Proposal for a new FAQ or two re "edited by Eric Flint"

21 views
Skip to first unread message

Louann Miller

unread,
May 25, 2005, 11:58:05 AM5/25/05
to
This could go in two sections.

One, Flint's explanations of what he did, and why, in editing the
various reissues of older books from Baen. Given the number of times
and the level of detail he's already gone into in explaining that very
issue here in rasfw, this should be a simple cut-and paste edit job
(evil grin at the irony) by someone who has Google but need not be
Flint himself.

Part two, probably composed and hosted separately, could be Bacon et
al's explanations of why said editing was utterly, completely, Evil
Pure And Simple From The Eighth Dimension.

This way, whenever Flint posts or someone mentions the reissues in any
context, the standard flame could be abbreviated thusly:

Bacon: http://www.flint-is-a-text-butcher.com !!!!!

Flint. *sigh.* http://its-called-editing-doofus.com .

Saving us all vast amounts of time.

Dean White

unread,
May 25, 2005, 1:31:29 PM5/25/05
to
"Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:1117036685.b711e05e50c81fd7fcf6a042553daf6b@teranews...

Yes please.

Frankly I am one who not only has the original books but bought the reissues
as e-books and read them. I think Eric did a good job on the edits,
except for 'Med Ship' and nothing except a complete rewrite could help
Leinsters' work, but that is only my opinion.
--
www.DeanWhite.net


Joe Bernstein

unread,
May 25, 2005, 2:12:11 PM5/25/05
to
In article <RD2le.2323$3D6...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>,

Dean White <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> "Louann Miller" <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote in message
> news:1117036685.b711e05e50c81fd7fcf6a042553daf6b@teranews...

> > This way, whenever Flint posts or someone mentions the reissues in any


> > context, the standard flame could be abbreviated thusly:
> >
> > Bacon: http://www.flint-is-a-text-butcher.com !!!!!
> >
> > Flint. *sigh.* http://its-called-editing-doofus.com .
> >
> > Saving us all vast amounts of time.

> Yes please.

Agreed.

I actually read the latest round mainly because I'd been aware of a
previous flap (I *think* the original one, in fact, but am not sure) but
it was way too many posts to read; this one looked manageable, at the
price of not knowing which undying hatreds were based on what. Since I
*have* a bunch of the previous Schmitz reprints, and have actaully *read*
a bunch (ultimately concluding that for me, <The Witches of Karres> is
essentially a pleasing fluke), I was curious to know whether the edits
were of some sort that would make the other books more appealing to me.
Now that I know they weren't, it's of no further interest to me, except
tangentially as an opportunity to exchange opinions or data on the
nature of editing.



> I think Eric did a good job on the edits,

Since I haven't attempted any comparisons, I can't comment on this,
but

> except for 'Med Ship' and nothing except a complete rewrite could help
> Leinsters' work, but that is only my opinion.

here, sadly, I agree. The one volume of these reissues that I *do*
own is <Med Ship>. I had recently stumbled on James White, had
enjoyed the first three books a lot, and couldn't find the rest;
thought maybe <Med Ship> would help scratch that itch; didn't bother
to notice the "edited by". Oops. Until reading the recent thread,
I was taking "edited by Eric Flint" as a reason-not-to-read (obviously
excepting the 1632 anthologies), because I didn't know what was behind
the arguments over him as editor; kinda like mistrusting the editions
Migne did of Church Fathers in the 19th century. So if I'd noticed,
I'd have saved myself some irritating reading.

Oh well.

Flipside, now that I *have* read the recent thread, I can more
realistically balance my decisions. How much I want to put my money
where my mouth is (in favour of purist editing, that is) vs. how much
work I want to do to track down originals vs. how much effect I have
anyway (checking out a library copy has much less than paying cash)
vs. opinions about Baen in general vs. ... The kind of thing I do
every day, and much easier than suspending decisions in ignorance.

So yeah, the FAQs would probably be helpful to future people-like-me.

Joe Bernstein

--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
(Most non-spam e-mail to me is currently bouncing. Sorry!)
<http://www.panix.com/~josephb/>

John Schilling

unread,
May 25, 2005, 5:03:31 PM5/25/05
to
In article <1117036685.b711e05e50c81fd7fcf6a042553daf6b@teranews>, Louann Miller
says...

>Bacon: http://www.flint-is-a-text-butcher.com !!!!!


Yes, but exposing helpless newbies to Bacon and Flint. Common decency
demands that no one ever be needlessly exposed to the Bacon Rant again.
And Flint's position really needs to be defended by someone other than
Flint, in much the same way that France needs to be defended by someone
other than the French. For everyone's sake.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

David Bilek

unread,
May 25, 2005, 9:44:56 PM5/25/05
to
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Yes, but exposing helpless newbies to Bacon and Flint. Common decency
>demands that no one ever be needlessly exposed to the Bacon Rant again.
>And Flint's position really needs to be defended by someone other than
>Flint, in much the same way that France needs to be defended by someone
>other than the French. For everyone's sake.

I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor, millions of
slaughtered young men at the Somme and Paschendale, at Verdun and the
Marne, at Ypres and a dozen more corpse ridden battlefields are pissed
upon by someone who has not experienced the merest inkling of the
terror and sheer existential horror that those men experienced.

I used to make comments about the French, but I was young and stupid
and I got better.

-David

William December Starr

unread,
May 26, 2005, 1:16:27 AM5/26/05
to
In article <1117036685.b711e05e50c81fd7fcf6a042553daf6b@teranews>,
loua...@yahoo.net said:

> This could go in two sections.
>
> One, Flint's explanations of what he did, and why, in editing the
> various reissues of older books from Baen. Given the number of
> times and the level of detail he's already gone into in explaining
> that very issue here in rasfw, this should be a simple cut-and
> paste edit job (evil grin at the irony) by someone who has Google
> but need not be Flint himself.
>
> Part two, probably composed and hosted separately, could be Bacon
> et al's explanations of why said editing was utterly, completely,
> Evil Pure And Simple From The Eighth Dimension.

Part three, all of Flint's straw-man distortions about what those
clueless dilettante cocktail-party rafsw-ers say they want.

--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>

Peter Meilinger

unread,
May 26, 2005, 9:07:06 AM5/26/05
to
David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

>>Yes, but exposing helpless newbies to Bacon and Flint. Common decency
>>demands that no one ever be needlessly exposed to the Bacon Rant again.
>>And Flint's position really needs to be defended by someone other than
>>Flint, in much the same way that France needs to be defended by someone
>>other than the French. For everyone's sake.

>I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor, millions of
>slaughtered young men at the Somme and Paschendale, at Verdun and the
>Marne, at Ypres and a dozen more corpse ridden battlefields are pissed
>upon by someone who has not experienced the merest inkling of the
>terror and sheer existential horror that those men experienced.

Seconded.

>I used to make comments about the French, but I was young and stupid
>and I got better.

I wouldn't go that far. It's just as fun to mock them as it is
any other group, I just don't think that particular subject
is all that funny.

Pete

Charlton Wilbur

unread,
May 26, 2005, 10:51:50 AM5/26/05
to
>>>>> "DB" == David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:

DB> I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor,
DB> millions of slaughtered young men at the Somme and
DB> Paschendale, at Verdun and the Marne, at Ypres and a dozen
DB> more corpse ridden battlefields are pissed upon by someone who
DB> has not experienced the merest inkling of the terror and sheer
DB> existential horror that those men experienced.

At one point I saw a comment in response to a France-mocking thread,
pointing out that France had lost ten times as many soldiers in the
approximately four years of WWI as the United States has lost in every
war and conflict it has ever fought in in its history. (I'm not sure
the numbers are precise, but they're the right order of magnitude.)
That sort of puts things in perspective, and explains their lack of
will to fight in WWII.

Charlton


--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com

htn963

unread,
May 26, 2005, 2:55:47 PM5/26/05
to

David Bilek, et al. wrote:

> John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Yes, but exposing helpless newbies to Bacon and Flint. Common decency
> >demands that no one ever be needlessly exposed to the Bacon Rant again.
> >And Flint's position really needs to be defended by someone other than
> >Flint, in much the same way that France needs to be defended by someone
> >other than the French. For everyone's sake.

Flint does have apologists on this group. Google should make that
apparent.

> I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor, millions of
> slaughtered young men at the Somme and Paschendale, at Verdun and the
> Marne, at Ypres and a dozen more corpse ridden battlefields are pissed
> upon by someone who has not experienced the merest inkling of the
> terror and sheer existential horror that those men experienced.

It's not French valor that is usually being mocked, bunky, but
military effectiveness, which responsibility lies with those usually
*not* in the front line. And tell of French "valor" to the citizens of
lands plundered over like Algeria and Vietnam.

> I used to make comments about the French, but I was young and stupid
> and I got better.

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

--
Ht

Beowulf Bolt

unread,
May 26, 2005, 5:34:10 PM5/26/05
to
htn963 wrote:
>
> David Bilek, et al. wrote:
>
> > I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor, millions
> > of slaughtered young men at the Somme and Paschendale, at Verdun and
> > the Marne, at Ypres and a dozen more corpse ridden battlefields are
> > pissed upon by someone who has not experienced the merest inkling of
> > the terror and sheer existential horror that those men experienced.
>
> It's not French valor that is usually being mocked, bunky, but
> military effectiveness, which responsibility lies with those usually
> *not* in the front line.

Calling them "surrender-monkeys" or the like is *not* mocking their
valor?!? I see a half dozen lame-ass jokes about "France surrenders"
for every post which may possibly be construed to target their "military
effectiveness" instead.


> And tell of French "valor" to the citizens of
> lands plundered over like Algeria and Vietnam.

Methinks there are damned few countries with any sort of history that
are immune to such critiques...

[egregious and unnecessary flame snipped]

Biff


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------

John Schilling

unread,
May 26, 2005, 5:51:24 PM5/26/05
to
In article <l6aa915p5i38vhbcr...@4ax.com>, David Bilek says...

>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:

>>Yes, but exposing helpless newbies to Bacon and Flint. Common decency
>>demands that no one ever be needlessly exposed to the Bacon Rant again.
>>And Flint's position really needs to be defended by someone other than
>>Flint, in much the same way that France needs to be defended by someone
>>other than the French. For everyone's sake.

>I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor, millions of
>slaughtered young men at the Somme and Paschendale, at Verdun and the
>Marne, at Ypres and a dozen more corpse ridden battlefields are pissed
>upon by someone who has not experienced the merest inkling of the
>terror and sheer existential horror that those men experienced.


Valor, is not the aspect of the French national psyche that is being
mocked here. And nothing of value or merit, should be defended by
someone who has only valor to devote to the task. That's how you get
all those corpse-ridden battlefields.

John Schilling

unread,
May 26, 2005, 6:53:27 PM5/26/05
to
In article <429640...@shaw.ca>, Beowulf Bolt says...

>htn963 wrote:

>> David Bilek, et al. wrote:

>> > I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor, millions
>> > of slaughtered young men at the Somme and Paschendale, at Verdun and
>> > the Marne, at Ypres and a dozen more corpse ridden battlefields are
>> > pissed upon by someone who has not experienced the merest inkling of
>> > the terror and sheer existential horror that those men experienced.

>> It's not French valor that is usually being mocked, bunky, but
>> military effectiveness, which responsibility lies with those usually
>> *not* in the front line.

> Calling them "surrender-monkeys" or the like is *not* mocking their
>valor?!? I see a half dozen lame-ass jokes about "France surrenders"
>for every post which may possibly be construed to target their "military
>effectiveness" instead.


Napoleon (the original) surrendered France twice in as many years. Do
you assume that it was lack of valor that resulted in those incidents,
or is being implied when those incidents are tallied against France?

France frequently surrenders and/or wins pyrrhic victories, and is
worthy of being mocked for it, because it insists on substituting
valor for skill, judgement, and basic diplomacy when those latter
qualities are called for, and for substituting skill, judgement,
and basic diplomacy for valor when valor is called for. And for
using advanced diplomacy when basic diplomacy is called for, for
that matter.

French soliders can die as bravely as anyone, and I have usually
been among those defending, not mocking, their capabilities. France,
is almost incapable of arranging for the deaths of French soldiers
to be anything but pointless.

Mark Atwood

unread,
May 26, 2005, 7:17:06 PM5/26/05
to
David Bilek <dtb...@comcast.net> writes:
>
> I'm tired of this. Every time someone mocks French valor, millions of
> slaughtered young men

It's valor without skill and without leadership that *GETS* you
those "millions of slaughtered young men".

If France had had a better officers corp and a better political and
military leadership, many to most of those "slaughtered young men"
would have died of old age, surrounded by their children and
grandchildren, a decade or so ago.

--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
m...@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus

Beowulf Bolt

unread,
May 26, 2005, 7:28:31 PM5/26/05
to
John Schilling wrote:
>
> In article <429640...@shaw.ca>, Beowulf Bolt says...
>

[re: the French]

> > Calling them "surrender-monkeys" or the like is *not* mocking their
> >valor?!? I see a half dozen lame-ass jokes about "France
> >surrenders" for every post which may possibly be construed to target
> >their "military effectiveness" instead.
>
> Napoleon (the original) surrendered France twice in as many years. Do
> you assume that it was lack of valor that resulted in those incidents,
> or is being implied when those incidents are tallied against France?

Do you assume that the smart-ass comments made by John Q. Asshat about
France surrendering have any basis in first-hand knowledge about French
martial history?

I piggy-backed on a comment and struck all references to you from my
post deliberately because I respect your knowledge of history, John. I
do not have any respect at all, however, for the scores of drooling
morons who have seized upon critiques such as your own as the spark with
which to toss generic insults at the French. This accounts for upwards
of 90% of the people who make cracks about "surrender-monkeys".

Daniel Silevitch

unread,
May 26, 2005, 9:14:54 PM5/26/05
to
On 26 May 2005 15:53:27 -0700, John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>
> French soliders can die as bravely as anyone, and I have usually
> been among those defending, not mocking, their capabilities. France,
> is almost incapable of arranging for the deaths of French soldiers
> to be anything but pointless.

They're still better than the Germans, who in the 20th century brought
'scream and leap' to an artform. For Germany to start in 1900ish and end
up 15 years later at war with Britain, France, and Russia is truly
impressive; adding the United States was just an ornamental crowning touch.

-dms

Mike Schilling

unread,
May 26, 2005, 9:26:28 PM5/26/05
to

"Daniel Silevitch" <dms...@uchicago.edu> wrote in message
news:slrnd9ct4f....@bardeen.local...

I am wondering why the French are getting full credit for the horrifying
waste that was WW I. It seems to be the Germans, English, and Russians
should all have a share.

obSF: "By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead."


Mark Atwood

unread,
May 26, 2005, 9:51:29 PM5/26/05
to
"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> I am wondering why the French are getting full credit for the horrifying
> waste that was WW I. It seems to be the Germans, English, and Russians
> should all have a share.

I am told that when the US finally weighed in (which I think was a
mistake, but that's almost irrelevant to the point), the British and
French commands originally thought that we were just going to put our
men under their command, or at the very least, read from the same
rulebook as them.

When we insisted on keeping US troops under US command, and were
disinclined to accept "charge into no-mans land" as an acceptable
tactic, they were more than a little bit put out with us.

Is my understanding correct?

(Wasn't Germany also a bit upset about the US's discovery that
a shotgun makes a great tool for clearing a trench?)

Mike Schilling

unread,
May 26, 2005, 11:04:07 PM5/26/05
to

"Mark Atwood" <m...@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m27jhls...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...

>
> (Wasn't Germany also a bit upset about the US's discovery that
> a shotgun makes a great tool for clearing a trench?)

It seems to me that if you're close enough to an enemy trench to use a
shotgun and you're sill alive, you're already way ahead of the game.


Brett Paul Dunbar

unread,
May 27, 2005, 8:23:43 AM5/27/05
to
In message <m27jhls...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com>, Mark Atwood
<m...@mark.atwood.name> writes

>"Mike Schilling" <mscotts...@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> I am wondering why the French are getting full credit for the horrifying
>> waste that was WW I. It seems to be the Germans, English, and Russians
>> should all have a share.
>
>I am told that when the US finally weighed in (which I think was a
>mistake, but that's almost irrelevant to the point), the British and
>French commands originally thought that we were just going to put our
>men under their command, or at the very least, read from the same
>rulebook as them.
>
>When we insisted on keeping US troops under US command, and were
>disinclined to accept "charge into no-mans land" as an acceptable
>tactic, they were more than a little bit put out with us.
>
>Is my understanding correct?
>

No. The US did insist on retaining control of most of their troops and
ignored advice like "Oh by the way old chap, charging headlong into
no-mans land? You really don't want to do that." This resulted in an
army that managed to suffer rather heavy causalities without achieving
much. The British and French had learned from their mistakes, the US
insisted on repeating their mistakes and attempting infantry charges
across no-man's land rather than the combined arms set piece offensives
that won the 100-days offensive.
--
Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm
Brett Paul Dunbar
To email me, use reply-to address

loua...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 27, 2005, 11:49:42 AM5/27/05
to
Helpless newbies are already being exposed to Bacon v. Flint. This way
they'd be saved bandwidth, Flint would be saved time to do new writing
and editing, and Bacon would be saved time to post on topics on which
he's _not_ apparently stark raving fanatically insane.

On the pro side, there are plenty of such topics -- pretty much the set
of everything-but-Flint. And he's worth reading on those topics. On the
con side, he for some reason will not leave that one alone. A FAQ would
get it out of the way and let us all go on with our lives.

Michael Stemper

unread,
May 27, 2005, 1:34:15 PM5/27/05
to
In article <8Hule.1782$kS3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Mike Schilling writes:

>obSF: "By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead."

Damn. I'm sure that I've encountered that line within the last few weeks,
but I can't think of where. I don't think that it's from _Time Enough
for Lust_. That and _We, the Living_ are the only WWI-era books that I
can recall reading recently. Oh, and _Triplanetary_. But, I'm sure that
it's not from any of them.

HELP!

--
Michael "Yes, I'll kick myself when you tell me" Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.

Michael S. Schiffer

unread,
May 27, 2005, 1:46:08 PM5/27/05
to
mste...@siemens-emis.com (Michael Stemper) wrote in
news:200505271734....@walkabout.empros.com:

> In article <8Hule.1782$kS3...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, Mike
> Schilling writes:

>>obSF: "By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead."

> Damn. I'm sure that I've encountered that line within the last
> few weeks, but I can't think of where. I don't think that it's
> from _Time Enough for Lust_. That and _We, the Living_ are the
> only WWI-era books that I can recall reading recently. Oh, and
> _Triplanetary_. But, I'm sure that it's not from any of them.

> HELP!

It's an autobiographical observation by Great War veteran J.R.R.
Tolkien.

Mike

--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu

John Schilling

unread,
May 27, 2005, 6:03:06 PM5/27/05
to
In article <42965B...@shaw.ca>, Beowulf Bolt says...

>
>John Schilling wrote:
>>
>> In article <429640...@shaw.ca>, Beowulf Bolt says...

> [re: the French]

>> > Calling them "surrender-monkeys" or the like is *not* mocking their
>> >valor?!? I see a half dozen lame-ass jokes about "France
>> >surrenders" for every post which may possibly be construed to target
>> >their "military effectiveness" instead.

>> Napoleon (the original) surrendered France twice in as many years. Do
>> you assume that it was lack of valor that resulted in those incidents,
>> or is being implied when those incidents are tallied against France?

> Do you assume that the smart-ass comments made by John Q. Asshat about
>France surrendering have any basis in first-hand knowledge about French
>martial history?


That would be a good question to ask before unleashing the canned rant, now
wouldn't it?

Just something to keep in mind for the future. At present, I have no need
to make assumptions about the historical background of the person making
comments about France's martial history.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *

*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

Beowulf Bolt

unread,
May 27, 2005, 7:15:44 PM5/27/05
to
John Schilling wrote:
>
> In article <42965B...@shaw.ca>, Beowulf Bolt says...
> >
> >John Schilling wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <429640...@shaw.ca>, Beowulf Bolt says...
>
> > [re: the French]
>
> >> > Calling them "surrender-monkeys" or the like is *not* mocking
> >> >their valor?!? I see a half dozen lame-ass jokes about "France
> >> >surrenders" for every post which may possibly be construed to
> >> >target their "military effectiveness" instead.
>
> >> Napoleon (the original) surrendered France twice in as many years.
> >> Do you assume that it was lack of valor that resulted in those
> >> incidents, or is being implied when those incidents are tallied > >> against France?
>
> > Do you assume that the smart-ass comments made by John Q. Asshat
> > about France surrendering have any basis in first-hand knowledge
> > about French martial history?
>
> That would be a good question to ask before unleashing the canned
> rant, now wouldn't it?

And what canned rant would that be?

As far as I'm concerned, making simplistic cracks about 'France
surrenders' or 'surrender-monkeys' is sufficient cause in itself for me
to disregard anything the 'moran' responsible would have to say and/or
to heap scorn upon them. Particularly during the last few years where
brainlessly insulting the French is practically de rigueur (although
that seems to be dying off a bit of late).

Thus far, I've seen no reason to amend this particular policy.


> Just something to keep in mind for the future. At present, I have no
> need to make assumptions about the historical background of the person
> making comments about France's martial history.

Bully for you.

dwight...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2005, 11:34:00 AM5/28/05
to

Funnay thing though - Eric has done an admirable job of justifying his
actions, has, in fact made those questioning them look silly, querulous
and argumentative withoug appearing to exert himself appreciably in
doing so. By extension, that means the French . . .. IOW, precisely
180 degrees from what the incompetent who posted that drivel was trying
to imply.

No, the French in this instance don't need any defending from the
small-minded idiots who apparently don't have anything better to do
with their time than post insults.

William December Starr

unread,
May 28, 2005, 1:44:49 PM5/28/05
to
In article <1117294440.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> said:

> Funnay thing though - Eric has done an admirable job of justifying
> his actions,

Except that he hasn't.

> has, in fact made those questioning them look silly, querulous and
> argumentative

Except that he hasn't.

[ *snip* ]

> No, the French in this instance don't need any defending from the
> small-minded idiots who apparently don't have anything better to
> do with their time than post insults.

That would be you. Plonk.

Paul F. Dietz

unread,
May 28, 2005, 2:53:11 PM5/28/05
to
William December Starr wrote:

>>Funnay thing though - Eric has done an admirable job of justifying
>>his actions,
>
> Except that he hasn't.

Why does he need to justify his actions, particularly to you?

Paul

William December Starr

unread,
May 28, 2005, 3:01:38 PM5/28/05
to
In article <nYGdnQRWb8G...@dls.net>,

"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> said:

>>> Funnay thing though - Eric has done an admirable job of
>>> justifying his actions,
>>

>> Except that he hasn't. [wdstarr]


>
> Why does he need to justify his actions, particularly to you?

He doesn't. That said, I see no contradiction between (1) "He
doesn't need to justify his actions" and (2) "It is not true that
he has done an admirable job of justifying his actions."

Bill Snyder

unread,
May 28, 2005, 6:18:53 PM5/28/05
to
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:53:11 -0500, "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net>
wrote:

That strikes me as a very odd question. A seller of books needs to
justify his actions in producing them to readers for precisely the
same reason that Ford, say, needs to justify its actions in producing
cars to prospective auto-buyers.

(Of course, they could always do a Flint instead, and simply insist
that since lots of people *really* *like* the Pinto wagon, those who
object to its design are a bunch of effete wimps who don't
sufficiently appreciate Exploding Groundships. But this tends to work
less well when the item being produced is utilitarian enough to make
product liability suits a consideration.)

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]

dwight...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2005, 9:12:18 PM5/28/05
to

William December Starr wrote:

> In article <1117294440.7...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > Funnay thing though - Eric has done an admirable job of justifying
> > his actions,
>
> Except that he hasn't.

That's why he was fired, after outraged fans such as yourself refused
to buy the books, thus plunging the reissue project into the red. Oh,
wait, you say Eric still has his job, that the books actually made
money?

Idiot.

>
> > has, in fact made those questioning them look silly, querulous and
> > argumentative
>
> Except that he hasn't.
>
> [ *snip* ]
>
> > No, the French in this instance don't need any defending from the
> > small-minded idiots who apparently don't have anything better to
> > do with their time than post insults.
>
> That would be you. Plonk.

Whatever, loon. Just don't pull a Pete McCucheon and keep responding
to my posts after having 'killfiled' me.

dwight...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2005, 9:19:22 PM5/28/05
to

Bill Snyder wrote:

> On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:53:11 -0500, "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net>
> wrote:
>
> >William December Starr wrote:
> >
> >>>Funnay thing though - Eric has done an admirable job of justifying
> >>>his actions,
> >>
> >> Except that he hasn't.
> >
> >Why does he need to justify his actions, particularly to you?
>
> That strikes me as a very odd question. A seller of books needs to
> justify his actions in producing them to readers for precisely the
> same reason that Ford, say, needs to justify its actions in producing
> cars to prospective auto-buyers.

That's exactly right. He also has to justify his actions to his boss.


> (Of course, they could always do a Flint instead, and simply insist
> that since lots of people *really* *like* the Pinto wagon, those who
> object to its design are a bunch of effete wimps who don't
> sufficiently appreciate Exploding Groundships. But this tends to work
> less well when the item being produced is utilitarian enough to make
> product liability suits a consideration.)

But this doesn't map to reality, since in point of fact the edited
reissues did sell, and did make the publisher money.

God knows I'm no market uber alles type, but the point of the matter is
the market has shown that Eric is right, dead right, and all his
detractors are the ones insisting that people *really* like the Pinto
wagon. They may not like it, they may imagine themselves some sort of
custodial purists, but the fact of the matter is that they's wrong to
dictate their tastes to others.

Mike Schilling

unread,
May 28, 2005, 9:45:23 PM5/28/05
to

<dwight...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117329562....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> God knows I'm no market uber alles type, but the point of the matter is
> the market has shown that Eric is right, dead right, and all his
> detractors are the ones insisting that people *really* like the Pinto
> wagon. They may not like it, they may imagine themselves some sort of
> custodial purists, but the fact of the matter is that they's wrong to
> dictate their tastes to others.

Not really. To demonstrate that, someone would have to issue non-updated
Schmitz and fail at it. That is, it's been deomonstrated that there's a
market for what Flint has produced; that doesn't prove there's no market for
a slight variant of it.


Bill Snyder

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:03:46 PM5/28/05
to
On 28 May 2005 18:19:22 -0700, "dwight...@gmail.com"
<dwight...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:53:11 -0500, "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >William December Starr wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Funnay thing though - Eric has done an admirable job of justifying
>> >>>his actions,
>> >>
>> >> Except that he hasn't.
>> >
>> >Why does he need to justify his actions, particularly to you?
>>
>> That strikes me as a very odd question. A seller of books needs to
>> justify his actions in producing them to readers for precisely the
>> same reason that Ford, say, needs to justify its actions in producing
>> cars to prospective auto-buyers.
>
>That's exactly right. He also has to justify his actions to his boss.
>
>
>> (Of course, they could always do a Flint instead, and simply insist
>> that since lots of people *really* *like* the Pinto wagon, those who
>> object to its design are a bunch of effete wimps who don't
>> sufficiently appreciate Exploding Groundships. But this tends to work
>> less well when the item being produced is utilitarian enough to make
>> product liability suits a consideration.)
>
>But this doesn't map to reality, since in point of fact the edited
>reissues did sell, and did make the publisher money.

I dunno about your universe, but in mine the Pinto sold well, and made
Ford a lot of money.

>God knows I'm no market uber alles type, but the point of the matter is
>the market has shown that Eric is right, dead right, and all his
>detractors are the ones insisting that people *really* like the Pinto
>wagon. They may not like it, they may imagine themselves some sort of
>custodial purists, but the fact of the matter is that they's wrong to
>dictate their tastes to others.

I run Windows XP on my laptop, even though I know perfectly well that
it has security holes in it. I'd much rather have been able to buy a
version that didn't have security holes, but that option wasn't open.
Since lots of others also use XP, holes and all, does that mean "the
market has shown" that a version with holes is better than one
without, or even that it would sell better, were both available?

Mike Schilling

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:13:36 PM5/28/05
to

"Bill Snyder" <bsn...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1b8i91lnsunactknl...@4ax.com...

>
> I run Windows XP on my laptop, even though I know perfectly well that
> it has security holes in it. I'd much rather have been able to buy a
> version that didn't have security holes, but that option wasn't open.
> Since lots of others also use XP, holes and all, does that mean "the
> market has shown" that a version with holes is better than one
> without, or even that it would sell better, were both available?

How mnay people do you know that run VMS on their laptops, or even servers?
(OK, it's not perfectly secure, but far better than any Windoze variant ever
will be, or than most Unixes were when it was losing ground so badly to
them.)


Justin Bacon

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:26:28 PM5/28/05
to

Louann Miller wrote:
> Part two, probably composed and hosted separately, could be Bacon et
> al's explanations of why said editing was utterly, completely, Evil
> Pure And Simple From The Eighth Dimension.

Can't be me. You'll have to find someone who actually thinks the
editing was utterly, completely, Evil Pure and Simple from the Eighth
Dimension.

This isn't directed particularly at you, Louann, but I really wish
people would stop lying about what my opinion of Flint's editing skill
is.

--
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com

dwight...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:30:49 PM5/28/05
to

Quite true(well, not quite - it would simply not have to do as well as
the 'updated' editions).

But the real fact of the matter is, you know and I know the
oh-so-outraged critics don't have the faintest intention of ever
putting their money where their mouth is, that is, actually publishing
their own version. So we go with what we got, ie, the project didn't
fail because of the outraged sensibilities of the patrons.

Justin Bacon

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:32:34 PM5/28/05
to
dwight...@gmail.com wrote:
> God knows I'm no market uber alles type, but the point of the matter is
> the market has shown that Eric is right, dead right,

Even *Guy Gordon* has admitted this isn't the case. And anyone with two
brain cells to rub together agrees with him.

Obviously you're lacking the second brain cell. It's possible you're
lacking the first.

--
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com

Justin Bacon

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:30:53 PM5/28/05
to
loua...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Helpless newbies are already being exposed to Bacon v. Flint. This way
> they'd be saved bandwidth, Flint would be saved time to do new writing
> and editing, and Bacon would be saved time to post on topics on which
> he's _not_ apparently stark raving fanatically insane.

Fanatically insane? Is it because I praised Flint's work on the Lord
Darcy collection?

That's kinda harsh, Louann. What didn't you like about Flint's edit of
the Lord Darcy collection that would make its defenders "fanatically
insane"?

Or were you just being a mindless bitch?

--
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com

dwight...@gmail.com

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:38:38 PM5/28/05
to

Sorry. My mistake. I thought that you were implyling the Flint was
wrong by saying the Pinto didn't sell well.

> >God knows I'm no market uber alles type, but the point of the matter is
> >the market has shown that Eric is right, dead right, and all his
> >detractors are the ones insisting that people *really* like the Pinto
> >wagon. They may not like it, they may imagine themselves some sort of
> >custodial purists, but the fact of the matter is that they's wrong to
> >dictate their tastes to others.
>
> I run Windows XP on my laptop, even though I know perfectly well that
> it has security holes in it. I'd much rather have been able to buy a
> version that didn't have security holes, but that option wasn't open.
> Since lots of others also use XP, holes and all, does that mean "the
> market has shown" that a version with holes is better than one
> without, or even that it would sell better, were both available?

It shows that the holes aren't enough to cause the sales to lag. And
the grim fact of the matter is that, while neither of us knows the
answer to your question (suppose it costs $100 extra retail for the
superior holeless version, for example), it's incumbent upon you to
prove this, not upon Windows to launch an upgrade to show otherwise.

Mike Schilling

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:43:17 PM5/28/05
to

"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117333588....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

You mean that all of us who stay up nights discussing it should re-examine
our premises?

I don't want to put words in Louann's mouth, but I think she was less
interested in representing your respective positions accurately than in
making fun of both of you.


Mike Schilling

unread,
May 28, 2005, 10:47:59 PM5/28/05
to

<dwight...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117333849....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
>
> Mike Schilling wrote:
>> <dwight...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1117329562....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > God knows I'm no market uber alles type, but the point of the matter is
>> > the market has shown that Eric is right, dead right, and all his
>> > detractors are the ones insisting that people *really* like the Pinto
>> > wagon. They may not like it, they may imagine themselves some sort of
>> > custodial purists, but the fact of the matter is that they's wrong to
>> > dictate their tastes to others.
>>
>> Not really. To demonstrate that, someone would have to issue non-updated
>> Schmitz and fail at it. That is, it's been deomonstrated that there's a
>> market for what Flint has produced; that doesn't prove there's no market
>> for
>> a slight variant of it.
>
> Quite true(well, not quite - it would simply not have to do as well as
> the 'updated' editions).

In a statistically significant way, with the difference not (easily)
attributable to other differences.

>
> But the real fact of the matter is, you know and I know the
> oh-so-outraged critics don't have the faintest intention of ever
> putting their money where their mouth is, that is, actually publishing
> their own version.

I doubt they have the right to; the stories are not in the public domain.
Besides, even if someone could do that, the Schmitz re-issue market is
pretty much saturated with the Baen editions. The level of sales of the
purist version would tell us nothing (except perhaps, the size of the
purist-only market. I suspect we'd all be shocked to find out that it's
tiny.)

You can't do a comparison, even as a thought experiment, without something
approaching parallel Earths.


John Schilling

unread,
May 28, 2005, 11:32:57 PM5/28/05
to
In article <4297AA...@shaw.ca>, Beowulf Bolt says...

>John Schilling wrote:

>> > [re: the French]

>> >> > Calling them "surrender-monkeys" or the like is *not* mocking
>> >> >their valor?!? I see a half dozen lame-ass jokes about "France
>> >> >surrenders" for every post which may possibly be construed to
>> >> >target their "military effectiveness" instead.

>> >> Napoleon (the original) surrendered France twice in as many years.
>> >> Do you assume that it was lack of valor that resulted in those
>> >> incidents, or is being implied when those incidents are tallied
>> >> against France?

>> > Do you assume that the smart-ass comments made by John Q. Asshat
>> > about France surrendering have any basis in first-hand knowledge
>> > about French martial history?

>> That would be a good question to ask before unleashing the canned
>> rant, now wouldn't it?

> And what canned rant would that be?

Uh, the one you're about to deliver?

> As far as I'm concerned, making simplistic cracks about 'France
>surrenders' or 'surrender-monkeys' is sufficient cause in itself for me
>to disregard anything the 'moran' responsible would have to say and/or
>to heap scorn upon them. Particularly during the last few years where
>brainlessly insulting the French is practically de rigueur (although
>that seems to be dying off a bit of late).


Yes, that one. Rant, definitely. Canned, well, I see a lot of specific
complaints that are entirely inapplicable to the context in which you
unleash the rant, so I think we can rule out the possibility that you
crafted it specifically for the occasion. So, canned rant. The diatribe
you unleash reflexively whenever you see someone say anything bad about
the French.

Who are as entitled to have bad things said about them as anyone, and more
than most.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *

*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

William December Starr

unread,
May 29, 2005, 12:01:35 AM5/29/05
to
In article <1117329562....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"dwight...@gmail.com" <dwight...@gmail.com> said:

> God knows I'm no market uber alles type, but the point of the
> matter is the market has shown that Eric is right, dead right,

Not everything that counts can be measured. Not everything that
can be measured counts.

In other words, you speak nonsense.

> and all his detractors are the ones insisting that people *really*
> like the Pinto wagon. They may not like it, they may imagine
> themselves some sort of custodial purists, but the fact of the
> matter is that they's wrong to dictate their tastes to others.

And if they were dictating anything, you might have a point.

Hey wait a minute, you're supposed to be in my killfile. What went
wrong? Oh, I see, it's "dwight.thieme" with a dot, rather than just
"dwight thieme". Okay, fixed.

Bill Snyder

unread,
May 29, 2005, 12:43:11 AM5/29/05
to

Unless it would run existing Windoze & Unix apps, I'd have to say
there were other factors involved there.

John Schilling

unread,
May 29, 2005, 12:32:35 AM5/29/05
to
In article <nYGdnQRWb8G...@dls.net>, Paul F. Dietz says...
>
>William December Starr wrote:

He doesn't. He *chooses* to justify his actions. And then does so vert
badly, needlessly annoying many people who are not his enemies. Some of
whom grudgingly take up his cause anyhow, and do an admirable job of
justifying his actions.

Analogies to French military history are left as an exercise for the
student.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *

*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

John Schilling

unread,
May 29, 2005, 12:32:51 AM5/29/05