The Mail Frontier
Damien R. Sullivan
density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally, lack of
communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving out the
unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman' is really
just a bunch of photons. Intrepidity quavers in the face of regular maternal
nagging. The communications may need to be two-way on some reasonable
timescale for this to hold true.
Applications: it is impossible to realistically have the feel of a lonely ship
cruising the Solar System, unless you unrealistically shut down radio a la
_The Cassini Division_ or _Cosmonaut Keep_'s Second Sphere. The Solar System
is only a few hours across. Lonely Belt Miners, or even Lonely Neptunian
Miners, won't work that well either, the way tech is going. If you want
stories which naturally take place Away From Civilization, you need a Collapse
(still doesn't work; spacecraft without radio? You'd need a stranded
automatically maintained habitat or something) or to go to another star sytem.
Or to sabotage your own communication, but then the reader need have no
sympathy for you.
Old Star Trek cheated: Starfleet Command could call up Kirk, but we never saw
equivalent communiques from home. Well, I never did. B-5 dealt with this a
bit by having realtime video being expensive or restricted (Gold Channels);
still, there was a lot of mail, and they were't trying to be on the frontier,
more the opposite.
For a real wild feel, Bujold has the right idea (not original to her; Poul
Anderson much earlier, I think?): ship only FTL, no subspace or whatnot. For
a bonus robots can't use her wormholes so human involvement is needed. Note
she still has message ships jumping back and forth across main route holes,
but at least it's possible to explore past your communication sphere. Cherryh
had this too (no surprise. She squished radio on Finisterre too; apparently
it'd attract all the fell telepathic beasties. Somehow this didn't extend to
making tinfoil hats an actual good idea.)
Ironically, you almost need FTL to get the frontier back; ship-only FTL is the
only thing which can outrun wireless communications. STL can always get
nagging and helpful messages from home, even when two-way comms get stretched
out. Well, not always, but it'll take probably centuries to get out of range
of news. Of course, Home may simply stop sending any news. And FTL is still
subject to mail robots, unless you cheat like Bujold.
-xx- Damien X-)
Ken from Chicago
"Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:d3l5tq$qqf$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea that they
aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or talk in realtime to
"back home".
Tell that to cops who put on their uniforms, go out on the street, or going
thru a door.
Tell that to firefighters going to their first fire or one hundred and first
fire.
Communication is part of frontier life, but mainly it's DANGER. What level
of risk is there? Relative to what? And to a degree, what measure of help is
available.
Every time someone--guard, cop, prisoner, visitor--enters a prison, they too
are on the "frontier". The same could be said of someone entering a lake or
ocean or a raging river.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Altho STORYwise, lack of communication has a major affect on the story
and plotting.
rja.ca...@excite.com
Uh uh. None of the places or situations you mentioned are any kind of
frontier. The countries /have/ frontiers. And, uh, what "soldiers in
North Korea"?
James Nicoll
Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low population
>density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally, lack of
>communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving out the
>unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman' is really
>just a bunch of photons. Intrepidity quavers in the face of regular maternal
>nagging. The communications may need to be two-way on some reasonable
>timescale for this to hold true.
>
>Applications: it is impossible to realistically have the feel of a lonely ship
>cruising the Solar System, unless you unrealistically shut down radio a la
>_The Cassini Division_ or _Cosmonaut Keep_'s Second Sphere. The Solar System
>is only a few hours across. Lonely Belt Miners, or even Lonely Neptunian
>Miners, won't work that well either, the way tech is going.
Communication within the System is trivial but then the Old West
had the telegraph.
What the early explorers and developers won't have is much
hope for a speedy rescue if things go horribly wrong, as they almost
certainly will from time to time. They may get to send plaintive
messages home, for the good it will do them...
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.marryanamerican.ca
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Jason Steiner
> "Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> > An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low
> > population density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more
> > generally, lack of communications.
>
> that they aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or
> talk in realtime to "back home".
Ok.
We already have a perfectly good word for dangerous environments.
"Dangerous". Unless you want to simply make "Frontier" a synonym
for "Danger" it needs to imply something more. Lack of communication
is a good qualifier.
jason
--
"Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm concerned,
they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking things,
smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Jason Steiner <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> said
>Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> > An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low
>> > population density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more
>> > generally, lack of communications.
>>
>> Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea
>> that they aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or
>> talk in realtime to "back home".
>
>"Dangerous". Unless you want to simply make "Frontier" a synonym
>for "Danger" it needs to imply something more. Lack of communication
>is a good qualifier.
I'd consider it more a case of 'where civilization meets the unknown'
i.e. the 'here be dragons' white areas on the maps. The unknown element
might be anything from climate to terrain to natives to local laws of
physics .. just so long as it's 'possibly a surprise' to the poor
suckers who are first on the scene.
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
SC recommends the use of Firefox; Get smart, or get assimilated.
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
> Old Star Trek cheated: Starfleet Command could call up Kirk, but
> we never saw equivalent communiques from home. Well, I never
> did.
Star Trek cheated more than that. Kirk had to send dispatches and
wait for a reply anytime the story required the Enterprise to be on
her own, but he could have real-time communications with his
superiors whenever the plot needed it.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Today, a fellow stripper lapped the crotch of my panties until said
panties were practically drenched in saliva (a customer paid for
this display.) It's amazing what five dollars can buy in this economy.
--Diablo Cody
James Nicoll
Sean O'Hara <sean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Damien R. Sullivan
>declared:
>>
>> Old Star Trek cheated: Starfleet Command could call up Kirk, but
>> we never saw equivalent communiques from home. Well, I never
>> did.
>
>Star Trek cheated more than that. Kirk had to send dispatches and
>wait for a reply anytime the story required the Enterprise to be on
>her own, but he could have real-time communications with his
>superiors whenever the plot needed it.
>
Uhura to use the relay with the longest lag time...
Michael S. Schiffer
news:w8adnaASROD...@comcast.com:
> In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Damien R.
> Sullivan declared:
>> Old Star Trek cheated: Starfleet Command could call up Kirk,
>> but we never saw equivalent communiques from home. Well, I
>> never did.
> Star Trek cheated more than that. Kirk had to send dispatches
> and wait for a reply anytime the story required the Enterprise
> to be on her own, but he could have real-time communications
> with his superiors whenever the plot needed it.
Though since the astrography of the Federation was pretty vague, it
was always possible that communications options varied with distance,
whether there was a relay station in the area, etc. (I don't know if
it ever varied within an episode so as to make that implausible,
though I wouldn't be surprised.)
Mike
--
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS
msch...@condor.depaul.edu
Michael Stemper
>"Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:d3l5tq$qqf$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>> An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low population
>> density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally, lack of
>> communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving out the
>> unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman' is
>Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea that they
>aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or talk in realtime to
>"back home".
They aren't on a frontier. What makes you think otherwise?
>Tell that to cops who put on their uniforms, go out on the street, or going
>thru a door.
>Tell that to firefighters going to their first fire or one hundred and first
>fire.
I'd say that any place that's civilized enough to have police departments
and fire departments (volunteer or professional) wouldn't qualify as a
frontier.
>Communication is part of frontier life, but mainly it's DANGER.
That's a possible ingredient into a definition of "frontier". But, it
doesn't follow from that that anything that's danfgerous is a frontier.
Just because all A's are B does not imply that anything that's B is an A.
What do they teach them these days?
>Every time someone--guard, cop, prisoner, visitor--enters a prison, they too
>are on the "frontier".
Bullshit. Just because some class of people engages in dangerous activities
on behalf of the rest of society doesn't mean that we need to pretend that
they have other positive qualities, as well.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This message contains at least 95% recycled bytes.
David Johnston
<kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea that they
>aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or talk in realtime to
>"back home".
OK. Guys. You aren't on a frontier. You're in a war zone.
Damien R. Sullivan
>In article <HcidncFb_vR...@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago writes:
>>"Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:d3l5tq$qqf$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>>> An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low population
>>> density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally, lack of
>>> communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving out the
>>> unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman' is
>
>>Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea that they
>>aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or talk in realtime to
>>"back home".
You seem to be mapping "frontier" to "danger", Ken; this isn't my
kenning of the term. A frontier is unknown. It often involves danger, but
this is because of the unknownness of it. There's also loneliness, since
you're so far away and don't have good communications -- which also adds to
the danger since you're on your own, can't call back to the capital for help,
or even talk easily with people on other distant parts of the frontier to
share information. And if you disappear, you disappear; the person after you
doesn't know what happened to you.
The modern US military specializes in de-frontiering anyplace it has to fight.
Spy satellites, communications satellites, GPS, encrypted radio, air
surveillance, *unmanned* air surveillance, air support... "alone and out of
touch" is not natural state of a US soldier. Submariner, or Special Forcer in
Central Asia and who's left his communicator behind, maybe.
>>Tell that to cops who put on their uniforms, go out on the street, or going
>>thru a door. Tell that to firefighters going to their first fire or one
>>hundred and first fire.
>
>I'd say that any place that's civilized enough to have police departments
>and fire departments (volunteer or professional) wouldn't qualify as a
>frontier.
Yeah.
Conversely, if the element of unknown is a burning building is a significant
amount of frontier, then we've redefined frontier into something rather
different and arguably not useful. Everyone has burning buildings. The US
wasn't a frontier nation, and didn't worry about the end of the frontier,
because of burning buildings or inner city crime.
-xx- Damien X-)
Richard R. Hershberger
While Ken has transmorgrified the word beyond recognition, you too are
engaging in semantic drift. The original sense of 'frontier' is simply
a border between two countries. Really. Look it up. So one could
speak of England's northern frontier, beyond which were Scots. But
known and unknown was quite beside the point. The English knew what
was in Scotland. That's why they generally stayed home. In America
'frontier' was extended to mean the border between civilization and
not-civilization. This is not a huge extension. The frontier was
still the border between us and them. Known and unknown still was
largely beside the point. The vast majority of frontiersmen occupied
territory that had been explored years earlier. They knew what was
there: that's why they came.
Your use of 'frontier' is a somewhat more extended meaning (not that
there is necessarily anything wrong with that) with an overlay of
romanticism and some conflation of cause and effect. Yes, a frontier
will tend to have poorer communications than other parts of the
country: It is further away from the communication centers. If the
fronter is a moving target, as in the old West, then the lines of
communication may have trouble keeping up. But if it is an established
frontier, like the Scottish border, then its communication is unlikely
to be any worse than any similarly distant district, and may indeed be
considerably better due to military considerations. Germany used to
have train stations near the French frontier with platforms a mile
long. That wasn't for the tourist trade. Poor communications may be a
common characteristic of a frontier, but certainly not universally so.
None of this is necessarily a damning criticism. You are redefining
the word to meet your own needs, but we aren't French: we're allowed
to do that. But we should be aware of what we are doing.
Richard R. Hershberger
Steve Brooks
> Damien R. Sullivan wrote:
<snip>
>> You seem to be mapping "frontier" to "danger", Ken; this isn't my
>> kenning of the term. A frontier is unknown. It often involves
>> danger, but this is because of the unknownness of it. There's also
>> loneliness, since you're so far away and don't have good
>> communications -- which also adds to the danger since you're on your
>> own, can't call back to the capital for help, or even talk easily
>> with people on other distant parts of the frontier to share
>> information. And if you disappear, you disappear; the person after
>> you doesn't know what happened to you.
>
> While Ken has transmorgrified the word beyond recognition, you too are
> engaging in semantic drift. The original sense of 'frontier' is
> simply a border between two countries. Really. Look it up. So one
> could speak of England's northern frontier, beyond which were Scots.
> But known and unknown was quite beside the point. The English knew
> what was in Scotland. That's why they generally stayed home.
This definition - and the example you chose - implies a certain amount of
hostility from the beings on the other side of the border/frontier. ;-)
--
SB
Steve Thorn
into their submersibles to dive into the deep depths of the oceans and
seas be exploring a frontier? They can still communicate quite
actively with everyone topside as they do so..
Ken from Chicago
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1113486880.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ken from Chicago wrote:
>> "Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> news:d3l5tq$qqf$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>> > An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low
> population
>> > density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally,
> lack of
>> > communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving
> out the
>> > unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman'
> is
>> > really
>> > just a bunch of photons. Intrepidity quavers in the face of
> regular
>> > maternal
>> > nagging. The communications may need to be two-way on some
> reasonable
>> > timescale for this to hold true.
<snip>
>> Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea that
> they
>> aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or talk in
> realtime to
>> "back home".
>>
>> Tell that to cops who put on their uniforms, go out on the street, or
> going
>> thru a door.
>>
>> Tell that to firefighters going to their first fire or one hundred
> and first
>> fire.
>>
>> Communication is part of frontier life, but mainly it's DANGER. What
> level
>> of risk is there? Relative to what? And to a degree, what measure of
> help is
>> available.
>>
>> Every time someone--guard, cop, prisoner, visitor--enters a prison,
> they too
>> are on the "frontier". The same could be said of someone entering a
> lake or
>> ocean or a raging river.
>
> Uh uh. None of the places or situations you mentioned are any kind of
> frontier. The countries /have/ frontiers. And, uh, what "soldiers in
> North Korea"?
Frontiers aren't just along or outside of a country's borders. Even going by
the definition of the OP, much of the West and the South in the 19th century
would be considered "frontier" because of their lack of frequent
communication.
You're right. I'm wrong. While I can imagine some might have actually made
it inside the country for recon / intel, I was referring to the soldiers
along the border of North Korea--just outside of North Korea.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote in message
news:s44m3d...@shell.gaydeceiver.com...
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>> > An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low
>> > population density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more
>> > generally, lack of communications.
>>
>> Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea
>> that they aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or
>> talk in realtime to "back home".
>
> Ok.
>
> We already have a perfectly good word for dangerous environments.
> "Dangerous". Unless you want to simply make "Frontier" a synonym
> for "Danger" it needs to imply something more. Lack of communication
> is a good qualifier.
Playing with fire is dangerous. Smoking is dangerous. Driving without a
seatbelts or riding a motorcycle without a helmet are dangerous.
GEOGRAPHICALLY based danger automatically creates a frontier, a border, an
edge, a zone between "safe" and "dangerous" or relatively safe / dangerous,
between society, civilization, civility, law, order, justice, fairplay and
the jungle, the wild, anarchy, chaos, dog eat dog world, barbarians,
heathens, infidels, dragons, demons, monsters.
Take away the "danger" element from the frontier and you just have a really
long commute from the country, the boondocks, a farm, or an unincorporated
area. If one is not commuting but simply living by oneself in a remote
region, then the inherent danger is simply starvation.
> jason
>
> --
> "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
> make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm
> concerned,
> they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking
> things,
> smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
> mste...@siemens-emis.com wrote:
>>In article <HcidncFb_vR...@comcast.com>, Ken from Chicago writes:
>>>"Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>>news:d3l5tq$qqf$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>>>> An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low population
>>>> density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally, lack
>>>> of
>>>> communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving out
>>>> the
>>>> unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman' is
>>
>>>Tell that to the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan or North Korea that they
>>>aren't on a frontier because they can get mail hourly or talk in realtime
>>>to
>>>"back home".
>
> You seem to be mapping "frontier" to "danger", Ken; this isn't my
Yep. I said as much:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: The Mail Frontier
>
> "Damien R. Sullivan" <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:d3l5tq$qqf$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>> An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low population
>> density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally, lack of
>> communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving out the
>> unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman' is
>> really
>> just a bunch of photons. Intrepidity quavers in the face of regular
>> maternal
>> nagging. The communications may need to be two-way on some reasonable
>> timescale for this to hold true.
<snip a well-articulate message and IMHO reply>
> Communication is part of frontier life, but mainly it's DANGER. What level
> of risk is there? Relative to what? And to a degree, what measure of help
> is
> available.
>
> Every time someone--guard, cop, prisoner, visitor--enters a prison, they
> too
> are on the "frontier". The same could be said of someone entering a lake
> or
> ocean or a raging river.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> P.S. Altho STORYwise, lack of communication has a major affect on the
> story
> and plotting.
Yes, that's right, I took your word "frontier", tossed aside your definition
like yestersecond's blog, and substituted my own definition to fit my own
nefarious purposes. Why? Because I could! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
Seriously, tho, I'm a huge believer in the fact that PEOPLE define words not
dictionaries (which merely list the popular definitions). As such, I
subscribe to the idea that words can have multiple meanings of varying
degrees of popularity.
I think for some, "frontier" does convey a sense of *unrelieved* isolation,
barring rare special circumstances, that isolation is not relieved by
communication.
However I think a more common, more popular sense of the word and the idea
is a sense of danger, and as I realized in responding to a reply to my
reply, said danger is *geographically* based. It's not the kind of danger
from smoking, excessive drinking or eating, but of location. Here there be
dragons. You knowing approach the location of the danger.
> kenning of the term. A frontier is unknown. It often involves danger,
> but
> this is because of the unknownness of it. There's also loneliness, since
> you're so far away and don't have good communications -- which also adds
> to
> the danger since you're on your own, can't call back to the capital for
> help,
> or even talk easily with people on other distant parts of the frontier to
> share information. And if you disappear, you disappear; the person after
> you
> doesn't know what happened to you.
Often a frontier is unknown, but I think most people would still feel that
living in the midwestern plains in the 19th century even tho the area had
been scouted out and was fairly well-explored would still be "frontier"
living because of the danger.
> The modern US military specializes in de-frontiering anyplace it has to
> fight.
> Spy satellites, communications satellites, GPS, encrypted radio, air
> surveillance, *unmanned* air surveillance, air support... "alone and out
> of
> touch" is not natural state of a US soldier. Submariner, or Special
> Forcer in
> Central Asia and who's left his communicator behind, maybe.
>
>>>Tell that to cops who put on their uniforms, go out on the street, or
>>>going
>>>thru a door. Tell that to firefighters going to their first fire or one
>>>hundred and first fire.
>>
>>I'd say that any place that's civilized enough to have police departments
>>and fire departments (volunteer or professional) wouldn't qualify as a
>>frontier.
>
> Yeah.
>
> Conversely, if the element of unknown is a burning building is a
> significant
> amount of frontier, then we've redefined frontier into something rather
> different and arguably not useful. Everyone has burning buildings. The
> US
> wasn't a frontier nation, and didn't worry about the end of the frontier,
> because of burning buildings or inner city crime.
>
> -xx- Damien X-)
I agree a burning building is a very short-lived "frontier". While it's a
geographically-located danger, a "frontier" as how I would see it; it is a
... wee ... bit of a stretch of the conventional views of what "frontier"
is. I imagine for most people that, at the very least, a "frontier" is
something that lasts at least several weeks or months, if not years or
decades.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrh...@acme.com> wrote in message
news:1113571833.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Imagine the concept of "frontier" without danger.
Being on the border between two regions have often been viewed as "frontier"
because there was a view of inherent danger of skirmishes and what not
between two countries, Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, North Korea
and South Korea, Iran and Iraq, India and Pakistan, England and France,
Northern United States and Southern United States.
-- Ken from Chicago
Sean O'Hara
declared:
>
> Imagine the concept of "frontier" without danger.
>
> Being on the border between two regions have often been viewed as
> "frontier" because there was a view of inherent danger of
> skirmishes and what not between two countries, Northern Ireland
> and Southern Ireland, North Korea and South Korea, Iran and Iraq,
> India and Pakistan, England and France, Northern United States
> and Southern United States.
>
You have things backwards. A frontier is merely a border; any
connotation of danger stems from the fact that throughout history,
borders have been dangerous places to live. But, as a technical
matter, Buffalo, New York is on a frontier as much as Carson or
Dodge Cities ever were.
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Doctor: Look, try and use your intelligence, man, even if you are a
politician.
-Doctor Who
Scott Robinson
wrote:
>In the Year of the Cock, the Great and Powerful Ken from Chicago
>declared:
>>
>> Imagine the concept of "frontier" without danger.
>>
>> Being on the border between two regions have often been viewed as
>> "frontier" because there was a view of inherent danger of
>> skirmishes and what not between two countries, Northern Ireland
>> and Southern Ireland, North Korea and South Korea, Iran and Iraq,
>> India and Pakistan, England and France, Northern United States
>> and Southern United States.
>>
>
>You have things backwards. A frontier is merely a border; any
>connotation of danger stems from the fact that throughout history,
>borders have been dangerous places to live. But, as a technical
>matter, Buffalo, New York is on a frontier as much as Carson or
>Dodge Cities ever were.
The connotation is that the frontier consists of territory that isn't
under complete control (or at least levels of control found in the
main areas). Buffalo is firmly under US control. Carson and Dodge
Cities were not. I'm not sure if that connotation was ever used in
English/Scottish borderlands.
Scott
William December Starr
dasu...@cs.indiana.edu (Damien R. Sullivan) said:
> An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by
> low population density but by lack of regular mail service.
> Or more generally, lack of communications. You're not
> really being a bold explorer carving out the unknown if the
> postman passes you regularly,
You can if you're the protagonist of Robert Sheckley's
"Prospector's Special."
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Ken from Chicago
"Scott Robinson" <dsc...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3i8661tqtube413ib...@4ax.com...
Or at least both regions aren't under the SAME control. Bordertowns are so
named because they are vulnerable or at risks to Others raiding them. But
with the risk, often comes rewards, profit, spying, smuggling.
-- Ken from Chicago
rja.ca...@excite.com
AIUI, "The Debatable Lands" had the unusual status of each side
asserting the territory belonged to the other guys.
Jason Steiner
> >
> > We already have a perfectly good word for dangerous environments.
> > "Dangerous". Unless you want to simply make "Frontier" a synonym
> > for "Danger" it needs to imply something more. Lack of communication
> > is a good qualifier.
>
> Playing with fire is dangerous. Smoking is dangerous. Driving without a
> seatbelts or riding a motorcycle without a helmet are dangerous.
>
> GEOGRAPHICALLY based danger automatically creates a frontier, a
> border, an edge, a zone between "safe" and "dangerous" or
> relatively safe / dangerous, between society, civilization,
> civility, law, order, justice, fairplay and the jungle, the wild,
> anarchy, chaos, dog eat dog world, barbarians, heathens, infidels,
> dragons, demons, monsters.
No, it doesn't.
I used to ride the US's most deadly freeway on my motorcycle as part
of my daily commute. It's a dangerous area, geographically defined.
By your definition, that would make it a "frontier", but it was no
such thing. It was well-known and well-travelled. Geographical danger
is not enough.
> Take away the "danger" element from the frontier and you just have
> a really long commute from the country, the boondocks, a farm, or
> an unincorporated area.
And this is where we introduce you to the concept of "necessary but
not sufficient". The fact that danger may be involved in frontiers
does not make every dangerous place a frontier.
Mark Atwood
>
> AIUI, "The Debatable Lands" had the unusual status of each side
> asserting the territory belonged to the other guys.
Something like that is happening near Seattle. There is a chunk of
King County the the county government is getting very tired of
providing law enforcement, safety services, et al for, as it's as
urban as the surrounding incorporated towns and is economically
integrated with them.
None of the surrounding towns want it either, either in whole or in
part, as it generates very little tax revenue givin its needs, and it
needs per cap quite a bit more law enforcment "servicing" then it's
surroundings.
And it can't just be incorporated on it's own, it will immediately go
bankrupt.
--
Mark Atwood | When you do things right, people won't be sure
ma...@atwood.name | you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
William December Starr
Mark Atwood <ma...@atwood.name> said:
> None of the surrounding towns want it either, either in whole or
> in part, as it generates very little tax revenue givin its needs,
> and it needs per cap quite a bit more law enforcment "servicing"
> then it's surroundings.
>
> And it can't just be incorporated on it's own, it will immediately
> go bankrupt.
They could always follow DC Comics's "No Man's Land" example...
Ken from Chicago
> Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > We already have a perfectly good word for dangerous environments.
>> > "Dangerous". Unless you want to simply make "Frontier" a synonym
>> > for "Danger" it needs to imply something more. Lack of communication
>> > is a good qualifier.
>>
>> Playing with fire is dangerous. Smoking is dangerous. Driving without a
>> seatbelts or riding a motorcycle without a helmet are dangerous.
>>
>> GEOGRAPHICALLY based danger automatically creates a frontier, a
>> border, an edge, a zone between "safe" and "dangerous" or
>> relatively safe / dangerous, between society, civilization,
>> civility, law, order, justice, fairplay and the jungle, the wild,
>> anarchy, chaos, dog eat dog world, barbarians, heathens, infidels,
>> dragons, demons, monsters.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> I used to ride the US's most deadly freeway on my motorcycle as part
> of my daily commute. It's a dangerous area, geographically defined.
> By your definition, that would make it a "frontier", but it was no
> such thing. It was well-known and well-travelled. Geographical danger
> is not enough.
Living on said freeway or right on the edge would indeed be dangerous. Ask
truckers if rest stops along even well-travelled highways are ... "safe".
I never said frontiers were hidden (altho I highly recommend HIDDEN
FRONTIER, a fanmade series set in the Star Trek universe, but I digress) nor
did I say they were rarely travelled. Many people travelled and lived along
the Oregon trail, but that negate the dangers of it. The same went for much
of the railroads in the American Old West in the 19th century.
>> Take away the "danger" element from the frontier and you just have
>> a really long commute from the country, the boondocks, a farm, or
>> an unincorporated area.
>
> And this is where we introduce you to the concept of "necessary but
> not sufficient". The fact that danger may be involved in frontiers
> does not make every dangerous place a frontier.
While every superhero is a hero not every hero is super.
What's commonly considered a "frontier" is sense of risk, of danger, in a
geographically defined location. Take away the danger element and it's no
more considered a "frontier" than living on one side of street versus the
other side--unless one is living on the edge of very different
neighborhoods.
> jason
>
> --
> "Listen, my boy, I can't abide children. I know it's the style nowadays to
> make a terrible fuss over you - but I don't go for it. As far as I'm
> concerned,
> they're no good for anything but screaming, torturing people, breaking
> things,
> smearing books with jam and tearing the pages." - The Neverending Story
Kids are good for doing household chores.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d3vntb$62b$1...@panix3.panix.com...
Maxwell Street was to a very limited extent like that with less public
services.
-- Ken from Chicago
Richard R. Hershberger
Ken from Chicago wrote:
> Or at least both regions aren't under the SAME control. Bordertowns
are so
> named because they are vulnerable or at risks to Others raiding them.
But
> with the risk, often comes rewards, profit, spying, smuggling.
I don't suppose you are open to consider the possibility that
'bordertowns' are so named because they are on or near a border?
John Schilling
Hershberger says...
Because the particular cause of their lucratively dangerous, lawless,
and/or uncontrolled state is the proximity of a border. Placidly mundane
towns that happen to be on borders, are generally not referred to as
"bordertowns".
El Paso, Laredo, MacAllen: Bordertowns.
Buffalo, Detroit, Bellingham: Just plain cities.
--
*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 *
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <1113850646.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Richard R.
> Hershberger says...
> >
> >
> >Ken from Chicago wrote:
> >
> >> Or at least both regions aren't under the SAME control. Bordertowns
> >> are so named because they are vulnerable or at risks to Others raiding
> >> them. But with the risk, often comes rewards, profit, spying, smuggling.
>
> >I don't suppose you are open to consider the possibility that
> >'bordertowns' are so named because they are on or near a border?
>
>
> Because the particular cause of their lucratively dangerous, lawless,
> and/or uncontrolled state is the proximity of a border. Placidly mundane
> towns that happen to be on borders, are generally not referred to as
> "bordertowns".
>
> El Paso, Laredo, MacAllen: Bordertowns.
>
> Buffalo,
Buffalo used to bill itself as being "on the Niagara Frontier.
Which sounds a step or two more lawless/uncontrolled than a
mere border.
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
James Nicoll
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>In article <1113850646.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Richard R.
>Hershberger says...
>>
>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>
>>> Or at least both regions aren't under the SAME control. Bordertowns
>>> are so named because they are vulnerable or at risks to Others raiding
>>> them. But with the risk, often comes rewards, profit, spying, smuggling.
>
>>I don't suppose you are open to consider the possibility that
>>'bordertowns' are so named because they are on or near a border?
>
>
>Because the particular cause of their lucratively dangerous, lawless,
>and/or uncontrolled state is the proximity of a border. Placidly mundane
>towns that happen to be on borders, are generally not referred to as
>"bordertowns".
>
>El Paso, Laredo, MacAllen: Bordertowns.
Add Hollywood, which is where it is so that film makers could
escape the Trust by fleeing to Mexico, if need be.
>Buffalo, Detroit, Bellingham: Just plain cities.
>
I'd say Prohibition Era Detroit had elements of a border town.
Estleman wrote about that, I think.
Jason Steiner
> "Jason Steiner" <ja...@gaydeceiver.com> wrote:
> >
> > No, it doesn't.
> >
> > I used to ride the US's most deadly freeway on my motorcycle as part
> > of my daily commute. It's a dangerous area, geographically defined.
> > By your definition, that would make it a "frontier", but it was no
> > such thing. It was well-known and well-travelled. Geographical danger
> > is not enough.
>
> Living on said freeway or right on the edge would indeed be dangerous. Ask
> truckers if rest stops along even well-travelled highways are ... "safe".
No, really? I just said it was dangerous.
> I never said frontiers were hidden (altho I highly recommend HIDDEN
> FRONTIER, a fanmade series set in the Star Trek universe, but I
> digress) nor did I say they were rarely travelled.
And that's precisely why you're wrong. Frontiers must have an aspect
of the hidden or undiscovered, or they aren't frontiers, they're
merely dangerous.
> > And this is where we introduce you to the concept of "necessary
> > but not sufficient". The fact that danger may be involved in
> > frontiers does not make every dangerous place a frontier.
>
> While every superhero is a hero not every hero is super.
>
> What's commonly considered a "frontier" is sense of risk, of
> danger, in a geographically defined location.
No, that's not the common definition of a frontier. That's your
definition of a frontier. Danger, while necessary, is not sufficient
to create a frontier.
William December Starr
jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
>> El Paso, Laredo, MacAllen: Bordertowns.
>
> Add Hollywood, which is where it is so that film makers could
> escape the Trust by fleeing to Mexico, if need be.
[*]
John Schilling
>
>In article <d416c...@drn.newsguy.com>,
>John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>>In article <1113850646.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Richard R.
>>Hershberger says...
>>>Ken from Chicago wrote:
>>>> Or at least both regions aren't under the SAME control. Bordertowns
>>>> are so named because they are vulnerable or at risks to Others raiding
>>>> them. But with the risk, often comes rewards, profit, spying, smuggling.
>>>I don't suppose you are open to consider the possibility that
>>>'bordertowns' are so named because they are on or near a border?
>>Because the particular cause of their lucratively dangerous, lawless,
>>and/or uncontrolled state is the proximity of a border. Placidly mundane
>>towns that happen to be on borders, are generally not referred to as
>>"bordertowns".
>>El Paso, Laredo, MacAllen: Bordertowns.
> Add Hollywood, which is where it is so that film makers could
>escape the Trust by fleeing to Mexico, if need be.
Ancient history, but yes, once upon a time that was a fair example.
>>Buffalo, Detroit, Bellingham: Just plain cities.
> I'd say Prohibition Era Detroit had elements of a border town.
>Estleman wrote about that, I think.
Also no longer the case. Canada was then the wilderness from whence a
highly profitable smuggling trade originated, so the towns along the
border were dangerously but profitably lawless and chaotic, at least
in relative terms. True bordertowns, and a frontier in most every
sense of the word.
Canada got civilized, and we decided to reorient prohibition towards the
*other* mind-altering drugs. So now the bordertowns are on the southern
border.
Mark Atwood
> In article <d418jq$aln$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) said:
>
> >> El Paso, Laredo, MacAllen: Bordertowns.
> >
> > Add Hollywood, which is where it is so that film makers could
> > escape the Trust by fleeing to Mexico, if need be.
>
> [*]
Thomas Edison owned the key patents on all key aspects of moving
picture production technology. He wanted a fat royalty on every film
shot and on every print made. So fat that was not actually possible
to have a profitable motion picture industry if it got paid. (Cue
current and ironic comparison to MPAA & RIAA).
California was a Long Way from the center of intra-US power and legal
structures at the time. By the time that Edison could get an
injunction against a studio and have the goons sent out to destroy or
steal the hardware and prints, said studio could vanish into the night
over the Mexico border, lay low, and then a few years later the same
hardware and tools and techs would reappear under a new studio name.
Keith Morrison
>> I'd say Prohibition Era Detroit had elements of a border town.
>>Estleman wrote about that, I think.
>
> Also no longer the case. Canada was then the wilderness from whence a
> highly profitable smuggling trade originated, so the towns along the
> border were dangerously but profitably lawless and chaotic, at least
> in relative terms. True bordertowns, and a frontier in most every
> sense of the word.
>
> Canada got civilized, and we decided to reorient prohibition towards the
> *other* mind-altering drugs. So now the bordertowns are on the southern
> border.
*snort*
We didn't get civilized. You guys finally figured out that the social
experiment was doomed to failure.
--
Keith
Ken from Chicago
Sure that's the denotative, the literal meaning. The literal meaning of
"frontier" is merely the "edge" of a region or anything thing beyond the
said edge.
However the connotative, the figurative, emotional associations attached to
"bordertown" include an element of wildness, of exoticness, of the new or
unknown, of risk, of danger, and of potentially great reward--much akin to
"frontier".
It's why bordertowns are so named--as opposed to naming towns deeper within
a region "middletowns". There's no special attachment to them. On the other
hand "crossroads" does have denotative and connotative meanings.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
<wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:yv7zll7f...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu...
But how "wild" is Canada perceived in the past half century? If anything,
it's perceived as rather mild, politle, genteel, kinda like America's
suburb.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Mark Atwood" <ma...@atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2vf6jz...@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...
It wasn't because it was easier to film in California's almost year-round
sunny and seventy clime, and fake rainy or snowy weather scenes than having
to deal with the East's cold weather for half the year and try to fake sunny
weather?
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"John Schilling" <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:d41g4...@drn.newsguy.com...
Kinda like Deadwood in the series DEADWOOD. One of the big draws to it, and
many bordertowns, originally was "there's no law t'all"/
> Canada got civilized, and we decided to reorient prohibition towards the
> *other* mind-altering drugs. So now the bordertowns are on the southern
> border.
Canada = Britain-lite. Same civility, less stiff upper lip.
> --
> *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 *
-- Ken from Chicago
James Nicoll
John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
>In article <d418jq$aln$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll says...
>>
>*other* mind-altering drugs. So now the bordertowns are on the southern
>border.
>
entirely peaceful one. We just had the largest number of RCMP officers
killed in one go since the 1885 uprising and that was narcotics related.
James Nicoll
Keith Morrison
>>Canada got civilized, and we decided to reorient prohibition towards the
>>*other* mind-altering drugs. So now the bordertowns are on the southern
>>border.
>
> Actually, there's a healthy pot trade up here. It's not an
> entirely peaceful one. We just had the largest number of RCMP officers
> killed in one go since the 1885 uprising and that was narcotics related.
No, actually. Roszko had a hate for the RCMP that had been growing
for decades, and they originally showed up to deal with a claim of
possession of stolen property. They said they saw evidence of a grow-
op which led to the search warrant and the firefight the next morning.
He did have some weed but it basically a personal-use quantity. The
RCMP issued a correction a few days later after the grow-op story had
already become entrenched.
--
Keith
James Nicoll
Ah. I sit corrected.
In that case, yes, even our potheads tend to be civilized with
only a few having "violent nutjob" as secondary avocation. Some of them
seem to be quite the inventive and audacious capitalists, to judge by the
grow ops the cops have been finding (like a complete abandoned factory,
restasked for the pot industry).
I must admit that I lost track of exactly what status pot has up
here (Not being a pot smoker, it's not really a critical issue, aside from
the secondary effects of futile drug laws). The news I heard yesterday about
an arrest made most sense if we are now allowed to have some pot plants for
personal use. Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated
to showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization of pot,
which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is apparently a delicate
hot-house flower whose survival for almost a quarter millennium must be a
complete fluke.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
> news:yv7zll7f...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu...
> >>
> >>
> >> Because the particular cause of their lucratively dangerous, lawless,
> >> and/or uncontrolled state is the proximity of a border. Placidly mundane
> >> towns that happen to be on borders, are generally not referred to as
> >> "bordertowns".
> >>
> >> El Paso, Laredo, MacAllen: Bordertowns.
> >>
> >> Buffalo,
> >
> > Buffalo used to bill itself as being "on the Niagara Frontier.
> >
> > Which sounds a step or two more lawless/uncontrolled than a
> > mere border.
> >
>
> But how "wild" is Canada perceived in the past half century?
That was my point. Somehow the people liked the word
"frontier" - even though the border in question was
far tamer than the old frontier was. But the word
itself has strong positive connotations for Canadians
of my generation and I assume also for Americans.
If anything,
> it's perceived as rather mild, politle, genteel,
One of the main reasons people crossed the border from
Buffalo at that time (at least in winter months) was to
watch soft core porn on TV. It was a major boon to the hotel
business in Toronto. We were more the downtown than the
suburbs.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <d418jq$aln$1...@reader1.panix.com>, James Nicoll says...
> >
>
> Also no longer the case. Canada was then the wilderness from whence a
> highly profitable smuggling trade originated, so the towns along the
> border were dangerously but profitably lawless and chaotic, at least
> in relative terms. True bordertowns, and a frontier in most every
> sense of the word.
>
> Canada got civilized,
You've misspelled "The United States".
and we decided to reorient prohibition towards the
> *other* mind-altering drugs. So now the bordertowns are on the southern
> border.
Alas, no. Cigarette smuggling (into Canada) created a true
border town in the 1990s near Cornwall, Ontario. Gang fights,
gunfire at night, the whole bit.
Today the degree of smuggling of marijuana from Canada to the
US (there's even a brand name - "BC Bud") is huge. Canadian
police have even paid - $400,000 - a local coke dealer to
inform on people smuggling marijuana to the US. Whether this
has or will created border towns in your sense I don't know.
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <d4399...@news4.newsguy.com>,
> I must admit that I lost track of exactly what status pot has up
> here (Not being a pot smoker, it's not really a critical issue, aside from
> the secondary effects of futile drug laws). The news I heard yesterday about
> an arrest made most sense if we are now allowed to have some pot plants for
> personal use. Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated
> to showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization of pot,
> which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is apparently a delicate
> hot-house flower whose survival for almost a quarter millennium must be a
> complete fluke.
But it's not the only way we are betraying America! We're
also selling precious oil to the Chinese!
James Nicoll
Dave Goldman
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> One of the main reasons people crossed the border from
> Buffalo at that time (at least in winter months) was to
> watch soft core porn on TV. It was a major boon to the hotel
> business in Toronto. We were more the downtown than the
> suburbs.
What?!
My parents only took me to visit the science museum.
Darn.
- Dave Goldman
Portland, OR
Keith Morrison
> Ah. I sit corrected.
>
> In that case, yes, even our potheads tend to be civilized with
> only a few having "violent nutjob" as secondary avocation. Some of them
> seem to be quite the inventive and audacious capitalists, to judge by the
> grow ops the cops have been finding (like a complete abandoned factory,
> restasked for the pot industry).
There is a problem in Canada because the business is so lucrative (and
still illegal) it attracts the scum like the Hells Angels and Vietnamese
gangs who are prone to violence. Not Washington DC in the 1980s level,
but still bad.
> I must admit that I lost track of exactly what status pot has up
> here (Not being a pot smoker, it's not really a critical issue, aside from
> the secondary effects of futile drug laws). The news I heard yesterday about
> an arrest made most sense if we are now allowed to have some pot plants for
> personal use. Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated
> to showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization of pot,
> which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is apparently a delicate
> hot-house flower whose survival for almost a quarter millennium must be a
> complete fluke.
Well, to be fair they aren't *that* concerned about the pot.
Decriminalized pot and gay marriage, that's what's supposed to be doom
for America.
--
Keith
wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu
> In article <yv7z64yi...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu>,
> <wth...@godzilla.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> >jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) writes:
> >
> >> In article <d4399...@news4.newsguy.com>,
> >
> >> I must admit that I lost track of exactly what status pot has up
> >> here (Not being a pot smoker, it's not really a critical issue, aside from
> >> the secondary effects of futile drug laws). The news I heard yesterday about
> >> an arrest made most sense if we are now allowed to have some pot plants for
> >> personal use. Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated
> >> to showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization of pot,
> >> which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is apparently a delicate
> >> hot-house flower whose survival for almost a quarter millennium must be a
> >> complete fluke.
> >
> > But it's not the only way we are betraying America! We're
> > also selling precious oil to the Chinese!
> >
> Who is will to pay more for it?
I think the hysterical argument in question was spurred by
the projected pipeline to be built by Enbridge. This will
carry oil-sands production to the coast, where the Chinese
can buy it. Or of course where it could be shipped to
California.
We're evil, it seems, even to want to have more than one
possible customer.
I've lost the URL, but one web page was particularly amusing:
"The Canadians are about to betray us, and here's how you can
make money off of it!"
It should go with out saying - but I will say it - that this
is a fringe thing.
raymond larsson
> John Schilling <schi...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
> >Canada got civilized, and we decided to reorient prohibition towards the
> >*other* mind-altering drugs. So now the bordertowns are on the southern
> >border.
> >
> Actually, there's a healthy pot trade up here. It's not an
> entirely peaceful one. We just had the largest number of RCMP officers
> killed in one go since the 1885 uprising and that was narcotics related.
Narcotics related in that the nut besides not paying his creditors,
stealing, and assaulting young males also had a pot grow-op. It was not
paying for his leased pickup truck that led to the RCMP being in
Rochfort Bridge that day; they stayed to inventory stolen goods (and the
grow-op) found while helping the bailiffs repossess the truck.
--
rgl remembering: Brock Myrol Lionide (Leo) Johnston
Anthony Gordon Peter Schiemann
James Nicoll
>> here (Not being a pot smoker, it's not really a critical issue, aside from
>> the secondary effects of futile drug laws). The news I heard yesterday about
>> an arrest made most sense if we are now allowed to have some pot plants for
>> personal use. Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated
>> to showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization of pot,
>> which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is apparently a delicate
>> hot-house flower whose survival for almost a quarter millennium must be a
>> complete fluke.
>
>Well, to be fair they aren't *that* concerned about the pot.
>
>Decriminalized pot and gay marriage, that's what's supposed to be doom
>for America.
Ah.
I think anyone who has a problem with gay marriage should
probably not marry a homosexual.
Richard R. Hershberger
Ah, I see the problem. You are conflating connotation and etymology.
The existence of the distinction between 'bordertown' and 'not
bordertown' does not require some baroque collection of connotations.
It merely requires that there be some reason to distinguish towns on
the border from towns not on the border. Once some reason for this
distinction exists, the patterns of English word construction make
'bordertown' an obvious candidate to fill the niche. That towns on
borders share characteristics with rural parts of borders is
unsurprising. But the causality chain of border>danger>bordertown is
rather strained.
Keith Morrison
>>Well, to be fair they aren't *that* concerned about the pot.
>>
>>Decriminalized pot and gay marriage, that's what's supposed to be doom
>>for America.
>
> Ah.
>
> I think anyone who has a problem with gay marriage should
> probably not marry a homosexual.
Indeed. I usually point out that I'm straight and, even were I
surrounded by a horde of gay men, I'm not going to have sex with
any of them. Hot man-on-man action doesn't do anything for me.
So if someone is worried that having a gay person around is going
to make them gay, then I wonder if they have something they'd like
to share with the class.[1]
Following that train of through, Fred Phelps and his acolytes
at Westboro Baptist must be the gayest people in the deepest
closet in North America.
1. Story I heard someone give one time: he was talking about the
issue of gay marriage with a religious man he knew and made the
comment that being around gay people didn't make you gay. You
just don't suddenly become a homosexual. The other guy, rather mad
at this point, said something like "I know that's not true because
when I was 17..." and then stopped dead when he realized what he
was about to say.
--
Keith
rja.ca...@excite.com
That was educational.
Ken from Chicago
"Dave Goldman" <da...@remove-this-bit-ResearchSoftwareDesign.com> wrote in
message news:dave-19040...@ip181.128.du.eli.iinet.com...
FEAR the parents who DELIBERATELY take their kids to see porn.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
No, I'm not saying it's causal, just that people don't have squat worth of
emotional feelings about downs in the middle of a region. At least not
because said towns are in the middle of the region. Because said towns are
small or because they are big cities, but not because they are away from the
borders--like the way bordertowns have a wealth of emotional, romantic (in
the sense of idealized) associations.
Much of the feelings about bordertowns are similar to those of big cities.
-- Ken from Chicago
William December Starr
Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> said:
> Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated to
> showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization
> of pot, which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is
> apparently a delicate hot-house flower whose survival for almost a
> quarter millennium must be a complete fluke. [James Nicoll]
>
> Well, to be fair they aren't *that* concerned about the pot.
>
> Decriminalized pot and gay marriage, that's what's supposed to be
> doom for America.
Let's hope so.
Mike Schilling
>
> Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated to
> showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization
> of pot, which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is
> apparently a delicate hot-house flower whose survival for almost a
> quarter millennium must be a complete fluke. [James Nicoll]
>
> Well, to be fair they aren't *that* concerned about the pot.
>
> Decriminalized pot and gay marriage, that's what's supposed to be
> doom for America.
And liberals, though the bar for being a liberal keeps getting lowered.
Now it apparently includes Colin Powell, Anthony Kennedy, and John Danforth.
Captain Button
[snip]
>> I must admit that I lost track of exactly what status pot has up
>> here (Not being a pot smoker, it's not really a critical issue, aside from
>> the secondary effects of futile drug laws). The news I heard yesterday about
>> an arrest made most sense if we are now allowed to have some pot plants for
>> personal use. Googling didn't seem to help: I kept finding pages dedicated
>> to showing how Canadian drug laws (and Ontario's alleged legalization of pot,
>> which is news to me) will Destroy! America!, which is apparently a delicate
>> hot-house flower whose survival for almost a quarter millennium must be a
>> complete fluke.
>
>Well, to be fair they aren't *that* concerned about the pot.
>
>Decriminalized pot and gay marriage, that's what's supposed to be doom
>for America.
And let's not forget Terence and Phillip!
--
Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Four times is enemy action.
BOMB MARS NOW! [ Captain Button - but...@io.com ]
Keith Morrison
Based on DeLay's latest outburst regarding Kennedy, it would also
appear to be anyone who reads in order to determine information
for themselves.
According to Frist and DeLay, it's also anyone who believes in
separation of powers and separation of politics and religion.
--
Keith
rja.ca...@excite.com
For the sake of those of us in the rest of the world, I'm betting on
creationism and anti-science bringing in the U.S.'s next Dark Age. If
you count economics as science, the progress towards collapse is
excellent. But I think it'll turn out to be not any one thing.
Although the scenario of "The Day After Tomorrow" is also attractive.
If a Kyoto 2 treaty could be agreed between other nations to aim their
greenhouse gases at the U.S. until it variously drowned or shrivelled
up and cried uncle... but the science doesn't work like that.
Maybe if the rest of us fly over to China and everyone jumps up and
down at once, we can pop Yellowstone? Better yet, we all jump up and
down on La Palma first, and then we tell the survivors that Yellowstone
can be next.
Richard R. Hershberger
Ah, so when I read "Bordertowns are so named because they are
vulnerable or at risks to Others raiding them." as a statement of
causality I was rashly over-interpreting the text. Silly me.
James Nicoll
seems like the sort of method that might have unintended consequences
for the people responsible and for the nations immediately adjacent
to the nation in question. Calling for the death of one's opponents
is really more of a communist or mainstream Republican thing [1]. But
I repeat myself.
Also, although it isn't clear to me that this moment how this
will come to be, I predict that somehow, when the US realizes that it
is not _the_ Great Power (2) this will be blamed on the Jews. Wouldn't
it be nice to go a full century without a pogram in a Great Power? I
think so.
I am also not entirely enthusiastic about trashing the world's
climate (or the North's, anyway) to deal with a transient problem. In
few decades, the US won't be _the_ superpower anymore. In fact, it might
be a good idea to think about how to make sure whoever the great powers
are are not, how to put this nicely, as irritating to their neighbors
as the Great Powers of the 19th century were. Do you think a China with
20% of the world's economy will be as easy to get along with as the USA?
ObSF: HIS MAJESTY'S STARSHIP, which had as part of its background the
wacky hijinks an ascendent Greater India/Confederation of South East
Asia got up to, including a more carefree attitude about social
modification through the use of nuclear bombs on civilians than the
US has ever demonstrated.
James Nicoll
1: It would be a mistake to think just because Republicans like Vieira
are fond of quoting Stalin's "No man, no problem" that they are all ex-
Stalinists. I'm pretty sure most neo-cons with a crimson background are
actually former Trots. This isn't actually a good thing: Trotskyism is the
willfully metastasizing form of Communism, where as Stalinism was more of
an opportunistic infection.
2: Make that "if". Consider France. The US is relatively isolated,
with water on three sides and deserts on two more. It has a third of
a continent's resources and huge internal market. Even if it declined
relatively compared to the rest of the world there's absolutely no
reason that this needs to be an obvious fact to anyone in the USA.
Ken from Chicago
No, I rushed two ideas together:
Towns near borders, "bordertowns", are so named NOT *merely* because they
are towns on the border, which is the literal denotative meaning.
"Bordertowns"--as opposed to towns away from borders--are so named, are
singled out for naming because of the emotional connotative meanings, the
feelings associated with them.
I'm not blaming you for misunderstanding me when I simply wasn't clear
enough.
-- Ken from Chicago
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>Thomas Edison owned the key patents on all key aspects of moving
>picture production technology. He wanted a fat royalty on every film
>shot and on every print made. So fat that was not actually possible
>to have a profitable motion picture industry if it got paid. (Cue
>current and ironic comparison to MPAA & RIAA).
Indeed. If Edison had been content with a much smaller royalty, lots
of people probably would have paid without complaint.
--
Pete McCutchen
rja.ca...@excite.com
The Earth has limited resources. If it ever comes down to us or the
Americans (the U.S.), I'm pretty sure which way American voters will
want it to go. In the worst case scenario, we should aim to get our
retaliation in first. I'd just like to have the plan ready now. Just
in case.
rja.ca...@excite.com
The Earth has limited resources. If it ever comes down to us or the
Ken from Chicago
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:6p8e61tg6429tcgmu...@4ax.com...
A penny here. A penny there. Pretty soon you're talking real money.
Ala wealth of a thousand "cuts".
-- Ken from Chicago
Captain Button
ObSF: "Let There Be Light" by Heinlein. Two brilliant scientists invent a
cheap efficient solar panel technology. When they try to sell/license it a
conspiracy of Big Energy companies come after them. So they publish the
technology openly, asking for a very low royalty of a penny per square foot
or something like that.
Ken from Chicago
"Captain Button" <but...@io.com> wrote in message
news:BE9008AA9...@0.0.0.0...
Kinda like online music stores selling song tracks cheaply resulting in a
rise in music sales?
-- Ken from Chicago
Nancy Lebovitz
Damien R. Sullivan <dasu...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>An inchoate thought: the frontier is defined not just by low population
>density but by lack of regular mail service. Or more generally, lack of
>communications. You're not really being a bold explorer carving out the
>unknown if the postman passes you regularly, even if the 'postman' is really
>just a bunch of photons. Intrepidity quavers in the face of regular maternal
>nagging. The communications may need to be two-way on some reasonable
>timescale for this to hold true.
>
>Applications: it is impossible to realistically have the feel of a lonely ship
>cruising the Solar System, unless you unrealistically shut down radio a la
>_The Cassini Division_ or _Cosmonaut Keep_'s Second Sphere. The Solar System
>is only a few hours across. Lonely Belt Miners, or even Lonely Neptunian
>Miners, won't work that well either, the way tech is going. If you want
>stories which naturally take place Away From Civilization, you need a Collapse
>(still doesn't work; spacecraft without radio? You'd need a stranded
>automatically maintained habitat or something) or to go to another star sytem.
>Or to sabotage your own communication, but then the reader need have no
>sympathy for you.
Here's one that I don't think I've seen used. It'll take some hand-waving
tech, but that's alright.
Communication through empty space is easy--so you can't isolate anything
in space that's a reasonable distance away, nor is anything on the surface
of a planet really isolated. (Though you could have some fun with a fast
attack on the satellites and cables of an electronically linked world--
instant frontier. Whee!)
However, there's still something left that's more fun than the deep oceans.
Stars.
Imagine a tech that makes stars livable, but won't punch through the
sheer noise of a star. If I'm wrong about how hard it would be to use
present or near future tech to communicate on or near a star if you
could keep things at a reasonable temperature, then imagine an author
and a readership who doesn't know or care about that sort of thing.
A star has lots of room for isolated people and communities, and I
have a notion for stellar life.
--
--
Nancy Lebovitz http://www.nancybuttons.com
"We've tamed the lightning and taught sand to give error messages."
http://livejournal.com/users/nancylebov
Damien R. Sullivan
>Stars.
>
>Imagine a tech that makes stars livable, but won't punch through the
>sheer noise of a star. If I'm wrong about how hard it would be to use
>present or near future tech to communicate on or near a star if you
>could keep things at a reasonable temperature, then imagine an author
>and a readership who doesn't know or care about that sort of thing.
>
>A star has lots of room for isolated people and communities, and I
>have a notion for stellar life.
_Dragon's Egg_. :)
I wonder if Jovians would work. Still have Lots of Room, plus sometimes a big
mag field and lots of lightning bolts to screw up radio, but you still get to
have molecules. Optical communication could be possible in the clear zones.
-xx- Damien X-)
Kent Coyle
By all means ship it to California! *We* can sell it to the Chinese!
James Nicoll
>
Cunning but not cunning enough. The Albertans should lock themselves
into a 20-year contract to sell oil at 2/3rds the production cost to BC,
who could then sell it on to California*.
James Nicoll
* Google "Churchill Falls dispute".