Weston also a Knight?
>
>Bug
Knights & Ladies: Norman Shorrock, Ina Shorrock, Ramsey Campbell, Doreen
Rogers, Bill Burns, maybe one or two others I can't remember.