Good stories without FTL was Re: John Scalzi: threat or menace?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
without FTL. Counterexamples were (of course) given (since
counterexamples for *any* premise can easily be found in SF), but
they were generally by authors who would not be the sort to shy away
from difficult stories. In fact, they seemed more the type to seek
out difficult stories.
So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
SF stories without FTL?
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
lal_truckee
> I postited in the Scalzi thread that it is difficult to write good SF
> without FTL. Counterexamples were (of course) given (since
> counterexamples for *any* premise can easily be found in SF), but
> they were generally by authors who would not be the sort to shy away
> from difficult stories. In fact, they seemed more the type to seek
> out difficult stories.
>
> So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
> mid-list writers
Between the Strokes of Night, (1985) Charles Sheffield
Is Sheffield considered mid-list?
Quadibloc
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I postited in the Scalzi thread that it is difficult to write good SF
> without FTL.
It's immediately clear and obvious that it's difficult to write _bad_
SF without FTL these days, because if you want your heroic astronaut
to go to a planet where he fights four-armed purple monsters to rescue
a green-skinned (but otherwise humanoid) beautiful woman, you will
need FTL. Placing your story on Mars or a moon of Jupiter is no longer
believable.
Most SF these days seems to be in the cyberpunk genre, though, which
doesn't make use of FTL travel at all. Classic space opera demands
FTL, and that genre is certainly not dead (being revived in new and
original forms) but it no longer defines even mediocre science
fiction.
John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:4d203398-0b19-45d0...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.
com:
> On Aug 27, 12:20�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I postited in the Scalzi thread that it is difficult to write
>> good SF without FTL.
>
> It's immediately clear and obvious that it's difficult to write
> _bad_ SF without FTL these days, because if you want your heroic
> astronaut to go to a planet where he fights four-armed purple
> monsters to rescue a green-skinned (but otherwise humanoid)
> beautiful woman, you will need FTL. Placing your story on Mars
> or a moon of Jupiter is no longer believable.
Bah. It's jus as easy to write such a *bad* story where the four-
armed pufple monsters pop out of giant underground caverns full of
dinosaurs, or some interdimensional rift, or, well, out of the
author's ass.
>
> Most SF these days seems to be in the cyberpunk genre, though,
> which doesn't make use of FTL travel at all. Classic space opera
> demands FTL, and that genre is certainly not dead (being revived
> in new and original forms) but it no longer defines even
> mediocre science fiction.
>
Genre is not even remotely connected to quality. There is no
subgenre that "defines" good, bad, or otherwise. All subgrenres
have good, mediocre, and crap examples.
But I'm not surprived that you, of all people, are too stupid to
reocgnize that.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Well, any decent "generation ship" story. Didn't Leinster do one? He
was mid-list, except when he wasn't. De Camp was fairly mid-list. Weren't
his Brazil-as-superpower books STL? I haven't read them, but in my experience
he was alwas "solid" if rarely exceptional.
Also any "sleeper ship" stories. I'm prety sure Norton did a couple.
Ted
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Jack Tingle
> without FTL. Counterexamples were (of course) given (since
> counterexamples for *any* premise can easily be found in SF), but
> they were generally by authors who would not be the sort to shy away
> from difficult stories. In fact, they seemed more the type to seek
> out difficult stories.
>
> So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
> mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
> classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
> SF stories without FTL?
>
wrote the one series, AIUI. I suppose where you ranked them depends on
how you felt about cloning and rape.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
Scott Lurndal
>I postited in the Scalzi thread that it is difficult to write good SF
>without FTL. Counterexamples were (of course) given (since
>counterexamples for *any* premise can easily be found in SF), but
>they were generally by authors who would not be the sort to shy away
>from difficult stories. In fact, they seemed more the type to seek
>out difficult stories.
>
>So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
>mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
>classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
>SF stories without FTL?
>
Quite a bit of Heinlein has no FTL travel (and some does, of course).
scott
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
That was FM Busby, and he did do at least one other series, which had
a great first book, OK second, and fell apart in book 3.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
d...@tao.merseine.nu
Probably was.
Good solid SF without FTL, but still with space travel: John Hemry's
JAG in space series.
-dsr-
--
http://tao.merseine.nu/~dsr/eula.html is hereby incorporated by reference.
You can't defend freedom by getting rid of it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:7fojvhF...@mid.individual.net:
And really, never was.
David Johnston
<tednolan>) wrote:
Of course the Rissa Kerguelen series did have FTL.
Greg Goss
>I postited in the Scalzi thread that it is difficult to write good SF
>without FTL. Counterexamples were (of course) given (since
>counterexamples for *any* premise can easily be found in SF), but
>they were generally by authors who would not be the sort to shy away
>from difficult stories. In fact, they seemed more the type to seek
>out difficult stories.
>
>So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
>mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
>classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
>SF stories without FTL?
We cannot agree on who the great authors are and you want us to make a
list of people in the mid-list?
Varley had a story or two where a "pusher" was grooming a small girl
for his second date. We find out at the end of the story that there
are two kinds of spacemen: Pullers and pushers. Insystem guys spend
their lives "pulling Gees" while the interstellar ones spend their
lives "pushing Cee"
There are lots of imitation generation ships, either generation
colonies copying Heinlein or generation lifeboat ships before and
after Footfall. (The Jupiter Theft was definately on the lower end of
mid-range, though I enjoyed it.)
There's endless SF that never leaves Earth.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Ken from Chicago
"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9C747374312...@69.16.186.7...
>I postited in the Scalzi thread that it is difficult to write good SF
> without FTL. Counterexamples were (of course) given (since
> counterexamples for *any* premise can easily be found in SF), but
> they were generally by authors who would not be the sort to shy away
> from difficult stories. In fact, they seemed more the type to seek
> out difficult stories.
>
> So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
> mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
> classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
> SF stories without FTL?
>
> --
> Terry Austin
How do you rate Vernor Vinge?
A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY is STL.
-- Ken from Chicago
Ken from Chicago
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nuqdnZ6oYokEEwrX...@giganews.com...
Oh and Alastair Reynolds' REVELATION SPACE is also STL.
-- Ken from Chicago
Jack Bohn
>We cannot agree on who the great authors are and you want us to make a
>list of people in the mid-list?
Can all the people who say, "Author X is great!" and all the
people who say, "Author X is crap!" agree to put Author X in the
mid-list? :)
>Varley had a story or two where a "pusher" was grooming a small girl
>for his second date.
Varley's Titan series had no FTL, nor did his Nine Worlds series,
either in original or Steel Beach version, if I remember rightly.
there were aliens of godlike powers, but I don't remember
anything to suggest FTL was among those.
--
-Jack
Ilya2
Reynolds was first or second name brought up on the original "Scalzi"
thread. I think everyione involved, including Terry, agreed that
Reynolds is a "great author" and not "mid-list."
To try ans answer OP, I must first think of "great" SF authors who do
STL very well. Alastair Reynolds, Larry Niven, Greg Benford, Vernon
Vinge, few things by Frederick Pohl. Someone mentioned that Varley's
"Titan" trilogy has no FTL, but it all takes place within solar system
so lack of FTL is unimportant -- "well done STL" is only significant
when we are talking interstellar. Can't think of anyone else. (BTW,
Reynolds had named Niven and Benford as his inspirations.)
No to what I consider "mid-list"...
Allen Steele ("Coyote"). Poul Anderson ("Starfarers"). Orson Scott
Card ("Lovelock"). Bunch of short stories, but not many novels.
James Nicoll
At least the good guys were against rape. The antagonists were
the ones who used rape as a team-building exercise.
He also had the Demu trilogy, which I think was about aliens
that wanted to help everyone else in the galaxy by surgically reconstructing
them all to look Demu.
I see he had something called the Holzein Dynasty, which
I never saw. I'd guess it's related to the Rissa Kerguelen books.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
James Nicoll
The universe Orbit Unlimited and New America is set in
never develops FTL and neither do the THE LONG WAY HOME or the
Kith universes (all Poul Anderson).
There's Moffitt's somewhat dire THE JUPITER THEFT. Come to
think of it, I don't think he has FTL in any of his series.
Someone mentioned Varley.
THE DOPPLEGANGER GAMBIT features slower-than-light travel
although not on-stage. That's Leigh Killough.
I don't think Wil McCarthy's Aggressor Six universe has
FTL and neither does his FLIES FROM THE AMBER.
David Lake's whateveritwascalled series from the 1970s and 1980s
definitely did not have FTL. Humans were considered very peculiar because
they were the only mortal species to engage in interstellar travel.
Crawford Kilian's GRYPHON didn't have FTL, I don't think,
and neither did Dave Duncan's HERO!
Joseph Nebus
>Well, any decent "generation ship" story. Didn't Leinster do one? He
>was mid-list, except when he wasn't. De Camp was fairly mid-list. Weren't
>his Brazil-as-superpower books STL? I haven't read them, but in my experience
>he was alwas "solid" if rarely exceptional.
>Also any "sleeper ship" stories. I'm prety sure Norton did a couple.
Hm. You know, the stars are far enough away that there must be
cases where despite faster-than-light travel there's still the need for
generation ships or sleeper ships. Other than Star Trek Original I have
no examples in mind, of course, since it seems like faster-than-light or
generation/sleeper ships is enough for a story and more would be loading
redundant premises onto the story.
Oh, here we go. James Blish's ``Common Time'' although that
wasn't quite meant to be a sleeper ship. That Philip D Dick short where
the AI giving the sleeper an immersive fantasy life finds it can't keep
the severely depressed, paranoid sleeper from crashing the simulation.
Back to solid slower-than-light stories, don't Wil McCarthy's
_Queendom of Sol_ tales stick to the speeed of light as universal
maximum? At least in the main for the Queendom. Of course, people in
it may go from Pluto to Earth in the subjective blink of an eye but
that's a different matter.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:7fp7vnF...@mid.individual.net:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I postited in the Scalzi thread that it is difficult to write
>>good SF without FTL. Counterexamples were (of course) given
>>(since counterexamples for *any* premise can easily be found in
>>SF), but they were generally by authors who would not be the
>>sort to shy away from difficult stories. In fact, they seemed
>>more the type to seek out difficult stories.
>>
>>So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good,
>>solid, mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or
>>literary classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or
>>great, but good) SF stories without FTL?
>
> We cannot agree on who the great authors are and you want us to
> make a list of people in the mid-list?
Yes. You have until noon.
>
> Varley had a story or two where a "pusher" was grooming a small
> girl for his second date. We find out at the end of the story
> that there are two kinds of spacemen: Pullers and pushers.
> Insystem guys spend their lives "pulling Gees" while the
> interstellar ones spend their lives "pushing Cee"
>
> There are lots of imitation generation ships, either generation
> colonies copying Heinlein or generation lifeboat ships before
> and after Footfall. (The Jupiter Theft was definately on the
> lower end of mid-range, though I enjoyed it.)
>
> There's endless SF that never leaves Earth.
But how much of it isn't crap?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:459f9511k0chke393...@4ax.com:
> Greg Goss wrote:
>
>>We cannot agree on who the great authors are and you want us to
>>make a list of people in the mid-list?
>
> Can all the people who say, "Author X is great!" and all the
> people who say, "Author X is crap!" agree to put Author X in the
> mid-list? :)
By that definition, Heinline was mid-list.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:nuqdnZ6oYokEEwrX...@giganews.com:
I find it hard to consider Vinge mid-list, or average, really.
Robert Carnegie
> > girl for his second date. We find out at the end of the story
> > that there are two kinds of spacemen: Pullers and pushers.
> > Insystem guys spend their lives "pulling Gees" while the
> > interstellar ones spend their lives "pushing Cee"
So... with relativity... when the guy gets back to Earth the kid will
be, what, thirty years old?
Still creepy.
> > There are lots of imitation generation ships, either generation
> > colonies copying Heinlein or generation lifeboat ships before
> > and after Footfall. (The Jupiter Theft was definately on the
> > lower end of mid-range, though I enjoyed it.)
> >
> > There's endless SF that never leaves Earth.
>
> But how much of it isn't crap?
Somehow I had this idea you weren't all about the trolling any more.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> [F. M. Busby] also had the Demu trilogy, which I think was about aliens
>that wanted to help everyone else in the galaxy by surgically reconstructing
>them all to look Demu.
>
It started off that way in the first book, which I recall as excellent,
then went way off the rails in a totally different direction in
the third book.
Greg Goss
Over on my home newsgroup, we use <goss> and </goss> tags to mark the
unresisted need to reply to something that was said. Errors of fact
must be repudiated, even if they're trolls.
Jaimie Vandenbergh
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>> news:7fp7vnF...@mid.individual.net:
>> >
>> > Varley had a story or two where a "pusher" was grooming a small
>> > girl for his second date. We find out at the end of the story
>> > that there are two kinds of spacemen: Pullers and pushers.
>> > Insystem guys spend their lives "pulling Gees" while the
>> > interstellar ones spend their lives "pushing Cee"
>
>So... with relativity... when the guy gets back to Earth the kid will
>be, what, thirty years old?
>
>Still creepy.
It's all about implying the creepy. But it's not.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
- Paul Tomblin, ASR
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:e7fb0861-1576-4281...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.c
om:
In other words, you don't really know either. I was specific in
talking about good stories, not the usual drivel (Sturgeon's Law is
rather optomistic, IMO).
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
How can a question be an error of fact?
David DeLaney
>Jack Tingle <wjti...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The 'Rissa Kergulen' (sp?) stories were tolerable, and the author only
>>wrote the one series, AIUI. I suppose where you ranked them depends on
>>how you felt about cloning and rape.
>
> At least the good guys were against rape. The antagonists were
>the ones who used rape as a team-building exercise.
>
> He also had the Demu trilogy, which I think was about aliens
>that wanted to help everyone else in the galaxy by surgically reconstructing
>them all to look Demu.
Pretty much exactly; Cage a Man, Proud Enemy, End of the Line.
> I see he had something called the Holzein Dynasty, which
>I never saw. I'd guess it's related to the Rissa Kerguelen books.
That's almost got to be some subset of that series. Wikipedia ho! ... The
"Hulzein" books were also set in Rissa's world, except they had Bran Tregare
as the main character. (The Hulzeins were the clone dynasty that controlled
Earth for a while and that plucked Rissa out of the general welfare rolls and
trained her. Unfortunately for them, in that universe cloning introduced
minor errors at each copying...)
He also had some nice one-offs, which I'm remembering All These Earths and
The Breeds of Man as coming under.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>
>But how much of it isn't crap?
Ten percent or less?
(We really should do some research into whatever universal constants are
involved here, and see if we can get at least one decimal place right.)
Dave "feigenbaum constant" DeLaney
David Johnston
How do you deal with your irresistable compulsion to sexually molest
small furry animals?
In case you can't figure it, that is a demonstration of how a question
can be an error of fact. I'm sure you've never sexually molested any
furry animal smaller than a horse
James Nicoll
Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>
>>Well, any decent "generation ship" story. Didn't Leinster do one? He
>>was mid-list, except when he wasn't. De Camp was fairly mid-list. Weren't
>>his Brazil-as-superpower books STL? I haven't read them, but in my experience
>>he was alwas "solid" if rarely exceptional.
>
>>Also any "sleeper ship" stories. I'm prety sure Norton did a couple.
>
> Hm. You know, the stars are far enough away that there must be
>cases where despite faster-than-light travel there's still the need for
>generation ships or sleeper ships. Other than Star Trek Original I have
>no examples in mind, of course, since it seems like faster-than-light or
>generation/sleeper ships is enough for a story and more would be loading
>redundant premises onto the story.
>
are FTL but not too FTL.
The classic example, though, would be Dumarest.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:slrnh9g7f...@gatekeeper.vic.com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>> There's endless SF that never leaves Earth.
>>
>>But how much of it isn't crap?
>
> Ten percent or less?
Optomist.
>
> (We really should do some research into whatever universal
> constants are involved here, and see if we can get at least one
> decimal place right.)
Trying to do real research in to opinion is a failure that has
found a place to happen, you know. We could probably get death
threats even trying to *define* "crap".
lal_truckee
>
>
You should know this one: Ten percent.
Simple derivation from Sturgeon's Law:
�Ninety percent of everything is crud.�
Theodore Sturgeon 1918-1985
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:ek7g95hse6td31i10...@4ax.com:
I asked a question. You (or someone, I can't be troubled to keep a
score card for the 'Tard Patrol today) called it an error of fact.
What is the error? What is the true and accurate data that I was in
error about?
>
> In case you can't figure it, that is a demonstration of how a
> question can be an error of fact. I'm sure you've never
> sexually molested any furry animal smaller than a horse
>
My question can only be implying something not in evidence if you
are claiming that there is *no* crap being published. Is that your
claim? If so, how can someone so fucking *stupid* be able to type
and breath at the same time? If not, why are you lying?
You have made a specific, objective accusation about my question.
Either explain, in detail, what the factual error is, not with
examples, innuendo and lies, but with specific, declaratory
statements. Or not. We both know you can't, since it wasn't, and
couldn't be, and because you're a dumbass.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:h798ka$ct7$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> In article <nebusj.1...@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu>,
> Joseph Nebus <nebusj-@-rpi-.edu> wrote:
>>t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) writes:
>>
>>>Well, any decent "generation ship" story. Didn't Leinster do
>>>one? He was mid-list, except when he wasn't. De Camp was
>>>fairly mid-list. Weren't his Brazil-as-superpower books STL?
>>>I haven't read them, but in my experience he was alwas "solid"
>>>if rarely exceptional.
>>
>>>Also any "sleeper ship" stories. I'm prety sure Norton did a
>>>couple.
>>
>> Hm. You know, the stars are far enough away that there
>> must be
>>cases where despite faster-than-light travel there's still the
>>need for generation ships or sleeper ships. Other than Star
>>Trek Original I have no examples in mind, of course, since it
>>seems like faster-than-light or generation/sleeper ships is
>>enough for a story and more would be loading redundant premises
>>onto the story.
>>
> The universe ALIEN is set in seems to work like that. Ships
> are FTL but not too FTL.
At at least one of the sequals could be validly considered science
fiction (as opposed to suspense/horror - let's fact it, the first
movie could just as easily have been set in a deserted house in the
woods, during a storm that knocked the lights out).
>
> The classic example, though, would be Dumarest.
--
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
@news.eternal-september.org:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>>
>> But how much of it isn't crap?
>
>
> You should know this one: Ten percent.
I have noted before that Sturgeon was an optomist.
I have also noted before that you are an idiot.
Jerry Brown
Nicoll) wrote:
> I don't think Wil McCarthy's Aggressor Six universe has
>FTL and neither does his FLIES FROM THE AMBER.
IIRC his Queendom books didn't either.
Jerry Brown
--
A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)
<http://www.jwbrown.co.uk>
<http://www.facebook.com/JerryBrown64>
Christopher Henrich
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can a question be an error of fact?
Often a question implies some factual background. The classic example:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" "Rhetorical questions" are often
used to suggest factual assertions, without the questioner's having to
take responsibility for them.
If talk.origins is at all like it used to be, then you can find some
really ripe examples there. If, that is, you want to.
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
http://www.mathinteract.com
"A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver." -- Boon
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:chenrich-78771D...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <Xns9C756E1A6E6...@69.16.186.7>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How can a question be an error of fact?
>
> Often a question implies some factual background.
What did my question imply? Be specific.
Or not.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. - David
Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
James Nicoll
Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:32:30 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> I don't think Wil McCarthy's Aggressor Six universe has
>>FTL and neither does his FLIES FROM THE AMBER.
>
>IIRC his Queendom books didn't either.
Didn't they have FTL coms via That Thing That if It Broke Would
Kill Everyone?
Greg Goss
>I asked a question. You (or someone, I can't be troubled to keep a
>score card for the 'Tard Patrol today) called it an error of fact.
>What is the error? What is the true and accurate data that I was in
>error about?
Someone asked me (vaguely) why I kept interacting with trolls. The
mention of "errors of fact" was part of the reply to that.
The implication is that there are errors of fact with GUCS's
presentation, but that was carelessness on my part. I was replying to
a question about my interactions with trolls without making an
explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't know enough about
him.
Whether troll or not, I may end up plonking him just cuz I don't need
to read someone's tard rating system. I don't see a lot of value
there. But until I do plonk, I respond to individual messages,
largely free of context.
(When I first join a newsgroup, I tend to plonk people for one-month
periods. It is only after repeated confrontations that I would hide
someone forever. I don't remember if I had Sissy plonked before. It
is likely.)
Jerry Brown
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <dsgg959hggvl95rjl...@4ax.com>,
>Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>>On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:32:30 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think Wil McCarthy's Aggressor Six universe has
>>>FTL and neither does his FLIES FROM THE AMBER.
>>
>>IIRC his Queendom books didn't either.
>
> Didn't they have FTL coms via That Thing That if It Broke Would
>Kill Everyone?
The ISCOG? I remember the name, but I think it was just faster than
the previous method. Guess I'll have to reread the Collapsium again
(but not the rather depressing sequels) to make sure.
I think they might have FTL fax travel by the end of the final book,
thanks to the successful colony's innovations, but I doubt I'll be
rereading it.
David DeLaney
>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>>> I don't think Wil McCarthy's Aggressor Six universe has
>>>>FTL and neither does his FLIES FROM THE AMBER.
>>>
>>>IIRC his Queendom books didn't either.
>>
>> Didn't they have FTL coms via That Thing That if It Broke Would
>>Kill Everyone?
>
>The ISCOG? I remember the name, but I think it was just faster than
>the previous method. Guess I'll have to reread the Collapsium again
>(but not the rather depressing sequels) to make sure.
If I remember right, the ISCOG was set up such that inside its tubes there
was real live FTL communication possible. Not travel as such - but if you're
faxing yourself where you want to go, the differences start to blur. But I'm
not sure without rereading either.
Dave
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I asked a question. You (or someone, I can't be troubled to keep a
>> score card for the 'Tard Patrol today) called it an error of fact.
>> What is the error? What is the true and accurate data that I was in
>> error about?
>
> Someone asked me (vaguely) why I kept interacting with trolls. The
> mention of "errors of fact" was part of the reply to that.
>
> The implication is that there are errors of fact with GUCS's
> presentation, but that was carelessness on my part. I was replying to
> a question about my interactions with trolls without making an
> explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't know enough about
> him.
Terry Austin, AKA Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy and a few others, is
*THE* troll.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Lawrence Watt-Evans
> I was replying to
>a question about my interactions with trolls without making an
>explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't know enough about
>him.
Ah.
He's Terry Austin, and he's a special case.
(He's not Terry Austin the comic book inker, by the way. Different
guy.)
Terry can be a perfectly reasonable guy and a contributing member of
the newsgroup. However, he can also be a troll -- when he gets bored
or annoyed, he trolls. Or worse.
His preferred targets, however, are other trolls. Or spammers, or
netkooks, or idiots. If you're a calm and sensible poster, he won't
bother you. At least, not unless he's really, really bored.
He's been around rec.arts.sf.written a long time, and we're used to
him. Some of us even like him, because he drives away other
troublemakers. As you may see quoted in sigs, he's been described as
like the polio vaccine, but with more asshole.
Arguing with him, once he gets to calling you a 'tard, is pointless --
at that point he's no longer trying to present an argument, he's just
playing with you. The longer you keep replying, the more he counts it
as a win.
Some people try to outlast him. In all the time I've been on Usenet
(and I've been here fifteen years) I have never, ever seen anyone
outlast him in a flamewar.
The only way to win against Terry is not to play.
On the other hand, he can be quite pleasant to talk with if you aren't
arguing or competing.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I asked a question. You (or someone, I can't be troubled to keep
>>a score card for the 'Tard Patrol today) called it an error of
>>fact. What is the error? What is the true and accurate data that
>>I was in error about?
>
> Someone asked me (vaguely) why I kept interacting with trolls.
> The mention of "errors of fact" was part of the reply to that.
It was in reply to my question.
>
> The implication is that there are errors of fact with GUCS's
> presentation, but that was carelessness on my part. I was
> replying to a question about my interactions with trolls without
> making an explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't
> know enough about him.
But a very explicit implication that my question was a factual
error.
>
> Whether troll or not, I may end up plonking him just cuz I don't
> need to read someone's tard rating system. I don't see a lot of
> value there. But until I do plonk, I respond to individual
> messages, largely free of context.
You do seem the sort of troll that can't take competition,
especially since you're so shitty at it.
>
> (When I first join a newsgroup, I tend to plonk people for
> one-month periods. It is only after repeated confrontations
> that I would hide someone forever. I don't remember if I had
> Sissy plonked before. It is likely.)
Just kf me permanently now. No matter how long you wait, you'll
still be a retard and still be too pathetic as a troll to compete.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:5uji95thbiuej50rr...@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:29:35 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I was replying to
>>a question about my interactions with trolls without making an
>>explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't know enough
>>about him.
>
> Ah.
>
> He's Terry Austin, and he's a special case.
>
> (He's not Terry Austin the comic book inker, by the way.
> Different guy.)
He's *much* nicer than me. Much more artistically talented, and
probably better looking, too.
>
> Terry can be a perfectly reasonable guy and a contributing
> member of the newsgroup. However, he can also be a troll --
> when he gets bored or annoyed, he trolls. Or worse.
Heh. When someone says something profoundly stupid, especially.
>
> His preferred targets, however, are other trolls.
Hence, playing with Greggy.
> Or spammers,
> or netkooks, or idiots. If you're a calm and sensible poster,
> he won't bother you. At least, not unless he's really, really
> bored.
>
> He's been around rec.arts.sf.written a long time, and we're used
> to him. Some of us even like him, because he drives away other
> troublemakers. As you may see quoted in sigs, he's been
> described as like the polio vaccine, but with more asshole.
Among many other things, including the nym.
>
> Arguing with him, once he gets to calling you a 'tard, is
> pointless -- at that point he's no longer trying to present an
> argument, he's just playing with you. The longer you keep
> replying, the more he counts it as a win.
Not just me.
>
> Some people try to outlast him. In all the time I've been on
> Usenet (and I've been here fifteen years) I have never, ever
> seen anyone outlast him in a flamewar.
And you never will, barring a 50/50 chance the other guy posted
last just before the meteor wiped out all life on earth.
>
> The only way to win against Terry is not to play.
Indeed.
>
> On the other hand, he can be quite pleasant to talk with if you
> aren't arguing or competing.
>
And don't say anything profoundly stupid.
--
Terry Austin
Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole. -
David Bilek
Yeah, I had Terry confused with Hannibal Lecter. - Mike Schilling
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Goldfarb
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9C747374312...@69.16.186.7...
>> So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
>> mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
>> classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
>> SF stories without FTL?
>>
>> --
>> Terry Austin
>
>How do you rate Vernor Vinge?
>
>A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY is STL.
Also, how do you rate Ken Macleod? The _Engines of Light_ trilogy
has drives that are AFAL.
--
David Goldfarb | "You can't do only one thing."
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- John W. Campbell, Jr.
Kurt Busiek
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
>> mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
>> classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
>> SF stories without FTL?
>
> We cannot agree on who the great authors are and you want us to make a
> list of people in the mid-list?
Mid-list, at least as I understand it, isn't a measure of quality but
of financial success. They're the guys who don't write the titles that
get the top spot in the catalog the month they come out; they're in the
middle of the publishing list, not at the top of it.
"Not brilliant, or great, but good" is a measure of quality, but
"mid-list" is a measure of how the publisher promoted the author.
This may have changed in the 20-plus years since I was an agent, though.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:h7cabd$m5r$1...@solani.org:
I doubt it's changed much, but it's hard to deny that the two are
related for at least _some_ definitions of "quality." One can
pontificate and posture all one wants about the feeble tastes of
the masses, but people don't spend money on stuff they don't like,
so there *is* some measure of quality in sales figures.
Greg Goss
>You do seem the sort of troll that can't take competition,
>especially since you're so shitty at it.
Giggle. I'm glad that I make such a shitty troll. You might want to
examine why I suck at it.
Kurt Busiek
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You do seem the sort of troll that can't take competition,
>> especially since you're so shitty at it.
>
> Giggle. I'm glad that I make such a shitty troll. You might want to
> examine why I suck at it.
Terry's analysis is almost certain to involve the syllable "tard" in
some form or another.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You do seem the sort of troll that can't take competition,
>>especially since you're so shitty at it.
>
> Giggle. I'm glad that I make such a shitty troll. You might
> want to examine why I suck at it.
No examination needed: you're stupid. You haven't denied that your
purpose is trolling, and nothing else.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> On 2009-08-29 18:29:51 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You do seem the sort of troll that can't take competition,
>>> especially since you're so shitty at it.
>>
>> Giggle. I'm glad that I make such a shitty troll. You might
>> want to examine why I suck at it.
>
> Terry's analysis is almost certain to involve the syllable
> "tard" in some form or another.
>
Since anybody I am playing with almost certainly has an IQ lower than
his shoe size, that would seem to be an easy prediction.
James Nicoll
>On 2009-08-27 22:24:03 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
>>> mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
>>> classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
>>> SF stories without FTL?
>>
>> We cannot agree on who the great authors are and you want us to make a
>> list of people in the mid-list?
>
>Mid-list, at least as I understand it, isn't a measure of quality but
>of financial success. They're the guys who don't write the titles that
>get the top spot in the catalog the month they come out; they're in the
>middle of the publishing list, not at the top of it.
>
>"Not brilliant, or great, but good" is a measure of quality, but
>"mid-list" is a measure of how the publisher promoted the author.
I thought it was not best selling but reliable?
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>news:7fu30uF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You do seem the sort of troll that can't take competition,
>>>especially since you're so shitty at it.
>>
>> Giggle. I'm glad that I make such a shitty troll. You might
>> want to examine why I suck at it.
>
>No examination needed: you're stupid. You haven't denied that your
>purpose is trolling, and nothing else.
My declaration would be pointless. Trolls can declare that they
aren't. Anyone who cares whether or not I'm a troll can drop into
google groups (if it's working this week) and examine 65,000 posts.
Or the dozen or so in this thread. Either way, I am rated by my
posts. One person thinks I'm a troll, and two or three more endorse
that one person without making a specific opinion on the current
ruling.
I'm not particularly worried that one jerk calls me a "tard". It
doesn't destroy my day, nor does it brighten it up.
I've explained my posting policies. Terry doesn't believe that those
are an accurate description of my intent. From here on in, the thread
degrades to "No I'm not" and "Yes you are" between two autists. The
rest of the newsgroup may well not appreciate that.
I know my IQ. I know my shoe size. You're wrong.
Greg Goss
>> How do you rate Vernor Vinge?
>>
>> A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY is STL.
There's a bit of confusion there in that Deepness is a prequel written
after a novel with multiple forms of FTL travel and communication.
The subsequent novel implies that FTL works in that universe, even if
they haven't yet discovered it in the events of the novel.
Robert Carnegie
> news:e7fb0861-1576-4281...@32g2000yqj.googlegroups.c
> om:
> >> >
> >> > Varley had a story or two where a "pusher" was grooming a
> >> > small girl for his second date. We find out at the end of
> >> > the story that there are two kinds of spacemen: Pullers and
> >> > pushers. Insystem guys spend their lives "pulling Gees" while
> >> > the interstellar ones spend their lives "pushing Cee"
> >
> > So... with relativity... when the guy gets back to Earth the kid
> > will be, what, thirty years old?
> >
> > Still creepy.
> >
> >> > There are lots of imitation generation ships, either
> >> > generation colonies copying Heinlein or generation lifeboat
> >> > ships before and after Footfall. (The Jupiter Theft was
> >> > definately on the lower end of mid-range, though I enjoyed
> >> > it.)
> >> >
> >> > There's endless SF that never leaves Earth.
> >>
> >
> > more.
> >
> talking about good stories, not the usual drivel (Sturgeon's Law is
> rather optomistic, IMO).
I know what I meant. But I like the old-fashioned stories... and when
I noticed (1) the local library marked SF with a little spaceship
label, and (2) the James White collection I was reading had not one
story without a spaceship in it, being otherwibe unrelated, I thought
that was k inda odd.
Robert Carnegie
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:29:35 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
> > I was replying to
> >a question about my interactions with trolls without making an
> >explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't know enough about
> >him.
>
> Ah.
>
> He's Terry Austin, and he's a special case.
>
> (He's not Terry Austin the comic book inker, by the way. Different
> guy.)
>
> Terry can be a perfectly reasonable guy and a contributing member of
> the newsgroup. However, he can also be a troll -- when he gets bored
> or annoyed, he trolls. Or worse.
>
> His preferred targets, however, are other trolls. Or spammers, or
> netkooks, or idiots. If you're a calm and sensible poster, he won't
> bother you. At least, not unless he's really, really bored.
I don't agree with the last paragraph, but I received the doubtful
compliment of being a target. I think Terry Austin being reasonable
is secondary to trolling, since he so readily drops one for the other
- wouldn't most of us say that treating reasonably someone who's being
a jerk online is the most effective way to get them to be reasonable,
and that isn't what Terry does - and that his scoring system is to get
other people to do that to him and to use more brain operating cycles
in the conversation than he does. As a corollary, his attacks are
indiscriminate and unheralded and his preferred tiargets are
intelligent people, since they initiially have more brain cells for
Terry to use to score his own points.
Accepting his scoring system is a mistake, like responding to spam.
Respond thoughtfully, but in the awareness that Terry probably won't
even read what you write, just use it as an opportunity to reply with
another insult. Other folks may read, though.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:29:35 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I was replying to
>> >a question about my interactions with trolls without making an
>> >explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't know enough about
>> >him.
>>
>> Ah.
>>
>> He's Terry Austin, and he's a special case.
>>
>> Terry can be a perfectly reasonable guy and a contributing member of
>> the newsgroup. However, he can also be a troll -- when he gets bored
>> or annoyed, he trolls. Or worse.
>>
>> His preferred targets, however, are other trolls. Or spammers, or
>> netkooks, or idiots. If you're a calm and sensible poster, he won't
>> bother you. At least, not unless he's really, really bored.
>
>I don't agree with the last paragraph, but I received the doubtful
>compliment of being a target.
This leads to three possible conclusions.
First, I may be wrong.
Second, you may be misjudging your own posts.
Third, he might have been really, really bored.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>>news:7fu30uF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You do seem the sort of troll that can't take competition,
>>>>especially since you're so shitty at it.
>>>
>>> Giggle. I'm glad that I make such a shitty troll. You might
>>> want to examine why I suck at it.
>>
>>No examination needed: you're stupid. You haven't denied that
>>your purpose is trolling, and nothing else.
>
> My declaration would be pointless.
Since it's obvious, yes, lies would be pointless.
> Trolls can declare that they
> aren't. Anyone who cares whether or not I'm a troll can drop
> into google groups (if it's working this week) and examine
> 65,000 posts. Or the dozen or so in this thread.
The dozen or so in this thread support me, son, not you.
> Either way, I
> am rated by my posts. One person thinks I'm a troll, and two or
> three more endorse that one person without making a specific
> opinion on the current ruling.
"Everyone else supports me by email." Yeah, that's not 100% pure
trolling.
>
> I'm not particularly worried that one jerk calls me a "tard".
> It doesn't destroy my day, nor does it brighten it up.
>
> I've explained my posting policies.
On the internet, everybody can be a 16 year old girl.
> Terry doesn't believe that
> those are an accurate description of my intent. From here on
> in, the thread degrades to "No I'm not" and "Yes you are"
> between two autists.
Actually, we're just about to Pee Wee Herman quotes. And you
arguing with them.
(Plus, you've just admitted you're a troll.)
> The rest of the newsgroup may well not
> appreciate that.
Some of them find it amusing when I reduce another troll to
sputtering incoherence.
>
> I know my IQ. I know my shoe size. You're wrong.
--
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
com:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> news:e7fb0861-1576-4281...@32g2000yqj.googlegroup
>> s.c om:
I have doubts. Certainly, you're not good at expressing it.
> But I like the old-fashioned stories...
> and when I noticed (1) the local library marked SF with a little
> spaceship label, and (2) the James White collection I was
> reading had not one story without a spaceship in it, being
> otherwibe unrelated, I thought that was k inda odd.
>
I'm so happy. But how much of it isn't crap?
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
om:
> Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 02:29:35 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I was replying to
>> >a question about my interactions with trolls without making an
>> >explicit connection that Sissy is a troll. I don't know
>> >enough about him.
>>
>> Ah.
>>
>> He's Terry Austin, and he's a special case.
>>
>> (He's not Terry Austin the comic book inker, by the way.
>> Different guy.)
>>
>> Terry can be a perfectly reasonable guy and a contributing
>> member of the newsgroup. However, he can also be a troll --
>> when he gets bored or annoyed, he trolls. Or worse.
>>
>> His preferred targets, however, are other trolls. Or spammers,
>> or netkooks, or idiots. If you're a calm and sensible poster,
>> he won't bother you. At least, not unless he's really, really
>> bored.
>
> I don't agree with the last paragraph, but I received the
> doubtful compliment of being a target. I think Terry Austin
> being reasonable is secondary to trolling, since he so readily
> drops one for the other -
I'm quite happy having reasonable discussions. I just refuse to
pretend to do so with someone who is obviously an idiot. I'm very
predictable, in fact. You say something stupid, I'll point out it's
stupid. You either concede that I might possibly have a point,
perhaps with some explanation/justification for what you said, or
perhaps some clarification that, had it been included originally,
would have made it non-stupid, or not. If not, well, then, you've
proven that you weren't just suffering from The Dilbert Principle
(we're all idiots at some point in our lives), but rather, you're
geniunely stupid. From that point on, there's really no point in
pretending otherwise.
The other scenario is when you say something to proundly stupid
that no reasonable person could possibly not find it offensive, and
we skip all the middle steps. I don't recall you being in that
category, like, say, Jordan or the Savard Tard, though.
> wouldn't most of us say that treating
> reasonably someone who's being a jerk online is the most
> effective way to get them to be reasonable, and that isn't what
> Terry does -
You assume that my goal, that everyone's goal, is to get people to
be reasonable. That is an error in your logic. My goal is generally
to get them to STFU and go away, or at least learn to not say
stupid things in a public forum. I don't care if they're reasonable
or not.
(Of course, my real primary motive is just to entertain myself, and
I always succeed at that.)
> and that his scoring system is to get other people
> to do that to him and to use more brain operating cycles in the
> conversation than he does.
Very insightful.
> As a corollary, his attacks are
> indiscriminate and unheralded and his preferred tiargets are
> intelligent people, since they initiially have more brain cells
> for Terry to use to score his own points.
That, of course, is stupid, for reasons noted. That you don't agree
with me on when someone has said something stupid, especially
yourself, is irrelevant. Whether or not they have actually *said*
something stupid, by any objective standard, isn't especially
relevant, either, for that matter. Only that I think it was stupid.
>
> Accepting his scoring system is a mistake, like responding to
> spam. Respond thoughtfully, but in the awareness that Terry
> probably won't even read what you write, just use it as an
> opportunity to reply with another insult. Other folks may read,
> though.
>
Better yet, don't lose. The only way to not lose is to not play.
This has been pointed out many, many times, but some people just
don't learn.
Greg Goss
>> Either way, I
>> am rated by my posts. One person thinks I'm a troll, and two or
>> three more endorse that one person without making a specific
>> opinion on the current ruling.
>
>"Everyone else supports me by email." Yeah, that's not 100% pure
>trolling.
And mail was never mentioned. You're not even trying to keep up.
Quadibloc
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Genre is not even remotely connected to quality. There is no
> subgenre that "defines" good, bad, or otherwise. All subgrenres
> have good, mediocre, and crap examples.
Of course. But the presence or absence of FTL travel mainly affects
the feasibility of certain genres, not the quality of stories. So I
have to work with what I'm given, and note such connections as do
exist between genre and quality - and there is at least one weak one,
as hack writers gravitate to the currently fashionable genres.
Talented, but egotistical writers, of course, can produce experimental
works that are terrible failures as well. But that still doesn't
produce an identical quality curve.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> De Camp was fairly mid-list. Weren't
> his Brazil-as-superpower books STL?
I'm pretty sure the Viagens books were set in interstellar space in a
manner that required FTL travel.
John Savard
Quadibloc
I see I'm mistaken, and FTL was indeed eschewed in that series...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viagens_Interplanetarias
although from other elements of the description there, I'm curious
about how he could possibly have managed it.
John Savard
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Either way, I
>>> am rated by my posts. One person thinks I'm a troll, and two
>>> or three more endorse that one person without making a
>>> specific opinion on the current ruling.
>>
>>"Everyone else supports me by email." Yeah, that's not 100% pure
>>trolling.
>
> And mail was never mentioned. You're not even trying to keep
> up.
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
You've admitted it.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:27c3a9f3-4b5c-4345...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.
com:
> On Aug 27, 2:02�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Genre is not even remotely connected to quality. There is no
>> subgenre that "defines" good, bad, or otherwise. All subgrenres
>> have good, mediocre, and crap examples.
>
> Of course. But the presence or absence of FTL travel mainly
> affects the feasibility of certain genres, not the quality of
> stories. So I have to work with what I'm given, and note such
> connections as do exist between genre and quality - and there is
> at least one weak one, as hack writers gravitate to the
> currently fashionable genres.
You've already agreed there isn't one. Make up what passes for a
mind.
Robert Carnegie
Seems clear enough to me. I stated and then depreciated my own
opinion about you, Usenet, trolling, and non-trolling participation.
What I'm saying is this: you know there are critters that have a
pleasing appearance to part or all of their body, and that attracts
victims who are then abused for the purpose of the critter with the
attractive appearance? I don't think /you/ are ever civil online
except with the intention of abusing any victims that fall into the
trap. Maybe that isn't your /only/ intention, and in that case, could
you curb it, please?
Robert Carnegie
For the record, I still think that it's honest people unwisely
investing effort in communication, having mistaken you for a
reasonable person, that gives you gratification. I imagine you in the
den with an actual scoreboard where you rank reactions by word count
and FOG index from folks while all that you send back is comments
about their sex organs and activities.
Why do you even read Usenet if you don't like to invite "idiots" into
your personal computing device? One implies the other. I quote
"idiots" because evidently you're deciding for yourself who is an
idiot - basically whenever you want a new brain to use as your cat
toy. It's a rationalisation.
> > and that his scoring system is to get other people
> > to do that to him and to use more brain operating cycles in the
> > conversation than he does.
>
> Very insightful.
>
> > As a corollary, his attacks are
> > indiscriminate and unheralded and his preferred tiargets are
> > intelligent people, since they initiially have more brain cells
> > for Terry to use to score his own points.
>
> That, of course, is stupid, for reasons noted. That you don't agree
> with me on when someone has said something stupid, especially
> yourself, is irrelevant. Whether or not they have actually *said*
> something stupid, by any objective standard, isn't especially
> relevant, either, for that matter. Only that I think it was stupid.
> >
> > Accepting his scoring system is a mistake, like responding to
> > spam. Respond thoughtfully, but in the awareness that Terry
> > probably won't even read what you write, just use it as an
> > opportunity to reply with another insult. Other folks may read,
> > though.
> >
> Better yet, don't lose. The only way to not lose is to not play.
> This has been pointed out many, many times, but some people just
> don't learn.
I arrive at the same conclusion by my own route. When Terry Austin
gets abusive, leave him alone.
Robert Carnegie
Any genre or style can have admirers who can't produce good quality
work themselves. But more of the popular genre gets published. I
suppose that means that in an unpopular genre the average quality of
published work gets higher. By "published" I mean commercially and
not just posted on Web sites for free, or I would probably end up
trying to saying something about borderline illegal sexual fantasy -
there's a whole lot of /that/ getting written. But... like Clint
Eastwood's _Unforgiven_ is a critically acclaimed Western that made
it possible to make /bad/ Westerns again.
So... what are the neglected sub-categories of SF where the good stuff
is either there to be found. or badly wanted? How about the one where
a reasonably predictable future development of technology transforms
human society and endeavours in a broadly positive way? Without
spaceships, or people getting hurt, much? I will allow Earth
satellites. The Moon is you must, but make it clear why it's a
necessary part of the story.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
com:
>
>
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> news:3302f783-2e25-42aa...@q14g2000vbi.googlegrou
>> ps. com:
>>
>> > Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> >> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> >> news:e7fb0861-1576-4281...@32g2000yqj.googlegr
>> >> oup s.c om:
That was assumed in the fact that I didn't accuse you of deliberate
deciet.
> I stated and then depreciated my own
> opinion about you, Usenet, trolling, and non-trolling
> participation. What I'm saying is this: you know there are
> critters that have a pleasing appearance to part or all of their
> body, and that attracts victims who are then abused for the
> purpose of the critter with the attractive appearance? I don't
> think /you/ are ever civil online except with the intention of
> abusing any victims that fall into the trap. Maybe that isn't
> your /only/ intention, and in that case, could you curb it,
> please?
>
There are plenty of examples of me being civil online for no other
purpose than that no one has said anyting stupid yet. I was
perfectly civil in this thread until retards like you started
calling me names. You will deny it, because you're too fucking
stupid and passive/aggressive to man up and just admit that was
your attention, but the thread is right here for all to see.
As for curbing it, it seems unlikely, since I am here for *my*
amusement, not yours. If we have to do with others tell us, we'll
start by me telling you to not be a retarded pussy any more.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
om:
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in
>> news:2d474043-9b99-4443...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroup
>> s.c om:
I've seen no evidence of that.
> that it's honest people unwisely
> investing effort in communication, having mistaken you for a
> reasonable person, that gives you gratification. I imagine you
> in the den with an actual scoreboard where you rank reactions by
> word count and FOG index from folks while all that you send back
> is comments about their sex organs and activities.
I'm sure you do. I seem to have *tremendous* power over you. By
*your* choice.
>
> Why do you even read Usenet if you don't like to invite "idiots"
> into your personal computing device?
Asked and answered, 'tard-boy.
> One implies the other. I
> quote "idiots" because evidently you're deciding for yourself
> who is an idiot - basically whenever you want a new brain to use
> as your cat toy. It's a rationalisation.
Who else's definition should I use? Why would I use anyone else's
other than my own? How fucking *stupid* are you?
>
>> > and that his scoring system is to get other people
>> > to do that to him and to use more brain operating cycles in
>> > the conversation than he does.
>>
>> Very insightful.
>>
>> > As a corollary, his attacks are
>> > indiscriminate and unheralded and his preferred tiargets are
>> > intelligent people, since they initiially have more brain
>> > cells for Terry to use to score his own points.
>>
>> That, of course, is stupid, for reasons noted. That you don't
>> agree with me on when someone has said something stupid,
>> especially yourself, is irrelevant. Whether or not they have
>> actually *said* something stupid, by any objective standard,
>> isn't especially relevant, either, for that matter. Only that I
>> think it was stupid.
>> >
>> > Accepting his scoring system is a mistake, like responding to
>> > spam. Respond thoughtfully, but in the awareness that Terry
>> > probably won't even read what you write, just use it as an
>> > opportunity to reply with another insult. Other folks may
>> > read, though.
>> >
>> Better yet, don't lose. The only way to not lose is to not
>> play. This has been pointed out many, many times, but some
>> people just don't learn.
>
> I arrive at the same conclusion by my own route. When Terry
> Austin gets abusive, leave him alone.
>
And yet, here you are, arguing with me, against your own advice.
Dumbass.
Greg Goss
argument.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
>news:7fv8p1F...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Either way, I
>>>> am rated by my posts. One person thinks I'm a troll, and two
>>>> or three more endorse that one person without making a
>>>> specific opinion on the current ruling.
>>>
>>>"Everyone else supports me by email." Yeah, that's not 100% pure
>>>trolling.
>>
>> And mail was never mentioned. You're not even trying to keep
>> up.
>
>Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll Troll
>
>You've admitted it.
Nope. I was talking about REPLYING to trolls. Go back and look.
Unless you are redefining what the word means. As I said, you're not
even paying attention.
If you want to look like you are more intelligent than your
opposition, you have to actually want to play the game. Put your
heart into your trolling, rather than just going through the motions.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
your *only* purpose is to troll.
Cuz, as you know, anyone who wasn't interested has already
killfiled either the thread, or both of us. In this way, you -
deliberately - get it out of at least some killfiles, because,
being a troll, being in a killfile isn't acceptable. Next, you'll
be changing your name to get out of the rest of the killfiles.
And, note, you *did* reply, as you were intructed to. And will
continue to do so until I *let* you stop. Cuz you're my little
bitch this week. And you love it.
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:7g0b2oF...@mid.individual.net:
--
Greg Goss
>Another classic troll tactic, and another public admission that
>your *only* purpose is to troll.
>
>Cuz, as you know, anyone who wasn't interested has already
>killfiled either the thread, or both of us. In this way, you -
>deliberately - get it out of at least some killfiles, because,
>being a troll, being in a killfile isn't acceptable. Next, you'll
>be changing your name to get out of the rest of the killfiles.
I've been using the same name for 21 years. How long have you used
yours? The only changes were email changes in 1996, 1998 and 2002,
but the display name has stayed stable since before the Web was
invented. How come Terry Whatsisname has to invent a special name for
Usenet? Rubber, glue and all that. Grin.
Separating your obsession from the FTL thread is only responsible
Usenet etiquette. There has been no public admission.
>And, note, you *did* reply, as you were intructed to. And will
>continue to do so until I *let* you stop. Cuz you're my little
>bitch this week. And you love it.
Note that you're doing exactly as I expect you to. It ain't I that's
the bitch. You're being led around, on display. Glad you're enjoying
the display.
>> If you want to look like you are more intelligent than your
>> opposition, you have to actually want to play the game. Put
>> your heart into your trolling, rather than just going through
>> the motions.
Grin. Got ya to turn on a few more of the brain cells. Glad you felt
like re-joining the game. Normally I'm not into the whole trolling
thing, but if you hand me the leash, I'll take you for a walk.
Quadibloc
<tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As for curbing it, it seems unlikely, since I am here for *my*
> amusement, not yours.
Evidently, when you were growing up, your parents and teachers failed
to properly condition you against using naughty words in public,
particularly where children might see or hear them.
I'm almost surprised they haven't picked you up and tucked you into a
nice psychiatric hospital somewhere while they check to see if any
more important parts of your social conditioning are missing. After
all, if we allow ourselves to be remiss about this sort of thing, we
might have crime once again, like they did back in primitive times.
John Savard
David DeLaney
>Anyone who cares whether or not I'm a troll can drop into
>google groups (if it's working this week) and examine 65,000 posts.
Only 65,000?
<waves hand dismissively>
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Greg Goss
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>Anyone who cares whether or not I'm a troll can drop into
>>google groups (if it's working this week) and examine 65,000 posts.
>
>Only 65,000?
>
><waves hand dismissively>
Hmmm. Gooja is only showing 45K of them now. I have no idea what the
official count would be. It was over 55K the last time I looked at
it, probably a year ago. Groups.google.com is pretty much broken.
I accept your dismissive. "Always there will be greater and lesser
persons than yourself."
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Another classic troll tactic, and another public admission that
>>your *only* purpose is to troll.
>>
>>Cuz, as you know, anyone who wasn't interested has already
>>killfiled either the thread, or both of us. In this way, you -
>>deliberately - get it out of at least some killfiles, because,
>>being a troll, being in a killfile isn't acceptable. Next,
>>you'll be changing your name to get out of the rest of the
>>killfiles.
>
> I've been using the same name for 21 years. How long have you
> used yours?
All my life, son.
> The only changes were email changes in 1996, 1998
> and 2002, but the display name has stayed stable since before
> the Web was invented. How come Terry Whatsisname has to invent
> a special name for Usenet? Rubber, glue and all that. Grin.
Y'all are new around here. S'Okay. You'll learn.
>
> Separating your obsession from the FTL thread is only
> responsible Usenet etiquette. There has been no public
> admission.
Liar.
>
>>And, note, you *did* reply, as you were intructed to. And will
>>continue to do so until I *let* you stop. Cuz you're my little
>>bitch this week. And you love it.
>
> Note that you're doing exactly as I expect you to. It ain't I
> that's the bitch. You're being led around, on display. Glad
> you're enjoying the display.
You're the one changing subject lines to get out of killfiles, son.
Not me. That *is* a public admission that you're *nothing* but a
troll.
>
>>> If you want to look like you are more intelligent than your
>>> opposition, you have to actually want to play the game. Put
>>> your heart into your trolling, rather than just going through
>>> the motions.
>
> Grin. Got ya to turn on a few more of the brain cells. Glad
> you felt like re-joining the game. Normally I'm not into the
> whole trolling thing, but if you hand me the leash, I'll take
> you for a walk.
You will now reply. Because you *can't* stop yourself. Until I let
you. And I'm not going to let you just yet.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
news:365b266d-044d-4b80...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.
com:
> On Aug 30, 2:39�pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <tausti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As for curbing it, it seems unlikely, since I am here for *my*
>> amusement, not yours.
>
> Evidently, when you were growing up, your parents and teachers
> failed to properly condition you against using naughty words in
> public, particularly where children might see or hear them.
My parents and teachers weren't anal retentive twits. Yours,
apparently, were. BTW, which word is "naughty" there? Curbing?
Amusement? I? Enquiring minds want to know.
>
> I'm almost surprised they haven't picked you up and tucked you
> into a nice psychiatric hospital somewhere while they check to
> see if any more important parts of your social conditioning are
> missing. After all, if we allow ourselves to be remiss about
> this sort of thing, we might have crime once again, like they
> did back in primitive times.
>
Fairly typical sort of lame-ass attack from Savard The Tard. Anybody
who disagrees with you must be mentally ill, eh? They say that we see
in others what we see in ourselves. And you seem to see an awful lot
of mental illness in others.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>Anyone who cares whether or not I'm a troll can drop into
>>>google groups (if it's working this week) and examine 65,000
>>>posts.
>>
>>Only 65,000?
>>
>><waves hand dismissively>
>
> Hmmm. Gooja is only showing 45K of them now. I have no idea
> what the official count would be. It was over 55K the last time
> I looked at it, probably a year ago. Groups.google.com is
> pretty much broken.
Plus, you're stoopid, and a liar.
>
> I accept your dismissive. "Always there will be greater and
> lesser persons than yourself."
Plus, you're stoopid, and a liar.
Greg Goss
Good girl. Now sit up, c'mon, sit up. That's good. Now beg.
>Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote >>
>> I've been using the same name for 21 years. How long have you
>> used yours?
>
>All my life, son.
We're talking about the display name in usenet. You were born as
sissy? I suspect not. C'mon, you can do better at keeping track of
context. It was you who raised the context of name morphing to escape
killfiles. I seriously doubt that there is any mention of umbrellas
on your birth certificate.
You really suck at this keeping track of context thing, don't you.
Maybe it's time to turn on another couple of brain cells.
>> Separating your obsession from the FTL thread is only
>> responsible Usenet etiquette. There has been no public
>> admission.
>
>Liar.
Rubber, glue. There was no public admission. But, as I said, you can
be dragged into an endless "no I didn't", "yes I did"
You lie. But shrug. It's only been a day or two and it's easy for any
observers to go back and check what was said. It turned into trolling
when I moved it into its own thread, but there was no admission before
that. And the trolling in its own thread is only to play with the one
obsessed puppy who cannot let go of the stick.
Good boy.
>> Note that you're doing exactly as I expect you to. It ain't I
>> that's the bitch. You're being led around, on display. Glad
>> you're enjoying the display.
>
>You're the one changing subject lines to get out of killfiles, son.
>Not me. That *is* a public admission that you're *nothing* but a
>troll.
The subject line was to get INTO killfiles. There is still discussion
about non-FTL fiction in that other one and it was rude to force
people to kill the on-topic stuff to ignore us. Do you have ANY idea
how to run this usenet stuff?
OK, back up to simple words and short sentences. If you kill a
thread, then you stop reading everything in that thread. If there is
a mix of boring shit and interesting stuff in that thread, then
killing the thread doesn't accomplish what you want. When the topic
changes, the "subject line" changes. Neither you nor I are talking
about non-FTL empires in this discussion, so it was rude to keep
cluttering that thread. For you to think a subject line change when
the subject changes is just simple-minded.
Can you find ANY cite on any usenet ettiquette guide where changing
the subject line when the subject changes is rudeness or trolling?
You gotta stick a bit closer to reality if you wanna raise my ire
instead of my amusement.
>You will now reply. Because you *can't* stop yourself. Until I let
>you. And I'm not going to let you just yet.
And you must reply, too. That's why it got a new thread. Because you
are so predictable. Do you really think you're accomplishing anything
but my amusement with your floundering around here?
Now, roll over! Good girl.
Greg Goss
>From here on in, the thread
>degrades to "No I'm not" and "Yes you are" between two autists.
Your turn. This could be a while.
John F. Eldredge
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> How do you rate Vernor Vinge?
>>>
>>> A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY is STL.
>
> There's a bit of confusion there in that Deepness is a prequel written
> after a novel with multiple forms of FTL travel and communication. The
> subsequent novel implies that FTL works in that universe, even if they
> haven't yet discovered it in the events of the novel.
The Zones of Thought prevent FTL travel in the Slow Zone, and Earth is in
the Slow Zone. _A Fire Upon the Deep_ is set partly in the High Beyond
(where FTL works), and partly in the Slow Zone.
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
Ilya2
> is either there to be found. or badly wanted? How about the one where
> a reasonably predictable future development of technology transforms
> human society and endeavours in a broadly positive way? Without
> spaceships, or people getting hurt, much? I will allow Earth
> satellites. The Moon is you must, but make it clear why it's a
> necessary part of the story.
Larry Niven's Known Space Earth, circa 2100-2250.
There is a lot of spaceflight in KS, but it is almost entirely
confined to Belt. Earth in that time period is rather isolationist;
most Flatlanders (derogatory term originated by Belters) do not care
about space. As for "broadly positive way", there is one nasty
development -- organ banks and organlegging, -- but overall human
condition is greatly improved over the present. No hunger, no
debilitating illness, little pollution, little prejudice or sexual
jealousy, over-century lifespans, and no drudgery -- people seem to
work only on what they like to do, or not at all.
Does that qualify?
Kurt Busiek
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote (ten exchanges ago):
>
>> From here on in, the thread
>> degrades to "No I'm not" and "Yes you are" between two autists.
>
> Your turn. This could be a while.
Are you now trolling yourself?
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com — for all your Busiek needs!
Joseph Nebus
>Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>>Jerry Brown <je...@jwbrown.co.uk.RemoveThisBitToReply> wrote:
>>>>jdni...@panix.com (James Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>> I don't think Wil McCarthy's Aggressor Six universe has
>>>>>FTL and neither does his FLIES FROM THE AMBER.
>>>>
>>>>IIRC his Queendom books didn't either.
>>>
>>> Didn't they have FTL coms via That Thing That if It Broke Would
>>>Kill Everyone?
>>
>>The ISCOG? I remember the name, but I think it was just faster than
>>the previous method. Guess I'll have to reread the Collapsium again
>>(but not the rather depressing sequels) to make sure.
>If I remember right, the ISCOG was set up such that inside its tubes there
>was real live FTL communication possible. Not travel as such - but if you're
>faxing yourself where you want to go, the differences start to blur. But I'm
>not sure without rereading either.
And as some law of the universe requires, I just yesterday mailed
my copies of the Queendom books in a care package to a friend in Georgia,
so there's no checking on my part.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> On 2009-08-31 03:08:07 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> said:
>
>> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote (ten exchanges ago):
>>
>>> From here on in, the thread
>>> degrades to "No I'm not" and "Yes you are" between two autists.
>>
>> Your turn. This could be a while.
>
> Are you now trolling yourself?
>
I told him to. He's a good little bitch.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Michael Stemper
>Greg Goss wrote:
>>We cannot agree on who the great authors are and you want us to make a
>>list of people in the mid-list?
>
>Can all the people who say, "Author X is great!" and all the
>people who say, "Author X is crap!" agree to put Author X in the
>mid-list? :)
"Mid-list" isn't about "great" or "crap", it's about sales volume.
This takes us dangerously close to another thread.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Reunite Gondwanaland!
Michael Hellwig
> In article <nuqdnZ6oYokEEwrX...@giganews.com>,>>"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9C747374312...@69.16.186.7...
>>> So now, my question is, how many examples are there of good, solid,
>>> mid-list writers, not the sort who write bestsellers or literary
>>> classics, who have written *good* (not brilliant, or great, but good)
>>> SF stories without FTL?
>>>
>>
>>How do you rate Vernor Vinge?
>>
>>A DEEPNESS IN THE SKY is STL.
>
> has drives that are AFAL.
>
also, his Learning The World is, IIRC, STL (generation-ship).
Robert Carnegie
Well, I'm not sure. Seen through the eyes of Gil the ARM, dealing
with organleggers (that's kidnap, murder, sell the body parts) and
wireheads (electrical brain stimulation for pleasure), and the
nationalisation of frozen bodies (the corpsicles) for transplants,
it's pretty creepy. I think one story has the guy (ROT13) fragraprq
gb qrngu sbe qevivat guebhtu na vagrefrpgvba ba gur erq yvtug. And
health and long lifespan evidently depends on spare parts. (Likewise
in Frederik Pohl's _Gateway_ setting.)
According to <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/
8222732.stm> and China Daily - in the present day -
"China is trying to move away from the use of executed prisoners as
the major source of organs for transplants.
"According to the China Daily newspaper, executed prisoners currently
provide two-thirds of all transplant organs.
"The government is now launching a voluntary donation scheme, which it
hopes will also curb the illegal trafficking in
organs." (Organleggers!)
"But analysts say cultural bias against removing organs after death
will make a voluntary scheme hard to implement."
I forget which of Niven's stories it is where the public make the
connection in respect of the corpsicles - not executed convicts, maybe
they aren't being used yet, and I guess there's less sympathy - and
call "Organlegger" on the government itself. And _The Patchwork Girl_
does make a political issue of the "convicts as organ donors"
question.
And since apparently this is happening for real (but may be rolled
back, even in China), can I complain about it in the previous
century's science fiction? It look like the guy just got it right.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
because he's realized that he has publicly prounced himself my bitch,
now and forever, and he's humiliated every time he types out a reply,
not knowing why, but knowing he *must* do so.
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> There's a bit of confusion there in that Deepness is a prequel written
>> after a novel with multiple forms of FTL travel and communication. The
>> subsequent novel implies that FTL works in that universe, even if they
>> haven't yet discovered it in the events of the novel.
>
>The Zones of Thought prevent FTL travel in the Slow Zone, and Earth is in
>the Slow Zone. _A Fire Upon the Deep_ is set partly in the High Beyond
>(where FTL works), and partly in the Slow Zone.
Is it really FTL, or just faster than Slow Zone light speed?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Greg Goss
>Note that troll boy is now reduced to email harassment, presumably
>because he's realized that he has publicly prounced himself my bitch,
>now and forever, and he's humiliated every time he types out a reply,
>not knowing why, but knowing he *must* do so.
It ain't harassment. You're enjoying this too much.
Just sloppy work on the "reply" versus "forward".
I think it's pretty obvious to all watching that there's perfect
symmetry here. Your inability to let it drop till I drop trou and
bend over ties you pretty pathetically to my control, in exact
symmetry.