Electronic versions of B5 books
314 views
Skip to first unread message
Wayne Dernoncourt
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books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and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.
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books (and they've been replaced by the scripts team), but if I go back and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
Jul 13, 2012, 8:58:47 AM7/13/12
to
"Wayne Dernoncourt" <way...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CC257B44...@news.panix.com...
electronic versions of the script books for legal reasons. For me it was
simply an accessibility issue, as I'm blind.
PhantomSteve
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) \___\
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
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).
> 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.
>
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
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.
(in article <9484D038-4D2C-4761...@attglobal.net>):
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
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.
(in article <XnsA08FA56344B19ph...@81.171.92.222>):
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
Jul 15, 2012, 1:38:18 PM7/15/12
to
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.
of the pdf.
Wayne Dernoncourt
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$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>> After doing some more thinking about this stuff what about embedding
>> the buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times).
>> Each person
>> would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
>> typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is
>> pretty
>> sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two
>> copies
>> and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
>> version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
>> don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more
>> appropriate
>> since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
>> features but also obsolescence.
>
> A common tactic in RPG books is to watermark the buyer's name on each
> page of the pdf.
How effective is this tactic? I don't think that DRM is actually very
effective in practice, but I do respect every author the right to
protect their property.
(in article <jtuvd3$ico$1...@news.albasani.net>):
>> After doing some more thinking about this stuff what about embedding
>> the buyers name, email, address, etc. in each copy (multiple times).
>> Each person
>> would be able to "buy" one copy/license for each copy of the volume. I
>> typically buy two copies of each volume, I don't know why, my wife is
>> pretty
>> sure I'm crazy but that is a different issue<g>. But since I buy two
>> copies
>> and deliver to the same address, I would be eligible to get 1 electronic
>> version for all of my electronic gadgets - format's not withstanding. I
>> don't know if PDF, some sort of Amazon/Apple format would be more
>> appropriate
>> since the more proprietary formats would lend themselves to additional
>> features but also obsolescence.
>
> A common tactic in RPG books is to watermark the buyer's name on each
> page of the pdf.
effective in practice, but I do respect every author the right to
protect their property.
Nicole Massey
Jul 16, 2012, 4:20:32 AM7/16/12
to
news:0001HW.CC28CD7E...@news.panix.com...
Not sure. It persists, so it must be working on some level, but since I'm
blind I don't actually run into it in the things I use, so I can't say if
it's a deterrent.
blind I don't actually run into it in the things I use, so I can't say if
it's a deterrent.
Wayne Dernoncourt
Jul 20, 2012, 10:22:54 AM7/20/12
to
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:20:32 -0400, Nicole Massey wrote
(in article <ju0j39$c8g$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Hopefully someone else that has experience can chime in here....
(in article <ju0j39$c8g$1...@news.albasani.net>):
Wayne Dernoncourt
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.
(in article <0001HW.CC2EE1FE...@news.panix.com>):
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
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.
Claudia Christian's new book, as if I didn't know.
This place never changes.
Andrew Swallow
Jul 25, 2012, 11:03:51 AM7/25/12
to
Andrew Swallow
StarFuryG7
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
> Was that the posting that mentioned Claudia Christian's date with JMS?
> Andrew Swallow
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
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
> 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.
does that say about your theory, I wonder?
--
Bruce
Wayne Dernoncourt
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
(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.
StarFuryG7
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
>
> I never saw it.... more info please
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
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
> And yet the moderators allowed the piece of vitriol above to show up. What
> does that say about your theory, I wonder?
> --
> Bruce
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
Jul 27, 2012, 3:49:40 PM7/27/12
to
"StarFuryG7" <StarF...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:b905a19c-c90c-43ab...@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
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
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
> 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.
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
Jul 27, 2012, 7:34:21 PM7/27/12
to
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.
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)
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.
you are using outlook express 6, quotefix may help
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Dennis
StarFuryG7
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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...
also probably search for something to fix the poorly implemented spell
checker.
Jay Denebeim
Oct 6, 2012, 1:06:06 PM10/6/12
to
In article <b67f8878-dbbf-43bd...@w24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,
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 <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'
>I'm skeptical to say the least, and haven't found the staff to be
>particularly friendly through the years to boot.
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
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
>
> You don't think your attitude has anything to do with why the 'staff'
> isn't friendly do you?
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.
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.
>
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
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.
> And so, by the way, I see you haven't matured much through the years either.
StarFuryG7
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:
hesitation to call a spade a spade around here.
You have a wonderful day too.
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
> We all know what C. S. Lewis said about those who are horrified at the idea of being thought childish.
hesitation to call a spade a spade around here.
You have a wonderful day too.
Matthew Vincent
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
>On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, deneb...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim) wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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.
> heart attack eleven years ago?
"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.
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
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
>
> Yes, you are, if you're a decent human being.
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
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.
> 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
Nicole Massey
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)
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
>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.
hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
Dennis
StarFuryG7
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
>
> Are you completely incapable of ever dropping a subject? It's amazing to watch you both here and on IMDb.
>
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
Nov 8, 2012, 12:22:52 AM11/8/12
to
On Nov 7, 9:44 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <ala_dir_di...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
happen sooner.
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
> Since this is an existing thread, and I doubt any of us are on
> hand-moderation, the moderators aren't approving the messages.
>
> Dennis
happen sooner.
Bruce Goatly
Nov 8, 2012, 5:37:26 AM11/8/12
to