128 Basic slave Rules - Not so basic - Not for slaves - Not Rules
irish
Greetings All
Apparently the discussion of these "Basic Rules" goes back much longer
then I have been reading this NG. A lot of what I have read from
others is their objection to jkay calling them "Basic" I could not
agree more. Although another issue that disturbs me regarding this
dictation of contraband, of which I have not seen any discussion about
since I have started with this group, is in the introduction.
<snip>
Begin working with these rules by making your selections in the
following manner:
1. Select a place in a household where you feel comfortable in a
kneeling position while nude. The kneeling position should be
performed as follows: kneel attentively, toes curled forward, ankles
touching or at least as close together as possible, thighs touching,
hands placed on top of the thighs with palms down and fingers spread
apart, the inside of your arms pushing your breasts towards the middle
of the chest with breasts in front of the arms, the back arched to
push the breasts forward and to give the torso good curvature. If this
position is difficult for you to achieve, then select a nude position
of your choosing whereby you feel a sense of submission as if
honorable to be in such a position whereby your form, as if secretly
displayed, could induce the touch of a Master's eyes upon you and gain
the envy of those females who may be present.
2. Place the rules at a level where you can read them without having
to change your position.
3. Remain in your position for a few minutes and then begin reading
the rules out loud in a kind of held back tone as if to do so quietly
in a confessional manner. Read all the rules whether you agree with
them or not. Try not to resist what you are feeling and let your
thoughts run wild.
4. Spend several days reading the rules, at least once a day, in this
manner.
<snip>
Is this not a basic brainwashing technique? Keep rereading it
everyday until you believe it! Speak in a confessional manner, as if
you have sinned! Oh yes, you can change the writings of these rules,
but only after you have reread them over and over again, until you
believe everything stated!.
brain·wash·ing (brân¹wòsh´îng, -wô´shîng) noun
1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or
religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and
attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as
an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a
specific belief or motivation.
Although jkays answer to my post about the cornerstones of this
lifestyle (safe sane & consensual) was
<snip>
Absolutely correct - screw SSC!! It's far too vague for most people.
About the only part that fits is the consensual part. What is safe and
sane changes from one person to the next.
<snip>
He has managed to remove the consensual part as well, with his
propagandist, brainwashing. Once you have started such a brainwashing
tactic, it is impossible for anyone to combine it with their own
thoughts. Many newcomers to our lifestyle, enter into it with
enthusiasm, and a blind desire to find a label for what they have felt
deep within them for many years and never understood. Searching to
educate themselves, looking for guidelines to follow, "For there must
be a right way to do this, there is in everything else we do in this
world". If they only knew that the only right way, is what is right
for you, and not what jkay insist is the "Basic" set of rules.
Unfortunately, this places them in a dangerous position. Especially
when a self proclaimed expert present them with material that is so
far off base, unsafe, insane, and the personal kink of one want a be
prophet.
This issue concerns me as deeply, as what this evil minded,
conglomeration of human waste has chosen to call "HIS" pathetic
rambling of obscure words.
<snip>
>you have given new meaning to the words "absolutely clueless". If your
>comments and so called basic rules, is a cumulation of over 20 years
>of experience in the lifestyle, either you were in a coma during that
>20 years, or on a whole different planet altogether. You are a very
>dangerous man without an ounce of reality.
Why thankyou for the kind and thoughtful comments from what is
supposedly an
intelligent female, not a woman - they have a bit more finesse in
their speech
than you.
<Snip>
Apparently you have never come across a real woman, which explains
your lack of ability to recognize one. This may also be an
explanation of your ignorance on the subject of submission.
Your dear mother must be so proud of the son she raised!
I look forward to reading everyone’s (with the exception of one)
thoughts on this slightly different view of the dreaded "128" what
ever you want to call them.
I am "WOMAN" hear me roar
irisheyes
jkay
iri...@earthlink.net (irish) wrote:
>128 Basic slave Rules - Not so basic - Not for slaves - Not Rules
Well the original title was: "Rules for the female slave" but I would suspect
you would have something to say about 'the female slave' that is the 'the'
would pose a problem.
"128 Basic slave Rules" stuck and most people know it by that title so I don't
really want to be changing it any time soon.
As to basic - they are something to start with and gives the slave female an
idea of what to expect in such a relationship.
As to 'rules' well that's a bit questionable. Some have viewed them as
meditations, affirmations, guidelines and such and still others see them as
rules.
>
>Apparently the discussion of these "Basic Rules" goes back much longer
>then I have been reading this NG. A lot of what I have read from
>others is their objection to jkay calling them "Basic" I could not
>agree more.
I think that no matter where you start that anything termed 'basic' will be
viewable as not so basic by those of various perspectives of what they think
should be 'basic'. I know that what I wrote about is overwhelming - but that's
because I stated what is in such relationships, that this is where you are
headed, that this is what can be expected, that this is what is possible. For
many that's too much at one time and for others - well they really want to
embrace the totality of it all.
That could be said tho of any participation in any culture - to totally adapt
to it if you want to be a part of it or seen as a part of it.
Notice that the instructions are not demanding that a person MUST do this. And
keep in mind that this is no more brainwashing than you reading the
instructions on how to use your VCR. You can choose. In Korean style
brainwashing, as with most brainwashing techniques, you don't have a choice.
Keep that difference in mind.
Keep rereading it
>everyday until you believe it!
Try something more like: until you identify with it as it becomes recognizable
as something that connects with your nature. Notice that I offer that the
slave then makes her choices after she has thought about the rules. The
important issue here is that you think about it a lot so as to make truthful
selections and rewrites and eliminations.
Speak in a confessional manner, as if
>you have sinned!
No, speak in a confessional matter as if you are revealing a truth about
yourself that you hold dear to your heart, that you identify with as something
that is very personal and deep for you to think about. Speak in a confessional
manner so that you meditate on each word, phrase and sentence so as to not be
distracted and to see if you do indeed identify with what is being said or in
how you connect with it. What happens to most of us is that we don't really
listen to our 'selves' and what words say to us. We depend too much on what we
think things say or what others want us to believe they say. I wanted people
to use a confessional tone so that they will find on their own how their
nature responds and reacts to each of the rules so that they truly connect
with their nature. I don't tell them this in the rules document because I want
them to experience this on there own unprompted by me. This is not about a
guilt trip as is typical in Catholic confessions.
Oh yes, you can change the writings of these rules,
>but only after you have reread them over and over again, until you
>believe everything stated!.
Absolutely not the case at all. They are read to form a conversation with your
nature so that you will be ready to make the changes you want to make after
you have connected with those you like, fought over those you don't like, and
made peace with those you know are a part of who you are - which can all be
hard to do when you have to work with your 'self' so much.
>
>brain·wash·ing (brân¹wòsh´îng, -wô´shîng) noun
>1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or
>religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and
>attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
Please note the by the time a person gets to my set of rules - they have
picked them up to read by choice, and have already committed to looking for
something they can connect with. In other words, they want to be there - to
work on being a slave that they hope a Master will desire. Mere words can't
brainwash anyone unless they let them.
>2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as
>an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a
>specific belief or motivation.
Again, people get to the rules because they have already entertained the idea
of slavery. They have already been fantasizing about it and what it could be
like.
>He has managed to remove the consensual part as well, with his
>propagandist, brainwashing.
Do I gather you are pretty well obsessed with the rules and so angered by them
as to have been brainwashed by them into spending a vast amount of time
combatting them? Or was that your own personal choice to get so involved with
them?
If you understand that then you know your claim is fruitless.
Once you have started such a brainwashing
>tactic, it is impossible for anyone to combine it with their own
>thoughts.
You gravely underestimate people and their skills to comprehend and to
incorporate choice into their lives based on what they take in with their
senses. Unless of course you believe that schools should be done away with
completely.
Many newcomers to our lifestyle, enter into it with
>enthusiasm, and a blind desire to find a label for what they have felt
>deep within them for many years and never understood. Searching to
>educate themselves, looking for guidelines to follow, "For there must
>be a right way to do this, there is in everything else we do in this
>world". If they only knew that the only right way, is what is right
>for you, and not what jkay insist is the "Basic" set of rules.
You missed the notes for consideration section completely. For instance, it
clearly says:
"2. There is alot to learn, to develop and to discover in this type of
lifestyle: its traditions, customs, fashion, speech, etiquette, play, and
practices which may include bondage, discipline, punishment, sadism,
masochism, guidance, surrender, control, pain, aftercare, sensation,
sensuality, sexuality, spiritualism, respect, warmth, passion and love. It is
recommended that each person learns as much as they can throughout whatever
avenues are available (never being afraid to ask about anything you are even
the slightest bit curious or concerned about): similarly interested friends,
presenters and experts you get a chance to meet in the 'scene', books and
magazines on related subjects including those who are against the lifestyle,
groups in your area who offer educational classes, play parties, and
conferences, any related fictional books of erotica and fantasy, academic
books on theatre, sceneplay and props, Internet websites and FAQ's (frequently
asked questions), first-aid classes, fetish fashion outlets and
those who carry leather, bdsm toys and tools of the lifestyle. Failure to
learn the proper use of the toys and tools of the lifestyle can result in
serious injury - so be careful. It is recommended that a skilled person in
edgeplay (activity, as mentioned in rule #128, requiring extensive
knowledge and skill where physical and psychological injury can result if not
done properly) and advanced first-aid be present should you be engaged in such
activities by your Master."
And this part:
"4. Consider these rules a part of what will become your crash course about
the Master/slave relationship and lifestyle, but realize they are not
conclusive, nor the only way to enter and to experience it, for there is more
to learn then from the rules that are listed here."
Go back and reread that section of notes.
>Unfortunately, this places them in a dangerous position. Especially
>when a self proclaimed expert present them with material that is so
>far off base, unsafe, insane, and the personal kink of one want a be
>prophet.
You don't get out much do you? Have you ever been to a theme based group event
where all females are slaves, all owned property, where all Males present are
Masters who own the various human female slave properties there in attendance?
I would guess not.
Apparently you haven't read Anne Rice's Beauty Series either, nor the Story of
O and have examined how Sir Stephen manages females. Not to mention the
Barbary Coast series, Sara Adamson's books, or let me not forget John Norman's
books - much of which has rl group followings and events.
When you have - we'll talk.
>
>This issue concerns me as deeply, as what this evil minded,
>conglomeration of human waste has chosen to call "HIS" pathetic
>rambling of obscure words.
Ya think I have enslaved you too do ya?!
Would you like to see what more vulgar anger you can express - which by the
way none of my slaves nor slaves of others would ever entertain doing - that
is the attitude you have which clearly explains how much of this lifestyle you
don't understand let alone what behavior is expected of, should I say, more
enlightened females who understand their nature and embrace it more than you
do. You are clearly in rebellion of yours.
>
><snip>
>>you have given new meaning to the words "absolutely clueless".
And this is out of the mouth of an intelligent babe??? NOT!!
If your
>>comments and so called basic rules, is a cumulation of over 20 years
>>of experience in the lifestyle, either you were in a coma during that
>>20 years, or on a whole different planet altogether. You are a very
>>dangerous man without an ounce of reality.
Like I said - you don't get out much.
>
>Why thankyou for the kind and thoughtful comments from what is
>supposedly an
>intelligent female, not a woman - they have a bit more finesse in
>their speech
>than you.
><Snip>
>
>Apparently you have never come across a real woman, which explains
>your lack of ability to recognize one. This may also be an
>explanation of your ignorance on the subject of submission.
Having been on the other side in submission to dominant women - you babe best
be careful who you are dealing with and of what I know and where I have come
from and of what groups I have been a part of throughout all those years.
Maybe you would care to expand on your experiences and philosophies to
enlighten me and others who would disagree with you. Otherwise you are just
whining and bitching which is of no help to anyone.
>
>Your dear mother must be so proud of the son she raised!
As a matter of fact she is and knows of my views ( well not in totality) and
my participation in the scene. Altho she doesn't condone BDSM for anyone - not
even for the likes of you. She finds the whole of it the work of the devil.
>I look forward to reading everyone’s (with the exception of one)
>thoughts on this slightly different view of the dreaded "128" what
>ever you want to call them.
>
>I am "WOMAN" hear me roar
>irisheyes
And I would guess the roaring would be best out of a cage. Would be much much
louder I am sure. I mean if you going to roar - why not roar with the best of
them.
Johnathan Kay
>
>
Spyral Fox
iri...@earthlink.net (irish) writes, in re the "introduction to
JK's "Rules," which have not been featured as a topic in the
most recent eruption of the commentary about the document:
>Is this not a basic brainwashing technique? Keep rereading it
>everyday until you believe it! Speak in a confessional manner, as if
>you have sinned! Oh yes, you can change the writings of these rules,
>but only after you have reread them over and over again, until you
>believe everything stated!.
Got it in one. You earn your "A+" and go to the top of the class. :-)
And, just for the record, this was discussed, but it was a loooonnnng
time ago. Several people (who read SSBB regularly) spoke out about
the dangers of inexperienced people using these techniques, as you
can condition someone into a state of total dependence. It's a more
blatant version of the "if you really loved me, you'd X" as it assumes
throughout that a "real slave" would find no problem with the instructions
nor with rules that essentially say that the dom is always correct,
has a right to ignore limits, etc.
take care,
Spyral Fox ("Ani l'dodi...")
"The worst and best are both inclined
to snap like vixens at the truth" --EH Wylie
San Diego Munch & Resources; SSBB Diplomatic Corps:
http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/ (last updated Mar 18 1999)
jkay
spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox) wrote:
>Got it in one. You earn your "A+" and go to the top of the class. :-)
Rather the heap and I am not sure of what exists there except people who love
misery, who love to bitch up a storm collectively and whine and whine
themselves into a stupor over something they should of just left alone.
>And, just for the record, this was discussed, but it was a loooonnnng
>time ago.
This is another issue that the Spyral Clan loves to do. Once it is discussed
they assume that everyone after them doesn't have to - hell they have the Deja
News History books to go back and read!
Several people (who read SSBB regularly) spoke out about
>the dangers of inexperienced people using these techniques, as you
>can condition someone into a state of total dependence.
While I'll admit this CAN happen, and have admitted in the past that it CAN
happen, it does take two to LET it happen. A skilled Master and an aware slave
usually don't suffer codependence, however, codependence CAN be
developed in the building of any relationship. Even the most well-informed can
become sucked up into codependency. Just look at the fab success rate of
marriages? I mean really - if you knew there was a 50% loss possibility in
your agreement - would you invest so much of your time in it? I know that is a
bit off topic, but the point is these relationships take a lot of work to make
sure they don't get messed up. This is why people need to communicate openly
and honestly with each other - something that is expressed in the rules
document. A M/s relationship is very complex and requires that both parties
know a bit of what they are getting themselves into - hence another reason for
writing the rules document, but keeping it focused on the mindset and the
building of that mindset. The document encourages that the slave-identified
female discusses with her (prespective) Master what she has decided to get
into - that they share their conclusions about what they have learned through
using the document toward the lifestyle they wish to persue.
Having information upfront as to what can and may be involved is very
important. Explaining ahead of time and working through what one feels is very
important means coming forward with and staying focused on something to
clearly negotiate with and to iron out with a partner so that both parties get
their needs met and start off on a good, clearly understood trackline.
It's a more
>blatant version of the "if you really loved me, you'd X" as it assumes
>throughout that a "real slave" would find no problem with the instructions
>nor with rules that essentially say that the dom is always correct,
>has a right to ignore limits, etc.
If this were the case as Spyral is trying to point out then I would have never
focused the document to be used by females ahead of the relationship they are
trying to achieve or to acquire. I would have simply stated what Masters need
to know to capture and rip the mind of the lowly females they wish to own.
Instead I wrote the document specifically for females in the hope they would
be able to come to what they want to realize about themselves by themselves.
>
>take care,
> Spyral Fox ("Ani l'dodi...")
And we know how well it has worked for Spyral - hell she spent some lengthy
time on own website try to debunk my writings when in effect it clearly shows
how obsessed she is with them and has become totally dependent upon them. She
writes about them almost as much as I do. Hell, did you see the USAP report?
One of the things that Spyral loves to do is just to accept things exactly how
they are written even if time after time she is told that she doesn't have to
be that way. Personally, I think she just went brain dead. I keep telling her
that she doesn't have to accept what I wrote and that there are others out
there who do have some smarts to make the same decision she did or the
decision to pick of the rules what works for them best.
Johnathan Kay
Sockermom9
>Is this not a basic brainwashing technique? Keep rereading it
>everyday until you believe it! Speak in a confessional manner, as if
>you have sinned! '
Good call! Yes it is, as better than I can tell you. And can we say "a
non-con attempt to top the world"? I knew we could. Annoying git, ain't he?
In a way, it'd be worse if he could communicate clearly--then he'd be <gasp>
effective! Perish the thought. At least now, lacking in the ability to speak
clearly, he's mostly impotent.
Lynn
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
MisterBill
jk, you don't have a clue. Perhaps, and I say that with some doubt,
you can apply some of your rules and philosophy to YOUR world, but
just where thqt world exists is beyond me. It's certainly not anywhere
on this planet.
I've been reading and listening to the comments going back and
forth, mildy amused by the lack of intelligence displayed in the 128
rules, somewhat incredulous that someone with as much experience as
you CLAIM to have could even state these as guidelines or suggestions,
let alone rules. I would be interested to know just what your
experience consists of, but that question has been asked several times
previously and has been totally ignored, so I don't expect you to be
able to fabricate a past to speak of here any more in response to my
question than you have to any of the other inquiries that have been
made of you.
Your latest responses to irish's posts seem to indicate that you
think (again, a term perhaps better not used here) she has some fear
of you or your rules, or is going to find herself believing them
should she read them often enough. 'Fraid not, little man. irish
belongs to me, I own her, and the rules that she follows are those
which we together have come up with that work for us. 'Course, I
wouldn't expect you to be able to fathom that concept either.
As for your threats, well, they're as empty as the space between
your ears where you should have had a brain installed. I guarantee
they will get you no place, and will only serve to further alienate
you from those you are so desperately trying to defend your "rules"
against. Should you feel that threats are your best way of
communicating, we'll just take that to mean that you've run out of
anything else to say. Not that you've said much of anything yet.....
jk, I just hope you find a shred of intelligence to cling to before
you seriously injure or kill someone. You sound like someone who will
show up on page 7 of the newspaper saying "It was an accident,
really!" I, for one, would prefer not to see that happen.
MisterBill
jkay
mrbi...@earthlink.net (MisterBill) wrote:
I would be interested to know just what your
>experience consists of, but that question has been asked several times
>previously and has been totally ignored, so I don't expect you to be
>able to fabricate a past to speak of here any more in response to my
>question than you have to any of the other inquiries that have been
>made of you.
It is utterly amazing what people don't read. My bio is in the rules document.
I suggest you go back and read it because apparently you missed it completely.
> Your latest responses to irish's posts seem to indicate that you
>think (again, a term perhaps better not used here) she has some fear
>of you or your rules, or is going to find herself believing them
>should she read them often enough. 'Fraid not, little man. irish
>belongs to me, I own her, and the rules that she follows are those
>which we together have come up with that work for us. 'Course, I
>wouldn't expect you to be able to fathom that concept either.
So perhaps you'd like to express your philosophy since you believe it to be
far better and that by doing so might offer something for others to work off
of. If you are here just to jump on the bandwagon tho you are not being much
help.
As far as your slave goes tho - she is in need of way more work. A better
trained slave would have just read through the rules document, made a comment
of whether or not they worked for her, and then perhaps expressed what does
work for her. your slave simply, like you, lashed out in anger and disgust and
displayed a level of behavior I and others find totally unbecoming of a
balanced slave female. It's good that you own her - she is too much like you.
I suggest you find better ways to express yourselves instead of becoming what
so many here have become - whiners with nothing better to do then gripe. Not
the sort of behavior that sets a good example for others nor offers anything
of use.
> As for your threats, well, they're as empty as the space between
>your ears where you should have had a brain installed.
Maybe the both of you ought to step down from your flamming thrones.
> jk, I just hope you find a shred of intelligence to cling to before
>you seriously injure or kill someone. You sound like someone who will
>show up on page 7 of the newspaper saying "It was an accident,
>really!" I, for one, would prefer not to see that happen.
Then read a bit more carefully the following:
"1. The Master/slave relationship is a complex one requiring a serious
commitment to honest and open communication, and the practice of learned
responsibilities for the care and protection of each person's well being,
psychological, physical, sexual, social, and emotional health. you can
protect both you and your Master's participation through the use of selected
safe words (like 'yellow' and 'red') and gestures (such as tight hand holds,
wiggling of a limb, or opening of a hand). Don't ever be afraid to use them
or think that you are not supposed to - especially if you are in your first
experience. Expect to be tested by your Master so that you are made aware of
your limitations for your sake and His."
And this item as well:
"45. my submission is a natural inborn feeling, and at times a surging and
powerful force inside me that only a respectable and knowledgeable Master can
recognize, control and manage, for a He understands how my nature influences
my behavior and how temptations to act outside of its drive can easily lead me
astray and away from my primary focus: to please and to be found pleasing.
He, too, manages and controls His Own natural state, sharing with me through a
power exchange between us, bonding me tightly to Him, His needs with mine. my
submission to such a Master allows for me to feel more aware and alive inside
and out, bringing me to a feeling i cherish: ' at home '."
If the slave and her Master achieve this level of understanding in their
relationship then they should be just fine.
Now then if you have any more gripes then do the group here a service and
express what you think is important and that works for you. If you do that
then you might actually be offering something useful for others.
Johnathan Kay
MisterBill
I really didn't expect a reply with any intelligence behind it, and
you didn't disappoint me... Thanks!
SarOfTreve
>Date: 4/4/99 6:11 AM Greenwich Standard Time
mrbill69 writes:
>> Your latest responses to irish's posts seem to indicate that you
>>think (again, a term perhaps better not used here) she has some fear
>>of you or your rules, or is going to find herself believing them
>>should she read them often enough. 'Fraid not, little man. irish
>>belongs to me, I own her, and the rules that she follows are those
>>which we together have come up with that work for us. 'Course, I
>>wouldn't expect you to be able to fathom that concept either.
>
>So perhaps you'd like to express your philosophy since you believe it to be
>far better and that by doing so might offer something for others to work off
>of. If you are here just to jump on the bandwagon tho you are not being much
>help.
JK, reading comprehensin continues to be an ongoing issue for you...
'Express your philosophy'? mrbill69 did so. Did you miss ' the rules that she
follows are those which we together have come up with that work for us' in the
material you quoted above? Geez...
Regards,
Sartan
Website index: http://www.sagatech.com/sartan/index.html
Homepage, Working With Leather, Media Gallery... yes, WWL is back online
Spyral Fox
>I would be interested to know just what your
>experience consists of, but that question has been asked several times
>previously and has been totally ignored, so I don't expect you to be
>able to fabricate a past to speak of here any more in response to my
>question than you have to any of the other inquiries that have been
>made of you.
He may feel that he doesn't need to answer because we've gone
over this before. He tends to forget that the audience here on SSBB
shifts from hour to hour, with some posters having less time for the
group and newer posters and lurkers joining us.
Sometime back last summer, JK made quite a big to-do about
his 22 years of experience with 35 partners and how much of that
was spent playing in semi-public venues (playparties). He
apparently believes thatthe only way that one can gain credibility
as "An Authority" is by doing BDSM in public with a number of
other people.
Of course, some of us disagree. In fact, my lack of public play
experience was, in his opinion "proof" that I'm a know-nothing, and
there were several threads about this sometime last year. IMO,
JK's notion of "valid" experience disenfranchises a number of people
who have no interest in public play and/or in changing partners
on a regular basis. Judging from the other posts, JK's opinion
was a minority viewpoint.
A secondary factor is that JK's "experience" seems to include
a number of experiences that the vast majority of people here think
are foolhardy -- such as the incident where he placed a loaded
gun's muzzle in the vagina or a woman, or the time a few months
back where he was leading a bound woman up a narrow and steep
flight of stairs (with her in high heels, her arms tied behind her back
and wearing a blindfold, which are all things which make balance
a chancy thing). Of course, there was no catcher.
The fact that he has been lucky enough to do things like this
without major damage to his partner, he puts down to "expertise,"
but many others put down to "luck." Of course, he also has the
attitude that "most damage heals," which IMO doesn't help his
case much.
take care,
Spyral Fox ("Ani l'dodi...")
"The worst and best are both inclined
Sockermom9
>Masters need
>to know to capture and rip the mind of the lowly females they wish to own.
Yes; I'm quoting out of context. Consider it fighting by using the enemy's own
tricks.
But is it just me, or does anyone else note that JK wants to own lowly females,
rather than quality goods?
Sockermom9
>Your latest responses to irish's posts seem to indicate that you
>think (again, a term perhaps better not used here) she has some fear
>of you or your rules, or is going to find herself believing them
>should she read them often enough. 'Fraid not, little man. irish
>belongs to me, I own her, and the rules that she follows are those
>which we together have come up with that work for us. 'Course, I
>wouldn't expect you to be able to fathom that concept either.
Ah, Mr. Bill, this simply indicates that you have a brain. Of course,
IrishEyes appears to as well, which make you a good pair, as well as absolutely
incompatible with JK's roolz. Thinking for onesself? Perish the thought! We
all ought to spend all out waking hours deciphering JK's wank-piece, and thus
coming to believe in it, whole hog...er, cow.
See, this is the way it works. If you were *rully* a Master, you'd realize
immediately how perfect these roolz are. Then you'd dump your current slave,
and, finding no one around who actually a) fit, and b) would put up with, these
pieces of Inspiration [1], would migrate to Seattle, where you, too could fall
worshipfully at the feet of He Who Spat Out This Crap.
Do please get used to being ignored as long you *insist* on being rational.
That's so unfair. Cut it out right now.
Lynn
[1] Inspiration: brainfarts that come from the deep, dark recesses of the
medulla; causing their originator to take long, gasping breaths between strokes
of his palm on his dick.
IronWynch
jkay wrote:
> It is utterly amazing what people don't read. My bio is in the rules document.
> I suggest you go back and read it because apparently you missed it completely.
And you missed his point, JKay...and must not have read any of my
responses way back when either...so I
ll spell it out for you again...::sigh::
> So perhaps you'd like to express your philosophy since you believe it to be
> far better and that by doing so might offer something for others to work off
> of. If you are here just to jump on the bandwagon tho you are not being much
> help.
You are the only one claiming their philosophy is better or worse than
anyone else's. And just as you have the right to think that you are all
that, other people have the right to think that you are not...and when
you say that you are all that, other people also have the right to say
that you are not.
Here's the 411....aaaaa-gain...
If you want to believe that women are cattle, then that is your
business. When you make your business public, it is no longer your
business, and is open to the scrutiny, criticism, and comment of
others. If you don't want anybody criticizing your work, don't publish
it...
Second, personally, I find your views about women and BDSM to be, well,
I hate to have to use this word, but there is no other ----bigoted.
You write under the assumption that everyone is White AND highly
eurocentric. You seem to be "into" this total ownership and programming
thing, but have no idea of how to implement it outside of your own very
small world view.
Ya know, Shaka Zulu was a great leader who also saw women in somewhat of
a "cattle" like sense...but he was African, and was able to grasp the
concept of discipline without hatred, and entitlement to use of others,
without diminishing their importance. He did torture and kill quite a
few, with his own hands, but he didn't have to hate or resent them to do
it...but when it was his turn to be taken out by his own people, he took
it without complaint. That's still sick, but it is at least, dignified.
I, for one, am sick of your whining...You still have the right to be
pathetic, but if you were smart, you'd just let it go. If you feel you
are contributing something good to BDSM, then feel like that and move
on...Don't make it personal. Just do your thing, and let other people
decide what they want to follow on their own.
Not everybody can handle the kinds of things I write about either.
::shrug:: Like I care...Alot of people do. (Email me about that,
later, and if you promise to be mature, I'll send you an invitation.)
Make your rebuttals, if you feel you need to, on your own site...but
this bickering has got to end on both sides.
Because of my feelings about your work, I usually just ignore it...but I
see good people being unduly aroused by all this again, and would like
to sort of stem the tide, if I can.
So, to JKay, my advice is maybe you should consider coming out of that
little white box...and try to think more, and write less...Maybe travel
some, for an extended amount of time to someplace where women really are
equated with "cattle"...just a suggestion...I'm sure it will change your
thoughts, though...or at least lead you to some clarifications you
didn't think of before.
And to everybody else, if you don't like what he has to say, post a
warning about it on your site. Debating with boxed people is as futile
as trying to explain to a Christian what "God's son" was slang in Hebrew
for, 2000 years ago...
--
**************** Mistress IronWynch ****************
* FemDOMMEA WebMistress - http://femdom.mybdsm.com *
* Member of The Power Exchange - http://www.tpe.com/ *
* Thrive @sex Room Masochist :) *
******************************************************
IronWynch
Sockermom9 wrote:
> Good call! Yes it is, as better than I can tell you. And can we say "a
> non-con attempt to top the world"?
Um...He'd be kinda hard pressed, considering he, apparently, knows very
little about the world.
Just let him rant...as far as folks I know in the Ebony and Israeli
scene are concerned, I'll quote:
(before seeing any of his writings)
Who's jaykay?
(after reading some of his writings)
Who's jaykay?
He's not hurting anyone but himself...and when it comes down to it, we
have to be able to let go enough to expend our effort in protecting and
educating those we *can* reach, rather than engaging in futile debates
with those we cannot.
jkay
mrbi...@earthlink.net (MisterBill) wrote:
>jk,
>
> I really didn't expect a reply with any intelligence behind it, and
>you didn't disappoint me... Thanks!
For someone who thinks they know better - I guess the newbies here have
learned a lot from you - like not seeing you since you haven't much to offer -
at least not yet. If you are really concerned about me the least you could do
is offer your expertise.
Johnathan Kay
jkay
IronWynch <iron...@mybdsm.com> wrote:
>If you want to believe that women are cattle, then that is your
>business. When you make your business public, it is no longer your
>business, and is open to the scrutiny, criticism, and comment of
>others. If you don't want anybody criticizing your work, don't publish
>it...
I have no problem with people criticizing my work or my posts, however, they
ought to at least back up their points - and most here don't - instead of just
flaming away - an attitude that doesn't help anyone.
And whatever happened to saying something as simple as "I read your rules and
don't agree," and leaving it at that? And if people want to criticize - why
not ask questions to further clarify questionable issues and concerns, or
express how they incorporate Master and slave principles in their
relationships? Why not open a dialog that encourages the kind of discussion
that actually will go somewhere instead of one that incites disgust and the
expression of it and of anger and distaste - especially if so many here are
worried about the health and welfare of the newbies and those who are just
lurking here and just getting started in BDSM?
If movie critics reacted to films like people here do to those who post no one
would bother to read their work.
The way criticism around here has been going, and all the cat fights, I'd be
surprised if very many newbies would bother sticking around SSBB, let alone
post. Afterall, it would seem only those who can stand the heat around here
are going to stay.
Why not set a better example if you feel that is what you are able to do?? If
you don't like what I write so much - then get off your duff and write
something that people can really use. All your bad mouthing isn't doing anyone
any good.
>
>Second, personally, I find your views about women and BDSM to be, well,
>I hate to have to use this word, but there is no other ----bigoted.
You are entitled to your opinion and I would suspect that you would have that
same feeling about a great number of those Masters who treat females as
animals, sluts, whores, pigs, worms, slaves, and the like, and to whom they
can do whatever, and I do mean whatever, they wish to do with them regardless
of their cries and their suffering.
>You write under the assumption that everyone is White AND highly
>eurocentric.
Well that's a new one. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
You seem to be "into" this total ownership and programming
>thing, but have no idea of how to implement it outside of your own very
>small world view.
I guess you'll never really be able to prove that will you? And even if you
did you can't be around me all the time guarding any approaching females.
>
>Ya know, Shaka Zulu was a great leader who also saw women in somewhat of
>a "cattle" like sense...but he was African, and was able to grasp the
>concept of discipline without hatred,
I suppose you would like all the authors out there to state whether or not
their books are for whites. Good luck.
I suppose you don't know much about OBEAH and how those BLACK women treat
males. Look it up sometime if you can find some of their writings.
As for Shaka - your reference is of little value. You see, unlike you, I don't
share in that concept that says I have to be a representative of my gender. I,
for one, consider individual expression far more important than who I might be
compared to or that I should have to follow.
and entitlement to use of others,
>without diminishing their importance.
It takes a lot of work to have the kind of total M/s style of a relationship
that I and many others enjoy and unbeknowst to you the girls stick around
because they want that kind of lifestyle I offer to them as do other Masters.
Granted we all have slightly different flavors, but most of us agree that the
females we own are born slaves who love to be kept well-managed,
well-disciplined and some - well - caged like the animals they are and that
includes making them pee in the backyard or in a kitty litter box or having
them ask if they can use a toilet.
He did torture and kill quite a
>few, with his own hands, but he didn't have to hate or resent them to do
>it...but when it was his turn to be taken out by his own people, he took
>it without complaint. That's still sick, but it is at least, dignified.
Your point?
>
>I, for one, am sick of your whining...You still have the right to be
>pathetic, but if you were smart, you'd just let it go.
And ruin your fun?
Just do your thing, and let other people
>decide what they want to follow on their own.
Sorry, but when you write something you kinda like to get it to people -
especially when they ask for it.
>Not everybody can handle the kinds of things I write about either.
Very true.
>::shrug:: Like I care...Alot of people do. (Email me about that,
>later, and if you promise to be mature, I'll send you an invitation.)
>Make your rebuttals, if you feel you need to, on your own site...but
>this bickering has got to end on both sides.
I have tried to be quite civil in most cases, but like you said, it's a two
way street. I have always said that USENET could be better.
>
>Because of my feelings about your work, I usually just ignore it...but I
>see good people being unduly aroused by all this again, and would like
>to sort of stem the tide, if I can.
Then simply don't get involved - you and the others. But if you expect me to
just lie down - forget it.
>
>So, to JKay, my advice is maybe you should consider coming out of that
>little white box...and try to think more, and write less...Maybe travel
>some, for an extended amount of time to someplace where women really are
>equated with "cattle"...just a suggestion...I'm sure it will change your
>thoughts, though...or at least lead you to some clarifications you
>didn't think of before.
Thanks for the offer, but you and I don't share the same things or views of
females.
I simply offered in a posting my rules. People seem to have some sort of a
'gotta save the world' attitude around here. Not my problem.
Johnathan Kay
MisterBill
I don't claim to be an expert, jk, but it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to see how badly flawed your logic is. You, my friend, would
argue with anything posted here, no matter how well written, or how
much sense it made, just to prove to the world how much you supposedly
know. Like I've mentioned before, the rules that irish and I have are
the rules we have written for *US*, and as such, I wouldn't expect
them to be the RIGHT rules for anyone else. If you'd like, I can type
that slower next time so you could follow along.....
jkay
mrbi...@earthlink.net (MisterBill) wrote:
the rules that irish and I have are
>the rules we have written for *US*, and as such, I wouldn't expect
>them to be the RIGHT rules for anyone else. If you'd like, I can type
>that slower next time so you could follow along.....
So why not sure some of them and some of your personal views about such a
relationship?
Johnathan Kay
MisterBill
arguing with a total idiot is fruitless... I won't get into a battle
of wits with an unarmed man. I've told you before, and this time I
WILL type them slowly for you... Pay attention and see if you can
follow along.....
T h e r u l e s t h a t i r i s h a n d I u s e a r e
w r i t t e n f o r U S a n d w o u l d n o t b e t h e
r u l e s f o r a n y o n e e l s e t o f o l l o w .....
Did you get it that time? I sure hope so... I can't draw a picture
for you.... You seem to think I'm saying that our rules are better
than yours. I've said nothing of the kind and wouldn't compare ours to
yours on a bet. All I'm saying is that your 128 Basic rules are a load
of garbage from a seriously deranged person that should get into some
real serious bondage in the form of a straitjacket and a rubber room.
In short, you're a nutcase, jk.
JWarrenZ
>have to be able to let go enough to expend our effort in protecting and
>educating those we *can* reach, rather than engaging in futile debates
>with those we cannot.
Actually, Ironwynch, I don't really see it as debate. It's more like when you
see a child doing something quite stupid, saying to other children "See what
he's doing; eventually he's going to get hurt and if you're smart you won't try
to copy him.
This is such a strange and contra-intuitive world that to let his statements
stand unchallenged could be taken by a newby as acceptence of them.
Boston Dungeon Society Diversified Services
www.bostondungeon.org Toys & Books for the Scene
Telnet: bdsbbs.com Email: Men...@bdsbbs.com
Info: 617-654-0536 www.diversified--services.com
jkay
mrbi...@earthlink.net (MisterBill) wrote:
>jk,
> Did you get it that time? I sure hope so... I can't draw a picture
>for you.... You seem to think I'm saying that our rules are better
>than yours.
Never said that. That's your beef and you have implied that very well all by
yourself. My point was that you should share what you think works. You never
know - someone out there might like what you have to say. Apparently you think
that I and a few others are the only people on here.
I've said nothing of the kind and wouldn't compare ours to
>yours on a bet. All I'm saying is that your 128 Basic rules are a load
>of garbage from a seriously deranged person that should get into some
>real serious bondage in the form of a straitjacket and a rubber room.
>In short, you're a nutcase, jk.
thanks. I always like comments, but what I like even more is that they come
mostly from people who can't do anything more than gripe.
Johnathan Kay
IronWynch
Another on the list of titles for his ignorance...
Jkay...the Pat Boone of BDSM...
(Y'all know what I'm talkin' 'bout...)
IronWynch
jkay wrote:
>
> In article <37084A6D...@mybdsm.com>,
> IronWynch <iron...@mybdsm.com> wrote:
>
> >If you want to believe that women are cattle, then that is your
> >business. When you make your business public, it is no longer your
> >business, and is open to the scrutiny, criticism, and comment of
> >others. If you don't want anybody criticizing your work, don't publish
> >it...
>
> I have no problem with people criticizing my work or my posts, however, they
> ought to at least back up their points - and most here don't - instead of just
> flaming away - an attitude that doesn't help anyone.
I have yet to see anyone *really* flame you. As much as you probably
deserve it, nobody I've seen has. Most of their criticism has been in
response to your blanket generalizations about people. A saying Abraham
Lincoln plaigarized once comes to mind...
> And whatever happened to saying something as simple as "I read your rules and
> don't agree," and leaving it at that?
You keep asking why people disagree, and they keep telling you...If you
don't want to know something, don't ask the question.
>And if people want to criticize - why
> not ask questions to further clarify questionable issues and concerns, or
> express how they incorporate Master and slave principles in their
> relationships?
They do, and you keep spouting the same old lines. Perhaps you have
begun to believe your own propaganda? ::shrug:: It's a common problem
among Dominants of both sexes...Well, that is, those who like to think
of themselves as Dominant.
Oh, I forgot...You're not a "Dominant"...You're a "Master"...Which makes
you kinda disqualified from proposing any sort of philosophy behind
Dominance and submission.
However, a Master in the field of the Domination of women has to know
about women...What makes them tick and such. A Master of women would
not *need* his slaves to undergo brainwashing to gain obedience.
::sigh and a swoon:: I've known men like that...who if even if I was
busy, I'd stop to help them with something, if they asked...Some, who
are good writers and articulate speakers can get almost any woman to do
anything even if she's a lesbian, and even without rules.
Generally, those types of men, having mastered women, find men quite
easy to move as well.
I have yet to see those qualities in what you have presented here in
this newsgroup. You may be totally different in person, than you
present yourself online. Perhaps what you need is not the sympathy you
throw tantrums about here...but a good publicist?
I have known quite a few militaristic and some Gorean syle Masters and
Doms who can say, essentially, the same thing that you are *trying* to
say, without half of the backlash and ridicule...because they are good
to people, and actually contributing more to the community than dead
weight.That, or they keep their writings in groups based on their own
genre, and don't try to force their "doctrine" on other faiths...catch
my drift?
They also realize that an effective leader must have more than
attitude...He/She must have substance, or she has nothing to offer.
You present yourself as a man without substance and without conscience.
That is the the way you are seen. Why are you complaining?
Cause...effect...
>Why not open a dialog that encourages the kind of discussion
> that actually will go somewhere instead of one that incites disgust and the
> expression of it and of anger and distaste - especially if so many here are
> worried about the health and welfare of the newbies and those who are just
> lurking here and just getting started in BDSM?
Um, telling people that doing dangerous things is okay without providing
some information on how to go about doing that dangerous thing with
relative safety deserves rebuttal. Classing entire genders as "cattle"
also deserves rebuttal. It is hate-speech...and as with racism, sexism
is usually not an isolated illness.
If you are sexist, you are also most likely classist, abusive, probably
highly insecure, etc...I'd guess that you have some issues with your
mother, but I won't go into psychoanalysis. That's your therapist's
job, if you have the groundedness to believe that you, like the rest of
us lowly humans, may need help at some point.
There are venues in which to advertise your views, but your views,
though you are free to post them here, violate the concept of SSC, which
means they are in violation of this group's charter. The fact that you
haven't been blocked is more reflective on the grace of those belonging
to this group, more than it has to do with the validity of your views.
Non-consentual activity, and activities that promote the injury and/or
death of others do not belong here.
I abide by that rule and I AM a good writer whose work deserves as much
exposure as it can get. I am sure if the fires of passion for my art
can be controlled, and I am only "cattle", then you, big studly man, can
manage with your tiny *bic*.
> If movie critics reacted to films like people here do to those who post no one
> would bother to read their work.
>
> The way criticism around here has been going, and all the cat fights, I'd be
> surprised if very many newbies would bother sticking around SSBB, let alone
> post. Afterall, it would seem only those who can stand the heat around here
> are going to stay.
That's the nature of Usenet...Can't take it, go away.
> Why not set a better example if you feel that is what you are able to do?? If
> you don't like what I write so much - then get off your duff and write
> something that people can really use. All your bad mouthing isn't doing anyone
> any good.
I have...See, there you go again...Your tiny world view can't allow you
to believe that anyone but you does anything for the community. This is
the second time today you have tossed that out towards someone who has
FOUNDED local communities...Goodness, you're blind...but that's my
opinion. Still, whether I like you doesn't matter. My point is that,
as will be proven with your response to this post, most likely, that you
cannot control yourself. You are literally compelled to try to push
your hate-speech onto others in the name of freedom of speech, but at
the same time, your complaints about how others respond to your
off-topic and out-of-genre disruptions, prove that you don't believe in
freedom of speech...just *your* freedom of speech...Just like any other
bigot.
> >Second, personally, I find your views about women and BDSM to be, well,
> >I hate to have to use this word, but there is no other ----bigoted.
>
> You are entitled to your opinion and I would suspect that you would have that
> same feeling about a great number of those Masters who treat females as
> animals, sluts, whores, pigs, worms, slaves, and the like, and to whom they
> can do whatever, and I do mean whatever, they wish to do with them regardless
> of their cries and their suffering.
Um...not really. I can do anything I want to my slave, and, when it
comes down to it, he loves me and respects me enough to probably let me
get away with it without going to the police. I, however, as a
Dominant, take no pleasure in injuring my slave...Besides, even if you
hate something, once you destroy something, it's no more fun.
> >You write under the assumption that everyone is White AND highly
> >eurocentric.
>
> Well that's a new one. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Musta been the whining...Your inability to take into account psyches
formed under cultures wherein some of your rules are already pretty
clear, and would seem, well, a bit silly to keep repeating...You also
don't take into account that a philosphy is the seed of culture, and if
people really believed all of your rules, BDSM would be like, well,
Saudi Arabia...that is, what would happen in Saudi Arabia if every man
was as, well, blind as you.
You tout your ideas as if they were unique or something...which means
that you have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world.
I've only known eurocentric, usually White people to have it as bad as
you seem to...but I imagine there are a couple of ignorant Brothers out
there too...just none quite so vociferous and prolific at providng
printable documentation that they are ignorant of any culture but their
own.
If I can be specific, your ideas are borderline Sambia...The next step
is to believe that men are so superior to women that they are preferable
to women, sexually.
If I had to take a wild stab at it, I'd say you were like an African gay
man who has sex with women because it is the adult/mature thing to do,
but that you are more excited by men. I could be wrong, but that's my
opinion, based on your presentation. You'd have to know something about
African cultures to understand me if I discussed it further.
> You seem to be "into" this total ownership and programming
> >thing, but have no idea of how to implement it outside of your own very
> >small world view.
>
> I guess you'll never really be able to prove that will you?
You proved it already...and for some strange reason, you keep proving
it. I'm done after this post, but you can have the last word if it's so
important to you. I'm just telling you what you look like from my seat.
>And even if you
> did you can't be around me all the time guarding any approaching females.
Nope...I can't...nor would I want to. I see people like yourself as
"cleaning up" the fields for the rest of us. You take all the stupid
hos with nothing to do but be your robots, and we'll take the smart
ones.
Thank you for at least publicizing yourself enough to help us narrow
down our choices. You must have mistaken me for a *nice* person.
> >Ya know, Shaka Zulu was a great leader who also saw women in somewhat of
> >a "cattle" like sense...but he was African, and was able to grasp the
> >concept of discipline without hatred,
>
> I suppose you would like all the authors out there to state whether or not
> their books are for whites. Good luck.
Unfortunately, the truth is that they don't have to. I have yet to see
a document outside of a few personal sites that I am trying to unify, or
at least make a links table or search engine for, that takes into
account the issues of a Black man or woman involved with BDSM in a
non-exploitive sense. Either there is this Dark Cavern thing (which
isn't bad...it's just not BDSM, and it's exploitive of Black men, though
few of them know it) or it's an OBEAH thing, where we're supposed to be
wanting revenge for slavery, or considering ourselves the master
race...blase...hype...no substance...lame...and outdated.
> I suppose you don't know much about OBEAH
Speak of the Devil...
>and how those BLACK women treat
> males. Look it up sometime if you can find some of their writings.
A friend of mine here in Israel has a bunch of their magazines...I find
them quite comical as do most Black Femdoms...even some who have
participated in such activities.
I can't bring myself to get into that, but dayum, it sure is funny...
The other funny thing is that these White people, supposedly whose duty
it is to serve Blacks, still make more money than any of their Masters
or Mistresses, and for some reason, never feel compelled to turn over
their paychecks to feed not even one of those Black Mistress's
children...or send them to college.
THAT is funny...so funny that it makes me want to cry...but of course,
*you* wouldn't get the joke...
> As for Shaka - your reference is of little value. You see, unlike you, I don't
> share in that concept that says I have to be a representative of my gender.
Went over your head I see...
>I,
> for one, consider individual expression far more important than who I might be
> compared to or that I should have to follow.
>
> and entitlement to use of others,
> >without diminishing their importance.
>
> It takes a lot of work to have the kind of total M/s style of a relationship
> that I and many others enjoy and unbeknowst to you the girls stick around
> because they want that kind of lifestyle I offer to them as do other Masters.
They are entitled to want that. And I am entitled to think they are
stupid...but so long as they are happy, I can't judge their ethics or
morality...Just their intelligence and self-confidence.
Not everyone in the world can be smart...Sheep have a purpose.
But you don't want to get me started on that subject either.
You'd find that you are bah-ing quite loudly here...and are quite easily
aroused with the right stimulation, into making a fool of yourself.
> Granted we all have slightly different flavors, but most of us agree that the
> females we own are born slaves who love to be kept well-managed,
> well-disciplined and some - well - caged like the animals they are and that
> includes making them pee in the backyard or in a kitty litter box or having
> them ask if they can use a toilet.
Style is not the issue here...We all have different kinks. The issue
here is the devaluing of other human beings.
I know this might be hard to grasp, not being Dominant and all, but you
can piss on someone and respect them too.
> He did torture and kill quite a
> >few, with his own hands, but he didn't have to hate or resent them to do
> >it...but when it was his turn to be taken out by his own people, he took
> >it without complaint. That's still sick, but it is at least, dignified.
>
> Your point?
You wouldn't get it anyway...
> >I, for one, am sick of your whining...You still have the right to be
> >pathetic, but if you were smart, you'd just let it go.
>
> And ruin your fun?
Nope...it would be alot more fun to see a strong jkay who had matured
enough to see his personal views as personal, and stop playa-hating
everyone who doesn't agree with your personal view. It would be much
more fun if we could talk about safety and breast torture than for you
to have to pick a fight with every nurse who posts a safety warning.
Gosh, that would be nice...but not likely...so at this point, I'm just
toying with you to give you some actual things to think about when the
dawn breaks on your consciousness. Doesn't it feel great to be played
by a superior thinker? See, I know you'll wake up eventually, if one of
your slaves doesn't snap and murder you first...or maybe you will when
you choke on some food, and she humorously asks "What would you like me
to do, Master? ....What?....What was that?....I'm sorry...I can't
understand what you're saying...::giggle::"
(excuse me, y'all, for the death-fetish injection...I guess even I can
lose control at times...)
> Just do your thing, and let other people
> >decide what they want to follow on their own.
>
> Sorry, but when you write something you kinda like to get it to people -
> especially when they ask for it.
I didn't see anyone here ask for it...and if they did, that would be
better handled in email, since non-consentual and obviously deadly and
injurious activities violate this newsgroup's charter...or at least
referred them to a group wherein it would be on topic.
They are out there. I should know.
> >Not everybody can handle the kinds of things I write about either.
>
> Very true.
Aaaand...I don't post those things here...
> >::shrug:: Like I care...Alot of people do. (Email me about that,
> >later, and if you promise to be mature, I'll send you an invitation.)
> >Make your rebuttals, if you feel you need to, on your own site...but
> >this bickering has got to end on both sides.
>
> I have tried to be quite civil in most cases, but like you said, it's a two
> way street. I have always said that USENET could be better.
Your attempts at being civil have been feeble, at best...non-existant in
my estimation. You have no idea what you are talking about, but insist
that you do, even when proven wrong...as if this is even about right or
wrong...just what belongs here, and what doesn't.
Read the gat-damn charter!
> >Because of my feelings about your work, I usually just ignore it...but I
> >see good people being unduly aroused by all this again, and would like
> >to sort of stem the tide, if I can.
>
> Then simply don't get involved - you and the others. But if you expect me to
> just lie down - forget it.
And if you expect us to lie down, that'll be a long wait...I'd rather
just complain to your ISP about off-topic posts, and how much I
personally am offended by them.
Someone by the initials of M.A. on another group, learned their lesson
about that...I hope you do before you get blocked and then REALLY have
something to complain about...
> >So, to JKay, my advice is maybe you should consider coming out of that
> >little white box...and try to think more, and write less...Maybe travel
> >some, for an extended amount of time to someplace where women really are
> >equated with "cattle"...just a suggestion...I'm sure it will change your
> >thoughts, though...or at least lead you to some clarifications you
> >didn't think of before.
>
> Thanks for the offer, but you and I don't share the same things or views of
> females.
Oh, your view of females will most certainly not improve by your visits
to these places. You will actually get to see that your stuff is
pattycake, comparitively, but along the same lines.
You might also learn, though, that you can't have it both ways.
If you treat a woman like cattle, even if she accepts it, it won't be
long before she becomes like cattle. Low self confidence diminishes
much more than a person's self-will sexually...It also diminishes their
capacity for reason, and their desire to do simple things like...oh...I
dunno...take care of themselves.
I've seen women who, when told to go naked by good Masters, at all
times, improve their bodies by leaps and bounds, because their Master
appreciated the results. When told to do the same thing by a man who
hated them, or devalued them, I have seen some women begin to self
injure as a sort of defense against being physically attractive to their
Master. Unless he can watch her 24/7, he cannot prevent this
behavior...
I don't know who else you've talked to, but I'm not afraid to talk about
the realities of our lifestyle choice.
It is an inherently rocky culture, just like any other, and has its ups
and downs.
I hope you will look over your roolz again, and ask yourself if you
honestly think they are something that anyone other than you should
follow. Ask yourself if anyone who misinterprets it as BDSM literature,
rather than jkay's imagination, could be harmed by it.
If the answer is yes, then you should save it for the rape sites, and
not post it here. There is ample place on the internet for your kind of
kink...but this isn't it.
> I simply offered in a posting my rules. People seem to have some sort of a
> 'gotta save the world' attitude around here. Not my problem.
No, but off-topic and anti-charter postings are your problem. You just
need to take it elsewhere.
That is all I have to say on the subject.
jkay
jwar...@aol.comnospam (JWarrenZ) wrote:
>This is such a strange and contra-intuitive world that to let his statements
>stand unchallenged could be taken by a newby as acceptence of them.
Maybe you ought to do a search and see who has links and full text of my rules
on their sites, otherwise you really don't have anything to back up your
claims.
Johnathan Kay
CountV
> However, a Master in the field of the Domination of women has to know
> about women...What makes them tick and such. A Master of women would
> not *need* his slaves to undergo brainwashing to gain obedience.
Exactly. All the posturing that goes on from the Domly Doms (or, I guess, in
the case of jakey-boy; Masterly Masters) is always a dead give-away that
they have a need to _prove_ something that should _need_ no proof outside
the relationship(s) that they have.
The only time I felt some sort of need to prove my Domliness to someone was
in my early days of exploring what it mean to me to be a dominant man. It's
similar to how some gay men are _extremely_ swish and camp when they first
come out, but later tone it down, because the _public_ identification of
your status becomes less important than the _private_ one.
What usually hinders many of the Domly Doms from really _understanding_
women, is the fact that they fear connecting with their feminine side, since
that would somehow undermine their masculinity. I mean, I get taken for gay,
from time to time [1], because I am not a Guy (i.e. I don't know word one
about sports, I don't think that being loud makes a night on the town any
more fun and I care more about style than my slavegirl does, etc.). But
there is no doubt in my mind that I have a better understanding of the
female psyche than most of the Guys, something which is a definite asset
when anticipating the needs and wants of my slave, and adapting my style of
dominance to that.
[1] Most notably by my slave's ex-husband, which I find utterly hilarious -
but not in the least bit threatening.
CountV
--
"I have no interest in crafting the best set of rules there ever was." - JK
(author of the "128 Basic Slave Rules")
CountV's Home Page: http://members.xoom.com/CountV
design by Coercion: http://members.xoom.com/CountV/coercion
Spyral Fox
>jk,
> arguing with a total idiot is fruitless... I won't get into a battle
>of wits with an unarmed man. I've told you before, and this time I
>WILL type them slowly for you... Pay attention and see if you can
>follow along.....
>
>T h e r u l e s t h a t i r i s h a n d I u s e a r e
>w r i t t e n f o r U S a n d w o u l d n o t b e t h e
>r u l e s f o r a n y o n e e l s e t o f o l l o w .....
>
> Did you get it that time? I sure hope so... I can't draw a picture
>for you.... You seem to think I'm saying that our rules are better
>than yours. I've said nothing of the kind and wouldn't compare ours to
>yours on a bet.
[....]
He probably is trying to get you to state them so that he can claim
-- as he has with me and others -- that whatever rules you are
following are a part of his own rules.
Thank you for not falling for it!
Spyral Fox
(Sockermom9) writes:
>But is it just me, or does anyone else note that JK wants to own lowly
>females,
>rather than quality goods?
Is JK even aware that there are quality goods out there? He has
had a few wierd rants in the past, about how subs can't know their
own limits, about how female children should all be raised as cows,
etc. I hesitate to suggest that none of the women he has played
with were high quality, but one speculates that they wouldn't play
with him long unless they bought into his paradigm.
DJDO1
>Date: Mon, Apr 5, 1999 02:45 EDT
>Message-id: <7e9m64$9ks...@trace.seanet.com>
That is exactly what i was trying to say the other day when i posted,
Johnathan. I, and I know I'm not alone,like the way you put words together. We
all saw what the general response to my post was. Gosh, even an esteemed author
resorted to calling me names. <chuckle>
Thanks for clarifying my point. Yet again!
dj
CountV
jakey-boy:
>>The way criticism around here has been going, and all the cat fights, I'd be
>>surprised if very many newbies would bother sticking around SSBB, let alone
>>post. Afterall, it would seem only those who can stand the heat around here
>>are going to stay.
>
> That is exactly what i was trying to say the other day when i posted,
> Johnathan. I, and I know I'm not alone,like the way you put words together.
We
> all saw what the general response to my post was. Gosh, even an esteemed
author
> resorted to calling me names. <chuckle>
> Thanks for clarifying my point. Yet again!
> dj
I really don't want to flame you, but if you actually _like_ the way jakey
puts his words together, it begs the question; what authors do you like?
I would find it easier to accept the fact that some people like the
_content_ of the rules, no matter how deeply flawed _I_ believe them to be,
because that is a matter of taste. That many of jakey's sentences cannot be
parsed by resorting to even the vaguest and most lenient grammar rules is an
incontrovertible fact - it has nothing to do with what one might think of
him.
So, to actually say that jakey, who excels in malapropism with almost every
post, can write in a readable manner, is to completely disregard those
_other_ basic rules; those of grammar. I'm not even saying that grammar has
to be slavishly followed, but someone who would not only write something as
hilarious as "I would prefer that you have an ample amount of breasts", but
then goes on to _defend_ it, claiming that it doesn't imply anything but a
desire for _large_ breasts (rather than, as it does, ask for an ample
_amount_ - which I guess would be three or more), obviously does not know
the first thing about writing correctly, much less well.
So, dj. Who do you consider to be the great wordsmiths of our era?
jkay
IronWynch <iron...@mybdsm.com> wrote:
>I have yet to see anyone *really* flame you.
As Spyral would say - go to Deja News and start reading the past.
>> And whatever happened to saying something as simple as "I read your rules
and
>> don't agree," and leaving it at that?
>
>You keep asking why people disagree, and they keep telling you...If you
>don't want to know something, don't ask the question.
If that's the case and the kinds of reactions I have been getting is the best
they can do - then their responses, for the most part, are fruitless.
>
>>And if people want to criticize - why
>> not ask questions to further clarify questionable issues and concerns, or
>> express how they incorporate Master and slave principles in their
>> relationships?
>
>They do, and you keep spouting the same old lines.
Let's face one simple fact - these people don't like the rules and for that
they should just let it alone. There is really nothing they can do about them
anyway. They don't like my answers. I don't like theirs, but at least I am
willing to explain my side whether they like it or not. I am not here to join
some click.
>Oh, I forgot...You're not a "Dominant"...You're a "Master"...Which makes
>you kinda disqualified from proposing any sort of philosophy behind
>Dominance and submission.
True. M/s is by far more complex and encompassing.
>However, a Master in the field of the Domination of women has to know
>about women...What makes them tick and such.
Other than the rules you are assuming far too much. They are not the only tool
I use. You are assuming they are.
A Master of women would
>not *need* his slaves to undergo brainwashing to gain obedience.
I would agree, however, you seem to want to think that I am brainwashing
people. What you don't understand is that training is a process and in the
kind of training I offer - a girl has to be there willingly.
>::sigh and a swoon:: I've known men like that...who if even if I was
>busy, I'd stop to help them with something, if they asked...Some, who
>are good writers and articulate speakers can get almost any woman to do
>anything even if she's a lesbian, and even without rules.
I will grant you that there are those who do that. I never said that the way I
do it is the only way. My rules document encourages females to seek and
explore what they can in addition to what I have written. And there are some
Masters out that that even I admire.
>I have yet to see those qualities in what you have presented here in
>this newsgroup. You may be totally different in person, than you
>present yourself online. Perhaps what you need is not the sympathy you
>throw tantrums about here...but a good publicist?
When you find that publicist put that person online - more than half the
posting group here needs that person far more than I.
>I have known quite a few militaristic and some Gorean syle Masters and
>Doms who can say, essentially, the same thing that you are *trying* to
>say, without half of the backlash and ridicule...because they are good
>to people, and actually contributing more to the community than dead
>weight.That, or they keep their writings in groups based on their own
>genre, and don't try to force their "doctrine" on other faiths...catch
>my drift?
If you look back you would have found that all I did was mention that what I
wrote is available and where it is available. The war didn't start because of
me. It started because as much as objectors here would like to think that
couples should be able to do their D/s or M/s relationships however they want
that for some reason I was selected to get riled royal. Go figure.
> They also realize that an effective leader must have more than
>attitude...He/She must have substance, or she has nothing to offer.
Exactly one of the reasons that I have asked that people here be less
vindictive and more constructive.
>You present yourself as a man without substance and without conscience.
>That is the the way you are seen. Why are you complaining?
>Cause...effect...
I think you have the perception in the wrong place. What has been written
about me and about my rules document has been centered around what is believed
to be a fact that it doesn't match with what is acceptable on SSBB to a
particular group of people.
Again, you don't find the rules useful to you. If you wanted to know more
about me you can ask, open a dialog and converse in something closer to this
present posting of yours instead of just joining the groups at large - that is
the one on SSBB.
Imagine for a moment what would happen if you has shown that you agree with
what I wrote. Do you honestly think you'd fair very well?!
>>Why not open a dialog that encourages the kind of discussion
>> that actually will go somewhere instead of one that incites disgust and the
>> expression of it and of anger and distaste - especially if so many here are
>> worried about the health and welfare of the newbies and those who are just
>> lurking here and just getting started in BDSM?
>
>Um, telling people that doing dangerous things is okay without providing
>some information on how to go about doing that dangerous thing with
>relative safety deserves rebuttal.
As for the rules there is plenty of information in them to get people on the
right track to exploring more of what they want to know. Remember, the focus
of the rules is not some sort of overabundance of detail on the health issues
from every angle possible. It is assumed that adults do have brains - even
novices - and that they can think and make good decisions on their own.
Classing entire genders as "cattle"
>also deserves rebuttal.
My philosophy is different then the norm out there. It is what I care to
believe. If you don't like it - well that's fine. I am not here to put
together some sort of philosophy that will offer a kind of feminist equality
for everyone and take everyone into consideration. The rules are written
primarily for slave-identified females many of whom, especially those who
produce milk, like the idea of being thought of as a cow. Unlike you I care to
expand on that notion and play with it and incorporate it into my
relationships and suggest to others that they can too, that others do think
the way they do and that that is ok. Nobody said you have to believe it or
follow it.
>If you are sexist, you are also most likely classist, abusive, probably
>highly insecure, etc...I'd guess that you have some issues with your
>mother, but I won't go into psychoanalysis. That's your therapist's
>job, if you have the groundedness to believe that you, like the rest of
>us lowly humans, may need help at some point.
While your at it why not throw all the rest of the people out there into your
group session. I am not the only one who views human females as animals, but
then again I am sure there are a host of psychs who would love to get many of
us, including you and your Master, into a group session. Let's face it - there
are a lot of people not too happy with the lifestyle we have chosen for
ourselves in BDSM. Just check some previous editions of DSMs.
>There are venues in which to advertise your views, but your views,
>though you are free to post them here, violate the concept of SSC, which
>means they are in violation of this group's charter.
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww now who is making generalizations?!!!
SSC is so debatable that it leaves wide open one hell of a group of
interpretations. What may seem SS of the C to you may be entirely too
dangerous to others.
The fact that you
>haven't been blocked is more reflective on the grace of those belonging
>to this group, more than it has to do with the validity of your views.
>Non-consentual activity, and activities that promote the injury and/or
>death of others do not belong here.
Like more advanced BDSM activities don't suffer for some possible chance of
danger - get real!!
>I abide by that rule and I AM a good writer whose work deserves as much
>exposure as it can get. I am sure if the fires of passion for my art
>can be controlled, and I am only "cattle", then you, big studly man, can
>manage with your tiny *bic*.
No one said that you had to agree to the cattle idea. It is strictly for those
who find it fitting for themselves. Are you saying that no female should ever
think they are cattle? Or that they should be caged and treated like an
animal? I think you would support that anyone here can practice BDSM anyway
they choose - or should we all start picking you a part and what you do??!!
>
>> If movie critics reacted to films like people here do to those who post no
one
>> would bother to read their work.
>>
>> The way criticism around here has been going, and all the cat fights, I'd
be
>> surprised if very many newbies would bother sticking around SSBB, let alone
>> post. Afterall, it would seem only those who can stand the heat around here
>> are going to stay.
>
>That's the nature of Usenet...Can't take it, go away.
Oh that's good - the love it or leave it mentality. Thank god you don't work
for the government. I happen to think that USENET can be different.
>
>> Why not set a better example if you feel that is what you are able to do??
If
>> you don't like what I write so much - then get off your duff and write
>> something that people can really use. All your bad mouthing isn't doing
anyone
>> any good.
>
>I have...See, there you go again...Your tiny world view can't allow you
>to believe that anyone but you does anything for the community. This is
>the second time today you have tossed that out towards someone who has
>FOUNDED local communities...Goodness, you're blind...but that's my
>opinion.
Well that's great that you do stuff in your community. So do I and have over
the years altho I have cut down a bit.
Still, whether I like you doesn't matter. My point is that,
>as will be proven with your response to this post, most likely, that you
>cannot control yourself. You are literally compelled to try to push
>your hate-speech onto others in the name of freedom of speech, but at
>the same time, your complaints about how others respond to your
>off-topic and out-of-genre disruptions, prove that you don't believe in
>freedom of speech...just *your* freedom of speech...Just like any other
>bigot.
Your opinion. Seems you want to believe only what you want to believe.
Next time you buy a VCR don't read the instructions or you'll be bringing the
thing back with a letter of your disgust.
>
>> >Second, personally, I find your views about women and BDSM to be, well,
>> >I hate to have to use this word, but there is no other ----bigoted.
>>
>> You are entitled to your opinion and I would suspect that you would have
that
>> same feeling about a great number of those Masters who treat females as
>> animals, sluts, whores, pigs, worms, slaves, and the like, and to whom they
>> can do whatever, and I do mean whatever, they wish to do with them
regardless
>> of their cries and their suffering.
>
>Um...not really. I can do anything I want to my slave, and, when it
>comes down to it, he loves me and respects me enough to probably let me
>get away with it without going to the police. I, however, as a
>Dominant, take no pleasure in injuring my slave...Besides, even if you
>hate something, once you destroy something, it's no more fun.
Care to point out some evidence here?
>
>> >You write under the assumption that everyone is White AND highly
>> >eurocentric.
>>
>> Well that's a new one. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
>
>Musta been the whining...Your inability to take into account psyches
>formed under cultures wherein some of your rules are already pretty
>clear, and would seem, well, a bit silly to keep repeating...You also
>don't take into account that a philosphy is the seed of culture, and if
>people really believed all of your rules, BDSM would be like, well,
>Saudi Arabia...that is, what would happen in Saudi Arabia if every man
>was as, well, blind as you.
You are so gravely mislead by your own beliefs about what I wrote that I am
not even going to battle you on this one.
>You tout your ideas as if they were unique or something...
Never said that they were.
which means
>that you have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world.
>I've only known eurocentric, usually White people to have it as bad as
>you seem to...but I imagine there are a couple of ignorant Brothers out
>there too...just none quite so vociferous and prolific at providng
>printable documentation that they are ignorant of any culture but their
>own.
Awwwwwwwwww. Like I said if you don't like don't read it, but don't expect me
to change it to fit what you think it should say.
>If I can be specific, your ideas are borderline Sambia...The next step
>is to believe that men are so superior to women that they are preferable
>to women, sexually.
>If I had to take a wild stab at it, I'd say you were like an African gay
>man who has sex with women because it is the adult/mature thing to do,
>but that you are more excited by men. I could be wrong, but that's my
>opinion, based on your presentation. You'd have to know something about
>African cultures to understand me if I discussed it further.
Fine. You read what you like to read then. The rules will never be written to
fit what you want to believe that authors should be taking into consideration.
You can screw pc and culture-correct.
>
>> You seem to be "into" this total ownership and programming
>> >thing, but have no idea of how to implement it outside of your own very
>> >small world view.
>>
>> I guess you'll never really be able to prove that will you?
>
>You proved it already...and for some strange reason, you keep proving
>it. I'm done after this post, but you can have the last word if it's so
>important to you. I'm just telling you what you look like from my seat.
That's fine as long as you, and it doesn't seem possible, understand that
people have a right to write about whatever they wish - even you. The rules
are not for everyone - that's a given, but they will never be written to cover
the masses either.
>
>>And even if you
>> did you can't be around me all the time guarding any approaching females.
>
>Nope...I can't...nor would I want to. I see people like yourself as
>"cleaning up" the fields for the rest of us. You take all the stupid
>hos with nothing to do but be your robots, and we'll take the smart
>ones.
Well that was a nice thing to say about women from someone who I thought
didn't think that women are cattle.
>Thank you for at least publicizing yourself enough to help us narrow
>down our choices. You must have mistaken me for a *nice* person.
Nope. Never did. I always knew you needed a lot of work.
>
>If you treat a woman like cattle, even if she accepts it, it won't be
>long before she becomes like cattle. Low self confidence diminishes
>much more than a person's self-will sexually...It also diminishes their
>capacity for reason, and their desire to do simple things like...oh...I
>dunno...take care of themselves.
Well some like to go there and some like to take them their, but at least they
are not as angry as you are.
>I've seen women who, when told to go naked by good Masters, at all
>times, improve their bodies by leaps and bounds, because their Master
>appreciated the results. When told to do the same thing by a man who
>hated them, or devalued them, I have seen some women begin to self
>injure as a sort of defense against being physically attractive to their
>Master. Unless he can watch her 24/7, he cannot prevent this
>behavior...
You have no understanding of management by potential.
>I don't know who else you've talked to, but I'm not afraid to talk about
>the realities of our lifestyle choice.
>It is an inherently rocky culture, just like any other, and has its ups
>and downs.
>I hope you will look over your roolz again, and ask yourself if you
>honestly think they are something that anyone other than you should
>follow. Ask yourself if anyone who misinterprets it as BDSM literature,
>rather than jkay's imagination, could be harmed by it.
>If the answer is yes, then you should save it for the rape sites, and
>not post it here. There is ample place on the internet for your kind of
>kink...but this isn't it.
This group then should change its name. At present its about bondage and BDSM
which leaves things pretty wide open.
>
>> I simply offered in a posting my rules. People seem to have some sort of a
>> 'gotta save the world' attitude around here. Not my problem.
>
>No, but off-topic and anti-charter postings are your problem. You just
>need to take it elsewhere.
>That is all I have to say on the subject.
Your opinion. If you really believe that then SSBB will be of no use to anyone
accept some small group of people who haven't got a clue as to freedom of
practice.
What I wrote about is about Master/slave relationship and what goes on there.
I never said you have to do it the way I wrote about it.
Look at the first rules and tell me if you are not doing it. Then we'll talk.
Johnathan Kay
>
M. Shirley Chong
> jkay wrote:
> > I have no problem with people criticizing my work or my posts, however, they
> > ought to at least back up their points - and most here don't - instead of just
> > flaming away - an attitude that doesn't help anyone.
>
> I have yet to see anyone *really* flame you.
Shirley says: I think he's been pretty thoroughly crisped a few times but
doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to admit what is obvious to the vast
majority of the people reading these threads.
jkay is condemned to keep on whining as long as his reading comprehension is
too poor to understand the old saying "if you can't stand the heat, stay out
of the kitchen." I don't know if it's the contraction he can't understand or
the single two syllable word or what--but there's quite obviously something
wrong with his ability to comprehend what most of the people reading this
understood before they entered their teens.
Shirley
to reply via e-mail, remove the trees from my e-mail address
mady
:::::::::::::::::snippage::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> I think it's a given that you're not about to change JK's mind
>and he's not about to change yours. This means that the arguments
>are essentially playing to the reading audience. My opinion is that
>there's been enough said so that anyone in the reading audience with
>at least half a brain can easily come to conculsions. I don't
>believe those conclusions are about to change, even if everybody
>suddenly stopped replying to the thread and allowed JK to "win".
> Would I be out of line to suggest that it's about time to PISS on
>this thread?
Here, here! The only way to win this kind of "war" is to not play.
mady
--
*take hobinrood out of email address to reply*
#Kill all hackers! Neuter/spay so they can't breed!#
Honi soit qui mal y pense
happysub
Just lurking.
happysub
Posted with my Owner's permission
On 5 Apr 1999 14:12:02 GMT, dj...@aol.com (DJDO1) wrote:
>>
>>The way criticism around here has been going, and all the cat fights, I'd be
>>surprised if very many newbies would bother sticking around SSBB, let alone
>>post. Afterall, it would seem only those who can stand the heat around here
>>are going to stay.
>
jkay
Webcretin <cot...@qis.net> wrote:
>Looked at your "rules" I vote "BARF!"
>SUBS?? run, do not
>walk... away from this.
Nice of you to offer your thoughts here. Now why not give some recommendations
of your own so that subs that are interested might be able to learn something
from you.
Johnathan Kay
>
>
William December Starr
>> Looked at your "rules" I vote "BARF!"
>> SUBS?? run, do not
>> walk... away from this. [Webcretin]
>
> Nice of you to offer your thoughts here. Now why not give some
> recommendations of your own so that subs that are interested might
> be able to learn something from you.
I think he just did...
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Bob Mc.
tr...@trace.seanet.com (jkay), appealing for constructive critisism, wrote:
> I am not here to join some click.
and later ...
> I have asked that people here be less vindictive and more constructive.
Okay. That would be clique, I presume.
That's all,
Bob
Alberta Public Radio @ http://www.ckua.org 6 am - 2 am Mountain Time.
Music and news from civilized Albertans
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
DJDO1
<cou...@REMOVETHISPARTiname.com> writes:
>So, dj. Who do you consider to be the great wordsmiths of our era?<
Dear Count,
Sorry to have been so late in responding to your question, but i have recently
had my schedule re-arranged to fit my earthly masters' pleasure. <smile>
Some of my favorite authors' are listed below. This list is off the top of my
head, <chuckle>. Hope this helps.
dj
e e cummings Scott Harris
Tom Robbins Madeleine L'Engle
Robert Frost Jane Yolen >smile<
Stephen R. Lawhead Mark Helprin
D.M. Thomas Mark Twain
"Micheal Douglas" Deepak Chopra, M.D.
Colleen McCullough Margaret Atwood
Carl Sagan Mary Norton
Lillian Schlissel Ann Beattie
Tennesee Williams Edward Espe Brown
Hesse, Heinlein and Clarke Kurt Vonnegut
d.j.
CountV
Well, thanks for replying, dj - I feared you were going to ignore the
question, but now I see that you have indeed read some books where the words
are put in a readable order, which only makes it even weirder that you
champion jakey-boy. I mean no disrespect, just genuine puzzlement.
My problems with jakey, quite apart from all the safety/fantasy/redundancy
issues, is that he is a _spectacularly_ inept writer, and that he never even
acknowledges that. If he at _least_ adressed that part of the criticism
against him, I'd be more inclined to see him as a reasonably mature adult.
Instead he always places the blame on the reader for almost wilfully
misinterpreting what he writes.
I was about to give examples of his problems with the English language in
this thread, but I don't really see the point of burdening _you_ with them,
so I will put up something like that separately in the next couple of days.
CountV
--
"I have no interest in crafting the best set of rules there ever was." - JK
(author of the "128 Basic Slave Rules")
CountV's Home Page: http://members.xoom.com/CountV
design by Coercion: http://surf.to/coercion
Spyral Fox
(DJDO1) writes:
> Jane Yolen >smile<
Why the "smile"? Yolen's work is often quite dark. Think of "Briar Rose,"
for example, with the concentration camps weaving in and out of a tale
based on "Sleeping Beauty." Since this was the only author on your list
which merited an editorial comment, I am very curious as to why it was
a "smile." After all, Deepak Chopra has that effect on me, and some of
the other authors you listed -- Heinlein, for example -- are definitely
not "serious philosophers." ( At least, that's not how *I* would personally
label "The Starbeast" or "Magic, Inc." which isn't to deny that he hasn't
also produced some writing worthy of deep thought.)
Spyral Fox
Sockermom9
>Why the "smile"? Yolen's work is often quite dark. Think of "Briar Rose,"
>for example, with the concentration camps weaving in and out of a tale
>based on "Sleeping Beauty."
Even more dark is "The Wild Hunt", which never seems to really resolve.
I was more amazed by the inclusion of Madeleine L'Engle, who wrote *one* decent
book, and then went on to write acres and acres of fertilizer. She may have
been gramatically correct, but that's not the only measure of good writing.
Lynn
Spyral Fox
(Sockermom9) writes:
>I was more amazed by the inclusion of Madeleine L'Engle, who wrote *one*
>decent book, and then went on to write acres and acres of fertilizer. She may
have
>been gramatically correct, but that's not the only measure of good writing.
OK, I'll bite. Which is the "decent" one. Arm of the Starfish? The Moon
by Night? Camilla? The Sphinx at Dawn? Most people only read
A Wrinke in Time and stop there; I tend to go a bit overboard.
Oh, all right... most of them are silly little books for youngsters, sort
of scaled down romances or else about not doing drugs or other self-
destructive stuff. The Austens are such "nice" people that one wants
some insulin after reading about how perfect the mom & dad are. But
when you consier them as YA novels rather than as books for people
who are gorwn up, I think they are definitely top-rate. They have an
underlying message of accepting people who are different races,
religions, and sexual orientations, and show that personal responsibility
is a good thing. A heck of a lot better than the "Sweet Valley High"
and "Babysitters Club" tripe, in terms of all the reasonable measures
of good writing -- plotting complexit, depth of characterization, use
of semantics to provide shading of individual meaning, etc.
Sockermom9
>OK, I'll bite. Which is the "decent" one. Arm of the Starfish? The Moon
>by Night? Camilla? The Sphinx at Dawn? Most people only read
>A Wrinke in Time and stop there; I tend to go a bit overboard.
"Wrinkle", of course. Camilla ought to have been aborted before her second
trimester. It could be appended onto the New Testament and used from the
pulpit--it's *that* sappy. L'Engle decided, after "Wrinkle", that writing
stories was too much work, and that she'd rather write sermons for young people
to model their lives after. She even failed in that, as *some* of her stuff
has *some* elements of story in it. But, for anyone looking for a successor to
A Wrinkle in Time, look to Ursula LeGuin.
Lynn ("shit, Sockermom, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel.")
New to the world of submission? Check out http://members.aol.com/oldrope/ for
some thoughts for newcomers from those who've been there and decided to stick
around.
CountV
> spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox) writes:
>
>>Oh, all right... most of them are silly little books for youngsters, sort
>>of scaled down romances or else about not doing drugs or other self-
>>destructive stuff. The Austens are such "nice" people that one wants
>>some insulin after reading about how perfect the mom & dad are. But
>>when you consier them as YA novels rather than as books for people
>>who are gorwn up, I think they are definitely top-rate.
>
> You have different standards for YAs than "adult" novels? Some of the
> best books ever written are juvies or children's books -- my current
> favorite series is _Harry Potter_.
IMNHO, the Moomin books by Tove Jansson rule in this department, I generally
reread one of them per year, and I think I enjoy them even _more_ than I did
when I was a kid (and I was _seriously_ enamored with them even then).
roo
but.....i haven't seen them....lol.... as a 24/7 owned slave i would be
FASCINATED to peruse this text.....where can i find it?
no...wait this a conspiracy by the Dommes/m to pique my interests and then
DENY my gratification ISN'T it!?!?!?!?!?!?!? <giggle>
roo
--------
born tart
Xiphias Gladius
>Oh, all right... most of them are silly little books for youngsters, sort
>of scaled down romances or else about not doing drugs or other self-
>destructive stuff. The Austens are such "nice" people that one wants
>some insulin after reading about how perfect the mom & dad are. But
>when you consier them as YA novels rather than as books for people
>who are gorwn up, I think they are definitely top-rate.
You have different standards for YAs than "adult" novels? Some of the
best books ever written are juvies or children's books -- my current
favorite series is _Harry Potter_.
- Ian
--
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ian
SSBB Diplomatic Corps; Boston, Massachusetts
Spyral Fox
writes:
>You have different standards for YAs than "adult" novels? Some of the
>best books ever written are juvies or children's books -- my current
>favorite series is _Harry Potter_.
I do indeed have different standards. YAs are treated as a
separate genre by publishers and by booksellers, and I look
for certain traits with them that are different from the adult
novels.
Consider Robin McKinley. I thought that "Deerskin," should be
shelved with the adult fantasies, since I thought the theme was
too mature for the YA audience (12 - 16), and that "The Blue
Sword" could have been as easily shelved in the YA section as
in the fantasies, which is where I found it. Now, I want to make it
clear that I'm not advocating keeping "Deerskin" or Judy Blume's
books away from under-18s, merely that I would like to see the
books with more mature themes shelved differently.
I accept a bit more moralizing in YA books before I roll my eyes
and dump them -- and yes, some of the Madeleine L'Engel books
*are* pretty heavy-handed in this way, and IMO this *does* detract
from their readability. I think I mentioned that the Austin's parents
were pretty annoying. But in many of her books, she does mix
in the ethics a bit more subtly. Susan Cooper would be another
example of a YA author who handles moral dilimmas better than
they are handled in, say, "Camilla" (which I tend to agree is pretty
bad because it is SO heavy-handed).
This isn't to suggest that L'Engel is my favorite YA author. I'm
not sure what the "Harry Potter" series is, I've not seen them,
but I have been known to buy hardcovers of books by Diana Wynne
Jones, even when I have to special order them.
DJDO1
>I was more amazed by the inclusion of Madeleine L'Engle, who wrote *one*
>decent
>book, and then went on to write acres and acres of fertilizer. She may have
>been gramatically correct, but that's not the only measure of good writing.
Dear Lynn and Co.,
L'Engle *hooked* me with "Wrinkle in Time". I had to include her because the
impression it made on me ' way back when ' ! Though, I am inclined to agree
with the rest of your comments.Which book is your favorite?
dj
d.j.
DJDO1
(Spyral Fox) writes:
>Why the "smile"? Yolen's work is often quite dark. Think of "Briar Rose,"
>for example, with the concentration camps weaving in and out of a tale
>based on "Sleeping Beauty." Since this was the only author on your list
>which merited an editorial comment, I am very curious as to why it was
>a "smile."
Dear Spyral and Co.,
I added the >smile< because Yolen is too often thought of as a* just* a
childrens' author. Frankly, I thought that I would be the 'only' one here who
enjoys her work. It's very nice to see that I'm not alone! "Briar Rose" is one
of my favorites, although "Welcome to the Ice House" and "Owl Moon" are now
read *nightly*. <LOL>
As far as serious philosophers go, most of the ones I enjoy reading have been
dead for oh atleast one hundred years. Count V asked about the contemporary
authors that I enjoy (I think!), so I didn't include them.
BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any suggestions
for my next trip to the bookstore?
dj
d.j.
CountV
> BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any suggestions
> for my next trip to the bookstore?
Iain (M) Banks. The 'M' initial is used when he writes his wildly
imaginative Sci-Fi and absent when he writes more 'serious' Fiction.
Without M;
The Wasp Factory
The Bridge
Complicity
With M;
Excession
Use of Weapons
He is a good prose-spinner with a very active mind, yet an eye for
authenticity that few authors seem to have - I can't recommend him too
highly.
For reference, and as recommendations, other favorites (preferred book in
parentheses); Italo Calvino (If On a Winter's Night a Traveller), Ian McEwan
(The Innocent), Jorge Luis Borges (any fairly complete collection), Paul
Auster (The New York Trilogy), Robert Anton Wilson (The Illuminatus
Trilogy), Gene Wolfe (Book of the New Sun...quadrology(?)), Douglas Adams
(The 'increasingly misnamed' Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy (5
books)), Neal Stephenson (The Diamond Age).
That's all I can come up with right now...
Pyrephox18
>BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any
>suggestions
>for my next trip to the bookstore?
OOh, books! My favorite subject. Hmmm, agree with Yolen... excellent writer!
Also in the YA sections...
Meredith Ann Pierce (Firebringer Trilogy and the "winged vampire" trilogy- I'll
be danged if I can remember the official name.)
Tamora Pierce (Lioness Rampant quartet, and to a lesser extent the Wild Magic
series.)
H.M. Hoover (Can't reccomend enough. "This Time of Darkness" is one of my all
time *favorite* books.)
Peter Dickenson (Eva, Flight of Dragons)
Clive Barker's "The Thief of Always"
Robin McKinley (Deerskin, The Blue Sword, Beauty, et al.)
There are more of course, but I think that's probably enough. Any more, and I
might start going into reading memory shock...
Pyrephox- who's been at a gaming con all day, and is now collapsing.
NBarnes
>
> Douglas Adams (The 'increasingly misnamed' Hitchhikers Guide to the
> Galaxy Trilogy (5 books)
IMHO, the only two books of this that are worth anything are the
first two. The next ones are... well... not up to the same standards.
NBarnes, being polite
CountV
The third is a slight decline, the fourth a pretty horrible dip, and the
fifth is a close match for the first two, IMNHO.
Qtb7272
>Date: 4/11/99 3:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7eqsfe$l7g$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net>
>
>NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> CountV wrote:
>>>
>>> Douglas Adams (The 'increasingly misnamed' Hitchhikers Guide to the
>>> Galaxy Trilogy (5 books)
>>
>> IMHO, the only two books of this that are worth anything are the
>> first two. The next ones are... well... not up to the same standards.
>>
>> NBarnes, being polite
>
>The third is a slight decline, the fourth a pretty horrible dip, and the
>fifth is a close match for the first two, IMNHO.
>
(out of my lurking state for this one)
i would have to say that the third one is still pretty good, the fourth
starting to head downhill, and the fifth is...well....not up to standards. if
you're interested in the "trilogy" read neil gaiman's "don't panic". it's all
about all things hitchhiker's and doug adams...some interesting stuff ont eh
backgrounds of the books
Qtb7272
>
>> BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any
>suggestions
>> for my next trip to the bookstore?
hrmm...i'm a book junkie, so i have a lot of different tastes...
have to reccomend all the doug adams stuff (yeah, some of the hitchhiker's
stuff isn't so great, but the dirk gently stuff is good)
"good omens" by neil gaiman and teri pratchett
anything by kurt vonnegut (his earlier stuff is better)
all jay mcinerney's stuff....kaye gibbon's stuff...
i'm odd with books...i'll read just about anything, but i can't stand most
bestseller crap. if someone really wanted to torture me, forcing me to read a
danielle steel novel would do it...i would probably have to safeword out of
that....;)
sadine....back into the woodwork
CountV
>> dj...@aol.comceltic1 (DJDO1) wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any
>>suggestions
>>> for my next trip to the bookstore?
>
> hrmm...i'm a book junkie, so i have a lot of different tastes...
> have to reccomend all the doug adams stuff (yeah, some of the hitchhiker's
> stuff isn't so great, but the dirk gently stuff is good)
I have to say that I think the second Dirk Gently book is probably the
weakest book that Douglas Adams has ever put out, mostly by virtue of the
fact that he seems to have had a plot in mind before he wrote it, and then
he desperately tries to tie together all the loose threads in the last few
pages. He's better when he's just allowed to ramble on and go wherever his
mind takes him.
Qtb7272
>I have to say that I think the second Dirk Gently book is probably the
>weakest book that Douglas Adams has ever put out, mostly by virtue of the
>fact that he seems to have had a plot in mind before he wrote it, and then
>he desperately tries to tie together all the loose threads in the last few
>pages.
would have to agree that the first dirk gently book is far better than the
second. way too much trying to tie up loose ends very quickly.
> He's better when he's just allowed to >ramble on and go wherever his
>mind takes him.
and that can be scary sometimes....;)
sadine
Bruce Mills
DJDO1 <dj...@aol.comceltic1> wrote:
>BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any suggestions
>for my next trip to the bookstore?
John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee series. They may be a little dated, but
they are most excellent!
Bruce
"I used to be snow white - then I drifted."
victorian squid
> BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any
suggestions >for my next trip to the bookstore?
Don't know what you're looking for exactly, aside from enjoyable, "no
frills" reading- that is to say, what specific genres you're into.
Everyone seems to be recommending fantasy/sci-fi books so far.
I prefer mysteries for no-frills reading, myself, especially the noir-ish
kind. If you like mysteries, I'd really highly recommend Kinky Friedman's
books. Simultaneously an homage to and affectionate parody of the noir
genre, they're very well-written and chock full of the kind of dry,
cheerfully irreverent humor you'd expect from a guy who went around
honky-tonks performing tunes like "Ride 'em, Jewboy".
Another author I read for fun is P.G. Wodehouse. I don't know what to say
except the "Jeeves" books are probably the funniest I have ever read in my
life. If you like your humor by turns dry and extremely silly, you'll dig
these too. Also an essayist named S.J. Perelman, whose "Crazy Like A Fox"
has brightened many an hour for me too- dry, cranky, hyper-literate humor
of the tastiest kind.
Love on ya,
v. squid
TyMeDwn1st
>>BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any
>suggestions for my next trip to the bookstore?
>
>John D. MacDonald's Travis McGee series. They may be a little dated, but
>they are most excellent!
Travis McGee may be my favorite "continuing" character of all time. the plots
are plausible, the characters are likable, and the endings are always
satisfying. The sex scenes in this series are about the hottest I've ever
read, considering there's usually only one or two per book, they seldom last
more than a paragraph, and they never have an explicit word in them.
Ty
Who is mostly just
a slightly skewed
Donna Reed
... and whose long-time vanilla lover could well have been the original Travis.
LadyGold
LadyGold (at) planetarydefense (dot) org
On 13 Apr 1999 02:49:20 GMT, tymed...@aol.comPEARLS (TyMeDwn1st)
wrote:
>Travis McGee may be my favorite "continuing" character of all time. the plots
>are plausible, the characters are likable, and the endings are always
>satisfying. The sex scenes in this series are about the hottest I've ever
>read, considering there's usually only one or two per book, they seldom last
>more than a paragraph, and they never have an explicit word in them.
<aol> What she said!! </aol>
And how was Maggie ? <g>
LadyGold, High Sheriff of Nettingham
--
"Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be
restrained." -- William Blake
NightMist
>In article <19990410133209...@ngol02.aol.com>,
>DJDO1 <dj...@aol.comceltic1> wrote:
>
>>BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any suggestions
>>for my next trip to the bookstore?
>
Recently discovered by me....The series of mystery novels by Rita Mae
and Sneaky Pie Brown, and the Anita Blake-Vampire Executioner novels.
I usually go more for SciFi/Fantasy type things (The Annes- Rice and
McCaffery, Katherine Kurtz, Heinlan, Zelazny etc.) or things by Pat
Califa or Laura A. and such. But I had a lot of fun reading my new
finds.
NightMist
To reply via e-mail add 156 to my initials
"The stars that mark us fall away,
we must go further, deeper into pain.
There need be no escape with the coming of day,
for this dream, need never end."
Blues for Le Marchand Mutanis
NBarnes
> I usually go more for SciFi/Fantasy type things (The Annes- Rice and
> McCaffery, Katherine Kurtz, Heinlan, Zelazny etc.) or things by Pat
> Califa or Laura A. and such. But I had a lot of fun reading my new
> finds.
I was wandering around the dealer's room at NorWesCon, lonely,
hurt, generally feeling down, and looking for something to read on
the bus ride back home. One of the nice booksellers there asked if
she could help me. I said that I was looking for something to read,
and she asked what the last book that I really liked was.
I blinked, then smiled and answered, "Komarr," Lois McMaster Bujold's
latest.
She looked thoughtful, then walked over and pulled out a copy of
'On Basilisk Station', by David Weber. I was pretty willing at that
point, so I paid for it and did _not_regret_it_at_all_.
I love Bujold. Bujold is amazing. Read _everything_ that has the
name 'Miles Vorkosigan' in it somewhere.
Weber is not _quite_ as good at Bujold. And Tillamook vanilla
ice cream is not _quite_ as good at B&J's White Russian.
I recommend all four of them.
NBarnes
Scott
Tom Clancy... I spent 2 and a half years on the USS Gallery (FFG26) and 6 months of
that working at the same desk he researched "Red Storm Rising" at... and his
"fiction" genuinely had the military worried for a while, it's really that
accurate.
This has to be my shortest post ever, thanks for an easy topic!
Scott
"The truth is out there... just don't get your hopes up about finding it on
Usenet."
Xiphias Gladius
>BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any suggestions
>for my next trip to the bookstore?
Get the _Harry Potter_ books. The first one is available in the United
States, the second is available in England now, and can be imported (since
you're posting from America Online, I'm assuming you're in America), and
the third should be out in England in June, and will be available in the
US not too long after that.
They're a series of stories about a young orphan boy who, on his 11th
birthday, finds out that not only does magic exist in the world, but his
parents were wizards, and he has a scholarship to Hogwarts, the boarding
school for wizards and witches.
It's just plain fun.
Xiphias Gladius
>CountV wrote:
>>
>> Douglas Adams (The 'increasingly misnamed' Hitchhikers Guide to the
>> Galaxy Trilogy (5 books)
> IMHO, the only two books of this that are worth anything are the
>first two. The next ones are... well... not up to the same standards.
It's a simple straight line depreciation over time. It hits the zero mark
somewhere in the third or fourth book.
I never managed to finish _Mostly Harmless_. I keep intending to, purely
for completeness's sake.
Xiphias Gladius
>count V said....
>>I have to say that I think the second Dirk Gently book is probably the
>>weakest book that Douglas Adams has ever put out, mostly by virtue of the
>>fact that he seems to have had a plot in mind before he wrote it, and then
>>he desperately tries to tie together all the loose threads in the last few
>>pages.
>would have to agree that the first dirk gently book is far better than the
>second. way too much trying to tie up loose ends very quickly.
I would have rather seen the first Dirk Gently book as a Doctor Who
storyline, as it was intended to be originally.
Volcano
>
> I love Bujold. Bujold is amazing. Read _everything_ that has the
> name 'Miles Vorkosigan' in it somewhere.
Do I take this to mean that you are *not* recommending "Falling Free",
"The Spirit Ring", or even 'Shards of Honor". <EG>
I strongly recommend all of Bujold's books, even those without Miles. :)
> Weber is not _quite_ as good at Bujold.
And Honor Harrington is not _quite_ as sexy as Cordelia Naismith.
>And Tillamook vanilla
> ice cream is not _quite_ as good at B&J's White Russian.
Hmmm. Have to do a taste-test and see how those compare to Bluebell.
And I recommmend all (1,2,3..) 8 of the Honor Harrington books by
David Weber. And all books written by Laurell K. Hamilton, including
'Nightseer'. And the Skyrider series by Melisa C. Michaels.
(Hmmm. Does anyone else get the feeling that I have a thing for
well-armed women?)
,~~~~
/ \
/ \ Volcano - Corps Diplomatique SSB; San Antonio, TX
"No, he doesn't seem like an idiot, and he does seem to be nice." - Davo
Mlsine
>BTW, who does everybody else read for relaxation ? Anyone have any suggestions
>for my next trip to the bookstore?
I think I'm officially delurking myself with this so here goes....*clears
throat*:
Angela Carter. I'd suggest _The Bloody Chamber_ to start with--this particular
collection deals with darker retellings of fairy tales and is one of the most
stunningly gorgeous books I have ever read. Any of her novels are worth picking
up as well, as is her giant short story collection _Burning Your Boats_.
I also like the Ellen Datlow/Terri Windling Year's Best Horror and Fantasy
collections, Harlan Ellison and Tanith Lee.. . and lots of other fiction and
nonfiction. HTH.
Melusine
ex-PhD and preacher of the Gospel of Angela
"I'll bet that apparition had something to do with it!" _Plan 9 From Outer
Space_
Master John
join in the discussions.
The coffee is on the rihgt and the chocolate is on
the left <---pointing at the chocolate--
Make sure to send the Apropriate br... uh fees yes
fees to Lady Gold she will send you the right
forms and your certificates of entry.
Master John
Mlsine <mls...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990413130110...@ng61.aol.com...
DG McDaniel
> > I love Bujold. Bujold is amazing. Read _everything_ that has the
> > name 'Miles Vorkosigan' in it somewhere.
Volcano wrote:
> I strongly recommend all of Bujold's books, even those without Miles. :)
Hmm. I guess I'll hafta put her on my list of authors to read. I was
on a panel with her at a sci-fi con earlier this year, on "Alternative
sexualities in science fiction." She was the science fiction part, and
I was the alternative sexualty part. <laugh> But really, she was very
cool.
I just finished reading Forsyth's "Day of the Jackal," and I really
loved it. I have a "thing" for assassins, and the Jackal was a great
one. Any suggestions for stories about assassins? I like the cold,
calculating type who are probably borderline sociopaths. There's
something sexy about killers.... Good, old-fashioned violence never
fails to get my blood pumping.
NBarnes:
> >And Tillamook vanilla
> > ice cream is not _quite_ as good at B&J's White Russian.
Volcano:
> Hmmm. Have to do a taste-test and see how those compare to Bluebell.
You know, Blue Bell ice cream is just about the only thing I miss about
Texas. I used to live in Houston, but I don't miss it now that I'm in
Michigan.
Devon
[remove the thingy from my address]
--
maybe you just had the worst day of your life
but, you know, there's no escape and there's no excuse
so just suck up and be nice -Ani Difranco
NightMist
wrote:
>qtb...@aol.comblargh (Qtb7272) writes:
>
>>count V said....
>
>>>I have to say that I think the second Dirk Gently book is probably the
>>>weakest book that Douglas Adams has ever put out, mostly by virtue of the
>>>fact that he seems to have had a plot in mind before he wrote it, and then
>>>he desperately tries to tie together all the loose threads in the last few
>>>pages.
>
>>would have to agree that the first dirk gently book is far better than the
>>second. way too much trying to tie up loose ends very quickly.
>
>I would have rather seen the first Dirk Gently book as a Doctor Who
>storyline, as it was intended to be originally.
>
Oh! That would have been soooo cool!
NightMist (Who is dedicated to Dr. Who....even though she didn't
think very highly of Colin Baker)
Spyral Fox
writes:
>Get the _Harry Potter_ books.
You are a tease, Ian. Who's the author? What are the
specific titles? I won't be in my office till Monday, so take pity
on me and the other people who can't net-surf to get the
answers!
take care,
Spyral Fox ("Ani l'dodi...")
"The worst and best are both inclined
to snap like vixens at the truth" --EH Wylie
San Diego Munch & Resources; SSBB Diplomatic Corps:
http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/ (last updated Mar 18 1999)
Philip the Foole
> Spyral Fox: You are a tease, Ian. Who's the author? What are the
specific titles? I won't be in my office till Monday, so take pity
on me and the other people who can't net-surf to get the
answers!
Foole: Meet the author of "Harry Potter and the Sorcer's Stone," J.K.
Rowling, and read a chapter of her best-selling book at:
http://scholastic.com/tradebks/harrypotter/home.htm
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Xiphias Gladius
>In article <7evph1$3at$1...@hiram.io.com>, i...@dillinger.io.com (Xiphias Gladius)
>writes:
>>Get the _Harry Potter_ books.
>You are a tease, Ian. Who's the author? What are the
>specific titles? I won't be in my office till Monday, so take pity
>on me and the other people who can't net-surf to get the
>answers!
First book, _Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone_, in the United States,
anyway, by J.K. Rowling, published in the US by Scholastic Press, and in
Great Britan by Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN for the American version,
0-590-35340-3.
That should get you started.
roo
in dark german chocolate...)
roo
-----------
subs are soulfood
Spyral Fox
writes:
>spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox) writes:
>
>>In article <7evph1$3at$1...@hiram.io.com>, i...@dillinger.io.com (Xiphias
>Gladius)
>>writes:
>
>>>Get the _Harry Potter_ books.
>
>>You are a tease, Ian. Who's the author? What are the
>>specific titles? I won't be in my office till Monday, so take pity
>>on me and the other people who can't net-surf to get the
>>answers!
>
>First book, _Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone_, in the United States,
>anyway, by J.K. Rowling, published in the US by Scholastic Press, and in
>Great Britan by Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN for the American version,
>0-590-35340-3.
>
>That should get you started.
Thank you very much, you nice man, you!
NBarnes
> Volcano wrote:
> > NBarnes wrote:
> > > I love Bujold. Bujold is amazing. Read _everything_ that has
> > > the name 'Miles Vorkosigan' in it somewhere.
> > I strongly recommend all of Bujold's books, even those without
> > Miles. :)
I admit to being a little fixated. Miles is spiffy. In my
self-aggrandizing fantasies, I'm more like Miles than I am in real
life.
> Hmm. I guess I'll hafta put her on my list of authors to read. I
> was on a panel with her at a sci-fi con earlier this year, on
> "Alternative sexualities in science fiction." She was the science
> fiction part, and I was the alternative sexualty part. <laugh> But
> really, she was very cool.
I've heard that she is, in fact, very cool and down to earth and
whatnot. Cute, too. You think maybe she's?... nah.
> I just finished reading Forsyth's "Day of the Jackal," and I really
> loved it. I have a "thing" for assassins, and the Jackal was a great
> one. Any suggestions for stories about assassins? I like the cold,
> calculating type who are probably borderline sociopaths. There's
> something sexy about killers.... Good, old-fashioned violence never
> fails to get my blood pumping.
Try 'Brothers in Arms'. Miles gets his chest blown out by a
needle grenade about a quarter of the way in and spends about half
the book very dead.
NBarnes