Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Electronic versions of B5 books

317 views
Skip to first unread message

Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jul 13, 2012, 7:14:12 AM7/13/12
to
I have all of the B5 books so far (not the trilogies, but the script/What the
hell happened/etc. books, at least I think I have), what I would love to have
but doubt I ever will are electronic versions of these books. I have all of
the books, but I've stopped reading them. Why? I've damaged some of the
books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and
re-read them, replacements won't be available. Also those things end up
being heavy. I'd love to be able to carry three or four of those books
around when I go on vacation. A Kindle or an iPad version would be lots more
portable than the printed copy.

I'm sure that my dream will remain unfulfilled, but I can still have it.


Nicole Massey

unread,
Jul 13, 2012, 8:58:47 AM7/13/12
to

"Wayne Dernoncourt" <way...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CC257B44...@news.panix.com...
I discussed this with Joe at one point in the past, and he was wary of doing
electronic versions of the script books for legal reasons. For me it was
simply an accessibility issue, as I'm blind.



PhantomSteve

unread,
Jul 13, 2012, 11:15:30 AM7/13/12
to
Nicole Massey entertained (or was it annoyed?) us in message:
They would also have to consider how they do it - one of the "features"
of the books is that they would not be available in the future after the
end of the publication window.

They also couldn't publish them exactly as they were, as another thing
they always say is basically "these won't ever be published in their
entirety again" - the deal when they were first published was similar to
the one for the "Echoes" series:

"PLEASE DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT YOU MEAN BY LIMITED EDITION.
These books will never, ever be available again. This compilation
under a different title will never, ever be available again. Really.
Name any ploy used by an unscrupulous "limited edition" publisher
and know that we will not do that.

That said, it is possible that some of the content could be
available somewhere else, someday, separately. "Separately" is the
key word here. For example, one of the interviews could be
republished in another book."

Steve

--
__ _ __
o|\('')/|o |_)|_ _ __ _|_ _ __ _ _|_ _ _ o|\('')/|o
\_ _/ | | |(_|| | |_(_)|||_> |_(/_\_/(/_ \_ _/
/___/ (PhantomSteve - Design : Marion Koslowski) \___\

John W Kennedy

unread,
Jul 13, 2012, 1:44:51 PM7/13/12
to
On 2012-07-13 11:14:12 +0000, Wayne Dernoncourt said:
> I have all of the B5 books so far (not the trilogies, but the script/What the
> hell happened/etc. books, at least I think I have), what I would love to have
> but doubt I ever will are electronic versions of these books. I have all of
> the books, but I've stopped reading them. Why? I've damaged some of the
> books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and
> re-read them, replacements won't be available. Also those things end up
> being heavy. I'd love to be able to carry three or four of those books
> around when I go on vacation. A Kindle or an iPad version would be lots more
> portable than the printed copy.
>
> I'm sure that my dream will remain unfulfilled, but I can still have it.
>
Apart from the other problems, most of the material is in the form of original scans; you're talking a megabyte or two per page (assuming they've been converted in to optimized PNGs -- otherwise you could be looking at over 100MB each). In principle, they could be OCRed, but I've just been doing that with a single 80-page typescript, which reduced it from about 500MB to about 125kB, but destroyed all the formatting while introducing several OCR errors per page, both of which I had to fix by hand (and I'd still be working on it if I hadn't decided that I could ignore the original line breaks and page breaks, and that's not acceptable for the scripts).

Unless you can find a few dozen volunteers to work for several weeks without pay, I don't think it's feasible.

--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson


Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jul 14, 2012, 8:13:47 AM7/14/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 13:44:51 -0400, John W Kennedy wrote
(in article <9484D038-4D2C-4761...@attglobal.net>):
I'm willing to bet the text didn't start out as pen on paper, maybe it did.
But someone somewhere put it into a computer for production on a printer.
I'm looking to capture that to an electronic version. As someone else
pointed out the "Limited time only" is a sticky issue. I'm sure there are
other issues.


Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jul 15, 2012, 9:57:33 AM7/15/12
to
On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:15:30 -0400, PhantomSteve wrote
(in article <XnsA08FA56344B19ph...@81.171.92.222>):
After doing some more thinking about this stuff what about embedding the
buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times). Each person
would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is pretty
sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two copies
and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more appropriate
since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
features but also obsolescence.


Nicole Massey

unread,
Jul 15, 2012, 1:38:18 PM7/15/12
to

"Wayne Dernoncourt" <way...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CC28448D...@news.panix.com...
A common tactic in RPG books is to watermark the buyer's name on each page
of the pdf.



Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jul 15, 2012, 7:41:50 PM7/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 13:38:18 -0400, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <jtuvd3$ico$1...@news.albasani.net>):


>> After doing some more thinking about this stuff what about embedding
>> the buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times).
>> Each person
>> would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
>> typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is
>> pretty
>> sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two
>> copies
>> and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
>> version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
>> don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more
>> appropriate
>> since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
>> features but also obsolescence.
>
> A common tactic in RPG books is to watermark the buyer's name on each
> page of the pdf.

How effective is this tactic? I don't think that DRM is actually very
effective in practice, but I do respect every author the right to
protect their property.


Nicole Massey

unread,
Jul 16, 2012, 4:20:32 AM7/16/12
to

"Wayne Dernoncourt" <way...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CC28CD7E...@news.panix.com...
Not sure. It persists, so it must be working on some level, but since I'm
blind I don't actually run into it in the things I use, so I can't say if
it's a deterrent.



Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jul 20, 2012, 10:22:54 AM7/20/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:20:32 -0400, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <ju0j39$c8g$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Hopefully someone else that has experience can chime in here....



Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jul 21, 2012, 9:12:20 AM7/21/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 10:22:54 -0400, Wayne Dernoncourt wrote
(in article <0001HW.CC2EE1FE...@news.panix.com>):
Re-reading what I wrote it sounds like I'm minimizing what you said.
I didn't mean to imply that, I was wondering if someone else has more
information about the level of success that embedding the purchasers
information in the file.


StarFuryG7

unread,
Jul 25, 2012, 2:42:03 AM7/25/12
to
Gee, whatever could have happened to my post from last week concerning
Claudia Christian's new book, as if I didn't know.

This place never changes.

Andrew Swallow

unread,
Jul 25, 2012, 11:03:51 AM7/25/12
to
Was that the posting that mentioned Claudia Christian's date with JMS?

Andrew Swallow

StarFuryG7

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 2:29:26 AM7/27/12
to
On Jul 25, 11:03 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Was that the posting that mentioned Claudia Christian's date with JMS?
> Andrew Swallow

The article mentioned it, not my posting. The only thing the post
contained was the title of the article and the Page Link. But, as with
SO MANY MESSAGES THAT I HAVE POSTED HERE THROUGH THE YEARS, it
mysteriously never showed up after being submitted to the moderators
for :::ahem::: 'review'.

The sad fact is that it's been going on for well over a decade here
concerning my messages --no reason to not allow them to show up other
than pure, unadulterated spite in the vast majority of cases just like
this.

Bruce Goatly

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 4:15:30 AM7/27/12
to
StarFuryG7 wrote:

> The sad fact is that it's been going on for well over a decade here
> concerning my messages --no reason to not allow them to show up other
> than pure, unadulterated spite in the vast majority of cases just like
> this.

And yet the moderators allowed the piece of vitriol above to show up. What
does that say about your theory, I wonder?

--
Bruce


Wayne Dernoncourt

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 8:08:50 AM7/27/12
to
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 02:42:03 -0400, StarFuryG7 wrote
(in article
<ecf6e7cc-3b1b-4fb4...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>):

> Gee, whatever could have happened to my post from last week concerning
> Claudia Christian's new book, as if I didn't know.
>
> This place never changes.

I never saw it.... more info please


StarFuryG7

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 1:01:16 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 8:08 am, Wayne Dernoncourt <way...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> I never saw it.... more info please

What more information do you really need? I've already said that the
only thing the message contained was the title of the article and the
article link, and that's it, other than it was posted by me a week
ago.


StarFuryG7

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 12:59:31 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 4:15 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:

> And yet the moderators allowed the piece of vitriol above to show up. What
> does that say about your theory, I wonder?
> --
> Bruce

I'll tell you exactly what it 'says' about it: that either you know
how this groups functions on a technical level and are feigning
ignorance, or you simply don't know and need to be told. So regardless
of which it is, this thread hasn't been flagged for monitoring, so
unless a poster has been put on "hand moderation" they can post a
message to it and have it go through without a problem. That's how I
knew I could post here in this thread and that it would show up,
whereas creating a new thread doesn't automatically work that way
necessarily. The one I alluded to went to a moderator for approval,
and just never appeared after that, which as I said, has occurred
over, and over, and over again through the years here. And it can't be
chalked up to Google Groups, because I've posted threads here under a
multitude of different methods here through the years, and have seen
it happen time and time again. So the posts not showing up is
purposeful on the part of someone. It's the only logical conclusion
that can be drawn after years and years of the same garbage.

Have a nice day.


Nicole Massey

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 3:49:40 PM7/27/12
to

"StarFuryG7" <StarF...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:b905a19c-c90c-43ab...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Actually, no, it's not the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. There
have been problems with starting new threads due to some glich in the server
that handles the moderation . Some of the most respected members of this
newsgroup have had problems with this, because the message never gets to the
server somehow. There have been some server hang problems in the past as
well, from what I've gathered, so it well may be that these two things have
kept messages from going through, not intentional moderation of your
postings. For a while there only postings sent on an existing thread got
through, so folks were changing titles and such to get their messages
through. I've had a couple go into the bit bucket when I sent new messages
but they made it when replying to a thread and just changing the title.
So there is another logical answer to this besides some sort of censorship.
As far as I know, only inflamatory messages and story ideas get moderated,
and EVERY message goes through moderation, with the possible exception of
those sent by moderators.
Of course I could be wrong about that last bit, but it's the impression I"ve
gotten based on watching message flow.



StarFuryG7

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 4:27:00 PM7/27/12
to
On Jul 27, 3:49 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:

> Actually, no, it's not the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. There
> have been problems with starting new threads due to some glich in the server
> that handles the moderation . Some of the most respected members of this
> newsgroup have had problems with this, because the message never gets to the
> server somehow. There have been some server hang problems in the past as
> well, from what I've gathered, so it well may be that these two things have
> kept messages from going through, not intentional moderation of your
> postings. For a while there only postings sent on an existing thread got
> through, so folks were changing titles and such to get their messages
> through. I've had a couple go into the bit bucket when I sent new messages
> but they made it when replying to a thread and just changing the title.
> So there is another logical answer to this besides some sort of censorship.
> As far as I know, only inflamatory messages and story ideas get moderated,
> and EVERY message goes through moderation, with the possible exception of
> those sent by moderators.
> Of course I could be wrong about that last bit, but it's the impression I"ve
> gotten based on watching message flow.

So you're saying they've had server problems for well over a decade
that have never been properly addressed even after all this time?

I'm skeptical to say the least, and haven't found the staff to be
particularly friendly through the years to boot.

By the way, if you reply, can you please see to it that your comments
are distinctly separate from mine? I'd appreciate it.

Nicole Massey

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 7:34:21 PM7/27/12
to

"StarFuryG7" <StarF...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:b67f8878-dbbf-43bd...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...
--
How's that? For some reason my system doesn't put everyone in the > sign
format, not sure why.
I'm not sure where the problems started, but I remember having problems
posting when the moderated group started. I was away for a bit, getting used
to being blind, which of course took a lot of my focus, so I can't speak for
it in that situation. When I came back I had the dickens of a time (and with
how long most of Dickens' works are, that's saying something) getting to
where I could post to the list using my new email address.
And I've found the moderators to be very helpful when I've emailed them, Amy
Guskin in particular.
There is this assumption that messages sent through the internet are 100%
guaranteed to get somewhere. That is of course no where near the reality of
it, thanks to the wide number of variables in play in any email transaction.
I can't speak for why you're having problems posting here, as I'm not on the
inside of how this newsgroup works, but I can relay what I've encountered.
As for Claudia' book, I caught the story on it on Sci-Fi Wire. I wouldn't be
surprised if she's being completely honest in her memoir, and it takes a lot
of guts to pass out teasers at the door to a talk with your former boss, but
truth is a three edged sword, a saying that is more true the more we learn
about cognitive science and how the brain works. So I'd suggest keeping the
shaker of fine grind iodized close at hand for any autobiography.



Dennis (Icarus)

unread,
Jul 27, 2012, 9:09:09 PM7/27/12
to


"Nicole Massey" wrote in message news:juv8p9$pjl$1...@news.albasani.net...

>

>

<snip>

>--

>How's that? For some reason my system doesn't put everyone in the > sign

>format, not sure why.



It stopped using indentation after I "upgraded" to the latest outlook. If

you are using outlook express 6, quotefix may help

http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/



Dennis







StarFuryG7

unread,
Jul 28, 2012, 2:50:43 AM7/28/12
to
On Jul 27, 7:34 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:

> How's that?
>

That's fine, thanks.

> I'm not sure where the problems started, but I remember having problems
> posting when the moderated group started. I was away for a bit, getting used
> to being blind, which of course took a lot of my focus, so I can't speak for
> it in that situation. When I came back I had the dickens of a time (and with
> how long most of Dickens' works are, that's saying something) getting to
> where I could post to the list using my new email address.

Oh, there's been talk of problems with posts not showing up
through the years due to one technical problem or another, but I don't
remember it being an issue all of the time. There were periods where
it didn't seem to be an issue at all, and yet my posts wouldn't show
up, and if I wrote to someone on the staff about it via private email,
it wasn't unusual for me to get a nasty reply in response. Two of the
people that spring to mind were never pleasant as a matter of fact,
even via email where there was no one to see what was being said. And
since those were the kinds of curt replies that I got behind the
scenes on occasion (albeit rare occasions because I didn't post to
this newsgroup on a consistent ongoing basis) that told me something
about them personally concerning the kind of people they are. And as
things stand right now I've posted two messages to this group since
the spring that never appeared prior to the one I've already mentioned
concerning Claudia and her book. I'm sorry --I just don't believe it's
a coincidence or that it has anything to do with technical issues all
of the time. I believe someone sees my post in the moderation cue, and
just dumps it. In fact there was a big argument that took place about
this five years ago because I dared to complain then, and it turned
into a stupid dispute about whether Usenet is a part of the Internet
or not, followed by JMS sticking his nose in and being a pompous jerk.
Frankly, my experiences here through the years have been rather
miserable, and I know for a fact that it's not all attributable to me.
I just throw back what I've had thrown at me. You however seem nice,
and I don't wish to take how I feel about it out on you. However, I
think you would agree that if you tried posting three messages here
since the spring, all of which simply didn't show up, you would have a
raised eyebrow about it as well.

> And I've found the moderators to be very helpful when I've emailed them, Amy
> Guskin in particular.

Okay, I wish you hadn't mentioned her, but I'll just leave it
at that.

> There is this assumption that messages sent through the internet are 100%
> guaranteed to get somewhere. That is of course no where near the reality of
> it, thanks to the wide number of variables in play in any email transaction.

Like I said, there have been a multitude of issues like this
over many, many years --for well over a decade in fact, probably a
decade and a half ...in fact, ya know what ...longer than that as I
sit here thinking about it because I would post here back when B5 was
on the air in first-run, so it literally goes back that far. I have
had many different computers, and have used various different types of
connection, starting with Dial-up, to DSL, to a cable modem and a
router, and it's always been the same crap. I used to post directly
from AOL back when they still had newsgroups, and even back then, the
same baloney, and I would be told, "Oh, well, you're posting from AOL,
and not everything comes through from AOL." I would post from
Newsreaders of various types via a variety of different servers
throughout the years, and it always amounted to the same thing. Yes,
posts would come through to already existing threads usually, but not
all the time with them as well for that matter. It just looks too darn
fishy after a while, and I suspect it all has to do with when politics
were routinely discussed in this group, and someone on the staff not
particularly liking my political views. I would have posts censored on
the basis of being 'too volatile' supposedly, when from my point of
view it was simply because someone didn't like my expressed views. I
think it traces back to that though.

> I can't speak for why you're having problems posting here, as I'm not on the
> inside of how this newsgroup works, but I can relay what I've encountered.
> As for Claudia' book, I caught the story on it on Sci-Fi Wire. I wouldn't be
> surprised if she's being completely honest in her memoir, and it takes a lot
> of guts to pass out teasers at the door to a talk with your former boss, but
> truth is a three edged sword, a saying that is more true the more we learn
> about cognitive science and how the brain works. So I'd suggest keeping the
> shaker of fine grind iodized close at hand for any autobiography.

Well, the purpose of publishing a memoir is to get that
person's recollections down for posterity, or simply for the author's
own personal satisfaction and perhaps to make a little money, and
sure, it's from their perspective, which isn't going to include
everything that occurred, naturally. It's not meant to. She's telling
what she remembers, and who knows, there may well even be things that
she has since forgotten and didn't put down on paper. Or she could be
coloring things in a way to favor the perception she wants taken away
by the reader. However, regardless, it has to do with this show, and
it was simply a link to the article, which people could have then
discussed here if they saw fit --or not. Of course it's up to them.
It's not as though they would even have to read the piece if they
don't want to, but since it's "Babylon 5" related and is coming from
one of the stars of the show, it seems to me that it could be deemed
pertinent to this newsgroup, especially given that there's not a whole
lot in the way of new news appearing here these days, or for a long
time for that matter. And Lord knows I'd rather not be having to post
another obituary of one of the actors or people who were involved with
the show. We've had enough of those over the last eight years.


Nicole Massey

unread,
Jul 28, 2012, 8:07:27 AM7/28/12
to

"Dennis (Icarus)" <ala_di...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20e0c$50133bfc$cf62c293$11...@KNOLOGY.NET...
Thanks for this. OE has it's share of issues. This will help. Now I should
also probably search for something to fix the poorly implemented spell
checker.



Jay Denebeim

unread,
Oct 6, 2012, 1:06:06 PM10/6/12
to
In article <b67f8878-dbbf-43bd...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
StarFuryG7 <StarF...@aim.com> wrote:
>I'm skeptical to say the least, and haven't found the staff to be
>particularly friendly through the years to boot.

You don't think your attitude has anything to do with why the 'staff'
isn't friendly do you? Seeing as how it's a completely volunteer
effort and we have no incentive to be helpful to people who jerk us
around, I can't imagine that how you treat us/them could have anything
to do with how you're treated.

Oh and as far 'through the years goes' you contacted the moderators
exactly twice on August 27th 2007, about a bounce Amy did of an
attempted troll you tried. Now I haven't moderated since my heart
attack in 2001, but if it had been me doing the moderation you would
have gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.

Anyway, I see you haven't matured much in the last five years.

Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *

StarFuryG7

unread,
Oct 17, 2012, 4:59:34 PM10/17/12
to
On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
> You don't think your attitude has anything to do with why the 'staff'
> isn't friendly do you?


And let me just take a wild, wild guess here --you think you're
attitude has always been just fine and dandy of course, so naturally
the problem must lie with me rather than yourself.


On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
> Seeing as how it's a completely volunteer
> effort and we have no incentive to be helpful to people who jerk us
> around, I can't imagine that how you treat us/them could have anything
> to do with how you're treated.


This is rather amusing given that I'm the one who was complaining
about being jerked around via my posts not appearing here so often
through the years, but no surprise at all to see you try and turn it
around. This has always been standard operating procedure for you, at
least where I personally have been concerned, hence my not having a
good reason to be all cheery around here if I do decide to drop in and
visit.


On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
> Oh and as far 'through the years goes' you contacted the moderators
> exactly twice on August 27th 2007, about a bounce Amy did of an
> attempted troll you tried.  Now I haven't moderated since my heart
> attack in 2001, but if it had been me doing the moderation you would
> have gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.
>
> Anyway, I see you haven't matured much in the last five years.
>


Am I really supposed to care that you had a heart attack eleven years
ago? After all, this is not new for you either --dump, be obnoxious
and sarcastic, while trying to play the pity card all at the same
time. For the record, you're the same obnoxious jerk I've always known
you do be, going back a good fifteen years at least. You've never
changed, have always come off with that same smug, superior, pompous
attitude, and knowing that you were in a position of authority and
control, it made it all too easy for you evidently. Also for the
record, I couldn't care less what your friends and cronies, nor JMS,
may have to say on that point, because clearly you've been just swell
to them through the years. What they fail to understand is that I have
seen, recognize, and know a different side of you, and you're not some
warm and fuzzy little teddy bear that everyone and anyone would want
to run up and hug necessarily. Politically we've never been on the
same page, and that probably also has some bearing as to why you never
took a liking to me. Honestly though, I couldn't care less. You claim
I haven't made queries to staff about posts that haven't appeared, and
in more recent years that would certainly be true. After all, why
bother when you know there's no point to doing so and that you're
likely being *jerked around* by staff members? But what I said in this
thread about posts not showing up was and is absolutely true, with the
post and intended thread about Claudia and her soon to be released
book being but one of the more recent examples. I also think that the
post which took a week to mysteriously appear finally regarding
Michael O'Hare's passing, which was referred to in a similar
neighboring thread, also attests to it as a matter of fact, and
apparently it was you who took your sweet time in pushing that one
through.

And so, by the way, I see you haven't matured much through the years
either.

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Oct 17, 2012, 11:05:37 PM10/17/12
to
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:59:54 PM UTC-4, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> And so, by the way, I see you haven't matured much through the years either.

We all know what C. S. Lewis said about those who are horrified at the idea of being thought childish.


StarFuryG7

unread,
Oct 18, 2012, 12:33:43 AM10/18/12
to
On Oct 17, 11:05 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <John.W.Kenn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> We all know what C. S. Lewis said about those who are horrified at the idea of being thought childish.

Yes, I'm sure it absolutely kills your friend to see me showing no
hesitation to call a spade a spade around here.

You have a wonderful day too.

Matthew Vincent

unread,
Nov 3, 2012, 2:48:59 AM11/3/12
to
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 9:59:54 AM UTC+13, StarFuryG7 wrote:

>On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
>> Oh and as far as 'through the years goes' you contacted
>> the moderators exactly twice on August 27th 2007, about
>> a bounce Amy did of an attempted troll you tried.  Now
>> I haven't moderated since my heart attack in 2001, but
>> if it had been me doing the moderation you would have
>> gotten moderated for sure over that exchange.
>
> Am I really supposed to care that you had a
> heart attack eleven years ago?

Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being. Whatever verbal disagreements you have with another poster in an internet newsgroup, you should be able to put them aside and show empathy for another human being suffering from a traumatic life event.

"No matter the blood, no matter the skin, no matter the world, no matter the star: we are one. No matter the pain, no matter the darkness, no matter the loss, no matter the fear: we are one. Here gathered together in common cause we agree to recognize this singular truth and this singular rule: that we must be kind to one another." -- G'Kar

"Babylon 5 was the last of the Babylon stations. There would never be another. It changed the future and it changed us. It taught us that we have to create the future or others will do it for us. It showed us that we have to care for one another, because if we don't, who will?" -- Ivanova, SiL

> After all, this is not new for you either --dump,
> be obnoxious and sarcastic, while trying to play
> the pity card all at the same time.

Jay wasn't trying to "play the pity card". He mentioned his heart attack in passing, to explain why he hasn't been moderating since then.

Next time someone you're arguing with references a negative life event, there are two socially appropriate responses: either you don't mention it at all, or else (preferably) you say something like "I'm sorry to hear that". Then you can go back to arguing your case later in the post. Try it sometime.

Matthew

StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 5, 2012, 6:52:46 PM11/5/12
to
On Nov 3, 1:49 am, Matthew Vincent <mbvinc...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being.

I don't need you lecturing me about what constitutes "a decent human
being", especially not when his pointing out that he had a heart
attack occurs at the very same time he's denigrating me. I don't have
to put up with that, aside from the fact that we're talking about
something that happened eleven years ago, not yesterday, last week or
last month. And how much aggravation have I had here over the course
of those years with respect to posts that mysteriously never showed
up, in all likelihood because of him? For all you or he knows I could
have had a heart attack myself, and I know one thing for darn sure
with regard to that: he wouldn't have cared less.

Jan

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 4:27:19 PM11/7/12
to
On Monday, November 5, 2012 6:53:06 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
> On Nov 3, 1:49 am, Matthew Vincent <mbvinc...@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > > Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being. I don't need you lecturing me about what constitutes "a decent human being", especially not when his pointing out that he had a heart attack occurs at the very same time he's denigrating me. I don't have to put up with that, aside from the fact that we're talking about something that happened eleven years ago, not yesterday, last week or last month. And how much aggravation have I had here over the course of those years with respect to posts that mysteriously never showed up, in all likelihood because of him? For all you or he knows I could have had a heart attack myself, and I know one thing for darn sure with regard to that: he wouldn't have cared less.

Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject? It's amazing to watch you both here and on IMDb.

Jan

Nicole Massey

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 8:32:18 PM11/7/12
to

"Jan" <janmsc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2becf95f-65df-4d62...@googlegroups.com...
---
Moderators, please stop approving these messages. They serve no positive
purpose for anyone except the poster, and they may be scaring people off
from an already very quiet newsgroup. Pointing out that we've all had things
not show up due to various technology issues, so it's going to probably keep
going on and on until either someone apoligizes to the person or the
moderators get tired and take the newsgroup offline for good.
And if such noise keeps up we run a much greater risk of Joe not coming back
after everyone is tired of playing on the new version BBS called Facebook.



Dennis (Icarus)

unread,
Nov 7, 2012, 9:43:21 PM11/7/12
to
>Moderators, please stop approving these messages. They serve no positive
>purpose for anyone except the poster, and they may be scaring people off
>from an already very quiet newsgroup. Pointing out that we've all had
>things not show up due to various technology issues, so it's going to
>probably keep going on and on until either someone apoligizes to the person
>or the moderators get tired and take the newsgroup offline for good.
>And if such noise keeps up we run a much greater risk of Joe not coming
>back after everyone is tired of playing on the new version BBS called
>Facebook.

Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.

Dennis




StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 12:17:23 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 4:27 pm, Jan <janmschroe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject?  It's amazing to watch you both here and on IMDb.
>

It depends on what it is, but if you really paid attention to my posts
there you'd have noticed that.

But hey, Jan --you don't have to bother with me if you don't care to.
In fact, you didn't even have to stick your nose in here.

Pardon me if that's too blunt and direct.




StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 12:22:52 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 9:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>
> Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
> hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
>
> Dennis

No one cares about this newsgroup anymore. It's a wonder that didn't
happen sooner.


Bruce Goatly

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 5:37:26 AM11/8/12
to
.... and yet you care enough to keep posting here.


Bruce Goatly

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 5:38:39 AM11/8/12
to
Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
and aggressive?


StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 12:16:28 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 5:37 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
>
> .... and yet you care enough to keep posting here.

Yes, because I admittedly have this character flaw; if someone gives
me a hard time, I figure the least I can do is return the favor. I
never took to being run off by bullies either.


StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 12:19:44 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 5:38 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
> and aggressive?

My "only purpose"? Let me ask you something . . . do you think that
was my "only purpose" when I posted the article about Claudia
Christian's coming book several months ago, which never showed up
here?

I understand that it seems that way to you, but that didn't have to be
the case.

John W. Kennedy

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 3:36:47 PM11/8/12
to
Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
insulting them on a daily basis?

Nicole Massey

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 5:14:12 PM11/8/12
to

"StarFuryG7" <StarF...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:92c414a3-e9c2-4603...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 5:38 am, "Bruce Goatly" <s...@goatly.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Why should she pardon someone whose *only* purpose here is to be obnoxious
> and aggressive?

My "only purpose"? Let me ask you something . . . do you think that
was my "only purpose" when I posted the article about Claudia
Christian's coming book several months ago, which never showed up
here?
---
And for those of us who have been here for a while, that isn't the least bit
surprising, because we've all had it happen. Moderated newsgroups are not
always a stable setup, and the chances are much better that your message got
sucked into what is known as the "bit bucket" instead of actively moderrated
out. As the saying goes, (and it's odd how these kinds of things come up
multiple times in the same day after months or years of rest) "Never credit
to Malice what can be easily accomplished through ignorance, incompetence,
or just plain old bad luck." (I suspect the latter here)
And as John Kennedy has so eloquently pointed out, if they wanted to censor
you, why would they put up with your demised equine flaggelation of this
current topic after allegedly censoring fairly innocuous postings? Sir
William of Occam is looking at you...



StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 7:51:11 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 3:37 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <john.w.kenn...@gmail.com>
wrote.:
>
> Are you so completely lost to all reason that you cannot perceive that
> the very people you are accusing of censoring you (and for no
> particular reason at that) are the same people who are demonstrably /
> not/ censoring you, even though you are deliberately and viciously
> insulting them on a daily basis?

Do you even realize that this thread fell dormant back in July, only
to become active again once the 'retired' moderator decided to
resurrect it by posting a reply to me in October, more than two months
later? I was content to leave it at that, meaning where I had left off
in July, until I saw his rebuke. So no, it doesn't really surprise me
that my posts have been getting through because apparently someone
hasn't designated this thread for "hand-moderation"...yet. It appears
no one is paying attention at the moment, and based on past activity,
it might be another month or so before they decide to again, at which
time I'll get another sarcastic reply, along with whatever else.

And I'm not "insulting them on a daily basis" either. I've just been
replying to the messages people are posting to my attention over the
last few days.


StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 7:57:26 PM11/8/12
to
On Nov 8, 5:16 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>
> And for those o us who have been here for a while, that isn't the least bit
> surprising, because we've all had it happen.

Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently? I realize you would
prefer to see
this thread go inactive, so don't answer if you would prefer not to.


Nicole Massey

unread,
Nov 8, 2012, 9:11:50 PM11/8/12
to

"StarFuryG7" <StarF...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:f83f4e31-f8c3-4d93...@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
---
I can't speak to the frequency of it, but my last post to the list that
wasn't a reply about something Walter Koenig said regarding the show, never
showed up, and when I emailed a moderator I was told that it didn't hit
their system. This has been a problem here for several years now -- someone
who has a better archive and was posting here more often can tell you when
this particular problem popped up, though I remember it was after when I
lost my sight that that message came through, and I was out of commission
for about a year after that happened in terms of using the computer, so it
was more recently than the summer of 2004.
I get the impression that the server goes down from time to time or locks
up, and then nothing gets through, so that could be a reason as well. Like I
said before, moderated newsgroups are a kludge on normal usenet traffic, so
sometimes less than optimum things happen. I'm on another mailing list
that's moderated simply to eliminate crossposting, and that newsgroup gets
about two orders of magnitude more spam than I get on any other newsgroup,
simply because messages have to go through an email process to get
moderated, so like I said above, it's often a less than optimum process.
Furthermore, it's also of almost no importance. This is a free forum without
advertizing and only volunteer effort, and no one is going to lose their
home, dinner, clothing, or water over it, so it's just window dressing. And
Jay's response to you was because he finally got some time to respond and
you were rather offensive about it all, so let's not get all victimy here.
The simple truth is that you had something go not right, you thought it was
enemy action instead of happenstance, and so, from what you've said, you
then decided they were persecuting you for some reason and got defensive.
Might be an ID response working here -- it often is in these situations. But
I've traded emails with Jay on rare occasions, and on Amy far more often,
and one thing that impressed me about both of them was their integrity --
they don't filter anyone based on their own opinions, only on the stated
rules that were put in place for JMS's safety when this group was created.
And since that is mainly an issue of posting story ideas, and I can't see a
decent story idea relating to Claudia's memoirs and allegations of same, I
doubt you were "censored" for posting it. And before you go into the whole
"protecting Joe" angle, Joe doesn't need any protecting -- he's dealt with
far greater questions about his integrity than what Claudia suggested. And
everyone knows that he's the one to clear up such things, keeping in mind
Vorlon commentaries on the truth.
Now, mayhap, was there something you would like to say about the show? I
can't believe we're coming up next year on the fifteenth anniversary of the
end of it.



Jan

unread,
Nov 9, 2012, 8:53:59 AM11/9/12
to janmsc...@aol.com
On Thursday, November 8, 2012 7:57:34 PM UTC-5, StarFuryG7 wrote:
>
> Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently? I realize you would
>
> prefer to see
>
> this thread go inactive, so don't answer if you would prefer not to.

Sometimes *quite* frequently. At one point a year or so ago maybe one in three or four of my posts were actually getting through because Google groups got glitchy as hell. Didn't matter if it was a new thread or old one and it had nothing to do with the moderating software or process, it was entirely Google.

When a post is rejected, an email goes out to the poster. As I was once going to be a moderator, I see those notes when they go out. Sometimes they're for duplicate posts, sometimes they're for spam and sometimes they're for story ideas but when a moderator rejects a post an email goes out with the reason.

Jan

Doug Freyburger

unread,
Nov 9, 2012, 10:56:01 AM11/9/12
to
Jan wrote:
> StarFuryG7 wrote:
>
>> Would you mind if I inquired as to how frequently?
>
> Sometimes *quite* frequently. At one point a year or so ago maybe one
> in three or four of my posts were actually getting through because
> Google groups got glitchy as hell. Didn't matter if it was a new thread
> or old one and it had nothing to do with the moderating software or
> process, it was entirely Google.

On occasion the group goes silent. At some point a post makes it
through and the backlog gets posted. I have sent email offlgroup to one
of the moderators on at least one such occasion. So far I've never sent
an email to the official administrator contact for the group @isc.net.
I take it StarFury's question is not about those cases.

What StarFury has complained about is messages that got stuck in email
for a week before even arriving in the moderation queue. That shows in
the headers of the messages he has cited. And thus an email problem
not a moderation problem. It's like complaining that the Moon is New
on a dark night when I should be calling the street light folks.
Because of this in the nature of his complaints I've considered them
pointless bickering. I'd have put him on hand moderation long ago and
taken up rejecting such complaints as not based in fact. There has been
attempt after attempt at pointing him to his email problems and none of
it has sunk in. At this point I have concluded he doesn't want to deal
with that because he wants to complain more than he wants to solve any
problem. He'd have gotten a better email system long ago otherwise.

I see around 1 in 10 of my messages get dropped. I generally don't care
as long as most of them go through. As long as most of them do it's not
worth my digging through my sent list to find the ones that did not make
it.

> When a post is rejected, an email goes out to the poster. As I was
> once going to be a moderator, I see those notes when they go out.
> Sometimes they're for duplicate posts, sometimes they're for spam and
> sometimes they're for story ideas but when a moderator rejects a post
> an email goes out with the reason.

A lot of posters report they have registered using a throw away account
so they don't get such rejections. That's the price. It's been years
since I got a message rejected but it has happened when I responded late
to a blocked thread. Because I see the rejections I know what posts
have been rejected. Lacking a rejection or seeing it in the post in the
group I know it got stuck/lost in email. Yet another reason why the
more complaints I see by StarFury the less I care - He should check for
rejection notices in his email. No rejection means it has not made it
to the moderators so it's his issue not theirs.

StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 9, 2012, 4:57:37 PM11/9/12
to
It actually goes beyond that, as there's background here that you're
simply not aware of given that some of it occurred behind-the-scenes
in email exchanges going back a long time ago; situations that I found
to be particularly distasteful which I simply haven't forgotten about
over time. It's pointless to go into specifics though given that it
won't change a thing. Suffice it to say, as I've stated here
previously on numerous occasions, not just recently within the last
few months, posts have gone missing all the way back to the 90s from
whatever service or newsgroup server I happened to be posting from. If
it's indeed tech-related, it sure takes in a lot of territory,
although whether it stems from this newsgroup and how it's configured
or from some unknown intermittent ghost in the machine, I wouldn't be
able to say obviously as there's simply no way for me to know. But
over time, spanning well over a decade, it looks suspicious, and more
than that, has felt suspicious to boot on a number of occasions. This
is not something which has popped up within just the last few years--
at least not for me.

> And before you go into the whole
> "protecting Joe" angle, Joe doesn't need any protecting -- he's dealt with
> far greater questions about his integrity than what Claudia suggested. And
> everyone knows that he's the one to clear up such things, keeping in mind
> Vorlon commentaries on the truth.

It wasn't integrity-related as I recall; more so embarrassing perhaps
than anything...a portion of it anyway, which I would think to be a
potential reason for it having been kill-filed perhaps by someone in a
position to do it.

> Now, mayhap, was there something you would like to say about the show? I
> can't believe we're coming up next year on the fifteenth anniversary of the
> end of it.

Generally if there's something I want to say about the show nowadays,
or for a long time for that matter, I'd do it elsewhere, such as on
IMDB as Jan has noted, or in one of the other forums I frequent (the
old AOL message board I routinely visited is gone, since they deleted
all of their old boards all a while back in favor of a new and
supposedly "improved" message board format, which is as lousy as can
be. But I have generally shied away from posting here for a whole host
of reasons, not just the possible, and from what you say, probable
technical issues.

All of this stuff aside though, I just want to say that despite our
differences here you deserve a lot of credit for the way you're able
to effectively communicate using a computer. The fact that you appear
to be able to do so with such ease despite your loss of sight is
remarkably impressive, at least to me anyway. One of the things that's
always bothered me about "Covert Affairs" is that one of the main
characters is supposed to be something of a computer whiz even though
he's blind, which I've found to be incredibly unrealistic. You however
give me reason to second guess that personal perception, for what it's
worth.

StarFuryG7

unread,
Nov 9, 2012, 5:22:12 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 10:56 am, Doug Freyburger <dfrey...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> On occasion the group goes silent.  At some point a post makes it
> through and the backlog gets posted.  I have sent email offlgroup to one
> of the moderators on at least one such occasion.  So far I've never sent
> an email to the official administrator contact for the group @isc.net.
> I take it StarFury's question is not about those cases.
>
> What StarFury has complained about is messages that got stuck in email
> for a week before even arriving in the moderation queue.  That shows in
> the headers of the messages he has cited.  And thus an email problem
> not a moderation problem. It's like complaining that the Moon is New
> on a dark night when I should be calling the street light folks.
> Because of this in the nature of his complaints I've considered them
> pointless bickering.

If that's the case, then who was it that decided to stir the pot again
by posting a message to this thread last month, which was a reply to
me, two and a half months after the thread had fallen dormant back in
July?

Ya see, this is one of the problems that I also have with this
newsgroup frankly. People always go out of their way to defend the
actions of the moderators while overlooking their transgressions, only
in this case, you're a moderator too.

But if I've been nothing more than a nuisance here as you claim, then
why was it that he couldn't just let sleeping dogs lay (I'd say "lie,"
but I don't want to be accused of some kind of Freudian slip, so it's
a conscious choice)?

> I'd have put him on hand moderation long ago and
> taken up rejecting such complaints as not based in fact.  There has been
> attempt after attempt at pointing him to his email problems and none of
> it has sunk in.  At this point I have concluded he doesn't want to deal
> with that because he wants to complain more than he wants to solve any
> problem.  He'd have gotten a better email system long ago otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with my email. I no longer receive such
notifications by choice. I shut down that feature in my preferences
more than five years ago after being ambushed similarly here, though
on a considerably larger scale.

>
> A lot of posters report they have registered using a throw away account
> so they don't get such rejections. That's the price. It's been years
> since I got a message rejected but it has happened when I responded late
> to a blocked thread. Because I see the rejections I know what posts
> have been rejected. Lacking a rejection or seeing it in the post in the
> group I know it got stuck/lost in email. Yet another reason why the
> more complaints I see by StarFury the less I care -

Hey, that's nothing new here, I've got news for you. I've been
accustomed to that attitude for years anyway at this point, which is
all the more reason I haven't felt particularly inclined to be "Mr.
Nice Guy" regardless of how people choose to take it. I simply reached
that point some time ago and 'don't care' myself anymore.