SFF Net Newsgroup Archive
sff.discuss.heinlein-forum 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
http://www.sff.net/
Archive of: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by: webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:14:53
============================================================
Article 19456
From: James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:14:15 -0700
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Fader wrote:
> I think that I'm going to be getting a DSL line when we move, the
> people at the phone co. say that I'll always be connected to the 'Net
> if the computer is on. What do I need in terms of Software for
> security purposes? Or do I need some type of of hardware thing?
>
> If at all possible try to use simple terms when explaining or giving
> examples.(think Vinnie Barbarino<g>)
With DSL and cable data access, you're essentially connected to a big
network all the time. Without security in place, you're open to anyone
who is savvy enough to get into another computer on the network - which
isn't a very high level of hacker sophistication.
The fast, cheap and 99% method is a software firewall. There are several
commercial ones - McAfee, BlackIce, etc. - but one of the very best is
free. Go to http://www.zonelabs.com and download the latest version of
ZoneAlarm. It's simple to set up and has many fancy features you can
implement one at a time, as you learn.
The slightly more expensive and 99.999% method is to use a hardware
firewall. I recommend the LinkSys DSL Router, which comes in 1-, 4- and
8- port versions. I prefer to use the 1-port version with a hub behind
it, but if you're going to stay simple (i.e., one computer, maybe two
plus a network printer), the 4-port version is a one-box solution. It
sets up via a browser interface and is about as impervious to hacking
as it is possible to get this side of an NSA lab. Shop around; the
1-port version is about $75 and the 4-port a little under $100. You
might be able to get a 1-port plus a 5-8 port hub for less than the
latter figure.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19457
From: Pete LaGrange <oldman1961@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 12:43:50 -0400
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:14:15 -0700, James Gifford <jgifford@rcsis.com>
wrote:
>Fader wrote:
>> I think that I'm going to be getting a DSL line when we move, the
>> people at the phone co. say that I'll always be connected to the 'Net
>> if the computer is on. What do I need in terms of Software for
>> security purposes? Or do I need some type of of hardware thing?
>>
>> If at all possible try to use simple terms when explaining or giving
>> examples.(think Vinnie Barbarino<g>)
>
>With DSL and cable data access, you're essentially connected to a big
>network all the time. Without security in place, you're open to anyone
>who is savvy enough to get into another computer on the network - which
>isn't a very high level of hacker sophistication.
>
>The fast, cheap and 99% method is a software firewall. There are several
>commercial ones - McAfee, BlackIce, etc. - but one of the very best is
>free. Go to http://www.zonelabs.com and download the latest version of
>ZoneAlarm. It's simple to set up and has many fancy features you can
>implement one at a time, as you learn.
>
>The slightly more expensive and 99.999% method is to use a hardware
>firewall. I recommend the LinkSys DSL Router, which comes in 1-, 4- and
>8- port versions. I prefer to use the 1-port version with a hub behind
>it, but if you're going to stay simple (i.e., one computer, maybe two
>plus a network printer), the 4-port version is a one-box solution. It
>sets up via a browser interface and is about as impervious to hacking
>as it is possible to get this side of an NSA lab. Shop around; the
>1-port version is about $75 and the 4-port a little under $100. You
>might be able to get a 1-port plus a 5-8 port hub for less than the
>latter figure.
Using both methods would add a substantial number of 9's to the right
of that decimal point.
Each method has pros and cons.
For example, the router can't help if an existing malicious program is
attempting to "phone home", a properly configured software firewall
will stop such activity.
Neither of these will be much help if you download and run malicious
code without following prudent security procedures (scan for virii,
compare filesize to known GOOD file, etc.)
--
Pete LaGrange
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/lagrange
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19458
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 11:27:40 -0700
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Pete LaGrange" <oldman1961@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f4klmt4tjlbmutras7i7m6fubb1ftiu8e5@4ax.com...
<snip bunch of good advice>
Pete has it on the nose, here. I use just Zone Alarm right now, but I will
probably go with a hardware firewall soon. My DSL isn't technically
"always-on", anyway, though I tend to keep it that way when the computer is
on.
I definitely agree that a good software firewall with application security
is important. ZoneAlarm does well, and saved me when somebody managed to
trick me into running freeware with the Sub7 Trojan on it. My antivirus was
down, and the only thing that saved me was that ZoneAlarm suddenly started
asking if I wanted to allow some strange file (winvxd.exe, I think) to
connect to the Internet. A hardware firewall wouldn't know where the request
came from, and would let it through.
So, I say, software firewall with application verification first (ZoneAlarm
is good and free), then anti-virus software that runs in the background,
then a hardware firewall. A good security scanner is also good, though I no
longer know who has the best. I'll look into it.
Above all, vigilance. If your computer starts accessing the hard drive
frequently for no apparent reason, find out why. Same for random slowdowns.
Hackers are not invisible, even if you have no software to catch them.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19459
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 13:36:10 -0700
Subject: Re: How are we all doing?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b69e41c.32501877@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> BTW, liked your web page. Your Universal Life Church link is
> outdated, though, and InoculateIT PE is no longer supported as a free
> product. (You wanted to know!)
If you live outside Europe, or in Great Britain, you can always go to
www.grisoft.com and download AVR Free Edition. Why the caveat about Europe,
I don't know. For Europe, they offer trial test versions of their Pro
Edition.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19460
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:18:01 -0400
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I agree with all of you!
I have DSL, I use ZoneAlarm, on all my computers
I have multiple computers on my home network, so I use a Netgear Router with
my network hub.
I use due diligence in what I download, the only time I've slipped up was
with a lame AOL password trojan that took me about 15 minutes to erase.
DSL is a wonderful thing, especially for those of us with no faith in our
cable companies!
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19461
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 10:58:47 GMT
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:18:01 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
<wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
Thanx, guys
JT also e-mailed me & said Zonealarm so I guess it's the winner.
I have Norton AV that always runs in the background already.
aside to WJake:
>DSL is a wonderful thing, especially for those of us with no faith in our
>cable companies!
OTOH having DSL means having faith in the phone company
(snort,snort...sir, we're the phone company, we can do whatever we
want[in case you didn't remember<G>])
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19462
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 09:56:59 -0400
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Fader: How often do you download updates to your Norton AntiVirus?
It couldn't hurt to update your NAV's "signature" files once a week.
(Norton has made this very easy; a few mouse clicks and it takes
care of itself.) Cruisin the Internet can bring you into contact
with some of the latest attacks, so that the most up-to-date files
are a good defense.
Ed J (2 cents worth)
On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 10:58:47 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:18:01 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
><wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Thanx, guys
>JT also e-mailed me & said Zonealarm so I guess it's the winner.
>
>I have Norton AV that always runs in the background already.
>
>
>aside to WJake:
>>DSL is a wonderful thing, especially for those of us with no faith in our
>>cable companies!
>
>OTOH having DSL means having faith in the phone company
>(snort,snort...sir, we're the phone company, we can do whatever we
>want[in case you didn't remember<G>])
>
>Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19463
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 10:06:44 -0400
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James: I know that you mentioned this in an earlier post. Does the
following:
>The slightly more expensive and 99.999% method is to use a hardware
>firewall. I recommend the LinkSys DSL Router, which comes in 1-, 4- and
>8- port versions. I prefer to use the 1-port version with a hub behind
>it, but if you're going to stay simple (i.e., one computer, maybe two
>plus a network printer), the 4-port version is a one-box solution. It
>sets up via a browser interface and is about as impervious to hacking
>as it is possible to get this side of an NSA lab. Shop around; the
<snip>
mean that any Router is inherently a firewall, or that it can be
configured as one? If I got it right, a single port Router
followed by a small hub will take care of the hardware end of a
firewall for my cable modem.
thanks for the info,
Ed J
On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:14:15 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote:
>With DSL and cable data access, you're essentially connected to a big
>network all the time. Without security in place, you're open to anyone
>who is savvy enough to get into another computer on the network - which
>isn't a very high level of hacker sophistication.
>
>The fast, cheap and 99% method is a software firewall. There are several
>commercial ones - McAfee, BlackIce, etc. - but one of the very best is
>free. Go to http://www.zonelabs.com and download the latest version of
>ZoneAlarm. It's simple to set up and has many fancy features you can
>implement one at a time, as you learn.
>
>The slightly more expensive and 99.999% method is to use a hardware
>firewall. I recommend the LinkSys DSL Router, which comes in 1-, 4- and
>8- port versions. I prefer to use the 1-port version with a hub behind
>it, but if you're going to stay simple (i.e., one computer, maybe two
>plus a network printer), the 4-port version is a one-box solution. It
>sets up via a browser interface and is about as impervious to hacking
>as it is possible to get this side of an NSA lab. Shop around; the
>1-port version is about $75 and the 4-port a little under $100. You
>might be able to get a 1-port plus a 5-8 port hub for less than the
>latter figure.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19464
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:05:21 -0400
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote
> <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> Thanx, guys
> JT also e-mailed me & said Zonealarm so I guess it's the winner.
It's free, that makes it a winner in my book!
> aside to WJake:
> >DSL is a wonderful thing, especially for those of us with no faith in our
> >cable companies!
>
> OTOH having DSL means having faith in the phone company
I have much more faith in the phone company than I do in my cable company!
Aside to Ed J:
Yes, a router such as the Linksys or Netgear really does provide a secure
solution. It also frees you from the problems associated with various,
horrible software used to connect PCs to DSL modems.
Of course, and this applies to Fader as well, you have to avoid the dread
USB modems. Make sure you convince your DSL provider/cable company to give
you a device that connects to an Ethernet connection.
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19465
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 16:15:36 -0700
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
OK guys. After ~listening~ to you *talk* to Fader I got Zone Alarm. It
knows I use a dial up modem and other "stone knives and bearskins"
technology. We're still discussing which of my programs should be allowed
to use the internet. It just popped up to tell me Microsoft AutoUpdate is
trying access the internet. The more info button sent me to the Zone Labs
AlertAnalyzer site that told me more than I wanted to know about AutoUpdate.
The important part being that "your computer is safe." Annoying, but cool.
I'll definitely keep it.
I paid for a year of the successor to InocculateIT PE, eTrust EZ Antivirus.
I allow CAI to send me email about critical updates. Somedays they send 6
or more notices suggesting that I update my signature files. I strongly
suggest that if your AV has this annoying service, sign up.
Meanwhile, ZA just ~told~ me "ZoneAlarm has blocked access to port 80 on
your computer" Very cool.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:6qvnmtc4kv3j7jlgm6ei783d2s0jpr24jg@4ax.com...
> James: I know that you mentioned this in an earlier post. Does the
> following:
>
> >The slightly more expensive and 99.999% method is to use a hardware
> >firewall. I recommend the LinkSys DSL Router, which comes in 1-, 4- and
> >8- port versions. I prefer to use the 1-port version with a hub behind
> >it, but if you're going to stay simple (i.e., one computer, maybe two
> >plus a network printer), the 4-port version is a one-box solution. It
> >sets up via a browser interface and is about as impervious to hacking
> >as it is possible to get this side of an NSA lab. Shop around; the
> <snip>
>
> mean that any Router is inherently a firewall, or that it can be
> configured as one? If I got it right, a single port Router
> followed by a small hub will take care of the hardware end of a
> firewall for my cable modem.
>
> thanks for the info,
>
> Ed J
>
>
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:14:15 -0700, James Gifford
> <jgifford@rcsis.com> wrote:
>
> >With DSL and cable data access, you're essentially connected to a big
> >network all the time. Without security in place, you're open to anyone
> >who is savvy enough to get into another computer on the network - which
> >isn't a very high level of hacker sophistication.
> >
> >The fast, cheap and 99% method is a software firewall. There are several
> >commercial ones - McAfee, BlackIce, etc. - but one of the very best is
> >free. Go to http://www.zonelabs.com and download the latest version of
> >ZoneAlarm. It's simple to set up and has many fancy features you can
> >implement one at a time, as you learn.
> >
> >The slightly more expensive and 99.999% method is to use a hardware
> >firewall. I recommend the LinkSys DSL Router, which comes in 1-, 4- and
> >8- port versions. I prefer to use the 1-port version with a hub behind
> >it, but if you're going to stay simple (i.e., one computer, maybe two
> >plus a network printer), the 4-port version is a one-box solution. It
> >sets up via a browser interface and is about as impervious to hacking
> >as it is possible to get this side of an NSA lab. Shop around; the
> >1-port version is about $75 and the 4-port a little under $100. You
> >might be able to get a 1-port plus a 5-8 port hub for less than the
> >latter figure.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19466
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 10:14:10 GMT
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 09:56:59 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>Fader: How often do you download updates to your Norton AntiVirus?
>It couldn't hurt to update your NAV's "signature" files once a week.
>(Norton has made this very easy; a few mouse clicks and it takes
>care of itself.) Cruisin the Internet can bring you into contact
>with some of the latest attacks, so that the most up-to-date files
>are a good defense.
Ed, Live Update comes on & tells me every week or so, usually thats
when I do it. So far I've never had a virus that I know of.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19467
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 10:16:46 GMT
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:05:21 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
<wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Of course, and this applies to Fader as well, you have to avoid the dread
>USB modems. Make sure you convince your DSL provider/cable company to give
>you a device that connects to an Ethernet connection.
What's a matter with USB modems, I think that's what they said I get.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19468
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 20:22:32 -0400
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jake: Thanks for the added info. I ordered (online) a Linksys 4
port router to isolate my NIC from my Cable Modem. I should be able
to connect my wife's laptop (with a Xircom RealPort PCMCIA
NIC/Modem) to the internet somehow with this router. I'm sure it's
not something that the cable company promotes.
Ed J
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:05:21 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
<wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Aside to Ed J:
>Yes, a router such as the Linksys or Netgear really does provide a secure
>solution. It also frees you from the problems associated with various,
>horrible software used to connect PCs to DSL modems.
>
>Of course, and this applies to Fader as well, you have to avoid the dread
>USB modems. Make sure you convince your DSL provider/cable company to give
>you a device that connects to an Ethernet connection.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19469
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 23:06:34 -0400
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b6d1ca8.865547@news.sff.net...
> On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 13:05:21 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
> <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course, and this applies to Fader as well, you have to avoid the dread
> >USB modems. Make sure you convince your DSL provider/cable company to
give
> >you a device that connects to an Ethernet connection.
>
> What's a matter with USB modems, I think that's what they said I get.
>
Because USB modems will not connect with the hardware routers we've been
talking about. At least, none that I'm aware of.
OTOH, you will need a network card in your computer. So there are
trade-offs.
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19470
From: Dave Rodger" <drodger@mediaone.net>
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2001 23:51:42 -0400
Subject: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hey-
I was just re-reading Job: A Comedy of Justice, and was struck by what seems
like an editing error. Early in the novel, Alec makes two or three
references to Margrethe being 'expecting' or in a family way. About midway
through the book, though, all mention of this disappears and we never hear
about it again. Is this corrected/edited out in later editions?
Thanks.
-d
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19471
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 13:52:29 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Dave Rodger" <drodger@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3b6e1473.0@news.sff.net...
> Hey-
>
> I was just re-reading Job: A Comedy of Justice, and was struck by what
seems
> like an editing error. Early in the novel, Alec makes two or three
> references to Margrethe being 'expecting' or in a family way. About
midway
> through the book, though, all mention of this disappears and we never hear
> about it again.
Maybe it was something that changed the next time the universe shifted? Can
you provide a page number or something for reference, I wouldn't know where
to dive in to see what happened.
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19472
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 14:26:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Dave Rodger wrote:
> Hey-
>
> I was just re-reading Job: A Comedy of Justice, and was struck by what seems
> like an editing error. Early in the novel, Alec makes two or three
> references to Margrethe being 'expecting' or in a family way. About midway
> through the book, though, all mention of this disappears and we never hear
> about it again. Is this corrected/edited out in later editions?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -d
I honestly don't remember any such references and I've read it plenty of times.
Can you give quotations/ page numbers?
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19473
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 14:00:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Dave Rodger wrote:
> I was just re-reading Job: A Comedy of Justice, and was struck by what
> seems like an editing error. Early in the novel, Alec makes two or
> three references to Margrethe being 'expecting' or in a family way.
> About midway through the book, though, all mention of this disappears
> and we never hear about it again. Is this corrected/edited out in
> later editions?
You're correct - it is mentioned (twice that I can recall), and then it
completely disappears. What Heinlein might have intended by it, and what
happened to it, is a matter of speculation.
I see it as another example of what I've come to term "broken narrative"
in his later works. Some other examples:
- The "termites" in _Number of the Beast_. There are a few cryptic
references to giant termites on Mars, then nothing until that landing
site is known as "Gay Termite."
- The passage from _Friday_ in which she leaves Georges behind and ends
up on the mercenary riverboat.
I find it mildly distressing that Heinlein could let these loose ends
float away from him, and that no part of his reader/editor chain was
sufficiently empowered to catch or fix them.
I've toyed with a paper for THJ on this. Bill Patterson's comment was
that perhaps I've misinterpreted these, and they are artifacts of
something else that Heinlein was doing/attempting.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19474
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:42:18 -0700
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b6c2ab4.0@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> > OTOH having DSL means having faith in the phone company
>
> I have much more faith in the phone company than I do in my cable company!
And no matter how you do it, you are trusting your ISP. Unless you use
Economizer or Freedom.
Freedom is particularly cool. They designed the system to do anonymous
browsing and email automatically, and in such a way that you don't even have
to trust _them_.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19475
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:45:40 -0700
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b6c8339.0@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> Meanwhile, ZA just ~told~ me "ZoneAlarm has blocked access to port 80 on
> your computer" Very cool.
You will soon find this very cool feature very annoying. When that happens,
there is an option to turn off the pop-up window, so that it only logs the
attack. There is also a shareware program called ZoneLog Analyzer, I think,
that will analyze the log and tell you what it thinks is happening. Most
"alerts" are pretty harmless, and it rates them as such.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19476
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 16:56:14 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B6F0551.CF5D88E0@surewest.net...
<snip>
> - The "termites" in _Number of the Beast_. There are a few cryptic
> references to giant termites on Mars, then nothing until that landing
> site is known as "Gay Termite."
Well, the references weren't particularly "cryptic", to me. _Something_
apparently went through their camp while they were asleep and ate boxes, and
it was pointed out that two creatures existed that would eat cellulose and
meat: termites and. man. Obviously, the later reference was an off-hand
reference to the cellulose eating creature as a "termite".
So, they had a near encounter with a creature they called a "termite", and
later named the location where this happened "Gay Termite", with no further
mention made of the creature. I don't find this too unusual, and certainly
not "broken".
In this book, there were some other glitches that bothered me more. Possibly
the worst was the "logical" reasoning that "proved" that their enemies were
aliens. One of the steps was to give the statement that no humans knew about
alternate universes as a "necessary assumption", yet I can come up with no
reason whatsoever to make this assumption.
At least as bad was that the entire assumption that their adventures proved
that "authors create the universes they write about" was a very basic "ad
hoc" fallacy, but not one of the characters noticed this. I find myself
forced to assume that the two obvious alternatives never occured to Heinlein
at all.
> - The passage from _Friday_ in which she leaves Georges behind and ends
> up on the mercenary riverboat.
I'll have to re-read this. Other than that she leaves George behind
suddenly, which she told George she would do, I don't recall anything
"broken" about this narrative.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19477
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 21:03:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
>
> You're correct - it is mentioned (twice that I can recall), and then it
> completely disappears. What Heinlein might have intended by it, and what
> happened to it, is a matter of speculation.
>
> I see it as another example of what I've come to term "broken narrative"
> in his later works. Some other examples:
>
> - The "termites" in _Number of the Beast_. There are a few cryptic
> references to giant termites on Mars, then nothing until that landing
> site is known as "Gay Termite."
>
> - The passage from _Friday_ in which she leaves Georges behind and ends
> up on the mercenary riverboat.
>
>
OK, I have just done a speed read and found one reference to the pregnancy.
It is just before the earthquake when they are going to have a picnic.
"...we climbed it very slowly, with me hanging back because I wanted to be
certain not to place any strain on Margrethe. From signs I was almost
certain that she was in a family way. But she had not seen fit to discuss it
with me and of course I could not raise the subject if she did not."
Lots of points here. First, we are only getting his opinion. Nowhere is it
confirmed that she is. As she's wearing skin tight shorts a few months later
I would have to think maybe not.They wouldn't be all that comfortable.
Now, the signs he means have to be lack of a period. She's eating fine so
there's no morning sickness. It's also only about 8 weeks after they've met;
fairly early to be able to decide without the use of a pregnancy kit which
almost certainly they didn't have. The lack of a period could well be the
changes in worlds; maybe her body clock kept getting reset so to speak. More
likely Alex, who doesn't seem that clued in on sex and is childless AFAIK,
made a mistake.
Termites; I don't see that as a problem. They see the polar bear creatures
munching the garbage later on so they confirm that they exist; they're a
minor plot issue, designed I think, to prove the point that Hilda isn't
going to get pushed around by those big ol' men trying to protect her.
Friday, again, it did seem to jump from her being all snuggled up to Georges
and suddenly being on the boat but I don't see it as a hole exactly.
Cat...now that's a different story <g>
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19478
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 16:15:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B6F3E68.FEF5CF8B@home.com...
<snip>
> Cat...now that's a different story <g>
You mentioned _that_ book. Blasphemy!
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19479
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 20:49:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3B6F3E68.FEF5CF8B@home.com...
> <snip>
> > Cat...now that's a different story <g>
>
> You mentioned _that_ book. Blasphemy!
>
> Filksinger
Baffles you too, huh? <g> I keep starting it with the intention of
keeping track and the story sweeps me along and I lose track. I enjoy it
mind you; just doesn't make sense in places.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19480
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2001 20:56:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
There goes our secret ballot.
Ed J
On 19 Nov 2000 01:55:42 GMT, filksinger@earthling.net wrote:
>Definitely not. It is highly desirable that the ballot be secret, with the
>secrecy enforced. It should be impossible for me to prove that I voted any
>one particular way. This is an absolute necessity for the defense of liberty.
>
>Any voting system that doesn't _require_ that I vote in secret should be
>disposed of and replaced with a system where secrecy is _mandatory_. They
>are a serious threat to freedom.
>
>Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19481
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 01:46:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:oe31ntckjdq8bt6o53e1ja4jg7361gqlao@4ax.com...
> FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
> via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
> There goes our secret ballot.
>
How so?
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19482
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 16:55:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B708C85.7CF16032@home.com...
<snip>
> Baffles you too, huh? <g> I keep starting it with the intention of
> keeping track and the story sweeps me along and I lose track. I enjoy it
> mind you; just doesn't make sense in places.
Way to much of it doesn't make sense to me. Of all of Heinlein's novels,
this is the one I like least.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19483
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2001 17:00:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:oe31ntckjdq8bt6o53e1ja4jg7361gqlao@4ax.com...
> FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
> via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
> There goes our secret ballot.
There are secure anonymous voting systems that have been designed that are
probably _safer_ than paper. If we can have secure credit card transactions,
and anonymous electronic cash, why not secure voting systems?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19484
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 18:21:28 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> There are secure anonymous voting systems that have been designed
> that are probably _safer_ than paper. If we can have secure credit
> card transactions, and anonymous electronic cash, why not secure
> voting systems?
Very different animals. Any sort of financial transaction is designed to
identify the buyer with the transaction and keep records of all the
steps, even if only one entity can access the records. With voting, you
need to absolutely verify identity, but keep the contents of the vote
secret - not just sort of secret, but absolutely, untraceably secret.
I don't see any good way to do it that ensures verification of identity
(and thus right to vote, protection against multiple votes, etc.) and
still keep the corresponding ballot anonymous, no matter what level of
record a hacker or gummint agency might have access to.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19485
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 21:24:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
>
> Way to much of it doesn't make sense to me. Of all of Heinlein's novels,
> this is the one I like least.
>
> Filksinger
Hmm...mine would be Beyond This Horizon I think. It just doesn't feel like
Heinlein somehow.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19486
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 02:17:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B71E666.4C9EC245@home.com...
> Hmm...mine would be Beyond This Horizon I think. It just doesn't
feel like
> Heinlein somehow.
You may have a point there. That one I didn't like, either, and
haven't reread in a very long time.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19487
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 02:29:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B71E598.6CD3E800@surewest.net...
> Filksinger wrote:
> > There are secure anonymous voting systems that have been designed
> > that are probably _safer_ than paper. If we can have secure credit
> > card transactions, and anonymous electronic cash, why not secure
> > voting systems?
>
> Very different animals. Any sort of financial transaction is
designed to
> identify the buyer with the transaction and keep records of all the
> steps, even if only one entity can access the records.
With anonymous cash, the buyer is not identified except to himself,
and he alone has those records, which he can destroy at will.
> With voting, you
> need to absolutely verify identity, but keep the contents of the
vote
> secret - not just sort of secret, but absolutely, untraceably
secret.
I can devise methods of violating secrecy with the system we have now,
whether paper or electronic. There is no such thing as "absolutely,
untraceably secret". But I can get as close or closer with electronic
systems as with voting booths and paper ballots.
Well designed anonymous electronic voting systems can only be violated
by the person doing the voting, or someone who has his computer and
his cryptographic key. Even then, he can destroy the record at will,
permanently, and it only exists on his computer.
> I don't see any good way to do it that ensures verification of
identity
> (and thus right to vote, protection against multiple votes, etc.)
and
> still keep the corresponding ballot anonymous, no matter what level
of
> record a hacker or gummint agency might have access to.
Well, it depends upon what record. If you mean "does it protect if
they control the computer I use to vote, from before I make the vote,
perfectly?", then no. Someone who controls my computer can conceivably
read my vote. But I can violate the voting booths in various ways,
too, and some of them after the fact.
However, there are methods by which I can vote anonymously, with
verification of my identity, where I and I alone possess any record
that can be used to identify me while I vote. This would allow me to
destroy all records that can possibly identify me after I complete my
vote. If I am willing to keep the record, there are even ways of
verifying after the voting is over that my vote was counted correctly,
still anonymously.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19488
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:16:23 -0500
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b6a7d1d.1880268@news.sff.net...
> I think that I'm going to be getting a DSL line when we move, the
> people at the phone co. say that I'll always be connected to the 'Net
> if the computer is on. What do I need in terms of Software for
> security purposes? Or do I need some type of of hardware thing?
Fader--
I know you have already received a number of responses, but I thought of
you when I saw this ZDnet article:
http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2802503,00.html.
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19489
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 08:49:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" wrote:
> "Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
> news:oe31ntckjdq8bt6o53e1ja4jg7361gqlao@4ax.com...
> > FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
> > via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
> > There goes our secret ballot.
> >
> How so?
Contrary to the technical issues raised downstream, I think Ed was
referring to the fact that voting would be at home, where the voter's
[insert political enemy of choice] would watch and approve, or not.
None of the later secrecy means a thing if voting isn't done in private.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19490
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:04:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3B7286D8.BFD288D0@dfci.harvard.edu...
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
>
> > "Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
> > news:oe31ntckjdq8bt6o53e1ja4jg7361gqlao@4ax.com...
> > > FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
> > > via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
> > > There goes our secret ballot.
> > >
> > How so?
>
> Contrary to the technical issues raised downstream, I think Ed was
> referring to the fact that voting would be at home, where the voter's
> [insert political enemy of choice] would watch and approve, or not.
> None of the later secrecy means a thing if voting isn't done in private.
We already have this. It's called "mail-in ballots". And the technical
version can be built with the ability to change your vote up until the end
of voting, so I guess your "political enemy of choice" would have to have
one "vote monitor" per person, each watching at just before the cut-off
time. Either that, or get everyone to vote from computers he controls, just
before the cut-off time.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19491
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:13:07 -0700
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message news:3b727140.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3b6a7d1d.1880268@news.sff.net...
> > I think that I'm going to be getting a DSL line when we move, the
> > people at the phone co. say that I'll always be connected to the 'Net
> > if the computer is on. What do I need in terms of Software for
> > security purposes? Or do I need some type of of hardware thing?
>
> Fader--
>
> I know you have already received a number of responses, but I thought
of
> you when I saw this ZDnet article:
> http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2802503,00.html.
Unlike the article, I do not recommend Black Ice.
1. It's default settings are paranoid. It warns you over and over again
about innocuous events. Note that they may have changed this.
2. It doesn't hide your ports. While this is technically proper procedure
under the "rules" of the Internet, it removes a potentially useful tool for
avoiding hackers. With software that hides your ports, if they scan on a
port you have hidden, the scan will fail to detect a computer there at all.
Without this, they will detect closed ports, which at least tells them there
is something at the target location.
Think of it this way. On the Internet, your address changes every time you
log on, for most users. When you log off, you "disappear" entirely, only to
reappear at a different location later.
In a world where houses appear and disappear frequently, leaving empty lots
that other houses may move into, and where the houses may appear in any of a
great many lots, having a house that is invisible outright is a significant
advantage over having a visible house. They may not even suspect your house
is there until it is too late.
3. It has no protection against Trojan Horse programs trying to get out. It
only stops incoming attacks.
So, I'd recommend Tiny Firewall or ZoneAlarm over Black Ice. And they are
both free for personal use, again unlike Black Ice.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19492
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 15:52:18 -0600
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
But voting from home is already done with absentee voting. And children
looking after their aged parents can vote for them, and I suppose tyrannical
parents could intimidate their teen and vote for him/her, and... How would
it be different if it's done on line?
Also, with verifying identity, I haven't noticed ANYONE breaking their neck
to do this at my local polling place. I could give just about any name as
long as it was female (or not, we live in a fun little town :-D). They
don't ask me for my driver's license OR my proof of citizenship and, mind, I
have an accent you need a chain saw to cut through. Various
"non-discrimination" measures seem to have eroded most of the security
measures. [ I.e., they can't give an impression of discrimination by asking
me (as opposed to the obviously American guy ahead of me) for my passport or
citizenship certificate. And asking everyone for their birth/citizenship
certificate would be too much work, I suppose.]
Let's face, it, either way this is going to be fallible. It already is.
Voting on line would have a different set of problems (identifying the well
intentioned idiot in line, for instance, and asking whom they intend to vote
for. :-D) but I wager they're as workable as solving the problems we already
have.
Sarah
Eli Hestermann wrote:
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
>
> > "Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
> > news:oe31ntckjdq8bt6o53e1ja4jg7361gqlao@4ax.com...
> > > FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
> > > via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
> > > There goes our secret ballot.
> > >
> > How so?
>
> Contrary to the technical issues raised downstream, I think Ed was
> referring to the fact that voting would be at home, where the voter's
> [insert political enemy of choice] would watch and approve, or not.
> None of the later secrecy means a thing if voting isn't done in private.
>
> --
> Eli V. Hestermann
> Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
> "Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19493
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:03:03 -0600
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sorry. This will teach me to read all the messages before I jump in and
answer. :-)
Sarah
Filksinger wrote:
> "Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:3B7286D8.BFD288D0@dfci.harvard.edu...
> > "William J. Keaton" wrote:
> >
> > > "Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
> > > news:oe31ntckjdq8bt6o53e1ja4jg7361gqlao@4ax.com...
> > > > FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
> > > > via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
> > > > There goes our secret ballot.
> > > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > Contrary to the technical issues raised downstream, I think Ed was
> > referring to the fact that voting would be at home, where the voter's
> > [insert political enemy of choice] would watch and approve, or not.
> > None of the later secrecy means a thing if voting isn't done in private.
>
> We already have this. It's called "mail-in ballots". And the technical
> version can be built with the ability to change your vote up until the end
> of voting, so I guess your "political enemy of choice" would have to have
> one "vote monitor" per person, each watching at just before the cut-off
> time. Either that, or get everyone to vote from computers he controls, just
> before the cut-off time.
>
> Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19494
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 15:05:53 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B730612.C28D58B2@sff.net...
<snip>
> Voting on line would have a different set of problems (identifying the
well
> intentioned idiot in line, for instance, and asking whom they intend to
vote
> for. :-D)
I remember when someone was talking about how cynical this advice was. I
thought about it, and realized that, while it might be cynical, it wasn't
nearly as cynical as it sounded. What Heinlein was saying was not that the
"well-intentioned idiot" would always vote wrong. What he was saying was
that, by voting in negation to the idiot, then his vote effectively ceased
to exist. This increased the ratio of well-informed thoughtful people to
well-intentioned idiots almost as much as if you were yourself a
well-informed thoughtful person.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19495
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 16:47:01 -0600
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> almost as much as if you were yourself a
> well-informed thoughtful person.
Ouch! ;-)
Actually, most of the time I already know whom I want to vote against.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19496
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:16:46 -0400
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3B71E598.6CD3E800@surewest.net>, James Gifford writes...
....
> Very different animals. Any sort of financial transaction is designed to
> identify the buyer with the transaction and keep records of all the
> steps, even if only one entity can access the records. With voting, you
> need to absolutely verify identity, but keep the contents of the vote
> secret - not just sort of secret, but absolutely, untraceably secret.
>
> I don't see any good way to do it that ensures verification of identity
> (and thus right to vote, protection against multiple votes, etc.) and
> still keep the corresponding ballot anonymous, no matter what level of
> record a hacker or gummint agency might have access to.
Depends on what you mean. Bruce Schneier presents a variety of provably
secure voting protocols in his first book, /Applied Cryptography/
(section 6.5). He explains why provably secure methods are insufficient
for real security in his second book, /Secrets and Lies/. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19497
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 16:42:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B7312E5.FFBE8226@sff.net...
> > almost as much as if you were yourself a
> > well-informed thoughtful person.
>
> Ouch! ;-)
>
> Actually, most of the time I already know whom I want to vote against.
That' wasn't what I meant! REALLY!
<tearing up>
Sniff!
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19498
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2001 17:48:57 -0600
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>
> That' wasn't what I meant! REALLY!
>
> <tearing up>
>
> Sniff!
Um... there, there. [pats filksinger consolingly.] Sorry, I just couldn't
resist the joke.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19499
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:11:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote
>
> "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote
>
> > Hmm...mine would be Beyond This Horizon I think. It just doesn't
> feel like
> > Heinlein somehow.
>
> You may have a point there. That one I didn't like, either, and
> haven't reread in a very long time.
>
I always thought BTH was half-a-Heinlein. All the stuff at the beginning
about carrying a gun, etc. struck my as very RAH. All the re-incarnation
voodoo....
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19500
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 01:17:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote
>
> Contrary to the technical issues raised downstream, I think Ed was
> referring to the fact that voting would be at home, where the voter's
> [insert political enemy of choice] would watch and approve, or not.
> None of the later secrecy means a thing if voting isn't done in private.
>
Yes, others have applied, but I still don't know what you mean here. If I
vote at home, online, there certainly won't be anyone watching and
approvingmy ballot. Or are you talking about a registrar coming to your
house to collect your ballot?
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19501
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 08:16:13 GMT
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001 06:16:23 -0500, "dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
> I know you have already received a number of responses, but I thought of
>you when I saw this ZDnet article:
>http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk/stories/story/0,10738,2802503,00.html.
Thanks, Dee, all articles are good since I know so little about this
stuff I almost always learn something.
Filk - So which is better, Zonealarm or Tiny Personal Firewall, or do
we want to install both ?
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19502
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:36:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" wrote:
> >
> I always thought BTH was half-a-Heinlein. All the stuff at the beginning
> about carrying a gun, etc. struck my as very RAH. All the re-incarnation
> voodoo....
>
> --
>
No, that ties in with a lot of Heinlein's work I think. It was the icky
sweet romance between Monroe and Marion was it? and the attitude of
Hamilton to Phyllis that got up my nose.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19503
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 09:45:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jane Davitt wrote:
> No, that ties in with a lot of Heinlein's work I think. It was the icky
> sweet romance between Monroe and Marion was it? and the attitude of
> Hamilton to Phyllis that got up my nose.
While we're on the subject, could someone read the section where Cliff
and Hazel arrive at the party (second chapter, I believe), and tell me
what they think the significance of "No, I think I'll go for a swim" is?
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19504
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:14:32 -0700
Subject: Re: DSL Security ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b739757.1561252@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> Filk - So which is better, Zonealarm or Tiny Personal Firewall, or do
> we want to install both ?
Generally, if the products are firewalls, you probably do _not_ want both.
They sometimes interfere with each other's operations.
I don't know much about the Tiny Personal Firewall, yet, so I can't give you
a full, objective appraisal. However, ZoneAlarm is not only a good firewall,
but it is a "fire and forget" sort of proposition. You install it, and let
it do its job.
Occasionally (frequently, at first), it will ask if you want to allow
certain programs to have access to the Internet, and sometimes it will ask
if you want a program to act like a server. You just have to decide if a
program should be allowed to do these two things. Access means the program
can get out, server means that it can be contacted from the outside. For
example, with Napster, if you set it up with access, it could download
songs, but if you set it up as server, others could request songs from your
machine. Server will normally be required only for servers of various types
(including file-sharing programs), and chat (so that incoming messages
aren't rejected when they come in).
Tiny, OTOH, is rules-based. It has a wizard, to make things simple, but I
haven't tried it, so I don't know how simple it is. ZoneAlarm is extremely
simple, however.
I am checking out various products right now. I'll let everyone know about
one I am very interested in soon.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19505
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:20:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B73F180.BBB6B150@home.com...
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
>
> > >
> > I always thought BTH was half-a-Heinlein. All the stuff at the beginning
> > about carrying a gun, etc. struck my as very RAH. All the re-incarnation
> > voodoo....
> >
> > --
> >
>
> No, that ties in with a lot of Heinlein's work I think. It was the icky
> sweet romance between Monroe and Marion was it? and the attitude of
> Hamilton to Phyllis that got up my nose.
For me, it was both, IIRC. The story seemed un-Heinlein, _and_ I didn't like
the characters. Hamilton's reaction to Phyllis is probably the most blatant
example of sexism in early Heinlein.
Filksinger
Geek Prophet to the Technologically Declined
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19506
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:26:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b736dc9.0@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> Yes, others have applied, but I still don't know what you mean here. If I
> vote at home, online, there certainly won't be anyone watching and
> approvingmy ballot. Or are you talking about a registrar coming to your
> house to collect your ballot?
No, I think he is looking at three issues:
1. It may be possible to spy on the vote. Of course, that can be done today.
In fact, after a typical paper ballot vote, I could go back after the fact
and tell you how a significant number of voters voted.
2. People at your home could pressure you. Victims of spousal abuse would be
most subject to this. This is a major weakness of mail-in voting.
3. People could be pressured to voting at "voting stations" set up by a
union, or a church, or otherwise so that their vote could be watched and
pressure applied, or, alternately, so that pressure could be applied by the
people running the stations _without_ spying. This can also be done with
mail-in voting, if the ballots are sufficiently confusing that a church or
an old-folks home can offer to "help".
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19507
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:41:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
>
> While we're on the subject, could someone read the section where Cliff
> and Hazel arrive at the party (second chapter, I believe), and tell me
> what they think the significance of "No, I think I'll go for a swim" is?
>
> --
Do you mean;
"Shall we dance?" he asked.
"No, not just yet." A girl, swimming on the other side of the wall, glided
down toward them and blew bubbles against the glass. Hazel followed the
girl's nose with her forefinger, tracing against the glass. The swimmer
grinned, she smiled back. "I think I'd like a dip, if you don't mind."
"Not at all"
"Join me?"
"No, thanks"
I think it's sort of strange to get all dressed up then the minute you get
there take it off and get soggy but I presume you mean something deeper ( no
pun meant!). A hint that Hazel is bisexual and is off to flirt with the
swimmer?
How about Thorgson, the man who smiles and frowns simultaneously? Have you
ever tried this? It's very difficult to do. I wonder if Heinlein could, or
knew someone who did. It seems a strange detail to include.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19508
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:46:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> "Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
> news:3B7286D8.BFD288D0@dfci.harvard.edu...
> > "William J. Keaton" wrote:
> >
> > > "Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
> > > news:oe31ntckjdq8bt6o53e1ja4jg7361gqlao@4ax.com...
> > > > FS: I heard on the news that someone has seriously proposed voting
> > > > via the Internet. (? From Home ?!!)
> > > > There goes our secret ballot.
> > > >
> > > How so?
> >
> > Contrary to the technical issues raised downstream, I think Ed was
> > referring to the fact that voting would be at home, where the voter's
> > [insert political enemy of choice] would watch and approve, or not.
> > None of the later secrecy means a thing if voting isn't done in private.
>
> We already have this. It's called "mail-in ballots". And the technical
> version can be built with the ability to change your vote up until the end
> of voting, so I guess your "political enemy of choice" would have to have
> one "vote monitor" per person, each watching at just before the cut-off
> time. Either that, or get everyone to vote from computers he controls, just
> before the cut-off time.
But from what I understand, the proponents of these systems see them replacing
the current system, rather than augmenting it. Mail-in ballots are still a
very small prportion of the total in most places. Where mail-in is standard
(Oregon, IIRC from the last election), I have the same problem with that
system.
BTW, thanks for the reply to WJake, downstream. Those things are exactly what
I had in mind.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19509
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 13:48:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
>
>
> For me, it was both, IIRC. The story seemed un-Heinlein, _and_ I didn't like
> the characters. Hamilton's reaction to Phyllis is probably the most blatant
> example of sexism in early Heinlein.
>
>
I'd like to have seen him try that on Hilda or Hazel or Deety...can we get
anything out of the fact that this was written pre Virginia? Or was it Heinlein
bowing to the perceptions of the day? Or did he, at that time, share those
perceptions of women?
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19510
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:00:28 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B741E71.7E40469@home.com...
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > For me, it was both, IIRC. The story seemed un-Heinlein, _and_ I didn't
like
> > the characters. Hamilton's reaction to Phyllis is probably the most
blatant
> > example of sexism in early Heinlein.
> >
> >
>
> I'd like to have seen him try that on Hilda or Hazel or Deety...can we get
> anything out of the fact that this was written pre Virginia? Or was it
Heinlein
> bowing to the perceptions of the day? Or did he, at that time, share those
> perceptions of women?
He still occasionally did it after Virginia. Look at how Star, Empress of
the Twenty Universes, handled (and was handled) when she goofed by not
telling Oscar proper behavior.
Personally, I think he had just a touch of Jake's weakness (consciously
believes in Women's Lib, unconsciously thinks they are emotional children,
OWTTE), and it occasionally leaked out. I think Jake was an apology.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19511
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:01:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3B741E07.F5980D69@dfci.harvard.edu...
<snip>
>
> But from what I understand, the proponents of these systems see them
replacing
> the current system, rather than augmenting it. Mail-in ballots are still
a
> very small prportion of the total in most places. Where mail-in is
standard
> (Oregon, IIRC from the last election), I have the same problem with that
> system.
And so do I. I am not yet in favor of such a voting system. I just want to
completely clarify the issues involved.
> BTW, thanks for the reply to WJake, downstream. Those things are exactly
what
> I had in mind.
Thanks. Glad to help.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19512
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:14:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:.
>
> Personally, I think he had just a touch of Jake's weakness (consciously
> believes in Women's Lib, unconsciously thinks they are emotional children,
> OWTTE), and it occasionally leaked out. I think Jake was an apology.
>
> Filksinger
An acronym I don't know.... What is 'OWTTE'?
If he meant Jake, infuriating, bumbling Jake as an apology, it would mean he was
aware of this character trait within himself. If so, what prompted the
realization so late in his life?
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19513
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:29:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B743282.702DD7A3@home.com...
> Filksinger wrote:.
>
> >
> > Personally, I think he had just a touch of Jake's weakness (consciously
> > believes in Women's Lib, unconsciously thinks they are emotional
children,
> > OWTTE), and it occasionally leaked out. I think Jake was an apology.
> >
> > Filksinger
>
> An acronym I don't know.... What is 'OWTTE'?
> If he meant Jake, infuriating, bumbling Jake as an apology, it would mean
he was
> aware of this character trait within himself. If so, what prompted the
> realization so late in his life?
>
> Jane
OWTTE = Or Words To That Effect.
I'm not certain as to why it took so long. If that _is_ a description, then
it might have taken so long because it _was_ unconscious. I don't know
Virginia that well, but if she was the sort to quietly finesse a husband
rather than lock horns, like Hilda, he might take quite a while to figure it
out. Many people go for their entire lives and never realize things about
them that to others are obvious.
Also, he might have gotten over it quite a bit before the apology. It might
even have been a quality he conquered well before he spotted it. Someone
pointing out occasional early examples in his work might have caused him to
realize he _used to_ have that problem.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19514
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 12:35:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jane Davitt wrote:
> A hint that Hazel is bisexual and is off to flirt with the swimmer?
That's how I keep reading it, but maybe I just have a dirty mind.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19515
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:56:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
> Jane Davitt wrote:
> > A hint that Hazel is bisexual and is off to flirt with the swimmer?
>
> That's how I keep reading it, but maybe I just have a dirty mind.
>
> -
So what does that say about _my_ mind? <g>
I don't know; nothing else in the text supports it; she marries again
after easing Monroe out and we know that she had lots of men after her
when she was famous. It could have been just that she was sharing a
moment of fun with someone, sex of the someone being irrelevant.
I was looking for a mention that the swimmers were nude, as would be
likely since there's no reference to people carrying swimming suits to
the party but perhaps that was too daring? In ARC you mention that when
we see the video of Phyllis swimming she was originally nude but this
gets edited out; this may have been edited too?
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19516
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 15:03:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B741CB7.1D5EB303@home.com...
<snip>
> How about Thorgson, the man who smiles and frowns simultaneously? Have
you
> ever tried this? It's very difficult to do. I wonder if Heinlein could, or
> knew someone who did. It seems a strange detail to include.
That actually sounds like it could be the expression my son gives when he's
trying to smile to show that he's innocent and everything is cool, but is
afraid he's in big trouble.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19517
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:22:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:26:57 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:3b736dc9.0@news.sff.net...
><snip>
>> Yes, others have applied, but I still don't know what you mean here. If I
>> vote at home, online, there certainly won't be anyone watching and
>> approvingmy ballot. Or are you talking about a registrar coming to your
>> house to collect your ballot?
>
>No, I think he is looking at three issues:
>
>1. It may be possible to spy on the vote. Of course, that can be done today.
>In fact, after a typical paper ballot vote, I could go back after the fact
>and tell you how a significant number of voters voted.
>
>2. People at your home could pressure you. Victims of spousal abuse would be
>most subject to this. This is a major weakness of mail-in voting.
>
Filksinger: I see Internet based voting the same way you see
mail-in voting. In the public voting place I went to it would be
hard to hide someone who might try to coerce a vote. Usually a
school cafeteria or local fire station is used. The voter is alone
in the curtained booth pulling levers or pushing buttons. Even if
you were threatened, once you were behind the curtain, who could say
how you actually voted? Mail-in votes can be coerced by the simple
method of having some thug watch you fill out the form and drop it
into the mail box for you. The same lack of secrecy came to mind
when I visualized a convenient Internet connection provided by some
group that might be interested in swaying an election. I know most
of this sounds paranoid, but "Secret Ballot" is the only way a free
people should vote. IMHO
>3. People could be pressured to voting at "voting stations" set up by a
>union, or a church, or otherwise so that their vote could be watched and
>pressure applied, or, alternately, so that pressure could be applied by the
>people running the stations _without_ spying. This can also be done with
>mail-in voting, if the ballots are sufficiently confusing that a church or
>an old-folks home can offer to "help".
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19518
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 19:57:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jane Davitt wrote:
> How about Thorgson, the man who smiles and frowns simultaneously?
> Have you ever tried this? It's very difficult to do. I wonder if
> Heinlein could, or knew someone who did. It seems a strange detail
> to include.
He may have simply been inventing a character aspect, but it may well be
that he knew someone who could manage this odd feat.
The second baseman for the San Francisco Giants, Jeff Kent, is *always*
smiling. He's got sort of brawny Kansas farm boy looks, and I have never
seen him without a smile on his face.
On the lower half of his face, that is. His mouth smiles even when he's
angry, arguing, concentrating, what have you. It's very odd to watch him
argue with an umpire, as his brow is quite clouded and his eyes leave no
doubt that he's fighting mad, but that farmboy smile remains pasted in
place.
So Thorgsen doesn't seem that odd to me.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19519
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 23:47:43 -0400
Subject: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3B744A9A.F8D0DBDE@home.com>, Jane Davitt writes...
> James Gifford wrote:
>
> > Jane Davitt wrote:
> > > A hint that Hazel is bisexual and is off to flirt with the swimmer?
> >
> > That's how I keep reading it, but maybe I just have a dirty mind.
Seems right to me.
....
> the party but perhaps that was too daring? In ARC you mention that when
> we see the video of Phyllis swimming she was originally nude but this
> gets edited out; this may have been edited too?
Eh? In my edition she is described as "bare and lovely".
It's interesting how many ideas from BTH Mr. Heinlein would return to in
one way or another in later works. It has its flaws as a novel, but
what's wrong with the scene where Felix and Phyllis meet?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19520
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:03:01 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>> we see the video of Phyllis swimming she was originally nude but this
>> gets edited out; this may have been edited too?
> Eh? In my edition she is described as "bare and lovely".
In the ASF serial version, the references to her being nude are edited
out. And to top it off, (er...) there's an illustration of her in a tank
suit. All of the book editions restore the "bare and lovely" comment.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19521
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:01:10 -0400
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>
> It's interesting how many ideas from BTH Mr. Heinlein would return to in
> one way or another in later works. It has its flaws as a novel, but
> what's wrong with the scene where Felix and Phyllis meet?
>
>
He insults her, hits her and forces her to kiss him.And she lets him live.And
seems to like it. I need a basin...
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19522
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 21:02:54 -0400
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3B75AB26.91F413DC@home.com>, Jane Davitt writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>
> >
> > It's interesting how many ideas from BTH Mr. Heinlein would return to in
> > one way or another in later works. It has its flaws as a novel, but
> > what's wrong with the scene where Felix and Phyllis meet?
> >
> >
>
> He insults her, hits her and forces her to kiss him.And she lets him live.And
> seems to like it. I need a basin...
She lounges on his chair without invitation, asserts that she will be the
mother of his children (something of a sexual gambit, no?), threatens a
duel, and then begins to draw her weapon. He lets her live, and seems to
like it. ;-)
Now, perhaps this scene was written simply for the awkward adolescent
boys reading ASF, or perhaps it really expressed Mr. Heinlein's ideal of
a first meeting between the sexes. Be that as it may, the scene is
important in that it struggles with issues of gender equality, tells us
more about the background culture, and provides a way for Felix to really
get interested (he is "delighted" when he learns that she would really
shoot him - this will not be the last time Mr. Heinlein will link sex and
death). Phyllis asserts her equal status by going armed, yet Felix sees
her as claiming privileges, since he assumes (no doubt correctly) that
armed men will not put her to the test. So here we have Mr. Heinlein
raising the question of how an individual man and woman can relate as
equals without cultural institutions to support it - very post modern for
1942.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19523
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 12:31:31 -0600
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
--------------93191E9EED934A560CD8EDE9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Okay, I've remained quiet long enough on this, so now I'll open my mouth (and
probably insert foot. It can't be helped.)
Will someone in God's name tell me why ALL of Heinlein's heroines SHOULD be
assertive and fully competent women?
I mean, real women aren't. Certainly the fact that a woman character wimps out now
and again does NOT reflect the author's view so much as reality. (Don't
psychoanalyze the author based on character's actions, please. Or at least, think
of alternate explanations.)
Star had problems of her own, having started out as a married school teacher whose
husband snuck out rather than face the fact that he was now married to the
empress. If she sometimes gives up a point to Oscar, isn't that a reflection of a
fully-constructed character than any subconscious machismo of Mr. Heinlein's.
Hazel... well, I haven't read that book in twenty years, so I can't remember. The
whole book struck me as "journeyman's work".
I think it's time for feminists (as well as everyone else) to come to terms with
the fact that women are human. If you ask me, any man who would write women as
perfect and always on top would have to be an hypocrite AND going along with
appeasing "the little women" (which I find a lot more insulting) -- because anyone
who's lived in the real world knows there are women who are wimps (most of them)
just as there are men who are wimps (most of them.) Mr. Heinlein made his women as
heroic as each of them could be in her individual circumstances and with her
individual pasts (as he did with his men, too). That's respectful, accurate and
enjoyable.
Part of the reason I like Heinlein is that, though acknowledging women's equality
(or superiority) he makes his women characters HUMAN and gives them a great
variation of insecurities/strengths. Hilda wouldn't take guff. D.T. would take a
little more. Star has enormous insecurities and Friday marries her rapist
(although a lot can be said for the fact that he was as raped as herself, being --
like her -- a "created" human and -- presumably having gone through doxy training
and struggling with the concept that he has the right to say no. So, for Friday,
she finds a haven with a being as abused as herself. This is QUITE believable.
And should not be converted into a feminist issue. A human rights issue, maybe.)
His women are creatures with pasts, who act according to those pasts. They are not
wimps, but neither are they miraculous, titanium-plated beings with no cinches in
their armors. Live with it.
Sorry. I should say AGAIN that this is IMHO. I should also say that though this
discussion pushed this particular button, it's an annoyance that has been building
for a long time. If women want to enjoy their rightful place in the world they
need to accept that women at large are, like men at large, a hodge podge. And we
need to stop taking offense and throwing pettish tantrums when a woman character is
depicted as human.
Sorry about the rant, but the new hyper-sensitive political correctness has ruined
a lot of SF/F for me. I'm just so tired of the woman with the sword who saves the
world before breakfast and never has a moment of weakness, nor is driven by any
trauma from the past, (except to vengeful rage, of course -- women are allowed to
have traumas that make them want to kill a bunch of people). Unlike the
Heinlein's women this warrior goddess is not simply a human being doing the best
she can, and trying so hard she sometimes appears superhuman. She IS superhuman
and without flaw by virtue of having been born with a vagina.
I don't want my sons to imagine real women are like that. The goddess-warrior is
as bad as any playboy bunny for men's images of real women. She's not real.
She's not human. She's not advancing any dialogue between the sexes (of course,
this last concept presumes that each of the sexes speaks with a unified voice,
which I also have trouble believing.) And she makes me sick.
I need a basin.
Sorry, again this is IMHO.
Sarah
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3B75AB26.91F413DC@home.com>, Jane Davitt writes...
> > "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's interesting how many ideas from BTH Mr. Heinlein would return to in
> > > one way or another in later works. It has its flaws as a novel, but
> > > what's wrong with the scene where Felix and Phyllis meet?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > He insults her, hits her and forces her to kiss him.And she lets him live.And
> > seems to like it. I need a basin...
>
> She lounges on his chair without invitation, asserts that she will be the
> mother of his children (something of a sexual gambit, no?), threatens a
> duel, and then begins to draw her weapon. He lets her live, and seems to
> like it. ;-)
>
> Now, perhaps this scene was written simply for the awkward adolescent
> boys reading ASF, or perhaps it really expressed Mr. Heinlein's ideal of
> a first meeting between the sexes. Be that as it may, the scene is
> important in that it struggles with issues of gender equality, tells us
> more about the background culture, and provides a way for Felix to really
> get interested (he is "delighted" when he learns that she would really
> shoot him - this will not be the last time Mr. Heinlein will link sex and
> death). Phyllis asserts her equal status by going armed, yet Felix sees
> her as claiming privileges, since he assumes (no doubt correctly) that
> armed men will not put her to the test. So here we have Mr. Heinlein
> raising the question of how an individual man and woman can relate as
> equals without cultural institutions to support it - very post modern for
> 1942.
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com
--------------93191E9EED934A560CD8EDE9
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Okay, I've remained quiet long enough on this, so now I'll open my mouth
(and probably insert foot. It can't be helped.)
<p>Will someone in God's name tell me why <u>ALL </u>of Heinlein's heroines
SHOULD be assertive and fully competent women?
<p>I mean, real women aren't. Certainly the fact that a woman character
wimps out now and again <u>does NOT</u> reflect the <u>author'</u>s view
so much as <u>reality.</u> (Don't psychoanalyze the author based
on character's actions, please. Or at least, think of alternate explanations.)
<p>Star had problems of her own, having started out as a married school
teacher whose husband snuck out rather than face the fact that he was now
married to the empress. If she sometimes gives up a point to Oscar,
isn't that a reflection of a fully-constructed character than any subconscious
machismo of Mr. Heinlein's. Hazel... well, I haven't read that book
in twenty years, so I can't remember. The whole book struck me as
"journeyman's work".
<p>I think it's time for feminists (as well as everyone else) to come to
terms with the fact that women are human. If you ask me, any
man who would write women as perfect and always on top would have to be
an hypocrite AND going along with appeasing "the little women" (which I
find a lot more insulting) -- because anyone who's lived in the real world
knows there are women who are wimps (most of them) just as there are men
who are wimps (most of them.) Mr. Heinlein made his women as heroic
as each of them could be in her individual circumstances and with her individual
pasts (as he did with his men, too). That's respectful, accurate
and enjoyable.
<p>Part of the reason I like Heinlein is that, though acknowledging women's
equality (or superiority) he makes his women characters HUMAN and gives
them a great variation of insecurities/strengths. Hilda wouldn't
take guff. D.T. would take a little more. Star has enormous
insecurities and Friday marries her rapist (although a lot can be said
for the fact that he was as raped as herself, being -- like her -- a "created"
human and -- presumably having gone through doxy training and struggling
with the concept that he has the right to say no. So, for Friday,
she finds a haven with a being as abused as herself. This is QUITE
believable. And should not be converted into a feminist issue.
A human rights issue, maybe.)
<p>His women are creatures with pasts, who act according to those pasts.
They are not wimps, but neither are they miraculous, titanium-plated beings
with no cinches in their armors. Live with it.
<p>Sorry. I should say AGAIN that this is IMHO. I should also
say that though this discussion pushed this particular button, it's an
annoyance that has been building for a long time. If women want to
enjoy their rightful place in the world they need to accept that women
at large are, like men at large, a hodge podge. And we need to stop
taking offense and throwing pettish tantrums when a woman character is
depicted as <u>human.</u>
<p>Sorry about the rant, but the new hyper-sensitive political correctness
has ruined a lot of SF/F for me. I'm just so tired of the woman with
the sword who saves the world before breakfast and never has a moment of
weakness, nor is driven by any trauma from the past, (except to vengeful
rage, of course -- women are allowed to have traumas that make them want
to kill a bunch of people). Unlike the Heinlein's women this
warrior goddess is not simply a human being doing the best she can, and
trying so hard she sometimes appears superhuman. She IS superhuman
and without flaw by virtue of having been born with a vagina.
<p>I don't want my sons to imagine real women are like that. The
goddess-warrior is as bad as any playboy bunny for men's images of real
women. She's not real. She's not human. She's not
advancing any dialogue between the sexes (of course, this last concept
presumes that each of the sexes speaks with a unified voice, which I also
have trouble believing.) And she makes me sick.
<br><u>I</u> need a basin.
<p>Sorry, again this is IMHO.
<p>Sarah
<p>"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>In article <3B75AB26.91F413DC@home.com>, Jane
Davitt writes...
<br>> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
<br>>
<br>> >
<br>> > It's interesting how many ideas from BTH Mr. Heinlein would return
to in
<br>> > one way or another in later works. It has its flaws as a
novel, but
<br>> > what's wrong with the scene where Felix and Phyllis meet?
<br>> >
<br>> >
<br>>
<br>> He insults her, hits her and forces her to kiss him.And she lets
him live.And
<br>> seems to like it. I need a basin...
<p>She lounges on his chair without invitation, asserts that she will be
the
<br>mother of his children (something of a sexual gambit, no?), threatens
a
<br>duel, and then begins to draw her weapon. He lets her live, and
seems to
<br>like it. ;-)
<p>Now, perhaps this scene was written simply for the awkward adolescent
<br>boys reading ASF, or perhaps it really expressed Mr. Heinlein's ideal
of
<br>a first meeting between the sexes. Be that as it may, the scene
is
<br>important in that it struggles with issues of gender equality, tells
us
<br>more about the background culture, and provides a way for Felix to
really
<br>get interested (he is "delighted" when he learns that she would really
<br>shoot him - this will not be the last time Mr. Heinlein will link sex
and
<br>death). Phyllis asserts her equal status by going armed, yet
Felix sees
<br>her as claiming privileges, since he assumes (no doubt correctly) that
<br>armed men will not put her to the test. So here we have Mr. Heinlein
<br>raising the question of how an individual man and woman can relate
as
<br>equals without cultural institutions to support it - very post modern
for
<br>1942.
<p>--
<br>Gordon Sollars
<br>gsollars@pobox.com</blockquote>
</html>
--------------93191E9EED934A560CD8EDE9--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19524
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 16:27:57 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> Will someone in God's name tell me why ALL of Heinlein's heroines
> SHOULD be assertive and fully competent women?
If you'll tolerate an extremely short answer to start with: Why
shouldn't they be? What constrains Heinlein (or anyone else) to creating
some sort of politically correct, ethnically-sexually-politically
balanced mix in his writing? He wrote fiction; he knew he was writing
fiction; why judge him as if he was writing a history textbook?
By and large, his male protagonists are, well, Heinlein Heroes - and why
not? If you want wretched incompentents, just as interestingly- and
well-wrought as Heinlein's supermen, then go read Philip K. Dick.
By and large, his female protagonists are, well, Heinlein Heroines - and
why not? If you want weepy, faulty, unskilled women characters, you can
find them in many writer's works.
Why must Heinlein be judged for what he chose not to write?
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19525
From: David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:41:29 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3B75AB26.91F413DC@home.com>, Jane Davitt writes...
> > "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It's interesting how many ideas from BTH Mr. Heinlein would return to in
> > > one way or another in later works. It has its flaws as a novel, but
> > > what's wrong with the scene where Felix and Phyllis meet?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > He insults her, hits her and forces her to kiss him.And she lets him live.And
> > seems to like it. I need a basin...
>
> She lounges on his chair without invitation, asserts that she will be the
> mother of his children (something of a sexual gambit, no?), threatens a
> duel, and then begins to draw her weapon. He lets her live, and seems to
> like it. ;-)
>
> Now, perhaps this scene was written simply for the awkward adolescent
> boys reading ASF, or perhaps it really expressed Mr. Heinlein's ideal of
> a first meeting between the sexes. Be that as it may, the scene is
> important in that it struggles with issues of gender equality, tells us
> more about the background culture, and provides a way for Felix to really
> get interested (he is "delighted" when he learns that she would really
> shoot him - this will not be the last time Mr. Heinlein will link sex and
> death). Phyllis asserts her equal status by going armed, yet Felix sees
> her as claiming privileges, since he assumes (no doubt correctly) that
> armed men will not put her to the test. So here we have Mr. Heinlein
> raising the question of how an individual man and woman can relate as
> equals without cultural institutions to support it - very post modern for
> 1942.
Maybe there's now a little answer to part of this, Gordon -- referring to the
*immediate* sexual gambit upon introduction, what may have been Mr. Heinlein's
ideal of a first meeting between the sexes. Some of Heinlein's first meetings
between sexes, this one in BTH, notably the one between Zeb and Deety in Number,
and others have drawn criticism from readers as simply unrealistic. For about a
year now I've been biting my tongue whenever this aspect has been addressed in
news group postings. That's because I've known what some research a fellow named
Robert James has found says about real life incidents between Robert Heinlein and
his second wife, Leslyn MacDonald. James has been preparing an article addressing
what he's found about that courtship and the marriage. Now that it's published
("Regarding Leslyn," a biographical sketch of Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein Mocabee,
Issue 9, The Heinlein Journal, July 2001, pp. 17-36), it's appropriate to mention
one of Dr. James' discoveries.
It pertains to the first meeting between Leslyn and Robert. Let me quote what Dr.
James writes, id, at 19:
"Sometime before March 28th, 1932, Leslyn MacDonald met Robert Anson Heinlein.
Leslyn was dating Heinlein's best friend, Caleb Laning, at the time; according to
Leslyn, Heinlein went along as moral support when Laning went to propose to
Leslyn.
"At that meeting, something astonishing happened: Leslyn ended up engaged, not
to Laning, but to Heinlein:
' . . . he had proposed to me in *front* of the closest friend he had
in the Navy, who (I found out later) had come to propose to me himself.' [Letter
to the Whites, September 15, 1953]
"Virginia Heinlein has confirmed this event, and added more detail. Heinlein
later claimed that he 'laid her the first night, and then asked her to marry him.'
[E-mail Interview with Virginia, May 31, 2001]."
End quotation from "Regarding Leslyn." The "Whites" are Mr. and Mrs. A.P. White.
Mr. White is better known as Anthony Boucher.
Dr. James writes in his article that the "mind boggles at precisely how that
exchange and interchange must have occurred, and like Sherlock Holmes' remark
about the strange doings of the dog in the night, one wonders what Cal Laning was
doing at the time."
His article offers some immediate explanations, particularly noting that Heinlein
and Laning remained friends the rest of their lives. First, he notes "how young
these two men were: men in their early twenties have been known to lead with their
pelvises." Secondly, he notes this was Hollywood coming out of the 1920s which saw
the first major sexual revolution, and the time it took for the Great Depression
to kill that one off. Thirdly, Leslyn herself was then employed by the movie
industry, "a group not renowned for their celibate habits, then or now." Even
then, in 1932, Dr. James notes Hollywood was using sex and nudity to sell its
product to Depression audiences before Hayes Code censorship clamped down (he
cites the first Tarzan movie with its notorious scene of Maureen O'Sullivan as
nude Jane swimming underwater).
The rest of Dr. James' article is worth looking at for this and other reasons that
may shed some light on the so-called Heinlein heroine. I think, however, it
particularly resonates in the discussion in this thread about Phyllis and Felix in
Beyond This Horizon.
For example: some have speculated that BTH heavily 'mines' the unpublished cadet
novel "For Us the Living" (G. 004) written ca. 1937; while others, myself
included, even detect a stylistic difference between BTH and the rest of
Heinlein's stories. Heinlein's reliance upon his third wife, Virginia, as a
helpmate in his writings, is pretty well established. The affinities between
Virginia's real life character and some Heinlein heroines has been noted. Dr.
James' research and article point to some discoveries that may make evidence for
speculation available to argue perhaps help in writing and affinities in character
creation to the former Miss MacDonald and earlier Mrs. Heinlein as well.
I think Dr. James would argue that in 1942 there was still quite a bit of memory
of a pre-post modern period of liberated women around, particularly in the minds
of author Heinlein and his then current wife, the up-to-now elusive former Miss
MacDonald. I hope as many of you as possible obtain copies and enjoy "Regarding
Leslyn."
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19526
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:02:13 -0400
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3B781F59.BEDFA017@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
> Now that it's published
> ("Regarding Leslyn," a biographical sketch of Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein Mocabee,
> Issue 9, The Heinlein Journal, July 2001, pp. 17-36),
So where's my copy? Do I have to rattle Bill's cage again? ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19527
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 16:50:40 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B7710FD.496437E2@surewest.net...
> "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> > Will someone in God's name tell me why ALL of Heinlein's heroines
> > SHOULD be assertive and fully competent women?
>
> If you'll tolerate an extremely short answer to start with: Why
> shouldn't they be? What constrains Heinlein (or anyone else) to creating
> some sort of politically correct, ethnically-sexually-politically
> balanced mix in his writing? He wrote fiction; he knew he was writing
> fiction; why judge him as if he was writing a history textbook?
>
> By and large, his male protagonists are, well, Heinlein Heroes - and why
> not? If you want wretched incompentents, just as interestingly- and
> well-wrought as Heinlein's supermen, then go read Philip K. Dick.
>
> By and large, his female protagonists are, well, Heinlein Heroines - and
> why not? If you want weepy, faulty, unskilled women characters, you can
> find them in many writer's works.
>
> Why must Heinlein be judged for what he chose not to write?
I think the question is, "Why is Heinlein being accused of being sexist for
giving his male and female characters faults and character traits less than
ideal?" And it is a fair question.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19528
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:27:09 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B76CB83.CACA1D94@sff.net...
Okay, I've remained quiet long enough on this, so now I'll open my
mouth (and probably insert foot. It can't be helped.)
Will someone in God's name tell me why ALL of Heinlein's
heroines SHOULD be assertive and fully competent women?
*****
No reason at all. Nor would I complain if they weren't.
However, lets look at one of the examples you named, and I'll see if I can
explain my complaint.
*****
<snip>
Part of the reason I like Heinlein is that, though acknowledging women's
equality (or superiority) he makes his women characters HUMAN and gives them
a great variation of insecurities/strengths. Hilda wouldn't take guff.
D.T. would take a little more. Star has enormous insecurities and Friday
marries her rapist (although a lot can be said for the fact that he was as
raped as herself, being -- like her -- a "created" human and -- presumably
having gone through doxy training and struggling with the concept that he
has the right to say no. So, for Friday, she finds a haven with a being as
abused as herself. This is QUITE believable. And should not be converted
into a feminist issue. A human rights issue, maybe.)
*****
And I have no complaints about any of those. I like characters who have
faults, so long as the characters are consistent (or that inconsistency is
part of the character, or fit a pattern). I have personally defended
Heinlein's choice of having Friday take rape as some sort of trifle, not
even the sort of thing to disqualify a man from being marriage material.
Friday was trained to be, from an early age, a slave, with sex as part of
her duties. Talk about being "indentured" aside, she _had_ to consider rape
to be a pecadillo. Why? Because she was nearly superhumanly strong and fast,
and might well be the effective slave of a man with whom she doesn't want to
have sex. Even without her unarmed combat training, if she considered being
required to have sex as worse than cleaning a bathroom, or being raped as
being significantly worse than a normal beating, he'd be dead. "Doxy" duty
would never have been even considered.
All of what you describe above is all right with me, and even desirable,
except for how he treats Star.
*****
His women are creatures with pasts, who act according to those pasts. They
are not wimps, but neither are they miraculous, titanium-plated beings with
no cinches in their armors. Live with it.
*****
I understand the complaint, and I'll admit it has some substance. Perhaps I
can explain why I see some of the failure of Heinlein's women to live up to
a certain standard "sexist".
I have no problem with submissive women in literature. Nor do I have a
problem with incapable women in literature. I rather like Barbara in
"Farnham's Freehold". Friday is possibly my favorite Heinlein character of
all time. Many of the most interesting female characters of all time weren't
superheroines, and I don't require Heinlein's to be.
But there are some things which, when they show up more than once, I see as
sexism, however well controlled and minor. Lets use Star as an example.
She wants to be dominated by her sexual parner? Fine. She likes the
submissive role? Also fine. She's even insecure in ways that don't directly
interefere with her job? Again, fine.
Star was carefully selected from among billions of candidates to be the best
possible leader of them all. She was then given the life experience of
hundreds of other such ideal leaders. This requires that she meets certain
standards to be consistent.
Star can make all the stupid mistakes she wants, or be as submissive as she
wants, or as insecure. But Star should _NOT_ make stupid mistakes when it
comes to being a leader. Yet she makes two, a bad one, then a really bad
one.
First, of course, she doesn't give Oscar a clue as to what to expect when
encountering an utterly unexpected foreign culture, and assumes he will act
like she expects (certainly not always correctly) a man from some other
related culture to act. This was the minor mistake.
The major mistake was that she blamed Oscar. This is utterly inconsistent
with the background of the character, as we have been given it.
What kind of of ideal leader, with centuries of experience, blames others
for her mistakes?
I would have no problem with the spanking and the subsequent submissiveness
and marriage if it wasn't for this. She can have whatever type of man she
wants to, and be as submissive as she wants to in their relationship, or
confess to him (privately) all the insecurities she wants, so long as it
doesn't interfere with her job. But she was specially chosen for the job, in
a most extreme manner, and specially trained in an even more extreme manner.
She should do that job right, consistently. Yet, when it came time for her
to be dominated, she's suddenly incompetent, and needs to be corrected by a
"real man".
Heinlein set her up, clumsily, to be dominated by a "real man", and thus
being shown the error of her ways. This is something Heinlein did more than
once in his stories, though this is the most blatant example.
_That_ is why I say there is "sexism" in early Heinlein. He was far better
than most of his contemporaries, I agree, and I freely acknowledge this.
That doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19529
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 17:31:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:ko49ntgulfd29opcsjgakoinnseifjf568@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Filksinger: I see Internet based voting the same way you see
> mail-in voting. In the public voting place I went to it would be
> hard to hide someone who might try to coerce a vote. Usually a
> school cafeteria or local fire station is used. The voter is alone
> in the curtained booth pulling levers or pushing buttons. Even if
> you were threatened, once you were behind the curtain, who could say
> how you actually voted? Mail-in votes can be coerced by the simple
> method of having some thug watch you fill out the form and drop it
> into the mail box for you. The same lack of secrecy came to mind
> when I visualized a convenient Internet connection provided by some
> group that might be interested in swaying an election. I know most
> of this sounds paranoid, but "Secret Ballot" is the only way a free
> people should vote. IMHO
I agree with all of this. I am not in favor of Internet voting; I simply
want to make certain that we focus properly on where the problems actually
are. The inherent insecurity of the Internet is nothing compared to the
inherent insecurity of not voting at a specially selected and screened
location.
OTOH, what if there is a group of people who are in a position to harass
voters and frighten them away from the polling places. This happened in Nazi
Germany, and in the US. So, I can see why such a "vote at home" system
overcomes similar problems that our method causes. So, I'm not certain I'm
against Internet voting, either.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19530
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:48:11 -0400
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David M. Silver" wrote: I hope as many of you as possible obtain copies and enjoy
"Regarding
> Leslyn."
>
Can't wait for my copy to arrive. Nor for the howls that will follow in some quarters
as yet another aspect of Heinlein is revealed that may not quite match what some
people think of him.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19531
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:56:32 -0400
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote: If women want to enjoy their rightful place in
the world they need to accept that women at large are, like men at
large, a hodge podge. And we need to stop taking offense and throwing
pettish tantrums when a woman character is depicted as human.
>
Sarah, I am on record (somewhere) as being set against the Longism that
women are superior, presumably because we can produce babies.I remember
an intense debate where I argued that women and children first is no
longer a necessity, given the population of the world.
I don't like what happens between Hamilton and Phyllis because it
doesn't fit. He is unfair, provokes her into attack and treats her as a
silly bit of fluff with no justification. That she accepts this seems
out of character for her as we see her later in the novel and this, I
think, is what I have most problems with.
And don't worry about foot munching, just think of it as good exercise
:-)
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19532
From: Audrey Gifford <agifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:59:07 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Heinlein women are bothersome because they are such a fearsomely difficult
lot to live up to- and yet because they are written so well and so
believably we feel that if we just worked hard enough we should be that
accomplished as well. I fall short of the mark too, but I still enjoy
reading about these women. (And I loathe Philip K. Dick).
Jim is fond of pointing out that even the (arguably) penultimate Heinlein
Herione (Maureen) spent about 50 years as a housewife. A submissive
housewife, even.
A noble profession, and she raised an enormous number of children, but
being able to do that and that still be young enough to go on to her other
many accomplishments does give her a bit of an unfair advantage.
I never felt that Heinlein thought women were superior because of
baby-making capabilities. That seemed to be a secondary issue you did in
your spare time while saving the world and the guy while protecting his ego
- THEN you dropped everything to play submissive housewife and spanking
games.
'Course, who read these books back then?- for the most part young men and
boys. I can't think of a better way to make successful strong women
attractive to young men and boys than to present them the way Heinlein did.
If he was into social engineering it was a pretty clever move, IMHO.
And I want all our daughters to read Heinlein, and I hope they at least try
to achieve as much as they can. (We did name the youngest girl Maureen, and
that was not a coincidence). Bob used to post here - he was raised on
Heinlein, and I suspect he would love to have a Heinlein herione in his
life.
In any case Heinlein wrote books to sell books. He was not obliged to
present any particular agenda. - He is MUCH more palatable to my taste than
most - if you want to see women in books that will really send you to a
basin read anything by Clive Cussler.
If it bothers me that I don't live up to Heinlein's herione's standards,
well that's my problem, not his.
I do have one question though, for the guys --- If you really did meet a
Heinlein Herione, which you want anything to do with her or would she be
too intimidating?
Take care, Audrey
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19533
From: William G. Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 11:15:26 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0080_01C124B2.6B2BDD60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It might simply be that RAH figured his readers would rather follow the =
adventures of his type of "Heinlein Heroines", or that was the type of =
woman he preferred writing about. With that starting point "reality" =
becomes less important than making the characters as realistic and =
plausible as possible.
His heriones are merely "functionally competant" in their environment, =
and only seem extraordinary in the sense that most people are =
functionally incompetant in comparision. While most people hunker down =
against a strong wind, a few go hang-gliding. Human nature is more =
attracted to the flyers over the sprawlers.
Will from Texas
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message =
news:3B76CB83.CACA1D94@sff.net...
Okay, I've remained quiet long enough on this, so now I'll open my =
mouth (and probably insert foot. It can't be helped.)=20
Will someone in God's name tell me why ALL of Heinlein's heroines =
SHOULD be assertive and fully competent women?=20
I mean, real women aren't. Certainly the fact that a woman character =
wimps out now and again does NOT reflect the author's view so much as =
reality. (Don't psychoanalyze the author based on character's actions, =
please. Or at least, think of alternate explanations.) =20
------=_NextPart_000_0080_01C124B2.6B2BDD60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>It might simply be that RAH figured his readers =
would rather=20
follow the adventures of his type of "Heinlein Heroines", or that =
was the=20
type of woman he preferred writing about. With that starting point =
"reality"=20
becomes less important than making the characters as realistic and =
plausible as=20
possible.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>His heriones are merely "functionally competant" in =
their=20
environment, and only seem extraordinary in the sense that most =
people are=20
functionally incompetant in comparision. While most people hunker down =
against a=20
strong wind, a few go hang-gliding. Human nature is more attracted to =
the flyers=20
over the sprawlers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Will from Texas</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Sarah A. Hoyt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:sarah-hoyt@sff.net">sarah-hoyt@sff.net</A>> wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:3B76CB83.CACA1D94@sff.net">news:3B76CB83.CACA1D94@sff.net</A=
>...</DIV>Okay,=20
I've remained quiet long enough on this, so now I'll open my mouth =
(and=20
probably insert foot. It can't be helped.)=20
<P>Will someone in God's name tell me why <U>ALL </U>of Heinlein's =
heroines=20
SHOULD be assertive and fully competent women?=20
<P>I mean, real women aren't. Certainly the fact that a woman =
character=20
wimps out now and again <U>does NOT</U> reflect the <U>author'</U>s =
view so=20
much as <U>reality.</U> (Don't psychoanalyze the author based on =
character's actions, please. Or at least, think of alternate=20
explanations.) </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0080_01C124B2.6B2BDD60--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19534
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:05:39 -0700
Subject: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
*Ahem.* As promised:
http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/pphome.html
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19535
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:57:03 -0600
Subject: Re: A (probably confusing) explanation.
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> If you'll tolerate an extremely short answer to start with: Why
> shouldn't they be? What constrains Heinlein (or anyone else) to creating
> some sort of politically correct, ethnically-sexually-politically
> balanced mix in his writing? He wrote fiction; he knew he was writing
> fiction; why judge him as if he was writing a history textbook?
I'm sorry. You probably misunderstood me. I was taking no issue with how
Mr. Heinlein created his heroines. I was taking issue with the idea that
his heroines, as well as his heroes, SHOULD have been unflawed. And that by
making them flawed he meant something "dirty" or "underhanded."
I don't express myself well when in the heat of discussion, and I should not
have posted while not thinking coherently.
The point is, I agree with you, in any case. I didn't want weepy heroines.
I find Heinlein's heroines refreshing in that they're neither weepy, droopy
"carry me" females, nor perfect, titanium plated goddesses. They do,
occasionally, let males -- and females -- get away with things. And I
appreciate that.
>
> Why must Heinlein be judged for what he chose not to write?
But that was exactly what I meant. Why must any writer be judged by what he
wrote/didn't write. I have a degree in literature and I got very tired to
people who made assumptions on a writer's particular ideas/thoughts/private
life based on what they wrote. Oh, some CAN be made. It is plain Heinlein
preferred competent, self-sufficient people (I'm okay with that.) But I
thought we were stepping over the line in inferring his attitude towards
women from Hazel's one instance of behavior, or Star's one instance of
behavior, or the fact that Friday marries her "rapist." The fact is,
stories have a coherency and logic of their own, and your character is not
you.
Sorry I expressed myself so badly. There's nothing wrong with Heinlein
heroines. Or heroes. Few of us reach their heights, but it gives us
something to strive for. I simply have problems with guessing Heinlein's
attitude towards women or accusing him of hypocritical feminism based on a
couple of "I'll go along with this" behaviors from his female characters.
I hope this makes a little more sense... but maybe not. Maybe I should wait
till I'm off painkillers before posting.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19536
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 18:59:01 -0600
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job;
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> I think the question is, "Why is Heinlein being accused of being sexist for
> giving his male and female characters faults and character traits less than
> ideal?" And it is a fair question.
Yes, that was the question. Thank you for understanding. For the record, I am
currently on pain killers. (Kids, don't take painkillers and post.) I'll now
go back to lurking until my mind is clearer. :-)
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19537
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:16:51 -0600
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
--------------C6FA11797C895590AC12A610
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> I fall short of the mark too, but I still enjoy
> reading about these women. (And I loathe Philip K. Dick).
Again, I have NO problem with Heinlein heroines. I have problems with
females-with-swords (astonishingly written usually by women) who NEVER let
their guard down and who are as likely as not to simper and whimper in their
free time and spend an unusual amount of time watching lint gather on their
belly-button.
I fall short of the mark too. There's the gun thing, for instance -- mostly
because my father refused to teach me shoot (he didn't teach my brother,
either, so no sexism. Just weirdness) and I haven't found the time for it,
yet, but I do try and I think I'm considerably better for it.
My husband and I joke that between us we make a complete person. (He's a
mathematician and I'm an history bug.) We might not be entirely objective on
Heinlein (our older son, born 7/7/91 is named Robert Anson -- and I'd love for
him to find and marry a Heinlein woman. A likely fate, judging from his tastes
in playmates and friends.) Still, I'm tired of all my women friends who say
they won't read Heinlein "because he's sexist" without in fact ever having
cracked open one of the books.
I understand what Filksinger has to say about repeated themes, but during the
quest, Star had NOT been "indoctrinated" with the experience of past rulers,
yet. And, no matter how good you are, or suited for a job, without that
experience you WILL make mistakes. As for the spanking, hell -- it's a minor
detail and if he liked to write it, great. And, for the guys -- women play
games. For the girls -- men play games. An author who is aware of it, will
write it. It does not reflect sexism. (Besides the fact that I'm tired of
seeing men-as-dumbo and invincible women in other books and no one accuses
THOSE authors of sexism.)
As for BTH -- as I said, when I read it (after I'd read all the other books up
to 1981, because BTH was either never translated into Portuguese [which is
first found Heinlein] or I couldn't find it) it struck me as a journeyman
piece and rather forgettable, interesting only in that one could see how far
he'd come since then.
[I'm hoping no one holds ME hostage to my first book and I would like to be
judged by the stuff I'll write twenty years from now.]
Audrey, I think I saw you with Maureen at Chicon last year. :-)
Sarah
PS -I do have one question though, for the guys --- If you really did meet a
Heinlein Herione, which you want anything to do with her or would she be too
intimidating?
My husband claims he met one and married her. (I'm NOT bursting his bubble.)
--------------C6FA11797C895590AC12A610
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> I fall short of the mark too, but I still enjoy
<br>reading about these women. (And I loathe Philip K. Dick).</blockquote>
Again, I have NO problem with Heinlein heroines. I have problems with females-with-swords
(astonishingly written usually by women) who NEVER let their guard down
and who are as likely as not to simper and whimper in their free time and
spend an unusual amount of time watching lint gather on their belly-button.
<p>I fall short of the mark too. There's the gun thing, for instance
-- mostly because my father refused to teach me shoot (he didn't teach
my brother, either, so no sexism. Just weirdness) and I haven't found
the time for it, yet, but I do<u> try</u> and I think I'm considerably
better for it.
<p>My husband and I joke that between us we make a complete person.
(He's a mathematician and I'm an history bug.) We might not be entirely
objective on Heinlein (our older son, born 7/7/91 is named Robert Anson
-- and I'd love for him to find and marry a Heinlein woman. A likely
fate, judging from his tastes in playmates and friends.) Still, I'm
tired of all my women friends who say they won't read Heinlein "because
he's sexist" without in fact ever having cracked open one of the books.
<p>I understand what Filksinger has to say about repeated themes, but during
the quest, Star had NOT been "indoctrinated" with the experience of past
rulers, yet. And, no matter how good you are, or suited for a job,
without that experience you WILL make mistakes. As for the spanking,
hell -- it's a minor detail and if he liked to write it, great. And,
for the guys -- women play games. For the girls -- men play games.
An author who is aware of it, will write it. It does not reflect
sexism. (Besides the fact that I'm tired of seeing men-as-dumbo and
invincible women in other books and no one accuses THOSE authors of sexism.)
<br>As for BTH -- as I said, when I read it (after I'd read all the other
books up to 1981, because BTH was either never translated into Portuguese
[which is first found Heinlein] or I couldn't find it) it struck
me as a journeyman piece and rather forgettable, interesting only in that
one could see how far he'd come since then.
<p>[I'm hoping no one holds ME hostage to my first book and I would like
to be judged by the stuff I'll write twenty years from now.]
<p>Audrey, I think I saw you with Maureen at Chicon last year. :-)
<p>Sarah
<br>
<p>PS -I do have one question though, for the guys --- If you really did
meet a Heinlein Herione, which you want anything to do with her or would
she be too intimidating?
<p>My husband claims he met one and married her. (I'm NOT bursting
his bubble.)</html>
--------------C6FA11797C895590AC12A610--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19538
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:18:07 -0600
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
Can't wait for the rest.
And now I'll -- honestly -- go back to lurking. At least till the
painkillers wear off and I can start to make (admittedly dubious) sense.
Sarah
James Gifford wrote:
> *Ahem.* As promised:
>
> http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/pphome.html
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19539
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 01:51:29 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B7992A3.8520D6D8@surewest.net...
> *Ahem.* As promised:
>
> http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/pphome.html
>
Interesting, and a new bookmark for my SF section. Also an odd coincidence,
you and I share the same "First Heinlein".
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19540
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 03:41:18 -0500
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B7992A3.8520D6D8@surewest.net...
> *Ahem.* As promised:
> http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/pphome.html
Jim--
I have a complaint about the new page!
Now that I have your attention <g>, my complaint is that you don't have
even more of the material completed and posted.
Sometimes, I read a book that I really enjoy, by a favorite author, and it
concludes with a chapter from the next book due out in several months.
Although it is good marketing, I sometimes get very frustrated because I
know that I have no choice but to wait for publication. Remember that the
word "tantalize" comes from a description of the torments of hell.
Get to work, man. : )
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19541
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:32:10 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"William J. Keaton" wrote:
>> Also an odd coincidence, you and I share the same "First Heinlein".
Of course we do - we're about the same age. I noted in ARC that an
astounding number of readers born within a shout of 1960 started with
this book. It might be because of the Sequoia Award, which might have
brought it to the attention of more school and juvenile librarians,
which made it the newest and shiniest book among the juveniles in the
mid-1960s... but who knows.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19542
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 10:35:08 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
dee wrote:
> I have a complaint about the new page!
>
> Now that I have your attention <g>, my complaint is that you don't
> have even more of the material completed and posted.
I know. I'm incredibly pressed for time right now, what with Worldcon
coming up and a personal life that takes 23-1/2 hours a day. I really
wanted to get the initial page up, and I know it's something of a dirty
trick to leave all the links dead.
But all of those essays are already written between my ears. Writing
them won't take much time, but I have to carefully check every fact and
bolster every claim before I can post them. Panshin is too much of a
nitpicker, and if anything I post has mushy spots, he'll blenderize the
whole thing.
This is a job I want to do ONCE and be able to move on.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19543
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:42:26 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
James Gifford wrote:
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
> >> Also an odd coincidence, you and I share the same "First Heinlein".
>
> Of course we do - we're about the same age. I noted in ARC that an
> astounding number of readers born within a shout of 1960 started with
> this book. It might be because of the Sequoia Award, which might have
> brought it to the attention of more school and juvenile librarians,
> which made it the newest and shiniest book among the juveniles in the
> mid-1960s... but who knows.
>
>
1964....but in the UK of course.
It was mine too..first Heinlein, first SF book. That is, I picked it up
from the just returned shelf, attracted by the title. Then I wandered over
to the H's and got Space Family Stone and I think that was the one I
actually read first.
'Sense of wonder' is a perfect description of my reaction to those early
books....finding out it wasn't a unique experience/reaction is sort of
deflating <g>
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19544
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:49:36 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b7a0d2b.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:3B7992A3.8520D6D8@surewest.net...
> > *Ahem.* As promised:
> >
> > http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/pphome.html
> >
> Interesting, and a new bookmark for my SF section. Also an odd
coincidence,
> you and I share the same "First Heinlein".
>
> --
> WJaKe
>
I was exactly 18 years old when I found HSSWT in the summer before my
freshman year at college. I had been reading Heinlein for about 5 years at
the time. I found it in, of all the unlikely places, the bookstore at the
Baptist Retreat center in Ridgecrest. I seriously doubt that I would have
found any of his later works there had I come back a few years later.
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19545
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:51:13 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B7AC292.9F46FA15@home.com...
(snip)
> 'Sense of wonder' is a perfect description of my reaction to those early
> books....finding out it wasn't a unique experience/reaction is sort of
> deflating <g>
I have just the opposite reaction. To me, it seems absolutely fantastic that
others out there felt the same.
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19546
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:03:24 GMT
Subject: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I come back after about a week away and find 60 notes, most of which
deal with discussion about RAH!
It was the nicest thing to happen all week.
My mother had several serious episodes of cardiac arrest, and we
weren't sure she was going to make it. She did, however, and even
though there's the reality of more episodes in the future, she's
stable. It turned out she had a blood infection that was causing the
arrest, and once they fixed the infection she stopped arresting so
much. Sigh...it's no fun to worry about your parents....
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19547
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:13:38 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
David Wright wrote:
> "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote:
>> 'Sense of wonder' is a perfect description of my reaction to those
>> early books....finding out it wasn't a unique experience/reaction
>> is sort of deflating <g>
> I have just the opposite reaction. To me, it seems absolutely
> fantastic that others out there felt the same.
My ditto goes to David, although I can see Jane's point. There are other
things I've, uh, discovered that I was bummed to find out weren't
unique.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19548
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:20:51 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3b7a0d2b.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:3B7992A3.8520D6D8@surewest.net...
> > *Ahem.* As promised:
> >
> > http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/pphome.html
> >
> Interesting, and a new bookmark for my SF section. Also an odd
coincidence,
> you and I share the same "First Heinlein".
That's three.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19549
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 15:42:49 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A Comedy of Justice)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B79CD83.65A987F8@sff.net...
<snip>
< I understand what Filksinger has to say about repeated themes, but during
the quest, Star had NOT been "indoctrinated" with the experience of past
rulers, yet.>
Actually, no. It clearly stated that, while she hadn't actually _completed_
the transfer, she still had _hundreds_ (or at least dozens; I don't have the
book handy) of those past leader's experiences installed.
A leader could make a mistake like that with only limited experience, though
I'd find it rather suspect, considering the selection method. But she had
more experience than Oscar had been alive, possibly many decades, and the
entire life experience many other leaders, also chosen for their extreme
competence.
< And, no matter how good you are, or suited for a job, without that
experience you WILL make mistakes.>
Sure you will. But of all of Heinlein's most competent female heroines in
his novels before, say, 1965, I'd say the two most competent women were
Star, Empress of the Twenty Universes, and Mary, from The Puppet Masters.
And those were the two he did this to most notably, with the very most
competent being the one he did it to most blatantly. Both made majorly
stupid mistakes they shouldn't have, in fields where they are reported to
have great (in Star's case extreme) expertise, only to have the Heinlein
hero put his foot down, whereupon they became soft and submissive. And, of
course, the hero was right.
If it had happened only once, that would have been bad enough, but it could
have been a fluke. If they hadn't been such stupid mistakes, fine. If it
hadn't been in areas where they had great expertise, it wouldn't be too bad.
If it had been necessary to the plot, I'd live with it. If it had been in
character, then I wouldn't have a problem. If the hero, in "putting his foot
down", had gotten a, "I'm sorry, you're right", or other response I could
expect from a competent person, or even just a non-submissive answer, again,
just a somewhat out of character action, probably to show the hero's
competence. But it was more than one character, making stupid mistakes, in
areas where they had great expertise, unnecessary to the plot, out of
character, and the immediate response of the women who had been "corrected"
was to become compliant and submissive.
That's just a bit too much for me to just chalk it up to "Heinlein heroines
aren't perfect." But, even if Heinlein was guilty, he did a better job of
controlling his "sexism", or had less of it, than almost anyone else among
his contemporaries.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19550
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:47:26 -0600
Subject: What I meant
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Okay, in the interest of clarification, I feel I should explain what I
meant by my first post. The rest of you can go back to sleep (Except
you, there, in the back row -- yep, you, in the baseball cap. Sit up
straight, stop chewing gum. Take notes. :-) )
Because the discussion had been about how Heinlein's women were
IMPERFECT and how this reflected the author's sexism, what I meant was
this:
a) Heinlein's women are indeed imperfect. So are real women.
(They are better than real women, but that's a separate issue -- Myself,
I prefer to read about someone who is better than I am.) I'm a real
woman (last I checked) and I enjoy them and see no marks of sexism in
their make-up. They give me something to aim for. [Why so many people
see sexism is something else again -- I've decided to tackle that in a
separate post.]
b) The type of character who wouldn't have the flaws that Heinlein's
women have already exists. She has made her blazing path through a
never-ending line-up of fantasy books. I call her "woman with the
sword." She is perfect, never concedes anything to any man (I can't
help getting the impression that she doesn't like men much) not even in
the interest of protecting men's frail egos. She has no frailty,
herself. She's not alive. She saves the world, but doesn't really
enjoy it much. She doesn't interest me and she makes me nauseous.
[Didn't one of Heinlein's characters say he had very little use for
saints, in bed or out of it?] Doubtless lots of other people enjoy her,
because those books sell. More power to them. As for me and my house
(;-)), we'll continue reading Heinlein. And if I don't accuse the
authors of those books of sexism, then perhaps accusing Heinlein of
sexism is out of line, also.
This is what I should have said, if I hadn't been so zonked out. (Of
course, if I hadn't been zonked out, I'd have been working, but that's
something else again.) I apologize for any and all confusion caused by
my previous post. Now I'll do one more post, and then I'll go back to
lurking. (And to work.)
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19551
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:06:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: Sorry to hear about your mom & I'm quite glad to hear that she
is on the road to recovery.
Ed J
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:03:24 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>I come back after about a week away and find 60 notes, most of which
>deal with discussion about RAH!
>
>It was the nicest thing to happen all week.
>
> My mother had several serious episodes of cardiac arrest, and we
>weren't sure she was going to make it. She did, however, and even
>though there's the reality of more episodes in the future, she's
>stable. It turned out she had a blood infection that was causing the
>arrest, and once they fixed the infection she stopped arresting so
>much. Sigh...it's no fun to worry about your parents....
>
>
>JT
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19552
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:21:10 -0600
Subject: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All right. Sexism.
First I should point out that I come at this from a very different
perspective. I didn't realize how different until I started thinking
about it. Perhaps it would help illustrate it if I told you what
happened with my Fullbright scholar American Literature professor, who
-- in Portugal -- faced a roomful of college juniors (all women) and let
his tongue slip so far as to say, "When someone is studying this poem,
his first temptation is to--" He stopped there and started apologizing
profusely. We stared at him, wondering what the heck was wrong. It had
never occurred to ANY of us to take offense at the proper grammatical
use of "he" which, in most Indo-European languages designates a person
of non-identified gender. Whether that meant a vast male conspiracy
(unlikely in a gender that 9 times out of 10 has trouble locating its
socks) or simply what biology imposed on women (finally on the road to
freedom after the advent of contraceptives) didn't interest us. We KNEW
the several generations that had created the language probably hadn't
done it to piss us off or denigrate us personally. (Of course, we could
have been wrong...)
Of course, the professor came from the U.S., and in the U.S. he'd have
got quite different treatment from a similar audience.
I'm not going to take sides on this, but I am going so far as to suggest
that these days we tend to be just a little bit too sensitized to any
real or imagined sexism.
This said, let's imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Let's
imagine that, in some parallel universe, men -- God knows why -- felt
oppressed and downtrodden and were trying desperately to assert
themselves to the point of IMOHO going a bit goofy around the edges.
These men, in this parallel universe, have been scouring through
literature in search of real and imaginary offenses and have come across
Heinlein.
They immediately notice that most men in his novels are led around by
the nose -- okay, or something lower -- by women. No?
Please, go and check: Oscar goes on a multi-world, death-defying
adventure for the sake of a pair of nice tits glimpsed on the beach;
Zebbie has so little brain (or it's dislocated in another place) that he
marries a woman because of the way she dances; Hilda and D.T. trick both
men into submission with amazing ease, mostly by showing they're
bumbling idiots; Janet (in Friday) has two husbands who think her so
special that they're willing to live with her even if it means sharing;
Brian in To Sail Beyond The Sunset comes across as a total weasel by the
time they divorce, and more than a little foolish in that he is willing
to do anything for his new bit of fluff; the hero in I Will Fear No Evil
(I'm experiencing name amnesia, today) only fully grows up after
becoming a woman; and don't get me started on Hugh.
Males hyper-sensitized to sexism would find these portrayals of men
disgusting and offensive in that the men behave as brainless
sperm-delivery systems while the women are the conniver planners behind
the scenes.
And, before everyone jumps on me -- THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. I have no
problem with Heinlein's handling of males -- or females -- or their
relationship. Both males and females make fools of themselves for the
other gender (occasionally the same) which from my observation, very
much tends to occur in real life.
The spanking thing puzzles me a bit, but no more than other things that
seem to interest other people and leave me quite cold. I don't think it
is a mark of sexism, any more than I think it means Mr. Heinlein kept
whips and chains in his basement. I think it's something he found easy
to write and perhaps got into the habit of writing in certain plot
situations. It might have reflected a personal interest or not (I
couldn't care less) and it certainly didn't reflect any deep views on
the relationship between genders.
[In this respect, though, note a) it doesn't mean, no matter how often
repeated, that Mr. Heinlein himself had an interest in it. During a low
period, when I wrote -- ahem -- erotica for pay, I found that -- though
I have nil interest in this in real life -- it was MUCH easier to write
B&D or S&M than just "simple" sex. That type of situation gives you a
clear power line and tension line to work with when there is no other
discernible plot and b) that in such cases, the story is much more
powerful if the stronger party is the one tied up or spanked, or
whatever. If you examine Heinlein's spanking scenes, you'll probably
come to the conclusion this is true in many of not most cases. Because
women otherwise dominated (or, as Audrey so aptly said, "managed") their
men, they could become the dominees in spanking scenes.]
Finally, I want to make clear that though I admire Heinlein immensely I
don't think he was a saint. I'm willing to admit he had faults, some of
them shared with his contemporaries. However, I find the accusations of
sexism so disturbing because they're not leveled at other authors from
the same era who are clearly sexist and because a lot of otherwise
fairly intelligent women won't even open Heinlein's books -- or open
them only to condemn them -- because the accusations have flown ahead of
the books themselves. This disturbs me. It smacks too much of lists of
forbidden books and of the baying of a witch hunt.
To whom would it profit to keep women away from books that encourage
self-reliance and a mature sense of responsibility? It's almost enough
to start one looking around for black helicopters.<g> Or black hats.<G>
[ It's certainly enough, as I've just proven, to get me to post several
times, an effect that must rank somewhere up there with plagues of
locusts and showers of blood.]
Now I shall shut up for a few days and give you all some peace.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19553
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:21:58 -0600
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> My mother had several serious episodes of cardiac arrest, and we
> weren't sure she was going to make it. She did, however, and even
> though there's the reality of more episodes in the future, she's
> stable. It turned out she had a blood infection that was causing the
> arrest, and once they fixed the infection she stopped arresting so
> much. Sigh...it's no fun to worry about your parents....
I'm sorry and I hope your mother does better from now on.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19554
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:52:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: I can only hope that you proudly display your "Heinlein Hero"
tee shirt. I recall you mentioning that you give platelets for your
blood donation. I got to ask a nurse just what giving platelets
means. ( I spent a few hours in the Hematology/Oncology department
of our local hospital today and thought I'd ask an expert.) She
said it takes about 2 hours of blood "input/output" to harvest these
platelets. It would take 8 to 10 pints of whole blood to yield the
same platelets as one of your donations. Just wanted to say
"Thanks" to all of the donors here.
Ed J
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:03:24 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>I come back after about a week away and find 60 notes, most of which
>deal with discussion about RAH!
>
>It was the nicest thing to happen all week.
>
> My mother had several serious episodes of cardiac arrest, and we
>weren't sure she was going to make it. She did, however, and even
>though there's the reality of more episodes in the future, she's
>stable. It turned out she had a blood infection that was causing the
>arrest, and once they fixed the infection she stopped arresting so
>much. Sigh...it's no fun to worry about your parents....
>
>
>JT
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19555
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 17:09:15 -0700
Subject: Re: What I meant
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B7AFBFE.CC5DE866@sff.net...
> Okay, in the interest of clarification, I feel I should explain what I
> meant by my first post. The rest of you can go back to sleep (Except
> you, there, in the back row -- yep, you, in the baseball cap. Sit up
> straight, stop chewing gum. Take notes. :-) )
>
> Because the discussion had been about how Heinlein's women were
> IMPERFECT and how this reflected the author's sexism, what I meant was
> this:
>
> a) Heinlein's women are indeed imperfect. So are real women.
> (They are better than real women, but that's a separate issue -- Myself,
> I prefer to read about someone who is better than I am.) I'm a real
> woman (last I checked) and I enjoy them and see no marks of sexism in
> their make-up. They give me something to aim for. [Why so many people
> see sexism is something else again -- I've decided to tackle that in a
> separate post.]
Ah, but I don't have any problem at all with imperfect women characters. I
prefer them; they are human. I don't want perfect men, either. No
authenticity, and rarely any substance, either. Nor do I see those flaws to
be a sign of sexism in anyone's works, as a general rule.
> b) The type of character who wouldn't have the flaws that Heinlein's
> women have already exists. She has made her blazing path through a
> never-ending line-up of fantasy books. I call her "woman with the
> sword." She is perfect, never concedes anything to any man (I can't
> help getting the impression that she doesn't like men much) not even in
> the interest of protecting men's frail egos. She has no frailty,
> herself. She's not alive. She saves the world, but doesn't really
> enjoy it much. She doesn't interest me and she makes me nauseous.
> [Didn't one of Heinlein's characters say he had very little use for
> saints, in bed or out of it?] Doubtless lots of other people enjoy her,
> because those books sell. More power to them. As for me and my house
> (;-)), we'll continue reading Heinlein. And if I don't accuse the
> authors of those books of sexism, then perhaps accusing Heinlein of
> sexism is out of line, also.
Ah, but those books _are_ sexist.:) At least, the more extreme examples
generally are.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19556
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:28:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Ed, actually, with the newer equipment the Red Cross has (at least at
the place I donate) donation time is only about _one_ hour (but the
older machines do take about two), and my white blood cell count is
high enough that I usually give two "units" during that time period.
I'm due to give, but until I know I'm completely over this darn summer
cold I'm not going to schedule. Plus, I need to work a full day
*sometime* this month. ;)
And thanks to those who've offered good thoughts towards my mom. I've
just spent a few hours being with my son and I feel better in general.
:)
JT
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 19:52:01 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>JT: I can only hope that you proudly display your "Heinlein Hero"
>tee shirt. I recall you mentioning that you give platelets for your
>blood donation. I got to ask a nurse just what giving platelets
>means. ( I spent a few hours in the Hematology/Oncology department
>of our local hospital today and thought I'd ask an expert.) She
>said it takes about 2 hours of blood "input/output" to harvest these
>platelets. It would take 8 to 10 pints of whole blood to yield the
>same platelets as one of your donations. Just wanted to say
>"Thanks" to all of the donors here.
>
>Ed J
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19557
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 18:03:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B7B03E6.946A2D7E@sff.net...
> All right. Sexism.
>
> First I should point out that I come at this from a very different
> perspective. I didn't realize how different until I started thinking
> about it. Perhaps it would help illustrate it if I told you what
> happened with my Fullbright scholar American Literature professor, who
> -- in Portugal -- faced a roomful of college juniors (all women) and let
> his tongue slip so far as to say, "When someone is studying this poem,
> his first temptation is to--" He stopped there and started apologizing
> profusely. We stared at him, wondering what the heck was wrong. It had
> never occurred to ANY of us to take offense at the proper grammatical
> use of "he" which, in most Indo-European languages designates a person
> of non-identified gender. Whether that meant a vast male conspiracy
> (unlikely in a gender that 9 times out of 10 has trouble locating its
> socks) or simply what biology imposed on women (finally on the road to
> freedom after the advent of contraceptives) didn't interest us. We KNEW
> the several generations that had created the language probably hadn't
> done it to piss us off or denigrate us personally. (Of course, we could
> have been wrong...)
I quite understand. And, in most forums, I'd be defending Heinlein against
charges of sexism, at least _against_ women. It is only in those venues
where the general theme seems to be "Claiming Heinlein is sexist only proves
that you don't know anything about Heinlein" that I feel an excessive urge
to prove he was human in this regard.
Similarly, I find myself constrained to point out that he misread the OED
when he had Deety claim that "teats" was pronounced "tits" (either that, or
she, her mother, and her father all misread it, and Heinlein never mentioned
this), and that, when he lays out formal (or semi-formal) logic in NotB and
TEFL, in the first, he makes a blatant error, and in the other, he takes
pages of obscure text to prove what I can prove in about one simple
paragraph. And my proof is more rigorous. Again, however, anywhere but here
(or a similar venue), I'd be talking about how logical and well-reasoned
Heinlein's stories are.
So, I might think he had a buried vein of emotional (rather than
intellectual) sexism in him, I'd still argue _in most venues_, that he is
_not_ sexist in his work.
> Of course, the professor came from the U.S., and in the U.S. he'd have
> got quite different treatment from a similar audience.
Quite correct. Given a different audience, I would be arguing the opposite.
I am like that professor (whose name I forget) who fights for gun control,
but wrote an article to his peers in which he said, "You know, researching
the Constitution, and the writings of the authors, those 'gun nuts' are
quite possibly right about the meaning of the Second Amendment."
> I'm not going to take sides on this, but I am going so far as to suggest
> that these days we tend to be just a little bit too sensitized to any
> real or imagined sexism.
Agreed.
> This said, let's imagine that the shoe were on the other foot. Let's
> imagine that, in some parallel universe, men -- God knows why -- felt
> oppressed and downtrodden and were trying desperately to assert
> themselves to the point of IMOHO going a bit goofy around the edges.
> These men, in this parallel universe, have been scouring through
> literature in search of real and imaginary offenses and have come across
> Heinlein.
>
> They immediately notice that most men in his novels are led around by
> the nose -- okay, or something lower -- by women. No?
Yup.
<snip>
> Males hyper-sensitized to sexism would find these portrayals of men
> disgusting and offensive in that the men behave as brainless
> sperm-delivery systems while the women are the conniver planners behind
> the scenes.
Though I wouldn't necessarily agree for the same reasons as you gave, I
would tend to agree. Heinlein clearly and repeatedly states he is sexist in
favor of women. Intellectually, he generally is.
I just, sometimes, when discussing Heinlein in venues where the idea that he
ever showed any sexism appears to be scorned, I feel the need to point out
that, rarely, he was, in a way that seemed to show that, intellectually, he
was sexist in favor of women, but emotionally, he still had a touch of that
which he grew up with.
> And, before everyone jumps on me -- THIS IS NOT MY OPINION. I have no
> problem with Heinlein's handling of males -- or females -- or their
> relationship. Both males and females make fools of themselves for the
> other gender (occasionally the same) which from my observation, very
> much tends to occur in real life.
Agreed. And I wouldn't have called this sexism. As I said, the tendency of
men in Heinlein's stories to be "led around by the 'nose'" by the women
isn't why I would say he was sexist in favor of women.
<snip>
> Finally, I want to make clear that though I admire Heinlein immensely I
> don't think he was a saint. I'm willing to admit he had faults, some of
> them shared with his contemporaries. However, I find the accusations of
> sexism so disturbing because they're not leveled at other authors from
> the same era who are clearly sexist
Ah, but I _do_ claim they are sexist.
I have really messed up my presentation of what I think of Heinlein in this
thread. Let me make myself more clear.
There are a very great number of books, particularly older ones, which are,
overall, somewhat sexist. This is normal, and to be expected. This does not
bother me. Neither do I usually have a great problem with books that are the
opposite, and sexist against men.
Heinlein's defenders (of which I am one) generally see no sexism whatsoever
in his work. The very idea that he is sexist is anethema to them. This is
understandable; Heinlein is unfairly attacked, over and over, and so they
are understandably defensive about it.
To me, this presents Heinlein as a bit more perfect than he deserves.
Additionally, Heinlein repeatedly, deliberately, and self-admittedly played
to the idea that women are superior to men. He says so, many times. Women,
according to him, are superior to men. He says this clearly and openly.
So, if he does something sexist, apparently unintentionally and
unconsciously, I have the right to call him on it.
That said, I have gone overboard on this.
Did Heinlein have a smidgeon of sexism to him? Possibly. I think so, though
I think it was the sort of sneaky unconscious sexism that is difficult to
spot in yourself or others, and difficult to fight. Equivalent, roughly, to
a tendency to avoid a group of young black men at night a bit more than a
group of young white men, for no reason.
Did he, typically, write sexist work, at all, in any way? No, 99% of his
work didn't have a touch of it, and, if anything, it was quite the opposite.
> and because a lot of otherwise
> fairly intelligent women won't even open Heinlein's books -- or open
> them only to condemn them -- because the accusations have flown ahead of
> the books themselves. This disturbs me. It smacks too much of lists of
> forbidden books and of the baying of a witch hunt.
>
> To whom would it profit to keep women away from books that encourage
> self-reliance and a mature sense of responsibility? It's almost enough
> to start one looking around for black helicopters.<g> Or black hats.<G>
I understand. And I apologize if I went overboard. I'm also the sort of
libertarian who asks the sorts of questions that other libertarians would
rather attack me for than think about.
<shrug>It's a hobby.:)</shrug>
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19558
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:12:06 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
James Gifford wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> > "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote:
> >> 'Sense of wonder' is a perfect description of my reaction to those
> >> early books....finding out it wasn't a unique experience/reaction
> >> is sort of deflating <g>
>
> > I have just the opposite reaction. To me, it seems absolutely
> > fantastic that others out there felt the same.
>
> My ditto goes to David, although I can see Jane's point. There are other
> things I've, uh, discovered that I was bummed to find out weren't
> unique.
>
>
Yes; it's not that I don't like finding myself amongst like minded
people....but when you're a precocious and bratty eleven, you like to think
you're special.:-)
I will repent me of my attitude as eleven is a long way behind me and humbly
beg admittance into the "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club" since it was
that book that brought me to this very point in my life ( typing these words
that is).
<Pause as I am staggered by the mysterious ways of fate. Supposing whoever
had that book before me had kept it another day? I might never have started
reading SF! (Am I allowed multiple exclamation points for something that
momentous?)>
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19559
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:22:06 -0400
Subject: Re: What I meant
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
>
> Because the discussion had been about how Heinlein's women were
> IMPERFECT and how this reflected the author's sexism, what I meant was
> this:
>
>
Well I was more making the point that Hamilton was a total prat and if he
was a star line, I'm a Taurean.
He's pretty ineffectual as a parent too but aren't we all....they run rings
round us.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19560
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:52:06 -0500
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b7ad153.11304800@news.sff.net...
> I come back after about a week away and find 60 notes, most of which
> deal with discussion about RAH!
> It was the nicest thing to happen all week.
Yeah, it is nice, isn't it. See, even trolls have their uses. (Several
people are more active over here, right now, and a.f.h. has been going
through a spell of garbage. I suspect there may be a connection.)
> My mother had several serious episodes of cardiac arrest, and we
> weren't sure she was going to make it. She did, however, and even
> though there's the reality of more episodes in the future, she's
> stable. It turned out she had a blood infection that was causing the
> arrest, and once they fixed the infection she stopped arresting so
> much. Sigh...it's no fun to worry about your parents....
I am so very sorry about your mother's illness, and so very glad that
things are turning around. As she gets better, she is likely to hit a
depression stage. When the day comes that she feels up to hearing it, and
needs a lift, tell her that you love her. Then tell her about the people
who have never met her, but love her because she is yours and you are hers.
Tell her that she is in our thoughts and prayers. As are you, and Christine
and Daniel. May he grow up with _many_ years of cherished times with his
grandmother!
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19561
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:07:43 -0600
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
It's okay. My state recently banned aluminum underwear (apparently it's used
for shoplifting.) Though I hadn't even KNOWN aluminum underwear existed before
this, I immediately felt a desperate urge to buy some and wear it. <g>
So I sympathize. Sorry. I've gone overboard also. It's a combination of
medicine and a really bad work week (getting nothing done because of piddly
interruptions.)
Sarah
PS -On tits-- teats -- I'm a lousy speller. :-) Henceforth I shall refer to
them as "those moundy things in the front" <g>
PS-S - I think the "women are superior to men" was based not so much on having
babies (and I maintain we need them all. Wait till we go to the stars. We'll
be spread too thin. :-) ) but on women's ability to "manage" men. Trust me,
women who do this can be fearsome. I was looking at the sign on the
nitrosyncretic (sp?) press's site, you know, the office motto that starts with
"A human being should be able to..." and realized both my mother and grandmother
could do all of those things. Sad to say, I'm lagging somewhat behind.
PS-S-S - Gaaaahhhck. What's happening to me? I can't stop posting.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19562
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:12:48 -0600
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
> "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club"
Me too, me too. Although not my first SF. That was Clifford Simak's "Out Of
Their Minds" "A Canticle for Leibowitz" was the second (and it's amazing I came
back for more.) And I was eleven too. And I'm still amazed other people out
there feel the way I do about Heinlein. But it's a good feeling.
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19563
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 22:22:33 -0600
Subject: Re: What I meant
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> Well I was more making the point that Hamilton was a total prat
No argument from me. He sort of struck me that way, too. Creating likable
characters is a writers' skill and I think Heinlein was still working on it at
that point. He was miles ahead of the competition at that time, but still
learning. I mean, IMHO Asimov never got very good at it. (Just my opinion --
no shouts, please.)
> He's pretty ineffectual as a parent too but aren't we all....they run rings
> round us.
At my very first panel at a con this brattish fourteen-or-so year old asked me
why there weren't any "strong women" in SF and Fantasy (obviously she also
didn't read much). So I gave her the usual list (okay, mostly Heinlein) and
she said, "no, like really strong" -- which -- as you can probably guess --
sent me on my diatribe on "woman with the sword." By that point I didn't
really know what I was saying but my husband, who was in the audience (and
laughing) swears I finished with, "and what I'd like to see is one of those
"save the world before breakfast" fantasy women raise one or two kids. That
would teach them their limitations." All I know is the adults in the audience
were roaring with laughter and the bratty kid shut up. <g> Kids taught me MY
limitations. Robert has me running to keep up with him physically AND
intellectually (it's the name. Beware what you ask for.)
[help, I'm posting and I can't shut up]
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19564
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:46:15 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
Jane Davitt wrote:
> I will repent me of my attitude as eleven is a long way behind me
> and humbly beg admittance into the "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein
> Club" since it was that book that brought me to this very point...
No gurls alowd.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19565
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 21:47:01 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
>> "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club"
> Me too, me too.
Stil no gurlz alowd.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19566
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:25:11 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B7B5045.F1D7BC43@surewest.net...
> "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> >> "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club"
>
> > Me too, me too.
>
> Stil no gurlz alowd.
>
Speak for yourself cobber! I think if we had a vote, you'd probably lose!
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19567
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 02:29:25 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B7AB21A.40AF8216@surewest.net...
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
> >> Also an odd coincidence, you and I share the same "First Heinlein".
>
> Of course we do - we're about the same age. I noted in ARC that an
> astounding number of readers born within a shout of 1960 started with
> this book. It might be because of the Sequoia Award, which might have
> brought it to the attention of more school and juvenile librarians,
> which made it the newest and shiniest book among the juveniles in the
> mid-1960s... but who knows.
>
And into the mid-70's, if you really want to know when I started. But I
don't think the book was handed to me, I was pointed to the "Juvenile SF"
section. I seem to recall that there were a number of books by this Heinlein
guy, and they didn't look like a series. (My other favorites at the time
were the "Three Investigators" series.)
So for me it was mostly sheer good luck, guided by a nameless, faceless
librarian, whom I thank to this day!
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19568
From: David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:40:41 -0700
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> PS -On tits-- teats -- I'm a lousy speller. :-) Henceforth I shall refer to
> them as "those moundy things in the front" <g>
"Frontal mounted radar housings" works for me, Sarah. ;-) What book was it that the
editor cut out the business about Libby creating in his head equations that
described that shape? Or have I the story wrong once again?
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19569
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:29:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 20:03:24 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
> My mother had several serious episodes of cardiac arrest, and we
>weren't sure she was going to make it. She did, however, and even
>though there's the reality of more episodes in the future, she's
>stable. It turned out she had a blood infection that was causing the
>arrest, and once they fixed the infection she stopped arresting so
>much. Sigh...it's no fun to worry about your parents....
>
Glad to hear that she's doing better at least, Here's to a speedy full
recovery.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19570
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:03:42 -0400
Subject: Re: What I meant
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> At my very first panel at a con this brattish fourteen-or-so year old asked me
> why there weren't any "strong women" in SF and Fantasy (obviously she also
> didn't read much). So I gave her the usual list (okay, mostly Heinlein) and
> she said, "no, like really strong" -- which -- as you can probably guess --
> sent me on my diatribe on "woman with the sword." By that point I didn't
> really know what I was saying but my husband, who was in the audience (and
> laughing) swears I finished with, "and what I'd like to see is one of those
> "save the world before breakfast" fantasy women raise one or two kids. That
> would teach them their limitations." All I know is the adults in the audience
> were roaring with laughter and the bratty kid shut up. <g> Kids taught me MY
> limitations. Robert has me running to keep up with him physically AND
> intellectually (it's the name. Beware what you ask for.)
> [help, I'm posting and I can't shut up]
> Sarah
Have you read any of the "Chicks in Chain Mail" series of anthologies? They have
a lot of fun with this stereotype.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19571
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:59:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> PS-S-S - Gaaaahhhck. What's happening to me? I can't stop posting.
What's a "postscript-script-script"? <g,d&r,lh>
I'm enjoying your posts, Sarah.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19572
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:41:52 -0600
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
> "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> >> "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club"
>
> > Me too, me too.
>
> Stil no gurlz alowd.
Oh. Oh-key-dokey... No problem.
Jane and I will just form our own little club. Not being the vengeful
kind (;-) ) we'll admit males.
For our first order of business, I think we'll compare front-monted radar
units.
What? What are all you guys standing around there for? This is just for
club members. Shooo. Go away or join. <g>
Sarah
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19573
From: William G. Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:47:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B7B03E6.946A2D7E@sff.net...
> All right. Sexism.
>
> I'm not going to take sides on this, but I am going so far as to suggest
> that these days we tend to be just a little bit too sensitized to any
> real or imagined sexism.
>
>
> Sarah
>
(Lots of neat stuff snipped for brevity.)
Not just preceived sexism, but many other 'sensitive' matters, like race,
sexual orientation, etc, kind of like RAH predicted.
I was re-reading "The Man Who Sold the Moon" (Baen paperback, First printing
March 1987) and we have Harriman talking with a television executive named
Clem: p. 142.
###
" .... How about censorship?"
The television executive threw up his hands. "Don't say that word! How
anybody expects a man to stay in business with every two-bit wowser in the
country claiming veto over what we can say and can't say and what we can
show and what we can't show -- its enough to make you throw up! ...."
###
I read the other day where certain groups were complaining about the idea in
Florida of posting detailing instructions for voters to eliminate the
problems of the last election. Apparently It discriminates against the
illiterate, and has also been called racist and harmful to
African-Americans.
I didn't know the inability to read was dependant on skin color and
anchestorial origins. Guess I need to get out more often.
Will in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19574
From: David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 08:50:56 -0700
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3B781F59.BEDFA017@verizon.net>, David M. Silver writes...
>
> > Now that it's published
> > ("Regarding Leslyn," a biographical sketch of Leslyn MacDonald Heinlein Mocabee,
> > Issue 9, The Heinlein Journal, July 2001, pp. 17-36),
>
> So where's my copy? Do I have to rattle Bill's cage again? ;-)
The postage meter sticker on this here one I just got by mail yesterday (the one I
quoted from was a proof copy I had) says they were mailed August 14, 2001, from Los
Angeles, Gordon. I'd start rattling the bars with my tin cup around August 21. The
Heinlein Journal, 602 West Bennett Avenue, Glendora, CA 91741. Bill, however, will be
hiding in a suburb of Philadelphia by then; but if they ever fix his laptop he may
pop up on a buddy list on AIM if you've reinstalled it as "bpral22169" as always,
that week. Speaking of AIM, we've a chat tonight on Maureen, usual place, usual time,
led by Jane Davitt, that we'd love to see you (or anyone else) show up for.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19575
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:02:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b7ad153.11304800@news.sff.net...
> My mother had several serious episodes of cardiac arrest, and we
> weren't sure she was going to make it. She did, however, and even
> though there's the reality of more episodes in the future, she's
> stable. It turned out she had a blood infection that was causing the
> arrest, and once they fixed the infection she stopped arresting so
> much. Sigh...it's no fun to worry about your parents....
My best wishes to your mother for a speedy recovery.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19576
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:26:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B7B470F.3E8FF966@sff.net...
<snip>
> PS-S-S - Gaaaahhhck. What's happening to me? I can't stop posting.
You have Filksinger's Disease. At one time, I was the most prolific poster
on the HF. I was in remission, but I think I'm having a flare-up.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19577
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 14:54:50 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B7B1DE5.D6110D7@home.com...
> James Gifford wrote:
>
> > David Wright wrote:
> >
> > > "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote:
> <Pause as I am staggered by the mysterious ways of fate. Supposing whoever
> had that book before me had kept it another day? I might never have
started
> reading SF! (Am I allowed multiple exclamation points for something that
> momentous?)>
Whoever had it before you would have been dragged by a mysterious force to
return it. You were fated to get it.
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19578
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:14:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3B7B6AE9.776EC8EE@verizon.net...
> "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
>
> > PS -On tits-- teats -- I'm a lousy speller. :-) Henceforth I shall
refer to
> > them as "those moundy things in the front" <g>
>
> "Frontal mounted radar housings" works for me, Sarah. ;-) What book was it
that the
> editor cut out the business about Libby creating in his head equations
that
> described that shape? Or have I the story wrong once again?
>
Methusaleh's Children. Libby: "..the shape of busts, elegant fifth order
equations". Lazarus, "You mean fourth order". Libby:"No you are forgetting
time". (or similar words to that effect).
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19579
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:13:17 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
David Wright wrote:
>
> Whoever had it before you would have been dragged by a mysterious force to
> return it. You were fated to get it.
>
> David
Could be...hey, maybe I went back in time, walked into the library all grown up,
took it off the shelf and put it into the just returned section myself so that
the younger version of me could spot it. I mean, that was a pivotal moment,
worth making the trip just to see that it went off OK....
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19580
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:23:03 -0400
Subject: Heinlein Reader's Group meeting tonight
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
The next meeting of the Heinlein Readers Group is tonight, Thursday
08-16-2001 at 9:00 P.M. EDT using AIM.
Topic for the meeting is 'Back To The Future (History)', an examination of
various aspects of events relating to time travel in "Time Enough For Love",
"To Sail Beyond the Sunset" and others.
AIM software may be downloaded from http://www.aol.com/aim/
More information on obtaining and using this software and accessing the
discussion group can be found at:
http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein_1.html
Archives of previous discussions may be found at:
http://www.alltel.net/~dwrighsr/heinlein_toc.html
Please join us.
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19581
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 15:32:55 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B7C1B4D.965FCEE5@home.com...
> David Wright wrote:
>
> >
> > Whoever had it before you would have been dragged by a mysterious force
to
> > return it. You were fated to get it.
> >
> > David
>
> Could be...hey, maybe I went back in time, walked into the library all
grown up,
> took it off the shelf and put it into the just returned section myself so
that
> the younger version of me could spot it. I mean, that was a pivotal
moment,
> worth making the trip just to see that it went off OK....
>
> Jane
>
Now, that is a really fascinating possibility. Considering tonight's topic,
you will have to remember that when you learn to time trip and see if you
can alter your own past. Of course, I can't imagine that you would want to
change that particular aspect, but the intellectual challenge might be
irresistible!
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19582
From: Richard.Horton@sff.net (Richard Horton)
Date: 16 Aug 2001 19:34:21 GMT
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Just as a differing point -- I was born in 1959, and my first Heinlein was
_Orphans of the Sky_.
But I was a bit odd -- the only RAH "juveniles" I read when I was a juvenile
myself were ambiguous cases like _Orphans_, _Podkayne of Mars_, and _Starship
Troopers_, and, for some reason, _Tunnel of the Sky_. I didn't read the
rest of the canonical juveniles until about 2 or 3 years ago -- and a very
pleasurable reading experience that was.
I think I was stupidly snobbish -- one of the earlier paperbacks I actually
spent money on was _The Past Through Tomorrow_, and I guess I decided that
since I could read his adult books with great enjoyment, I was "too old"
for his juvies. I do remember buying Signet editions of _Beyond This Horizon_,
and _Sixth Column_, and _Double Star_, as a 14 or 15 year old kid.
(And a few years later, I bought several of the juveniles in shiny new Del
Rey editions for my 10 years younger brother, hoping to get him turned on
to SF. And it worked!)
--
Rich Horton
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19583
From: Richard.Horton@sff.net (Richard Horton)
Date: 16 Aug 2001 19:36:06 GMT
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Just as a differing point -- I was born in 1959, and my first Heinlein was
_Orphans of the Sky_.
But I was a bit odd -- the only RAH "juveniles" I read when I was a juvenile
myself were ambiguous cases like _Orphans_, _Podkayne of Mars_, and _Starship
Troopers_, and, for some reason, _Tunnel of the Sky_. I didn't read the
rest of the canonical juveniles until about 2 or 3 years ago -- and a very
pleasurable reading experience that was.
I think I was stupidly snobbish -- one of the earlier paperbacks I actually
spent money on was _The Past Through Tomorrow_, and I guess I decided that
since I could read his adult books with great enjoyment, I was "too old"
for his juvies. I do remember buying Signet editions of _Beyond This Horizon_,
and _Sixth Column_, and _Double Star_, as a 14 or 15 year old kid.
(And a few years later, I bought several of the juveniles in shiny new Del
Rey editions for my 10 years younger brother, hoping to get him turned on
to SF. And it worked!)
--
Rich Horton
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19584
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:18:15 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
>
> For our first order of business, I think we'll compare front-monted radar
> units.
>
> What? What are all you guys standing around there for? This is just for
> club members. Shooo. Go away or join. <g>
>
> Sarah
Sarah, you're wicked, cruel and vengeful.
Works for me! Welcome to the club.:-)
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19585
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:22:03 -0400
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
James Gifford wrote:
> Jane Davitt wrote:
> > I will repent me of my attitude as eleven is a long way behind me
> > and humbly beg admittance into the "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein
> > Club" since it was that book that brought me to this very point...
>
> No gurls alowd.
>
>
Peewee and Madame Pompadour join with Violet Elizabeth to tell you that
if you don't change that rule right now we'll thcream and thcream until
we're sick.
We can you know.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19586
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:24:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
>
> [ It's certainly enough, as I've just proven, to get me to post several
> times, an effect that must rank somewhere up there with plagues of
> locusts and showers of blood.]
>
> Now I shall shut up for a few days and give you all some peace.
>
> Sarah
Sarah, posting is addictive. Now you've dipped your toe in, you'll never be
dry again.
Of course, I'm too strong minded for it to affect _me_....why I once went a
whole day without posting. Fact.
Hmm? Oh, the baby was 6 lb 12, thanks for asking.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19587
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 09:52:37 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
Jane Davitt wrote:
> James Gifford wrote:
>> No gurls alowd.
> Peewee and Madame Pompadour join with Violet Elizabeth to tell you that
> if you don't change that rule right now we'll thcream and thcream until
> we're sick.
>
> We can you know.
I know. I have four daughters.
Oh-KAY! Gurlz alowd!
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19588
From: kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:06:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3B7B470F.3E8FF966@sff.net...
> It's okay. My state recently banned aluminum underwear (apparently it's
used
> for shoplifting.) Though I hadn't even KNOWN aluminum underwear existed
before
> this, I immediately felt a desperate urge to buy some and wear it. <g>
>
<snip>
This is why one should never tell a small child not to put a bean in his
ear. <g> No - make that any child under 15.
McKevin
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19589
From: kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:18:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Good Work!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b7b1375.13519831@news.sff.net...
> Ed, actually, with the newer equipment the Red Cross has (at least at
> the place I donate) donation time is only about _one_ hour (but the
> older machines do take about two), and my white blood cell count is
> high enough that I usually give two "units" during that time period.
>
<snip>
> JT
>
<snip>
I gave by apheresis this past Wednesday and have another appointment
tomorrow morning (they allow two within 3 days, then whole blood 8 days
later). The two-arm machine where I give gets me through from the first
stick to the time it "dings" off in about an hour as well (it consistently
only takes about 45 minutes once it starts cranking). Because of screening
questions, recovery time eating cookies and drinking orange juice, etc., the
whole apheresis process does take about 2 hours. I was told the Blood
Center where I give (not Red Cross affiliated) is now going to allow
apheresis donations every two weeks, as long as no whole blood donations are
made. That will be a bit much. I'm afraid I'd look like a junkie after a
while. <g>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19590
From: kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 18:26:35 -0500
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:3b7c1fe9.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3B7C1B4D.965FCEE5@home.com...
> > David Wright wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Whoever had it before you would have been dragged by a mysterious
force
> to
> > > return it. You were fated to get it.
> > >
> > > David
> >
> > Could be...hey, maybe I went back in time, walked into the library all
> grown up,
> > took it off the shelf and put it into the just returned section myself
so
> that
> > the younger version of me could spot it. I mean, that was a pivotal
> moment,
> > worth making the trip just to see that it went off OK....
> >
> > Jane
> >
>
> Now, that is a really fascinating possibility. Considering tonight's
topic,
> you will have to remember that when you learn to time trip and see if you
> can alter your own past. Of course, I can't imagine that you would want to
> change that particular aspect, but the intellectual challenge might be
> irresistible!
>
> David
>
I've learned several family stories over the years where a seemingly minor
occurrence later has had a major effect on the lives of others. One example
of this butterfly effect. When my father turned 18 in January 1943, he knew
where he was headed, as he also graduated from high school mid-year. He
planned to go down to enlist within the week, but his draft notice arrived
before he set out to do so. His mother hid his notice from him, so he never
got it (I know, not minor in the eyes of the law at the time). As a result
he ended up in a different branch of the service than he would have
otherwise, and in basic met the man who later introduced him to my mother on
a blind date after the war. Thanks Grandma!
McKevin
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19591
From: Audrey Gifford <agifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 23:36:35 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
I guarantee he'd lose... Audrey
"William J. Keaton" wrote:
> "James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:3B7B5045.F1D7BC43@surewest.net...
> > "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> > >> "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club"
> >
> > > Me too, me too.
> >
> > Stil no gurlz alowd.
> >
> Speak for yourself cobber! I think if we had a vote, you'd probably lose!
>
> --
> WJaKe
>
> http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19592
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 07:07:16 -0500
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"Audrey Gifford" <agifford@rcsis.com> wrote in message
news:3B7F5E73.451C52EC@rcsis.com...
> I guarantee he'd lose... Audrey
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
> > Speak for yourself cobber! I think if we had a vote, you'd probably
lose!
> > "James Gifford" wrote:
> > > Stil no gurlz alowd.
Audrey--
In a catalogue I saw a sign that said, "If mama ain't happy, ain't
nobody happy!" Works for me. ; )
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19593
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 13:30:32 -0500
Subject: TCWWTW
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hi, All-
Been rereading "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls" and noticed a
couple of interesting things:
1) "I've been using Sony Megawafers, each good for a half million
words, each two centimeters wide, three millimeters thick, with
information packed so densely it doesn't bear thinking about."
In my word processing days, we used to figure a word averaged five
letters and a space. This would mean that a half million words would be
3 megabytes of data. Last week I bought a Sony Memory Stick, measuring
5 cm. x 2.1 cm. width x 2 mm wide. It contained 16 megabytes of data
and cost $34.50. They are available in that same size for up to 128
megabytes; i.e. 21.5 million words.
Computer technology has caught up with RAH; too bad space travel
progress appears dead.
2) "Hey! We met less than a year ago. At the Day One Ball." Anyone
notice the date and significance of the "Day One Ball?"
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19594
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 13:50:48 -0500
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Audrey Gifford wrote:
> Bob used to post here - he was raised on
> Heinlein, and I suspect he would love to have a Heinlein herione in his
> life.
>
You mean to say he doesn't? Shocking!
> I do have one question though, for the guys --- If you really did meet a
> Heinlein Herione, which you want anything to do with her or would she be
> too intimidating?
Anything and everything. I am still looking.
> Take care, Audrey
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19595
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 14:09:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Voting Solution ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" wrote:
> "Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote
> >
> > Contrary to the technical issues raised downstream, I think Ed was
> > referring to the fact that voting would be at home, where the voter's
> > [insert political enemy of choice] would watch and approve, or not.
> > None of the later secrecy means a thing if voting isn't done in private.
> >
> Yes, others have applied, but I still don't know what you mean here. If I
> vote at home, online, there certainly won't be anyone watching and
> approvingmy ballot. Or are you talking about a registrar coming to your
> house to collect your ballot?
>
> --
> WJaKe
As you probably know; I am not at all disinterested here. How wealthy my
retirement is depends on maintaining precinct voting.
But assuming the security problems involved with properly recording the
votes can be solved (and I for one don't think they can be; look at the
problems we have with hackers (and crashing operating systems) elsewhere) I
have these images of "Honey, if you vote for that jackass, you will be
sleeping on the couch until the next election". Or "We will have computers at
the next Union meeting to make it easier for you to vote (correctly). Or
"Those who vote correctly at Joe's Bar get a free drink".
The major purposes of precinct voting are 1) to properly identify the
voter and 2) have a reasonable expectation of voting in privacy.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19596
From: Jay Random <jrandom@bondwine.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 02:09:37 -0600
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
James Gifford wrote:
>
> *Ahem.* As promised:
>
> http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/rah/pphome.html
You have my attention!
As soon as you begin making those links live, you shall have my
_undivided_ attention.
And thanks, btw, for having the guts & the intellectual clarity to
criticize Panshin. As you point out in your introductory page, sf
critics have had a tendency to be _far_ too kind to one another.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19597
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 10:31:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B7D1B2B.E1C6E2B2@home.com...
> "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
<snip>
> Hmm? Oh, the baby was 6 lb 12, thanks for asking.
Congratulations!
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19598
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:20:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3B7D1B2B.E1C6E2B2@home.com...
> > "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> <snip>
> > Hmm? Oh, the baby was 6 lb 12, thanks for asking.
>
> Congratulations!
>
> Filksinger
Oops..that was a joke..I was saying that the only day I didn't post was
when I was in the hospital having Lauren; she arrived back in November,
not recently.But thank you anyway.
And actually....casting my mind back...I'm wrong. I posted AND did the
ironing in the morning ( not having realized that labour had started -
darn that nesting instinct; I could have got that done by helpful
friends after the birth!)and didn't get to the hospital until about 1.30
pm. I was discharged at 5pm the next night and definitely wrote emails
that day as I was feeling pretty chipper.
So, going back to Sarah...I'm addicted to the net, it's official <g>
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19599
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 15:57:30 -0600
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br>So, going back to Sarah...I'm addicted to the net, it's official <g></blockquote>
I'm a casual user. I can quit anytime... Oh -- the last few
days? My connection has been down. <g>
<p>Sarah
<p>PS- After delivering I dragged myself out of bed to write a story.
Not all there, I think.</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19600
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 18:31:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B82A65B.31BAE0FD@home.com...
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> > "Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B7D1B2B.E1C6E2B2@home.com...
> > > "Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Hmm? Oh, the baby was 6 lb 12, thanks for asking.
> >
> > Congratulations!
> >
> > Filksinger
>
> Oops..that was a joke..I was saying that the only day I didn't post was
> when I was in the hospital having Lauren; she arrived back in November,
> not recently.But thank you anyway.
I seemed to remember something like that, and so suspected, but I decided to
play it safe.:)
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19601
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:10:37 GMT
Subject: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
We interrupt your program for this important announcement:
We're in the new house, so if anyone needs the info, please e-mail me.
Thank You, We now return to normal programming, already in progress.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19602
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 15:45:43 -0700
Subject: It's All Geek to Me
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
OK, here's a question for the geeks around here. The fact that I'm asking
should scare you.:)
Long ago in Internet time, there was a problem were certain ISPs would fail
to recognize that a connection was live while it was in use, and disconnect
the user. This happened particularly in certain games and in FTP downloads.
FTP programs (and, presumably, the games) solved this problem by doing
_something_ to indicate that the connection was live during a download. I
have been told different things, such as sending a ping every so often, or
sending an FTP command, or a particular character, so as to show the
connection as live to the ISP.
Does anybody know just how this worked?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19603
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:35:22 GMT
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 11:10:37 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>We interrupt your program for this important announcement:
>
>We're in the new house, so if anyone needs the info, please e-mail me.
>
>Thank You, We now return to normal programming, already in progress.
>
>Fader
Congrats!
Since this is probably the only note I'll post tonight, I'll just say
that I'm not happy. My mom had a bad episode last Friday and I went
up there on Monday, came back today. At her request they've turned
off her defibrillator and stopped most of her medications. She's not
in any great pain, but she's basically just waiting for the next
cardiac episode. It's been a tough week, and I expect the next few
weeks to be tougher. *Sigh*. I don't mean to be a downer, just
wanted to let my friends here know.
I hope to be at the Heinlein Chair of Aerospace dedication next week,
but I don't know if I'll be able to attend.
--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19604
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:17:17 -0700
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Congratulations on the new house. Hope you enjoy it.
Filksinger
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b839160.3000648@news.sff.net...
> We interrupt your program for this important announcement:
>
> We're in the new house, so if anyone needs the info, please e-mail me.
>
> Thank You, We now return to normal programming, already in progress.
>
> Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19605
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:18:17 -0700
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT,
I am sorry to hear about your mother. I wish you both the very best. I just
wish it could be better.
Filksinger
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b859f37.868654@news.sff.net...
<snip>
>
> Congrats!
>
> Since this is probably the only note I'll post tonight, I'll just say
> that I'm not happy. My mom had a bad episode last Friday and I went
> up there on Monday, came back today. At her request they've turned
> off her defibrillator and stopped most of her medications. She's not
> in any great pain, but she's basically just waiting for the next
> cardiac episode. It's been a tough week, and I expect the next few
> weeks to be tougher. *Sigh*. I don't mean to be a downer, just
> wanted to let my friends here know.
>
> I hope to be at the Heinlein Chair of Aerospace dedication next week,
> but I don't know if I'll be able to attend.
>
> --JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19606
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:14:20 -0400
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: I'm sorry to hear about this most recent turn of bad news about
your mom. It certainly doesn't sound good. Does this mean that the
medical experts (so-called) can't come up with something to
stabilize her heart? Hang in there, and never give up hope.
Ed J
On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:35:22 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
<snip>
>
>Since this is probably the only note I'll post tonight, I'll just say
>that I'm not happy. My mom had a bad episode last Friday and I went
>up there on Monday, came back today. At her request they've turned
>off her defibrillator and stopped most of her medications. She's not
>in any great pain, but she's basically just waiting for the next
>cardiac episode. It's been a tough week, and I expect the next few
>weeks to be tougher. *Sigh*. I don't mean to be a downer, just
>wanted to let my friends here know.
>
>I hope to be at the Heinlein Chair of Aerospace dedication next week,
>but I don't know if I'll be able to attend.
>
>--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19607
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:26:09 -0500
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT--
I am so sorry that the news is not better. You and your mother are in
my thoughts. My prayers and wishes are for healing the hearts of you both.
May all the time you have with your mother be a treasure for you to
cherish.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19608
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:32:09 -0400
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT wrote:
> Since this is probably the only note I'll post tonight, I'll just say
> that I'm not happy. My mom had a bad episode last Friday and I went
> up there on Monday, came back today. At her request they've turned
> off her defibrillator and stopped most of her medications.
That's sad news; I'm so sorry. Your mother has made a very difficult
decision; she must have a lot of courage.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19609
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 11:08:27 -0600
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>JT wrote:
<p>> Since this is probably the only note I'll post tonight, I'll just
say
<br>> that I'm not happy. My mom had a bad episode last Friday and
I went
<br>> up there on Monday, came back today. At her request they've
turned
<br>> off her defibrillator and stopped most of her medications.</blockquote>
JT -- I'm sorry. I wish you strength and courage for the weeks
ahead. My thoughts are with you.
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19610
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 01:23:42 GMT
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:14:20 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>JT: I'm sorry to hear about this most recent turn of bad news about
>your mom. It certainly doesn't sound good. Does this mean that the
>medical experts (so-called) can't come up with something to
>stabilize her heart? Hang in there, and never give up hope.
>
>Ed J
Well, medicine & techniques could stabilize her heart, but only at the
vastly reduced capacity she has now--which doesn't allow for much
"quality of life". She's opted to be grateful for the 17 years she's
had since her first heart attack and to let go and see what awaits.
I spoke to her very briefly this afternoon. My brothers told me the
doctors have have already increased her morphine dosage to mask pain
and it may not be too long before she's on enough morphine regularly
that she's no longer aware.
Fader, sorry to have hijacked your 'new home' thread. I hope Beth has
continued to have workshop space! I assume the cats have staked out
their spots already.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19611
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 10:20:42 GMT
Subject: Re: New Address/Phone #
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 01:23:42 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>Fader, sorry to have hijacked your 'new home' thread. I hope Beth has
>continued to have workshop space! I assume the cats have staked out
>their spots already.
Don't worry about it,I'm very sorry to hear about your mom, we'll
think good thoughts for her.
Beth has a whole huge room for a workshop & the cats are too busy
exploring to have anything staked out yet. It's coming together, sowly
but surely.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19612
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:27:33 GMT
Subject: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
donations via their website.
--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19613
From: kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:11:13 -0500
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Please accept my sincere condolences.
McKevin
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b880906.17353631@news.sff.net...
> My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
> in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
> The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>
> I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> donations via their website.
>
> --JT
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19614
From: SpaceCadet <cadozo@planet-save.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 01:34:25 -0500
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT,
My thoughts are with you and your family.
Carol
JT wrote:
>
> My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning...
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19615
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 08:44:59 GMT
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:27:33 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
So Sorry to hear that, condolences from both of us.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19616
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 01:35:32 -0700
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT, please give your family my sincere condolences. Please tell them I
wish them comfort and solace in this difficult time.
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b880906.17353631@news.sff.net...
> My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She
wasn't
> in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were
there.
> The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>
> I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> donations via their website.
>
> --JT
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19617
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 06:01:13 -0500
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT--
I am so very sorry for your loss. My thoughts are with you and your
family.
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19618
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 11:18:11 -0400
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Dear JT,
I am thinking of you and your family today. You have all my sympathy.
Losing a parent is one of the saddest experiences someone can go through.
I hope the happy memories of your mother you must have will help you in
the coming weeks.
Jane
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19619
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 22:29:32 -0400
Subject: Re: All was vanity and a striving after wind (was Re: Question on Job; A
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Audrey Gifford wrote:
> I do have one question though, for the guys --- If you really did meet a
> Heinlein Herione, which you want anything to do with her or would she be
> too intimidating?
I've always said that if I met a Heinlein Herorine, or a Heinlein Hero, or
Heinlein himself (before he left us) in real life, I'd run the other way, for
fear I'd use the wrong fork or commit some other innocent/ignorant accidental
rudeness and be shot dead on the spot for it! <VBG... I repeat, *VBG*>
Seriously, though, there's no shortage of fictional heroes who'd intimidate
the H#ll out of you in real life: Think of Jack and Catherine Ryan and John
Clark and Ding Chavez and Ed and Mary Pat Foley and all the other
best-and-brightest types from Tom Clancy's books, f'rinstance. And would you
like to match wits with Hercule Poirot or Sherlock Holmes? The Callahan's
Place/Lady Sally gang are constantly making (correct) logical leaps that would
leave me in the dust if I didn't have Spider to 'splain them to me (and those
guys even feel guilty *WAY* better than I can <g>). On a more pedestrian
level, try matching the (as-depicted) performance of even the most average
porn actor/actress <major sigh>.
As for Heinlein super-women, I can't even remotely imagine keeping up with
one. My beloved wife and 10-year old daughter are both lovely and smart and
sweet, but neither of them has recently disarmed an interplanetary assassin or
saved the universe while doing nude yoga, and I have a hard enough time
pretending to keep up with *them*. OTOH, if I were to step into an alternate
universe where some gorgeous, brainy redhead who looked 24 but claimed to be
1024 wanted to keep me as a pet for a few years, I *might* be persuaded to
give it a try. Just for the sake of research, you understand. ;^)
-JovBill
PS: Sorry for jumping in so late; I've been on vacation, and am just now
getting caught up.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19620
From: brianes@cts.com
Date: 27 Aug 2001 13:13:22 GMT
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT;
My condolences, of course. There's little constructive to be said at a
time like this, other than a reminder that you and yours are in our thoughts
and in our prayers to whatever greater power we recognize.
Be at peace.
Regards
-- Brian
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19621
From: David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 12:54:42 -0700
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT wrote:
> My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
> in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
> The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>
> I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> donations via their website.
>
> --JT
My condolences, to you and your family. I understand your suggestion as
well, JT. My mother, aged 70, died of emphysema last year. It's a good
suggestion.
--
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19622
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:40:52 -0600
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
JT,
<p>My condolences.
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19623
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:15:23 -0400
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I was on vacation 'til sunday, and it's taken me 'til now to get through
all the accumulated postings... so this afternoon I had the sad
experience of reading all the good wishes on your mother's previous
semi-recovery, followed almost immediately by news of her passing.
Please add my hearfelt condolences to the pile; I'll remmeber her in my
prayers this week.
-JovBill
JT wrote:
> My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
> in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
> The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>
> I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> donations via their website.
>
> --JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19624
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:18:17 -0400
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> After delivering I dragged myself out of bed to write a story.
Please tell me this was *after* you finished your erotica phase; the
idea of you leaping up from the maternity bed to dash off something
about whips and chains is freakin' me out! <gd&rlh!>
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19625
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:20:33 -0400
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I normally don't wory too much about typos on the 'net, but in a serious
message, they seem worth fixing:
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> I was on vacation 'til sunday [*S*unday], and it's taken me 'til now to
> get through
> all the accumulated postings... so this afternoon I had the sad
> experience of reading all the good wishes on your mother's previous
> semi-recovery, followed almost immediately by news of her passing.
> Please add my hearfelt [hear*T*felt] condolences to the pile; I'll
> remmeber her in my
> prayers this week.
>
> -JovBill
>
> JT wrote:
>
> > My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
> > in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
> > The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
> >
> > I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> > smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> > like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> > donations via their website.
> >
> > --JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19626
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 09:01:46 -0400
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Ditto on just returning from vacation. Your family is in my prayers, JT.
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> I was on vacation 'til sunday, and it's taken me 'til now to get through
> all the accumulated postings... so this afternoon I had the sad
> experience of reading all the good wishes on your mother's previous
> semi-recovery, followed almost immediately by news of her passing.
> Please add my hearfelt condolences to the pile; I'll remmeber her in my
> prayers this week.
>
> -JovBill
>
> JT wrote:
>
> > My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
> > in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
> > The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
> >
> > I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> > smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> > like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> > donations via their website.
> >
> > --JT
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19627
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 18:08:28 GMT
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
So sorry to hear it, JT. Geo and I send all our best wishes.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19628
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:10:05 -0600
Subject: Re: Sexism in the eye of the beholder
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
.... It was a vampire story. After all the blood, you know... <g>
<p>Sarah
<p>Bill Dauphin wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
<p>> After delivering I dragged myself out of bed to write a story.
<p>Please tell me this was *after* you finished your erotica phase; the
<br>idea of you leaping up from the maternity bed to dash off something
<br>about whips and chains is freakin' me out! <gd&rlh!>
<p>-JovBill</blockquote>
</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19629
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:15:40 GMT
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:27:33 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>
Well, I'm back. The hardest part of the whole process is seeing my
dad's pain. They were married 50 years.
Thank you to all for your sympathy. The last few days have made me
realize how necessary the ceremonies surrounding funerals are, for a
time to grieve and a time to start healing.
WJaKe was going to attend the RAH dedication in my place (I had hoped
to have him go with me, but I'm glad at least one of us went) so I
hope he reports on it soon--but I know WorldCon is this week, too, so
we may have to wait.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19630
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 17:31:50 -0500
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT--
Linda Coffin sends her condolences, and all the good wishes of her and
Doc.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19631
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 20:39:10 -0400
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: I'm sorry to hear of your loss. You have our sincerest
condolences.
Ed J
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:15:40 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 20:27:33 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>
>>The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>>
>Well, I'm back. The hardest part of the whole process is seeing my
>dad's pain. They were married 50 years.
>
>Thank you to all for your sympathy. The last few days have made me
>realize how necessary the ceremonies surrounding funerals are, for a
>time to grieve and a time to start healing.
>
>WJaKe was going to attend the RAH dedication in my place (I had hoped
>to have him go with me, but I'm glad at least one of us went) so I
>hope he reports on it soon--but I know WorldCon is this week, too, so
>we may have to wait.
>
>JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19632
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:21:23 -0400
Subject: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Friends:
In the vein of the bad medical news posted here lately, I need to ask
for your prayers or other good thoughts (as appropriate) for my 10-year
old daughter, Mara, who was today diagnosed with a brain tumor. The
doctors have given us reason to hope that it's both benign and safely
operable, but we won't know for sure 'til they actually take it out,
which looks like it might happen Wednesday. In the meantime, she's in
Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford, being treated to
reduce the swelling in her brain and prepare her for sugery.
I probably won't be back on the ng for several days, but as soon as I
get a chance, I'll update y'all on her condition.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19633
From: SpaceCadet <cadozo@planet-save.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 23:44:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill,
I am sending good thoughts, and my very best wishes to you,
your wife, and most especially Mara.
Carol
Bill Dauphin wrote:
>
> Friends:
>
> In the vein of the bad medical news posted here lately, I need to ask
> for your prayers or other good thoughts (as appropriate) for my 10-year
> old daughter, Mara, ...
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19634
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 09:56:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> Friends:
>
> In the vein of the bad medical news posted here lately, I need to ask
> for your prayers or other good thoughts (as appropriate) for my 10-year
> old daughter, Mara, who was today diagnosed with a brain tumor.
Bill, that's awful news and I can imagine how you must be feeling as I'm a
parent myself.
Lauren was diagnosed with a cavernous hemangioma on the back of her neck
some months after she was born; that is also a benign tumour but it doesn't
stop you worrying.
What Mara is going through is something no child should have to face. I'm
thinking of her and she and you have all my good thoughts and best wishes.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19635
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 13:42:33 -0500
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"Jane Davitt" wrote in message news:3B7B1DE5.D6110D7@home.com...
> <Pause as I am staggered by the mysterious ways of fate. Supposing whoever
> had that book before me had kept it another day? I might never have
started
> reading SF! (Am I allowed multiple exclamation points for something that
> momentous?)>
Let this be a lesson: Return your library books on time!
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com ,
http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com and
http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19636
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:54:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
See what happens when I turn my "back" on you folks for a couple weeks!
<sigh>
My prayers for Mara's safe recovery and That the doctors have both wisdom
and skill.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B904621.453DB9FF@ix.netcom.com...
> Friends:
>
> In the vein of the bad medical news posted here lately, I need to ask
> for your prayers or other good thoughts (as appropriate) for my 10-year
> old daughter, Mara, who was today diagnosed with a brain tumor. The
> doctors have given us reason to hope that it's both benign and safely
> operable, but we won't know for sure 'til they actually take it out,
> which looks like it might happen Wednesday. In the meantime, she's in
> Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford, being treated to
> reduce the swelling in her brain and prepare her for sugery.
>
> I probably won't be back on the ng for several days, but as soon as I
> get a chance, I'll update y'all on her condition.
>
> -JovBill
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19637
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:55:47 -0700
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
My condolences to you and yours.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b880906.17353631@news.sff.net...
> My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
> in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
> The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>
> I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> donations via their website.
>
> --JT
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19638
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 00:40:29 -0500
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B7AB2CC.C9B6FF85@surewest.net...
> dee wrote:
> > I have a complaint about the new page!
> >
> > Now that I have your attention <g>, my complaint is that you don't
> > have even more of the material completed and posted.
>
> I know. I'm incredibly pressed for time right now, what with Worldcon
> coming up and a personal life that takes 23-1/2 hours a day. I really
> wanted to get the initial page up, and I know it's something of a dirty
> trick to leave all the links dead.
>
> But all of those essays are already written between my ears. Writing
> them won't take much time, but I have to carefully check every fact and
> bolster every claim before I can post them. Panshin is too much of a
> nitpicker, and if anything I post has mushy spots, he'll blenderize the
> whole thing.
>
> This is a job I want to do ONCE and be able to move on.
Jim, as one of my journalism professors told me: Writing well is the best
revenge.
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com ,
http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com and
http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19639
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 09:33:49 GMT
Subject: Mistaken Rapture, might be a Darwin contender
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Somebody sent this to me this mornin', thought you guys might find it
interesting.
Fader
Little Rock (AP)
A Little Rock woman wa killed yesterday after leaping
through the sunroof of her moving car during an
incident best described as a case of "mistaken
rapture" by dozens of witnesses. Thriteen other
people were injured after a twenty-car pile up
resulted from people trying to avoid hitting the woman
who was apparently convinced that the rapture was
occuring when she saw twelve people floating up into
the air, and then passed a man on the side of the road
who she believed was Jesus Christ.
"She started screaming 'He's back, he's back', and
climbed right out' of the sunroof and jumped off the
roof of the car," said Everet Williams, husband of
28yr old Georgann Williams who was pronounced dead at
the scene.
"I was slowing down but she wouldn't wait till I
stopped," Williams said. "She thought the rapture was
happening and was convinced that Jesus was gonna lift
her up into the sky", he went on to say.
"This is the strangest thing I've seen since I've been
on the force", said Paul Madison first officer on the
scene. Madison questioned the man who looked like
Jesus and discovered that he was dressed up as Jesus
and was on his way to a toga costume party when the
tarp covering the bed of his pickup truck came loose
and released twelve blow-up sex dolls filled with
helium which then floated up into the air.
Ernie Jenkins, 32, of Fort Smith, who's been told by
several of his friends that he looks like Jesus,
pulled over and lifted his arms into the air in
frustration, and said "Come back here!" just as the
Williams' car passed him and Mrs. Williams was sure
that it was Jesus lifting people up into the sky,
according to her husband who says his wife loved Jesus
more than anything else.
When asked for comments about the incident, Jenkins
replied, "This is all just too weird for me. I never
expected anything like this to happen." (AP)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19640
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 09:36:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Best Wishes & hopes for the fastest of recoveries.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19641
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:13:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JovBill--
Mara, and you, and your entire family, are indeed in my thoughts and
prayers. Please let us know the good news when the surgeons confirm that
all is well. (Thinking positive.) I know that you will be very drained,
and have many reponsibilities more important and more pressing than this
board, but we will all look forward to a brief note when you can.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19642
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 09:17:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Mistaken Rapture, might be a Darwin contender
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3b91fbbc.1546280@news.sff.net...
> Somebody sent this to me this mornin', thought you guys might find it
> interesting.
> A Little Rock woman wa killed yesterday after leaping
> through the sunroof of her moving car during an
> incident best described as a case of "mistaken
> rapture" by dozens of witnesses.
Fader--
Take a look at http://www.snopes2.com/religion/rapture.htm for a
suggestion that this is a fictitious story. (But fun, nevertheless.)
Snopes is an entertaining site for investigating some of these internet
stories.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19643
From: lcalvin@interaccess.com (Lynn Calvin)
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 14:50:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Mistaken Rapture, might be a Darwin contender
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Yah, but it's a hoax.
fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>Somebody sent this to me this mornin', thought you guys might find it
>interesting.
>
>Fader
>
>Little Rock (AP)
>A Little Rock woman wa killed yesterday after leaping
>through the sunroof of her moving car during an
>incident best described as a case of "mistaken
>rapture"
--
Lynn Calvin
lcalvin@interaccess.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19644
From: Mitch Wagner <mwagner@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:03:53 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
Hmmmm... I was born in 1961, and my first Heinlein was "Red Planet." I
think that may have been the first novel I ever read - but not the first
book. The first book ws a biography of Helen Keller.
Thus do we detect a theme of self-reliance running through even the first
fiction I ever read. Although, of course, Keller and Heinlein heroes were
self-reliant but not self-sufficient, like the song goes, they got by
with a little help from their friends.
--
Mitch Wagner http://www.drive-thru.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19645
From: Mitch Wagner <mwagner@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:05:54 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
In article <3B7B4840.807DC2EB@sff.net>, sarah-hoyt@sff.net says...
> > "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club"
>
> Me too, me too. Although not my first SF. That was Clifford Simak's "Out Of
> Their Minds" "A Canticle for Leibowitz" was the second (and it's amazing I came
> back for more.) And I was eleven too. And I'm still amazed other people out
> there feel the way I do about Heinlein. But it's a good feeling.
I was startled when you said you read "Canticle" when you were a mere 11
years old, but then I remembered that I wasn't much older when I read it.
I think I was about 13-14. I read "Cities in Flight" when I was 11, and I
don't remember finding it particularly difficult at all.
I forget how precocious kids who like to read are.
--
Mitch Wagner http://www.drive-thru.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19646
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2001 18:02:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Mistaken Rapture, might be a Darwin contender
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lynn Calvin wrote:
> Yah, but it's a hoax.
>
>
My first thought was about Job and the woman who wanted an angel to give
her daughter some cough medicine in the middle of the Rapture....just to
stay on topic <bg>
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19647
From: William G. Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 17:53:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Mistaken Rapture, might be a Darwin contender
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jane Davitt" <jdavitt01@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B92AC6C.77CAFB97@home.com...
> Lynn Calvin wrote:
>
> > Yah, but it's a hoax.
> >
> >
>
> My first thought was about Job and the woman who wanted an angel to give
> her daughter some cough medicine in the middle of the Rapture....just to
> stay on topic <bg>
>
> Jane
>
>
> --
> http://www.heinleinsociety.org
>
>
Same thought occured to me. And having to shave in Heaven.
In the interest of what the source (the Bible) says, 1) you won't see Jesus
on the side of the road; the Raptured will meet Him in the air, 2) If you're
on the ground seeing the Raptured rise up, you didn't make the cut, and no
amount of jumping will get you there, plus 2b) Some interpretations suggest
you won't see the Raptured actually rising, they will seem to vanish in the
twinkle of an eye.
I do kind of like the irony of a Believer possibly qualifying for the Darwin
Award. Part of the warped nature many of my fellow Baptists see in me, I
suppose.
Will in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19648
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 13:53:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Mistaken Rapture, might be a Darwin contender
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William G. Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b92b839.0@news.sff.net...
<snipetty do dah>
Thank You Fader, Hoax or Not I got a headshaking grin out of it. (took my
mind off budget planning--Thank You, Thank You Thank You!!!!)
My pastor likes these idiotic things. So I'm filing off your names and
copying the original post and replies for him, especially
http://www.snopes2.com/religion/rapture.htm. I've finally convinced him to
start checking these things before forwrding them to ALL the membership.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
> In the interest of what the source (the Bible) says, 1) you won't see
Jesus
> on the side of the road; the Raptured will meet Him in the air, 2) If
you're
> on the ground seeing the Raptured rise up, you didn't make the cut, and no
> amount of jumping will get you there, plus 2b) Some interpretations
suggest
> you won't see the Raptured actually rising, they will seem to vanish in
the
> twinkle of an eye.
>
> I do kind of like the irony of a Believer possibly qualifying for the
Darwin
> Award. Part of the warped nature many of my fellow Baptists see in me, I
> suppose.
>
> Will in Texas
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19649
From: William G. Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 10:52:26 -0700
Subject: Private Space Station Planned
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Tossing this tidbit out for the group.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010904/aponline101749_000.ht
m
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19650
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 20:36:35 -0600
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
Actually I had the benefit of a nine-year-older brother who met someone in his first
year at college who happened to have a vast sf/f library. My brother borrowed the
books and I read them standing up by my brother's bedside table, ready to fling them
down and run if I heard steps on the stairs. (my brother for reasons known only to
himself was convinced all sf was racy and therefore not suitable for me.)
Sarah
Mitch Wagner wrote:
> In article <3B7B4840.807DC2EB@sff.net>, sarah-hoyt@sff.net says...
> > > "HSS-WT Was My First Heinlein Club"
> >
> > Me too, me too. Although not my first SF. That was Clifford Simak's "Out Of
> > Their Minds" "A Canticle for Leibowitz" was the second (and it's amazing I came
> > back for more.) And I was eleven too. And I'm still amazed other people out
> > there feel the way I do about Heinlein. But it's a good feeling.
>
> I was startled when you said you read "Canticle" when you were a mere 11
> years old, but then I remembered that I wasn't much older when I read it.
> I think I was about 13-14. I read "Cities in Flight" when I was 11, and I
> don't remember finding it particularly difficult at all.
>
> I forget how precocious kids who like to read are.
>
> --
> Mitch Wagner http://www.drive-thru.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19651
From: Audrey Gifford <agifford@rcsis.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 20:52:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Our thoughts and prayers are with your family.
Audrey and Jim
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19652
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 09:06:15 -0600
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Ours also.
<p>Sarah & Dan Hoyt
<p>Audrey Gifford wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Our thoughts and prayers are with your family.
<p>Audrey and Jim</blockquote>
</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19653
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 11:49:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill,
I am very sorry to hear this. I wish you and your family the very best in
this difficult time.
Filksinger
AKA David Nasset, Sr.
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B904621.453DB9FF@ix.netcom.com...
> Friends:
>
> In the vein of the bad medical news posted here lately, I need to ask
> for your prayers or other good thoughts (as appropriate) for my 10-year
> old daughter, Mara, who was today diagnosed with a brain tumor. The
> doctors have given us reason to hope that it's both benign and safely
> operable, but we won't know for sure 'til they actually take it out,
> which looks like it might happen Wednesday. In the meantime, she's in
> Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford, being treated to
> reduce the swelling in her brain and prepare her for sugery.
>
> I probably won't be back on the ng for several days, but as soon as I
> get a chance, I'll update y'all on her condition.
>
> -JovBill
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19654
From: blank_al" <blank_al@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:41:52 -0500
Subject: Mara
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Best wish to you
Don't Panic
blank al
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19655
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2001 23:23:41 -0400
Subject: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All:
I'm just making a quick stop home to feed the cat and check the mail,
but here's the quick version:
Surgery was yesterday and lasted ~14 hr. The surgeon was very pleased
with the result, having gotten 98% of the tumor out, and today he said
the post-op MRI looked extremely good. Both he and the neurologist are
also extremely pleased with her post-op neurological checks... in short,
it looks like neither the tumor nor the surgery has done any damage to
her brain or cranial nerves. The only potential fly in the ointment is
that the pathologist's first-look report suggests it's NOT the type of
tumor they thought it was, a meningioma. That doesn't necessarily mean
it's malignant -- in fact, her lack of neurological deficits and the
condition of the surrounding tissue still suggest that it's not -- but
we won't know for sure about that, nor whether further treatment is
required, 'til we get the final pathology report back in 4-6 days. It's
gonna be a long wait, but we're still very positive.
Mara had a tough day today, with some post-op discomfort (though very
little real pain) and some medication-induced hallucinations, but
everyone assures us that these are normal things given the magnitude of
the surgery, and that she's progressing very well. She'll probably be in
the hospital for about a week of post-op care (pending the pathology
report, of course).
More later...
-JovBill
PS: Thanks to all of you who've expressed your support, both publicly
and privately. It means so much to know folks are out there rooting for
us.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19656
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 10:26:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 23:23:41 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Glad things went well, best wishes for continuing good news & a quick
recovery.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19657
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 08:07:51 -0500
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B998F3B.ED0BD258@ix.netcom.com...
> All:
>
> I'm just making a quick stop home to feed the cat and check the mail,
> but here's the quick version:
>
> Surgery was yesterday and lasted ~14 hr. The surgeon was very pleased
> with the result, having gotten 98% of the tumor out, and today he said
> the post-op MRI looked extremely good. Both he and the neurologist are
> also extremely pleased with her post-op neurological checks... in short,
> it looks like neither the tumor nor the surgery has done any damage to
> her brain or cranial nerves. The only potential fly in the ointment is
> that the pathologist's first-look report suggests it's NOT the type of
> tumor they thought it was, a meningioma. That doesn't necessarily mean
> it's malignant -- in fact, her lack of neurological deficits and the
> condition of the surrounding tissue still suggest that it's not -- but
> we won't know for sure about that, nor whether further treatment is
> required, 'til we get the final pathology report back in 4-6 days. It's
> gonna be a long wait, but we're still very positive.
>
> Mara had a tough day today, with some post-op discomfort (though very
> little real pain) and some medication-induced hallucinations, but
> everyone assures us that these are normal things given the magnitude of
> the surgery, and that she's progressing very well. She'll probably be in
> the hospital for about a week of post-op care (pending the pathology
> report, of course).
>
Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Bill Dennis
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19658
From: Mitch Wagner <mwagner@world.std.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 07:32:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I hope that Mara makes a full recovery.
--
Mitch Wagner http://www.drive-thru.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19659
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2001 11:13:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
That sounds very promising. Thanks for taking the time to update us; I've
been thinking about Mara and hoping for good news like this.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19660
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 11:14:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Still praying here. Thank you for the update.
Give Mara our love.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19661
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 19:37:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
That's good news. I've been thinking of her and you every day. I
hope it continues to improve for her.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19662
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:26:16 GMT
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:03:53 -0700, Mitch Wagner
<mwagner@world.std.com> wrote:
> but not the first
>book. The first book ws a biography of Helen Keller.
>
>Thus do we detect a theme of self-reliance running through even the first
>fiction I ever read. Although, of course, Keller and Heinlein heroes were
>self-reliant but not self-sufficient, like the song goes, they got by
>with a little help from their friends.
>
Mitch,
I had to pipe in here--I read all of the available books about Helen
Keller (adult and children's section, of course ;) in my local library
as a kid. I've even gone back and gotten a few of them for my
personal library.
I think you might be onto something with your self-reliance theme.
Let's see--anyone else here fascinated with Helen Keller's story?
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19663
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:26:16 GMT
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 07 Sep 2001 23:23:41 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Both he and the neurologist are
>also extremely pleased with her post-op neurological checks... in short,
>it looks like neither the tumor nor the surgery has done any damage to
>her brain or cranial nerves.
JovBill,
We just got back from a few days' vacation with my in-laws in Myrtle
Beach. I had checked WebNews earlier in the week without posting and
have been praying for Mara. I was so glad to see your update.
My thoughts will continue to be with your family and especially with
Mara.
--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19664
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 00:26:17 GMT
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:55:47 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
<lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
>My condolences to you and yours.
>
Thanks to all who've written.
We went down to Myrtle Beach this past week to visit with Christine's
parents who have a house there. We'd been planning the trip since the
spring. It was Danny's first time at the beach and he really enjoyed
himself.
It was a strange time for me, to be "having fun" so soon after my
mom's funeral. But as a family we needed a break.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19665
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 20:53:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill--
Thannk you so much for taaking the time to let us know the good news.
Like everyone else here, I have had Mara in my thoughts every day, and I am
so relieved that the news is so good, so far. I am continuing to wish and
pray for the remainder of the news to be only the best.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19666
From: Mitch Wagner <mwagner@world.std.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 22:55:02 -0700
Subject: Re: The Panshin Papers
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sff.people.robert-a-heinlein
In article <3b9c04eb.467667@news.sff.net>, JT@REM0VE.sff.net says...
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 11:03:53 -0700, Mitch Wagner
> <mwagner@world.std.com> wrote:
> > but not the first
> >book. The first book ws a biography of Helen Keller.
> >
> >Thus do we detect a theme of self-reliance running through even the first
> >fiction I ever read. Although, of course, Keller and Heinlein heroes were
> >self-reliant but not self-sufficient, like the song goes, they got by
> >with a little help from their friends.
> >
> Mitch,
>
> I had to pipe in here--I read all of the available books about Helen
> Keller (adult and children's section, of course ;) in my local library
> as a kid. I've even gone back and gotten a few of them for my
> personal library.
>
> I think you might be onto something with your self-reliance theme.
> Let's see--anyone else here fascinated with Helen Keller's story?
I wouldn't say that I'm currently fascinated with Helen Keller's story,
but I certainly did love that book when I was a little kid, and it set me
on the path of reading for the rest of my life.
I read recently that there's a new biography out of another blind-and-
deaf woman who became educated before Keller, but she's all but forgotten
because she wasn't quite as media-friendly as Keller was.
--
Mitch Wagner http://www.drive-thru.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19667
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 05:57:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill--
Glad to have the good news and I hope it continues to remain good.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19668
From: David M. Silver" <ag.plusone@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 06:57:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Good progress report, Bill. I'm happy for that and for the hope it affords
your family, and my wife and daughter join with their best wishes. Thank
providence it's not thirty years ago. There's hope for all manner of
malady that there wasn't then.
--
David M. Silver
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
"The Lieutenant expects your names to shine!"
Robert Anson Heinlein, USNA '29
Lt (jg)., USN R'td (1907-1988)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19669
From: les.johnson@erols.com (Les)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:55:56 GMT
Subject: Gathering Next Year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hello everybody. Les here. I've been stirring things up a bit behind
the scenes and JP tells me I'd better let everybody else in on it too.
Basically, the Warfields and I have decided that we MUST do a
gathering next year. We think (and JP agrees) that MO would be a
great place to have it. Back at the old Reel & Trigger. And it looks
like the first or second week of August would be the best time too.
Now I ran this idea by Fader and he thinks that MO would be too hot
and suggests maybe we try the cabins in Maryland again. So what does
everyone else think?
Les
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19670
From: les.johnson@erols.com (Les)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:17:49 GMT
Subject: HF Babies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JP and I went to the WorldCon in Philly last weekend and guess who we
got to meet there? Audrey and James Gifford! Wow! It's about time!
It was great meeting them and we got some great pictures. If you like
to see them visit http://www.vrolyk.org/hfbabies/.
Les
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19671
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 12:21:08 -0700
Subject: Re: HF Babies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Les wrote:
> JP and I went to the WorldCon in Philly last weekend and guess who we
> got to meet there? Audrey and James Gifford! Wow!
Gee, and we were excited because we got to meet Silverberg, Pohl,
Haldeman, Benford, Kondo and Connie Willis. I guess you have more
refined taste. :) :) :)
> It was great meeting them and we got some great pictures. If you
> like to see them visit http://www.vrolyk.org/hfbabies/.
Nice pictures, Les. Thanks for posting them.
We seem to have started a trend (among married HFers) of unusual and
thematic middle names for offspring. The rest of you are hereby served
notice that you must comply with this schema when naming your children.
:)
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19672
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:24:03 -0400
Subject: Re: HF Babies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
>
> We seem to have started a trend (among married HFers) of unusual and
> thematic middle names for offspring. The rest of you are hereby served
> notice that you must comply with this schema when naming your children.
> :)
>
Too late; we're all done babies :-) Eleanor Elizabeth and Lauren Alicia are
named after my grandmother and my best friend respectively ( their middle
names that is). Both are very special people and Alicia in particular has
been friends with me for <gulp> 26 years with only 2 noteworthy arguments
in all that time (one when we were 12, one when we were 20). That's not bad
going.
Your twins look very cute and cuddly. I'm sure my two would love to play
with them if they lived a few thousand miles closer. <g>
Audrey looks as nice as I imagined her (someone described her as an angel
in disguise to me recently after meeting her at the con) and you have long
hair like my husband but rather more on the face than he does.....
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19673
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:55:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill,
Thank you for the update. Give Mara our best wishes from everyone here.
We're all rooting for her.
Filksinger
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B998F3B.ED0BD258@ix.netcom.com...
> All:
>
> I'm just making a quick stop home to feed the cat and check the mail,
> but here's the quick version:
>
> Surgery was yesterday and lasted ~14 hr. The surgeon was very pleased
> with the result, having gotten 98% of the tumor out, and today he said
> the post-op MRI looked extremely good. Both he and the neurologist are
> also extremely pleased with her post-op neurological checks... in short,
> it looks like neither the tumor nor the surgery has done any damage to
> her brain or cranial nerves. The only potential fly in the ointment is
> that the pathologist's first-look report suggests it's NOT the type of
> tumor they thought it was, a meningioma. That doesn't necessarily mean
> it's malignant -- in fact, her lack of neurological deficits and the
> condition of the surrounding tissue still suggest that it's not -- but
> we won't know for sure about that, nor whether further treatment is
> required, 'til we get the final pathology report back in 4-6 days. It's
> gonna be a long wait, but we're still very positive.
>
> Mara had a tough day today, with some post-op discomfort (though very
> little real pain) and some medication-induced hallucinations, but
> everyone assures us that these are normal things given the magnitude of
> the surgery, and that she's progressing very well. She'll probably be in
> the hospital for about a week of post-op care (pending the pathology
> report, of course).
>
> More later...
>
> -JovBill
>
> PS: Thanks to all of you who've expressed your support, both publicly
> and privately. It means so much to know folks are out there rooting for
> us.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19674
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 01:47:44 GMT
Subject: Re: Gathering Next Year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 16:55:56 GMT, les.johnson@erols.com (Les) wrote:
> Back at the old Reel & Trigger. And it looks
>like the first or second week of August would be the best time too.
>Now I ran this idea by Fader and he thinks that MO would be too hot
>and suggests maybe we try the cabins in Maryland again. So what does
>everyone else think?
>
>Les
Well, I like the travelling distance of the cabins right by me. <G>
However, it suffers from "been there done that" just like the Reel n
Trigger does.
However, I'm interested in doing *something*. I like the idea of
going to a place with less light pollution--I was just thinking about
the night sky from The Bluff last night.
I'll ask Christine if she has any ideas about places to go. If we're
thinking first half of August that's what we'll think about.
Thanks for starting this thread, Les! How's Jack doing?
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19675
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 01:47:44 GMT
Subject: Re: HF Babies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:17:49 GMT, les.johnson@erols.com (Les) wrote:
>JP and I went to the WorldCon in Philly last weekend and guess who we
>got to meet there? Audrey and James Gifford! Wow! It's about time!
>It was great meeting them and we got some great pictures. If you like
>to see them visit http://www.vrolyk.org/hfbabies/.
>
>Les
Hey, what about the *first* BabyGathering <G>? As far as themed names,
well, we have Daniel Robert, so I guess he counts.
I have two comments about your pictures:
1. The twins are so big! Although I guess since kids grow, that
should be expected. ;)
2. Jack is really developing, Christine & I were amazed how much he's
filled in--but see my comments on #1 also. <VBG>
It was nice to see Audrey in a few shots--it seems like ages since I
met her out in OR. The best accompanist I've ever had--she made me
actually sound good. ;)
--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19676
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:35:52 -0600
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I didn't know this was an Heinlein fan thing. Our older one is Robert
Anson (born 7/7, too, but we'd planned the name for six years of infertility).
Our second however is Eric Marshall and the only thing we can figure he
was named for is sudden panic. He was supposed to be a girl till
three days before his birth (weird ultrasound). We simply had no
boys names picked out.
<p>We do, however, have themed-name cats: Petronius the Arbiter, Random
Numbers, Pixel Wallwalker and Dejah Torris Carter. (Zebbie -- DT's
brother -- disappeared into the blue yonder nine years ago. He went
on a foray and just never came back. We miss him.) Interestingly,
the last two times we were at the vet, there was someone there with multiple
cats named for Heinlein's cats. (not the same person, so there are
at least two other people in town who have Heinlein cats.)
<p>I enjoyed meeting Frederick Pohl AND the Giffords. Both Giffords
seem like very nice people and the babies are adorable. ... If I
lived closer, I'd offer to baby sit -- we wanted eleven kids (okay, we
were nuts) but it took us sixteen years to have two and that seems to be
it.
<p>I really liked worldcon and enjoyed meeting all the people at the Heinlein
dinner. Now it's back to work.
<br><br>
Sarah
<p>PS - Does anyone know the full lyrics to "there's a bimbo on my cover"?
it's not exactly a bimbo, but it's a blonde with too much chin and I feel
entitled to singing the song.</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19677
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 20:08:50 -0700
Subject: Re: HF Babies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT wrote:
> 1. The twins are so big! Although I guess since kids grow, that
> should be expected. ;)
They're absolutely enormous, and have been since they were 3 months old.
Way off the top of the growth charts (and HW proportional). They're 18
months this week, and almost 40 pounds each. Our nanny has a four year
old that's not much bigger than they are - and she's only a little
taller, and probably not quite as heavy.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19678
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 23:06:11 -0500
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b9c077f.1127270@news.sff.net...
> On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 20:55:47 -0700, "Lorrita Morgan"
> <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >My condolences to you and yours.
> >
> Thanks to all who've written.
>
> We went down to Myrtle Beach this past week to visit with Christine's
> parents who have a house there. We'd been planning the trip since the
> spring. It was Danny's first time at the beach and he really enjoyed
> himself.
>
> It was a strange time for me, to be "having fun" so soon after my
> mom's funeral. But as a family we needed a break.
A time like this is when you NEED to have some fun.
my condolences, BTW.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19679
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 01:59:50 -0500
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
--------------5FA6315D8CEA23E685172A88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
All--
When I was growing up, men simply did not have and barely endured
cats. They were for little girls and little old ladies; dogs were for
men and boys. RAH was the person who made it respectable for men to
have cats. And he was directly responsible my my getting into sharing
my facilities with a cat.
[Image]
Dorian Grey
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
--------------5FA6315D8CEA23E685172A88
Content-Type: multipart/related;
boundary="------------1306F12608D900047425A1FA"
--------------1306F12608D900047425A1FA
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
All--
<br> When I was growing up, men simply did not
have and barely endured cats. They were for little girls and little
old ladies; dogs were for men and boys. RAH was the person who made
it respectable for men to have cats. And he was directly responsible
my my getting into sharing my facilities with a cat.
<br><img SRC="cid:part1.3B9DB666.666486B1@aol.com" height=100 width=160>
<br>Dorian Grey
<p>--
<br><<Big Charlie>>
<p>Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
<br> </html>
--------------1306F12608D900047425A1FA
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-ID: <part1.3B9DB666.666486B1@aol.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="C:\windows\TEMP\nsmailUH.jpeg"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--------------1306F12608D900047425A1FA--
--------------5FA6315D8CEA23E685172A88--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19680
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 02:12:06 -0500
Subject: Mini-gathering this year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All--
I usually make a trip to the Elkton cabin in October -- so I hereby
announce that I will be visiting October 5-8 and any or all of the
HF'ers are welcome to join me. E-Mail at chasgraft@aol.com for
directions if you plan to come.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
chasgraft@aol.com
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19681
From: les.johnson@erols.com (Les)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:44:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Gathering Next Year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 01:47:44 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>Well, I like the travelling distance of the cabins right by me. <G>
>However, it suffers from "been there done that" just like the Reel n
>Trigger does.
>
>However, I'm interested in doing *something*. I like the idea of
>going to a place with less light pollution--I was just thinking about
>the night sky from The Bluff last night.
>
Not only does the Reel n Trigger have a great bluff and skies but
there are several new cobbers that haven't been there. Plus it does
have the advantage of being somewhat in the middle.
>I'll ask Christine if she has any ideas about places to go. If we're
>thinking first half of August that's what we'll think about.
>
Beginning of August seems best. We're probably going to be buying a
place next year, so the first half of the summer will be busy. And
the Warfields have some things in July. Any other suggestions for
place would be great!
>Thanks for starting this thread, Les! How's Jack doing?
>
>JT
>
Jack's great! He had shots on Friday which gave him a bad fever and
he was very sad, but he's back to his old self again. Cute!
Hope you and the family are ok. Was very sorry to hear about your
mom.
Les
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19682
From: les.johnson@erols.com (Les)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:49:18 GMT
Subject: Re: HF Babies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 01:47:44 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:17:49 GMT, les.johnson@erols.com (Les) wrote:
>
>>JP and I went to the WorldCon in Philly last weekend and guess who we
>>got to meet there? Audrey and James Gifford! Wow! It's about time!
>>It was great meeting them and we got some great pictures. If you like
>>to see them visit http://www.vrolyk.org/hfbabies/.
>>
>>Les
>
>Hey, what about the *first* BabyGathering <G>? As far as themed names,
>well, we have Daniel Robert, so I guess he counts.
>
I called JP at work yesterday afternoon to tell him I'd finally gotten
around to posting the pictures. He took a look and said, "Don't you
have a picture of Daniel to put up too?" And I thought, gee there's
probably lots of HFers with children. And maybe it would be fun to
have an official HF baby page. But then I figured I'd have to do all
the work, so I ignored myself. Anyway, a 1st Baby Gathering would be
fun!
>I have two comments about your pictures:
>
>1. The twins are so big! Although I guess since kids grow, that
>should be expected. ;)
>
>2. Jack is really developing, Christine & I were amazed how much he's
>filled in--but see my comments on #1 also. <VBG>
>
>It was nice to see Audrey in a few shots--it seems like ages since I
>met her out in OR. The best accompanist I've ever had--she made me
>actually sound good. ;)
>
>--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19683
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 07:26:12 -0600
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
--------------A89BC44474146B06DE34B8E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br><img SRC="cid:part1.3B9E10F4.34D67CD2@sff.net" height=100 width=160></blockquote>
He looks beautiful. Cats look so natural next to books. (Well,
our kitten eats them, but that's something else again. :-) )
<p>Sarah</html>
--------------A89BC44474146B06DE34B8E0
Content-Type: image/jpeg
Content-ID: <part1.3B9E10F4.34D67CD2@sff.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="C:\windows\TEMP\nsmailUH.jpeg"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--------------A89BC44474146B06DE34B8E0--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19684
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 09:38:34 -0500
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C13AA5.8694D440
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0024_01C13AA5.8694D440"
------=_NextPart_001_0024_01C13AA5.8694D440
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message =
news:3B9E10F4.145BDA0B@sff.net...
=20
=20
He looks beautiful. Cats look so natural next to books. (Well, our =
kitten eats them, but that's something else again. :-) )=20
Sarah=20
A weekly newspaper in Champaign, Ill., once printed an article about =
"working" cats: Cats who went to work with their human companions. Once =
such feline worked at a Bookstore. It was fond of climbing to the top of =
stacks. I imagine more than one customer was hit on the head by books =
knocked over the cat.
--=20
William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com ,=20
http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com and
http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com
------=_NextPart_001_0024_01C13AA5.8694D440
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2479.6" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Sarah A. Hoyt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:sarah-hoyt@sff.net">sarah-hoyt@sff.net</A>> wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:3B9E10F4.145BDA0B@sff.net">news:3B9E10F4.145BDA0B@sff.net</A=
>...</DIV> =20
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3D"CITE"> <BR><IMG height=3D100=20
src=3D"cid:001e01c13acf$6f3881a0$341a1618@peoria1.il.home.com"=20
width=3D160></BLOCKQUOTE>He looks beautiful. Cats look so =
natural next to=20
books. (Well, our kitten eats them, but that's something else =
again. :-)=20
)=20
<P>Sarah=20
<P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>A weekly newspaper in Champaign, Ill., =
once printed=20
an article about "working" cats: Cats who went to work with their =
human=20
companions. Once such feline worked at a Bookstore. It was fond of =
climbing to=20
the top of stacks. I imagine more than one customer was hit on the =
head by=20
books knocked over the cat.</FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><BR>-- <BR>William B. Dennis 2nd<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://billscontent.tripod.com">http://billscontent.tripod.com</A=
> ,=20
<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com">http://heinlein-libertari=
an.tripod.com</A>=20
and<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com">http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.co=
m</A></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0024_01C13AA5.8694D440--
------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C13AA5.8694D440
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
name="C:\windows\TEMP\nsmailUH.jpeg"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-ID: <001e01c13acf$6f3881a0$341a1618@peoria1.il.home.com>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------=_NextPart_000_0023_01C13AA5.8694D440--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19685
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:06:16 GMT
Subject: American Tragedy
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Such a horrible thing. I don't know anyone directly affected by the
terrorist acts, but I have many friends in NYC that could be hurt or
worse.
I left work early, before they offically let anyone out,so as to beat
the traffic.
WJaKe is OK, we IMed earlier. He actually may be going INTO work soon.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19686
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:21:53 -0700
Subject: Snapshots of a time passed
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I had hoped to post these images under much happier circumstances, but
I'm glad to have them to share with you all. And to keep, to remind me
that happy times do persist.
http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/wtc.html
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19687
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:59:51 GMT
Subject: Re: American Tragedy
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:06:16 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>Such a horrible thing. I don't know anyone directly affected by the
>terrorist acts, but I have many friends in NYC that could be hurt or
>worse.
>
>I left work early, before they offically let anyone out,so as to beat
>the traffic.
>
>WJaKe is OK, we IMed earlier. He actually may be going INTO work soon.
Glad you posted was worried about you guys.
This sucks big time, can't even image what the fallout is gonna be.
Whatever it ain't gonna be good.
Best wishes for famlies & may you & yours all be safe.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19688
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:03:35 -0700
Subject: Giving Blood
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I know that this group is big on giving blood at any time, but right now may
be particularly important. I was told I should stop some time ago, due to
blood that clogged the needles and veins that were hard to hit, but I will
be going in as soon as I can.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19689
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:02:20 -0500
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sarah--
Grey is a she cat. (Calico pattern.) My first two cats were Dorcas
and Dora, named after RAH characters. Since Grey is the daughter of
Dora and they existed at the same time, I wanted a variation of the "D"
name, but a nickname that did not sound similar.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19690
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 13:03:21 -0700
Subject: A Song of Mourning
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Normally, I don't post songs here at all, but this seems particularly
appropriate at this time.
************
The world reels in shock today over the heinous actions of terrorists which
have left thousands in New York and Washington DC, dead or injured.
The song below was written after the horrible events in Oklahoma City on
April 19th, 1995. We had hoped that this song would never be "current"
again. It is with great regret that we acknowledge the need for a reprise.
Callie Hills, for Echo's Children
************
http://edge.twig.com/echos_children/Sep11.htm
David Nasset, Sr.
AKA Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19691
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 20:25:33 GMT
Subject: Re: Giving Blood
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:03:35 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>I know that this group is big on giving blood at any time, but right now may
>be particularly important. I was told I should stop some time ago, due to
>blood that clogged the needles and veins that were hard to hit, but I will
>be going in as soon as I can.
>
>Filksinger
>
I already tried today but nothing near me was open. They are saying
on the TV that if you're not already there, go tomorrow as there
already lines at the centers. (This is the Baltimore metro area.)
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19692
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:24:45 -0500
Subject: Re: American Tragedy
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT--
Thank you for posting news of you and WJake. You have both been very
much on my mind, as has Jai, remembering that she used to work in the
Pentagon.
Almost exactly one year ago, Joe and I made a trip to D.C. We stayed
across the street from th Pentagon, and looked down on its roof from our
window.
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b9e4387.30649630@news.sff.net...
> Such a horrible thing. I don't know anyone directly affected by the
> terrorist acts, but I have many friends in NYC that could be hurt or
> worse.
>
> I left work early, before they offically let anyone out,so as to beat
> the traffic.
>
> WJaKe is OK, we IMed earlier. He actually may be going INTO work soon.
>
> JT
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19693
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:21:12 -0700
Subject: Classical Latin
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Rather than dwell on current events, I thought I'd ask a question for anyone
here who knows how to pronounce Classical Latin.
I belong to a group known as "The Knights of Jubal", or "Eqvites Ivblais", a
group dedicated to the return of chivalry. Recently, there has been some
debate over the pronunciation of the name of our order, and our motto,
"Probi Immotiqve Este".
Would somebody with more knowledge than me please help us? At the
moment, for pronunciations, we have "PRO-bee ee-MOE-tee-kway ESS-tay"
and "EH-kwee-tayz yoo-BAH-leess", but there is some disagreement.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19694
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:09:16 -0700
Subject: Re: Giving Blood
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Our church blood drive chairperson is in the process of moving to Salt Lake
City. Guess who is taking her place for at least our Fall collection? (we
sponsor two blood collections a year, normally, and it is that time anyway)
The Red Cross coordinator is supposed to call me back tomorrow to set up
times.
I can't give blood because of a messed up immune system, but I can run the
show like the Sergeant I was. <g> I've worked all the blood we've done and
know most of the Red Cross personnel, but your prayers and good wishes
wouldn't hurt.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3b9e6011.1@news.sff.net...
> I know that this group is big on giving blood at any time, but right now
may
> be particularly important. I was told I should stop some time ago, due to
> blood that clogged the needles and veins that were hard to hit, but I will
> be going in as soon as I can.
>
> Filksinger
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19695
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:38:18 -0700
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00E1_01C13AF0.ED1F5460
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
She' beautiful, Charlie.
My "kids" are on my site http://home.talkcity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/
except Kristofer E. Katt , aka Kit. The "E" is for escape artist, my =
younger son and daughter said it only took this 3-6 month old kitten 15 =
minutes to learn how to open the window of their car. He has medium =
length gray fur with white markings. I will get pictures RSN.
"Kit" has lived here almost a month. Miss Polificate tolerates him. =
Pantera plays with him. He avoids Buck, smart cat. Bandit is very =
confused by this new toy that hisses and spits for no reason. "Kit" is =
a funny cat.
As for theme names, MY animals have a literary or video flavor. Buck =
Hooch is named for Jack London's hero and Tom Hanks' drooling co-star. =
The original Miss Polificate is King Friday XIII's secratary on Mr. =
Rogers' Neighborhood. I renamed "Kit" by misspelling Christopher as in =
Marlowe, he actually belongs to my younger daughter.=20
Bandit Pancho (from a country song) Trouble Jr. (because he acts like =
his mother) and Pantera (family tradition with all-black cats) =
technically belong to my younger daughter, also.
--=20
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------=_NextPart_000_00E1_01C13AF0.ED1F5460
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>She' beautiful, Charlie.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My "kids" are on my site <A=20
href=3D"http://home.talkcity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/">http://home.talkc=
ity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>except Kristofer E. Katt , aka =
Kit. The "E"=20
is for escape artist, my younger son and daughter said it only took this =
3-6=20
month old kitten 15 minutes to learn how to open the window of their =
car. =20
He has medium length gray fur with white markings. I will get =
pictures=20
RSN.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"Kit" has lived here almost a =
month. Miss=20
Polificate tolerates him. Pantera plays with him. He avoids =
Buck,=20
smart cat. Bandit is very confused by this new toy that hisses and =
spits=20
for no reason. "Kit" is a funny cat.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>As for theme names, MY animals have a =
literary=20
or video flavor. Buck Hooch is named for Jack London's hero =
and Tom=20
Hanks' drooling co-star. The original Miss Polificate is King =
Friday=20
XIII's secratary on Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. I renamed "Kit" by=20
misspelling Christopher as in Marlowe, he actually belongs to my younger =
daughter. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Bandit Pancho (from a country =
song) Trouble=20
Jr. (because he acts like his mother) and Pantera (family tradition =
with=20
all-black cats) technically belong to my younger daughter,=20
also.</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR>Later,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>`rita<BR>Almost live from Finley, WA.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00E1_01C13AF0.ED1F5460--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19696
From: kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 21:14:23 -0500
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C13B06.BAC80DC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message =
news:3b9ec1c2.0@news.sff.net...
She' beautiful, Charlie.
My "kids" are on my site =
http://home.talkcity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/
except Kristofer E. Katt , aka Kit. =20
<snip>
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
Hey 'rita! I went to your site and it showed me as "Visitor #1." I =
wanted to make sure, and so I went back, and I'm now "Visitor #2" as =
well. Just wanted you to know - Someday I'll say, "I knew her when..." =
:-)
McKevin
------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C13B06.BAC80DC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4522.1800" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Lorrita Morgan" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:lorrita-m@prodigy.net">lorrita-m@prodigy.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:3b9ec1c2.0@news.sff.net">news:3b9ec1c2.0@news.sff.net</A>...=
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>She' beautiful, Charlie.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My "kids" are on my site <A=20
=
href=3D"http://home.talkcity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/">http://home.talkc=
ity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>except Kristofer E. Katt , aka =
Kit. =20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><snip></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>`rita<BR>Almost live from Finley,=20
WA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hey 'rita! I went to your site =
and it=20
showed me as "Visitor #1." I wanted to make sure, and so I went =
back,=20
and I'm now "Visitor #2" as well. Just wanted you to know - =
Someday I'll=20
say, "I knew her when..." :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>McKevin</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0069_01C13B06.BAC80DC0--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19697
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:00:04 -0600
Subject: Re: Giving Blood
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3b9e6011.1@news.sff.net>, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
> I know that this group is big on giving blood at any time, but right now may
> be particularly important. I was told I should stop some time ago, due to
> blood that clogged the needles and veins that were hard to hit, but I will
> be going in as soon as I can.
>
> Filksinger
I'm there if they'll have me; I was once told that I am undesirable
for whole-blood donation (as distinct from plasma, which I have given
numerous times) due to my having contracted scarlet fever as a child.
But after all these years, I'm doubting the veracity of that
information.
Can anyone comfirm or dispute it? Before I haul my doctor to the phone
on a Wednesday morning, that is? <G>
--
Clay Steiner claysteiner@prodigy.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19698
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 22:08:54 -0600
Subject: Re: American Tragedy
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3b9e4387.30649630@news.sff.net>, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
wrote:
> Such a horrible thing. I don't know anyone directly affected by the
> terrorist acts, but I have many friends in NYC that could be hurt or
> worse.
>
> I left work early, before they offically let anyone out,so as to beat
> the traffic.
>
> WJaKe is OK, we IMed earlier. He actually may be going INTO work soon.
>
> JT
Relieved to know that you and WJaKE are okay, and your friends are
included in my prayers.
Check your e-mail box for something from me -- the VERY rough draft of
my article on one important element of today's events. Bytor and
Beatrice have also received it, you three being the HFers who are in
my address book. I'm now going back to file the sharp corners and
rough edges off, and will probably post the finished result here.
If anyone else would like to see it -- finished or not -- sooner than
that, e-mail me privately.
--
Clay Steiner claysteiner@prodigy.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19699
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 02:36:03 -0400
Subject: Re: American Tragedy
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b9e4387.30649630@news.sff.net...
> Such a horrible thing. I don't know anyone directly affected by the
> terrorist acts, but I have many friends in NYC that could be hurt or
> worse.
>
> I left work early, before they offically let anyone out,so as to beat
> the traffic.
>
> WJaKe is OK, we IMed earlier. He actually may be going INTO work soon.
>
Thanks for thinking of me, folks.
Yes, I did go to work. The Voice of America maintained a regular schedule of
programming, although most of the music and entertainment-oriented shows
were pre-empted by news coverage. Special programs have been added in
Arabic, and there are plans for more broadcasts to Afghanistan.
The horrible tragedy in New York makes what happened at the Pentagon pale in
comparison, both in the number of lives at stake, and the inconceivable
alteration to New York's skyline and psyche. The Pentagon will be repaired,
I guarantee it. Nothing will ever replace that hole in the sky.
To all of you who have friends or family in New York, my gravest prayers for
their safety.
William J. Keaton
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19700
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:21:35 -0600
Subject: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I am awaiting the advice of our former Colorado party chair before I
submit this for conventional publication and possibly $$ -- so I ask
that no one copies, forwards or does any damn thing but read it, until
I give the all-clear. Please.
--
Clay Steiner claysteiner@prodigy.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?"
Okay -- who had NBC, at 12:32 PM EST, in the pool? Congratulations;
you've won.
I've just left the television coverage of Tuesday's terrorist attacks
on the United States and headed upstairs to my office. This after
hearing no less than Tom Brokaw begin the inevitable, Chicken
Little-ish media cries for more restrictions on what remains of our
liberty. If I hadn't already felt like throwing up, I certainly would
now.
Brokaw said words to the effect of, '...we are so vulnerable to this
sort of an attack because we are such a free country...'. Presumably,
other talking heads will parrot this falsehood in the hours and days
to come. You can therefore bet that the claim will be made --
repeatedly -- that we must give up more of our precious few remaining
freedoms "in the interest of national security". Chief among them will
be our freedom of movement within our own borders. But that falsehood
and those claims miss the central point: that we are, in fact,
targeted for terrorist attacks because of our country's
interventionist foreign policies. We are now reaping what we have
sown... and these attacks, along with the rampant hatred of America
worldwide, need never have happened.
The situation is analogous to that of a child who persists in swatting
at a nearby but otherwise non-threatening bee. Of course, the child
has been told that if he angers the bee, or it perceives a danger to
itself, the bee will retaliate by stinging. Conversely, if the child
leaves it alone, it will go on about its little bee business without
causing anyone any harm.
But the child didn't listen, and now America has been stung. Badly. In
a rather tender area, too: thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of
innocent civilians who have little or no interest in the affairs of
the CIA or foreign governments are now dead -- unwitting casualties in
our country's various little imperialistic acts of aggression against
entirely too many bee-like nations and organizations.
Libertarians have always cautioned against our government's insane
interventionist policies, precisely because of the threats of war or
terrorism that invariably result. Envision the world as an average
schoolyard: by insisting upon acting simulataneously as both the bully
and the yard-duty teacher, the United States' government incites or
exacerbates unnecessary wars and acts of terrorism. We have seen it
time and again.
Rather than targeting the leaders of the countries and terrorist
organizations guilty of such crimes, the US bombs aspirin factories
and other such civilian targets. The 2000 Libertarian candidate for
president and noted author Harry Browne writes:
"President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in
Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and
Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded
Grenada. And on and on it goes."
All this in the name of "protecting our freedom", while achieving
exactly the opposite. The smart thing to do, as Browne proposed during
his 2000 campaign, would be to place a sizeable bounty on the head of
the offending leader. With some luck, one of his cooks or wives would
collect, and we could all go back to our barbecues. But "smart" has
never been the strong suit of American foreign policy. Witness the
fact that Saddam Hussein continues to consume oxygen.
But wait! There's more! What about those times when the US was there
to "help"?
Consider the aid given to Iraq during its war against Iran. Those same
weapons were then used against us when the Allies drove Iraq out of
Kuwait. And does anyone recall Ronald Reagan supplying arms and
assistance to the so-called "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan in the
early 1980s, such aid ostensibly intended to help repel the invading
Soviet forces? Have you ever noticed what the end result was? The
ruling Taliban fundamentalist dictatorship now in power in Kabul,
quickly pounding Afghanistan back into the stone age. The same regime
which by all accounts is providing safe harbor and God alone knows
what else to Osama Bin Laden, the probable mastermind behind Tuesday's
attacks. And _that_ list goes on and on.
At least one commentator cautioned on Tuesday against a jump to the
conclusion that these attacks were the work of foreign terrorists,
citing the early and erroneous speculation by most media in the first
hours after the Oklahoma City bombing. That commentator does have a
point; however, this was obviously no rented truck full of fertilizer.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably Bin
Laden.
Will our government ever stop sticking its nose into the affairs of
other nations? Probably not. Not until a Libertarian president is
elected and he or she ends our role as the planet's police force,
anyway. Only then will our innocent civilians be free from acts of
terrorism such as we have seen today, and only then will our troops be
safe from a now-unavoidable war of retaliation.
But the media would never buy that; they have their ratings to think
about. Better that they should join in the knee-jerk cries for more
surveillance, more restrictions, more erosion of our hard-won freedom.
Because isn't it worth it, if it saves just one life? Even if it makes
every other life miserable? Hm?
Outside my window I notice a squirrel busily readying himself for the
coming cold, scurrying up and down his tree, stocking his winter
supplies. And do you know what he does about HIS nearby bees? He
leaves them the hell alone.
If only our government were as smart as that squirrel.
*******
(obligatory bio-blurb:)
Clay Steiner is a writer who lives in Brighton, and was the
Libertarian candidate for Colorado House of Representatives, District
36, in 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19701
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:14:13 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:21:35 -0600, "Clay Steiner"
<claysteiner@prodigy.net> wrote:
<snipped>
Clay,
Good poimts, For some unkown reason, the "talking heads" (both media &
politicians) seem to be unaware of the fact that these terrorists are
out to destroy our way of life. They also seem to be oblivious to the
fact that if we turn into some lind of "police state" to battle them,
then we've lost, just as much as if they've killed us all, either way
America is gone.
Very Sad, & nothing good is gonna come of this.(Congresscritters
banding together to sing notwithstanding)
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19702
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:44:10 -0400
Subject: Re: Classical Latin
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> Rather than dwell on current events, I thought I'd ask a question for anyone
> here who knows how to pronounce Classical Latin.
>
> I belong to a group known as "The Knights of Jubal", or "Eqvites Ivblais", a
> group dedicated to the return of chivalry. Recently, there has been some
> debate over the pronunciation of the name of our order, and our motto,
> "Probi Immotiqve Este".
>
> Would somebody with more knowledge than me please help us? At the
> moment, for pronunciations, we have "PRO-bee ee-MOE-tee-kway ESS-tay"
> and "EH-kwee-tayz yoo-BAH-leess", but there is some disagreement.
>
> Filksinger
Filksinger, you might try Susan Shwartz or her newsgroup here on sff; she knows
her classical languages. I might also suggest that you wait a few days; Susan
lives in NYC.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19703
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 08:54:04 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Clay-
I hope you wait a few days to send this out. As a sometime moderate,
I'm not in any mood to have people scoring points in domestic political
squabbles right now. I got sick of hearing local democrats opine that
Bush wouldn't be able to handle the situation, Tom Clancy on TV saying
this points to a clear need for more humint funding, and scads of former
cabinet Secretaries essentially saying, "If only we'd done it _my_
way...."
I will mention that this morning's Boston Globe had an article talking
about calls for additional "security measures". It was good enough to
point out that Israel has all those and more, and yet people there still
die from terrrorist attacks on a regular basis. Some people clearly get
it.
OTOH, I'm scheduled to fly Boston to SF next Thursday, and you can bet
I'll arrive at the airport plenty early.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19704
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:13:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Snapshots of a time passed
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3B9E5641.1E2085DB@surewest.net...
> I had hoped to post these images under much happier circumstances, but
> I'm glad to have them to share with you all. And to keep, to remind me
> that happy times do persist.
>
> http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/wtc.html
>
I know no one who worked there.
I have spent the last 24 hours fluctuating between deep, black sadness and
white hot fury.
I can't write and I can't sleep.
I can't shake this feeling that I have to get up and do something.
I just don't know what to do.
Thank you for the pictures.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19705
From: William G. Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 09:35:05 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Though I would agree with much in the article, I find it incredibly
indelicate for any American citizen or group to, at this time, use a
national tragedy to promote their political agenda.
Will in Texas
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3B9F5AEB.77C38286@dfci.harvard.edu...
> Clay-
>
> I hope you wait a few days to send this out. As a sometime moderate,
> I'm not in any mood to have people scoring points in domestic political
> squabbles right now. I got sick of hearing local democrats opine that
> Bush wouldn't be able to handle the situation, Tom Clancy on TV saying
> this points to a clear need for more humint funding, and scads of former
> cabinet Secretaries essentially saying, "If only we'd done it _my_
> way...."
>
> I will mention that this morning's Boston Globe had an article talking
> about calls for additional "security measures". It was good enough to
> point out that Israel has all those and more, and yet people there still
> die from terrrorist attacks on a regular basis. Some people clearly get
> it.
>
> OTOH, I'm scheduled to fly Boston to SF next Thursday, and you can bet
> I'll arrive at the airport plenty early.
>
> --
> Eli V. Hestermann
> Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
> "Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19706
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:24:16 -0600
Subject: Re: Snapshots of a time passed
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>"William B. Dennis 2nd" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote
in message
<br><a href="news:3B9E5641.1E2085DB@surewest.net">news:3B9E5641.1E2085DB@surewest.net</a>...
<br>> I had hoped to post these images under much happier circumstances,
but
<br>> I'm glad to have them to share with you all. And to keep, to remind
me
<br>> that happy times do persist.
<br>>
<br>> <a href="http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/wtc.html">http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/wtc.html</a>
<br>>
<p>I know no one who worked there.
<br>I have spent the last 24 hours fluctuating between deep, black sadness
and
<br>white hot fury.
<br>I can't write and I can't sleep.
<br>I can't shake this feeling that I have to get up and do something.
<br>I just don't know what to do.
<br>Thank you for the pictures.</blockquote>
Amen.
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19707
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 18:43:10 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>hearing no less than Tom Brokaw begin the inevitable, Chicken
>Little-ish media cries for more restrictions on what remains of our
>liberty.
Clay--
Whlie I cringed repeatedly over comments like that, and the
defeatest attitude of surrender that is echoed by them, I find the
other points in the article less convincing, and in a different way,
made me cringe too.
They--meaning any of those people who engaged in this attack, or
those who cheered when they saw it--don't necessarily hate us for
anything we actively did to them or their nations. Many, many hate us
simply because we exist; because America, as it stands, is an
abomination to them. To use your analogy, the bee would sting the
child simply because the child was there.
They're very puritanical in many ways. They don't want the religious
freedom and tolerance we cherish--it's a sin against the very God we
presumably all share. They view their religion much the same way the
Catholics or Calvinists or Knoxists did in the 16th and 17th
centuries. The mixing of races; the treatment of females as equals;
the fun and prosperity we revel in... all things they want to destroy
just because they exist.
Some of these folks don't do it out of ignorence of America or
isolated lives in their own cultures--I've met them in American
colleges, living in our country, taking advantage of its benefits, yet
hating it and us with a deep, sneering hatred the whole time. We
aren't their equals; we're lesser, and evil beings who only have the
upper hand for the time being. Even if we shut our borders and turned
our back on the world, they'd still want to destroy us just because
we're here.
These folks certainly don't represent all Arabs nor all Moslems. I
have friends from Egypt and Libya who are certainly mourning today.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19708
From: Mitch Wagner <mwagner@world.std.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 11:44:00 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3b9fa7fd.918919@NEWS.SFF.NET>, debrule@citlink.net says...
> They--meaning any of those people who engaged in this attack, or
> those who cheered when they saw it--don't necessarily hate us for
> anything we actively did to them or their nations. Many, many hate us
> simply because we exist; because America, as it stands, is an
> abomination to them. To use your analogy, the bee would sting the
> child simply because the child was there.
>
> They're very puritanical in many ways. They don't want the religious
> freedom and tolerance we cherish--it's a sin against the very God we
> presumably all share. They view their religion much the same way the
> Catholics or Calvinists or Knoxists did in the 16th and 17th
> centuries. The mixing of races; the treatment of females as equals;
> the fun and prosperity we revel in... all things they want to destroy
> just because they exist.
Actually, I take Isama bin Laden at face value when he says that he wants
the US out of the Middle East so that he can restore his notion of a
proper Islamic culture there.
I think he has no right to ask for that - we are there because of trade
agreements entered into with the governments of that region, which we
have a perfect right to enter into. But I believe that he wants what he
says he wants.
--
Mitch Wagner http://www.drive-thru.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19709
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 20:37:41 GMT
Subject: Red Cross Contributions
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Amazon.com has set up an easy way to contribute to the Red Cross
Disaster Relief fund through your Amazon.com account. They seem to be
collecting about $100,000 per hour. You can get there through Amazon's
main page, or their are links directly to the contribution site on my
web pages.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19710
From: CharlieA" <charlie@charlieallery.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:33:05 +0100
Subject: Re: Classical Latin
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sounds like how we were taught to pronounce Latin in school, and there's no
'v' to argue over.
Go with it.
Charlie
Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3B9F5899.AC25AADD@dfci.harvard.edu...
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> > Rather than dwell on current events, I thought I'd ask a question for
anyone
> > here who knows how to pronounce Classical Latin.
> >
> > I belong to a group known as "The Knights of Jubal", or "Eqvites
Ivblais", a
> > group dedicated to the return of chivalry. Recently, there has been some
> > debate over the pronunciation of the name of our order, and our motto,
> > "Probi Immotiqve Este".
> >
> > Would somebody with more knowledge than me please help us? At the
> > moment, for pronunciations, we have "PRO-bee ee-MOE-tee-kway ESS-tay"
> > and "EH-kwee-tayz yoo-BAH-leess", but there is some disagreement.
> >
> > Filksinger
>
> Filksinger, you might try Susan Shwartz or her newsgroup here on sff; she
knows
> her classical languages. I might also suggest that you wait a few days;
Susan
> lives in NYC.
>
> --
> Eli V. Hestermann
> Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
> "Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19711
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:12:20 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:21:35 -0600, "Clay Steiner"
<claysteiner@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>I am awaiting the advice of our former Colorado party chair before I
>submit this for conventional publication and possibly $$ -- so I ask
>that no one copies, forwards or does any damn thing but read it, until
>I give the all-clear. Please.
>
Cpl,
_LP News_ will publish it, if nowhere else. ;) Unless you have some
way to broker this piece out into conventional media, I'd guess that
you're better to just post it on a usenet current events/politics
group. It'll be cc:ed around the world before you know it.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19712
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 14:15:26 -0700
Subject: Re: HF Babies & cats
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C13B95.5E385300
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I reset the counter when I edit. so....
--=20
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com> wrote in message =
news:3b9ec547.0@news.sff.net...
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message =
news:3b9ec1c2.0@news.sff.net...
She' beautiful, Charlie.
My "kids" are on my site =
http://home.talkcity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/
except Kristofer E. Katt , aka Kit. =20
<snip>
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
Hey 'rita! I went to your site and it showed me as "Visitor #1." I =
wanted to make sure, and so I went back, and I'm now "Visitor #2" as =
well. Just wanted you to know - Someday I'll say, "I knew her when..." =
:-)
McKevin
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C13B95.5E385300
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I reset the counter when I edit.=20
so....</FONT></DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV><BR>-- <BR>Later,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>`rita<BR>Almost live from Finley, WA.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"kevin mcgillicuddy" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com">kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com</=
A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:3b9ec547.0@news.sff.net">news:3b9ec547.0@news.sff.net</A>...=
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Lorrita Morgan" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:lorrita-m@prodigy.net">lorrita-m@prodigy.net</A>> =
wrote in=20
message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:3b9ec1c2.0@news.sff.net">news:3b9ec1c2.0@news.sff.net</A>...=
</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>She' beautiful, =
Charlie.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>My "kids" are on my site <A=20
=
href=3D"http://home.talkcity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/">http://home.talkc=
ity.com/bookmarkblvd/lorrita/</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>except Kristofer E. Katt , aka =
Kit. =20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><snip></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>`rita<BR>Almost live from Finley,=20
WA.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hey 'rita! I went to your =
site and it=20
showed me as "Visitor #1." I wanted to make sure, and so I =
went back,=20
and I'm now "Visitor #2" as well. Just wanted you to know - =
Someday=20
I'll say, "I knew her when..." :-)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>McKevin</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C13B95.5E385300--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19713
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 01:26:47 -0600
Subject: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I am awaiting the advice of our former Colorado party chair before I
submit this for conventional publication and possibly $$ -- so I ask
that no one copies, forwards or does any damn thing but read it, until
I give the all-clear. Please.
--
Clay Steiner claysteiner@prodigy.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free."
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?"
Okay -- who had NBC, at 12:32 PM EST, in the pool? Congratulations;
you've won.
I've just left the television coverage of Tuesday's terrorist attacks
on the United States and headed upstairs to my office. This after
hearing no less than Tom Brokaw begin the inevitable, Chicken
Little-ish media cries for more restrictions on what remains of our
liberty. If I hadn't already felt like throwing up, I certainly would
now.
Brokaw said words to the effect of, '...we are so vulnerable to this
sort of an attack because we are such a free country...'. Presumably,
other talking heads will parrot this falsehood in the hours and days
to come. You can therefore bet that the claim will be made --
repeatedly -- that we must give up more of our precious few remaining
freedoms "in the interest of national security". Chief among them will
be our freedom of movement within our own borders. But that falsehood
and those claims miss the central point: that we are, in fact,
targeted for terrorist attacks because of our country's
interventionist foreign policies. We are now reaping what we have
sown... and these attacks, along with the rampant hatred of America
worldwide, need never have happened.
The situation is analogous to that of a child who persists in swatting
at a nearby but otherwise non-threatening bee. Of course, the child
has been told that if he angers the bee, or it perceives a danger to
itself, the bee will retaliate by stinging. Conversely, if the child
leaves it alone, it will go on about its little bee business without
causing anyone any harm.
But the child didn't listen, and now America has been stung. Badly. In
a rather tender area, too: thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of
innocent civilians who have little or no interest in the affairs of
the CIA or foreign governments are now dead -- unwitting casualties in
our country's various little imperialistic acts of aggression against
entirely too many bee-like nations and organizations.
Libertarians have always cautioned against our government's insane
interventionist policies, precisely because of the threats of war or
terrorism that invariably result. Envision the world as an average
schoolyard: by insisting upon acting simulataneously as both the bully
and the yard-duty teacher, the United States' government incites or
exacerbates unnecessary wars and acts of terrorism. We have seen it
time and again.
Rather than targeting the leaders of the countries and terrorist
organizations guilty of these crimes, the US bombs aspirin factories
and other such civilian targets. The 2000 Libertarian candidate for
president and noted author Harry Browne writes:
"President Bush has authorized continued bombing of innocent people in
Iraq. President Clinton bombed innocent people in the Sudan,
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Serbia. President Bush Senior invaded Iraq and
Panama. President Reagan bombed innocent people in Libya and invaded
Grenada. And on and on it goes."
All this in the name of "protecting our freedom", while achieving
exactly the opposite. The smart thing to do, as Browne proposed during
his 2000 campaign, would be to place a sizeable bounty on the head of
the offending leader. With some luck, one of his cooks or wives would
collect, and we could all go back to our barbecues. But "smart" has
never been the strong suit of American foreign policy. Witness the
fact that Saddam Hussein continues to consume oxygen.
But wait! There's more! What about those times when the US was there
to "help"?
Consider the aid given to Iraq during its war against Iran. Those same
weapons were then used against us when the Allies drove Iraq out of
Kuwait. And does anyone recall Ronald Reagan supplying arms and
assistance to the so-called "freedom fighters" of Afghanistan in the
early 1980s, such aid ostensibly intended to help repel the invading
Soviet forces? Have you ever noticed what the end result was? The
ruling Taliban fundamentalist dictatorship now in power in Kabul,
quickly pounding Afghanistan back into the stone age. The same regime
which by all accounts is providing safe harbor and God alone knows
what else to Osama Bin Laden, the probable mastermind behind Tuesday's
attacks. And _that_ list goes on and on.
At least one commentator cautioned on Tuesday against a jump to the
conclusion that these attacks were the work of foreign terrorists,
citing the early and erroneous speculation by most media in the first
hours after the Oklahoma City bombing. That commentator does have a
point; however, this was obviously no rented truck full of fertilizer.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably Bin
Laden.
Will our government ever stop sticking its nose into the affairs of
other nations? Probably not. Not until a Libertarian president is
elected and he or she ends our role as the planet's police force,
anyway. Only then will our innocent civilians be free from acts of
terrorism such as we have seen today, and only then will our troops be
safe from a now-unavoidable war of retaliation.
But the media would never buy that; they have their ratings to think
about. Better that they should join in the knee-jerk cries for more
surveillance, more restrictions, more erosion of our hard-won freedom.
Because isn't it worth it, if it saves just one life? Even if it makes
every other life miserable? Hm?
Outside my window I notice a squirrel busily readying himself for the
coming cold, scurrying up and down his tree, stocking his winter
supplies. And do you know what he does about HIS nearby bees? He
leaves them the hell alone.
If only our government were as smart as that squirrel.
*******
(obligatory bio-blurb:)
Clay Steiner is a writer who lives in Brighton, and was the
Libertarian candidate for Colorado House of Representatives, District
36, in 2000.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19714
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:17:03 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <MPG.16094cb4b43e0ced98971a@news.sff.net>, Mitch Wagner
writes...
....
> Actually, I take Isama bin Laden at face value when he says that he wants
> the US out of the Middle East so that he can restore his notion of a
> proper Islamic culture there.
>
> I think he has no right to ask for that - we are there because of trade
> agreements entered into with the governments of that region, which we
> have a perfect right to enter into. But I believe that he wants what he
> says he wants.
I do not think that the issue is trade; trade brings people together.
The issue is politics. As long as there are Palestinians without a
country, there will be terrorism. We have three choices. Learn to live
with terrorism; exterminate /every/ Palestinian; or give them a country.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19715
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:20:11 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> I do not think that the issue is trade; trade brings people together.
> The issue is politics. As long as there are Palestinians without a
> country, there will be terrorism. We have three choices. Learn to live
> with terrorism; exterminate /every/ Palestinian; or give them a country.
They, uh, have a country, Gordon. It seems to be occupied at the moment.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19716
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:07:38 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BA0DCBB.7620973B@surewest.net>, James Gifford writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> > I do not think that the issue is trade; trade brings people together.
> > The issue is politics. As long as there are Palestinians without a
> > country, there will be terrorism. We have three choices. Learn to live
> > with terrorism; exterminate /every/ Palestinian; or give them a country.
>
> They, uh, have a country, Gordon. It seems to be occupied at the moment.
They have land, some of them, but not a nation-state. (Not that I am in
favor of nation-states, mind you, but others seem to want them.) And the
titles to land that they do have on the West Bank are routinely
disregarded by the occupying power, Israel. But the West Bank was never
a nation-state for the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine, so far as I know.
Before WW1 it was part of the Ottoman Empire; between the Wars, it was
administered by the British; after 1950 and before Israeli occupation, it
was part of Jordan.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19717
From: Robert Slater" <rslater215@home.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:35:43 -0700
Subject: Dichotomy! Superheroes and their antithesis
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Hey Folks,
Here's an e-mail I received from a friend of mine that put some things into
words that epitomize what we're dealing with here.
Sending healing thoughts and prayers to everyone I've ever come in contact
with.
Rob Slater
Here it is:
On MSNBC there is a photo by Mohamed Zatari of the Associated Press - it's
one of the too too many images I can't shake today - of a Palestinian child,
perhaps thirteen, perhaps younger, holding AK47 semi-automatic rifle and
firing celebratory rounds into the air. The younger kids cover their ears to
the noise, and the on looking adults look proud. This child's smooth,
wrinkleless and sun-tanned face is taught with rage, transforming him into a
ghastly and ridiculous caricature of Rambo as the exhaust vents from the
barrel of the gun.
All of which, in my limited worldly experience, I can accept. I've seen
pictures of children with guns before; children much younger than this one.
But the piece that I don't get - the piece that is so so bizarre - is why,
if these people, but more over this child, hate America and American's so
much - then why oh why is he wearing a Spiderman shirt?
The 'Death to tyrants!' act would be much more convincing, child, were there
not the BLUE field of your shirt and the WHITE New York night-time skyline
with the RED web-slinger boldly thwipping across your chest to right the
exact type of obscenities that had just been committed.
Wishing for anything - anything by the grace of God please - to have undone
for us the events of Tuesday, this morning found my mind on a tangent of
what if superheroes where real? Pointless, even stupid, I know, but who
knows what makes us think what we do. What if Superman where actually here.
Would he, given the timeline, have been able to stop the atrocities? Then to
sit down in front of my computer and to be confronted with this image of
this child. My hero and childhood savoir, across the chest of a boy who is
much too young for the gun and the hate and the power and the naive clarity
which he shows, and too too young to be called my enemy, or to call me his.
And while I have come close to tears through this whole ordeal, that child
broke my heart. The anger and disappointment and frustration I feel towards
him, the admonishments my parental instinct want to chastise him with,
simply can not cope with my inability to kneel down and hug him while
quietly assuring him that, "it's all alright; it's all alright."
America was recently and well described as a sometimes quarrelsome family,
but a family none-the-less. A family that has rallied together at the
murders of our brothers and sisters; of our aunts and uncles, our parents
and our grandparents. But among all of the terrible losses on Tuesday,
amongst them were children. Beautiful, young, energetic, exuberant,
vivacious, brilliant, eager, beautiful children. Nieces and nephews to the
Nation; cousins and grandchildren and children that too many of us did not
know and, now, will never get the chance know. On United Airlines flight
175, which was crashed into the second World Trade Center tower, were David
Brandhorst of Los Angeles and Christine Hanson of Groton, Massachusetts,
both 3 years old. On American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the
Pentagon, were Bernard Brown, a student of Leckie Elementary School in
Washington, Asia Cottom, a student at Backus Middle School in Washington,
and Rodney Dickens, a student at Ketcham Elementary School in Washington,
all three of whom were 11 years old, as well as Zoe and Dana Falkenberg, 8
and 3, of University Park, Maryland. And those are just the ones we know
about now. I can not bear to imagine the horror racing through their young
minds.
Thankfully, there are many more children still with us than lost, but they
are scared or confused right now. I hope and pray that we all, each and
every one of us, can do what it takes to ensure that our children -
America's children - are not so wounded, so torn, or so hurt by this act
that they become the boy the in the photo with Spiderman on his chest. We
must be angry, we must be hurt, but we must also let our children know that
we will do everything within our extreme power and might to prevent them
from being harmed. And when retribution is at last exacted, we must teach
our children humility and empathy. Above all, we must let our children know
that it is all alright.
Thank you,
- Nathan Breskin-Auer; proud and protective father of two beautiful boys
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19718
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:26:29 -0500
Subject: Re: Giving Blood
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All--
The blood drive long scheduled at the postal service was canceled
today. A note was put up saying "contact your local blood center". It
was announced on the local news that all the usual blood centers will be
closed and donation taken at the Conseco Fieldhouse. No lack of donors,
it seems. But I don't know how much more efficiently that can operate
that way.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19719
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:30:20 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Clay--
So much of the stuff they are demanding would have done nothing to
prevented this. Example: elimination of curbside baggage checking and
"passengers only" beyond the security area.
Many in government just sit around waiting for a disaster so they
can further assault our freedoms. This will be better than the drug war
or child porn!
But to answer the question as given. NO! Freedom is a cause to
which lives sometimes have to be given. Sometimes by the multiple
thousands. Should we have kept slavery because it would cost lives to
free them?
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19720
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:40:59 -0400
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All:
Mara has expressed a desire for some privacy regarding her illness. She's
mostly concerned that she have control over how her schoolmates find out,
and talking to y'all doesn't really violate that. Having told you this
much, I'll continue to update any of you who request it privately (i.e., by
direct e-mail), but out of respect for her wishes, I'm not going to make
any more public postings.
Don't stop praying, though. ;^)
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19721
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:38:38 -0700
Subject: Creepy stuff
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/336291/4/
Note that the date is November 30, 2000! I didn't read more than the first
six or seven posts.
I've been wading through the static on the sff.discuss.september-terror
newsgroup so I can't take credit (or blame) for finding this on my own.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19722
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 15:55:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Creepy stuff
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Good luck with the wading, 'rita. Fortuantely, I've been able to identify a
few names to killfile and thus drop the load considerably.
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
> http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/336291/4/
>
> Note that the date is November 30, 2000! I didn't read more than the first
> six or seven posts.
>
> I've been wading through the static on the sff.discuss.september-terror
> newsgroup so I can't take credit (or blame) for finding this on my own.
> --
> Later,
>
> `rita
> Almost live from Finley, WA.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19723
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 00:32:48 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Clay and BC (and all):
Because of my family's ongoing medical crises, I haven't seen much of the
TV coverage -- these are not the sort of images you want to bring into
your child's hospital room -- but what I did see made a very different
impression on me than it apparently did on you. I heard comentators
mentioning that it was our very freedom that had enabled this kind of
attack, but I didn't hear anything that sounded like a general call to
curtail our freedoms. Rather, the comments I heard were more on the order
of bittersweet acknowledgement that this is the price we must pay for
those freedoms. And I'm sorry, but increased security at airports, whether
it turns out to be effective or not, does NOT strike at our fundamental
freedoms. Nobody is proposing that citizens' freedom to travel within our
borders be restricted, and a convenient, quick, hassle-free airport
experience is NOT among your contitutional guarantees.
At some level, acceptance of *any* government at all represents a tradeoff
of personal liberty for order and security, but I believe the U.S. has
made that trade more in favor of liberty than any other nation in the
history of the world... and quite probably as much in favor of liberty as
is practically possible for a stable society. YMMV, of course, but in any
case I don't agree with this:
Charles Graft wrote:
> Many in government just sit around waiting for a disaster so they
> can further assault our freedoms.
This is a comic-book supervillain view of the world that I don't find
remotely credible: There is no doubt that some within government overstep
their bounds in their zeal to do the "right" thing, and inadvertently
"assault our freedoms"... but I'm also sure that the number of government
folks who wake up each morning with the self-conscious goal of undermining
freedom is something very close to zero (not counting, of course, actual
foreign agents under the control of totalitarian regimes). If you
subscribe to the belief that our government is inherently and deliberately
evil, then you agree with the perpetrators of this horrifying act... and
if enough of us fall, out of grief and despair, into that belief, then we
give our enemies a victory they could never earn on their own.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19724
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 23:19:40 -0400
Subject: Correction
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> Because of my family's ongoing medical crises...
Ooops... I meant "crisis," not "crises." One is enough, thank you very much.
Didn't mean to worry anyone.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19725
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 02:36:36 -0600
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I hate when this happens. I've replied to four or five people about
this article (which is now on hold), and all of those replies went out
via e-mail, rather than as replies to the group. Either my reader or
myself is the culpable idiot, and I don't like my chances.
I need a day off (Sunday or Monday) to set that straight. Thanks in
advance for your patience.
Clay
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19726
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 09:20:03 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BA1886A.8A9E610E@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
> Clay and BC (and all):
>
> Because of my family's ongoing medical crises, I haven't seen much of the
> TV coverage -- these are not the sort of images you want to bring into
> your child's hospital room
Bill, I started posting here again, and I want to add my belated wishes
for a complete and speedy recovery for your daughter.
....
> Rather, the comments I heard were more on the order
> of bittersweet acknowledgement that this is the price we must pay for
> those freedoms. And I'm sorry, but increased security at airports, whether
> it turns out to be effective or not, does NOT strike at our fundamental
> freedoms. Nobody is proposing that citizens' freedom to travel within our
> borders be restricted, and a convenient, quick, hassle-free airport
> experience is NOT among your contitutional guarantees.
This is a slippery slope, Bill. Air travel does not have to be made
illegal in order to cripple it, and thereby cripple our ability to
travel. There is a rather large distance between our borders, making air
transport the best way to travel for many reasons. Many of the new
"security" measures that have been required are nothing but window
dressing; there is no reason /whatsoever/ to think that these measures
would have prevented this tragedy. They will make air travel less
convenient and hence less used. How much remains to be seen.
At the same time, let me say that it is essential for the airline
industry to rebuild public confidence. If these measures help to do
that, then they will have done some good. But if people really want
security, it should now be abundantly clear that they will have to learn
to defend themselves. That is a difficult chore, however, and the
perception of safety may be what people really want.
Let me add, so that my biases are clear, that my wife is an airline
pilot, and, as of today, it strongly appears that she will lose her job,
her wonderful new career plans dashed. A terrorist attack does not have
to kill or injure you or anyone you know in order to profoundly affect
your life.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19727
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:17:42 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
> I didn't hear anything that sounded like a general call to
> curtail our freedoms. Rather, the comments I heard were more on the
> order of bittersweet acknowledgement that this is the price we must
> pay for those freedoms. And I'm sorry, but increased security at
> airports, whether it turns out to be effective or not, does NOT
> strike at our fundamental freedoms.
Applause.
> At some level, acceptance of *any* government at all represents a
> tradeoff of personal liberty for order and security, but I believe
> the U.S. has made that trade more in favor of liberty than any other
> nation in the history of the world...
Applause.
>> Many in government just sit around waiting for a disaster so they
>> can further assault our freedoms.
> This is a comic-book supervillain view of the world that I don't
> find remotely credible...
and Applause.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19728
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 10:24:31 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> Many of the new "security" measures that have been required are
> nothing but window dressing; there is no reason /whatsoever/ to
> think that these measures would have prevented this tragedy.
My favorite is "no curbside check-in." Let's see now... the last several
times I flew, I got out of the cab, got in the sidewalk line, told the
skycap my name and flight, showed him my ID, he punched up my flight
confirmation on a terminal, generated a barcode tag, and stuffed my bag
into the 'chute.
Now I have to get out of the cab, go inside the terminal, stand in line
there, tell the attendant my name and flight, show him/her my ID, let
them punch up my flight info and generate a tag, and stuff my bag into
the 'chute.
I feel SO much safer.
> Let me add, so that my biases are clear, that my wife is an airline
> pilot, and, as of today, it strongly appears that she will lose her
> job,
Why? Reduced demand for pilots? Sorry to hear it. It will pass, though.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19729
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:55:52 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Actually, I take Isama bin Laden at face value when he says that he wants
>the US out of the Middle East so that he can restore his notion of a
>proper Islamic culture there.
Which country? He's a Saudi who's apparently been hanging out in
Afghanistan. I don't think the Saudis want him and the Afghans are
creating their own "proper" Islamic culture without his kind of help.
I don't believe the Palestinians have anything whatsoever to do with
any of bin Laden's ideals or objectives, excepting as they may make a
convenient pawn or excuse.
Clay--when I read your article --and no disrespect intended here-- I
couldn't help but see an image of Harry Browne waving a paper in the
air proclaiming "peace in our time." No one like bin Laden and his
colleagues will be satisfied with only what they say they want. As
long as evil people living the wrong way (us) exist, he will still
have an unachieved end-goal.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19730
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 20:55:52 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>> Let me add, so that my biases are clear, that my wife is an airline
>> pilot, and, as of today, it strongly appears that she will lose her
>> job,
In an off-hand way, this points out an aspect of the terrorists that
is worth noting. These fellows had trained as commercial pilots; spent
years at it while living in the USA. They, in effect, had _achieved_
the American dream. They were obviously intelligent, skilled, and
well-acquainted with our country. If they hadn't done what they did
September 11, they had splendid 6-figure/year jobs ahead of them,
wealth, prosperity, repect... They stood at the edge of being able to
have the classic "American Dream." The best of the US was dangling
right within their grasp. With that view in front of them, they still
sacrificed their lives for their cause. How do you fight that sort of
devoted fanaticism? Can you? The best we had to offer was, to them,
such a hideous thing that they had to destroy it at the cost of their
own lives. Is our only option to destroy those people before they
destroy us?
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19731
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 21:40:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Dichotomy! Superheroes and their antithesis
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:35:43 -0700, someone wrote:
>Wishing for anything - anything by the grace of God please - to have undone
>for us the events of Tuesday, this morning found my mind on a tangent of
>what if superheroes where real? Pointless, even stupid, I know, but who
>knows what makes us think what we do. What if Superman where actually here.
>Would he, given the timeline, have been able to stop the atrocities?
I don't want to completely derail the thoughts of this post, but in
the DC Comics "universe" Superman has dealt with just that sort of
thing in the past few years. And he *couldn't* stop bad things from
happening and people dying. Because even Superman can't know
everything and be in two places at once--and he had to realize that
once and for all. It made for a very interesting story arc, and is
indicative of why I find comic books still compelling reading after
(geeze!) 23 years.
I've come to the conclusion, slowly, that evil exists; I can only hope
that there's more good than evil in the world; and, I can only ensure
that by striving to do good. Which, thinking about it, is what most
religion boils down to anyway.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19732
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 01:46:44 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ba3bb21.6632603@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >Actually, I take Isama bin Laden at face value when he says that he wants
> >the US out of the Middle East so that he can restore his notion of a
> >proper Islamic culture there.
>
> Which country? He's a Saudi who's apparently been hanging out in
> Afghanistan. I don't think the Saudis want him and the Afghans are
> creating their own "proper" Islamic culture without his kind of help.
> I don't believe the Palestinians have anything whatsoever to do with
> any of bin Laden's ideals or objectives, excepting as they may make a
> convenient pawn or excuse.
>
> Clay--when I read your article --and no disrespect intended here-- I
> couldn't help but see an image of Harry Browne waving a paper in the
> air proclaiming "peace in our time." No one like bin Laden and his
> colleagues will be satisfied with only what they say they want. As
> long as evil people living the wrong way (us) exist, he will still
> have an unachieved end-goal.
Harry Browne can go f*** himself.
I am sorry I voted for him.
I am sorry I ever joined the Libertarian Party.
He is going to spend the coming years going saying America has no one to
blame but itself. Let him. I just want the guy to know that while he is
cultivating his smug sense of moral superiority, other BETTER human beings
will be putting their lives on the line protecting his precious rights.
William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com/terror.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19733
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@prodigy.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 01:14:28 -0600
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT:
Please accept my deepest condolences.
Clay
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19734
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 11:07:10 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charlie: Well said. Thank you,
Ed J
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:30:20 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:
>Clay--
>
> So much of the stuff they are demanding would have done nothing to
>prevented this. Example: elimination of curbside baggage checking and
>"passengers only" beyond the security area.
>
> Many in government just sit around waiting for a disaster so they
>can further assault our freedoms. This will be better than the drug war
>or child porn!
>
> But to answer the question as given. NO! Freedom is a cause to
>which lives sometimes have to be given. Sometimes by the multiple
>thousands. Should we have kept slavery because it would cost lives to
>free them?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19735
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 11:10:37 -0400
Subject: 'You Don't Know Us'
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All: If you have already seen this, I'm sorry for the double post.
Ed J
> I think this says very well what many of us have been feeling:
>
>
>
> You Don't Know Us
>
> By LEONARD PITTS JR. - Miami Herald
>
>
>
> They pay me to tease shades of meaning from social and cultural issues,
> to provide words that help make sense of that which troubles the American
> soul.
>
> But in this moment of airless shock when hot tears sting disbelieving
> eyes, the only thing I can find to say, the only words that seem to fit,
> must be addressed to the unknown author of this suffering.
>
> You monster. You beast. You unspeakable bastard.
>
> What lesson did you hope to teach us by your coward's attack on our
> World Trade Center, our Pentagon, us? What was it you hoped we would learn?
> Whatever it was, know that you failed.
>
> Did you want us to respect your cause? You just damned it.
>
> Did you want to make us fear? You just steeled our resolve.
>
> Did you want to tear us apart? You just brought us together.
>
> Let me tell you about my people. We are a vast and quarrelsome family, a
> family rent by racial, cultural, political and class division, but a family
> nonetheless. We're frivolous, yes, capable of expending tremendous
> emotional energy on pop cultural minutiae -- a singer's revealing dress,
> a ball team's misfortune, a cartoon mouse.
>
> We're wealthy, too, spoiled by the ready availability of trinkets and
> material goods, and maybe because of that, we walk through life with a
> certain sense of blithe entitlement. We are fundamentally decent,
> though -- peace-loving and compassionate. We struggle to know the right
> thing and to do it. And we are, the overwhelming majority of us, people of
> faith, believers in a just and loving God.
>
> Some people -- you, perhaps -- think that any or all of this makes us weak.
>
> You're mistaken. We are not weak. Indeed, we are strong in ways that
> cannot be measured by arsenals.
>
> Yes, we're in pain now. We are in mourning, and we are in shock. We're
> still grappling with the unreality of the awful thing you did, still
> working
> to
> make ourselves understand that this isn't a special effect from some
> Hollywood blockbuster, isn't the plot from a Tom Clancy novel.
>
> Both in terms of the awful scope of its ambition and the probable final
> death toll, your attacks are likely to go down as the worst acts of
> terrorism in the history of the United States and, indeed, the history
> of the world. You've bloodied us as we have never been bloodied before.
>
> But there's a gulf of difference between making us bloody and making us
> fall. This is the lesson Japan was taught to its bitter sorrow the last
> time anyone hit us this hard, the last time anyone brought us such
> abrupt and monumental pain. When roused, we are righteous in our outrage,
> terrible in our force. When provoked by this level of barbarism, we will
> bear
> any suffering, pay any cost, go to any length, in the pursuit of justice.
>
> I tell you this without fear of contradiction. I know my people, as you
> do not. What I know reassures me. It also causes me to tremble with
> dread of the future.
>
> In days to come, there will be recrimination and accusation, fingers
> pointing to determine whose failure allowed this to happen and what can
> be done to prevent it from happening again. There will be heightened
> security, misguided talk of revoking basic freedoms. We'll go forward
> from this moment sobered, chastened, sad. But determined, too. Unimaginably
> determined.
>
> There is steel beneath this velvet. That aspect of our character is seldom
> understood by those who don't know us well. On this day, the family's
> bickering is put on hold. As Americans we will weep, as Americans we
> will mourn, and as Americans we will rise in defense of all that we cherish.
>
> Still, I keep wondering what it was you hoped to teach us. It occurs to
> me that maybe you just wanted us to know the depths of your hatred.
>
> If that's the case, consider the message received. Take this message
> in exchange:
>
> You don't know my people.
> You don't know what we're about.
> You don't know what you just started.
>
> But you're about to learn.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19736
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 11:13:01 -0400
Subject: Re: Please Keep Mara in Your Thoughts
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JovBill:
You and your daughter are in our prayers.
Ed J
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:21:23 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Friends:
>
>In the vein of the bad medical news posted here lately, I need to ask
>for your prayers or other good thoughts (as appropriate) for my 10-year
>old daughter, Mara, who was today diagnosed with a brain tumor. The
>doctors have given us reason to hope that it's both benign and safely
>operable, but we won't know for sure 'til they actually take it out,
>which looks like it might happen Wednesday. In the meantime, she's in
>Connecticut Children's Medical Center in Hartford, being treated to
>reduce the swelling in her brain and prepare her for sugery.
>
>I probably won't be back on the ng for several days, but as soon as I
>get a chance, I'll update y'all on her condition.
>
>-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19737
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 15:49:42 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
> My favorite is "no curbside check-in." Let's see now... the last several
> times I flew, I got out of the cab, got in the sidewalk line, told the
> skycap my name and flight, showed him my ID, he punched up my flight
> confirmation on a terminal, generated a barcode tag, and stuffed my bag
> into the 'chute.
>
> Now I have to get out of the cab, go inside the terminal, stand in line
> there, tell the attendant my name and flight, show him/her my ID, let
> them punch up my flight info and generate a tag, and stuff my bag into
> the 'chute.
>
> I feel SO much safer.
>
> > Let me add, so that my biases are clear, that my wife is an airline
> > pilot, and, as of today, it strongly appears that she will lose her
> > job,
>
> Why? Reduced demand for pilots? Sorry to hear it. It will pass, though.
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
Jim and Gordon--
Continental is laying off 12,000 people. The airlines were having a
bad year financially; this attack and it's aftermath are likely to either
bankrupt several major carriers or require a government bailout. Air
traffic is expected to drop precipitously.
There is talk of having to show up at airports 4 hours before flight
time. This will make it faster to drive on flights of less than about 400
miles, and totally destroy most short haul flying..
Reagan (national) airport is "closed indefinitely" and perhaps
permanently.
Even I am considering canceling an 800 mile flight for a two week stay
next month. And I am generally in love with flying. (The decision is on
hold until I see how things are working in the real world.)
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19738
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 16:04:46 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill--
The evidence is there. Look at the aftermath of many airline
crashes, drug testing of transportation employees and even the results
of bad publicity in the model rocket hobby.
I am not saying that there are written contingency plans in place,
though I believe one is being followed in the matter of airport
security. (Such as curbside check in.) It is more in the mindset of
the regulators, many of whom consider the bill of rights as an
impediment to expansion of their power.
An area I have followed closely over the 30 plus years I have been
a pilot is the expansion of restricted and controlled airspace over
every incident involving general aviation aircraft that receives a lot
of publicity. Many in government have always hated that (until now) one
could get in a simple airplane and fly in good weather from any non
tower airport to any other non tower airport without permission from or
contact with anybody in government.
An area that hits very close to home is the restrictions on steam
locomotives that followed the Gettysburg RR's having a boiler explosion
that have resulted in the Whitewater Valley RR (where I am a volunteer
and a qualified steam locomotive engineer) being unwilling to finish
restoring their steam locomotive because of the large regulatory
burden. After the explosion of the "historic" agricultural steam boiler
at the Ohio state fair last month, regulators are having a field day.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19739
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:19:35 -0600
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>No one like bin Laden and his
<br>colleagues will be satisfied with only what they say they want. As
<br>long as evil people living the wrong way (us) exist, he will still
<br>have an unachieved end-goal.</blockquote>
<p><br>I agree wholeheartedly. People like bin Laden and like rapists
and serial killers, (whose psych profile is almost identical to terrorists'
want power. If we actually GIVE him something in exchange for his
cruelty, we're giving him power and feeding his need for more power.)
I consider myself a libertarian, but I don't know if I'll ever be able
to take the Libertarian Party seriously again. They seem to think
they're anarchists (no government.) I thought part of the reason
for limited government and one of the few acceptable reasons to -- temporarily
-- curb our liberties was common defense.
<br>For crying out loud -- we were just attacked. Pointing fingers
at ourselves is silly, self destructive and another confirmation of Heinlein's
prescience about the "crazy years."
<br>We might, in the past, have stuck our noses in other countries businesses,
but that's NOT the cause for this attack. The cause is what we are
and what we believe.
<br>I know I'm grossly misquoting this, but I can't remember in which book
it was, (I want searcheable books) but P.J. O'Rourke, speaking of how Arab
nations feel about us said, "they are a pimply twelve year old boy, we
are a ravishing twenty year old woman. They love us and they hate
us and the one thing they can't stand is to be ignored by us." [He was
talking about how Arab youths in the same breath told him they hated the
"Great Satan" and were going to study dentistry in Chicago where they had
a cousin.] Several Arab experts have said the same (not nearly as
vividly) in the past few days. These are a people -- collectively,
not individually -- we know several very nice arabs -- who BELIEVE their
god rewards good materially. They also believe there's only one God
and one true way to worship. Yet, here we are, infidels, sitting
on top of the world. We must be doing something right. But
no, wait, we can't be. We're infidels. You start to see their
muddle, right?
<p>So, they want our attention. They've got it. Now we should
do what any good parent does to a kid who requests attention by being awful.
Spank them hard. [Only this kid just strangled the kitten, so spanking
might not be enough -- I'm not sure what would be. For a human being
severe therapy. For a nation, there might not be a cure.]
<p>I'm sorry if I'm barely coherent. I'm very tired. My husband
was across the country when this happened. He drove three quarters
of the way across the country and I and a friend drove to meet him and
brought him home. Last night, for the first time in almost a week,
I slept. He's scheduled to fly out again on Monday and we don't know
if either of us can bear to be apart, with the awful possibility of major
mayhem separating us again. No, terrorists don't have to kill you
or hurt you physically to permanently injure you. I don't know if
my fears are rational -- not TOO rational, the law of probabilities considered,
I suppose -- but I know I'm too emotionally bruised to see him travel every
week again, as his job requires. He might have to quit. In
the present economy, that might be ruinous. But we might have to
do it anyway.
<p>So, yeah, we're hurting here too.
<p>Just stop blaming us. Let's start punishing THEM. Not the
Arabs among us, not the idiot Palestinians who celebrated this horror (though
a swat in the butt might be well applied there, metaphorically speaking)
but the people who did this and those who abetted them. Only if we
make of them the example Rome made of Cartage, will we be safe in our land
again. (And yes, I KNOW Rome became an empire, but when it levelled
Cartage it was still a Republic.)
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19740
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 21:30:07 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BA38ECF.A594B0A5@surewest.net>, James Gifford writes...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
....
> > Let me add, so that my biases are clear, that my wife is an airline
> > pilot, and, as of today, it strongly appears that she will lose her
> > job,
>
> Why? Reduced demand for pilots? Sorry to hear it. It will pass, though.
Continental has already announced the furlough of 12,000 employees;
Linda's airline might be next. I have heard that the U.S. airline
industry as a whole has only 30 days of cash reserves. My wife might not
only lose her job, the face of U.S. aviation may be changed forever.
And I haven't even mentioned what is going on in general aviation. Let's
follow our government's reasoning here. Large, commercial aircraft were
hijacked from heavily controlled airports because they could wreak
horrible destruction on landmark buildings. Therefore, we will first
return those planes to service before you, Mr. Private Pilot, can fly
your Cessna home. I trust that /that/ made everyone feel much safer. In
retrospect, we could only /hope/ that piston-driven aircraft had been
hijacked instead.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19741
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 23:08:21 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.160d8a94662f1db6989785@news.sff.net...
> In article <3BA38ECF.A594B0A5@surewest.net>, James Gifford writes...
> > "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> ...
> > > Let me add, so that my biases are clear, that my wife is an airline
> > > pilot, and, as of today, it strongly appears that she will lose her
> > > job,
> >
> > Why? Reduced demand for pilots? Sorry to hear it. It will pass, though.
>
> Continental has already announced the furlough of 12,000 employees;
> Linda's airline might be next. I have heard that the U.S. airline
> industry as a whole has only 30 days of cash reserves. My wife might not
> only lose her job, the face of U.S. aviation may be changed forever.
>
> And I haven't even mentioned what is going on in general aviation. Let's
> follow our government's reasoning here. Large, commercial aircraft were
> hijacked from heavily controlled airports because they could wreak
> horrible destruction on landmark buildings. Therefore, we will first
> return those planes to service before you, Mr. Private Pilot, can fly
> your Cessna home. I trust that /that/ made everyone feel much safer. In
> retrospect, we could only /hope/ that piston-driven aircraft had been
> hijacked instead.
I don't normally support government bailouts of private enterprises
(believing, as I do, that it is not the government's role to pick and chose
the winners and losers).
But this isn't normal competition. I fully support any assistance the
government can do to help the airline industry.
This is a libertarian position, I know. I have been hesitant to call myself
a small 'l" libertarian considering the cowardly positions taken by so many
prominent Libertarians.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19742
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 01:02:52 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.160d8a94662f1db6989785@news.sff.net...
<snip>
Therefore, we will first
> return those planes to service before you, Mr. Private Pilot, can
fly
> your Cessna home. I trust that /that/ made everyone feel much
safer. In
> retrospect, we could only /hope/ that piston-driven aircraft had
been
> hijacked instead.
Stupid as this might be, there is a sound reason. It is _much_ easier
to smuggle a bomb or biological warfare agent dispersal device
(probably also a bomb) onto a private plane you own/control than a jet
airliner.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19743
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 01:11:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Dichotomy! Superheroes and their antithesis
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3ba3c2d9.19169497@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> I don't want to completely derail the thoughts of this post, but in
> the DC Comics "universe" Superman has dealt with just that sort of
> thing in the past few years. And he *couldn't* stop bad things from
> happening and people dying. Because even Superman can't know
> everything and be in two places at once--and he had to realize that
> once and for all. It made for a very interesting story arc, and is
> indicative of why I find comic books still compelling reading after
> (geeze!) 23 years.
Interestingly enough, I've been thinking lately on the same subject.
When I'm not hanging around here, I occasionally play role-playing
games. In particular, I run superhero role-playing games.
I, thus, wondered what my last two groups of heroes could do to stop
this disaster. And the answer was that they could have protected
firemen from being crushed by rubble, gone in themselves while it was
burning, and moved stones that couldn't be moved without cranes. And
that was mostly it.
Maybe, just maybe, they could have done something, if they had been in
the right place at the right time. But that's about it.
Even superheroes are not a cure for terrorism. Or war.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19744
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 06:20:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Mara Update
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill--
Whenever you feel Mara is ready to hear it, tell her that her dad's
friends are wishing her well and looking forward to the day when she is
ready to send us good news.
In the meantime, I will respect her privacy by sending my best thoughts
and wishes her way, without asking questions.
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19745
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:41:34 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3ba5ae7a.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> Stupid as this might be, there is a sound reason. It is _much_ easier
> to smuggle a bomb or biological warfare agent dispersal device
> (probably also a bomb) onto a private plane you own/control than a jet
> airliner.
On the assumption that even fanatics would rather fish in the ocean than
in a bathtub, I think we can be sure that bombs and biological weapons
were not available. A private plane can take off from, say, Morristown
Airport (or Teterboro or Caldwell or Lincoln Park - and I am just naming
nearby airports on the Jersey side) and fly to Manhattan without
triggering any response /whatsoever/ from Air Traffic Control. Or could
before last Tuesday. For years there has been a "VFR Corridor" on the
Hudson River that could have been flown by dozens of terrorists a day
without raising an eyebrow.
This would not require smuggling any sort of weapon past airport
security, overpowering any passengers or crew, or a pilot necessarily
committed to suicide. IMO, there is very little terrorism you can do
from a small plane, unless you have weapons that would be at least as
dangerous if delivered in other ways, and, hence, would not even require
piloting skills at all.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19746
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:18:49 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.160fc798322e3a09989786@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> On the assumption that even fanatics would rather fish in the ocean than
> in a bathtub, I think we can be sure that bombs and biological weapons
> were not available. A private plane can take off from, say, Morristown
> Airport (or Teterboro or Caldwell or Lincoln Park - and I am just naming
> nearby airports on the Jersey side) and fly to Manhattan without
> triggering any response /whatsoever/ from Air Traffic Control. Or could
> before last Tuesday. For years there has been a "VFR Corridor" on the
> Hudson River that could have been flown by dozens of terrorists a day
> without raising an eyebrow.
Of course. But I didn't say or imply that _these_ terrorists have such a
weapon. _Other_ terrorists might be finishing up one right now, and see this
as a golden opportunity to prove the US can be destroyed, in the belief that
the only thing preventing other Muslims from destroying us is fear.
> This would not require smuggling any sort of weapon past airport
> security, overpowering any passengers or crew, or a pilot necessarily
> committed to suicide. IMO, there is very little terrorism you can do
> from a small plane, unless you have weapons that would be at least as
> dangerous if delivered in other ways, and, hence, would not even require
> piloting skills at all.
If it were a bomb, I agree. But a biological or chemical weapon might be
many times more effective if released at even 1,000 feet.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19747
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:21:31 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3ba4bd83.7242629@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >> Let me add, so that my biases are clear, that my wife is an airline
> >> pilot, and, as of today, it strongly appears that she will lose her
> >> job,
>
> In an off-hand way, this points out an aspect of the terrorists that
> is worth noting. These fellows had trained as commercial pilots; spent
> years at it while living in the USA. They, in effect, had _achieved_
> the American dream. They were obviously intelligent, skilled, and
> well-acquainted with our country. If they hadn't done what they did
> September 11, they had splendid 6-figure/year jobs ahead of them,
> wealth, prosperity, repect... They stood at the edge of being able to
> have the classic "American Dream." The best of the US was dangling
> right within their grasp. With that view in front of them, they still
> sacrificed their lives for their cause. How do you fight that sort of
> devoted fanaticism? Can you? The best we had to offer was, to them,
> such a hideous thing that they had to destroy it at the cost of their
> own lives. Is our only option to destroy those people before they
> destroy us?
1. Some people are total fanatics who are so irrational that they will do
_anything_. Such people are often incapable of seeing anything whatsoever
that violates their worldview. To them, such things are invisible.
2. These men were seen in strip clubs, drinking, and generally behaving in a
manner that their religion says they will go to hell for it. Their only way
out was to die in a way that would be so "holy" that it would forgive all
their sins.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19748
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19749
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19750
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:32:08 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
""William B. Dennis 2nd" wrote:
> But this isn't normal competition. I fully support any assistance the
> government can do to help the airline industry.
>
> This is a libertarian position, I know. I have been hesitant to call myself
> a small 'l" libertarian considering the cowardly positions taken by so many
> prominent Libertarians.
A government should take responsibility for the effect of its regulations
that could severely hurt or even bankrupt most of an industry. I consider as
coming under compensation "---nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation." OK, not quite on target, but if government
action has the effect of wiping you out or devaluing your property, you should
get compensation.
While I consider myself a Randite libertarian, I do disagree with the
anarchist tendencies of some of the more prominent Libertarians. But the basic
primary purpose of forming the union to start with was to
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America."
We need to treat terrorism in this century like piracy was treated in the
last couple. All terrorists are the common enemies of mankind to be dealt
with wherever found by whatever jurisdiction. Countries that harbor then
should be as risk. If necessary, a pile of rubble where Kabul and Islamabad
used to be will look real good.
I recall a story when chasing the barbary pirates that a leader send
troops after our marines. He got back a note saying in effect "We got attacked
by bandits. Sorry about all the blood on your desert." What is he going to
do? Admit he sent troops in to protect the pirates?
I held off on some of my desired posts to allow my outrage to subside at
least a bit.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19751
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:04:26 -0600
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> I held off on some of my
desired posts to allow my outrage to subside at
<br>least a bit.</blockquote>
Good idea. I probably should have done this. Sorry if I sounded
really "ugly" on my previous post.
<p>Dorian Grey is lovely. I assumed from the name she was a male,
which is silly -- cats are, of course, above that. Three of
mine have come down sick over the last week -- can one's stress affect
one's cats?
<p>Sarah
<br> </html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19752
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:10:51 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<Started writing this a few days ago, when it would have been timely, but then
got overcome by events. the argument has gone on quite eloquently without me,
but when did I ever let something like that stop me from spouting off?>
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> Bill, I started posting here again, and I want to add my belated wishes
> for a complete and speedy recovery for your daughter.
Thank you. And welcome back (though I hadn't realized you were "gone"; I just
thought you were being uncharacteristically quiet. <g>)
> This is a slippery slope, Bill.
I'm generally suspicious of all "slippery slope" arguments. For one thing, even
a very slippery slope can often be safely negotiated (ask any skier). For
another, almost any "slope" in a society of any complexity is at least a little
bit "slippery," one way or another. Fear of slippery slopes can be invoked to
oppose almost anything.
> Air travel does not have to be made
> illegal in order to cripple it, and thereby cripple our ability to
> travel.
So you're suggesting that up until 17 December 1903 our basic freedoms were
fundamentally deficient? <vbg>
Seriously, I don't believe this event (including the security mesures that flow
from it) will cripple air travel -- at least not in the long run -- for reasons
you yourself hint at: It's just too darn good a way to travel for us to give up
on it. So the customers will come back, and if necessary we'll have a federal
bailout of the industry (which I would support, BTW, as long as it's available
fairly to the whole industry), and before too very long things will be back on
their way to normalcy. I hope the recovery is soon/strong enough to save your
wife's career... or at least to allow her to restart it before too long. My
wife, too, has recently had her career placed in jeopardy by unhappy events, so
I have great sympathy for the two of you.
> Many of the new
> "security" measures .... will make air travel less
> convenient and hence less used.
I'm not so sure. The same could have been said about metal detectors and
baggage scanners when they were first introduced, and (to a lesser degree)
about the need to show ID and answer questions about who packed your bags more
recently... but these measures don't seem to have hurt traffic levels
appreciably in the long run. If we had a good high-speed rail system in this
country, I might be more worried, but as it is, there just aren't many
acceptable alternatives. so I predict the market *will* provide air transport,
because the demand will not wane much (though BC's point about short-haul
routes is well taken).
But even if air travel *were* to substantially disappear, I wouldn't consider
it a blow to our fundamental freedoms. Cheap, fast, convenient transportation
is a wonderful blessing of our society, but it is NOT a fundamental right. The
"right to move freely within our borders" means (IMHO) freedom from internal
passports and other such a priori government restrictions on movement... and
nobody (at least nobody I've heard) is suggesting that.
On another topic... since you're "back," and you're our resident game theorist,
do you have any comment on games such as "Survivor" and "The Weakest Link,"
which deliberately play cooperation and competition off against each other,
changing the balance between the two as the game progresses. I've often found
myself wondering what you would have to say about those shows.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19753
From: Robert Slater" <rslater215@home.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 21:45:40 -0700
Subject: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
My personal perception over my admittedly limited life (I'm 34.) is that the
airlines have become fat cats who don't need their customers. The amount of
decent service that doesn't come with extra charges for said service has
been steadily declining IMO. The only airline that has been a consistent
bright spot has been Alaska. I've tried many other airlines because they
were cheaper, but after the fine print is read and the additional hassles
are dealt with and Alaska bails us out they turn out to be more expensive in
time, stress AND money. I vote no on a bailout. Sorry if this turned into
a rant. I'd be interested in hearing other's viewpoints.
SIFI Rob
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19754
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:46:00 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BA80CB6.6DE0E877@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
....
> > Air travel does not have to be made
> > illegal in order to cripple it, and thereby cripple our ability to
> > travel.
>
> So you're suggesting that up until 17 December 1903 our basic freedoms were
> fundamentally deficient? <vbg>
So you're suggesting that censorship of electronic communication would be
OK because the First Amendment didn't mention the electromagnetic
spectrum? ;-) Besides, the Ninth Amendment reserves an unspecified
number of basic rights to the States and the People.
We understand our freedoms in terms of what we /can/ do, and technology
changes our capabilities over time.
....
> On another topic... since you're "back," and you're our resident game theorist,
> do you have any comment on games such as "Survivor" and "The Weakest Link,"
> which deliberately play cooperation and competition off against each other,
> changing the balance between the two as the game progresses. I've often found
> myself wondering what you would have to say about those shows.
Unfortunately, I have not allowed my ban on TV watching to be lifted for
the purpose of watching these shows (although I have been watching a
little TV lately, sadly), so I cannot comment on them with any first-hand
knowledge. The idea of combining cooperation and competition has been a
popular theme in business strategy books for almost ten years now, and
leads in some fascinating directions. The topic was almost interesting
enough to get me to watch the shows.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19755
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:55:12 -0700
Subject: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
When some people I occasionally talk with made broad statements about the
disaster on Sept 11th and the fallout from it, I thought they were extreme.
I may have been wrong. I have just seen evidence that the end of the world
is approaching.
I have just received an email saying that "THE LIST", a civil rights
newsletter aimed at gays and lesbians, has asked their readers to thank, of
all people, Rush Limbaugh.
For why, follow this link:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091701/content/stack_a.guest.htm
l
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19756
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 11:39:48 -0700
Subject: Re: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> I have just received an email saying that "THE LIST", a civil rights
> newsletter aimed at gays and lesbians, has asked their readers to
> thank, of all people, Rush Limbaugh.
I detest Limbaugh for many reasons; he's a distorter, a bloody shirt
waver and a pissant demagogue. (Not that he doesn't have his equivalents
in the left side of the spectrum, but I'm dead sick tired of pointless
nastiness in all forms.)
But even RL can clearly see that Falwell and Robertson have shown their
true, nasty colors. I have to give him at least faint applause for
saying so publicly, but it's hardly a radical stand for him to take.
It's a very safe move, as only the most rabid anti-gay types won't stand
with it.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19757
From: Catherine Hampton <xzm@hrweb.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:59:15 -0700
Subject: Re: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:55:12 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_091701/content/stack_a.guest.htm
Wow... WOW... WWWWWOOOOOWWWWW....
Hell must have frozen over.
But it's nice to see a good cataclysmic event for a change. ;>
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
REVEAL * <http://www.reveal.org/>
The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19758
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 13:37:23 -0700
Subject: Re: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Catherine Hampton wrote:
> Wow... WOW... WWWWWOOOOOWWWWW....
>
> Hell must have frozen over.
>
> But it's nice to see a good cataclysmic event for a change. ;>
Not to keep harping, but note that RL doesn't go so far as to say
anything good about gays and lesbians. He simply stands in a very safe
majority by denouncing the abysmal statements by Laurel and Hardy.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19759
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:47:48 -0700
Subject: Would the Afghanis Welcome An Invasion?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I have recently seen a spate of reports that American Afghanis think that
invasion is our only option, if we are that determined to get Bin-ladin. The
only one I have available to post is
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html.
However, while this is unclear where the author stands, some Afghanis in our
country think that such an invasion would be widely welcomed by the local
populace.
Unfortunately, invasion will be either by air drop, by invading a neighbor,
or with the cooperation of a neighbor. And the last doesn't look good. I've
been looking at maps, and, if we don't want to fly over other countries, the
only countries that could give us access are China (barely), Iran, and
Pakistan.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19760
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:36:12 -0700
Subject: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
99% of all virus warnings are garbage, but I'm actually giving you one now.
The Nimba.a virus/worm can infect your machine if you just view an infected
webpage. I haven't yet discovered if this absolutely requires that you have
Outlook on your machine, at least to be infected. I discovered it by
visiting www.mailcleaner.com, which is actually an anti-virus product
webpage, which is infected. Luckily my machine was protected by an
up-to-date Nortons Anti-virus.
So, all I know is that I use Outlook at work, running on WinNT, and it tried
to get me through IE and Opera, but not through the Anonymizer. I think it
requires Outlook 97, 98, or 2000 to get you, but I don't know for sure.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19761
From: RPostelnek" <RPostelnek@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 23:24:17 -0500
Subject: Re: A Good Soul at Rest
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT
My condolences, losing a parent is always hard.
Rosie
JT <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3b880906.17353631@news.sff.net...
> My mom, Mable Flathmann Tilden, passed away this morning. She wasn't
> in any pain and the whole family except for Christine & I were there.
> The funeral will be on Tuesday in Long Island.
>
> I don't expect any memorials but if you were thinking about quitting
> smoking you can do it for your family now rather than later. If you
> like tangible memorials, the American Heart Association accepts
> donations via their website.
>
> --JT
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19762
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:15:00 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> 99% of all virus warnings are garbage, but I'm actually giving you
> one now. The Nimba.a virus/worm can infect your machine if you just
> view an infected webpage.
There is some evidence that this virus may be an extension of last
week's events. The report I read did not seem to be mere hysteria.
> I think it requires Outlook 97, 98, or 2000 to get you, but I don't
> know for sure.
My understanding is that it affects only NT and W2K systems. Win 9x
systems are not at risk.
Since we're an all Win2K shop...
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19763
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 00:31:28 -0500
Subject: Re: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BA90203.9C928CF2@surewest.net...
> Catherine Hampton wrote:
> > Wow... WOW... WWWWWOOOOOWWWWW....
> >
> > Hell must have frozen over.
> >
> > But it's nice to see a good cataclysmic event for a change. ;>
>
> Not to keep harping, but note that RL doesn't go so far as to say
> anything good about gays and lesbians. He simply stands in a very safe
> majority by denouncing the abysmal statements by Laurel and Hardy.
Limbaugh didn't make his comments because he wanted to defend these groups.
He was instead attacking Falwell and Robertson because they were causing PR
problems for the Conservatives. If Limbaugh thought for a moment that
Falwell and Robertson were doing more good than harm to the Conservatives,
he never would have mentioned the incident.
I'd like to think Limbaugh's comments were based on his own personal
revulsion, but I doubt it. I once lived in Limbaugh's hometown (Cape
Girardeau, Mo.) and was virtually force-fed his drivel on a daily basis. He
will attack anyone and anything if it means promoting the Conservative
agenda.
Limbaugh is also has a good judge of what the public is thinking and what
they want to hear. The general public doesn't want to hear the United States
being blamed for what happened. Rush scored points with listeners and that
is what is must important to Rush.
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com/terror.htm ,
http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com and
http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19764
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 09:22:58 -0700
Subject: Re: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William B. Dennis 2nd" wrote:
> I once lived in Limbaugh's hometown (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) and was
> virtually force-fed his drivel on a daily basis.
I live in Sacramento, his original radio pulpit, and ditto. I have had
to ask clients to turn him off while I was in the office. The usual
shocked response, "What, you don't think he's funny?"
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19765
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:26:15 -0700
Subject: Gloat gloat gloat
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sorry, I have to gloat shamelessly for a moment. Feel free to hit "Next"
now.
[EXTREME GLOAT WARNING ON]
Although "paper" is the proper gift for a first anniversary, my beloved
bride has given me paper for our third anniversary. I don't mind the
breach of tradition, really.
It's a Shasta first edition of _Green Hills of Earth_, signed. It is
also the finest Shasta or Gnome edition I've ever seen, virtually mint
in every respect, looking as if it was printed last week and stored in a
nitrogen atmosphere for the duration. It even had pages in the back
still adhering to one another from the printer's shear.
As I've said in many places, I'm interested in content and generally not
much for firsts and signed editions and such... but I do have a few, and
I treasure them greatly. All of them have been displaced by this jewel.
[EXTREME GLOAT WARNING OFF]
Sorry. I feel much better now. :)
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19766
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:49:56 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
>
> But even if air travel *were* to substantially disappear, I wouldn't consider
> it a blow to our fundamental freedoms. Cheap, fast, convenient transportation
> is a wonderful blessing of our society, but it is NOT a fundamental right. The
> "right to move freely within our borders" means (IMHO) freedom from internal
> passports and other such a priori government restrictions on movement... and
> nobody (at least nobody I've heard) is suggesting that.
>
>
> -JovBill
Bill--
By this logic, the government does not have the fundamental power to regulate
airlines in the first place, since the founding fathers did not envision airline
travel. Nor to give freedom to electronic news since freedom of the press at that
time meant hand cranked presses with hand set type.
I am very much afraid that one of the results of this will be having to carry
an additional picture ID issued by a government agency, which will effectively mean
the federal government. How many people have such? Internal passports, anyone?
Papers Please?
And it's all window dressing anyway, because every terrorist I ever heard of
carries several complete sets of identification.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19767
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 14:56:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Robert --
Yes, the airlines as a group have been deficient in customer
service. Alaska airlines was found deficient in maintaining their
aircraft. Not a good substitute. However, when the economy starts
slowing down, and/or the airlines raises prices seven times in a year
(2000) reaction sets in and the airlines were on a downward spiral
before September 11th.
Just how much do the airlines make in a day anyway? In the less
than 10 days since the WTC I seriously doubt if it was the $24 billion
they are requesting from the government.
Similar but related: the Postal Service (in which I am not
disinterested) contracted with Federal Express to move a large portion
of its mail so as to have contracted minimum space available rather than
"leftover" space they were getting from the airlines. (The Federal
Express drop boxes that have appeared at many postal facilities are
another result of this contract.)
The parent company of United has recently started a fractional jets
program and in hiring not allowing United employees to staff position
such as flight attendants from the main airline. Seems they are not
properly oriented toward customer service....
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19768
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:50:15 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BA80CB6.6DE0E877@ix.netcom.com...
<snip>
> But even if air travel *were* to substantially disappear, I wouldn't
consider
> it a blow to our fundamental freedoms. Cheap, fast, convenient
transportation
> is a wonderful blessing of our society, but it is NOT a fundamental right.
The
> "right to move freely within our borders" means (IMHO) freedom from
internal
> passports and other such a priori government restrictions on movement...
and
> nobody (at least nobody I've heard) is suggesting that.
By that reasoning, they could ban air travel legitimately. Or automobile
travel. Or horse.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19769
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:57:55 -0700
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charles Graft wrote:
> Yes, the airlines as a group have been deficient in customer
> service. Alaska airlines was found deficient in maintaining their
> aircraft. Not a good substitute.
"Why, yes, sir, you may have a free cocktail while the plane is
spiraling into the ground."
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19770
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 16:58:55 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BA96D44.F462C929@surewest.net...
> Filksinger wrote:
> > 99% of all virus warnings are garbage, but I'm actually giving you
> > one now. The Nimba.a virus/worm can infect your machine if you just
> > view an infected webpage.
>
> There is some evidence that this virus may be an extension of last
> week's events. The report I read did not seem to be mere hysteria.
>
> > I think it requires Outlook 97, 98, or 2000 to get you, but I don't
> > know for sure.
>
> My understanding is that it affects only NT and W2K systems. Win 9x
> systems are not at risk.
>
> Since we're an all Win2K shop...
Well, my wife works in an office with three Win98 machines, and all three
have been infected. So it appears it is not strictly Win2K and NT.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19771
From: kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:04:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Gloat gloat gloat
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BAA34C7.F38E5030@surewest.net...
> Sorry, I have to gloat shamelessly for a moment. Feel free to hit "Next"
> now.
>
> [EXTREME GLOAT WARNING ON]
>
<snip>
> It's a Shasta first edition of _Green Hills of Earth_, signed. It is
> also the finest Shasta or Gnome edition I've ever seen, virtually mint
> in every respect, looking as if it was printed last week and stored in a
> nitrogen atmosphere for the duration. It even had pages in the back
> still adhering to one another from the printer's shear.
>
> As I've said in many places, I'm interested in content and generally not
> much for firsts and signed editions and such... but I do have a few, and
> I treasure them greatly. All of them have been displaced by this jewel.
>
> [EXTREME GLOAT WARNING OFF]
>
> Sorry. I feel much better now. :)
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
>
[JEALOUSY ALERT]
Grrrrrrrrrr
McKevin
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19772
From: Jane Davitt <jdavitt01@home.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:37:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Gloat gloat gloat
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> "James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
> virtually mint
> > in every respect, looking as if it was printed last week and stored in a
> > nitrogen atmosphere for the duration. It even had pages in the back
> > still adhering to one another from the printer's shear.
> >
>
But.....that could mean _ no one has ever read it_! Poor book, go read it,
Jim. Carefully of course but let it know it's amongst friends now.
Unread books are such a pitiful sight.
Jane
--
http://www.heinleinsociety.org
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19773
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 15:01:28 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Thanks to you and Ed, I have 90% of my ducks in a row. My AV provider sent
about 12 emails warning about this in the past 24 hours. I already had IE
5.5 sp2 and the virus update that supposedly protects me from this thing.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3ba94826.0@news.sff.net...
> 99% of all virus warnings are garbage, but I'm actually giving you one
now.
> The Nimba.a virus/worm can infect your machine if you just view an
infected
> webpage. I haven't yet discovered if this absolutely requires that you
have
> Outlook on your machine, at least to be infected. I discovered it by
> visiting www.mailcleaner.com, which is actually an anti-virus product
> webpage, which is infected. Luckily my machine was protected by an
> up-to-date Nortons Anti-virus.
>
> So, all I know is that I use Outlook at work, running on WinNT, and it
tried
> to get me through IE and Opera, but not through the Anonymizer. I think it
> requires Outlook 97, 98, or 2000 to get you, but I don't know for sure.
>
> Filksinger
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19774
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 07:30:53 -0500
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3ba94826.0@news.sff.net...
> 99% of all virus warnings are garbage, but I'm actually giving you one
now.
> The Nimba.a virus/worm can infect your machine if you just view an
infected
> webpage.
Filk--
ZDNet Tech Update has an article on Nimbda at
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2811488,00.html
--Dee
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19775
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:36:18 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote in message
news:3bab3377.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:3ba94826.0@news.sff.net...
> > 99% of all virus warnings are garbage, but I'm actually giving you
one
> now.
> > The Nimba.a virus/worm can infect your machine if you just view an
> infected
> > webpage.
>
> Filk--
>
> ZDNet Tech Update has an article on Nimbda at
>
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2811488,00
..html
Some useful information, but it is also incorrect in certain respects.
The page that tried to infect me never asked me to download anything;
it just downloaded automatically. Additionally, if you get this in
your email, and you haven't done the suggestions I have made in the
past to secure OE (did I give that information around here?), it will
get you without opening the attachment.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19776
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 13:43:17 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> Some useful information, but it is also incorrect in certain respects.
> The page that tried to infect me never asked me to download anything;
> it just downloaded automatically. Additionally, if you get this in
> your email, and you haven't done the suggestions I have made in the
> past to secure OE (did I give that information around here?), it will
> get you without opening the attachment.
One of the simplest ways to avoid most worms, trojans, and other
"active" hacks: Don't use Outlook.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19777
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 21:17:49 GMT
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Sent this last night, but had 'net problems.
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 21:15:00 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Filksinger wrote:
>> 99% of all virus warnings are garbage, but I'm actually giving you
>> one now. The Nimba.a virus/worm can infect your machine if you just
>> view an infected webpage.
>
>There is some evidence that this virus may be an extension of last
>week's events. The report I read did not seem to be mere hysteria.
>
>> I think it requires Outlook 97, 98, or 2000 to get you, but I don't
>> know for sure.
>
>My understanding is that it affects only NT and W2K systems. Win 9x
>systems are not at risk.
>
>Since we're an all Win2K shop...
>
>--
>
>| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
>| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
If you're below IE service pack SP2 for 5.0 or 5.5 you're at risk.
IE 6.0 is covered. This does affect all Windows systems (well, maybe
3.1 is OK, but I hardly think of that anymore ;)
Outlook 98 or above can help it spread in email mode but is not
required.
We actually had a "hit" but since our virus sigs were up-to-date we
just had to calm the user down. Parts of SSA were infected though.
They shut down our internet gateway to prevent further infection.
If you have IIS servers and you hadn't patched them, they're at
serious risk. If you get an infection, this thing traverses your
network drives.
It's a good thing it doesn't try to *do* anything--but the next
version will certainly be a big pain if you don't keep on top of it.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19778
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:47:39 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BABA665.D60066F@surewest.net...
> Filksinger wrote:
> > Some useful information, but it is also incorrect in certain
respects.
> > The page that tried to infect me never asked me to download
anything;
> > it just downloaded automatically. Additionally, if you get this in
> > your email, and you haven't done the suggestions I have made in
the
> > past to secure OE (did I give that information around here?), it
will
> > get you without opening the attachment.
>
> One of the simplest ways to avoid most worms, trojans, and other
> "active" hacks: Don't use Outlook.
Instead you could use Eudora, which has its own worm. And, since there
is a worm for MSN Messenger you could go for Aim or IRC, both of which
have also been targets.
_Any_ system is potentially at risk. So far, the reason these things
have targeted Outlook and Outlook Express is popularity. Same goes for
Win2k over Linux. If anything else becomes popular enough, they will
write viruses for it. Most of the viruses aimed at Outlook and Outlook
Express could have run just as easily on Pegasus Mail, or Netscape
Mail, or Eudora, or The Bat!, or any email client you want. Same goes
for viruses aimed at IIS, they could just as easily have been written
for Apache, and would probably have been at least as effective, since
Apache is more popular.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19779
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:39:54 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3babae5a.28320646@news.sff.net...
> Sent this last night, but had 'net problems.
<snip>
> We actually had a "hit" but since our virus sigs were up-to-date we
> just had to calm the user down. Parts of SSA were infected though.
> They shut down our internet gateway to prevent further infection.
>
> If you have IIS servers and you hadn't patched them, they're at
> serious risk. If you get an infection, this thing traverses your
> network drives.
>
> It's a good thing it doesn't try to *do* anything--but the next
> version will certainly be a big pain if you don't keep on top of it.
>
> JT
>
This is what Ed and Filksinger have been preaching and what my AV provider
fills my mailbox reminding me to do. It was such a gooooood feeling to go
to the "fix" info and be able to say "done that!" (I got three more warning
from various reputable sources today.)
I've had one, count it one, virus here in seven years. My son-in-law
brought an infected floppy from his college. That was one too many.
I know worms are different, but I still don't need it, don't need to spread
it, and don't need to understand it to keep it off my system.
Update your AntiVirus and IE/Windows users visit
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/security/
bulletin/MS01-027.asp
for more info about fixing those holes.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19780
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 05:31:31 -0500
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bab9754.0@news.sff.net...
>Additionally, if you get this in
> your email, and you haven't done the suggestions I have made in the
> past to secure OE (did I give that information around here?),
If you did, I missed it. Feel like posting a lesson? And if so, will
you try to keep it as simple as possible for the technologically challenged,
like me? Thanks.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19781
From: William Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:21:15 -0500
Subject: Re: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
My sense from the remarks, heard as Limbaugh made them live and not through
possible press release paraphrasing, is that although Limbaugh may claim
talent on loan from God, it isn't the God spoken of in the Old and New
Testament -- or perhaps he has never come to terms with the Christian
response of how a loving God could allow innocents to suffer.
Falwell misspoke, badly, when he seemed to suggest God sent the terrorists
as a way to punish America's anti-religious and God-mocking tolerances. As
an American he shouldn't have signaled out particular groups, as a Christian
he should have stated the Christian concept clearer of why bad things happen
to good people; which he has tried to do in his follow-up
apology/explanation.
Will in Central Texas
(with apologies to other Wills' (Willses?) in Texas who have been mistaken
for me)
William B. Dennis 2nd wrote in message <3ba97f90.0@news.sff.net>...
>
>"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
>news:3BA90203.9C928CF2@surewest.net...
>> Catherine Hampton wrote:
>> > Wow... WOW... WWWWWOOOOOWWWWW....
>> >
>> > Hell must have frozen over.
>> >
>> > But it's nice to see a good cataclysmic event for a change. ;>
>>
>> Not to keep harping, but note that RL doesn't go so far as to say
>> anything good about gays and lesbians. He simply stands in a very safe
>> majority by denouncing the abysmal statements by Laurel and Hardy.
>
>Limbaugh didn't make his comments because he wanted to defend these groups.
>He was instead attacking Falwell and Robertson because they were causing PR
>problems for the Conservatives. If Limbaugh thought for a moment that
>Falwell and Robertson were doing more good than harm to the Conservatives,
>he never would have mentioned the incident.
>
>I'd like to think Limbaugh's comments were based on his own personal
>revulsion, but I doubt it. I once lived in Limbaugh's hometown (Cape
>Girardeau, Mo.) and was virtually force-fed his drivel on a daily basis. He
>will attack anyone and anything if it means promoting the Conservative
>agenda.
>
>Limbaugh is also has a good judge of what the public is thinking and what
>they want to hear. The general public doesn't want to hear the United
States
>being blamed for what happened. Rush scored points with listeners and that
>is what is must important to Rush.
>
>--
>William B. Dennis 2nd
>http://billscontent.tripod.com/terror.htm ,
>http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com and
>http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19782
From: William Jennings" <gwilliam@sff.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:24:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Would the Afghanis Welcome An Invasion?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
One of the news networks says the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban has
15,000 rebels in the field, and can bring in 15,000 more. We might do well
to focus some atention to aiding them.
Will in Central Texas
Filksinger wrote in message <3ba92ec0.0@news.sff.net>...
>I have recently seen a spate of reports that American Afghanis think that
>invasion is our only option, if we are that determined to get Bin-ladin.
The
>only one I have available to post is
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html.
>However, while this is unclear where the author stands, some Afghanis in
our
>country think that such an invasion would be widely welcomed by the local
>populace.
>
>Unfortunately, invasion will be either by air drop, by invading a neighbor,
>or with the cooperation of a neighbor. And the last doesn't look good. I've
>been looking at maps, and, if we don't want to fly over other countries,
the
>only countries that could give us access are China (barely), Iran, and
>Pakistan.
>
>Filksinger
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19783
From: David Nott <sprocketeer1@earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:44:22 -0700
Subject: Re: The End Of The World?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
William Jennings wrote:
>
>
> Falwell misspoke, badly, when he seemed to suggest God sent the terrorists
> as a way to punish America's anti-religious and God-mocking tolerances. As
> an American he shouldn't have signaled out particular groups, as a Christian
> he should have stated the Christian concept clearer of why bad things happen
> to good people; which he has tried to do in his follow-up
> apology/explanation.
>
>
To say Falwell misspoke is putting it mildly. What he did was to reveal
himself as ideologically compatible with the terrorists themselves.
Most people, I think, view what the terrorists did as horrible crimes. Acts
of war, too. Only the terrorists, or people who think like them, see the
hand of god in this. Fallwell fully unmasked himself this time, and he's
shocked to discover that so many find his opinions as repulsive as those of
the terrorists.
He has also failed to make a heartfelt apology, such as, "I was wrong."
Falwell has instead been making "apologies" such as saying his remarks were
poorly-timed, taken out of context, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19784
From: David" <davids_nc@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:14:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
The only arguably legitimate functions of the government are to protect
lives and property, punish wrongdoers, and resolve disputes- not to give
millions of dollars to every corporation that loses money due to economic
reversals, natural disaster, or even terrorism.
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19785
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:51:22 -0400
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bad1a06.0@news.sff.net>, David writes...
> The only arguably legitimate functions of the government are to protect
> lives and property, punish wrongdoers, and resolve disputes-
I agree, but the existence of the CAB and FAA indicate that the
government has not been limited to these functions. The airline industry
as it exists today is the creature of government regulation and is
perhaps the most heavily regulated industry in the world.
I am not at all sure that this state of affairs justifies a government
bailout (despite my personal interest in one ;-) ), but I think it does
suggest that pure reasoning from first principles it inadequate.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19786
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:21:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Would the Afghanis Welcome An Invasion?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
FS: I heard on the news that the US had previously had held joint
military exercises with at least one of the following: Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan and/or Tajikistan. One of them may offer our forces a
ground bridge into Afghanistan.
They are located on the northern border of Afghanistan, East of
China.
Ed J
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 16:47:48 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>I have recently seen a spate of reports that American Afghanis think that
>invasion is our only option, if we are that determined to get Bin-ladin. The
>only one I have available to post is
>http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/14/afghanistan/index.html.
>However, while this is unclear where the author stands, some Afghanis in our
>country think that such an invasion would be widely welcomed by the local
>populace.
>
>Unfortunately, invasion will be either by air drop, by invading a neighbor,
>or with the cooperation of a neighbor. And the last doesn't look good. I've
>been looking at maps, and, if we don't want to fly over other countries, the
>only countries that could give us access are China (barely), Iran, and
>Pakistan.
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19787
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:26:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Would the Afghanis Welcome An Invasion?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Will: The same thought that I had on the night of Sept. 11. The
nightly news reported an attack on an ammo dump on (? northern)
Kabul. It was by a couple of helo's of the Northern Alliance
(Rebels) flying in and launching missiles against the ammunition
dump. One reporter was sure that he heard the sound of cruise
missiles (less than 12 hours after the WTC attack, he may have been
under some stress). It was not a cruise, just air-to-ground from
helicopter.
Ed
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:24:18 -0500, "William Jennings"
<gwilliam@sff.net> wrote:
>One of the news networks says the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban has
>15,000 rebels in the field, and can bring in 15,000 more. We might do well
>to focus some atention to aiding them.
>
>Will in Central Texas
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19788
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:38:11 -0400
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
FS: I missed anything you might have posted about OE, which I use.
Is there an update or a security patch? I have just spent countless
fruitless minutes searching MS trying to find something to
strengthen or update my Outlook Express.
Ed J
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:36:18 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>Some useful information, but it is also incorrect in certain respects.
>The page that tried to infect me never asked me to download anything;
>it just downloaded automatically. Additionally, if you get this in
>your email, and you haven't done the suggestions I have made in the
>past to secure OE (did I give that information around here?), it will
>get you without opening the attachment.
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19789
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:41:54 -0400
Subject: Re: Gloat gloat gloat
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Among the things I'll miss not having done: Gotten the Master to
sign a copy of Starship Troopers, taken a tour of the WTC towers.
(In my heart those towers still stand tall and proud, BTW)
Ed J
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 11:26:15 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Sorry, I have to gloat shamelessly for a moment. Feel free to hit "Next"
>now.
>
>[EXTREME GLOAT WARNING ON]
>
>Although "paper" is the proper gift for a first anniversary, my beloved
>bride has given me paper for our third anniversary. I don't mind the
>breach of tradition, really.
>
>It's a Shasta first edition of _Green Hills of Earth_, signed. It is
>also the finest Shasta or Gnome edition I've ever seen, virtually mint
>in every respect, looking as if it was printed last week and stored in a
>nitrogen atmosphere for the duration. It even had pages in the back
>still adhering to one another from the printer's shear.
>
>As I've said in many places, I'm interested in content and generally not
>much for firsts and signed editions and such... but I do have a few, and
>I treasure them greatly. All of them have been displaced by this jewel.
>
>[EXTREME GLOAT WARNING OFF]
>
>Sorry. I feel much better now. :)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19790
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:03:11 -0700
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:ejbqqtssmgmui6lcqhd2em1rtksmqu10mc@4ax.com...
> FS: I missed anything you might have posted about OE, which I use.
> Is there an update or a security patch? I have just spent countless
> fruitless minutes searching MS trying to find something to
> strengthen or update my Outlook Express.
>
> Ed J
The OE patch is now over a year old. If you have been going to Windows
Updates and getting the "Critical Updates", you are covered from that
particular hole. Other Windows Scripting holes, OTOH, can come along
every day. MSNBC announced a new one on the 20th of this month.
I'll post instructions for the two things you can do that will do the
most to protect you.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19791
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 00:06:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David" <davids_nc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bad1a06.0@news.sff.net...
> The only arguably legitimate functions of the government are to protect
> lives and property, punish wrongdoers, and resolve disputes- not to give
> millions of dollars to every corporation that loses money due to economic
> reversals, natural disaster, or even terrorism.
>
>
> David
The only legitimate role of government is to f*****g make sure the nation
survives when attacked by aggressors. Airlines are part of our basic
infrastructure. The government has a role in making sure it is safe to fly.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19792
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:14:53 -0400
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger: Thanks, I'll look forward to your post.
Ed J
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:03:11 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>I'll post instructions for the two things you can do that will do the
>most to protect you.
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19793
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:46:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Would the Afghanis Welcome An Invasion?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:g6aqqtshr9o898le3a6q3jiq0jjrd42r08@4ax.com...
> FS: I heard on the news that the US had previously had held joint
> military exercises with at least one of the following: Turkmenistan,
> Uzbekistan and/or Tajikistan. One of them may offer our forces a
> ground bridge into Afghanistan.
> They are located on the northern border of Afghanistan, East of
> China.
>
> Ed J
All require we fly over at least one other country to get to them. We'd
better have the entire route in agreement to allow us to proceed, even to
the point of invasion, before we rely to heavily on them.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19794
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:50:26 -0700
Subject: How to secure Outlook Express and Outlook
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I could have sworn I posted this, not only before, but this weekend. I've
been sending it to too many people of late, I suppose.
Note that step 1 does not apply to IE6, to the best of my knowledge. And I'm
pretty sure that step 2 doesn't either, but make certain. All of these steps
are nothing but settings that IE6 and OE6 have right. Also note that the
exact names of choices may change from version to version, and that the
steps for OE should apply _approximately_ to Outlook, but I'm not certain
about Outlook 98 or lower.
Step 1:
Go to the Control Panel. Open Internet Options (or Internet). Go to
Security. Select "Restricted Sites" or "Restricted Zones". Click "Custom".
Go down the list, and disable everything you can. If you can't disable it,
set it to "High" security, if that is an option. Note that some of these,
such as Font Download or Cutting and Pasting, you probably don't need to
change (and aren't disabled in even IE 6), but rather than go line by line,
just do them all, unless you are using IE6. This is supposed to be
"Restricted", after all. When you finish, click OK, then OK.
Step 2:
Open OE. Go to Tools, Options, Security. Set the top setting to "Restricted
Zone" or "Restricted Sites". Click OK.
Now, "Restricted" means _really_ restricted, and your email is treated as
unfriendly territory. Which it should be, since it can be sent by anyone.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19795
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:51:01 -0700
Subject: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This was posted by an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot:
Pre Flight Announcement, 2002
"Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Northwest Flight 571,
service to Los Angeles continuing on to San
Diego. Before we take off, we'd like to acquaint you with some of the safety
features of this Boeing 767. You know
about the emergency exits, oxygen masks, floating seat cushions, and so on,
so we will not waste time with those. Consult the cards in your seat pocket
for information on all features of our aircraft.
"Please do pay attention to the new security features.
"In the event of midair terrorism, a panel will open alongside the window
seat, containing two lightweight automatic handguns. They are fully loaded,
and extra clips are available in Velcro straps. As the flight attendants are
now demonstrating, to operate the pistol, simply draw back the slide and let
it fall forward, then aim by lining up the slot in the rear site with the
front site, centered on the middle of your targets torso. Depress the
trigger repeatedly to fire. The pistol holds 10 rounds; after the last the
slide will lock back. Depress the clip release button located above the grip
on the left side, remove the clip and slide a new one into place. Please be
careful of your field of fire, and continue firing until your target goes
down.
"Your seats backs are equipped with Kevlar armor, stay well down and aim
over the top or around the side.
"Your flight attendants are all armed with compact submachine guns; please
follow their lead in directing fire.
"If you feel you are unable to perform these duties, or are a conscientious
objector, please let our attendants know so
we can reseat you in the 'cowards rows' at the rear of the plane and not
bring you drinks or peanuts.
"For your safety, the aisles are equipped with electrified strips and
computer controlled antipersonnel mines. For this
reason, please remain in your seats until the captain has signaled all
clear.
"Note that the area around the cockpit is cleared of seats and marked with
contrasting carpet. Under no circumstances
should you cross this barrier during flight, various automatic devices will
be activated to protect the cockpit.
"The hatch in the floor at the back of the cabin is similarly marked and
should be avoided during flight.
"Anyone creating a disturbance, caught tampering with the pistol cases or
smoke detectors in the lavatories will be apprehended and ejected via the
rear floor hatch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19796
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:51:36 -0700
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David" <davids_nc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bad1a06.0@news.sff.net...
> The only arguably legitimate functions of the government are to protect
> lives and property, punish wrongdoers, and resolve disputes- not to give
> millions of dollars to every corporation that loses money due to economic
> reversals, natural disaster, or even terrorism.
In "Free Men", the Leader of the underground says, as best I can recall,
that "I consider highly suspect any statement set off with 'obviously', 'of
course', or 'it goes without saying', and their equivalents." "Inarguably"
and its approximate equivalents are themselves equivalent to these words and
phrases.
In some ways, "inarguably" is worse. It states outright that anyone who
disagrees is in an "inarguable" position. Your position is already
conclusively proven; their position isn't due any consideration. The utter
rejection of alternate points of view without further consideration is not
one that I am comfortable with, even when I agree with the author's
position.
I automatically question (and tentatively reject) any statement which claims
that argument is not possible.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19797
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:40:40 -0700
Subject: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This suggestion just in.
Filksinger
> The Ultimate Revenge
>
> In today's LA Times letters, Shelley Bookspan wrote (091401):
> "Forget threatening to bomb Afghanistan and the
> Taliban if they fail to turn over Bin Laden to us. Instead, let's
> threaten to gather up all of their women and send them to college. In
> fact, why don't we do that anyway?"
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19798
From: Catherine Hampton <xzm@hrweb.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:51:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 15:40:40 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>This suggestion just in.
>> The Ultimate Revenge
>> In today's LA Times letters, Shelley Bookspan wrote (091401):
>> "Forget threatening to bomb Afghanistan and the
>> Taliban if they fail to turn over Bin Laden to us. Instead, let's
>> threaten to gather up all of their women and send them to college. In
>> fact, why don't we do that anyway?"
YES!!! :>
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
REVEAL * <http://www.reveal.org/>
The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19799
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:23:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> This suggestion just in.<snip>
How 'bout we just carpet-bomb the whole country... with *BOOKS*!
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19800
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 21:33:40 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3baf9cb2.0@news.sff.net...
> This was posted by an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot:
>
> Pre Flight Announcement, 2002
>
> "Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Northwest Flight 571,
> service to Los Angeles continuing on to San
> Diego. Before we take off, we'd like to acquaint you with some of the
safety
> features of this Boeing 767. You know
> about the emergency exits, oxygen masks, floating seat cushions, and so
on,
> so we will not waste time with those. Consult the cards in your seat
pocket
> for information on all features of our aircraft.
>
> "Please do pay attention to the new security features.
>
> "In the event of midair terrorism, a panel will open alongside the window
> seat, containing two lightweight automatic handguns. They are fully
loaded,
> and extra clips are available in Velcro straps. As the flight attendants
are
> now demonstrating, to operate the pistol, simply draw back the slide and
let
> it fall forward, then aim by lining up the slot in the rear site with the
> front site, centered on the middle of your targets torso. Depress the
> trigger repeatedly to fire. The pistol holds 10 rounds; after the last the
> slide will lock back. Depress the clip release button located above the
grip
> on the left side, remove the clip and slide a new one into place. Please
be
> careful of your field of fire, and continue firing until your target goes
> down.
>
> "Your seats backs are equipped with Kevlar armor, stay well down and aim
> over the top or around the side.
>
> "Your flight attendants are all armed with compact submachine guns; please
> follow their lead in directing fire.
>
> "If you feel you are unable to perform these duties, or are a
conscientious
> objector, please let our attendants know so
> we can reseat you in the 'cowards rows' at the rear of the plane and not
> bring you drinks or peanuts.
>
> "For your safety, the aisles are equipped with electrified strips and
> computer controlled antipersonnel mines. For this
> reason, please remain in your seats until the captain has signaled all
> clear.
>
> "Note that the area around the cockpit is cleared of seats and marked with
> contrasting carpet. Under no circumstances
> should you cross this barrier during flight, various automatic devices
will
> be activated to protect the cockpit.
>
> "The hatch in the floor at the back of the cabin is similarly marked and
> should be avoided during flight.
>
> "Anyone creating a disturbance, caught tampering with the pistol cases or
> smoke detectors in the lavatories will be apprehended and ejected via the
> rear floor hatch.
This is beautiful! If only it were true.
--
-- William B. Dennis 2nd
http://billscontent.tripod.com ,
http://heinlein-libertarian.tripod.com and
http://mycoolwebpages.tripod.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19801
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:45:39 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<Yet another delayed-reaction reply>
Filksinger wrote:
> By that reasoning, they could ban air travel legitimately.
No, you and BC and Gordon are all missing my point (which probably means I'm
not expressing it well <sigh>). I'm *not* arguing that the Gummint has the
right to ban air travel, nor am I arguing that the Constitution somehow doesn't
apply to air travel because it hadn't been invented in the eighteenth century.
Instead, what I'm arguing is that there's a fundamental difference between
restricting travel on the one hand and, on the other hand, taking a legitimate
action that has the incidental side effect of making *one segment* of the
travel *industry* inconvenient or perhaps completely uneconomical.
By "legitimate action," I'm referring to the fact that almost everyone here
would agree that protecting its citizens from foreign attack is a (some might
say "the only") legitimate function of government. (The fact that Gordon uses a
form of the word "anarchist" as part of his political self-description accounts
for the "almost" in that last sentence. <g>) Note that whether or not those
actions are *effective* is a separate argument from whether or not they are
*legitimate*.
If air travel were the only available means of travel, such that its loss would
amount to a de facto ban on all travel, then I might give more credence to the
argument that heightened security measures constitute an "assault on our
freedoms." But the survival of the Republic for more than a century and a
quarter between the signing of the Declaration and the first airplane flight
seems to argue to the contrary. BC, you should be happy: This may lead to a
renaissance (sp?) for the railroads. In any case, freedom to travel
domestically without a priori Government restrictions is a *right*; air travel,
per se, is a *privilege*; cheap and easy air travel is a *luxury*. I would have
thought this group, perhaps more than any, would be able to grok those
distinctions.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19802
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:01:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> This was posted by an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot:
>
> <snip>"In the event of midair terrorism, a panel will open alongside the
> window
> seat, containing two lightweight automatic handguns.
ROFL!
On a serious note, though... with all the talk in the last few days about
arming pilots, I've been thinking about *what kind* of guns they should have,
or more specifically, what kind of ammo. I used to read my brother-in-law's gun
magazines from time to time, and I think I recall something called a "snake
load." These were effectively shotgun-type amunition in standard handgun
calibers, so named because you didn't have to be Annie Oakley to kill a snake
with them (I mean a literal snake, not the bipedal type). It seems to me that
this would be ideal ammo for inflight use: Effective at short range, even with
less than precise aim, but unlikely to pierce the hull or windows of the plane
and cause explosive decompression.
Do any of you know anything aobut this type of ammo? If they exist, do they
work in automatic pistols, or only in revolvers? Enquiring minds want to know!
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19803
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:05:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> I am not at all sure that this state of affairs justifies a government
> bailout
C'mon, now. You can't argue on the one hand that economic damage to the
airlines due to government action constitutes an "assault on our freedoms"
and claim on the other hand that economic help for the airlines from the
government is unjustified.
Well, I guess you *can*, if you really want to, but....... ;^)
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19804
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:28:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BAFF46B.98201D38@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
>
>
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>
> > I am not at all sure that this state of affairs justifies a government
> > bailout
>
> C'mon, now. You can't argue on the one hand that economic damage to the
> airlines due to government action constitutes an "assault on our freedoms"
I argued that some government restrictions involving air travel would be
an assault on basic freedoms, not that our freedoms would be assaulted
/because/ of economic damage to the airlines. The assault and the damage
are effects of the restrictions; one is not the cause of the other.
The "some" in the above is there because I originally said your argument
was on a slippery slope. I did not define - and I do not remember at
this point if you defined - exactly what sort of restrictions were
involved. Reserving a seat on a plane for a Federal Marshall is a
restriction of a sort on travel - at least one more private citizen might
have gotten on the plane. I don't see that as a attack on basic
freedoms, but I can imagine other restrictions that are. As such, I am
on the same slope. I'm not sure that I can give a an argument that
perfectly distinguishes each segment of that slope from the other, but I
can tell the top from the bottom.
> and claim on the other hand that economic help for the airlines from the
> government is unjustified.
I said "I am not at all sure" it is justified. Such a bailout is very
much in my interest, so I know that if I think about it hard enough, I'll
be able to come up with at least a plausible justification that is
consistent with my principles. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19805
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 23:57:37 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BAFEFD0.1F1AEA64@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
> <Yet another delayed-reaction reply>
>
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> > By that reasoning, they could ban air travel legitimately.
>
> No, you and BC and Gordon are all missing my point (which probably means I'm
> not expressing it well <sigh>). I'm *not* arguing that the Gummint has the
> right to ban air travel, nor am I arguing that the Constitution somehow doesn't
> apply to air travel because it hadn't been invented in the eighteenth century.
I am arguing that /at some point/ "restricting" air travel is the same as
banning it, which you seem to allow the government cannot legitimately do
(or at least you say that you are not arguing that it can do so). That
"at some point" is the slippery slope I first referred to.
We can get off the slopes, if you like, and argue instead about what
sorts of restrictions are unjustified, not because they add up to a ban
on air travel, but because they violate other rights the traveling public
retains.
....
> If air travel were the only available means of travel, such that its loss would
> amount to a de facto ban on all travel, then I might give more credence to the
> argument that heightened security measures constitute an "assault on our
> freedoms."
Now you seem to be arguing that the government /can/ ban air travel
without assaulting our freedoms so long as it does not ban all forms of
travel. I need a map to your argument, so I'll know how to travel it.
;-)
> But the survival of the Republic for more than a century and a
> quarter between the signing of the Declaration and the first airplane flight
> seems to argue to the contrary.
I don't doubt that this Republic (and many others) can /survive/ if our
basic freedoms are curtailed. Indeed, as an anarchist, I often argue
that that is what republics are all about: surviving by curtailing basic
freedoms. ;-)
> In any case, freedom to travel
> domestically without a priori Government restrictions is a *right*; air travel,
> per se, is a *privilege*; cheap and easy air travel is a *luxury*.
Freedom to evacuate your bowels without a priori government restrictions
is a *right* (I hope!); having an outhouse to do it in is, per se, a
*privilege*; and indoor plumbing is a *luxury*. That does not mean that
there are not other rights that protect our freedom to have a three-
bathroom house.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19806
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:12:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BAFF382.8EA9DD85@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> It seems to me that
> this would be ideal ammo for inflight use: Effective at short range, even with
> less than precise aim, but unlikely to pierce the hull or windows of the plane
> and cause explosive decompression.
>
> Do any of you know anything aobut this type of ammo? If they exist, do they
> work in automatic pistols, or only in revolvers? Enquiring minds want to know!
Enquiring minds would also like to know if even a .45 bullet hole in a
window or the hull would cause "explosive" decompression, as opposed to a
gradual loss of pressure. Isn't the real risk that of punctured control
lines, fuel tanks, engine nacelles, etc.?
A substantial percentage of pilots are in the reserves. Let's activate
them, arm them, and then assign them to their civilian jobs. This will
cost a lot less /and/ produce better results than sending them to
Afghanistan. (Let's also secure the flight deck, but such retrofitting
will take longer.)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19807
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:16:30 -0400
Subject: Re: How to secure Outlook Express and Outlook
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3baf9c86.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> I could have sworn I posted this, not only before, but this weekend. I've
> been sending it to too many people of late, I suppose.
Thanks, Filk. I just can't keep up with this stuff on my own anymore.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19808
From: Clay Steiner" <claysteiner@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:32:03 -0600
Subject: Re: Gathering Next Year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<I began this reply several days ago, then other stuff got in the way.
-- Clay>
In the sense that "life must go on", and having just discovered this
thread, I'm gonna barge in with my biannual cry:
You folks are overdue to grace the state of Colorado with a Gathering!
Someone said that they want clear sky. Here it is; got lenses? I will
also volunteer to lead a trip to the summit of Pike's Peak and even
bring the beer. (For the more sedentary among us, it's not necessarily
a climb -- we can drive. But even that is not for the faint of heart
or the acrophobic.) Added value: that's where the song "America The
Beautiful" was born. Have any of you ever actually stood atop the
"purple mountains' majesty, above the fruited plain"? Here's your
chance to do just that, and also speculate about just where the hell
RAH would have placed that catapult ramp. (I've looked, and couldn't
see it. Let's look again!)
Wanna see where SiaSL (and every other 1950-1965 piece) was written? I
have an idea that I won't outline here just yet; I'll wait to see if
this post draws any favorable noises. Worst-case scenario, we'll ask
if we might do a group photo around RAH's 1776 address marker. Yes,
the one you saw in _Grumbles From the Grave_. Yes, it's still there.
The nudist resort that was probably RAH's inspiration for the Denver
Sunshine Club in _The Door Into Summer_? My wife and kids and I are
members. I won't post more details on this yet either, other than to
say that folks who want to visit yet keep their pants on won't be
frowned upon (unless you wear them into the pool or jacuzzi :-).
Colorado is pleasantly NOT humid during the summer (we call 20%
humidity "muggy"), and the high temperatures hardly ever top 100º. I'd
say we average mid-high 80's most of the summer here. And it's cooler
yet in the mountains.
HFers, I say again -- Colorado holds too much RAH history to be
overlooked forever. I'll shame you all into it one of these years, if
not next year. I swear it!
--
Clay Steiner claysteiner@prodigy.net
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"God may have mercy on their souls; we will not."
-- Senator John McCain
----------
In article <3b9cef61.594423756@news.sff.net>, les.johnson@erols.com
(Les) wrote:
> Hello everybody. Les here. I've been stirring things up a bit behind
> the scenes and JP tells me I'd better let everybody else in on it too.
> Basically, the Warfields and I have decided that we MUST do a
> gathering next year. We think (and JP agrees) that MO would be a
> great place to have it. Back at the old Reel & Trigger. And it looks
> like the first or second week of August would be the best time too.
> Now I ran this idea by Fader and he thinks that MO would be too hot
> and suggests maybe we try the cabins in Maryland again. So what does
> everyone else think?
>
> Les
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19809
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:07:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
David wrote:
> The only arguably legitimate functions of the government are to protect
> lives and property, punish wrongdoers, and resolve disputes- not to give
> millions of dollars to every corporation that loses money due to economic
> reversals, natural disaster, or even terrorism.
>
> David
And what if they lose money due to government edict? I think that there
is some responsibility here.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19810
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 18:55:10 -0700
Subject: How to Be a Survivor
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger mentioned "Free Men" in another thread; but I've been mulling
over some of the ideas in the essays and speeches found in Expanded Universe
since the 12th or 13th. I found that my mind had morphed and melded some of
those ideas over the last 20+ years so that something from "Pandora" has
been securely fastened to a casually mentioned item in "Spinoff" that's
firmly welded to a point from "Patrick Henry" etc.
The one I keep coming back to is found in "How to Be a Survivor." Beginning
with the third paragraph, page 166 of the February 1981 tradepaper
edition--"Just a moment--a gentleman in the back row has a question.
<continue to the end of the section> ... living on the spot with the X
mark."
Do similar ~rules~ apply to terrorism as they do (did?) to Nuclear war? Do
we stand a better chance of surviving/winning if we spread out? Is this
even possible/practical today?
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19811
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 07:49:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>> In today's LA Times letters, Shelley Bookspan wrote (091401):
>> "Forget threatening to bomb Afghanistan and the
>> Taliban if they fail to turn over Bin Laden to us. Instead, let's
>> threaten to gather up all of their women and send them to college. In
>> fact, why don't we do that anyway?"
I saw CNN's program last night done by a young English lady of
Afghan ancestry who went to see the paradise wonderland her father had
told her about. She took hidden cameras and some in the open. After
seeing that I think bombing Kabul would be futile--they wouldn't
notice. That wretched hive barely had any buildings standing. Nuking
it would be more of a mercy killing than revenge.
Pathetic, miserable country. Made infinitely worse by the Taliban
leadership. It would be best if somehow the decent people and the
women could be moved out, the country quarantined and the Taliban and
their ilk could be left to enjoy the hell they've created.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19812
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 00:01:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Snake shot" in .22 shells wasn't worth loading IMnsHO. Don't know if the
idiotic things work in automatics. Like Matthew Quigley I don't have much
use for them.
My .36 Navy Colt with just wadding and powder killed creepy crawlers better.
(set 'em on FIRE!) The double-bladed axe thrown from twenty paces and the
killer watch dog did even better. (dog killed and ate two or three six foot
plus rattlers one summer) This is all in the very old days pre husbands,
children, Army, and any thoughts of personal mortality, you know the '70s.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA. (Walla Walla High Class of '74)
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BAFF382.8EA9DD85@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> > This was posted by an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot:
> >
> > <snip>"In the event of midair terrorism, a panel will open alongside the
> > window
> > seat, containing two lightweight automatic handguns.
>
> ROFL!
>
> On a serious note, though... with all the talk in the last few days about
> arming pilots, I've been thinking about *what kind* of guns they should
have,
> or more specifically, what kind of ammo. I used to read my
brother-in-law's gun
> magazines from time to time, and I think I recall something called a
"snake
> load." These were effectively shotgun-type amunition in standard handgun
> calibers, so named because you didn't have to be Annie Oakley to kill a
snake
> with them (I mean a literal snake, not the bipedal type). It seems to me
that
> this would be ideal ammo for inflight use: Effective at short range, even
with
> less than precise aim, but unlikely to pierce the hull or windows of the
plane
> and cause explosive decompression.
>
> Do any of you know anything aobut this type of ammo? If they exist, do
they
> work in automatic pistols, or only in revolvers? Enquiring minds want to
know!
>
> -JovBill
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19813
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 07:54:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>I recall something called a "snake
>load." These were effectively shotgun-type amunition in standard handgun
>calibers,
I have some of those. The name and purpose appealed to me <g>. Never
shot them at anything but a target, though. Expensive. I used them in
a revolver but I (non-professionally) didn't see any characteristics
that should prevent their use in a semi-auto.
I don't like the idea of arming the pilot and co-pilot (and am
deeply concerned about puncturing the fuselage) I want them
controlling the plane and contacting the ground with useful
information. The third pilot/navigator is an option. That position
used to be a flight engineer and about 30 years ago was changed to a
pilot--change it again to a specialized position to include aircraft
security.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19814
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 08:19:45 GMT
Subject: Re: Gathering Next Year
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:32:03 -0600, "Clay Steiner"
<claysteiner@prodigy.net> wrote:
>snipped<
CO would be a BIG hike, I'd personally love to do it, but don't see
how. Can't fly (long story) & shouldn't drive (makes the story even
longer). Probably have to wait till Transporter Tech comes into vogue.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19815
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 09:55:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bb13727.1453869@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Deb Houdek Rule writes...
....
> The third pilot/navigator is an option. That position
> used to be a flight engineer and about 30 years ago was changed to a
> pilot--change it again to a specialized position to include aircraft
> security.
That position was not changed - it was eliminated, on all but the B727.
If you see a third pilot enter the flight deck of any other commercial
airliner, you are watching someone hitch a ride home. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19816
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:22:53 -0600
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
I like it. It won't happen, but I like it. This is about the
only way I would stop being afraid of flying, and would return to my pre-9/11
flying levels.
<p>Filksinger wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>This was posted by an "Anonymous Coward" on Slashdot:
<p>Pre Flight Announcement, 2002
<p>"Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to Northwest Flight 571,
<br>service to Los Angeles continuing on to San
<br>Diego. Before we take off, we'd like to acquaint you with some of the
safety
<br>features of this Boeing 767. You know
<br>about the emergency exits, oxygen masks, floating seat cushions, and
so on,
<br>so we will not waste time with those. Consult the cards in your seat
pocket
<br>for information on all features of our aircraft.
<p>"Please do pay attention to the new security features.
<p>"In the event of midair terrorism, a panel will open alongside the window
<br>seat, containing two lightweight automatic handguns. They are fully
loaded,
<br>and extra clips are available in Velcro straps. As the flight attendants
are
<br>now demonstrating, to operate the pistol, simply draw back the slide
and let
<br>it fall forward, then aim by lining up the slot in the rear site with
the
<br>front site, centered on the middle of your targets torso. Depress the
<br>trigger repeatedly to fire. The pistol holds 10 rounds; after the last
the
<br>slide will lock back. Depress the clip release button located above
the grip
<br>on the left side, remove the clip and slide a new one into place. Please
be
<br>careful of your field of fire, and continue firing until your target
goes
<br>down.
<p>"Your seats backs are equipped with Kevlar armor, stay well down and
aim
<br>over the top or around the side.
<p>"Your flight attendants are all armed with compact submachine guns;
please
<br>follow their lead in directing fire.
<p>"If you feel you are unable to perform these duties, or are a conscientious
<br>objector, please let our attendants know so
<br>we can reseat you in the 'cowards rows' at the rear of the plane and
not
<br>bring you drinks or peanuts.
<p>"For your safety, the aisles are equipped with electrified strips and
<br>computer controlled antipersonnel mines. For this
<br>reason, please remain in your seats until the captain has signaled
all
<br>clear.
<p>"Note that the area around the cockpit is cleared of seats and marked
with
<br>contrasting carpet. Under no circumstances
<br>should you cross this barrier during flight, various automatic devices
will
<br>be activated to protect the cockpit.
<p>"The hatch in the floor at the back of the cabin is similarly marked
and
<br>should be avoided during flight.
<p>"Anyone creating a disturbance, caught tampering with the pistol cases
or
<br>smoke detectors in the lavatories will be apprehended and ejected via
the
<br>rear floor hatch.</blockquote>
</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19817
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:31:00 -0600
Subject: Re: How to Be a Survivor
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>The one I keep coming back to is found in "How to
Be a Survivor." Beginning
<br>with the third paragraph, page 166 of the February 1981 tradepaper
<br>edition--"Just a moment--a gentleman in the back row has a question.
<br><continue to the end of the section> ... living on the spot with
the X
<br>mark."
<p>Do similar ~rules~ apply to terrorism as they do (did?) to Nuclear war?
Do
<br>we stand a better chance of surviving/winning if we spread out?
Is this
<br>even possible/practical today?</blockquote>
<p><br>I don't know. Some of it makes rational sense. Bigger
cities would be bigger strategic targets, as would other -- smaller --
cities, for other reasons. The more spread out we are, the lesser
the hit, if they SHOULD hit.
<p>I've tried not to think about this. I'm afraid of overreacting.
But it occurs to me that in this war we are the Armada and they are the
English fleet. We're big and bulky and we can't armor well enough
to counteract their smallness and mobility. I'm hoping I'm wrong,
or that we adapt to this. I don't want to lose this war, because
if we do it will set civilization back several hundred years. (I
will not go quietly into that good Chadur (sp?)).
<p>As I said, I'm trying to calm down and think through things rationally,
but without much success.
<p>All I know is that since I drove deep into Kansas to pick up my husband
two weeks ago (he drove from the East where this stranded him) I keep thinking
-- feeling -- I should find as small a hamlet as possible, deep in Kansas
-- or somewhere -- and move there with husband, kids and cats.
<p>I know this sounds weird -- hell, it is very weird. I'm very much
a large-city girl -- and it scares me a little. But I wonder how
much of it is coming from Heinlein. Lord knows I read him enough
growing up to interiorize most of his principles, so they surface as "instinct"
and "feelings."
<p>And I feel an overwhelming need to do this. Just leave my city
behind -- it's a strategic target -- and head to the middle of nowhere,
with goats and chickens and ammo to hunt and... you know what I mean.
<p>Does anyone else have the same "urge"?
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19818
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 13:52:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb,
I just saw that program and have to agree. Our money would be best spent on
infiltrating their culture as best we can. Voice of America broadcast 24/7.
Smuggle in battery operated TVs and radios. Air drop everything from soap to
Captain Crunch. Make them want more and more. I'm suggesting the "pusher"
strategy. They think they hate the West, but they'll learn to want our stuff
after they get hooked on it. We need to turn them in to happy, healthy
consumers that will learn to fight for their right to watch the world cup
soccer match on their big screen TVs while drinking hot tea freshly brewed
in the Mr. Tea maker. We could spend billions doing this and it would be
cheaper than a small war. The greatest enemy of the Taliban is knowledge,
and we could show them all what they're missing out on. Hmm, sounds a bit
satanic to me. I'm going to have to think about that.
Jeff
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bb035e4.1130935@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >> In today's LA Times letters, Shelley Bookspan wrote (091401):
> >> "Forget threatening to bomb Afghanistan and the
> >> Taliban if they fail to turn over Bin Laden to us. Instead, let's
> >> threaten to gather up all of their women and send them to college. In
> >> fact, why don't we do that anyway?"
>
> I saw CNN's program last night done by a young English lady of
> Afghan ancestry who went to see the paradise wonderland her father had
> told her about. She took hidden cameras and some in the open. After
> seeing that I think bombing Kabul would be futile--they wouldn't
> notice. That wretched hive barely had any buildings standing. Nuking
> it would be more of a mercy killing than revenge.
>
> Pathetic, miserable country. Made infinitely worse by the Taliban
> leadership. It would be best if somehow the decent people and the
> women could be moved out, the country quarantined and the Taliban and
> their ilk could be left to enjoy the hell they've created.
>
>
> Deb (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.dahoudek.com
> http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19819
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:26:29 -0600
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Jeff,
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> Make them want more and more. I'm suggesting
the "pusher"
<br>strategy. They think they hate the West, but they'll learn to want
our stuff
<br>after they get hooked on it. We need to turn them in to happy, healthy
<br>consumers that will learn to fight for their right to watch the world
cup
<br>soccer match on their big screen TVs while drinking hot tea freshly
brewed
<br>in the Mr. Tea maker.</blockquote>
The problem with this -- as someone who was born in another culture and
whose family still lives there -- is that, somehow, it's quite possible
to love the FRUITS of American capitalism and hate America. In fact,
the more they love the EFFECTS of culture, the more they hate us and the
more the crazies among them will strike out against our culture -- or so
it seems. It's like a disconnect in the brain, or perhaps a primal,
basic impulse to affirm the superiority of your culture the more you feel
attracted to another culture. Kind of like treating your wife better
while you're having an affair, because you feel guilty. Only the
result wouldn't be better treatment of ANYONE. It's long been one
of my fears that, as our culture sphere of influence grows, more and more
people will hate us.
<p>Look, no one in Portugal (my country of birth) is crazy enough to kill
because no one wants to read the national poets and everyone listens to
American music and memorizes the poems. However, when the disagreements
are more fundamental (pardon the pun) such as about religion, who knows
what will result. Hating yourself for wanting the ease of the "evil"
west might lead you to commit suicide in an act of terrorism, so you'll
go to paradise after all.
<p>This said, I'm all for lending aid to Afaghanistani rebels and liberating
their women. We SHOULD do this, in any case, whether we also nail
the bad guys personally or not. I firmly believe the less ignorance
and suffering in the world, the less danger to all of us.
<p>[By the way, the picture of an Afaghanistani woman in the front page
of my paper -- looking like a ratty, ill-covered couch with a grid of fabric
over her face -- gave me this irrational desire to turn into a full-time
nudist. Irrational, because it wouldn't help anything and I'd run
afoul of local laws. But -- damn -- if they already think we are
evil, let's really show off. American women should run around in
star spangled bikinis. We should post pictures of ourselves naked,
with the flag painted on our bodies. We should... Okay.
I'm ranting. I'll go back to work now.]
<blockquote TYPE=CITE> Hmm, sounds a bit
<br>satanic to me. I'm going to have to think about that.</blockquote>
The fruits of knowledge of good and evil might be satanic, but they definitely
are part of humanity for good or ill, now. And free will implies
the right of the individual to reject or accept evil -- which implies knowledge
of good and evil. :-) The people in Afghanistan have as much right
to this as we do. Go with it.
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19820
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:40:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> Enquiring minds would also like to know if even a .45 bullet hole in a
> window or the hull would cause "explosive" decompression, as opposed to a
> gradual loss of pressure.
Dunno about the hull, but I suspect anything that breached the integrity of a
window would be a Very Bad Thing. I'm no expert on these things, and maybe
"explosive decompression" is an over-dramatic term, but my impression is that it
doesn't take a very big hole to let in enough vacuum to knock everybody out pretty
quickly. I keep remembering Payne Stewart's plane...
> Isn't the real risk that of punctured control
> lines, fuel tanks, engine nacelles, etc.?
But there are several more layers of metal between the cabin and any of those
things than between the cabin and the nearly nonexistent ambient pressure outside.
Plus, most of those systems have redundant backups. And as for the engines
themselves (finally something I actually know a little bit about), they're designed
to ingest 8 lb birds and balls of ice without catastrophic failure, so I don't
worry too much about a few grams of lead.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19821
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 23:45:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
> "Snake shot" in .22 shells wasn't worth loading IMnsHO.
Does it not come in bigger calibers? A .45 would have ~4X as much room for
pellets, plus correspondingly more powder to throw 'em. Besides, a prospective
hijacker couldn't be sure it was "only" snake shot in that gun barrel he was
staring down.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19822
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:43:47 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> I am arguing that /at some point/ "restricting" air travel is the same as
> banning it, which you seem to allow the government cannot legitimately do
> (or at least you say that you are not arguing that it can do so)....
>
> Now you seem to be arguing that the government /can/ ban air travel
> without assaulting our freedoms so long as it does not ban all forms of
> travel. I need a map to your argument, so I'll know how to travel it.
> ;-)
I'm arguing that there's a difference between a government banning air travel
intentionally and taking other actions that may have the same effect as banning it.
In either case, even the total loss of air travel would not, by itself,
fundamentally limit people's right to travel domestically: It's not our only means
of domestic transportation, nor necessarily even the best. It *is* the fastest in,
in most cases, and probably the cheapest, too, when you take into account the value
of time, but "fast" and "cheap" are nowhere guaranteed in the Constitution.
Imagine two scenarios (scenaria?):
A. The Government, in an attempt to discharge its primary duty of protecting
citizens against foreign attack, enacts aviation safety rules that have the effect
of making air travel very inconvenient. So many passengers, in fact, feel so
completely inconvenienced that they stop flying, and the entiew industry goes
bankrupt.
B. The Government arbitrarily decides that citizens moving around so quickly and
conveniently is inconvenient for *it*, and therefore shuts the air travel industry
down out of hand.
In each scenario, the practical result is the same: Airports become great places to
hold sports car races and flea markets, but people who want to badly enough can
still travel around by train, bus, boat, car, etc. The *difference* is that in
Scenario A the hardship thus created comes under the heading of The Price We Pay To
Preserve Our Society (AND the freedoms it embodies), while Scenario B is just an
example of ineffective tyranny. The problem with inefective tyrants is that they're
very likely to get better with practice; thus, I find Scenario A immeasurably
preferable to B, despite the superficial similarities.
The problem with *mistaking* Scenario A for Scenario B is that it engenders
unwarranted cynicism and bitterness, which are, I firmly believe, toxic to the soul.
All of this is academic though: I'm pretty sure Scenario A isn't going to happen (I
gather load factors are already going back up), and I'd bet anything in my lunchbox
that not one single person in the federal government desires anything similar to
Scenario B.
> as an anarchist, I often argue
> that that is what republics are all about: surviving by curtailing basic
> freedoms. ;-)
I guess the difference between the anarchist and the republican (note small "r") is
that the anarchist thinks this is a *bad* thing. But giving up a bare minimum of
your freedom in order to secure all the rest of it is like pruning a tree: Do it
right, and you make the tree *healthier*, even though you've cut off some living
branches; fail to do it at all, and you may well lose the whole tree. YMMV, of
course.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19823
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 00:42:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BAFF382.8EA9DD85@ix.netcom.com...
>
<snip>
> On a serious note, though... with all the talk in the last few days
about
> arming pilots, I've been thinking about *what kind* of guns they
should have,
> or more specifically, what kind of ammo. I used to read my
brother-in-law's gun
> magazines from time to time, and I think I recall something called a
"snake
> load." These were effectively shotgun-type amunition in standard
handgun
> calibers, so named because you didn't have to be Annie Oakley to
kill a snake
> with them (I mean a literal snake, not the bipedal type).
Unfortunately correct. I mean the last line. You will almost certainly
not kill a man with "snake shot", you will just irritate him a lot.
The round has almost no range, too short to be effective in a plane,
even, and the pellets are much too light to deter, much less actually
stop, a human being who wants to hurt you.
More effective is frangible rounds, such as the Glaser. Unfortunately,
they appear to be of reduced effectiveness vs. human beings when
compared to a good hollow point. Also unfortunately, possibly the best
hollow points, the Hydra-shocks, which the FBI settled on as standard
a few years back, actually penetrate _better_ than standard hollow
points.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19824
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 01:22:40 -0700
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Someone else will have to answer about larger calibers. I only used .22
revolvers and long rifles with the silly things.
Personally, if you want the look of a .45 with a bit of a wallop I'd go for
a pellet gun with darts. They're evil looking, painful at short range,
and don't have enough power to pierce the cabin. We all can imagine
solutions to dress the dart tips with that would increase its effectiveness.
Also, there are ways to increase the velocity of the darts (or pellets) to
almost lethal.
It's been almost 20 years since I fired anything other than a water pistol,
aka "cat training device." Partly because I liked it too much and partly
because we had children we couldn't trust around firearms.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BB14F4B.3684A7A4@ix.netcom.com...
>
>
> Lorrita Morgan wrote:
>
> > "Snake shot" in .22 shells wasn't worth loading IMnsHO.
>
> Does it not come in bigger calibers? A .45 would have ~4X as much room for
> pellets, plus correspondingly more powder to throw 'em. Besides, a
prospective
> hijacker couldn't be sure it was "only" snake shot in that gun barrel he
was
> staring down.
>
> -JovBill
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19825
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 09:23:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BB14E13.4DB1007C@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> Dunno about the hull, but I suspect anything that breached the integrity of a
> window would be a Very Bad Thing. I'm no expert on these things, and maybe
> "explosive decompression" is an over-dramatic term, but my impression is that it
> doesn't take a very big hole to let in enough vacuum to knock everybody out pretty
> quickly.
Wouldn't that be a good thing, as long as the integrity of the flight
deck was not breached?
But loss of cabin pressure has already been planned for - that's why
there are oxygen masks. I think that having to hold a mask on a short
hose to your face would make hijacking a difficult undertaking. In fact,
it would probably be a good idea for pilots to deliberately vent cabin
pressure when there is a disturbance.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19826
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 12:33:21 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BB15CFF.B3246169@ix.netcom.com...
....
> I'm arguing that there's a difference between a government banning air
travel
> intentionally and taking other actions that may have the same effect as
banning it.
> In either case, even the total loss of air travel would not, by itself,
> fundamentally limit people's right to travel domestically: It's not our
only means
> of domestic transportation, nor necessarily even the best. It *is* the
fastest in,
> in most cases, and probably the cheapest, too, when you take into account
the value
> of time, but "fast" and "cheap" are nowhere guaranteed in the
Constitution.
There is a difference; the question is, what does this difference justify?
Your position seems to be that restrictions undertaken for good reasons
cannot /ever/ violate legal (and moral?) rights. I'm no lawyer, but I
strongly doubt you will find much support for that position among legal
experts. As to moral rights, I think you face at least as great a
challenge.
> Imagine two scenarios (scenaria?):
>
> A. The Government, in an attempt to discharge its primary duty of
protecting
> citizens against foreign attack, enacts aviation safety rules that have
the effect
> of making air travel very inconvenient.
The problem here is that there are a large number of ways to try to protect
citizens and increase their safety. It is (both legally and morally, I
would argue) illegitimate to enact an arbitrary one of these many ways
without regard to the effects it will have on other values besides safety.
And no special defense of the illegitimacy for government officials to say,
"But our intentions were good!"
>The *difference* is that in
> Scenario A the hardship thus created comes under the heading of The Price
We Pay To
> Preserve Our Society (AND the freedoms it embodies), while Scenario B is
just an
> example of ineffective tyranny.
As I said, the problem is that there is no single such "Price".
> The problem with *mistaking* Scenario A for Scenario B is that it
engenders
> unwarranted cynicism and bitterness, which are, I firmly believe, toxic to
the soul.
I won't quarrel with this. But I am not arguing that, say, Ashcroft is a
demon out to intentionally destroy our rights. The world is more
interesting than that. He can be a well-intentioned public servant and
still destroy our rights. It is morally myopic to focus only on intentions
(or, for that matter, only on effects).
> All of this is academic though: I'm pretty sure Scenario A isn't going to
happen (I
> gather load factors are already going back up),
Back up to where? At this point it is difficult to precisely sort out two
separate factors: reduced loads due to fear and reduced loads due to
inconvenience. I can't argue that fearful people should be made to fly -
they have, on my view, the right to be irrational.
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19827
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:47:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C14691.CA92B8E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message =
news:3BB0CC54.C407C3E7@sff.net...
Jeff wrote : Hmm, sounds a bit=20
satanic to me. I'm going to have to think about that.
The fruits of knowledge of good and evil might be satanic, but they =
definitely are part of humanity for good or ill, now. And free will =
implies the right of the individual to reject or accept evil -- which =
implies knowledge of good and evil. :-) The people in Afghanistan have =
as much right to this as we do. Go with it.=20
Sarah=20
Sarah,=20
I think it's quite possible to hate the pusher while loving the drugs. =
My point was more of changing the culture which the Taliban wishes to =
"inflict" on the people they control. Would American culture be better? =
In some ways yes, and in some ways maybe not. We have a lot of issues =
here in the USA; I'm not sure we need to export them yet. As far as my =
Satanic comment: We are the great Satan, or so I've heard. Satanism can =
be viewed as the epitome of organized self-indulgence, pure hedonism. =
My strategy also reminded me of the classic temptation stories--for this =
nice comfortable life you only need to pay with your soul. I guess the =
Taliban is convinced that the opposite is true: a crappy horrid =
existence and for that you go to heaven. What a con job!
Jeff
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C14691.CA92B8E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Sarah A. Hoyt" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:sarah-hoyt@sff.net">sarah-hoyt@sff.net</A>> wrote in =
message=20
<A=20
=
href=3D"news:3BB0CC54.C407C3E7@sff.net">news:3BB0CC54.C407C3E7@sff.net</A=
>...</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3D"CITE">Jeff wrote : Hmm, sounds a bit =
<BR>satanic to=20
me. I'm going to have to think about that.</BLOCKQUOTE>The fruits of =
knowledge=20
of good and evil might be satanic, but they definitely are part of =
humanity=20
for good or ill, now. And free will implies the right of the =
individual=20
to reject or accept evil -- which implies knowledge of good and =
evil. =20
:-) The people in Afghanistan have as much right to this as we =
do. Go=20
with it.=20
<P>Sarah=20
<P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sarah, </FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I think it's quite possible to hate the =
pusher=20
while loving the drugs. My point was more of changing the =
culture which=20
the Taliban wishes to "inflict" on the people they control. Would =
American=20
culture be better? In some ways yes, and in some ways maybe not. =
We have=20
a lot of issues here in the USA; I'm not sure we need to export them=20
yet. As far as my Satanic comment: We are the great Satan, or so =
I've=20
heard. Satanism can be viewed as the epitome of organized =
self-indulgence,=20
pure hedonism. My strategy also reminded me of the classic =
temptation=20
stories--for this nice comfortable life you only need to pay with your =
soul. I guess the Taliban is convinced that the opposite is =
true: a=20
crappy horrid existence and for that you go to heaven. What a =
con=20
job!</FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT>
<P><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>Jeff</FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C14691.CA92B8E0--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19828
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:23:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Someone else will have to answer about larger calibers. I only used .22
>revolvers and long rifles with the silly things.
I was using .357s. One of those at close range would do. And in a
cockpit the aiming angle isn't going to be perfect--pilots awkwardly
pointing backwards around high seats in a small area, accurate aim
unlikely. Don't want a miss to puncture equipment panels in there
either.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19829
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:23:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>But loss of cabin pressure has already been planned for - that's why
>there are oxygen masks. I think that having to hold a mask on a short
>hose to your face would make hijacking a difficult undertaking. In fact,
>it would probably be a good idea for pilots to deliberately vent cabin
>pressure when there is a disturbance.
Prepared highjackers would have prepared for that and secured the
flight attendents' portable masks. They'd be able to do that before
the pilots knew there was a problem. Probably all that would be
accomplished would be to suffocate a few infants (I was in a row of
three once with _five_ people--three adults, two unpaid kids--how many
oxygen masks? and how agreeable was that father going to be to letting
me have one? children not strapped into their own seats should be
banned.).
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19830
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:23:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
..
>
>That position was not changed - it was eliminated, on all but the B727.
>If you see a third pilot enter the flight deck of any other commercial
>airliner, you are watching someone hitch a ride home. ;-)
Must have changed since my father retired. Well, then, the position
could be readded and trained as a specialized position, not just a
pilot.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19831
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:07:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bb329bb.1268266@NEWS.SFF.NET...
> Prepared highjackers would have prepared for that and secured the
> flight attendents' portable masks.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I am not claiming that there is any single technique
that will foil all hijackers. Personally, I would like to see the
following:
1) an isolated flight deck
2) plain-clothes, armed guards
3) armed pilots (for those who wish to carry arms)
4) armed passengers (for those who wish to carry arms)
>Probably all that would be
> accomplished would be to suffocate a few infants
Nor am I claiming that security can be improved without some new risks.
Young children have already been killed by hijackers.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19832
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:43:13 -0600
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<blockquote dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Sarah,</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I think it's quite possible to hate
the pusher while loving the drugs. My point was more of changing
the culture which the Taliban wishes to "inflict" on the people they control.
Would American culture be better? In some ways yes, and in some ways maybe
not. We have a lot of issues here in the USA; I'm not sure we need
to export them yet. As far as my Satanic comment: We are the great
Satan, or so I've heard. Satanism can be viewed as the epitome of organized
self-indulgence, pure hedonism. My strategy also reminded me of the
classic temptation stories--for this nice comfortable life you only need
to pay with your soul. I guess the Taliban is convinced that the
opposite is true: a crappy horrid existence and for that you go to heaven.
what a con job!</font></font></blockquote>
</blockquote>
Jeff,
<p>Sorry. It was obtuse of me not to get the reference.
<p>On American culture -- Warning -- I'm biased. I think that America
is the best thing to ever happen to humanity -- I think we should export
our culture ASAP.
<p>Yeah, we have problems, but overall America is ten times more tollerant/open/equalitarian
(of opportunity at least) than any other country in the world right now.
<p>You are right about the Taliban. They're making people MORE miserable
than the Soviet people were under communism BUT they've convinced the people
they're doing them a favor (um... very weird pronouns there, but you get
my meaning, I think.) And if any God requires that people live in
profound misery, humiliation and abasement at the hands of heartless tyrants
to gain heaven, I'm not going no way, no how. Not interested in that
heaven.
<p>If you measure the "worthiness" of a culture by relative well being/happiness
(pursuit of happiness) of the people living there, we've got them beat
so far that they can't see us. We've got most of the world beat.
(every time I go to Europe I'm reminded daily of how good we have it.
It's not even gross income or any of those things -- it's water pressure,
the relative politeness of sales people, the cleanliness of public buildings,
the relative ease of any paperwork, the wide availability of many brands
of any one product. We afford much more opportunity for human dignity.)
Which, of course, is what they hate.
<p>Oh, heck, you're right all of you. We should leave the poor people
alone (well, I still think we should encourage/help the rebels to kill
the damn Taliban government members, if nothing else because I'm tired
of reading in the morning paper the horrible things these monsters have
done to their people -- even before the 11th. They need killing.
but that's something else) and bombard them with consumer goods.
I'm willing to contribute. Let's send them coke (it was considered
so revolutionary/seductive in Portugal when it was first allowed in in
the seventies that the communists called it "the dirty water of capitalism"
:-) ) and sprite, and Hershey bars and movies, and comic books and rock
music and leather mini-skirts and lace stockings and--
<p>Sarah
</body>
</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19833
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:04:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bb0c4b5.0@news.sff.net...
> Deb,
> I just saw that program and have to agree. Our money would be best spent
on
> infiltrating their culture as best we can. Voice of America broadcast
24/7.
> Smuggle in battery operated TVs and radios. Air drop everything from soap
to
> Captain Crunch. Make them want more and more. I'm suggesting the "pusher"
> strategy. They think they hate the West, but they'll learn to want our
stuff
> after they get hooked on it. We need to turn them in to happy, healthy
> consumers that will learn to fight for their right to watch the world cup
> soccer match on their big screen TVs while drinking hot tea freshly brewed
> in the Mr. Tea maker. We could spend billions doing this and it would be
> cheaper than a small war. The greatest enemy of the Taliban is knowledge,
> and we could show them all what they're missing out on. Hmm, sounds a bit
> satanic to me. I'm going to have to think about that.
(snip)
I'm afraid that I agree with Heinlein on this subject. In his 1961 GOH
speech he spoke on the same subject with a different antagonist in mind.
What he said about the communists would, I believe, apply even more so to
muslims who would be even further entrenched in their belief system than the
communists. Remember also, that our problem is with 'fanatical' muslims who
are even further out.
----- Begin Quote ------ Requiem p233-234
Communists are nice people, almost all of them. They are sincere, they are
true believers—and they won’t be seduced by sirloin steaks. I have been in
six Communist countries and in eight of the so-called Republics of the
Soviet Union—in much travel over many years. I know many, many Communists,
know them and like them. Like them? Of all the major peoples on this planet
the Russians and the Chinese are the most like us, the ones I like best—and
it is a matter of deep sorrow to me that these sweet and warmhearted people
should be elected by the logic of history to be our antagonists.
I wish you all could know them as well as I do—and I wish you could have the
tremendous advantage, as I had, of having a wife who had gone to the
tremendous effort of learning to speak Russian fluently before we went
there.
This is impossible for most people, I know—I was lucky. Nevertheless it is
possible to learn something intellectually of how the Communist mind works
by studying, hard and sympathetically, Dialectical Materi-alism, the history
of Communism and other aspects of Marxism-Leninism.
Know your enemy—the first law of war.
If the American people and in particular American political leaders took the
trouble to try to learn the mind and methods and high moral standards of
their enemy, we would not behave as foolishly as we do.
We might even save the lives of a third or more of our people.
To understand him on his terms— Not on ours, not on our bourgeois,
capitalistic, democratic, almost anarchistic terms—but to learn what he
thinks of himself—and why. Learn that Russians love their country, are loyal
to their own form of government mostly—probably a higher percentage than of
Americans loyal to their government, honestly believe that Communism is the
salvation of mankind—if we learned these things, we wouldn’t rely on Mr.
Micawber’s solution and wait for something to turn up.
However, I don’t see one chance in ten thousand of Americans—enough
Americans—getting to know the mind of the enemy well enough to realize this.
Won’t happen. Instead, we will go right on applying our own rather fuzzy and
good-hearted humanitarianism and will go on applying to Communists our own
parochial and rather naive standards—and will go on misunderstanding him and
continue to be utterly surprised when he acts like a Communist.
It will likely be the ruin of us. Only in the rather unlikely chance of us
stumbling into a war—and winning it at a cost almost too dreadful to
visualize—can I see anything but ruin ahead.
However, if any of you, as individuals, want to understand the years ahead,
just remember this: the key to it all is Communists are not villains.
Not that this will do our country any good—because the vast majority of us
will go on thinking of Communists either as devils, or as poor stupid clunks
who can be seduced by sirloin steak. And this misconception is going to ruin
us and kill many of us.
---- End Quote -----
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19834
From: Wayne H. Morgan" <morganwh@indy.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:19:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Well it looks like Heinlein was wrong on this one and so are you. Russians
eagerly took to "capitalism" when they finally got the chance, and the Chinese
will do the same if they get the chance. Hasn't got a thing to do with us or
our philosophy, the opportunity for personal wealth offers a lot of options to
the individual.
Wayne Morgan
David Wright wrote:
> "Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bb0c4b5.0@news.sff.net...
> > Deb,
> > I just saw that program and have to agree. Our money would be best spent
> on
> > infiltrating their culture as best we can. Voice of America broadcast
> 24/7.
> > Smuggle in battery operated TVs and radios. Air drop everything from soap
> to
> > Captain Crunch. Make them want more and more. I'm suggesting the "pusher"
> > strategy. They think they hate the West, but they'll learn to want our
> stuff
> > after they get hooked on it. We need to turn them in to happy, healthy
> > consumers that will learn to fight for their right to watch the world cup
> > soccer match on their big screen TVs while drinking hot tea freshly brewed
> > in the Mr. Tea maker. We could spend billions doing this and it would be
> > cheaper than a small war. The greatest enemy of the Taliban is knowledge,
> > and we could show them all what they're missing out on. Hmm, sounds a bit
> > satanic to me. I'm going to have to think about that.
>
> (snip)
>
> I'm afraid that I agree with Heinlein on this subject. In his 1961 GOH
> speech he spoke on the same subject with a different antagonist in mind.
> What he said about the communists would, I believe, apply even more so to
> muslims who would be even further entrenched in their belief system than the
> communists. Remember also, that our problem is with 'fanatical' muslims who
> are even further out.
>
> ----- Begin Quote ------ Requiem p233-234
> Communists are nice people, almost all of them. They are sincere, they are
> true believers—and they won’t be seduced by sirloin steaks. I have been in
> six Communist countries and in eight of the so-called Republics of the
> Soviet Union—in much travel over many years. I know many, many Communists,
> know them and like them. Like them? Of all the major peoples on this planet
> the Russians and the Chinese are the most like us, the ones I like best—and
> it is a matter of deep sorrow to me that these sweet and warmhearted people
> should be elected by the logic of history to be our antagonists.
>
> I wish you all could know them as well as I do—and I wish you could have the
> tremendous advantage, as I had, of having a wife who had gone to the
> tremendous effort of learning to speak Russian fluently before we went
> there.
> This is impossible for most people, I know—I was lucky. Nevertheless it is
> possible to learn something intellectually of how the Communist mind works
> by studying, hard and sympathetically, Dialectical Materi-alism, the history
> of Communism and other aspects of Marxism-Leninism.
> Know your enemy—the first law of war.
>
> If the American people and in particular American political leaders took the
> trouble to try to learn the mind and methods and high moral standards of
> their enemy, we would not behave as foolishly as we do.
> We might even save the lives of a third or more of our people.
>
> To understand him on his terms— Not on ours, not on our bourgeois,
> capitalistic, democratic, almost anarchistic terms—but to learn what he
> thinks of himself—and why. Learn that Russians love their country, are loyal
> to their own form of government mostly—probably a higher percentage than of
> Americans loyal to their government, honestly believe that Communism is the
> salvation of mankind—if we learned these things, we wouldn’t rely on Mr.
> Micawber’s solution and wait for something to turn up.
>
> However, I don’t see one chance in ten thousand of Americans—enough
> Americans—getting to know the mind of the enemy well enough to realize this.
> Won’t happen. Instead, we will go right on applying our own rather fuzzy and
> good-hearted humanitarianism and will go on applying to Communists our own
> parochial and rather naive standards—and will go on misunderstanding him and
> continue to be utterly surprised when he acts like a Communist.
> It will likely be the ruin of us. Only in the rather unlikely chance of us
> stumbling into a war—and winning it at a cost almost too dreadful to
> visualize—can I see anything but ruin ahead.
>
> However, if any of you, as individuals, want to understand the years ahead,
> just remember this: the key to it all is Communists are not villains.
>
> Not that this will do our country any good—because the vast majority of us
> will go on thinking of Communists either as devils, or as poor stupid clunks
> who can be seduced by sirloin steak. And this misconception is going to ruin
> us and kill many of us.
> ---- End Quote -----
>
> David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19835
From: Wayne H. Morgan" <morganwh@indy.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:27:54 -0700
Subject: Re: How to Be a Survivor
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Probably not practical in any large way. I read a post elsewhere from an
Israeli who said they've been losing about 60 people a year to terrorism for the
last 20 years. In contrast, they lose 500 a year to traffic accidents. They're
a little more watchful, but they go on with their lives; we need to do the same.
BTW, for those who don't know me, I work for the Indianapolis Dept. of Public
Safety as an Emergency Management Coordinator. Got my first call the other day
from a guy wanting to know if we were going to provide Chemical protective masks
and suits to the general population. I asked him if he was going to wear one
everyday for the forseeable future. About all we can do as private citizens is
be watchful/aware of what is happening around us; carry personal weapons for our
own protection and others' (if that's allowed in your philosophy and
jurisdiction); and run the other way if you see people dropping and doing the
"dying cockroach".
We can get through this mess, and I hope we prevail upon our elected officials
to do it with a minimum disruption of our freedoms.
Wayne Morgan
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
> Filksinger mentioned "Free Men" in another thread; but I've been mulling
> over some of the ideas in the essays and speeches found in Expanded Universe
> since the 12th or 13th. I found that my mind had morphed and melded some of
> those ideas over the last 20+ years so that something from "Pandora" has
> been securely fastened to a casually mentioned item in "Spinoff" that's
> firmly welded to a point from "Patrick Henry" etc.
>
> The one I keep coming back to is found in "How to Be a Survivor." Beginning
> with the third paragraph, page 166 of the February 1981 tradepaper
> edition--"Just a moment--a gentleman in the back row has a question.
> <continue to the end of the section> ... living on the spot with the X
> mark."
>
> Do similar ~rules~ apply to terrorism as they do (did?) to Nuclear war? Do
> we stand a better chance of surviving/winning if we spread out? Is this
> even possible/practical today?
>
> --
> Later,
>
> `rita
> Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19836
From: Wayne H. Morgan" <morganwh@indy.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:35:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William B. Dennis 2nd" wrote:
> "David" <davids_nc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bad1a06.0@news.sff.net...
> > The only arguably legitimate functions of the government are to protect
> > lives and property, punish wrongdoers, and resolve disputes- not to give
> > millions of dollars to every corporation that loses money due to economic
> > reversals, natural disaster, or even terrorism.
> >
> >
> > David
>
> The only legitimate role of government is to f*****g make sure the nation
> survives when attacked by aggressors. Airlines are part of our basic
> infrastructure. The government has a role in making sure it is safe to fly.
Yeah,, but you know, I think I agree with what my Public Safety Director said.
"If I can't bring my pistol on an airliner, I ain't goin'!". Read an article
by a 20-year airline mechanic who said it takes a _lot_ of bullets to bring
down a jetliner. Even if they'd been armed with pistols, it would have been
tough to hijack any of those airliners if a majority of the other passengers
had been armed as well, instead of being stripped of practically anything that
could be used as a weapon.
Wayne Morgan
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19837
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:32:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Would the Afghanis Welcome An Invasion?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
FS: Point well taken. Just getting to a potential ally could be
impossible.
BTW: The Pakistani seem reluctant allies at best. I read a
thoughtful piece suggesting that Iran would (secretly) enjoy our
trashing the Taliband regime. Too radical for them! Hard to
believe.
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 13:46:04 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
>news:g6aqqtshr9o898le3a6q3jiq0jjrd42r08@4ax.com...
>> FS: I heard on the news that the US had previously had held joint
>> military exercises with at least one of the following: Turkmenistan,
>> Uzbekistan and/or Tajikistan. One of them may offer our forces a
>> ground bridge into Afghanistan.
>> They are located on the northern border of Afghanistan, East of
>> China.
>>
>> Ed J
>
>All require we fly over at least one other country to get to them. We'd
>better have the entire route in agreement to allow us to proceed, even to
>the point of invasion, before we rely to heavily on them.
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19838
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:31:20 -0600
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>"Wayne H. Morgan" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Well it looks like Heinlein was wrong on this one
and so are you. Russians
<br>eagerly took to "capitalism" when they finally got the chance, and
the Chinese
<br>will do the same if they get the chance. Hasn't got a thing to
do with us or
<br>our philosophy, the opportunity for personal wealth offers a lot of
options to
<br>the individual.</blockquote>
I was going to point this out. On the other hand, I don't believe
Heinlein was wrong. I believe he spoke to the true believers (there
are always some in any society and perhaps due to the internal logic of
communism those were the only ones who dared talk to a tourist.)
I don't believe we're going to seduce the true muslim believers with stake.
But the majority of the population, groaning under the rule of Taliban,
are not true believers. At best they are uneducated and poorly served
in news and knowledge of the world.
<br>THEY are the ones we could seduce. Maybe the one we will seduce.
<br>I refuse to believe any woman, no matter how perversely pious might
enjoy going around in desert heat dressed like an ill-stuffed sofa.
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19839
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:42:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
ROTFLMAO
Ed J
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19840
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 00:33:40 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> In article <3BB14E13.4DB1007C@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
> ...
> > ...my impression is that it
> > doesn't take a very big hole to let in enough vacuum to knock everybody out pretty
> > quickly.
>
> Wouldn't that be a good thing, as long as the integrity of the flight
> deck was not breached?
I'm admittedly flying somewhat blind on the engineering side of this question, but I
have a pretty fair layman's grasp of the physiology, having taken a class in space life
support systems that included a lot of information on the effects of low pressure on
the body.... and I'm pretty sure that loss of cabin pressure at altitude would *never*
be a Good Thing. The body's ability to oxygenate the blood is a product of *both* the
oxygen content of the air and the pressure: Even on 100% supplemental oxygen, if the
pressure's too low, none of it will diffuse from the lungs into the blood. Those little
Dixie-cup masks in the passenger cabin might calm folks down and give them something to
do with their hands, but they *won't* keep anyone awake (or alive) in a fully
depressurized cabin. The flight deck crew *might* have positive-pressure masks -- I
don't know -- but if they can't get to them within single-digit seconds, everyone
aboard is toast. And since the occasion for the hypothetical decompression we were
discussing was a shootout between the crew and would-be hijackers, chances are they
might be just a bit distracted. I never did hear the final report from the Payne
Stewart crash, but reports at the time seemed to suggest they made no attempt to
descend, which is the standard (only) remedy for loss of cabin pressure. Thus, it seems
likely that everyone onboard was out cold before any of them had a chance to react at
all. Of course, that's a smaller plane (=faster decompression) at higher altitude
(=even less pressure), but I think cruising altitude for a commercial airliner is
plenty high enough.
As for cockpit integrity, fortifying the door is one thing, and I think that will
happen pretty quickly. But providing an independent pressurization system for the
flight deck is a whole 'nother deal; I wouldn't expect to see that anytime soon.
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19841
From: SpaceCadet <cadozo@planet-save.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 00:10:24 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Someone over on Joe Haldeman's group suggested arming the
flight crew with Tazers.
Carol
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19842
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 06:13:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>As for cockpit integrity, fortifying the door is one thing, and I think that will
>happen pretty quickly. But providing an independent pressurization system for the
>flight deck is a whole 'nother deal; I wouldn't expect to see that anytime soon.
Of course, fortifying the door won't do a darned bit of good as long
as the bathroom is on the outside of it, at least on long flights
sooner or later the pilots are going to open the door.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19843
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:14:41 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bb0c4b5.0@news.sff.net...
> Deb,
> I just saw that program and have to agree. Our money would be best spent
on
> infiltrating their culture as best we can. Voice of America broadcast
24/7.
Please. My job has been hard enough these past two weeks, with the 10 new or
expanded broadcasts in Arabic, Pashto, Dari and Urdu. There is no way we can
add anything else without more studios, broadcasters and technicians.
But in theory, I support the idea!
WJaKe
Broadcast Operations Supervisor
Voice of America
P.S. I won't go into how the State Department is trying to censor the Pashto
broadcasts. See the Washington Post from Monday or Tuesday this week.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19844
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:28:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote
> > The third pilot/navigator is an option. That position
> > used to be a flight engineer and about 30 years ago was changed to a
> > pilot--change it again to a specialized position to include aircraft
> > security.
>
> That position was not changed - it was eliminated, on all but the B727.
Do you mean 747? It appears the Jumbo Jets still carry a flight engineer.
http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=97
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19845
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:56:26 -0400
Subject: Re: How to Be a Survivor
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote
And I feel an overwhelming need to do this. Just leave my city behind --
it's a strategic target -- and head to the middle of nowhere, with goats and
chickens and ammo to hunt and... you know what I mean.
Does anyone else have the same "urge"?
As I work two blocks from the Capitol building, and have to pass by the
Pentagon every day to get there, the thought has crossed my mind, especially
in the first few days. I have decided that I am doing something, however
small it may be, that can help in this battle against terrorism.
Plus I'm greedy. I don't see the risk outweighing the benefits of my current
job. I don't have a family to worry about, so the risk is all my own. We'll
have to see how long the balance remains. But this is a risk I've thought
about, on and off, since I moved out here.
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19846
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:03:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:35:19 -0700, "Wayne H. Morgan"
<morganwh@indy.net> wrote:
>Yeah,, but you know, I think I agree with what my Public Safety Director said.
>"If I can't bring my pistol on an airliner, I ain't goin'!". Read an article
>by a 20-year airline mechanic who said it takes a _lot_ of bullets to bring
>down a jetliner. Even if they'd been armed with pistols, it would have been
>tough to hijack any of those airliners if a majority of the other passengers
>had been armed as well, instead of being stripped of practically anything that
>could be used as a weapon.
Hear,hear
Even without weapons, apparently where the people fought, the
hijackers didn't succeed. I would venture that if the government
hadn't been spending the last two decades or so disarming the
citizenry we might be looking at quite a different sequence of events.
Gee, maybe a "well armed miltia" does mean the general populace
(imagine that), not that the founding fathers would know anything
about guerilla warfare.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19847
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:21:51 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BB2AC21.2DFE47D1@ix.netcom.com>, Bill Dauphin writes...
....
> The body's ability to oxygenate the blood is a product of *both* the
> oxygen content of the air and the pressure: Even on 100% supplemental oxygen, if the
> pressure's too low, none of it will diffuse from the lungs into the blood.
I understand that, Bill.
> Those little
> Dixie-cup masks in the passenger cabin might calm folks down and give them something to
> do with their hands, but they *won't* keep anyone awake (or alive) in a fully
> depressurized cabin.
My understanding is that the oxygen generators used in commercial
aircraft do provide some pressure. Are you arguing that government
regulations require a useless device?
A commercial aircraft could descend at 5000 feet per minute or more in an
emergency. Perhaps the generators are meant to be effective at, say,
20,000 feet, a "high" altitude, but one with /some/ pressure, and
reachable from cruise altitude in a relatively short period of time.
> The flight deck crew *might* have positive-pressure masks -- I
> don't know -- but if they can't get to them within single-digit seconds, everyone
> aboard is toast.
The flight deck has pressurized oxygen from a bottle.
> And since the occasion for the hypothetical decompression we were
> discussing was a shootout between the crew and would-be hijackers, chances are they
> might be just a bit distracted.
That was not the scenario I had in mind. The idea was that the pilots
would depressurize the aircraft without leaving the flight deck. As I
said in another post, I am not claiming that this action would stop all
hijacking attempts. And I obviously don't /know/ if it would stop any.
I just see it as a feasible idea.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19848
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:26:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bb2c6bd.0@news.sff.net>, William J. Keaton writes...
>
> "Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote
> > > The third pilot/navigator is an option. That position
> > > used to be a flight engineer and about 30 years ago was changed to a
> > > pilot--change it again to a specialized position to include aircraft
> > > security.
> >
> > That position was not changed - it was eliminated, on all but the B727.
>
>
> Do you mean 747? It appears the Jumbo Jets still carry a flight engineer.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The old 747's had a flight
engineer. The only plane still flying (in the U.S.) commercially with a
flight engineer is the 727.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19849
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 00:52:09 -0700
Subject: Re: How to Be a Survivor
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Wayne H. Morgan" <morganwh@indy.net> wrote in message
news:3BB2AACA.5C2818CC@indy.net...
<snip> from a guy wanting to know if we were going to provide Chemical
protective masks
> and suits to the general population. I asked him if he was going to wear
one
> everyday for the forseeable future.
Here, downwind from both The Hanford Nuclear Reservation and The Umatilla
Army Depot (chemical weapons,) some people are doing just that. Gas masks
and Hazmat suits are sold out.
I live in a rural area about five miles out of town. Easy to forget that
two "superfund" sites are less than fifty miles from me and are great
targets for terrorists. Not to mention those great masses of concrete
across the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Two major dams are almost in my
backyard. Maybe I should just go paint the bull's-eye in frontyard now.
I guess that it doesn't matter where we live. The United States is a target
rich environment. I thought of reasons evil doers would attack my cousin's
little village high in the hills 60 miles east of Moscow, ID. I thought of
reasons even the most innocent among us would be a primary target. Most of
those reasons won't make sense to the majority of us, but the events of
September 11 don't make sense either.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19850
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:52:23 GMT
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Even without weapons, apparently where the people fought, the
>hijackers didn't succeed. I would venture that if the government
>hadn't been spending the last two decades or so disarming the
>citizenry we might be looking at quite a different sequence of events.
It's not the weapons. It's the people and pilots on flights having
been trained for 20 years to cooperate with hijackers. Passengers are
supposed to stay still and be quiet; avoid the hijackers' notice.
Pilots are trained to do what the hijackers want and get the plane on
the ground so the sitation can be dealt with there. These guys used
our own safety policies against us.
I've never heard if the alledged bomb on the Pennsylvania flight was
real and exploded or not. But there was debris spread over six
miles--that doesn't happen if a plane just dives in.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19851
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:52:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>We need to turn them in to happy, healthy
>consumers that will learn to fight for their right to watch the world cup
>soccer match on their big screen TVs while drinking hot tea freshly brewed
>in the Mr. Tea maker.
Jeff--
While I like the sentiments, and it worked on the Russians, as I
pointed out elsewhere, the guys who took these planes and crashed them
_had_ all the best America had to offer right in front of them... and
still chose death for their cause.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19852
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 13:29:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net> wrote in message
news:3BB28F78.9FA3EB09@sff.net...
<snip>
> I don't believe we're going to seduce the true muslim believers with
stake.
I agree. Stake isn't for seducing Muslims, it is for killing vampires.
_Steak_, OTOH....
Sorry, couldn't resist. To much talking to Buffy fans of late.
And I agree with you.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19853
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 14:26:39 -0600
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<p><snip>
<br>> I don't believe we're going to seduce the true muslim believers with
<br>stake.
<p>I agree. Stake isn't for seducing Muslims, it is for killing vampires.
<br>_Steak_, OTOH....
<p>Sorry, couldn't resist. To much talking to Buffy fans of late.
<p>And I agree with you.
<p>Filksinger</blockquote>
<p><br>OW. In my defense I'm still under con-crud. Actually,
this year I had pre-con-crud and now I have post-con-crud (two, two, two
for the price of one.)
<p>Also, I obviously wrote one too many vampire stories (two sold so far
this year. :-)=)
<p>Thanks for a much needed laugh.
<br><br>
Sarah
<br> </html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19854
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:49:12 -0700
Subject: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
http://www.dailyprobe.com/
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19855
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:12:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bb329bb.1268266@NEWS.SFF.NET...
<snip>
> Prepared highjackers would have prepared for that and secured the
> flight attendents' portable masks. They'd be able to do that before
> the pilots knew there was a problem. Probably all that would be
> accomplished would be to suffocate a few infants (I was in a row of
> three once with _five_ people--three adults, two unpaid kids--how many
> oxygen masks? and how agreeable was that father going to be to letting
> me have one? children not strapped into their own seats should be
> banned.).
It is possible to share a mask. I agree, but nevertheless you can share the
mask.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19856
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 18:38:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Bill Dauphin" <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3BB2AC21.2DFE47D1@ix.netcom.com...
<snip>
> Those little
> Dixie-cup masks in the passenger cabin might calm folks down and give them
something to
> do with their hands, but they *won't* keep anyone awake (or alive) in a
fully
> depressurized cabin. The flight deck crew *might* have positive-pressure
masks -- I
> don't know -- but if they can't get to them within single-digit seconds,
everyone
> aboard is toast.
Why single-digit? Even chimpanzees in vacuum tests managed about 20 seconds,
IIRC, before sudden blackout. Was I misinformed?
> And since the occasion for the hypothetical decompression we were
> discussing was a shootout between the crew and would-be hijackers, chances
are they
> might be just a bit distracted.
If they have no guns, they'll be a lot more distracted. Shot people are
really distracted; they often stop paying attention for excessively long
periods of time.
I may not want to trust the pilot with the ability to decompress the plane
(which he won't have), but if I don't give him a gun, then the terrorist is
the only one with that ability. Not an improvement.If a pilot is so
threatened that he actually thinks shooting people is a good idea, he's
probably right. Why is trusting him with a gun more dangerous than trusting
him with total control of the entire craft?
I have been checking out various reports on this. It is the opinion of
people who actually know that bullets will rarely penetrate the side of the
plane, will not decompress the cabin to the point of unconsciousness if they
do, and stand no chance of taking out vital systems. Except the pilots or
cockpit. Which means that those must be defended at all costs.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19857
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:51:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> Why single-digit? Even chimpanzees in vacuum tests managed about 20 seconds,
> IIRC, before sudden blackout. Was I misinformed?
I'm not sure on this one. I've heard similar stories myself, but I've also seen
video of student volunteers in a hypobaric (altitude) chamber at (IIRC) 30 kft
equivalent altitude: Take off the mask, out cold. No waiting. I think a lot has
to do with circumstances, including how fast the pressure drops and what
condition the subject is in. With proper training and acclimation, it's
possible to climb Mt. Everest (28+ kft) without supplemental oxygen... but if
any one of us were transported directly from sea level to the summit, we would
die almost instantly. Suffice it to say there's no evidence that anyone on
Payne Stewart's plane had anything like 20 seconds in which to try to save the
flight.
> If they have no guns, they'll be a lot more distracted. Shot people are
> really distracted; they often stop paying attention for excessively long
> periods of time.
Whoa, there! Re-read the thread: I'm NOT arguing against arming the pilots. I
was just musing about what might be the right sort of ammo to arm them with!
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19858
From: tom@goodsol.com (Thomas Warfield)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:02:02 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Well, this is interesting. I thought I'd drop in and see the HF
reaction to the attacks. It's pretty much as predicted.
It's pretty clear that the Libertarian Party is going to be a casualty
of the attacks. No one is going to take them seriously if this is
their reaction to the attacks (assuming, of course, that anyone took
them seriously beforehand).
The simple fact is that we can't have airplanes coming out of the sky
and hitting buildings. It's bad for people's lives, it's bad for
civilization, it's bad for business. The government has to do what it
takes to stop it from happening. Some of the rule changes may be
silly. Restricting "curbside check-in" won't stop any hijacker, but I
didn't even know that such a thing existed. It's just a convenience,
not a fundamental constitutional right. It's like saying that
drive-thrus in restaurants are a fundamental constitution right. But
the rule change that really will stop them is restricting knives from
flights. I can't believe a 4 inch knife was legal to carry on a plane
prior to Sept 11. It was a problem waiting to happen. We've got to
stop this from happening again. Unless people feel safe flying, many
people won't fly. That will cause severe damage to the economy and to
our country.
The country will never be the same again. It's happened before. We
were a different country after the civil war than we were before it.
We were different on December 8, 1941 than we were on December 6,
1941. Airline travel won't be as free as it was before. Our borders
won't be as easy to cross as they were before. Foreign nationals
won't be able to do as many things as they were able to do before.
We'll eventually find a new balance between freedom and security.
Of all the comments in this thread, I have to say that I like Deb's
the best. She's dead on right.
Tomstaafl
tom@goodsol.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19859
From: tom@goodsol.com (Thomas Warfield)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:02:03 GMT
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> Yes, the airlines as a group have been deficient in customer
>service.
The airlines are a spectacularly unprofitable group of companies.
They have extraordinary fixed costs. You can't expect to get great
service for a couple of hundred bucks. By the time the fuel costs and
the plane costs and the airport costs are paid, there just isn't much
money left for service. In fact, usually there isn't any (they lose
money). Good service costs money. The big mistake the airlines made
was to cut prices so far. They never should have let the decision of
which airline to fly be made primarily on price. That always turns an
industry into a commodity.
Tomstaafl
tom@goodsol.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19860
From: tom@goodsol.com (Thomas Warfield)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:02:03 GMT
Subject: Re: I Never Thought I'd Say This
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>One of the simplest ways to avoid most worms, trojans, and other
>"active" hacks: Don't use Outlook.
Absolutely. Outlook is awful. I recommend PocoMail
<http://www.pocomail.com>. It's a great email program, it does
everything anyone who does email in volume (hundreds of messages per
day) could want. And you won't get infected by any of the email
viruses (unless you go out of your way to run an infected attachment).
As another bonus, I know the author of the program so I've gotten many
of my feature requests implemented.
Tomstaafl
tom@goodsol.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19861
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 21:07:08 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Thomas Warfield wrote:
> The simple fact is that we can't have airplanes coming out of the sky
> and hitting buildings. It's bad for people's lives, it's bad for
> civilization, it's bad for business.
And, hey, it's WAY bad for the airplanes.
> Unless people feel safe flying, many people won't fly.
We are; Sacramento to San Diego tomorrow (Friday) and back on Sunday. A
long-planned trip, mostly planned to give two of our kids their first
airplane ride. (Not the twins - the twins already have Frequent Flyer
cards. The two middle girls managed to miss out on any flying trips.)
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19862
From: Catherine Hampton <xzm@hrweb.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:19:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:49:12 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>http://www.dailyprobe.com/
Silly. :) But I needed to laugh.
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
REVEAL * <http://www.reveal.org/>
The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19863
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 08:42:27 -0400
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> >Even without weapons, apparently where the people fought, the
> >hijackers didn't succeed. I would venture that if the government
> >hadn't been spending the last two decades or so disarming the
> >citizenry we might be looking at quite a different sequence of events.
>
> It's not the weapons. It's the people and pilots on flights having
> been trained for 20 years to cooperate with hijackers. Passengers are
> supposed to stay still and be quiet; avoid the hijackers' notice.
> Pilots are trained to do what the hijackers want and get the plane on
> the ground so the sitation can be dealt with there. These guys used
> our own safety policies against us.
What Deb said. Three to five hijackers can't get the job done if the
passengers are willing to fight back, regardless of who has what weapons.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19864
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:12:57 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bb3f026.114604195@news.sff.net>, Thomas Warfield writes...
> Well, this is interesting. I thought I'd drop in and see the HF
> reaction to the attacks. It's pretty much as predicted.
>
> It's pretty clear that the Libertarian Party is going to be a casualty
> of the attacks. No one is going to take them seriously if this is
> their reaction to the attacks (assuming, of course, that anyone took
> them seriously beforehand).
I'm a little puzzled. Your post was a reply to my message, but I didn't
mention the Libertarian Party's reaction. I'm not sure what it has been.
Did someone else post it here?
> The simple fact is that we can't have airplanes coming out of the sky
> and hitting buildings. It's bad for people's lives, it's bad for
> civilization, it's bad for business. The government has to do what it
> takes to stop it from happening.
As I have been arguing with Bill, "what it takes" is not a well-defined
phrase. Ending civilization would end terrorists attacks, but I doubt
that is what you or Bill want. So, I think you mean "what it takes,
consistent with lives, civilization, and business". And that is where
the interesting dialogue begins. What /is/ that, exactly?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19865
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:29:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Good post. Thank you for sharing. How do you feel about this quote knowing
that the Soviet Union no longer exists? Do you think Western culture had
much influence?
Jeff
"David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:3bb27b24.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bb0c4b5.0@news.sff.net...
> > Deb,
> > I just saw that program and have to agree. Our money would be best
spent
> on
> > infiltrating their culture as best we can. Voice of America broadcast
> 24/7.
> > Smuggle in battery operated TVs and radios. Air drop everything from
soap
> to
> > Captain Crunch. Make them want more and more. I'm suggesting the
"pusher"
> > strategy. They think they hate the West, but they'll learn to want our
> stuff
> > after they get hooked on it. We need to turn them in to happy, healthy
> > consumers that will learn to fight for their right to watch the world
cup
> > soccer match on their big screen TVs while drinking hot tea freshly
brewed
> > in the Mr. Tea maker. We could spend billions doing this and it would
be
> > cheaper than a small war. The greatest enemy of the Taliban is
knowledge,
> > and we could show them all what they're missing out on. Hmm, sounds a
bit
> > satanic to me. I'm going to have to think about that.
>
> (snip)
>
> I'm afraid that I agree with Heinlein on this subject. In his 1961 GOH
> speech he spoke on the same subject with a different antagonist in mind.
> What he said about the communists would, I believe, apply even more so to
> muslims who would be even further entrenched in their belief system than
the
> communists. Remember also, that our problem is with 'fanatical' muslims
who
> are even further out.
>
>
> ----- Begin Quote ------ Requiem p233-234
> Communists are nice people, almost all of them. They are sincere, they are
> true believers-and they won't be seduced by sirloin steaks. I have been in
> six Communist countries and in eight of the so-called Republics of the
> Soviet Union-in much travel over many years. I know many, many Communists,
> know them and like them. Like them? Of all the major peoples on this
planet
> the Russians and the Chinese are the most like us, the ones I like
best-and
> it is a matter of deep sorrow to me that these sweet and warmhearted
people
> should be elected by the logic of history to be our antagonists.
>
> I wish you all could know them as well as I do-and I wish you could have
the
> tremendous advantage, as I had, of having a wife who had gone to the
> tremendous effort of learning to speak Russian fluently before we went
> there.
> This is impossible for most people, I know-I was lucky. Nevertheless it is
> possible to learn something intellectually of how the Communist mind works
> by studying, hard and sympathetically, Dialectical Materi-alism, the
history
> of Communism and other aspects of Marxism-Leninism.
> Know your enemy-the first law of war.
>
> If the American people and in particular American political leaders took
the
> trouble to try to learn the mind and methods and high moral standards of
> their enemy, we would not behave as foolishly as we do.
> We might even save the lives of a third or more of our people.
>
> To understand him on his terms- Not on ours, not on our bourgeois,
> capitalistic, democratic, almost anarchistic terms-but to learn what he
> thinks of himself-and why. Learn that Russians love their country, are
loyal
> to their own form of government mostly-probably a higher percentage than
of
> Americans loyal to their government, honestly believe that Communism is
the
> salvation of mankind-if we learned these things, we wouldn't rely on Mr.
> Micawber's solution and wait for something to turn up.
>
> However, I don't see one chance in ten thousand of Americans-enough
> Americans-getting to know the mind of the enemy well enough to realize
this.
> Won't happen. Instead, we will go right on applying our own rather fuzzy
and
> good-hearted humanitarianism and will go on applying to Communists our own
> parochial and rather naive standards-and will go on misunderstanding him
and
> continue to be utterly surprised when he acts like a Communist.
> It will likely be the ruin of us. Only in the rather unlikely chance of us
> stumbling into a war-and winning it at a cost almost too dreadful to
> visualize-can I see anything but ruin ahead.
>
> However, if any of you, as individuals, want to understand the years
ahead,
> just remember this: the key to it all is Communists are not villains.
>
> Not that this will do our country any good-because the vast majority of us
> will go on thinking of Communists either as devils, or as poor stupid
clunks
> who can be seduced by sirloin steak. And this misconception is going to
ruin
> us and kill many of us.
> ---- End Quote -----
>
> David Wright
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19866
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:34:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Will, I totally forgot that's what you did! Sorry. But of course I was
suggesting that our money "might" be better spent on trying to influence
their culture than a traditional military offensive. Long term goals are
key. We need to get our dirty deeds department up and running in high gear.
Infiltrate and change from within. People become religious fanatics because
they have a crappy life. Teaching them how to live more comfortable lives
will, in my opinion, lead down the happy road of capitalism and away from
extreme religion. Remember, even lions seem tame after they've had a good
meal.
Jeff
Jeff
"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bb2c399.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bb0c4b5.0@news.sff.net...
> > Deb,
> > I just saw that program and have to agree. Our money would be best
spent
> on
> > infiltrating their culture as best we can. Voice of America broadcast
> 24/7.
>
> Please. My job has been hard enough these past two weeks, with the 10 new
or
> expanded broadcasts in Arabic, Pashto, Dari and Urdu. There is no way we
can
> add anything else without more studios, broadcasters and technicians.
>
> But in theory, I support the idea!
>
> WJaKe
> Broadcast Operations Supervisor
> Voice of America
>
> P.S. I won't go into how the State Department is trying to censor the
Pashto
> broadcasts. See the Washington Post from Monday or Tuesday this week.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19867
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:41:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
So, where does that leave us? Fanatics = Insanity (?). Greg Bear offered
some solutions to anti-social tendencies--forced therapy. The kind that
really rewrites your mind. Is that what we will eventually need to do?
Maybe, but for now I think it's best for us to examine our culture and try
to figure out why we like to be entertained by things blowing up, and then
are so horrified when it really happens. How have we been able to distance
ourselves from our "entertainment culture" to such a degree that we didn't
think it would motivate some nut to do something similar? We are a culture
in denial, and that may be just as dangerous as what any terrorist could do.
I don't have an answer, but I do think this is the problem.
Jeff
"Deb Houdek Rule" <debrule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bb466eb.763414@NEWS.SFF.NET...
>
> >We need to turn them in to happy, healthy
> >consumers that will learn to fight for their right to watch the world cup
> >soccer match on their big screen TVs while drinking hot tea freshly
brewed
> >in the Mr. Tea maker.
>
> Jeff--
> While I like the sentiments, and it worked on the Russians, as I
> pointed out elsewhere, the guys who took these planes and crashed them
> _had_ all the best America had to offer right in front of them... and
> still chose death for their cause.
>
>
> Deb (D.A. Houdek)
> http://www.dahoudek.com
> http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19868
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:51:20 -0600
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I forgot in my early post, evaluating the quote, when I claimed that we could
seduce Afghanis with steaks, (or stake the true believers through the heart)
that another thread came into play in bringing the soviet union to its knees:
severe economic distress, brought on by an unrelenting in the armament war --
okay, don't all shout, I know they would have been in economic distress, anyway,
sooner or later, but we sped it up -- and by our refusing to believe they were
more moral than us (which we came close to doing in the seventies, people -- and
still do in most colleges, God help us) and continuing to pound them with our
"decadent" music, our consumer goods, our refusal to roll over and die from
"decadence" which, eventually, got even to (most) of their true believers. (the
fact that we didn't hang the commissars from their own guts (Puppet Masters) is
something else again, and something that may raise the spectrum of communism
from its grave again and again, until no stake is big enough to put it back.)
So, do we stop Aid to Afghanistani refugees? Hardly. How will THAT distress
their elite? Hell, they kill their people for sport. However arming the rebels
is a jolly good idea. And as for dirty tricks, I think it's more than high time
someone deploys the department of two guys named Vinnie.
Sarah
Jeff Minor wrote:
> Will, I totally forgot that's what you did! Sorry. But of course I was
> suggesting that our money "might" be better spent on trying to influence
> their culture than a traditional military offensive. Long term goals are
> key. We need to get our dirty deeds department up and running in high gear.
> Infiltrate and change from within. People become religious fanatics because
> they have a crappy life. Teaching them how to live more comfortable lives
> will, in my opinion, lead down the happy road of capitalism and away from
> extreme religion. Remember, even lions seem tame after they've had a good
> meal.
>
> Jeff
>
> Jeff
>
> "William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:3bb2c399.0@news.sff.net...
> >
> > "Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3bb0c4b5.0@news.sff.net...
> > > Deb,
> > > I just saw that program and have to agree. Our money would be best
> spent
> > on
> > > infiltrating their culture as best we can. Voice of America broadcast
> > 24/7.
> >
> > Please. My job has been hard enough these past two weeks, with the 10 new
> or
> > expanded broadcasts in Arabic, Pashto, Dari and Urdu. There is no way we
> can
> > add anything else without more studios, broadcasters and technicians.
> >
> > But in theory, I support the idea!
> >
> > WJaKe
> > Broadcast Operations Supervisor
> > Voice of America
> >
> > P.S. I won't go into how the State Department is trying to censor the
> Pashto
> > broadcasts. See the Washington Post from Monday or Tuesday this week.
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19869
From: Wayne Morgan <morganwh@indy.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:39:58 -0500
Subject: Re: How to Be a Survivor
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
> "Wayne H. Morgan" <morganwh@indy.net> wrote in message
> news:3BB2AACA.5C2818CC@indy.net...
> <snip> from a guy wanting to know if we were going to provide Chemical
> protective masks
> > and suits to the general population. I asked him if he was going to wear
> one
> > everyday for the forseeable future.
>
> Here, downwind from both The Hanford Nuclear Reservation and The Umatilla
> Army Depot (chemical weapons,) some people are doing just that. Gas masks
> and Hazmat suits are sold out.
>
> I live in a rural area about five miles out of town. Easy to forget that
> two "superfund" sites are less than fifty miles from me and are great
> targets for terrorists. Not to mention those great masses of concrete
> across the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Two major dams are almost in my
> backyard. Maybe I should just go paint the bull's-eye in frontyard now.
>
> I guess that it doesn't matter where we live. The United States is a target
> rich environment. I thought of reasons evil doers would attack my cousin's
> little village high in the hills 60 miles east of Moscow, ID. I thought of
> reasons even the most innocent among us would be a primary target. Most of
> those reasons won't make sense to the majority of us, but the events of
> September 11 don't make sense either.
>
> --
> Later,
>
> `rita
> Almost live from Finley, WA.
I'll bet people won't be wearing them long (masks/suits). Also picked up
somewhere that our Nuke plants are designed to be able to take an airliner
impact; it was part of the design criteria.
Wayne
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19870
From: Wayne Morgan <morganwh@indy.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:51:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jeff Minor wrote:
> So, where does that leave us? Fanatics = Insanity (?). Greg Bear offered
> some solutions to anti-social tendencies--forced therapy. The kind that
> really rewrites your mind. Is that what we will eventually need to do?
> Maybe, but for now I think it's best for us to examine our culture and try
> to figure out why we like to be entertained by things blowing up, and then
> are so horrified when it really happens. How have we been able to distance
> ourselves from our "entertainment culture" to such a degree that we didn't
> think it would motivate some nut to do something similar? We are a culture
> in denial, and that may be just as dangerous as what any terrorist could do.
> I don't have an answer, but I do think this is the problem.
>
(snipped)
I don't think we need to "rewrite their minds". IMO, what we need to do is
systematically hunt down and destroy this current crop of terrorists; punish
(militarily or otherwise) any government which supports or shelters terrorist
cells; and vigorously defend ourselves from terrorism wherever it shows itself.
When we've shown the world it's futile to attempt to influence us this way, THEN
we can begin to "win their hearts and minds".
I hope we have the stomach for it.
Wayne Morgan
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19871
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 11:56:41 GMT
Subject: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
It struck me, in the week following the attacks & since, that given
the scope of what's being proposed (a war on terrorism), the supposed
cooperation that it's going to entail (if it pans out), & the drawing
of the lines (those who aren't with us, are with the terrorists) & the
length of what this campaign is gonna take, that we very well may be
seeing the seeds of the first true World Government.
It's gonna need some teeth to work & I imagine that it will start with
some type of extra-national Police/Military/Counter-terrorism Agency
(kinda UN,NATO,Interpol et al) then build from there.
Any takers?, Comments & opinions welcome.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19872
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:52:13 -0500
Subject: Re: It's All Geek to Me
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I don't have a specific answer, but in general, there is a set of 'codes'
sent back and forth during downloads. The correct answer is found in
RFC959 and dense reading it is.
Dean
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3b8435db.0@news.sff.net...
> OK, here's a question for the geeks around here. The fact that I'm
asking
> should scare you.:)
>
> Long ago in Internet time, there was a problem were certain ISPs would
fail
> to recognize that a connection was live while it was in use, and
disconnect
> the user. This happened particularly in certain games and in FTP
downloads.
>
> FTP programs (and, presumably, the games) solved this problem by doing
> _something_ to indicate that the connection was live during a download.
I
> have been told different things, such as sending a ping every so often,
or
> sending an FTP command, or a particular character, so as to show the
> connection as live to the ISP.
>
> Does anybody know just how this worked?
>
> Filksinger
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19873
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:11:00 -0400
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Fader: What is it, you trying to rile people up? <BWG> ;-)
Heinlein warned us in more than one story of just that possibility:
a world government that would trample on the rights of individual US
citizens. I am in favor of a massive cooperation of individual
world powers in this coming battle against Global terrorism. I
think that all nations, great and small should act together to root
out and destroy terror organizations throughout the world. And to
join together in a coalition of military forces to attach those
nations who think that terrorism is a good idea and that acts of
terrorism are to be applauded or supported.
I am just opposed to giving up our rights to some larger, governing
body.
Ed J (2 cents worth).
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 11:56:41 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>It struck me, in the week following the attacks & since, that given
>the scope of what's being proposed (a war on terrorism), the supposed
>cooperation that it's going to entail (if it pans out), & the drawing
>of the lines (those who aren't with us, are with the terrorists) & the
>length of what this campaign is gonna take, that we very well may be
>seeing the seeds of the first true World Government.
>
>It's gonna need some teeth to work & I imagine that it will start with
>some type of extra-national Police/Military/Counter-terrorism Agency
>(kinda UN,NATO,Interpol et al) then build from there.
>
>Any takers?, Comments & opinions welcome.
>
>Fader
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19874
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:28:54 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:02:02 GMT, tom@goodsol.com (Thomas Warfield)
wrote:
>Well, this is interesting. I thought I'd drop in and see the HF
>reaction to the attacks. It's pretty much as predicted.
>
>It's pretty clear that the Libertarian Party is going to be a casualty
>of the attacks. No one is going to take them seriously if this is
>their reaction to the attacks (assuming, of course, that anyone took
>them seriously beforehand).
>
I don't know that it's "pretty clear" about *anything* in the
aftermath of the attacks. And the press releases the LP have been
sending out have been consistent with their message all along, whether
or not you like that message. The LP is still the best organized of
the minor parties. Even though I don't like parts of their platform,
I like them better than the Republicrats.
I'm curious, Tomstaafl...since I know you have an opinion, lay out for
us your multi-pronged plan that Bush & Co. should be following now,
for the short, near, and far-term. I'm not badgering, I am truly
interested!
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19875
From: Catherine Hampton <xzm@hrweb.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:48:12 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:11:00 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>Fader: What is it, you trying to rile people up? <BWG> ;-)
And here I was all ready to pull out my silver cross, holy water,
garlic, and a wooden stake to meet Fader at the crossroads at
midnight. <wry grin>
>Heinlein warned us in more than one story of just that possibility:
>a world government that would trample on the rights of individual US
>citizens. I am in favor of a massive cooperation of individual
>world powers in this coming battle against Global terrorism. I
>think that all nations, great and small should act together to root
>out and destroy terror organizations throughout the world. And to
>join together in a coalition of military forces to attach those
>nations who think that terrorism is a good idea and that acts of
>terrorism are to be applauded or supported.
>I am just opposed to giving up our rights to some larger, governing
>body.
Agreed. The risks are simply too great.
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
REVEAL * <http://www.reveal.org/>
The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19876
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:46:08 -0600
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br>>Fader: What is it, you trying to rile people up? <BWG>
;-)
<p>And here I was all ready to pull out my silver cross, holy water,
<br>garlic, and a wooden stake to meet Fader at the crossroads at
<br>midnight. <wry grin></blockquote>
Aye, Ariel. And I was getting my sirloin all ready too (Sorry,
your spelling was correct. I'm in silly mode, though. Couldn't
resist.) :-)
<p>Agreed on the rest.
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19877
From: kevin mcgillicuddy" <kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 19:09:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:3BB47032.10A89F27@dfci.harvard.edu...
<snip>
> What Deb said. Three to five hijackers can't get the job done if the
> passengers are willing to fight back, regardless of who has what weapons.
>
> --
> Eli V. Hestermann
> Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
> "Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
>
The following is probably too long to post here, and I can't vouch for the
source (got it from a friend by email). I don't agree with some of it,
however, it's provocative, so FWIW, here goes.
McKevin
>My name is John Burnett. I am a DC-10 Captain for FedEx. I am also a Police
Officer for the Memphis Police Department. My purpose in writing this is to
share some of my thoughts regarding actions a pilot might consider when
faced with a modern-day hijacker. These thoughts are "outside-the-box" when
it comes to the way we've all been trained. Neither the FAA or our companies
will suggest these techniques or implement them as a part of our normal
training cycles. They couldn't for fear of lawsuits. I am distributing this
via e-mail to buddies I've flown with. I'm asking them to send it to their
circle of friends within the industry, and for you to send it to yours. I
know most of us have e-mail, and I hope this reaches the next to face the
horror of some religious fanatic onboard. We have all had "training" in what
to do in case of a hijacking; try to keep the hijacker calm, make him think
you're doing what he wants, take him where ever he wants to go, etc., etc.,
etc. Save your passengers, your crew, and your aircraft. In an emergency,
you will revert to that training. When our unfortunate peers were faced with
the screams of the Flight Attendants and hijacker's demands to open the
cockpit door, their training probably made them open the door. When the
fanatics made demands, their training told them to comply as best they
could. I can only wonder what their thoughts were as they left the cockpit
and were tied up in the back of the plane; what they thought as they
descended over New York.... I hope the fanatics had to kill them in their
seats and drag their dead bodies out of the cockpit. But, I bet they did as
they were trained to do. As you look back over recent hijackings, FedEx,
and Egypt Air, and now the September 11th hijackings, you see a perpetrator
who, for one reason or another wants to take over the airplane and kill
himself. Each of these hijackers, except for the FedEx incident, were
successful. They took over the airplane and killed everyone onboard. If
you're following the news programs today, you hear a lot about how we could
let these hijackers learn to fly. You would think if knowing how to fly
would guarantee a successful hijacking, Auburn Calloway (the FedEx hijacker)
would have been a hijacker success story. Calloway had been a Navy pilot, a
martial arts student, a fellow FedEx crew member, and he took all the
weapons he needed: hammers, knives and a spear gun. He didn't have to
overcome any Flight Attendants or demand they open the cockpit door. He
just went back to his bag, took out his hammer came back into the cockpit
and started crushing skulls. The crew members on that flight didn't worry
about Flight Attendants, they didn't worry about passengers. All three
pilots left the cockpit and fought a hand-to-hand, life-or-death battle. To
survive today's hijacker, you cannot worry about your passengers; you cannot
worry about your Flight Attendants. You must develop a mind-set that
everyone onboard - including yourself - is already dead. Because, if the
hijacker is successful in taking over your airplane, not only you, your
crew, your passengers and your aircraft are lost, but thousands on the
ground are at risk. One of the reasons the FedEx crew survived is the
extraordinary actions of the co-pilot. Although he had brain injury, the
co-pilot took the DC-10 and immediately executed a half-roll. This maneuver
took the hijacker off his feet as the Captain and S/O were struggling with
him. During a point in the maneuver, the hijacker, Captain and S/O were
thrown back behind the cockpit door. When he righted the airplane, the F/O
then left his seat and joined the fight in the galley area of the plane. It
was only after the Captain determined the hijacker was subdued, he returned
to the cockpit and flew the airplane to landing. Very few of us have had to
confront true evil. Fewer still have seriously considered taking the life
of another human being. I believe this is the reason the FedEx crew did not
kill their attacker. The crew's heroism that day is beyond belief. And any
action that leads to a safe landing and recovery cannot be argued with.
But, when the Captain left the F/O and S/O, thinking the situation was under
control, he was mistaken. The F/O and S/O had sustained serious,
life-threatening injuries. The hijacker had not. As the Captain flew the
aircraft, the hijacker, who had surrendered, began the fight anew. As the
airplane landed, the hijacker was just moments away from overcoming the two
crew members. I mention this for your consideration. I would suggest that
you make a conscious decision to kill anyone who tries to take your airplane
from you. Today we are at war. The hijacker who comes through your cockpit
door is going to kill you and everyone onboard. So, how do you do that?
What weapons are available to us as pilots? The intercom. Command that all
men come forward and fight with the hijackers. You have many able-bodied
men onboard. They are sitting in shock not knowing what to do. Command
that they come forward and help you kill your attackers. And, they will
come. The airplane itself. Get the hijackers off their feet. Go into an
immediate dive to float them to the ceiling. Then execute a 6G positive
maneuver and hope they hit their head or break their back as they hit the
floor, galley shelf, etc. Pull the fire handles, shut the start levers and
turn the fuel valves off. If you lose the battle, at least the airplane
won't be used as a guided missile on a kamikaze mission. With luck, maybe
these guys didn't learn how to do an in-flight restart. Then leave the
cockpit - all of you, and kill your attackers - don't believe it when they
surrender - don't be nice to them - KILL THEM. Flare Gun If your airplane
has one, the Captain might consider making sure it's loaded and secured next
to his bag. I can think of nothing more satisfying than watching a ball of
burning phosphorous embedded into a fanatic's gut. The crash-axe. I would
suggest you have your co-pilot take it from it's holder and secure it next
to him so he has it immediately available. Makes an excellent skull
crusher. Your flashlight. The FAA use to require a 2 cell. A 3 cell
Mag-Light makes an excellent weapon. If your maneuvers have the hijackers
on the floor writhing in pain, crush their skulls. Your stolen hotel Bic
pen. Drive it into an attacker's eye, ear, throat, or into the area just
under the jaw bone. That's a particular interesting place to drive it,
because when he opens his mouth to scream, you can read "Hyatt" sticking
there. Your hand and fingers Drive your fingers into his eyes and try to
feel your fingernails scrape the back of his eye sockets. Scoop the
eyeballs out. It will confuse the hell out of him when he finds himself
looking at his shoes as they dangle there on the ocular nerves. Your teeth.
Remember Hannibal Lecter. Eat a nose, a cheek, or a finger. And keep
eating. Attack with all viciousness. A piranha is a small fish, but it's
greatly feared. A hijacker is not expecting you to eat him and it might
make him forget why he got on your airplane to begin with. It will, at
least, impress his buddies. Now here's my wish-list of things the FAA could
do to help, especially in this time of war. Arm the Captain. The battle is
not going to require any long shots. A small revolver would be a good
choice. It would hold off the attackers long enough for you to disable your
aircraft. If the attackers claimed the red package they were holding was a
bomb, I'd shoot out the door glass and hope the door would be ripped out and
the hijacker and his package would be sucked out. And hey, I if I got
sucked out with him, I'd try to fly my body to the hijacker look in his face
and laugh at him all the way to the ground. Invite The Police To Man The
Jump Seat. Police are always looking for something free. Donut shops use
to be a favorite target for robbers - until they started giving donuts to
the Police. Robbers don't rob donut shops anymore. I would suggest each
Police Department send the FAA a list of the best shots on the department
and those guys and their guns would be welcome on my airplane. Fill every
vacant seat with armed Police - give them a donut - and tell them to shoot
anyone who gives your Flight Attendant any shit. Stop this silly no-knife
rule. Make it public. Tell the public they're welcome to bring their
pocket knives onboard. Then everyone will bring them. So when you make
your Intercom call to the passengers for help, you'll have a dozen or more
knife wielding helpers trying to make sure their new Gerber tastes fanatics
blood. There are even a few of them who'd want to keep the fanatics ears as
souvenirs. None of us is immune. Take some time and consider your actions
if this event should ever happen to you. My prayer is none of you ever have
to face this kind of decision. Best of luck to you, and may God Bless.>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19878
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:34:48 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Catherine Hampton wrote:
>
>>Heinlein warned us in more than one story of just that possibility:
>>a world government that would trample on the rights of individual US
>>citizens. I am in favor of a massive cooperation of individual
>>world powers in this coming battle against Global terrorism. I
>>think that all nations, great and small should act together to root
>>out and destroy terror organizations throughout the world. And to
>>join together in a coalition of military forces to attach those
>>nations who think that terrorism is a good idea and that acts of
>>terrorism are to be applauded or supported.
>>I am just opposed to giving up our rights to some larger, governing
>>body.
>>
>
> Agreed. The risks are simply too great.
>
>
>
Hello. I've been lurking for a couple of weeks, and I just had to throw my two cents in.
If a world government were to be formed by folks very much like the ones who
devised the U.S. constitution, and more importantly, demanded a Bill of Rights
be added to that document, I would not be overly concerned. But that's not
going to happen today, not even if a world government were to start with a
Pax Americana. Politicians today detest liberty.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19879
From: Sarah A. Hoyt" <sarah-hoyt@sff.net>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 20:38:14 -0600
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>If a world government were to be formed by folks
very much like the ones who
<br>devised the U.S. constitution, and more importantly, demanded a Bill
of Rights
<br>be added to that document, I would not be overly concerned. But
that's not
<br>going to happen today, not even if a world government were to start
with a
<br>Pax Americana. Politicians today detest liberty.</blockquote>
IMHO The problem is not the politicians, but the people. The founding
fathers were dealing with a small country where most people had either
come here willingly, or at least left behind all their attachments.
<p>A world government would be dealing with thousands of different cultures
-- still cohesive -- some of them outright hostile to individual
freedom, plenty of them maimed permanently or temporarily by such things
as communism (which convinced people for seventy years that making money
and something generally known in the rest of the world as "creating wealth"
is evil), religions that do not believe women are human, etc., and cultures
that never got around to being one -- i.e., conglomerations of nomadic
tribesmen and hunter-gatherers around which colonial powers have set arbitrary
borders.
<p>So -- what do you get when you have "one man one vote" worldwide?
You have large populations living in abject poverty and -- far worse --
abject ignorance who believe economic theories something like this 1) we're
poor. 2) the U.S. is rich. 3) the U.S. must be stealing everything
from us. (Don't laugh. I grew up in a country were at least
half the population piously believes this. I remember a rather bizarre
and complex urban legend of this type, whereby Portuguese were paid to
grow rice so they wouldn't develop computers [uh?] which would rival the
American computer industry. [This despite the fact that at the time,
70s, there were about three people in Portugal trained to work with computers,
let alone to build them.])
<p>The end result would be punitive taxes for the U.S., to continue funding
the unproductive cultural habits of several places in the world.
And I rather suspect when everything had been totally shared we'd have
"and now we don't have anything, so the U.S. has done away with the secret
of how to get rich -- let's kill them."
<p>World government might be possible in a hundred years or so (maybe)
IF our culture conquers their minds and hearts as fully as our consumer
goods have captured their covetousness. But I wouldn't wait standing.
However, I suggest that it is just such a possibility (that we'll assimilate
them to the point where we COULD be all one country) that causes the terrorists
their blind, suicidal panic.
<p>Anyway, all this is just IMHO, needless to say. And now, I'm going
to attempt to get back to some real work.
<p>Sarah</html>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19880
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:16:57 GMT
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:11:00 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>Fader: What is it, you trying to rile people up? <BWG> ;-)
Now Ed, Post something just for the sake of starting controversy, why
I would never do that.<BFG>
>Heinlein warned us in more than one story of just that possibility:
>a world government that would trample on the rights of individual US
>citizens.
<snipped>
Yes, he did, we & our way of life/culture would be in the minority,
but I don't know that it really matters; 1- since we are loosing them
to our own government every day anyway & 2- it may very well happen
anyway. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to get in early & make the
best deal we can.
I also think of the future, almost all space exploration/ galatic
civilazation type stuff only deal with Worlds & not individual
nations, & while I know that it's all fiction, any single nation would
be at a tremendous disadvantadge when dealing with another unified
world, we need to figure that one out too.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19881
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:53:49 -0400
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:16:57 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>
>Yes, he did, we & our way of life/culture would be in the minority,
>but I don't know that it really matters; 1- since we are loosing them
>to our own government every day anyway & 2- it may very well happen
>anyway. Perhaps the best we can hope for is to get in early & make the
>best deal we can.
>
I don't follow the logic of 'I've been stripped of a few Rights by
one politician, let's open the flood gates to more just like him'.
Loosing rights to our own government should be a rallying cry, not a
reason give in (IMHO).
>I also think of the future, almost all space exploration/ galatic
>civilazation type stuff only deal with Worlds & not individual
>nations, & while I know that it's all fiction, any single nation would
>be at a tremendous disadvantadge when dealing with another unified
>world, we need to figure that one out too.
>
>Fader
>
Point well taken and worth pondering.
Ed J
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19882
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:56:45 -0400
Subject: Re: It's All Geek to Me
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Dean: What is "RFC959" and where can I find it? Is it a set of
Protocols?
Inquiring minds want to know <G>.
Ed J
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:52:13 -0500, "Dean White"
<WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote:
>I don't have a specific answer, but in general, there is a set of 'codes'
>sent back and forth during downloads. The correct answer is found in
>RFC959 and dense reading it is.
>
>Dean
>
>"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
>news:3b8435db.0@news.sff.net...
>> OK, here's a question for the geeks around here. The fact that I'm
>asking
>> should scare you.:)
>>
>> Long ago in Internet time, there was a problem were certain ISPs would
>fail
>> to recognize that a connection was live while it was in use, and
>disconnect
>> the user. This happened particularly in certain games and in FTP
>downloads.
>>
>> FTP programs (and, presumably, the games) solved this problem by doing
>> _something_ to indicate that the connection was live during a download.
>I
>> have been told different things, such as sending a ping every so often,
>or
>> sending an FTP command, or a particular character, so as to show the
>> connection as live to the ISP.
>>
>> Does anybody know just how this worked?
>>
>> Filksinger
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19883
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:59:24 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
JT: Does anyone have a news clip (or URL pointing to one) spelling
out what Harry Browne or the LP may have done to anger so many
people after the WTC attack? I am trying to get at the facts.
Ed J
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 17:28:54 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2001 04:02:02 GMT, tom@goodsol.com (Thomas Warfield)
>wrote:
>>Well, this is interesting. I thought I'd drop in and see the HF
>>reaction to the attacks. It's pretty much as predicted.
>>
>>It's pretty clear that the Libertarian Party is going to be a casualty
>>of the attacks. No one is going to take them seriously if this is
>>their reaction to the attacks (assuming, of course, that anyone took
>>them seriously beforehand).
>>
>I don't know that it's "pretty clear" about *anything* in the
>aftermath of the attacks. And the press releases the LP have been
>sending out have been consistent with their message all along, whether
>or not you like that message. The LP is still the best organized of
>the minor parties. Even though I don't like parts of their platform,
>I like them better than the Republicrats.
>
>I'm curious, Tomstaafl...since I know you have an opinion, lay out for
>us your multi-pronged plan that Bush & Co. should be following now,
>for the short, near, and far-term. I'm not badgering, I am truly
>interested!
>
>JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19884
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 10:05:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Airline Bailout?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Kevin: That is the greatest piece of advice I have seen in this
whole time of crisis!
Ed J
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 19:09:01 -0500, "kevin mcgillicuddy"
<kmcgillicuddy@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"Eli Hestermann" <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote in message
>news:3BB47032.10A89F27@dfci.harvard.edu...
><snip>
>
>> What Deb said. Three to five hijackers can't get the job done if the
>> passengers are willing to fight back, regardless of who has what weapons.
>>
>> --
>> Eli V. Hestermann
>> Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
>> "Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
>>
>
>The following is probably too long to post here, and I can't vouch for the
>source (got it from a friend by email). I don't agree with some of it,
>however, it's provocative, so FWIW, here goes.
>
>McKevin
>
>>My name is John Burnett. I am a DC-10 Captain for FedEx. I am also a Police
>Officer for the Memphis Police Department. My purpose in writing this is to
>share some of my thoughts regarding actions a pilot might consider when
>faced with a modern-day hijacker. These thoughts are "outside-the-box" when
>it comes to the way we've all been trained. Neither the FAA or our companies
>will suggest these techniques or implement them as a part of our normal
>training cycles. They couldn't for fear of lawsuits. I am distributing this
>via e-mail to buddies I've flown with. I'm asking them to send it to their
>circle of friends within the industry, and for you to send it to yours. I
>know most of us have e-mail, and I hope this reaches the next to face the
>horror of some religious fanatic onboard. We have all had "training" in what
>to do in case of a hijacking; try to keep the hijacker calm, make him think
>you're doing what he wants, take him where ever he wants to go, etc., etc.,
>etc. Save your passengers, your crew, and your aircraft. In an emergency,
>you will revert to that training. When our unfortunate peers were faced with
>the screams of the Flight Attendants and hijacker's demands to open the
>cockpit door, their training probably made them open the door. When the
>fanatics made demands, their training told them to comply as best they
>could. I can only wonder what their thoughts were as they left the cockpit
>and were tied up in the back of the plane; what they thought as they
>descended over New York.... I hope the fanatics had to kill them in their
>seats and drag their dead bodies out of the cockpit. But, I bet they did as
>they were trained to do. As you look back over recent hijackings, FedEx,
>and Egypt Air, and now the September 11th hijackings, you see a perpetrator
>who, for one reason or another wants to take over the airplane and kill
>himself. Each of these hijackers, except for the FedEx incident, were
>successful. They took over the airplane and killed everyone onboard. If
>you're following the news programs today, you hear a lot about how we could
>let these hijackers learn to fly. You would think if knowing how to fly
>would guarantee a successful hijacking, Auburn Calloway (the FedEx hijacker)
>would have been a hijacker success story. Calloway had been a Navy pilot, a
>martial arts student, a fellow FedEx crew member, and he took all the
>weapons he needed: hammers, knives and a spear gun. He didn't have to
>overcome any Flight Attendants or demand they open the cockpit door. He
>just went back to his bag, took out his hammer came back into the cockpit
>and started crushing skulls. The crew members on that flight didn't worry
>about Flight Attendants, they didn't worry about passengers. All three
>pilots left the cockpit and fought a hand-to-hand, life-or-death battle. To
>survive today's hijacker, you cannot worry about your passengers; you cannot
>worry about your Flight Attendants. You must develop a mind-set that
>everyone onboard - including yourself - is already dead. Because, if the
>hijacker is successful in taking over your airplane, not only you, your
>crew, your passengers and your aircraft are lost, but thousands on the
>ground are at risk. One of the reasons the FedEx crew survived is the
>extraordinary actions of the co-pilot. Although he had brain injury, the
>co-pilot took the DC-10 and immediately executed a half-roll. This maneuver
>took the hijacker off his feet as the Captain and S/O were struggling with
>him. During a point in the maneuver, the hijacker, Captain and S/O were
>thrown back behind the cockpit door. When he righted the airplane, the F/O
>then left his seat and joined the fight in the galley area of the plane. It
>was only after the Captain determined the hijacker was subdued, he returned
>to the cockpit and flew the airplane to landing. Very few of us have had to
>confront true evil. Fewer still have seriously considered taking the life
>of another human being. I believe this is the reason the FedEx crew did not
>kill their attacker. The crew's heroism that day is beyond belief. And any
>action that leads to a safe landing and recovery cannot be argued with.
>But, when the Captain left the F/O and S/O, thinking the situation was under
>control, he was mistaken. The F/O and S/O had sustained serious,
>life-threatening injuries. The hijacker had not. As the Captain flew the
>aircraft, the hijacker, who had surrendered, began the fight anew. As the
>airplane landed, the hijacker was just moments away from overcoming the two
>crew members. I mention this for your consideration. I would suggest that
>you make a conscious decision to kill anyone who tries to take your airplane
>from you. Today we are at war. The hijacker who comes through your cockpit
>door is going to kill you and everyone onboard. So, how do you do that?
>What weapons are available to us as pilots? The intercom. Command that all
>men come forward and fight with the hijackers. You have many able-bodied
>men onboard. They are sitting in shock not knowing what to do. Command
>that they come forward and help you kill your attackers. And, they will
>come. The airplane itself. Get the hijackers off their feet. Go into an
>immediate dive to float them to the ceiling. Then execute a 6G positive
>maneuver and hope they hit their head or break their back as they hit the
>floor, galley shelf, etc. Pull the fire handles, shut the start levers and
>turn the fuel valves off. If you lose the battle, at least the airplane
>won't be used as a guided missile on a kamikaze mission. With luck, maybe
>these guys didn't learn how to do an in-flight restart. Then leave the
>cockpit - all of you, and kill your attackers - don't believe it when they
>surrender - don't be nice to them - KILL THEM. Flare Gun If your airplane
>has one, the Captain might consider making sure it's loaded and secured next
>to his bag. I can think of nothing more satisfying than watching a ball of
>burning phosphorous embedded into a fanatic's gut. The crash-axe. I would
>suggest you have your co-pilot take it from it's holder and secure it next
>to him so he has it immediately available. Makes an excellent skull
>crusher. Your flashlight. The FAA use to require a 2 cell. A 3 cell
>Mag-Light makes an excellent weapon. If your maneuvers have the hijackers
>on the floor writhing in pain, crush their skulls. Your stolen hotel Bic
>pen. Drive it into an attacker's eye, ear, throat, or into the area just
>under the jaw bone. That's a particular interesting place to drive it,
>because when he opens his mouth to scream, you can read "Hyatt" sticking
>there. Your hand and fingers Drive your fingers into his eyes and try to
>feel your fingernails scrape the back of his eye sockets. Scoop the
>eyeballs out. It will confuse the hell out of him when he finds himself
>looking at his shoes as they dangle there on the ocular nerves. Your teeth.
>Remember Hannibal Lecter. Eat a nose, a cheek, or a finger. And keep
>eating. Attack with all viciousness. A piranha is a small fish, but it's
>greatly feared. A hijacker is not expecting you to eat him and it might
>make him forget why he got on your airplane to begin with. It will, at
>least, impress his buddies. Now here's my wish-list of things the FAA could
>do to help, especially in this time of war. Arm the Captain. The battle is
>not going to require any long shots. A small revolver would be a good
>choice. It would hold off the attackers long enough for you to disable your
>aircraft. If the attackers claimed the red package they were holding was a
>bomb, I'd shoot out the door glass and hope the door would be ripped out and
>the hijacker and his package would be sucked out. And hey, I if I got
>sucked out with him, I'd try to fly my body to the hijacker look in his face
>and laugh at him all the way to the ground. Invite The Police To Man The
>Jump Seat. Police are always looking for something free. Donut shops use
>to be a favorite target for robbers - until they started giving donuts to
>the Police. Robbers don't rob donut shops anymore. I would suggest each
>Police Department send the FAA a list of the best shots on the department
>and those guys and their guns would be welcome on my airplane. Fill every
>vacant seat with armed Police - give them a donut - and tell them to shoot
>anyone who gives your Flight Attendant any shit. Stop this silly no-knife
>rule. Make it public. Tell the public they're welcome to bring their
>pocket knives onboard. Then everyone will bring them. So when you make
>your Intercom call to the passengers for help, you'll have a dozen or more
>knife wielding helpers trying to make sure their new Gerber tastes fanatics
>blood. There are even a few of them who'd want to keep the fanatics ears as
>souvenirs. None of us is immune. Take some time and consider your actions
>if this event should ever happen to you. My prayer is none of you ever have
>to face this kind of decision. Best of luck to you, and may God Bless.>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19885
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 17:10:36 -0400
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
....well, actually, I'm not responding to what you wrote; I'm stying right out of this
argument. Instead, I'm responding to your email address. Does it indicate that you're a
sport (i.e., model or HPR) rocketeer? If so, howdy from a fellow hobbyist. Is there a chance
we've met at a rocket event? Before I moved to CT last year, I used to attend HPR launches
in So. Florida, Georgia, and So. Carolina fairly regularly (I was at LDRS 15)... and I've
been to 4 NARAMs (35 in Maryland, 38 in Indiana, 41 in Pennsylvania, and 43 this year in New
York). Have we shared airspace?
-Bill Dauphin, aka JovBill
NAR 51259
TRA 1338
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19886
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 00:18:08 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:59:24 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>JT: Does anyone have a news clip (or URL pointing to one) spelling
>out what Harry Browne or the LP may have done to anger so many
>people after the WTC attack? I am trying to get at the facts.
>
>Ed J
Ed,
All the LP press releases appear to be accessible as "Current Stories"
on their website, www.lp.org . Harry Browne's emails are similarly
accessible via www.harrybrowne.org . I admit I haven't read all of
them, especially the Browne stuff. I appear to be off that mailing
list--I think I only his first article was forwarded on a local LP
list, where I saw it.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19887
From: Dean White" <WhiteD@telepath.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:20:46 -0500
Subject: Re: It's All Geek to Me
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Request For Comments number 959 is what it breaks down to. RFC's are used
for defining the protocols we use HTTP, FTP, E-Mail etc. A simple search
on the net with the code RFC959 will lead to a dozen copies of the
document. A few I found
ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc959.txt
http://www.fooware.com/downloads/ftpclient.html
http://www-users.aston.ac.uk/Connected/RFC/1738/8.htm
http://www.rocsystems.f9.co.uk/rfclist.htm
after a quick search. And no the number has no specific meaning, it was
'fun' the first time I had to 'find' one of these.
Dean
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:d09ert01efjarrb940rkvdk19u8hvrvcga@4ax.com...
> Dean: What is "RFC959" and where can I find it? Is it a set of
> Protocols?
> Inquiring minds want to know <G>.
>
> Ed J
>
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:52:13 -0500, "Dean White"
> <WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't have a specific answer, but in general, there is a set of
'codes'
> >sent back and forth during downloads. The correct answer is found in
> >RFC959 and dense reading it is.
> >
> >Dean
> >
> >"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
> >news:3b8435db.0@news.sff.net...
> >> OK, here's a question for the geeks around here. The fact that I'm
> >asking
> >> should scare you.:)
> >>
> >> Long ago in Internet time, there was a problem were certain ISPs
would
> >fail
> >> to recognize that a connection was live while it was in use, and
> >disconnect
> >> the user. This happened particularly in certain games and in FTP
> >downloads.
> >>
> >> FTP programs (and, presumably, the games) solved this problem by
doing
> >> _something_ to indicate that the connection was live during a
download.
> >I
> >> have been told different things, such as sending a ping every so
often,
> >or
> >> sending an FTP command, or a particular character, so as to show the
> >> connection as live to the ISP.
> >>
> >> Does anybody know just how this worked?
> >>
> >> Filksinger
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19888
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19889
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 1 Oct 2001 08:03:43 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.
To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19890
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:26:54 GMT
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 09:53:49 -0400, Ed Johnson
<eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote:
>I don't follow the logic of 'I've been stripped of a few Rights by
>one politician, let's open the flood gates to more just like him'.
>Loosing rights to our own government should be a rallying cry, not a
>reason give in (IMHO).
I'm not saying we should give in (please) but is less & less support
from our fellow she....uh, americans these days & if it's gonna come
anyway. I believe that while population(world) may be overwhelmingly
against any type of democracy, I also think that there are enough
democratic type governments to not be in too bad a shape (sorta like
RI & DE compromise that this country came up with). What we need to do
is make sure that we are the architeches(sp?, hopeless<g>) or at least
one of the main ones.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19891
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:30:51 GMT
Subject: Free Agent ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai lost her HD last week, & has since replaced it. She lost Free
Agent in the process & since re-installing finds that she can get to
the HF, but it won't retrieve messages for her.
Anybody have any ideas?
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19892
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 09:48:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bb497c0.0@news.sff.net...
> Good post. Thank you for sharing. How do you feel about this quote knowing
> that the Soviet Union no longer exists? Do you think Western culture had
> much influence?
>
(snip)
I believe that the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, not by any
attempt of ours to seduce them with all of the 'bennies' of capitalism.
True, there are many new 'capitalists' in Russia today, but there are a very
large number of 'true believers' still, who are suffering under the new
system and who would dearly love to return to communism. Even many of the
Russian emigres I know still operate under a lot of this mindset even though
they are now fully immersed in our society.
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19893
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:40:15 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
You're right. It's not just the politicians who hate and fear liberty,
too many people worldwide hate and fear it. I used to feel vaguely guilty
that we, the United States and the rest of the western world are cultural
imperialists. After reading your post, I think perhaps I should instead
take pride in our cultural imperialism. At least we didn't occupy all
of those countries to build empires as so many european nations did.
They hate and fear our culture and freedoms? Good! Time to start
the saturation bombing. Let's load the bombers with every used tape
we can scrounge at Blockbuster and Hollywood. Not to mention omnibus
editions of Heinlein's most individualistic works, translated into
arabic, of course. Start broadcasting Babylon 5 day and night into
that region. Give Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda a free vacation there;
they need to hear them as much as we need them to shut up (the problem
isn't men, per se, it's patriarchy, and Gloria and Jane have as much to
learn as the Taliban).
Okay, I'm done ranting now.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19894
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 07:43:11 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Bill Dauphin wrote:
>
> sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> ...well, actually, I'm not responding to what you wrote; I'm stying right out of this
> argument. Instead, I'm responding to your email address. Does it indicate that you're a
> sport (i.e., model or HPR) rocketeer? If so, howdy from a fellow hobbyist. Is there a chance
> we've met at a rocket event? Before I moved to CT last year, I used to attend HPR launches
> in So. Florida, Georgia, and So. Carolina fairly regularly (I was at LDRS 15)... and I've
> been to 4 NARAMs (35 in Maryland, 38 in Indiana, 41 in Pennsylvania, and 43 this year in New
> York). Have we shared airspace?
>
> -Bill Dauphin, aka JovBill
> NAR 51259
> TRA 1338
>
>
It sounds like fun, but the only rockets I ever launched were Estes kits.
My email address is Sprocketeer because I used to be a projectionist.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19895
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:54:47 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Wayne Morgan" <morganwh@indy.net> wrote in message
news:3BB4C6A0.FF5D03E1@indy.net...
>
>
> Jeff Minor wrote:
>
> > So, where does that leave us? Fanatics = Insanity (?). Greg Bear offered
> > some solutions to anti-social tendencies--forced therapy. The kind that
> > really rewrites your mind. Is that what we will eventually need to do?
> > Maybe, but for now I think it's best for us to examine our culture and
try
> > to figure out why we like to be entertained by things blowing up, and
then
> > are so horrified when it really happens. How have we been able to
distance
> > ourselves from our "entertainment culture" to such a degree that we
didn't
> > think it would motivate some nut to do something similar? We are a
culture
> > in denial, and that may be just as dangerous as what any terrorist could
do.
> > I don't have an answer, but I do think this is the problem.
> >
>
> (snipped)
>
> I don't think we need to "rewrite their minds". IMO, what we need to do
is
> systematically hunt down and destroy this current crop of terrorists;
punish
> (militarily or otherwise) any government which supports or shelters
terrorist
> cells; and vigorously defend ourselves from terrorism wherever it shows
itself.
> When we've shown the world it's futile to attempt to influence us this
way, THEN
> we can begin to "win their hearts and minds".
>
> I hope we have the stomach for it.
>
> Wayne Morgan
Wayne,
That might work, but I'm not sure. We have pounded our enemies before, yet
this hasn't served as a usful historical example. Meaning, others are not
learning from history. We may be able to stamp out a few terrorist strong
holds, but what's to keep more from forming? Nothing we can do, short of
trying to police the entire planet would work, and I'm not even say that
plan would work at all.
Jeff
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19896
From: Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:58:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:3bb87446.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Jeff Minor" <phgsummit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3bb497c0.0@news.sff.net...
> > Good post. Thank you for sharing. How do you feel about this quote
knowing
> > that the Soviet Union no longer exists? Do you think Western culture had
> > much influence?
> >
>
> (snip)
>
> I believe that the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight, not by any
> attempt of ours to seduce them with all of the 'bennies' of capitalism.
> True, there are many new 'capitalists' in Russia today, but there are a
very
> large number of 'true believers' still, who are suffering under the new
> system and who would dearly love to return to communism. Even many of the
> Russian emigres I know still operate under a lot of this mindset even
though
> they are now fully immersed in our society.
>
> David
I don't think this should be any big surprise that some people love the
theory of communism; it has a lot of utopian appeal. And ask any
pschologist how many people want to be taken care off! It's scarry how many
of us want a mommy and daddy to keep us safe and pay for all our stuff. I
mean, after you turn 30, we should probably give up on that fantasy (okay,
maybe 40...I'm still holding out!)
Jeff
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19897
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 11:44:24 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Thomas Warfield" <tom@goodsol.com> wrote in message
news:3bb3f026.114604195@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> I can't believe a 4 inch knife was legal to carry on a plane
> prior to Sept 11. It was a problem waiting to happen.
4" knives? I have a 1 1/2" pocket knife right here. Would you take that from
me? You should, I know how to use it to disable and kill in a fight. Same
goes for a single-edged razor blade.
Nor would I have to use such weapons, until they have sharpness detectors. I
can walk into a store a few miles from my house and buy knives that will
pass right through any metal detector. Pass laws against plastic knives?
Make it illegal to have picnic kits? I can make a knife out of glass that,
so long as it doesn't break, is sharper than any steel blade. A ceramic
knife can be chipped out of a Corelle plate that is plenty tough. A knife
can easily be made out of dozens of materials that will pass anything but a
skin search or X-raying passengers.
Strip search everyone before letting them onto the plane? You _can't_ take
away knives from terrorists, even on a plane. Nor would it matter. It will
be decades before anyone will even theoretically be able to hijack a plane
in the US using box cutters or knives.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19898
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:25:12 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bb8b9a1.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Thomas Warfield" <tom@goodsol.com> wrote in message
> news:3bb3f026.114604195@news.sff.net...
> <snip>
(snip)
> Strip search everyone before letting them onto the plane? You _can't_ take
> away knives from terrorists, even on a plane. Nor would it matter. It will
> be decades before anyone will even theoretically be able to hijack a plane
> in the US using box cutters or knives.
>
I agree. It will automatically be assumed from here on out that the purpose
of the hijacking, at least, here in the states, will be for the purpose of
converting it into a guided anti-building missile and some passengers will
decide they have nothing to lose and take down the hi-jackers. In some
cases, the threat of a bomb might be true, and the result might be a loss of
all through exploding it, but again, they will have nothing to lose, because
if they do nothing, they will still die. That's the way I see it.
David
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19899
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:26:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Free Agent ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3bb844f6.3835490@news.sff.net...
> Jai lost her HD last week, & has since replaced it. She lost Free
> Agent in the process & since re-installing finds that she can get to
> the HF, but it won't retrieve messages for her.
>
> Anybody have any ideas?
Does she get headers? Can she add the sff.heinlein-forum.com, or just see
the groups on news.sff.net?
I'm not sure what she can or can't do, so I'm not sure what to suggest.
Sounds like a configuration problem.
Try this. It will only work if she has the HF added. Click "Group", then
"Default Properties". Go to the tab labeled "Retrieving". Set to "Override
default settings", "Retrieve bodies for all new messages", and "Get all
headers". "Server creates messages out of order" might also be good. Then
click "OK".
Filksinger
Now click "Retrieve all headers".
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19900
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 12:33:05 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:3qvbrts9ttffig526edrhqv2ppg7e6ph1h@4ax.com...
> Fader: What is it, you trying to rile people up? <BWG> ;-)
> Heinlein warned us in more than one story of just that possibility:
> a world government that would trample on the rights of individual US
> citizens.
He also argued _for_ such government, in non-fiction, to boot. Also, if you
look at his stories, the world government was almost always benign.
> I am in favor of a massive cooperation of individual
> world powers in this coming battle against Global terrorism. I
> think that all nations, great and small should act together to root
> out and destroy terror organizations throughout the world. And to
> join together in a coalition of military forces to attach those
> nations who think that terrorism is a good idea and that acts of
> terrorism are to be applauded or supported.
> I am just opposed to giving up our rights to some larger, governing
> body.
But who says anything about giving up rights? Governmental authorities, yes,
but why rights?
Granted, we may end up doing so. We might end up doing so to _any_
government. But why would a world government _necessarily_ require we give
up our rights? Why would we even give it the power to do so, much less the
authority?
Keep in mind that, even if we give the world government an army, it is
highly unlikely to be able to force any confiscator taxes or liberty-taking
plans on us, even if they somehow think that they have the
power/right/authority to do so. With the free world likely supplying most of
the weapons, matériel, funding, and probably soldiers for their military arm
at first, they will find it exceptionally difficult to use force upon us.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19901
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 20:42:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Free Agent ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:30:51 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>Jai lost her HD last week, & has since replaced it. She lost Free
>Agent in the process & since re-installing finds that she can get to
>the HF, but it won't retrieve messages for her.
>
>Anybody have any ideas?
>
>Fader
Hmm, I was going to suggest the instructions at
http://www.sff.net/help/setup/ for settings, but then I saw that she
can "get" to the HF.
Filk's instructions are probably the best bet without knowing any more
about the problem. She should be able to post via webnews.sff.net
with more information if she wants to provide it directly.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19902
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 18:28:40 -0400
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
> My email address is Sprocketeer because I used to be a projectionist.
Aha... it all makes sense now. You'll (perhaps) be interested to learn that the journal of the
National Association of Rocketry, _Sport Rocketry Magazine_, is commonly referred to among
subscribers as "SpRockets," which is why I jumped to the conclusion I did. Oh well...
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19903
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:31:45 -0400
Subject: Re: It's All Geek to Me
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Many thanks for the info.
Ed J
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001 21:20:46 -0500, "Dean White"
<WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote:
>Request For Comments number 959 is what it breaks down to. RFC's are used
>for defining the protocols we use HTTP, FTP, E-Mail etc. A simple search
>on the net with the code RFC959 will lead to a dozen copies of the
>document. A few I found
>ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc959.txt
>http://www.fooware.com/downloads/ftpclient.html
>http://www-users.aston.ac.uk/Connected/RFC/1738/8.htm
>http://www.rocsystems.f9.co.uk/rfclist.htm
>after a quick search. And no the number has no specific meaning, it was
>'fun' the first time I had to 'find' one of these.
>
>Dean
>
>"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
>news:d09ert01efjarrb940rkvdk19u8hvrvcga@4ax.com...
>> Dean: What is "RFC959" and where can I find it? Is it a set of
>> Protocols?
>> Inquiring minds want to know <G>.
>>
>> Ed J
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 09:52:13 -0500, "Dean White"
>> <WhiteD@telepath.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't have a specific answer, but in general, there is a set of
>'codes'
>> >sent back and forth during downloads. The correct answer is found in
>> >RFC959 and dense reading it is.
>> >
>> >Dean
>> >
>> >"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3b8435db.0@news.sff.net...
>> >> OK, here's a question for the geeks around here. The fact that I'm
>> >asking
>> >> should scare you.:)
>> >>
>> >> Long ago in Internet time, there was a problem were certain ISPs
>would
>> >fail
>> >> to recognize that a connection was live while it was in use, and
>> >disconnect
>> >> the user. This happened particularly in certain games and in FTP
>> >downloads.
>> >>
>> >> FTP programs (and, presumably, the games) solved this problem by
>doing
>> >> _something_ to indicate that the connection was live during a
>download.
>> >I
>> >> have been told different things, such as sending a ping every so
>often,
>> >or
>> >> sending an FTP command, or a particular character, so as to show the
>> >> connection as live to the ISP.
>> >>
>> >> Does anybody know just how this worked?
>> >>
>> >> Filksinger
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19904
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 19:36:26 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
David: Some very clear thinking; I see it that was as well. It is
not a question of courage. Let someone believe that they are going
to die anyway and there is almost no limit to what they will
attempt.
Ed
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001 15:25:12 -0400, "David Wright"
<maikosht@alltel.net> wrote:
>> Strip search everyone before letting them onto the plane? You _can't_ take
>> away knives from terrorists, even on a plane. Nor would it matter. It will
>> be decades before anyone will even theoretically be able to hijack a plane
>> in the US using box cutters or knives.
>>
>
>I agree. It will automatically be assumed from here on out that the purpose
>of the hijacking, at least, here in the states, will be for the purpose of
>converting it into a guided anti-building missile and some passengers will
>decide they have nothing to lose and take down the hi-jackers. In some
>cases, the threat of a bomb might be true, and the result might be a loss of
>all through exploding it, but again, they will have nothing to lose, because
>if they do nothing, they will still die. That's the way I see it.
>
>David
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19905
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:32:34 GMT
Subject: Re: Free Agent ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I'm here! Many thanks for the help in getting here. I ended up going
to "www.sff.net/help/setup/" and found how I needed to set the news
server (I had it on the prodigy DNS, as my mail program uses). And
voila, here I am! Whoo-hoo!
On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:30:51 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>Jai lost her HD last week, & has since replaced it. She lost Free
>Agent in the process & since re-installing finds that she can get to
>the HF, but it won't retrieve messages for her.
>
>Anybody have any ideas?
>
>Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19906
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:43:33 GMT
Subject: Re: American Tragedy
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Thanks for thinking of me, dee2. "Used to" is the key phrase--now I'm
"safely" retired in Kansas. My brother still works as a defense
contractor at Ft Belvoir (just south of DC) and is frequently at
meeting in the Pentagon--in fact, the very wing they hit. But he was
TDY at Ft. Bragg on the 11th. He has lost a couple of friends and
co-workers.
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:24:45 -0500, "dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org> wrote:
> Thank you for posting news of you and WJake. You have both been very
>much on my mind, as has Jai, remembering that she used to work in the
>Pentagon.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19907
From: dee" <ke4lfg@amsat.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 08:24:20 -0500
Subject: Re: American Tragedy
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bb9a7a9.49028634@news.sff.net...
> Thanks for thinking of me, dee2. "Used to" is the key phrase--now I'm
> "safely" retired in Kansas.
Jai--
Good to see your pixels again. You have been "away" too long. Yeah, I
see that "safely" in quotes--seems like none of us are too sure what "safe"
means anyore. (And it was never as all-inclusive as some poeple seem to
think, judging by idiot questions on the news Sept. 11 & 12.)
Current home is a small town, of no particular import except to those
who live here. Sounds pretty "safe." But about halfway between a nuclear
plant and the Army helicopter training facility, who knows. Who ever knows?
We have been such a fortunate generation in such a fortunate country, we
have taken "safety" for granted.
--Dee2
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19908
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:21:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> That position was not changed - it was eliminated, on all but the B727.
> If you see a third pilot enter the flight deck of any other commercial
> airliner, you are watching someone hitch a ride home. ;-)
>
> --
> Gordon Sollars
> gsollars@pobox.com
Gordon--
I see that downstream you added to this, but I still have the urge to
pontificate a bit. Flight engineer originally came to the airlines with
the advent of four engine (piston engine) equipment in the late 30's. (The
DC-4 and Constellation) These engines were so delicate and sensitive to
misuse of throttle / RPM / mixture / cowl flaps / turbo/supercharger boost
that having a full time person to primarily monitor and control the engines
was worthwhile. Pretty much all four engined piston and turboprop
equipment maintained the flight engineer position, though in the latter,
cabin pressurization and comfort were significant duties.
This carried over into the first generation and larger generation
jetliners. The B- 707 (and 720) and the DC-8 had flight engineer
positions, as did the B-727, DC- 10, L-1011 and early B-747's. The DC-9
was the first jet airliner approved to fly without a flight engineer and
they was a long fight between ALPA (Airline Pilots Professional
Association) who wanted them maintained for their economic reasons and
airline management who wanted them dropped for theirs. So for several
years, most B-737's were sold overseas and flown by two pilots. Our FAA
required the third pilot and so three pilot B-737 as they did not compete
in this country with the two pilot crew DC-9.
Eventually the certification logjam was broken and the two pilot B-737
became standard. The B-727 was dropped from production because with the
larger newer generation engines, two engines could do the work formerly
done by three or four. As cockpits and engine management became more
automated, larger and larger aircraft designs dropped the flight engineer
with the B-747-400 also doing so. It has not been cost effective to
redesign the older airliners to the level of automation required to drop
the flight engineer. But the B-757, -767, and -777 were all designed from
the beginning to have just two pilots. Now that the public and the
regulators have accepted twin engine airliners for overseas flights, I
doubt you will see a new design having more than two engines. Two larger
engines are easier to support and have much more dispatch reliability than
more smaller ones.
The last L-1011's in service to a US airline (Delta) were due to be
retire this past summer (I rode them to Hawaii and back last winter and
chatted with the crew a bit). There are a lot of the earlier DC-10's and
B-747's in service in this country that require flight engineers. Many
B737's. And many older types in cargo service.
The B-727 at one time was the most produced jetliner ever built. It's
big claim to fame was a wing design that allowed it to get into LaGuardia
and National (now Reagan) Airports where runway space was limited and there
was (is) no room to extend them. (The earlier DC-9s' did not have leading
edge slats and could not safely use those airports. They were
redesigned.) The B-737 has since claimed the title of most produced.
It was mentioned earlier on this board that the WTC was designed to
take the impact of a B-707, a much lighter plane than the B-757s which got
the WTC. Yes, but.... the 707 was a notorious fuel hog and the
international version carried more fuel that the 757's 13,100. (20,000
gallons IIRC, I probably should go look it up.) It was the burning fuel
that brought down the WTC. Not the impact.
Trivia -- what was the first four engine jet airliner to be certified
(to be used in the USA) for two pilots? This will surprise a few people.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19909
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:36:06 -0500
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Fader wrote:
> It struck me, in the week following the attacks & since, that given
> the scope of what's being proposed (a war on terrorism), the supposed
> cooperation that it's going to entail (if it pans out), & the drawing
> of the lines (those who aren't with us, are with the terrorists) & the
> length of what this campaign is gonna take, that we very well may be
> seeing the seeds of the first true World Government.
>
> It's gonna need some teeth to work & I imagine that it will start with
> some type of extra-national Police/Military/Counter-terrorism Agency
> (kinda UN,NATO,Interpol et al) then build from there.
>
> Any takers?, Comments & opinions welcome.
>
> Fader
Fader --
Kind of like Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy? And remember it started off
by foiling at attempted hijacking.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19910
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:42:42 -0500
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Fader--
The biggest problem is our government wanting to grant to
international powers that they don't have themselves under the
constitution. Some of the treaties floating around are examples of
this.
"Jubal longed for the days he could quote the constitution without
having some overriding Federation trickery interfere" (OWTTE)
In Thomas Jefferson's interpretation, powers flowed from the
people, who granted certain of them (those items that were better
handled by a larger organization) to states to handle . The states then
in turn granted certain of their powers to a federal government, again
only those powers that required a higher lever of cooperation.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19911
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:46:21 -0500
Subject: Invitation (mini-gathering?)
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
All--
Reminder to all -- this is the weekend I expect to spend in Elkton
and any or all of you are welcome to join me. I plan to arrive Friday
evening and depart Wednesday. Anyone interested contact me here or by
E-mail (chasgraft@aol.com) for directions.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19912
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:49:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Revenge!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Sarah A. Hoyt" wrote:
> But -- damn -- if they already think we are evil, let's really show
> off. American women should run around in star spangled bikinis. We
> should post pictures of ourselves naked, with the flag painted on our
> bodies. We should... Okay. I'm ranting. I'll go back to work now.
Sounds good to me. Where are you posting?
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19913
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 13:25:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BB9CD82.32C92024@aol.com...
> Gordon--
> I see that downstream you added to this, but I still have the urge to
> pontificate a bit.
You da man, BC!
....
> There are a lot of the earlier DC-10's and
> B-747's in service in this country that require flight engineers. Many
> B737's. And many older types in cargo service.
The cargo part I knew, but I did not think that Deb was flying as cargo.
;-)
But what major airlines use flight engineers (except on the B727)?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19914
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:13:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger: Someone must have a lot of time on their hands to
retouch that many pictures <G>, I liked it.
All: Has everyone heard the MP3 song (with apologies to Harry
Belefonte) 'day_o'? (It is not the Banana-boat song. Think: "Mr.
TallyMan and sub "Mr. Taliban") It is about 150KB and I can attach
it and send it to anyone who wants it. I think that it is a very
minor bit of fluff, only mildly amusing. Most others, however,
thought that it was Very Funny.
Let me know and I will send it along.
Ed J
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:49:12 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>http://www.dailyprobe.com/
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19915
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 22:44:22 GMT
Subject: Re: Free Agent ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 11:32:34 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>I'm here! Many thanks for the help in getting here. I ended up going
>to "www.sff.net/help/setup/" and found how I needed to set the news
>server (I had it on the prodigy DNS, as my mail program uses). And
>voila, here I am! Whoo-hoo!
>
Glad to see you again, Jai!!
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19916
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 17:48:16 -0700
Subject: Re: Free Agent ???
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bb9a4f2.48333455@news.sff.net...
> I'm here! Many thanks for the help in getting here. I ended up going
> to "www.sff.net/help/setup/" and found how I needed to set the news
> server (I had it on the prodigy DNS, as my mail program uses). And
> voila, here I am! Whoo-hoo!
>
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2001 10:30:51 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>
> >Jai lost her HD last week, & has since replaced it. She lost Free
> >Agent in the process & since re-installing finds that she can get to
> >the HF, but it won't retrieve messages for her.
> >
> >Anybody have any ideas?
> >
> >Fader
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19917
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 10:32:17 GMT
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 02 Oct 2001 09:42:42 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:
<snipped>
> In Thomas Jefferson's interpretation, powers flowed from the
>people,
<more snipped>
The people, Who Dat? <G>
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19918
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 08:43:38 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3bbae883.2518249@news.sff.net...
<EVEN more snipped>
>
> The people, Who Dat? <G>
>
> Fader
>
Anymore, the 565 ~elected~ idiots on the hill, the lobbyists, Bureaucrats,
and their Cronies. <SIGH> :-{
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19919
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:23:29 -0700
Subject: Commissioned works by D.F. Vassallo
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Brief commercial interruption, pardon the intrusion -
NitroPress is now the exclusive agent for commissioned calligraphic and
illuminated works by "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" calligrapher Don F.
Vassallo. See the web site for details and samples of Don's current
work.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19920
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:18:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Pre Flight Annoucement, 2002
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Gordon Sollars wrote:
> "But what major airlines use flight engineers (except on the B727)?
Gordon--
Unless American has retired its DC-10 fleet, they use them. And the
earlier B-747's.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19921
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:22:56 -0500
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
> "Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3bbae883.2518249@news.sff.net...
> <EVEN more snipped>
> >
> > The people, Who Dat? <G>
> >
> > Fader
> >
> Anymore, the 565 ~elected~ idiots on the hill, the lobbyists, Bureaucrats,
> and their Cronies. <SIGH> :-{
>
> --
> Later,
>
> `rita
> Almost live from Finley, WA.
Lorrita--
There may be only 564 idiots in the hill, but I do not want to bet on it!
Fader--
We are not citizens to those idiots, we are serfs who have to be taken
care of and cannot live without the royalty to spend our money for us.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19922
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:25:35 -0500
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Ed Johnson wrote:
> Filksinger: Someone must have a lot of time on their hands to
> retouch that many pictures <G>, I liked it.
> All: Has everyone heard the MP3 song (with apologies to Harry
> Belefonte) 'day_o'? (It is not the Banana-boat song. Think: "Mr.
> TallyMan and sub "Mr. Taliban") It is about 150KB and I can attach
> it and send it to anyone who wants it. I think that it is a very
> minor bit of fluff, only mildly amusing. Most others, however,
> thought that it was Very Funny.
> Let me know and I will send it along.
>
> Ed J
>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:49:12 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >http://www.dailyprobe.com/
> >
> >Filksinger
> >
Ed--
Send it on. If no one else asks; send it to me by E-mail.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19923
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:37:30 -0400
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charlie: I have just sent it off. I don't mind sending it to
anyone who asks. My upload rate may be much slower than the
download rate, it is still way faster than a telephone modem.
Ed J
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:25:35 -0500, Charles Graft
<chasgraft@aol.com> wrote:
>Ed Johnson wrote:
<snip: reference to mp3 song>
>>
>> Ed J
>>
>> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 17:49:12 -0700, "Filksinger"
>> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.dailyprobe.com/
>> >
>> >Filksinger
>> >
>
>Ed--
>
> Send it on. If no one else asks; send it to me by E-mail.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19924
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 18:43:39 -0400
Subject: Re: Commissioned works by D.F. Vassallo
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jim: I for one don't mind your being commercial from time to time,
it gives me a chance to buy early and beat the crowd. <g>. Could
you tell us which edition of illuminated "Notebooks..." is the
better one? I have the G.P. Putnam's Sons softbound version.
Ed J
On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 11:23:29 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Brief commercial interruption, pardon the intrusion -
>
>NitroPress is now the exclusive agent for commissioned calligraphic and
>illuminated works by "Notebooks of Lazarus Long" calligrapher Don F.
>Vassallo. See the web site for details and samples of Don's current
>work.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19925
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 19:28:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Commissioned works by D.F. Vassallo
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Ed Johnson wrote:
> Jim: I for one don't mind your being commercial from time to time,
> it gives me a chance to buy early and beat the crowd. <g>. Could
> you tell us which edition of illuminated "Notebooks..." is the
> better one? I have the G.P. Putnam's Sons softbound version.
The Pomegranate edition makes the Putnam's version look like bad color
photocopies.
I have toyed with the idea of bringing out a new edition of the
Notebooks, but the press costs are very high and I'm not sure of the
market. It would be a premium, hardbound edition. DFV and I have some
other plans we're kicking around, too.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19926
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 12:19:20 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:qcvhrts5hrf27mceh7001dqjrkmtns4h7k@4ax.com...
> David: Some very clear thinking; I see it that was as well. It is
> not a question of courage. Let someone believe that they are going
> to die anyway and there is almost no limit to what they will
> attempt.
>
> Ed
>
(snip)
In a conversation with a co-worker this morning something else came to mind.
As I understand it, the military have been given the authority under some
circumstances to shoot down a hijacked plane. What if, the atttempt to
hi-jack is reported, and the hi-jackers subsequently overpowered, and that
fact then reported. How can the military be sure that it is a true report
and take the chance of not shooting it down? I'm sure that ways can be
worked out to take care of this scenario. I just hope that it does get
worked out before I fly again. I'd hate to survive someone taking out a
terrorist on my plane and then get shot down by my own people.
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19927
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 09:52:07 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
David Wright wrote:
> As I understand it, the military have been given the authority under
> some circumstances to shoot down a hijacked plane. What if, the
> atttempt to hi-jack is reported, and the hi-jackers subsequently
> overpowered, and that fact then reported. How can the military be
> sure that it is a true report and take the chance of not shooting it
> down?
Simple: the aircraft responds via radio (if not disabled), sets its
transponder to a selected code, and changes direction and altitude to a
safe, commanded, or follow-the-(F-16)-leader course.
Consider that the fighters can expect no return fire, and taking up
station ahead of the airliner and nudging into a "follow me" course
would be safe and effective even in the absence of radio and transponder
signals.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19928
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:02:45 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BBC93B7.B26642F1@surewest.net...
> David Wright wrote:
> > As I understand it, the military have been given the authority under
> > some circumstances to shoot down a hijacked plane. What if, the
> > atttempt to hi-jack is reported, and the hi-jackers subsequently
> > overpowered, and that fact then reported. How can the military be
> > sure that it is a true report and take the chance of not shooting it
> > down?
>
> Simple: the aircraft responds via radio (if not disabled), sets its
> transponder to a selected code, and changes direction and altitude to a
> safe, commanded, or follow-the-(F-16)-leader course.
There are already a set of visual signals for communication between the
interceptor plane and the intercepted. All pilots were asked to review
these shortly after the 9/11 disaster and the restoration of IFR flight.
One pilot tells me that the signals available to the intercepted plane do
not contain the concept "No, I will not follow you" (although the
intercepted plane can indicate that a designated runway is not suitable for
landing), and, hence, as we learned in /Between Planets/, the pilot of the
intercepted plane cannot entertain this idea. ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19929
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:59:59 -0700
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:gk4nrto4gjfd6l75h3qh99k1283evbia5g@4ax.com...
> Charlie: I have just sent it off. I don't mind sending it to
> anyone who asks. My upload rate may be much slower than the
> download rate, it is still way faster than a telephone modem.
>
> Ed J
I'm in for it.
Heck, on rec.music.filk I was driven to confess, in desperation, that I
couldn't stop thinking up lines for a humourous song about the deaths of
various terrorists, to the tune of "Banned From Argo". For those of you who
don't know, "Banned from Argo" is possibly the most parodied song in all
filkdom, and the author has grown so sick of it that she hasn't played it in
years, except once per Worldcon.
The end result was that they told me that it was impossible to stop, and I
had to give in and write it. Afterwards, I let them have it. They seemed to
like it.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19930
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:01:23 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BBB8FC0.C88AC97A@aol.com...
> Lorrita Morgan wrote:
>
> > "Fader" <fader555@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3bbae883.2518249@news.sff.net...
> > <EVEN more snipped>
> > >
> > > The people, Who Dat? <G>
> > >
> > > Fader
> > >
> > Anymore, the 565 ~elected~ idiots on the hill, the lobbyists,
Bureaucrats,
> > and their Cronies. <SIGH> :-{
> >
> > --
> > Later,
> >
> > `rita
> > Almost live from Finley, WA.
>
> Lorrita--
> There may be only 564 idiots in the hill, but I do not want to bet on
it!
Read it again. The key word is "elected". Unelected idiots undoubtedly
amount to more.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19931
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 22:32:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger: It's on it's way.
God help me, I've got another one <g>. (mp3) This one isn't a
song. It is a parody of a Cable TV show on "Animal Planet". If
you are not familiar with the antics of the Australian crocodile
rescuer (hunter?), then this parody will be lost to you. Instead of
hunting the elusive Wallaby or some such, his voice double is
hunting Osama.
230KB (about 350KB when attached as mail). Not for the kids. I did
enjoy this one. (I may have a skewed sense of humor though: I would
have enjoyed personally roasting Timothy McVeigh over a slow fire.)
One man's meat is another man's poison.
I'll forward to whoever asks.
Ed J
On Thu, 4 Oct 2001 10:59:59 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
>news:gk4nrto4gjfd6l75h3qh99k1283evbia5g@4ax.com...
>> Charlie: I have just sent it off. I don't mind sending it to
>> anyone who asks. My upload rate may be much slower than the
>> download rate, it is still way faster than a telephone modem.
>>
>> Ed J
>
>I'm in for it.
>
>Heck, on rec.music.filk I was driven to confess, in desperation, that I
>couldn't stop thinking up lines for a humourous song about the deaths of
>various terrorists, to the tune of "Banned From Argo". For those of you who
>don't know, "Banned from Argo" is possibly the most parodied song in all
>filkdom, and the author has grown so sick of it that she hasn't played it in
>years, except once per Worldcon.
>
>The end result was that they told me that it was impossible to stop, and I
>had to give in and write it. Afterwards, I let them have it. They seemed to
>like it.
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19932
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 07:32:11 -0500
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
--------------8B0E847AEC647F8796D8610A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Filksinger--
I WAS referring to only the elected idiots!
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
--------------8B0E847AEC647F8796D8610A
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Filksinger--
<p> I <b>WAS </b>referring to only the elected
idiots!
<p>--
<br><<Big Charlie>>
<p>Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
<br> </html>
--------------8B0E847AEC647F8796D8610A--
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19933
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19934
From: webnews@sff.net
Date: 5 Oct 2001 13:17:00 GMT
Subject: SpamGuard
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
One or more articles in this newsgroup have been cancelled by the sysops
for being spammed across multiple newsgroups, being commercial adverts,
or for violating SFF Net's Policies and Procedures.
To avoid seeing this notice in the future, set your newsreader to filter
out articles with SpamGuard in the subject.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19935
From: Anthony Alford" <anthony_alford@hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:37:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I'd like to hear that one, Ed. Can you send it to me, please?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19936
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 10:04:20 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BBDA84B.E91ED682@aol.com...
Filksinger--
I WAS referring to only the elected idiots!
How many elected officials are there "in the hill", by your count?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19937
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:27:07 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3bbc963b.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
> news:3BBC93B7.B26642F1@surewest.net...
> > David Wright wrote:
> > > As I understand it, the military have been given the authority under
> > > some circumstances to shoot down a hijacked plane. What if, the
> > > atttempt to hi-jack is reported, and the hi-jackers subsequently
> > > overpowered, and that fact then reported. How can the military be
> > > sure that it is a true report and take the chance of not shooting it
> > > down?
> >
I was speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek as I knew that there had to be
already or would be soon procedures worked out for handling most scenarios.
Thanks for the input.
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19938
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 15:01:44 -0700
Subject: David Nasset has eleven letters!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I don't know who wrote the first half, but the second half was apparently
someone named "David Pawson". I think I'd like him.
Filksinger
First, the folklore...
The date of the attack: 9/11 - 9 + 1 + 1 = 11
September 11th is the 254th day of the year: 2 + 5 + 4 = 11
After September 11th there are 111 days left to the end of the year.
119 is the area code to Iraq/Iran. 1 + 1 + 9 = 11
Twin Towers - standing side by side, looks like the number 11
The first plane to hit the towers was Flight 11
State of New York - The 11th State added to the Union
New York City - 11 Letters
Afghanistan - 11 Letters
The Pentagon - 11 Letters
Ramzi Yousef - 11 Letters (convicted of orchestrating the attack on the WTC
in 1993)
Flight 11 - 92 on board - 9 + 2 = 11
Flight 77 - 65 on board - 6 + 5 = 11
Response........
Oh my God! How worried should I be?
There are 11 letters in the name "David Pawson!" I'm going into hiding NOW.
See you in a few weeks.
Wait a sec ... just realized "YOU CAN'T HIDE" also has 11 letters! What am I
gonna do?
Help me!!! The terrorists are after me! ME! I can't believe it! Oh crap,
there must be someplace on the planet Earth I could hide! But no ... "PLANET
EARTH" has 11 letters, too!
Maybe Nostradamus can help me. But dare I trust him? There are 11 letters in
"NOSTRADAMUS."
I know, the Red Cross can help. No they can't... 11 letters in "THE RED
CROSS," can't trust them.
I would rely on self defense, but "SELF DEFENSE" has 11 letters in it, too!
Can someone help? Anyone? If so, send me email. No, don't..."SEND ME EMAIL"
has 11 letters.... Will this never end?
I'm going insane! "GOING INSANE???" Eleven letters!! Nooooooooooo!!!!!!
I guess I'll die alone, even though "I'LL DIE ALONE" has 11 letters.....
Oh my God, I just realized that America is doomed! Our Independence Day
is July 4th ... 7/4 ... 7+4=11!
PS: "IT'S BULLSHIT" has 11 letters also.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19939
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 19:37:33 -0400
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Anthony: It is on it's way.
Ed J
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 09:37:21 -0400, "Anthony Alford"
<anthony_alford@hotmail.com> wrote:
><anthony_alford@hotmail.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19940
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 19:48:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Snapshots of a time passed
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James: Thank you for the pictures. I always wanted to visit the
WTC; now only in my dreams.
Ed J
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001 11:21:53 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>I had hoped to post these images under much happier circumstances, but
>I'm glad to have them to share with you all. And to keep, to remind me
>that happy times do persist.
>
> http://www.nitrosyncretic.com/wtc.html
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19941
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:12:29 -0700
Subject: Good Free Speech Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I like it. How about you?
"Anyway, the America that's worth fighting for is one in which we can
call our President a royalist scum-sucking halfwit who stole the
election, and do so while holding our flag high. That's America and
I'm for it."
--Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19942
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 20:21:35 -0400
Subject: Re: Good Free Speech Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bbe4ce5.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> I like it. How about you?
>
> "Anyway, the America that's worth fighting for is one in which we can
> call our President a royalist scum-sucking halfwit who stole the
> election, and do so while holding our flag high. That's America and
> I'm for it."
> --Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Well, it would be OK, Filk, except in times of crisis.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19943
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:35:16 -0700
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Ed Johnson" <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com > wrote in message
news:srvjrt8vbe6871pcn8b6nc4m34hqpbcnsb@4ax.com...
> All: Has everyone heard the MP3 song (with apologies to Harry
> Belefonte) 'day_o'? (It is not the Banana-boat song. Think: "Mr.
> TallyMan and sub "Mr. Taliban") It is about 150KB and I can attach
> it and send it to anyone who wants it. I think that it is a very
> minor bit of fluff, only mildly amusing. Most others, however,
> thought that it was Very Funny.
> Let me know and I will send it along.
>
> Ed J
Any idea who the creator of this thing is, or where I can point people on
rec.music.filk to hear/read it?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19944
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:40:18 -0700
Subject: Re: Good Free Speech Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1628189b9207d636989792@news.sff.net...
> In article <3bbe4ce5.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> > I like it. How about you?
> >
> > "Anyway, the America that's worth fighting for is one in which we can
> > call our President a royalist scum-sucking halfwit who stole the
> > election, and do so while holding our flag high. That's America and
> > I'm for it."
> > --Patrick Nielsen Hayden
>
> Well, it would be OK, Filk, except in times of crisis.
I'm not sure I understand. The point, to me, is that we can support our
country to the limit while still having free expression. Did you see some
other message?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19945
From: Catherine Hampton <xzm@hrweb.org>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 17:52:35 -0700
Subject: Re: Good Free Speech Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:12:29 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>I like it. How about you?
>
>"Anyway, the America that's worth fighting for is one in which we can
>call our President a royalist scum-sucking halfwit who stole the
>election, and do so while holding our flag high. That's America and
>I'm for it."
> --Patrick Nielsen Hayden
Yep, that's Patrick.
And this time, he's not just witty, politically incorrect, abrasive,
and perhaps slightly obnoxious. He's also right. :)
--
Ariel (aka Catherine Hampton) <ariel@tempest.boxmail.com>
===========================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
Human Rights Web * <http://www.hrweb.org/>
Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
REVEAL * <http://www.reveal.org/>
The Spam Bouncer * <http://www.spambouncer.org/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19946
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 21:35:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Good Free Speech Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bbe5311.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
>
> "Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1628189b9207d636989792@news.sff.net...
> > In article <3bbe4ce5.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
> > > I like it. How about you?
> > >
> > > "Anyway, the America that's worth fighting for is one in which we can
> > > call our President a royalist scum-sucking halfwit who stole the
> > > election, and do so while holding our flag high. That's America and
> > > I'm for it."
> > > --Patrick Nielsen Hayden
> >
> > Well, it would be OK, Filk, except in times of crisis.
>
> I'm not sure I understand. The point, to me, is that we can support our
> country to the limit while still having free expression. Did you see some
> other message?
It was a joke, Filk. You see, free speech being a civil liberty, and our
civil liberties being under, shall we say, strict examination right now.
So it is OK definition of free speech, /except in time of crisis/!
Hah! Hah! Ho! I just kill myself. How do I do it?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19947
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 15:45:29 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
They have a state. It's called Jordan
There's no significant ethnic difference between Palestinians and
Jordanians, and very little difference from any other Arabs. Jordan
is ruled by the Hashamite dynasty left in charge by the British
primarily because the Hashemite leaders supported the Briitsh in WWI
and WWII,. The Hashemite rulers are all related to Sharif Hussein bin
Ali (official title: Emir of Mecca and King of the Arabs), who claimed
direct descent from Mohammed and helped the British divide up the
Ottoman empire.
On Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:07:38 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <3BA0DCBB.7620973B@surewest.net>, James Gifford writes...
>> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>> > I do not think that the issue is trade; trade brings people together.
>> > The issue is politics. As long as there are Palestinians without a
>> > country, there will be terrorism. We have three choices. Learn to live
>> > with terrorism; exterminate /every/ Palestinian; or give them a country.
>>
>> They, uh, have a country, Gordon. It seems to be occupied at the moment.
>
>They have land, some of them, but not a nation-state. (Not that I am in
>favor of nation-states, mind you, but others seem to want them.) And the
>titles to land that they do have on the West Bank are routinely
>disregarded by the occupying power, Israel. But the West Bank was never
>a nation-state for the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine, so far as I know.
>Before WW1 it was part of the Ottoman Empire; between the Wars, it was
>administered by the British; after 1950 and before Israeli occupation, it
>was part of Jordan.
>
>--
>Gordon Sollars
>gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19948
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:10:37 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bbf1fcd.12284326@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> They have a state. It's called Jordan
> There's no significant ethnic difference between Palestinians and
> Jordanians, and very little difference from any other Arabs.
That there is no ethnic difference among Palestinians and Jordanians (or
Arabs generally) hardly shows that the Palestinians have a state.
> Jordan
> is ruled by the Hashamite dynasty left in charge by the British
> primarily because the Hashemite leaders supported the Briitsh in WWI
> and WWII,.
Which fact surely does not establish that the Arabic people of Mandatory
Palestine had any interest in being a part of Jordan (or Syria or Lebanon
or...), since it has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with
the goals of King Abdullah and the British. There are political
differences as well as ethnic ones.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19949
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 18:53:53 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:10:37 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <3bbf1fcd.12284326@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
>writes...
>> They have a state. It's called Jordan
>> There's no significant ethnic difference between Palestinians and
>> Jordanians, and very little difference from any other Arabs.
>
>That there is no ethnic difference among Palestinians and Jordanians (or
>Arabs generally) hardly shows that the Palestinians have a state.
Sure it does. If it doesn't,, then what happens when the West Bank
becomes as Arab/Palestinian state (which I'm reasonably sure it will,
eventually)? Will all the Arabs who live in what is Israel proper
complain that they don't have a state? Does every individual who
doesn't look like his/her neighbor deserve their own state?
>
>> Jordan
>> is ruled by the Hashamite dynasty left in charge by the British
>> primarily because the Hashemite leaders supported the Briitsh in WWI
>> and WWII,.
>
>Which fact surely does not establish that the Arabic people of Mandatory
>Palestine had any interest in being a part of Jordan (or Syria or Lebanon
>or...), since it has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with
>the goals of King Abdullah and the British. There are political
>differences as well as ethnic ones.
That's the point, Gordon. "Mandatory Palestine" (otherwise called
"the British Mandate") was originally partitioned into "Palestine" and
"TransJordan," with the latter given a plan for Arab self-rule. When
the Brits pulled out, the UN partitioned what was left (only about a
quarter of the original Mandate) once again. Jordan annexed what it
now called the West Bank, and Egypt took what we call the Gaza Strip.
Did anyone in the Arab world call for a "Palestinian State" then? Was
there even a recognition that there exists such a thing as a
Palestinian? They were all Arabs then and they still are.
I'm not opposed to the creation of a autonomous state on the West
Bank. I just hate to see so many forget history and buy in to Arab
propaganda.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19950
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 15:10:00 -0400
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger: I have no idea. Someone at work said that they had
heard 'day_O' on a local radio station.
I have no way of tracing either mp3 back to it's origin.
Maybe you should forward them a copy and try to find out if it is
copyrighted?
Ed J
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:35:16 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>>
>Any idea who the creator of this thing is, or where I can point people on
>rec.music.filk to hear/read it?
>
>Filksinger
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19951
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:48:35 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Not enough. ;-7
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA. (in a trouble making mood.)
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bbde82a.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3BBDA84B.E91ED682@aol.com...
> Filksinger--
> I WAS referring to only the elected idiots!
>
> How many elected officials are there "in the hill", by your count?
>
> Filksinger
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19952
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:59:33 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bbf5071.24737325@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:10:37 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> >That there is no ethnic difference among Palestinians and Jordanians (or
> >Arabs generally) hardly shows that the Palestinians have a state.
>
> Sure it does. If it doesn't,, then what happens when the West Bank
> becomes as Arab/Palestinian state (which I'm reasonably sure it will,
> eventually)? Will all the Arabs who live in what is Israel proper
> complain that they don't have a state?
They might, but that would not make their claim legitimate; at least not
if the Israeli government compensated some of these Arabs individually
for specific property claims that it has ignored. There is also the
matter of Arabs outside of Israel who are owed such compensation, but
many of these have become U.S., or other citizens, over the years, and
might not want to return.
> Does every individual who
> doesn't look like his/her neighbor deserve their own state?
If they have been made neighbors by force, yes. At the deepest
philosophical level, Jai, I don't think that any state is legitimate.
But if some people are going to have them, then let's apply the same
rules to all.
....
> There are political
> >differences as well as ethnic ones.
>
> That's the point, Gordon.
Right. And that's why the lack of ethnic differences is no justification
per se for the lack of a specifically Palestinian state. They do not
need to differentiate themselves by their ethnicity, but by a different
history, land ownership, and set of goals.
> "Mandatory Palestine" (otherwise called
> "the British Mandate") was originally partitioned into "Palestine" and
> "TransJordan," with the latter given a plan for Arab self-rule. When
> the Brits pulled out, the UN partitioned what was left (only about a
> quarter of the original Mandate) once again. Jordan annexed what it
> now called the West Bank, and Egypt took what we call the Gaza Strip.
> Did anyone in the Arab world call for a "Palestinian State" then?
No. (In the main, they called for the destruction of Israel; a
Palestinian state might or might not have resulted from that.) And that
was wrong, or at least against international resolutions. As I have been
saying, the ethnic identity among the Jordanians, Egyptians, and
Palestinians hardly shows that the Palestinians want to be part of Egypt
or Jordan.
> Was
> there even a recognition that there exists such a thing as a
> Palestinian? They were all Arabs then and they still are.
Then let's put all the Arabs in one country, by this logic.
> I'm not opposed to the creation of a autonomous state on the West
> Bank. I just hate to see so many forget history and buy in to Arab
> propaganda.
And I hate to see people jump to conclusions. I have no idea what
history you think I have forgotten (although it is not my strong suit) or
why you think I have bought into any propaganda. I said the area of the
West Bank (among others) was part of the Ottoman Empire before WWI; was
administered by the British between the Wars; and belonged to Jordan from
about 1950 until the Israeli occupation. What of that is bad history?
Further, I said the Palestinians do not have a country. You seem to
agree that an "autonomous state" can be legitimately created on the West
Bank. What would be the point of that, except to create a Palestinian
state? The Jews already have one in that area.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19953
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 01:50:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Good Free Speech Quote
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.162829f698a0a892989793@news.sff.net...
<snip>
>
> It was a joke, Filk. You see, free speech being a civil liberty,
and our
> civil liberties being under, shall we say, strict examination right
now.
> So it is OK definition of free speech, /except in time of crisis/!
>
> Hah! Hah! Ho! I just kill myself. How do I do it?
I know.<BEG>
Having seen your posts before, it was either that, or you were
possessed.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19954
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 13:17:39 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 20:59:33 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <3bbf5071.24737325@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
>writes...
>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2001 13:10:37 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
>> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>...
>> >That there is no ethnic difference among Palestinians and Jordanians (or
>> >Arabs generally) hardly shows that the Palestinians have a state.
>>
>> Sure it does. If it doesn't,, then what happens when the West Bank
>> becomes as Arab/Palestinian state (which I'm reasonably sure it will,
>> eventually)? Will all the Arabs who live in what is Israel proper
>> complain that they don't have a state?
>
>They might, but that would not make their claim legitimate; at least not
>if the Israeli government compensated some of these Arabs individually
>for specific property claims that it has ignored. There is also the
>matter of Arabs outside of Israel who are owed such compensation, but
>many of these have become U.S., or other citizens, over the years, and
>might not want to return.
Most of the "Palestinian" land was titled to the Turks, and that's who
the early Jewish settlers (the ones who didn't already live there)
bought it from. There are probably some legitimate claims to
compensation that could be made today, but by and large they just
don't wash. But this is a totally different subject that has nothing
to do with whether Palestinians deserve another state. One that I
like to think could be worked out if there were ever a true peace in
the region.
>> Does every individual who
>> doesn't look like his/her neighbor deserve their own state?
>
>If they have been made neighbors by force, yes.
Neighbors by force? I don't think so.
>At the deepest
>philosophical level, Jai, I don't think that any state is legitimate.
Yes, I do find it odd that you would argue for one here.
>But if some people are going to have them, then let's apply the same
>rules to all.
That's what I think should be done as well. Israel was created
because the Jews wanted their own state. The whole concept of
nationalism and "self-determination," wherever it has been applied in
the world, has always be tied to common ethnicity. The Arab world, as
a whole, has said, let's create a people so they can claim to need
their own state too.
....
>> There are political
>> >differences as well as ethnic ones.
>>
>> That's the point, Gordon.
Your snipping ended up leaving the exact opposite of what I meant.
It's probably my fault for not snipping more. Ah well... My "That's
the point" referred to the fact that there WAS a "Mandatory Palestine"
and it INCLUDED what would later be called Jordan. Jordanians ARE
Palestinians. THAT was my point.
But let me put it another way. Name me one way that Palestinians are
a separate people that hasn't arisen since the creation of Israel?
(And really since 1967) Language? Race? Religion? Culture?
History? Nope, no difference.
Please note as well that there has never in all history been a
Palestinian state or other governmental structure, unless you go all
the way back to the Phillestines (from which the term supposedly
comes). And THAT included Jordan as well.
>Right. And that's why the lack of ethnic differences is no justification
>per se for the lack of a specifically Palestinian state. They do not
>need to differentiate themselves by their ethnicity, but by a different
>history, land ownership, and set of goals.
And none of those was different either, until Israel won control of
the West Bank in the Six Day War. Most of it isn't now either.
>> "Mandatory Palestine" (otherwise called
>> "the British Mandate") was originally partitioned into "Palestine" and
>> "TransJordan," with the latter given a plan for Arab self-rule. When
>> the Brits pulled out, the UN partitioned what was left (only about a
>> quarter of the original Mandate) once again. Jordan annexed what it
>> now called the West Bank, and Egypt took what we call the Gaza Strip.
>> Did anyone in the Arab world call for a "Palestinian State" then?
>
>No. (In the main, they called for the destruction of Israel; a
>Palestinian state might or might not have resulted from that.) And that
>was wrong, or at least against international resolutions. As I have been
>saying, the ethnic identity among the Jordanians, Egyptians, and
>Palestinians hardly shows that the Palestinians want to be part of Egypt
>or Jordan.
But I don't recall them complaining about it when they were. No
separtist movement at all. None.
>> Was
>> there even a recognition that there exists such a thing as a
>> Palestinian? They were all Arabs then and they still are.
>
>Then let's put all the Arabs in one country, by this logic.
Which WAS the original plan, for the Arabs. It's what the "Arab
Revolt" of the 1920s or 30s (I forget which) was all about. And its
what most of the Arab transnational organizations want now. The
various Arab governemtns are against it, for obvious reasons, but
"Pan-Arabism" was the term of the day back in Nassar's time, and it's
still used by the Islamic Brotherhood, Islamic Jihad, Hizbollah, etc.
What the Arab people want is impossible to discern. I think it's
mostly still just the destruction of Israel. Well, that and something
to eat every day.
>> I'm not opposed to the creation of a autonomous state on the West
>> Bank. I just hate to see so many forget history and buy in to Arab
>> propaganda.
>
>And I hate to see people jump to conclusions. I have no idea what
>history you think I have forgotten (although it is not my strong suit) or
>why you think I have bought into any propaganda. I said the area of the
>West Bank (among others) was part of the Ottoman Empire before WWI; was
>administered by the British between the Wars; and belonged to Jordan from
>about 1950 until the Israeli occupation. What of that is bad history?
I said "so many forget history," not you in particular. They forget
that Jordan was created to be the Palestinian state. Or rather, the
Arab state in the Mandate of Palestine (a region, not a people).
Buying in to Arab propaganda refers to accepting the artificial
construct of a separate "Palestinian people" with national ambitions
of their own.
>Further, I said the Palestinians do not have a country. You seem to
>agree that an "autonomous state" can be legitimately created on the West
>Bank. What would be the point of that, except to create a Palestinian
>state? The Jews already have one in that area.
I don't know what you mean by "legitimately"--whatever happens is
after the fact legitimate. Is Israel "legitimate"? The Arabs, almost
to a man, think not. You have said you don't think any nations are
legitimate. But they DO exist.
I think the creation of an autonomous state on the West Bank is
probably a political necessity, given the current situation But I
also submit that the "Palestinians" have one in the area too--Jordan.
Also Iraq, Syria, and all the nations on the Saudi peninsula, for what
it's worth.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19955
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 13:26:23 GMT
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 29 Sep 2001 11:56:41 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>It struck me, in the week following the attacks & since, that given
>the scope of what's being proposed (a war on terrorism), the supposed
>cooperation that it's going to entail (if it pans out), & the drawing
>of the lines (those who aren't with us, are with the terrorists) & the
>length of what this campaign is gonna take, that we very well may be
>seeing the seeds of the first true World Government.
>
>It's gonna need some teeth to work & I imagine that it will start with
>some type of extra-national Police/Military/Counter-terrorism Agency
>(kinda UN,NATO,Interpol et al) then build from there.
>
>Any takers?, Comments & opinions welcome.
I think we're a whole lot closer to world government than we were 4
weeks ago. The terrorists "with global reach" are a transnational
threat. It's going to take a transnational effort to deal with them.
But I don't think world governement is an all-or-nothing proposition
either, at least not any time soon. It'll probably come about the way
our own federal powers did. A loose, almost confederation, where the
sovereignty resided with the members, and then gradually, the elements
of sovereignty have been consolidated and centralized.
We can say, this is bad--we've got to stop it. Or we can recognize
that it is an unstoppable trend and try to make it happen in as smart
a way as possible.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19956
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:34:40 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc04373.39742711@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> Most of the "Palestinian" land was titled to the Turks, and that's who
> the early Jewish settlers (the ones who didn't already live there)
> bought it from.
"When the mandate established the borders of Palestine on the new world
map, the concept of /Filastin/ (the Arabic word for Palestine) had
already existed for a long time, not only in the minds of European
consuls in Jerusalem - thanks to their biblical culture - but also in the
minds of the Palestinians themselves, especially the social elite.
Several factors contributed to the further consolidation of this concept
at the time the new borders were created... These factors are... (2)
Ottoman administrative boundaries, which, from 1874 onward, made of
Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Beersheeba, Gaza, and Jaffa districts one
separate unit administered independently from any other Ottoman
province;...(4) the powerful local attachment to place, or urban
patriotism, a phenomenon of Islamic tradition." [source provided below]
I don't see that your putting Palestine in quotes is warranted.
....
> >At the deepest
> >philosophical level, Jai, I don't think that any state is legitimate.
>
> Yes, I do find it odd that you would argue for one here.
I do not have a problem arguing from premises that I do not fully accept.
If I did, I might never find it possible to reach conclusions in
agreement with anyone.
> >But if some people are going to have them, then let's apply the same
> >rules to all.
>
> That's what I think should be done as well. Israel was created
> because the Jews wanted their own state. The whole concept of
> nationalism and "self-determination," wherever it has been applied in
> the world, has always be tied to common ethnicity.
Somehow I doubt that you are opposed to the Revolutionary War, yet it
provided a separate state for a people ethnically indistinguishable from
the British.
> The Arab world, as
> a whole, has said, let's create a people so they can claim to need
> their own state too.
I don't care what self-serving arguments have been made; I care about the
truth. Sadly, so far, no one has found a foolproof way to prevent self-
serving arguments from reaching true conclusions.
....
> My "That's
> the point" referred to the fact that there WAS a "Mandatory Palestine"
> and it INCLUDED what would later be called Jordan. Jordanians ARE
> Palestinians. THAT was my point.
And I dispute this point. Jordan was carved out of Mandatory Palestine
by the efforts of Emir Abdullah - in cooperation with the British -
partly in order to limit the effects of Jewish settlement in the area.
Until this happened, it was unclear what if any geographic limits would
be imposed on the proposed Jewish state under the Balfour Declaration.
It is also true that Abdullah had a dream of a vast Pan-Arabic state
united under /his/ rule. That does not at all show that Palestinians on
the West Bank shared Abdullah's dream.
> But let me put it another way. Name me one way that Palestinians are
> a separate people that hasn't arisen since the creation of Israel?
The quoted passage above names several ways, going back over 100 years.
I recommend to you Adnan Abu-Odeh's /Jordanians, Palestinians & the
Hashemite Kingdom/, the first two chapters of which explain the
differences between Jordanians and Palestinians in considerable detail.
If you can show me that any of that book is bad history or propaganda, I
would very much like to know.
....
> >No. (In the main, they called for the destruction of Israel; a
> >Palestinian state might or might not have resulted from that.) And that
> >was wrong, or at least against international resolutions. As I have been
> >saying, the ethnic identity among the Jordanians, Egyptians, and
> >Palestinians hardly shows that the Palestinians want to be part of Egypt
> >or Jordan.
>
> But I don't recall them complaining about it when they were. No
> separtist movement at all. None.
Who is "them"? The Jordanians, the Egyptians, or the Palestinians?
Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini certainly seems to have had a separatist view.
(That his intransigence might actually have been counterproductive to the
establishment of a Palestinian state is another matter.)
....
> I said "so many forget history," not you in particular. They forget
> that Jordan was created to be the Palestinian state. Or rather, the
> Arab state in the Mandate of Palestine (a region, not a people).
I don't think the facts support this role for Jordan.
> Buying in to Arab propaganda refers to accepting the artificial
> construct of a separate "Palestinian people" with national ambitions
> of their own.
I don't think that it is artificial. I think that you are lumping
together people who have many reasons to view themselves as separate,
simply because there is one sense in which they are similar.
The very best propaganda is based on the truth. Or, as I think Gandhi
said, the biggest lie is right next to the biggest truth. The use of
propaganda by various Arab governments or organizations does not mean
that that there are no Palestinians with legitimate reasons for a
Palestinian state. Incorrect arguments and even evil rhetoric can
nevertheless reach true conclusions.
> >Further, I said the Palestinians do not have a country. You seem to
> >agree that an "autonomous state" can be legitimately created on the West
> >Bank. What would be the point of that, except to create a Palestinian
> >state? The Jews already have one in that area.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "legitimately"--whatever happens is
> after the fact legitimate.
We can argue over what "legitimate" means if you like. But I seriously
doubt you think that after the fact anything that has happened is
legitimate. You would, I think, want your murderer prosecuted, for
example.
> Is Israel "legitimate"?
With its current borders and occupied territory? I would say no. But
that it not my argument. My point is that /if/ Israel is legitimate,
then so is a Palestinian state. From my particular perspective, the
whole mess in the Middle East is a strong argument against having states.
....
> But I
> also submit that the "Palestinians" have one in the area too--Jordan.
> Also Iraq, Syria, and all the nations on the Saudi peninsula, for what
> it's worth.
And I think that you are papering over real differences in outlook and
history.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19957
From: noone" <no_one@home>
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 19:26:33 -0000
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
7 october 2001, add to suspect list; "osama bin running"
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bb3c91a.0@news.sff.net...
> http://www.dailyprobe.com/
>
> Filksinger
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19958
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 20:54:50 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
To begin with, thank you for refering me to Adnan Abu-Odeh's
Jordanians, Palestinians & the Hashemite Kingdom. I have not read it,
altho I would like to, and could not find it on the web, but looking
for it gave me lots of room for study and learning, and I appreciate
that.
That said...
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 15:34:40 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <3bc04373.39742711@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
>writes...
>
>> Most of the "Palestinian" land was titled to the Turks, and that's who
>> the early Jewish settlers (the ones who didn't already live there)
>> bought it from.
>
>"When the mandate established the borders of Palestine on the new world
>map, the concept of /Filastin/ (the Arabic word for Palestine) had
>already existed for a long time, not only in the minds of European
>consuls in Jerusalem - thanks to their biblical culture - but also in the
>minds of the Palestinians themselves, especially the social elite.
>Several factors contributed to the further consolidation of this concept
>at the time the new borders were created... These factors are... (2)
>Ottoman administrative boundaries, which, from 1874 onward, made of
>Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Beersheeba, Gaza, and Jaffa districts one
>separate unit administered independently from any other Ottoman
>province;...(4) the powerful local attachment to place, or urban
>patriotism, a phenomenon of Islamic tradition." [source provided below]
>
>I don't see that your putting Palestine in quotes is warranted.
>...
Well, as I said, I don't have the book, so I can't really check his
sources, can I? But I did find quite a few references to it, so let
me offer the following general points.
1) The book was written in 1999, well after the fabrication of the
"Palestinian people" had been promulgated. It's relatively easy to go
back after the fact and find pieces of history that happen to match a
point your trying to make--look at all the Nostrodomus silliness that
has caught on. What is the contemporary source for a Palestinian
people separate from what is now called Jordan?
2) The book was written in English, obviously for a Western Market.
This too lends itself to a suspicion that it is political propaganda,
not scholarship.
3) I did find a review of the book by Ayeesha Fairuz from the Middle
East Times, which says, "[Abu-Odeh] goes to lengths to establish that
two separate identities--Palestinian and Transjordanian--which began
to emerge IN THE 1920S [emphasis added] were not, as many mistakenly
believe, a consequence of the Arab-Israeli conflict." If that is a
correct statement, it sort of says to me that there is no
long-standing ethnic basis for the split, but is at its earliest the
product of the British partitioning.
http://www.metimes.com/2K/issue2000-10/cultent/jordanians_stand_divided.htm
4) In none of references to Abu-Odeh's work that I found was there
any mention of a name for the so-called non-Palestinian Jordanians.
If Jordan were somthing other than Palestine, wouldn't there be some
ethnological name for the people there? The name "Jordan" is in itself
merely a truncation of the orginal name, "TransJordan," which was
confered by the British when they partitioned the Mandate of
Palestine. It only meant the territory accross the Jordan River, and
does not derive from any tribe or nationality that lived there.
5) Abu-Odeh considers himself to be a "Jordanian of Palestinian
descent." He is quoted in a speech about his book in Feb 2000 as
saying, "...despite the fact that the issue of refugees in the Kingdom
is often raised, the majority of both Palestinians and Jordanians
(64.4%) consider themselves to be one people. "
http://archives.star.arabia.com/000203/JO7.html
Some specifics from your post:
>> >But if some people are going to have them, then let's apply the same
>> >rules to all.
>>
>> That's what I think should be done as well. Israel was created
>> because the Jews wanted their own state. The whole concept of
>> nationalism and "self-determination," wherever it has been applied in
>> the world, has always be tied to common ethnicity.
>
>Somehow I doubt that you are opposed to the Revolutionary War, yet it
>provided a separate state for a people ethnically indistinguishable from
>the British.
That's mixing apples and oranges, and I think you know it. The
American Revolution was fought for a variety of reasons, but the major
one was probably that the colonists (who were not ALL English but
nevermind) were not afforded the common rights of British citizens in
the homeland. Had the British King and Parliament treated the
colonists the same, we'd probably all still be Her Majesty's subjects.
The "Palestinians" in Jordan (some 50-60% of the population of Jordan,
according to your own source) are indeed full citizens, and are not
attempting to separate, even now. The only people who want a new
Palestinian nation for themselves are those who live on the West
Bank/Gaza and in Israel.
>> My "That's
>> the point" referred to the fact that there WAS a "Mandatory Palestine"
>> and it INCLUDED what would later be called Jordan. Jordanians ARE
>> Palestinians. THAT was my point.
>
>And I dispute this point. Jordan was carved out of Mandatory Palestine
>by the efforts of Emir Abdullah - in cooperation with the British -
>partly in order to limit the effects of Jewish settlement in the area.
>Until this happened, it was unclear what if any geographic limits would
>be imposed on the proposed Jewish state under the Balfour Declaration.
>It is also true that Abdullah had a dream of a vast Pan-Arabic state
>united under /his/ rule. That does not at all show that Palestinians on
>the West Bank shared Abdullah's dream.
Nor does it show that they didn't. Or don't. It is my belief, based
upon much study, that it is precisely the one-Arabia idea that
motivates the common man in all these countries--that only the elite
want to keep their sovereign powers and thus stay separate nations.
Be that as it may, according to a Jordanian journalist, Lamis Andoni
quotes Abu-Odeh as saying Jordan's "identity has been blurred and its
political discourse is in crisis because it has lost a sense of its
Arab mission," and that (not a direct quote of Abu-Odeh) "The
Hashemites see themselves as heirs of the 1916 Arab Revolt launched by
Hussein's great grandfather, Sherif Hussein of Mecca, against Ottoman
rule. Well-known in the West on account of the part played by Lawrence
of Arabia, the revolt was the basis of the monarchy's pan-Arab
legitimacy." So it appears to me that Abu-Odeh, as a "Jordanian of
Palestinian descent" does indeed seem to believe in the pan-Arabic
cause.
http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/1999/03/13jordan
>> I said "so many forget history," not you in particular. They forget
>> that Jordan was created to be the Palestinian state. Or rather, the
>> Arab state in the Mandate of Palestine (a region, not a people).
>
>I don't think the facts support this role for Jordan.
And I think you are ignoring the facts which do, in favor of other
"facts," from dubious sources, which support the role that fits your
preconceptions.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19959
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:27:57 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc1fd5d.16270819@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> To begin with, thank you for refering me to Adnan Abu-Odeh's
> Jordanians, Palestinians & the Hashemite Kingdom.
You're welcome.
....
> 1) The book was written in 1999, well after the fabrication of the
> "Palestinian people" had been promulgated.
It has taken me a little while to realize that this "fabrication" (I can
use quotes, too ;-) ) is central to your argument. I have no particular
expertise here, I just happen to be reading Abu-Odeh's book (given to me
by a friend who is doing some consulting in Jordan). If you don't accept
Abu-Odeh's work as scholarly, I will have to do some digging for other
sources that I don't really have time for right now. But I will explain
why I think it is a scholarly work below.
....
> 2) The book was written in English, obviously for a Western Market.
> This too lends itself to a suspicion that it is political propaganda,
> not scholarship.
English is a very popular language, and Abu-Odeh seems fluent in it.
That is another reason for it to be in English. The book was published
by the United States Institute for Peace Press, and has a forward by
William Quandt of UVA, a fairly well-known scholar of political science.
Is your view that Quandt is a propagandist? About the "Peace Press", I
know nothing, but it says at
http://www.usip.org/aboutusip.html
that they are created and funded by the U.S. Congress. (Of course, I am
willing to accept that a good deal of propaganda has come from that
source! ;-) )
> 3) I did find a review of the book by Ayeesha Fairuz from the Middle
> East Times, which says, "[Abu-Odeh] goes to lengths to establish that
> two separate identities--Palestinian and Transjordanian--which began
> to emerge IN THE 1920S [emphasis added] were not, as many mistakenly
> believe, a consequence of the Arab-Israeli conflict." If that is a
> correct statement, it sort of says to me that there is no
> long-standing ethnic basis for the split, but is at its earliest the
> product of the British partitioning.
And I still don't see why the lack of a "long-standing" ethnic difference
is at all crucial to having (or not having) a claim for a state. If
ethnic differences are all that matter, what's the point of having
Jordan? The whole mess could have been given to Syria, who are also
ethnically identical. (Except of course for the little business of
English/Gallic ethnic differences.)
For that matter, the whole Middle East, Arab and Jew, is filled with
ethnically "Semitic" peoples. Who can tell a Sephardic Jew from an Arab?
Let's dissolve Israel, put them all in one country and let God sort it
out!
....
> 4) In none of references to Abu-Odeh's work that I found was there
> any mention of a name for the so-called non-Palestinian Jordanians.
> If Jordan were somthing other than Palestine, wouldn't there be some
> ethnological name for the people there? The name "Jordan" is in itself
> merely a truncation of the orginal name, "TransJordan," which was
> confered by the British when they partitioned the Mandate of
> Palestine. It only meant the territory accross the Jordan River, and
> does not derive from any tribe or nationality that lived there.
And because a state was created on the East of the Jordan, people living
on the West should consider it their state? Why not Syria or Lebanon as
their state? Answer: they were living on the West Bank, not in Syria,
Lebanon, or Jordan. Of course, many were originally living in what
became Israel (within its original borders), but some compromise is
necessary here.
> 5) Abu-Odeh considers himself to be a "Jordanian of Palestinian
> descent."
I believe that is correct. In his book, he distinguishes among
Transjordanians, Palestinians, Palestinian-Jordanians, and Jordanians
(and these are somewhat overlapping categories.
> He is quoted in a speech about his book in Feb 2000 as
> saying, "...despite the fact that the issue of refugees in the Kingdom
> is often raised, the majority of both Palestinians and Jordanians
> (64.4%) consider themselves to be one people. "
So 35.6% do not. That's more people than I could feed at a BBQ.
....
> >Somehow I doubt that you are opposed to the Revolutionary War, yet it
> >provided a separate state for a people ethnically indistinguishable from
> >the British.
>
> That's mixing apples and oranges, and I think you know it. The
> American Revolution was fought for a variety of reasons, but the major
> one was probably that the colonists (who were not ALL English but
> nevermind) were not afforded the common rights of British citizens in
> the homeland.
So there /is/ more than one reason to have a different state than
ethnicity. You might disagree that the Palestinians have such a reason,
but it is not sufficient on your own terms to argue that ethnicity is all
that matters. (And surely the basis for a new state was not that /some/
Americans where not English. How many such signed the Declaration of
Independence? What language was it written in?)
> Had the British King and Parliament treated the
> colonists the same, we'd probably all still be Her Majesty's subjects.
But the Palestinians on either side of the Jordan were not treated the
same by the British. One side had a state and one did not.
> The "Palestinians" in Jordan (some 50-60% of the population of Jordan,
> according to your own source) are indeed full citizens, and are not
> attempting to separate, even now. The only people who want a new
> Palestinian nation for themselves are those who live on the West
> Bank/Gaza and in Israel.
OK. So? Abu-Odeh's book details the serious problems that Jordan had
politically when the West Bank Palestinians /were/ part of Jordan. No
doubt part of Abu-Odeh's value to King Hussein was that Abu-Odeh /was/ a
Palestinian, and was perceived as such by other Palestinians in Jordan.
....
> >And I dispute this point. Jordan was carved out of Mandatory Palestine
> >by the efforts of Emir Abdullah - in cooperation with the British -
> >partly in order to limit the effects of Jewish settlement in the area.
> >Until this happened, it was unclear what if any geographic limits would
> >be imposed on the proposed Jewish state under the Balfour Declaration.
> >It is also true that Abdullah had a dream of a vast Pan-Arabic state
> >united under /his/ rule. That does not at all show that Palestinians on
> >the West Bank shared Abdullah's dream.
>
> Nor does it show that they didn't. Or don't.
My point is that the impetus came from Abdullah, and there was no figure
from the West Bank Palestinians of similar stature who followed him. Why
did /any/ Arabs remain on the West Bank if they were loyal to Abdullah?
The Jordan River might be "deep and wide", as the song goes, but it is
not /that/ hard to cross. It seems to me that they voted with their
feet.
> It is my belief, based
> upon much study, that it is precisely the one-Arabia idea that
> motivates the common man in all these countries--that only the elite
> want to keep their sovereign powers and thus stay separate nations.
I'm an anarchist - you hardly have to convince me that states appeal to
the elites. So your view is that the common man on the West Bank would
be happy to be a citizen of Jordan (as a step on the way to Pan-Arabia)?
The whole mess has been manufactured by Arafat and some cronies?
....
> So it appears to me that Abu-Odeh, as a "Jordanian of
> Palestinian descent" does indeed seem to believe in the pan-Arabic
> cause.
Abu-Odeh's point about the existence of a distinctly Palestinian people
stands (or falls) independently of his own view of Arab politics.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19960
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:24:03 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
This all an interesting discussion, but it has twisted away from my
original point. You said that the Palestinians want a nation-state,
and I said they have one. I suppose I should have said they have
several. Nothing in the thread disproves that.
It's like when Muslims, Christians, and others say "Zionism = racism"
because it's racist to have a Jewish state (ignoring the fact that
Judaism is not a race). But there is never any question of the right
or wrong of having a couple dozen Islamic states. Now, personally, I
wish every nation were secular (essentially) like ours, but it's not
the reality of the world.
There is a Jewish state; there is at least one "Palestinian" state.
That was my only point originally.
Now, to continue the discussion:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2001 23:27:57 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>And I still don't see why the lack of a "long-standing" ethnic difference
>is at all crucial to having (or not having) a claim for a state.
Ethnicity, or culture, or whatever you want to call it, has long been
the primary basis of defining "the right to self-determination" by
nationhood. It's the basis of separatist movements in Quebec,
Northern Ireland, and Puerto Rico, Kurds inTurkey, Syria and Iraq, to
name a few; the establishment of nations such as Eritria, Bangladesh,
Bosnia-Herzogovena, the whole plethora of former-Soviet states; and is
behind various border disputes such as between Macedonia/Albania, was
the justification for Hitler's justification for taking the
Sudetanland. his amalgamation of Germany and Austria.
It is also the basis of the Palestinian demand for a separate nation
on the West Bank. If it is not important, then why can't they just be
Israeli citizens? Just because differing ethnic history is the basis
for most national borders, doesn't mean that those differences cannot
co-exist. We do it here in the US quite well, even as we do have
problems. So does Israel, for that matter. Jews are only a little
over 80% of the population, iirc.
>For that matter, the whole Middle East, Arab and Jew, is filled with
>ethnically "Semitic" peoples. Who can tell a Sephardic Jew from an Arab?
>Let's dissolve Israel, put them all in one country and let God sort it
>out!
Religion is considered on of the primary bases of culture and
ethnicity--along with language, it's probably the most distinguishing
factor. There ARE conflicts between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews in
Israel, but as long as the main threat remains from Arab nations, what
binds them together is more significant than their differences. Fwiw,
many Israeli Muslims are fairly well integrated into their society, if
not perfectly so. The Druze has, as whole, tended to see their best
interests as residing with Israel and have been, for the most part,
loyal citizens.
>> He is quoted in a speech about his book in Feb 2000 as
>> saying, "...despite the fact that the issue of refugees in the Kingdom
>> is often raised, the majority of both Palestinians and Jordanians
>> (64.4%) consider themselves to be one people. "
>
>So 35.6% do not. That's more people than I could feed at a BBQ.
I can't provide a direct quote, but I got the impression that most of
the 35.6% who don't are eastern Jordanians who do not want to be drug
(dragged?) down by the relative poverty of the western (Palestinian)
Jordanians, as well as the latter's tendancy for more radical
political beliefs. Kind of a west/east German thing.
>So there /is/ more than one reason to have a different state than
>ethnicity. You might disagree that the Palestinians have such a reason,
>but it is not sufficient on your own terms to argue that ethnicity is all
>that matters.
I never said it was "all that matters." I said that it is a specious
arguement for the creation of another "Palestinian" state.
>> It is my belief, based
>> upon much study, that it is precisely the one-Arabia idea that
>> motivates the common man in all these countries--that only the elite
>> want to keep their sovereign powers and thus stay separate nations.
>
>I'm an anarchist - you hardly have to convince me that states appeal to
>the elites. So your view is that the common man on the West Bank would
>be happy to be a citizen of Jordan (as a step on the way to Pan-Arabia)?
Yes, I most definitely believe they would, so long as Israel was
anihilated in the package.
>The whole mess has been manufactured by Arafat and some cronies?
Not just Arafat, altho he certainly stands to gain much from it. I do
contend that the Arab leadership in general has manufactured the idea
of a separate Palestinian people, and purposely kept them in poverty,
and nationless, and twisted their ideological beliefs thru specific
educational curricula, in order to maintain a constant threat to
Israel and an excuse to defame her in the eyes of world opinion.
It has only been fairly recently, since the 80s maybe but especially
since the Gulf War, that the Arab elite have begun to see how they
benefit from stability in the region, trade with the West, etc., and
that not every Arab nation is every other's friend. [Altho, when push
came to shove, the Arabs preferred Saddam Heussein in power in Iraq
than a possible Shi'ite/Persian/Iranian ruler, and that is why the
allied coalition required the US to back off from taking Baghdad.]
But the common man, and the religious authorities, and to a lesser
extent the intelligencia, do NOT see it that way.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19961
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:38:37 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc30871.61444223@news.sff.net...
> This all an interesting discussion, but it has twisted away from my
> original point. You said that the Palestinians want a nation-state,
> and I said they have one.
Here is my original statement in this thread:
"I do not think that the issue is trade; trade brings people together.
The issue is politics. As long as there are Palestinians without a
country, there will be terrorism. We have three choices. Learn to live
with terrorism; exterminate /every/ Palestinian; or give them a country."
I followed this with:
"They have land, some of them, but not a nation-state. (Not that I am in
favor of nation-states, mind you, but others seem to want them.) And the
titles to land that they do have on the West Bank are routinely
disregarded by the occupying power, Israel. But the West Bank was never
a nation-state for the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine, so far as I know."
If the second quote needs to be emphasized to clarify the first, note that I
was talking about the Arabic people of the West Bank. That is what I has in
mind when I wrote the first. Following Abu-Odeh, I think that it makes
sense to call these people "Palestinians" and recognize that they are
different from "Jordanians" or "Palestinians living in Jordan", /even if
these differences are not ethnic/. Are you now willing to drop the issue of
whether Abu-Odeh's book is "propaganda"? If not, we will have to agree to
disagree until I have the time to develop other sources.
....
> But there is never any question of the right
> or wrong of having a couple dozen Islamic states. Now, personally, I
> wish every nation were secular (essentially) like ours, but it's not
> the reality of the world.
And I don't want to see any states. But /if/ there are some, I don't see
why there can only be one per ethnic group.
....
> >And I still don't see why the lack of a "long-standing" ethnic difference
> >is at all crucial to having (or not having) a claim for a state.
>
> Ethnicity, or culture, or whatever you want to call it, has long been
> the primary basis of defining "the right to self-determination" by
> nationhood.
But not the only basis. It's popularity as a basis is not my issue.
....
> It is also the basis of the Palestinian demand for a separate nation
> on the West Bank. If it is not important, then why can't they just be
> Israeli citizens?
Are you seriously suggesting that Israel would accept a huge influx of
either Arabs or Muslims (or both)? Why does Israel continue to rule to rule
the West Bank as occupied territory? Israel has routinely ignored the
property claims of individual "Arabic persons with historic ties to the
Palestinian region" (hopefully that avoids the "propaganda" embedded in
"Palestinians"?) in order to claim more land for Jewish settlements and to
avoid the cost of reparations for property seizure to some "Arabic persons
with historic ties to the Palestinian region", some of whom no longer even
live in the Middle East.
The bottom line is that Israel does not want these people, and neither does
Jordan, based upon the history that Abu-Odeh presents. If you wish to
propose a single Pan-Arabic state throughout the entire Middle East rather
than a state on the West Bank for "Arabic persons with historic ties to the
Palestinian region" (I'm getting a little tired of copying and pasting
that - perhaps I could just say "Palestinians"?), fine. Of course, the
political problems that proposal would face are much greater than mine.
And, I doubt that it would be doing Israel any favor. Arab divisiveness is
one of the things keeping Israel viable.
> Just because differing ethnic history is the basis
> for most national borders, doesn't mean that those differences cannot
> co-exist.
But I am not arguing that ethnically /diverse/ people should live in
/different/ states. /You/ are arguing that ethnically /similar/ people
should live in the /same/ state.
....
> I can't provide a direct quote, but I got the impression that most of
> the 35.6% who don't are eastern Jordanians who do not want to be drug
> (dragged?) down by the relative poverty of the western (Palestinian)
> Jordanians, as well as the latter's tendancy for more radical
> political beliefs. Kind of a west/east German thing.
And this point helps my argument, not yours, so far as I can see. The
Jordanians don't want them.
> >So there /is/ more than one reason to have a different state than
> >ethnicity. You might disagree that the Palestinians have such a reason,
> >but it is not sufficient on your own terms to argue that ethnicity is all
> >that matters.
>
> I never said it was "all that matters." I said that it is a specious
> arguement for the creation of another "Palestinian" state.
OK. But I've never argued that the Palestinians should have a separate
state /because/ they are ethnically different. Look at my initial quotes
above.
....
> >I'm an anarchist - you hardly have to convince me that states appeal to
> >the elites. So your view is that the common man on the West Bank would
> >be happy to be a citizen of Jordan (as a step on the way to Pan-Arabia)?
>
> Yes, I most definitely believe they would, so long as Israel was
> anihilated in the package.
Well, I am looking for a solution that doesn't call for that. And we had
better hope that such a solution would appeal to the majority of Muslims,
because, if not, we will have to annihilate every Palestinian on the West
Bank in order to live in peace in the U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19962
From: lemmen@saxonmtg.com
Date: 9 Oct 2001 17:18:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Would you kindly send it my way as well?
TIA
Paul H. Lemmen
Bloc Sprao Agath
No Go Maci
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19963
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 18:59:47 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:38:37 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>And I don't want to see any states. But /if/ there are some, I don't see
>why there can only be one per ethnic group.
And I say again: I never said there can't. But don't tell me there
isn't ONE already. As you point out, there are several.
>> It is also the basis of the Palestinian demand for a separate nation
>> on the West Bank. If it is not important, then why can't they just be
>> Israeli citizens?
>
>Are you seriously suggesting that Israel would accept a huge influx of
>either Arabs or Muslims (or both)? Why does Israel continue to rule to rule
>the West Bank as occupied territory?
My point was that ethnicity is allegedly the issue for the West Bank
Palestinians, You're the one who seemed to say it was not important.
>Israel has routinely ignored the
>property claims of individual "Arabic persons with historic ties to the
>Palestinian region" (hopefully that avoids the "propaganda" embedded in
>"Palestinians"?) in order to claim more land for Jewish settlements and to
>avoid the cost of reparations for property seizure to some "Arabic persons
>with historic ties to the Palestinian region", some of whom no longer even
>live in the Middle East.
Avoiding the cost of reparations may be an issue. Wanting a peace
settlement before civil claims are settled is also an issue. Claiming
more land for Jewish settlements is not. Not for the Israeli
government, anyway. There are, unfortunately, extremist Jews who are
trying create a Greater Israel, based on Biblical/historical
boundaries--those are the ones who are settling on the West Bank, or
funding it. They're also the ones who killed Rabin. Aren't
fundamentalist great? (not) But until there is peace, it's sort of
hard for the Israeli government to deal with those people. It's a
complex situation.
>But I am not arguing that ethnically /diverse/ people should live in
>/different/ states. /You/ are arguing that ethnically /similar/ people
>should live in the /same/ state.
No, I'm only arguing that there is A state for one group of ethnically
IDENTICAL people, in response to your (and others') statements to the
contrary.
..
>> I can't provide a direct quote, but I got the impression that most of
>> the 35.6% who don't are eastern Jordanians who do not want to be drug
>> (dragged?) down by the relative poverty of the western (Palestinian)
>> Jordanians, as well as the latter's tendancy for more radical
>> political beliefs. Kind of a west/east German thing.
>
>And this point helps my argument, not yours, so far as I can see. The
>Jordanians don't want them.
Only 35.6% of Jordanians "don't want them" (them being western
Jordanians... who are also frequently called Palestinians). Well,
alot of Americans would like to get rid of our poor, uneducated
citizens. But we don't. And I don't think the govt of Jordan intends
to either.
>> >I'm an anarchist - you hardly have to convince me that states appeal to
>> >the elites. So your view is that the common man on the West Bank would
>> >be happy to be a citizen of Jordan (as a step on the way to Pan-Arabia)?
>>
>> Yes, I most definitely believe they would, so long as Israel was
>> anihilated in the package.
>
>Well, I am looking for a solution that doesn't call for that. And we had
>better hope that such a solution would appeal to the majority of Muslims,
>because, if not, we will have to annihilate every Palestinian on the West
>Bank in order to live in peace in the U.S.
And I agree that, ultimately, a Palestinian nation on the West Bank is
necessary, for precisely that reason. But I sympathize greatly with
those Israelis who fear the Arabs will not be satified with that.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19964
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 20:21:21 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Rats. One of my paragraphs got shortened. I must have gotten slopply
on my cut & paste.
On Tue, 09 Oct 2001 18:59:47 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>>> It is also the basis of the Palestinian demand for a separate nation
>>> on the West Bank. If it is not important, then why can't they just be
>>> Israeli citizens?
>>
>>Are you seriously suggesting that Israel would accept a huge influx of
>>either Arabs or Muslims (or both)? Why does Israel continue to rule to rule
>>the West Bank as occupied territory?
>
My point was that ethnicity is allegedly the issue for the West Bank
Palestinians, You're the one who seemed to say it was not important.
I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that, if Israel offered citizenship
to everyone in the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians would be
satisfied.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19965
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:07:50 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 12:38:37 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >And I don't want to see any states. But /if/ there are some, I don't see
> >why there can only be one per ethnic group.
>
> And I say again: I never said there can't. But don't tell me there
> isn't ONE already. As you point out, there are several.
I tried to clear this up last post. I did not mean to say that there was
not an Arab state with Palestinian citizens. And if you read my first two
posts as I quoted them last time, it is clear that I did /not/ say that.
What I said was that the Palestinians of the /West Bank/ do not have a
state.
.....
>
> My point was that ethnicity is allegedly the issue for the West Bank
> Palestinians, You're the one who seemed to say it was not important.
I think that Abu-Odeh establishes that there are separate Palestinian and
Jordanian "identities" even if they are not based in ethnic differences.
But even if there was no such separate identity, there ought to be an Arab
state on the West Bank, /even/ if extremists and terrorists only give a
bogus "ethnicity" argument in favor of it. The conclusions of my arguments
are not hostage to the bad arguments of others.
....
> Avoiding the cost of reparations may be an issue. Wanting a peace
> settlement before civil claims are settled is also an issue. Claiming
> more land for Jewish settlements is not. Not for the Israeli
> government, anyway.
Not perhaps for a Rabin government, but that is not an option anymore.
Sharon is another matter altogether. His inflammatory speech at the one of
the "holy sites" for /purely domestic political reasons/ was beneath
contempt for any "ally" of the U.S.
....
> >Well, I am looking for a solution that doesn't call for that. And we had
> >better hope that such a solution would appeal to the majority of Muslims,
> >because, if not, we will have to annihilate every Palestinian on the West
> >Bank in order to live in peace in the U.S.
>
> And I agree that, ultimately, a Palestinian nation on the West Bank is
> necessary, for precisely that reason. But I sympathize greatly with
> those Israelis who fear the Arabs will not be satified with that.
I sympathize as well. But I can't see how the situation could be any worse
for /U.S./ citizens with an Arab state on the West Bank, and I really don't
think that it would be worse for Israelis, either. The current situation is
one of constant terror. If nothing else, a real state on the West Bank
would be more responsive to military threats than the "Palestinian
Authority", IMHO.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19966
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:28:30 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc35b99.82735820@news.sff.net...
....
> I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that, if Israel offered citizenship
> to everyone in the West Bank and Gaza, the Palestinians would be
> satisfied.
If they were smart, they would be. It would only be another 50 years before
the Arabs were a majority in a "Jewish" state. They have waited that long
already. But I hope you will not call it propaganda if I say that despite
the democratic form of Israel's government, its religious origins make it
very difficult for Arab Israelis to act as full citizens. And humiliation
is a major factor in this whole mess.
In any event, I can't see Israel making this offer. They have been adamant
that Arabs and their descendents who left in 1948 have no right of return.
That group plus Gaza and the West Bank would swamp Israel in short order.
There are elements in Islam and Judaism that cannot brook compromise on
"principle". An Arab West Bank state next to Israel is a compromise. At
one level, if two groups of extremists want to fight to the death, who am I
to try to stop them? I simply /insist/ that "my" government stay the hell
away from them. It has proven itself incompetent to intervene, and
incompetent to protect its citizens - such as my wife and myself - from the
consequences of its intervention.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19967
From: SpaceCadet <cadozo@planet-save.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 20:13:02 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> For that matter, the whole Middle East, Arab and Jew, is filled with
> ethnically "Semitic" peoples. Who can tell a Sephardic Jew from an Arab?
It ain't easy, even for us Cardozos. :)
Carol
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19968
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:16:48 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:07:50 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>Sharon is another matter altogether. His inflammatory speech at the one of
>the "holy sites" for /purely domestic political reasons/ was beneath
>contempt for any "ally" of the U.S.
Now that really is BS. Sharon, for all his faults, was totally
justified in his "Czecholovakia" remarks. It's about time the US
realized who their ONLY real ally in the region is and stop treating
Israel like a red-headed step-child.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19969
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:18:59 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:28:30 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> I simply /insist/ that "my" government stay the hell
>away from them. It has proven itself incompetent to intervene, and
>incompetent to protect its citizens - such as my wife and myself - from the
>consequences of its intervention.
You have a hell of a right to "insist" anything. And if you think the
WTC attack has anything to do with our support of Israel, you're a
bigger fool than I thought. This coversation is over.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19970
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 01:47:15 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc3bcd4.107630904@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:07:50 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Sharon is another matter altogether. His inflammatory speech at the one of
> >the "holy sites" for /purely domestic political reasons/ was beneath
> >contempt for any "ally" of the U.S.
>
> Now that really is BS. Sharon, for all his faults, was totally
> justified in his "Czecholovakia" remarks. It's about time the US
> realized who their ONLY real ally in the region is and stop treating
> Israel like a red-headed step-child.
I was not referring to those recent remarks, but to ones he made some
time back, before he was elected. They helped to get him elected.
Arguably, an "ally" does not spy on you. But, in any event, I don't want
any allies in the Middle East. I am supremely confident that oil will
flow from it no matter who is in charge. Should I prove wrong about this
by some remarkable chance, there is still plenty of oil in Alaska.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19971
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 02:01:27 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc3bdab.107845600@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:28:30 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > I simply /insist/ that "my" government stay the hell
> >away from them. It has proven itself incompetent to intervene, and
> >incompetent to protect its citizens - such as my wife and myself - from the
> >consequences of its intervention.
>
> You have a hell of a right to "insist" anything.
Same right as any one else.
> And if you think the
> WTC attack has anything to do with our support of Israel, you're a
> bigger fool than I thought. This coversation is over.
A typical reaction, btw. Tell me, was I first a small "fool" because I
accepted Abu-Odeh's "propaganda"? But perhaps there is some other
reason, since you dropped that charge rather abruptly when I mentioned
only a few facts about his book.
If U.S. support has nothing to do with it, then why did bin Laden find it
useful to mention? It is more than time for Israel's apologists to face
the facts. They have been busy as beavers denying the obvious ever since
9/11 in every media outlet I come across. It is essential to them to
drive a wedge between the events of 9/11 and the obvious conclusion, else
U.S. aid to Israel might suffer.
I do not blame Israel for trying to defend itself, but there is nothing
in it for me and mine - or any U.S. citizen qua /U.S. citizen/.
Individuals who wish to support Israel privately should, of course, be
allowed to do so.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19972
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:44:33 -0500
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> "Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:3BBDA84B.E91ED682@aol.com...
> Filksinger--
> I WAS referring to only the elected idiots!
>
> How many elected officials are there "in the hill", by your count?
>
> Filksinger
Filksinger--
435 House. 100 Senate, 2 White house. Not that this is anywhere
near a complete listing of the number of idiots in the area. By about 4
orders of magnitude.
"And we went down the (Washington) Beltway which separates
Washington from the rest of the country both geographically and
politically.)
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19973
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:21:03 GMT
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 06:44:33 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:
>Filksinger--
> 435 House. 100 Senate, 2 White house.
I thought "the hill" only referred to Congress?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19974
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:30:08 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> It's about time the US realized who their ONLY real ally in
> the region is and stop treating Israel like a red-headed
> step-child.
Israel is only an "ally" because the Jewish population of the US is
larger, wealthier, better-connected and more vocal than the Arab/Muslim
population. It makes no sense in any other respect.
Making an ally of one outnumbered, outcast, isolated, warrior-ethic
nation with serious internal human-rights issues, little strategic value
and no natural resources is stupid and shortsighted, and always has
been.
Now more than ever, the US needs a realistic policy for the Middle East,
one that does not revolve first, foremost and last around Israel.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19975
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:42:06 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> Arguably, an "ally" does not spy on you.
Or strafe and bomb your ships so that they can perform illegitimate acts
without you seeing.
> But, in any event, I don't want any allies in the Middle East.
That may be a bit isolationist and short-sighted, Gordon. We need allies
everywhere... but they should be chosen for reasons that promote the
best possible joint future for all involved.
Every facet of our policies in the Middle East have been as wrongheaded
and misdriven as possible since WWII. We exploited the oil-producing
nations until their leadership figured out that it was THEIR hand on the
lever, not ours... and were surprised at the result. We support the one
contrary nation in the region whose questionable internal and external
policies make it a pariah on the world stage... and fail to understand
why we're so loathed in the rest of the region. We've carried on daily
bombing and attacks against a nation that may deserve it, but have done
it so casually that no one really understands why we're still doing it -
so we look like a bully beating up Hussein for lunch money every day.
If the US does not use the next decade to wholly restructure its
relationship with all Middle Eastern nations and entities, with true
stability, peace and mutual respect being the guiding principles, the
price we've paid so far will be reduced to a footnote of what's to come.
There are insoluble problems in the region - but we don't have to add to
them.
> I am supremely confident that oil will flow from it no matter
> who is in charge.
Pretty much. Until the US gets its oil addiction under control, though,
we're going to be yanked around by the balls by anyone who has oil to
sell.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19976
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:43:16 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Charles Graft wrote:
> 435 House. 100 Senate, 2 White house.
1 White House. The VP is, for all practical purposes, an unelected
appointee.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19977
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:25:42 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BC47A5E.374A7279@surewest.net...
> "Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
> > Arguably, an "ally" does not spy on you.
>
> Or strafe and bomb your ships so that they can perform illegitimate acts
> without you seeing.
That was just a mistake, wasn't it?
>
> > But, in any event, I don't want any allies in the Middle East.
>
> That may be a bit isolationist and short-sighted, Gordon.
I plead guilty to the first. To try to show that that makes me guilty of
the second will take you a long argument.
>We need allies
> everywhere... but they should be chosen for reasons that promote the
> best possible joint future for all involved.
Better joint futures is what trade is all about (remember my original
comment, days ago?). "Best possible" is only useful for marking the point
at the end of the measuring rod.
> Every facet of our policies in the Middle East have been as wrongheaded
> and misdriven as possible since WWII. We exploited the oil-producing
> nations until their leadership figured out that it was THEIR hand on the
> lever, not ours... and were surprised at the result. We support the one
> contrary nation in the region whose questionable internal and external
> policies make it a pariah on the world stage... and fail to understand
> why we're so loathed in the rest of the region. We've carried on daily
> bombing and attacks against a nation that may deserve it, but have done
> it so casually that no one really understands why we're still doing it -
> so we look like a bully beating up Hussein for lunch money every day.
No argument from me.
> If the US does not use the next decade to wholly restructure its
> relationship with all Middle Eastern nations and entities, with true
> stability, peace and mutual respect being the guiding principles, the
> price we've paid so far will be reduced to a footnote of what's to come.
> There are insoluble problems in the region - but we don't have to add to
> them.
Why should we assume, based on all the evidence that supports your "Every
facet" paragraph that the U.S. can do better in the future? I agree that we
should adopt principles of "true stability, peace, and mutual respect", but
those principles have to be translated into policies and then to concrete
actions. I don't know of any better policy to instantiate those principles
than "trade with all, entangling alliances with none".
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19978
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:04:31 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Gordon Sollars wrote:
>>> Arguably, an "ally" does not spy on you.
>> Or strafe and bomb your ships so that they can perform
>> illegitimate acts without you seeing.
> That was just a mistake, wasn't it?
But of course it was. In their distraction, the Israeli pilots mistook a
400-foot ship with gigantic antennas all over it and flying an oversized
US parade pennant for a 150-foot rustbucket Egyptian freighter. In at
least three separate air passes and a ship-to-ship encounter.
> Why should we assume, based on all the evidence that supports your
> "Every facet" paragraph that the U.S. can do better in the future?
Because I believe that the US often acts with the best of intentions,
but sometimes (often?) does not look too deeply into a situation and the
consequences of action before intending well. Perhaps now our attention
is focused enough to accomplish something genuinely progressive and good
for the greatest number.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19979
From: Ed Johnson <eljohn2@home.spamthis.com >
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 17:39:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Osama Bin Who?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Paul: I have just now sent out one of each to you.
Ed J
On 9 Oct 2001 17:18:35 GMT, lemmen@saxonmtg.com wrote:
>Would you kindly send it my way as well?
>
>TIA
>
>Paul H. Lemmen
>Bloc Sprao Agath
>No Go Maci
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19980
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 01:58:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 03:18:59 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:28:30 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
><gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I simply /insist/ that "my" government stay the hell
>>away from them. It has proven itself incompetent to intervene, and
>>incompetent to protect its citizens - such as my wife and myself - from the
>>consequences of its intervention.
>
>You have a hell of a right to "insist" anything. And if you think the
>WTC attack has anything to do with our support of Israel, you're a
>bigger fool than I thought. This coversation is over.
I've started a new thread on this to follow it better.
First, let me say that I've been following it because I know
next-to-nothing about the region's history and especially Islamic
history and culture. If anyone can recommend the best book to read as
a "primer" I'd like to hear the suggestion. I'm looking for something
less than 500 pages unless it can be skimmed by chapter summaries. ;)
Second, Jai's statement above confused me, because I know *I'm* not a
fool, and I if you agree that bin Laden is ultimately "behind" the
attacks of 9/11, then those attacks -do- have something to do with the
U.S.A.'s support of Israel. Maybe not the prime factor, but at least a
visible, stated, "supporting" reason.
I pulled bin Laden's last issued statement from usatoday.com:
{begin quote}
I bear witness that there is no God but Allah and that Mohammad is his
messenger.
There is America, hit by God in one of its softest spots. Its greatest
buildings were destroyed, thank God for that. There is America, full
of fear from its north to its south, from its west to its east. Thank
God for that.
What America is tasting now is something insignificant compared to
what we have tasted for scores of years. Our nation (the Islamic
world) has been tasting this humiliation and this degradation for more
than 80 years. Its sons are killed, its blood is shed, its sanctuaries
are attacked, and no one hears and no one heeds.
When God blessed one of the groups of Islam, vanguards of Islam, they
destroyed America. I pray to God to elevate their status and bless
them.
Millions of innocent children are being killed as I speak. They are
being killed in Iraq without committing any sins, and we don't hear
condemnation or a fatwa (religious decree) from the rulers. In these
days, Israeli tanks infest Palestine — in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit
Jalla, and other places in the land of Islam, and we don't hear anyone
raising his voice or moving a limb.
When the sword comes down (on America), after 80 years, hypocrisy
rears its ugly head. They deplore and they lament for those killers,
who have abused the blood, honor and sanctuaries of Muslims. The least
that can be said about those people is that they are debauched. They
have followed injustice. They supported the butcher over the victim,
the oppressor over the innocent child. May God show them His wrath and
give them what they deserve.
I say that the situation is clear and obvious. After this event, after
the senior officials have spoken in America, starting with the head of
infidels worldwide, Bush, and those with him. They have come out in
force with their men and have turned even the countries that belong to
Islam to this treachery, and they want to wag their tail at God, to
fight Islam, to suppress people in the name of terrorism.
When people at the ends of the earth, Japan, were killed by their
hundreds of thousands, young and old, it was not considered a war
crime, it is something that has justification. Millions of children in
Iraq is something that has justification. But when they lose dozens of
people in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam (capitals of Kenya and Tanzania,
where U.S. embassies were bombed in 1998), Iraq was struck and
Afghanistan was struck. Hypocrisy stood in force behind the head of
infidels worldwide, behind the cowards of this age, America and those
who are with it.
These events have divided the whole world into two sides. The side of
believers and the side of infidels, may God keep you away from them.
Every Muslim has to rush to make his religion victorious. The winds of
faith have come. The winds of change have come to eradicate oppression
from the island of Muhammad, peace be upon him.
To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by
God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor
the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in
Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of
Muhammad, peace be upon him.
God is great, may pride be with Islam. May peace and God's mercy be
upon you.
{end quote}
So what am I missing? This group is a big part of my continuing
education about world culture, and I hope we can continue this
discussion in the coming days with civility. I can't figure it out by
myself, guys!
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19981
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:57:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc4fa9b.32297249@news.sff.net>, JT writes...
....
> Second, Jai's statement above confused me, because I know *I'm* not a
> fool, and I if you agree that bin Laden is ultimately "behind" the
> attacks of 9/11, then those attacks -do- have something to do with the
> U.S.A.'s support of Israel. Maybe not the prime factor, but at least a
> visible, stated, "supporting" reason.
I have no idea what Jai's argument on this is (and since the
"conversations is over" I guess you won't, either). But a number of
commentators have pointed out that bin Laden has been slow to mention
Palestine, and, /therefore/, they claim, it is not his real concern. If
they are clever, they stop there. If they go on to say, "He is only
mentioning it to get support from other Muslims" - which should be
obvious to anyone with a even just a slight squiggle in their brain wave
- the whole argument falls apart. Bin Laden's real motives are only a
part of the problem. If large numbers of Muslims did not care about U.S.
support for Israel, bin Laden couldn't play that card, whatever his own
goals
I think it is safe to say that we will never convert bin Laden into a
friend of the West. But we had better think hard about how to prevent
tens of millions of Muslims from becoming enemies. We have played into
his hands before, and we might be doing it again. Take a look at:
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/program/neareast/1_essays.html#bernard
bearing in mind, of course, that it could be all, as Jai says,
propaganda.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19982
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:06:48 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
> Gordon Sollars wrote:
>>> Or strafe and bomb your ships so that they can perform
>>> illegitimate acts without you seeing.
>> That was just a mistake, wasn't it?
> But of course it was. In their distraction, the Israeli pilots mistook a
> 400-foot ship with gigantic antennas all over it and flying an oversized
> US parade pennant for a 150-foot rustbucket Egyptian freighter. In at
> least three separate air passes and a ship-to-ship encounter.
Just in followup: I have a number of USS Liberty materials, but I hadn't
ever checked for a web site. Glory be.
http://www.ussliberty.com
But, of course, it's just the work of a bunch of anti-Semitic,
anti-Zionist rabblerousers who have exaggerated a minor and simple
misunderstanding into a blatant and vicious attack on US Naval forces.
Jeez, they even claim it's the worst Naval incident since WWII (37 dead
and 150 injured), and that it's the only Naval incident of its kind
that's gone uninvestigated by Congress.
Of course our great and good Israeli allies would never do anything like
this. Certainly not to further their own territorial issues against the
express wishes of their great and good American allies. My, no.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19983
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 05:17:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 01:58:27 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>I've started a new thread on this to follow it better.
>
>First, let me say that I've been following it because I know
>next-to-nothing about the region's history and especially Islamic
>history and culture. If anyone can recommend the best book to read as
>a "primer" I'd like to hear the suggestion. I'm looking for something
>less than 500 pages unless it can be skimmed by chapter summaries. ;)
>
>Second, Jai's statement above confused me, because I know *I'm* not a
>fool, and I if you agree that bin Laden is ultimately "behind" the
>attacks of 9/11, then those attacks -do- have something to do with the
>U.S.A.'s support of Israel. Maybe not the prime factor, but at least a
>visible, stated, "supporting" reason.
>
>I pulled bin Laden's last issued statement from usatoday.com:
You can't listen just to bin Laden's latest statements, JT. You have
to look back at his history.
This is a quote from the US State Dept's website:
"Bin Ladin's goal in his own words is to 'unite all Muslims and
establish a government which follows the rule of the caliphs,' which
he believes he can accomplish only by overthrowing nearly all Muslim
governments, driving Western influence from those countries and
eventually to abolishing state boundaries.
"The bin Ladin network supports terrorists in Afghanistan, Bosnia,
Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, Yemen, and now Kosovo. It also trains
members of terrorist networks from such diverse countries as the
Philippines, Algeria and Eritrea. "
Bin Laden became active trying to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan.
He didn't begin actively working against the US until we became a
military presence in Saudi Arabia, and when we, as he feels,
maneuvered corrupt Islamic governments to kill their Arab brothers.
For his criticism of the Saudi royal family, he was expelled from
Saudi Arabia and his citizenship taken away. It was only then he
first began planning to destroy the WTC, with the car bomb in 1993.
Is bin Laden happy about the presence of a Jewish nation in the Middle
East and our support of them? Most decidedly not. But we supported
Israel for many many years and bin Laden never said or did anything
about it. But Saudi Arabia was his home, and the home of Mecca and
Medina. Our envolvement there is what really twists his knickers.
But he is not a stupid man. He KNOWS that it's Israel that enflames
Arab/Muslim passions, so our support of Israel is what he now names as
a cause.
When I said that our support of Israel had nothing to do with the WTC
attack, it is because bin Laden would have committed his act of
infamy, and will continue his jihad, whether we support Israel or not.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19984
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 05:20:13 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:06:48 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>But, of course, it's just the work of a bunch of anti-Semitic,
>anti-Zionist rabblerousers...
Yes, it is.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19985
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:06:20 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 05:20:13 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:06:48 -0700, James Gifford
><jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>>But, of course, it's just the work of a bunch of anti-Semitic,
>>anti-Zionist rabblerousers...
>
>Yes, it is.
OK, I really didn't want to get into this, and probably won't further,
but I suppose I owe the rest of the group a bit more information on
why I said that. So here it is.
A total of TEN official investigations have been conducted by the US
government and not one of them has found that the sinking of the USS
Liberty was any more than a tragic accident. Here are the findings,
where there were any:
1) U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry -- June 10-18, 1967 -- There are no
available indications that the attack was intended against a U. S.
Ship. Calm conditions and slow ship speed may have made American flag
difficult to identify.
2) CIA Report -- June 13, 1967 -- The attack was not made in malice
and was a mistake. An overzealous pilot initially mistook the
Liberty for an Egyptian ship, the El Quseir. After the initial air
raid, Israeli torpedo boats also identified the Liberty as an Egyptian
naval vessel. When the Liberty began shooting back at the Israelis,
they responded with the torpedo attack, which killed 28 of the
sailors.
3) Joint Chiefs of Staff Fact Finding Team (Russ Report) -- June 9-20,
1967 -- Outlined "findings of fact," bud did not make any findings
about the actual attack.
4) Clifford Report (Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board) -- July 18,
1967 -- No premeditation, but "inexcusable failures" by Israeli forces
constituing "gross negligence."
5) Senate Armed Services Committee -- Feb. 1, 1968 -- No conclusion.
Secretary McNamara makes comparison of attack on Liberty to that on
Pueblo with regard to uncertainty about what was happening at the time
of the incident.
6) House Appropriations Committee -- April-May 1968 -- Navy
communications "foulup" and no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.
Much of report remains classified.
7) House Armed Services Committee -- May 10, 1971 -- Critical of Navy
communications, no conclusion regarding Israeli actions.
8) Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- 1979 -- Responding to
critical book by Liberty crewman James Ennes [Note: Ennes runs the
website mentioned in the earlier post], Senate investigation found no
merit to his claim attack was intentional.
9) National Security Agency -- 1981 -- Liberty was mistaken for an
Egyptian ship as a result of miscalculations and egregious errors.
[Note: The USS Liberty was under NSA operational control at the time,
so I suspect their records are as good as any.]
10) House Armed Services Committee -- June 1991 -- Responding to
request from Liberty Veterans Association, Subcommitte on
Investigations launched probe that concluded there was no evidence to
support allegations made by the Association and no reason for further
investigation.
It's hard for me to understand how anyone could believe all those
investigations were rigged without also believing the "Jews control
the government" conspiracy theory that is so popular in some circles.
I do know the Liberty incident seems to get drug up in almost any
argument concerning why the US supports Israel, usually by someone who
can't comprehend how doing so could possibly be in US national
interests. That's one reason I know alot about the arguments, pro and
con. Walked this road before.
But, if nothing else, I think the principle of Occam's Razor may
apply--there was a war going on and it just makes no sense that Israel
would have purposely attacked its primary benefactor. "Fog of war" is
a much more likely cause.
I also seem to remember that, the last time I visited Ennes' website
there were a number of links to anti-semetic sites like the Institute
of Historical Review (Holocaust revisionism), but he seems to have
cleaned those up.
I'm sure that many of the Liberty survivors are embittered by their
sincere beliefs that they have somehow been wronged by their own
government. Ennis, I believe, mostly just want to hawk his book(s),
and doesn't mind exploiting his former shipmates in the process..
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19986
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:21:48 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> OK, I really didn't want to get into this, and probably won't further,
> but I suppose I owe the rest of the group a bit more information on
> why I said that. So here it is.
Admirable points all, Jai, and most of which are on Ennes's site. But,
unlike Ennes, you're not presenting any of the counter arguments.
The problems with the Liberty incident, as I see them, are threefold:
1) The Liberty was a spook ship, run by the NSA. In 1967, the US was so
anxious to keep the lid on these aspects that they went to great lengths
to keep the whole incident out of the public eye.
2) The US was/is so anxious to keep Israel as an ally that they went to
great lengths to approve a quick and official explanation.
3) Anyone who raises the Liberty incident is immediately tarred with the
brush of anti-Semitism for not accepting the official Israeli and US
explanations.
3b) A number of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist causes have seized on the
incident to further their own agendas, which muddies the waters further.
I won't waste any further space here by listing the many facts and
claims that strongly contradict the official version. Something stunk
about the incident in 1967, and it still stinks today. Ennes's site
either has or has links to almost every major piece of evidence and
claim, on both sides. Anyone who can read all of it and accept the
official version is either stupid or blinded by pro-Israeli sentiment.
Ennes's claims may not be wholly accurate, either, but he raises many
believable points that are not addressed by the official accounts.
Three separate air attacks and a torpedo boat attack over the space of
more than an hour do not comprise a "fog of war" incident. One pilot's
mistake and error, perhaps. Three separate flights and a ship, no. If
there was a fog, it was at much higher levels in the IDF chain of
command, and there appears to be at least a core of truth to Ennes's
claims that the attack was a deliberate effort to blind the US's
intelligence gathering.
The claims of the IDF that the ship was unidentifiable, in the face of
multiple testimony that the US flag was extended and visible at the time
of the first attack and that the oversized parade pennant was raised
before the other attacks, are not believable.
The claims of the IDF that the Liberty was misidentified as a ship
one-third the Liberty's size, with a deck bristling with huge, ugly
antennae (including a giant and unique satellite dish), based only on a
similarity of deck outline, is not believable.
Only new evidence will ever resolve the question. That there appears to
be submarine and aerial evidence still classified gives hope that some
of the questions might be resolved. But the resolution will come too
late for most of the Liberty's crew, already into old age and dying. And
I would be far more comfortable with an Israel that admitted the attack
and was sincerely contrite than the present state of blinking blue-eyed
innocence and its frantically ready acceptance by the US.
Let me compare this to another incident: the downing of Flight 007.
About a year after that incident, a book came out (_Shootdown_) that
claimed it was a vast CIA/KCIA/NSA conspiracy - the CIA used its Korean
CIA contacts to "accidentally" send the airliner into Soviet airspace to
force them to light up their giant ABM radar near Krasnoyarsk. The
author blew everything out of proportion, including minor discrepancies
about the fuel loading of the craft.
Shortly thereafter, Seymour Hersh published _The Target is Destroyed_,
his meticulously researched book on the subject. Hersh went to the USSR
and spoke with senior officials who had given and approved the order to
shoot down the airliner. His account is believable, detailed and
accounts for the "fog of war" elements that led to the Soviet's
overreaction. He makes it clear that it was cultural issues that pushed
the airliner off course - the captain made simple, stupid mistakes in
setting waypoints, and the crew was too timid to correct him. There is
little doubt that Hersh's account is as close to the truth as we'll ever
get.
Now... in the Liberty incident, we have a completely unbelievable claim
by the Israelis, as full of holes as the Liberty's hull, that was
accepted and rubberstamped by the US before the last victims had
finished bleeding to death. (Literally.) The investigations have all
been tangential and limited, with witnesses directed what to say,
evidence suppressed, and what appear to be large amounts of evidence
classified and not available to the investigators. If Ennes and
Meadors's claims are in any way excessive, it does not invalidate the
many factual elements they point out that are not addressed by the
official version - elements that are not trivial fluff, such as the fuel
loading of Flight 007, but real, valid items that must be accounted for
before the books can be closed on this incident.
To dismiss these serious discrepancies - many of which arise from the
"black" nature of the ship and her mission - as anti-Semitism demeans
the living and dead crew, Israel, the US, and everyone who has called
for a fair, unfettered investigation and report.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19987
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:54:29 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc52b9c.88317713@news.sff.net...
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:06:48 -0700, James Gifford
> <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
> >But, of course, it's just the work of a bunch of anti-Semitic,
> >anti-Zionist rabblerousers...
>
> Yes, it is.
And the case of Jonathan Pollard?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19988
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:04:24 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Gordon Sollars wrote:
>>> But, of course, it's just the work of a bunch of anti-Semitic,
>>> anti-Zionist rabblerousers...
>> Yes, it is.
> And the case of Jonathan Pollard?
It was an accident, Gord. They thought he was an Egyptian.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19989
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:12:55 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 05:17:51 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>When I said that our support of Israel had nothing to do with the WTC
>attack, it is because bin Laden would have committed his act of
>infamy, and will continue his jihad, whether we support Israel or not.
Your whole post jibes with a few other (offline) conversations I've
had at work and other places in the last months. That I'm hearing it
from varied sources clarifies it.
For that matter, what Gordon says (and the article he gives the URL
for) is also not new to me over the last month.
So I really do have a basic understanding of what's going on--that's
good. ;)
bin Laden is an opportunist--and our alliance with Israel is a part of
his opportunity, whether or not is it a part of his ultimate goal. I
agree that it wouldn't make a difference if we were suddenly
*unallied*.
I'm going to be away for a few days, so don't take silence on my part
to mean anything. I hope somebody will have a "primer" recommendation
for me when I come back. ;)
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19990
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:51:10 -0700
Subject: Re: World Government ????
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
The Capitol Building is "THE Hill." Congress-- 535 voting members, several
elected observers/advisors <?> (D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam<?> etc.,) and their
staffs and sycophants plus the support and security people are the only ones
who work there. Well, the Vice-President does preside over the Senate
there, but his offices are in the White House.
The executive branch has separate epithets. "Foggy Bottom" refers primary
to the State Department but has expanded to include most of executive branch
in recent years. The President and his immediate staff generally are simply
referred to as "The White House."
The Judicial branch are still "The Brethren" even twenty years after Sandra
Day O'Connor joined them.
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
"Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3BC434A0.555316A6@aol.com...
> Filksinger wrote:
>
> > "Charles Graft" <chasgraft@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3BBDA84B.E91ED682@aol.com...
> > Filksinger--
> > I WAS referring to only the elected idiots!
> >
> > How many elected officials are there "in the hill", by your count?
> >
> > Filksinger
>
> Filksinger--
> 435 House. 100 Senate, 2 White house. Not that this is anywhere
> near a complete listing of the number of idiots in the area. By about 4
> orders of magnitude.
>
> "And we went down the (Washington) Beltway which separates
> Washington from the rest of the country both geographically and
> politically.)
>
> --
> <<Big Charlie>>
>
> Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19991
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:15:10 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:54:29 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>And the case of Jonathan Pollard?
Pollard is a traitor who deserves to be locked away. As he is.
But the fact you think it appropriate to bring him up here just proves
my point.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19992
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:24:06 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
So I guess we're left with those who believe in government
conspiracies and those who don't. And the anti-semites who don't much
care one way or the other.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19993
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:41:06 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 22:57:20 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>(and since the
>"conversations is over" I guess you won't, either).
Please don't assume that because I decline to continue a particular
discussion, or to converse with a particular poster, I won't answer
questions or give my opinions to any other Forum member who cares to
wade my pixels. Besides, JT and I go back a loooonnnnggg way. <g>
That said, I apologize for losing my temper th'other night. By way of
excuse, I can only offer that I had been thinking thru several of the
last rounds that there was little point in continuing, since we hold
such fundamentally different assumptions about so many things. Then
there came the post about what I THOUGHT was Sharon's comments about
Neville Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia, and President Bush's reaction,
about which I'd been fuming for days. Fwiw (and I'll grant it isn't
much), I was so angry I wrote the President about it, and I've NEVER
done that before. Also, fwiw, I thought his remarks in that regard
tonite were much more judicious and fair. But anyway... I guess the
last straw was the where you seemed, to me, at the time, to equate the
state of Israel and the war-makers in the Arab/Palestinian world as
equally culpable. If you really believe that, there truly is not much
to be gained in further discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19994
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:43:04 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc632ff.112281195@news.sff.net>, JT writes...
....
> bin Laden is an opportunist--and our alliance with Israel is a part of
> his opportunity, whether or not is it a part of his ultimate goal. I
> agree that it wouldn't make a difference if we were suddenly
> *unallied*.
On the contrary, JT, it would make a very large difference. On the one
hand, it would begin to withdraw a great deal of support from radical
Islamic terrorist organizations. Think of it as a pyramid. Say they
have 1000 fully-committed, ready-to-die terrorists at the top. I don't
know how large the recruiting base is right now, but I think we want to
be very careful not to enlarge it to any significant fraction of the one
billion Muslims in the world. A mere 1/100 of one percent of /that/ base
would be a rather formidable army.
On the other hand, if we were to adopt a foreign policy of non-
intervention now (as we should have at least 50 years ago) in a single
step, we would send a signal that we can be influenced by terrorist acts,
thereby making them more likely.
In short, in the short run we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Bin Laden knows this, and I suspect he is very happy over it.
Extricating ourselves from this sort of dilemma will take patience and a
planning horizon that is probably longer than a full eight year
presidency.
The model I like best is biological. The U.S. "immune system" is very
good at dealing with threats from other states. As a result of our
survival success, nature has concocted a completely different sort of
threat. I'm not sure our T-cells will figure out how to respond in time
to keep us from getting very sick.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19995
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 23:10:24 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> So I guess we're left with those who believe in government
> conspiracies and those who don't.
Well, if that's what you care to reduce it to. I don't.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19996
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:25:17 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc66e0d.4971805@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:54:29 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >And the case of Jonathan Pollard?
>
> Pollard is a traitor who deserves to be locked away. As he is.
>
> But the fact you think it appropriate to bring him up here just proves
> my point.
What point? That Israel is a strange "ally" for spying on us? That was
/my/ point. Or does Pollard's conviction have nothing to do with the
government of Israel's culpability?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19997
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:13:21 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon G. Sollars" wrote:
>> But the fact you think it appropriate to bring him up here just proves
>> my point.
> What point? That Israel is a strange "ally" for spying on us? That was
> /my/ point. Or does Pollard's conviction have nothing to do with the
> government of Israel's culpability?
I think the point, Gordon, is that if you say anything impugning
Israel's sterling reputation, or imply that they are less than 100%
honorable in every dealing, you're obviously an anti-Semite who should
just give up the pretense, shave your head, and tatto swastikas on your
forehead.
It gets really tiresome after a while, because there are issues related
to Isr--l that need to be aired and discussed and which have nothing to
do with Judaism or anti-Semitism. But you'd never know that from the
chauvinists.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19998
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:37:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc6708b.5609621@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett writes...
....
> That said, I apologize for losing my temper th'other night. By way of
> excuse, I can only offer that I had been thinking thru several of the
> last rounds that there was little point in continuing, since we hold
> such fundamentally different assumptions about so many things. Then
> there came the post about what I THOUGHT was Sharon's comments about
> Neville Chamberlain and Czechoslovakia, and President Bush's reaction,
> about which I'd been fuming for days.
I've been more than fuming for the last several weeks. My wife's job,
and quite possibly her beloved career as a pilot, are gone because of the
WTC tragedy. I hold terrorists responsible for the tragedy, but they
never claimed to be acting on my behalf. The U.S. government does, and
it has for many years acted stupidly and with no real regard for the
effects of its actions on its own citizens, let alone innocents in other
countries.
And I am far beyond merely fuming that any attempt to point this out is
decried as an attempt to justify terrorist acts. I understand the
difference between a cause and a justification, and I urge people
everywhere to contemplate this subtle difference until /they/ understand
it, deep down.
> But anyway... I guess the
> last straw was the where you seemed, to me, at the time, to equate the
> state of Israel and the war-makers in the Arab/Palestinian world as
> equally culpable.
I'm not sure the Arab/Palestinian world has been making war - the
"Palestinian Authority" is not a state. Or do you include Arab
governments in that "world"? The demands by one state for the
destruction of another are generally illegitimate (and we can discuss
why, if you like, in order to clarify what "legitimate" means), and the
Arab states that have gone to war with Israel have been in the wrong for
doing so.
It would be far better for Israel if it /were/ facing a war - it has won
all of those. Elements of the Arab/Palestinian world have been engaged
in acts of terrorism, and such acts are wrong. But denying the
Arab/Palestinians a state /because/ of these wrongful acts is not only
wrong itself, it is leading to increasing levels of terrorism.
Now, this would be of only intellectual interest to me and mine, and any
U.S. citizen qua U.S. citizen, if it were not for the incredibly stupid
and near-sighted policies of "my" government. (Private groups that wish
to give aid Israel, or persons in Israel, or, indeed, any country or
persons are free to do so, on my view.)
> If you really believe that, there truly is not much
> to be gained in further discussion.
I am not "equating" anything. I like to consider specific wrongs by
specific people, rather than lumping things together into groups and
states, if possible. But when I build a fence on my neighbor's yard, it
is disingenuous for me to say that his burning it down makes /him/ a
terrorist, but /I/ am simply defending myself when I shoot him. By that
logic, you can always avoid being a "terrorist" by making sure you grab
the land first. If the state of Israel had never been formed, and Jordan
held the West Bank, the Jews who owned property in "Palestine" would be
the "terrorists" and the Arabs would have the blessings of a sovereign
state. And in that case, I would be arguing /for/ a Jewish state, and
against Jewish terrorism /and/ Arab oppression, instead of /for/ an Arab
state, and against Arab terrorism /and/ Israeli oppression.
If /that/ is what you mean by "equating", then I plead guilty.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 19999
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 20:44:14 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:37:21 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>And I am far beyond merely fuming that any attempt to point this out is
>decried as an attempt to justify terrorist acts. I understand the
>difference between a cause and a justification, and I urge people
>everywhere to contemplate this subtle difference until /they/ understand
>it, deep down.
I understand well the difference. It's the same case made for the
relationship between poverty and crime. But I do not accept that the
alleged offenses that supposedly cause Arab animosity (US support of
Israel, US sanctions against Iraq, or US presence in Saudi Arabia, to
name only the big three, and not necessarily in that order) are
rational nor that they should shape US foreign policy. And I tend to
believe that if these "causes" were resolved to Arab liking, they
would just find something else to hate us for. Because they hate us
for who we are, not for what we do.
>I'm not sure the Arab/Palestinian world has been making war - the
>"Palestinian Authority" is not a state.
In the 19th century, war was defined to be a military conflict between
states. I don't believe that definition holds water any more. Al
Qaida (with its partners) is not a state, but it has definitely
declared war on this country. Weapons, transportation, and
communications technology allows relatively small groups of people to
weild a destructive power of which many states could have only dreamed
in the 19th century.
>Or do you include Arab
>governments in that "world"?
Well, yes, I do. The "terrorist" groups could not continue for long
without the support of the people among whom they live, and in most
cases, of the official governments in the region. Furthermore, these
nations also created and maintain the conditions which "cause" their
hatred in the first place.
>It would be far better for Israel if it /were/ facing a war - it has won
>all of those.
But at what cost? Oh nevermind. There's no point in arguing this
one. Or maybe any of them. <g>
>Elements of the Arab/Palestinian world have been engaged
>in acts of terrorism, and such acts are wrong.
And large portions of the Arab world have supported them.
>But denying the
>Arab/Palestinians a state /because/ of these wrongful acts is not only
>wrong itself, it is leading to increasing levels of terrorism.
It isn't wrong, since they have one (or several), but it might no
longer be smart. However, I don't believe that Israel can afford to
roll over and say, OK, we give in. Your terrorism has worked. Here's
your state. Build your army. Buy your bombers. May we recommend the
high ground over there for your artillery emplacements? From there,
they can easily range all the way to the Med. Where would you like to
store the nukes? And oh by the way, we sure do wish you wouldn't move
the terrorist training bases even closer to our borders. No? Well,
OK, at least we can watch them as they build their bombs, even if we
can't do anything about it.
>Now, this would be of only intellectual interest to me and mine, and any
>U.S. citizen qua U.S. citizen, if it were not for the incredibly stupid
>and near-sighted policies of "my" government. (Private groups that wish
>to give aid Israel, or persons in Israel, or, indeed, any country or
>persons are free to do so, on my view.)
And therein lies just one difference in our "world view" that is
totally incompatable. We cannot pretend that we have no interests in
what goes on in the rest of the world. And we cannot only support the
countries that have something tangible to offer. Sometimes, we must
act because it's the right thing to do, not the most expedient.
>I like to consider specific wrongs by
>specific people, rather than lumping things together into groups and
>states, if possible.
You may like to, but it's not the way the world works. Another
fundamental difference in our view points.
>But when I build a fence on my neighbor's yard, it
>is disingenuous for me to say that his burning it down makes /him/ a
>terrorist, but /I/ am simply defending myself when I shoot him.
So you do deny the right of Israel to exist? Are you saying they've
built their nation in the "yard" of Palestine? Because that what the
Arabs believe. Essentially all of them. Throughout the region.
Some, not even most, are willing to compromise, but at the core, that
is their belief. That that is what underlies the Israeli reluctance
to trust them to be satisfied with another state.
If, otoh, you're merely referring to Jewish settlements on the West
Bank, your analogy is false. It would be closer to say you have built
a house in a neighboring city, but the members of that city don't want
you there. So they, and their friends, burn down the houses of the
people in the city you came from.
>By that
>logic, you can always avoid being a "terrorist" by making sure you grab
>the land first. If the state of Israel had never been formed, and Jordan
>held the West Bank, the Jews who owned property in "Palestine" would be
>the "terrorists" and the Arabs would have the blessings of a sovereign
>state.
When the British owned Palestine, there were Jewish "terrorists,"
altho they only attacked governmental targets, they announced ahead of
time when their bombs would go off, and, most importantly, they were
completely denounced by the mainstream Jewish resistance.
When Jordan owned the West Bank and Jerusalem, and denied ALL access
by Jews to the Western Wall and other holy sites (no Arabs are
currently restricted at all in their use of the Temple Mount Mosque),
I don't recall that there were any Jewish terrorists at all. And
there WERE Jews who lived there.
Condemning Jewish "oppression" is absurd in itself. Israel is not an
oppressive society. Even for Arabs who live there. And where there
have been abuses, as there are in EVERY society (especially when the
society is at war or threatened with one), there is a system of law
for their redress. And representative government to make or change
the law. And freedom of the press and of expression to protest and
publicize the abuses. That is just not true in the rest of the Arab
world, and believe me, it will not be the case in any Palestinian
state likely to be created.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20000
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:53:16 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:25:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>What point? That Israel is a strange "ally" for spying on us? That was
>/my/ point.
Oh get real. EVERY nation spies on EVERY other nation, to the extent
of their capability.
>Or does Pollard's conviction have nothing to do with the
>government of Israel's culpability?
Pollard certainly has NOTHING to do with the Liberty. But he's a Jew
who did something bad. So I guess that makes them related, doesn't
it?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20001
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 22:05:38 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:53:16 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>Oh get real. EVERY nation spies on EVERY other nation, to the extent
>of their capability.
Make that, ...to the extent of ITS capability.
I must be really anal, because that was driving me nuts. <g>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20002
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:29:17 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc765cf.68407723@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:25:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >What point? That Israel is a strange "ally" for spying on us? That was
> >/my/ point.
>
> Oh get real. EVERY nation spies on EVERY other nation, to the extent
> of their capability.
>
> >Or does Pollard's conviction have nothing to do with the
> >government of Israel's culpability?
>
> Pollard certainly has NOTHING to do with the Liberty. But he's a Jew
> who did something bad. So I guess that makes them related, doesn't
> it?
I never said that he did. I did not mention the Liberty - James did.
The fact that I mention one and James the other does not make them
related, either, as James and I are not related. Especially not over
politics. ;-)
However, I think the fact that two persons with such different views of
political philosophy share certain views about Israel is evidence in
their favor.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20003
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:32:21 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc741d4.59195146@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
....
> I understand well the difference. It's the same case made for the
> relationship between poverty and crime. But I do not accept that the
> alleged offenses that supposedly cause Arab animosity (US support of
> Israel, US sanctions against Iraq, or US presence in Saudi Arabia, to
> name only the big three, and not necessarily in that order) are
> rational nor that they should shape US foreign policy.
I am not sure whether they are rational in some deep sense or not. I can
assure you that it is irrational in a very simple sense /not/ to shape
U.S. foreign policy because of them. See any book on game theory.
> And I tend to
> believe that if these "causes" were resolved to Arab liking, they
> would just find something else to hate us for. Because they hate us
> for who we are, not for what we do.
Perhaps they do. If so, that hate will prove to be very unfortunate for
this world over the next 50-100 years. Since I lack a sure method of
looking into their hearts and minds, I think it is more prudent to adopt
the assumption that these causes they mention are their real concern. On
my assumption, we have groups that could co-exist if a compromise could
be reached. On your assumption, there can never be any compromise.
Where do you want to go with that assumption? I have seen some argue
that it means we must destroy them before they destroy us. That seems to
be the most logical conclusion from the assumption, but perhaps you do
not share it.
So I do not want to embrace the "they hate us" assumption as long as my
assumption is plausible.
....
> >Elements of the Arab/Palestinian world have been engaged
> >in acts of terrorism, and such acts are wrong.
>
> And large portions of the Arab world have supported them.
What do "large portions" and "support" mean? I think it is very
important to distinguish between a pathetic and otherwise passive Arab
who in his impotence cheers news of a terrorist attack and the Arab who
trained or funded the terrorist.
> >But denying the
> >Arab/Palestinians a state /because/ of these wrongful acts is not only
> >wrong itself, it is leading to increasing levels of terrorism.
>
> It isn't wrong, since they have one (or several), but it might no
> longer be smart. However, I don't believe that Israel can afford to
> roll over and say, OK, we give in. Your terrorism has worked.
If you read my second reply to JT, you will see I make this same point
about the U.S. I don't deny that it constrains Israel's short-term
choices as well.
> >Now, this would be of only intellectual interest to me and mine, and any
> >U.S. citizen qua U.S. citizen, if it were not for the incredibly stupid
> >and near-sighted policies of "my" government. (Private groups that wish
> >to give aid Israel, or persons in Israel, or, indeed, any country or
> >persons are free to do so, on my view.)
>
> And therein lies just one difference in our "world view" that is
> totally incompatable. We cannot pretend that we have no interests in
> what goes on in the rest of the world.
I have a great deal of interest in what goes on throughout the world.
Global trade benefits us greatly. And it will continue to benefit us
even if U.S. troops are kept out of the Middle East.
> And we cannot only support the
> countries that have something tangible to offer.
We need not support any countries at all. When two people have something
tangible to offer, they trade with each other. "When goods do not cross
borders, armies do."
> Sometimes, we must
> act because it's the right thing to do, not the most expedient.
When the cost of doing the "right thing" is people's lives, I want each
individual to make that choice for himself. (So did Mr. Heinlein, who
was opposed to conscription.) U.S. citizens have been conscripted into a
global conflict by the policies of their government. It might be clear
to you that the U.S. is doing the right thing, and since I believe that
there really are "right things", I have to grant that you might be
correct. But I see no reason for 275 million people to risk their lives
on your certainty. And those that share your certainty can use their
resources and talents to aid Israel (or any other state whose cause is
just) without stamping the imprimatur of the U.S. government upon them.
> >I like to consider specific wrongs by
> >specific people, rather than lumping things together into groups and
> >states, if possible.
>
> You may like to, but it's not the way the world works. Another
> fundamental difference in our view points.
What works often depends on what we want to make work, and take care to
make work.
> >But when I build a fence on my neighbor's yard, it
> >is disingenuous for me to say that his burning it down makes /him/ a
> >terrorist, but /I/ am simply defending myself when I shoot him.
>
> So you do deny the right of Israel to exist? Are you saying they've
> built their nation in the "yard" of Palestine?
I think that I have granted Israel's right to exist implicitly /and/
explicitly in several of these posts (based on the idea that it has the
same right as any other state - which right, I happen to think, is rather
weak for /any/ state, but that is my own idiosyncrasy).
The "yard" I had in mind was that area outside Israel's original borders
when it was admitted to the U.N. and not already part of another Arab
state. Analogies are always tricky, but my point was that the guy who
has hold of a thing can always cry "terrorist!" when the dispossessed
becomes dissatisfied with merely asking for redress. And this is true
whether the holder is Jew or Arab.
....
> If, otoh, you're merely referring to Jewish settlements on the West
> Bank, your analogy is false. It would be closer to say you have built
> a house in a neighboring city, but the members of that city don't want
> you there. So they, and their friends, burn down the houses of the
> people in the city you came from.
In a world without states (the world I support) you would be correct; my
analogy would be misleading. But people are not satisfied with just
having cities, they want states around them and between them (foolishly,
in my estimate), and that certainly appears to be true of both Jewish and
Arabic people.
....
> When the British owned Palestine, there were Jewish "terrorists,"
> altho they only attacked governmental targets, they announced ahead of
> time when their bombs would go off, and, most importantly, they were
> completely denounced by the mainstream Jewish resistance.
If they were denounced, why put "terrorists" in quotes? There were
Jewish terrorists, pure and simple, when they had no state of their own.
Let's admit than terrorism knows no ethnicity. And if they had no state
today, there would still be Jewish terrorists.
But I beg to dispute that all targets of Jewish terrorists were state
owned. My understanding is that reprisals were taken against Arab
villages for allegedly harboring Arab terrorists, as well as British
targets in the time before Israel was established.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20004
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:11:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc741d4.59195146@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> If, otoh, you're merely referring to Jewish settlements on the West
> Bank, your analogy is false. It would be closer to say you have built
> a house in a neighboring city, but the members of that city don't want
> you there. So they, and their friends, burn down the houses of the
> people in the city you came from.
In spite of government (UN) proclamations against it, and with tanks, Apache
helicopters, and F-15 fighters to back you. And you also sneak out of those
houses and the neighboring city with your friends and shoot at the people in
the city you moved to from hiding, because you want the entire city, not
just the house.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20005
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:50:54 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc6702e.5516831@news.sff.net...
> So I guess we're left with those who believe in government
> conspiracies and those who don't. And the anti-semites who don't much
> care one way or the other.
I don't believe in government conspiracies, for the most part. But I do
believe, because it has happened many times before, the our government will
give short shrift to an investigation, even repeatedly, because it is
politically expedient.
Regardless of whether one supports the nation of Israel (I do, for the most
part, and don't agree that we should necessarily back off from supporting
it), after some research back in college, it has become apparent to me that
our government, especially the state department, and our news services are
heavily biased in favor of Israel.
The results are downright amusing, at times. Recently, shortly before 9/11,
I was reading an article on CNN, I believe, talking about groups of Jewish
settlers on the West Bank who would set up makeshift barricades, wait for a
cab to drive up to it, and open fire with assault weapons. There was an
interview with an Israeli police officer, who said he was ashamed of the
behavior of many Israelis in the Occupied Territories. There was also a
quote from a high-ranking Israeli official, who referred to these attackers
as terrorists.
However, he was the only one. At no time did the article ever refer to these
people as terrorists. Not once. They were Zionists, "extremists", and (my
favorite) "civilians". But never terrorists. The article didn't use the word
at all.
Neither does any other major US newspaper. Whenever they report on Israeli
civilians attacking Palestinians, with guns, firebombs, you name it, they
_never_ say the "T" word. Only Arabs that attacks Israelis are terrorists,
never the other way around. Just like current Israeli law, the newspapers
apparently agree: Palestinians who attack Israelis are terrorists, but
Israelis who attack Palestinians are not.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20006
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:54:19 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:3bc32827.0@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> If you wish to
> propose a single Pan-Arabic state throughout the entire Middle East rather
> than a state on the West Bank for "Arabic persons with historic ties to
the
> Palestinian region" (I'm getting a little tired of copying and pasting
> that - perhaps I could just say "Palestinians"?), fine.
Then just copy it once, and each time you want to say it, hit Ctrl-V. :)
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20007
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:22:00 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc3bcd4.107630904@news.sff.net...
> On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 17:07:50 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >Sharon is another matter altogether. His inflammatory speech at the one
of
> >the "holy sites" for /purely domestic political reasons/ was beneath
> >contempt for any "ally" of the U.S.
>
> Now that really is BS. Sharon, for all his faults, was totally
> justified in his "Czecholovakia" remarks.
I think he is talking about Sharon's remarks prior to his election. Sharon
clearly indicated before the elections that he was against any peace
compromises, and that he thought that Israel had a God-given right to expand
until it occupied its borders of its heights during Biblical times.
> It's about time the US
> realized who their ONLY real ally in the region is and stop treating
> Israel like a red-headed step-child.
The US state department and news services are heavily pro-Israeli biased as
it is. I don't think a further bias is necessary.
I support Israel primarily because I think it would be a bad idea to back
out on them. They have hardly been the best of allies. They have a long
history of taking advantage of our gullibility, taking our money while
telling us to go to hell when we object to their using military aid we gave
them to violate UN edicts, and human rights violations.
OTOH, there are only three reason for supporting them that I can see:
1. History. We can't afford to drop them now, they've been friends for
years.
2. A large Jewish population that is heavily in favor of supporting Israel,
with a strong tendency to yell, "Jew-hater!" at anyone who won't support
Israel, regardless of motivation.
and
3. After years of giving them weapons to use on their neighbors, often
against UN edicts, everybody else in the area hates us.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20008
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 17:43:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc526a4.87044803@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> When I said that our support of Israel had nothing to do with the WTC
> attack, it is because bin Laden would have committed his act of
> infamy, and will continue his jihad, whether we support Israel or not.
Would he?
Maybe so, maybe not.
What is the difference between Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Ladin? Timothy
McVeigh was a psychopath who barely found any help at all, even among people
with sympathetic beliefs. He was forced to commit the crime himself. Osama
bin Ladin is a psychopath who finds a broad base of support because of
widely held beliefs and hatreds in his part of the world. He _needs_ this
support, broad-based and pervasive support, to function. Without that
support, he might not exist as a threat at all, and that support in his
hatred of the US is fueled to some degree by support of Israel.
Osama bin Ladin would have fewer people who fanatically hate the US if the
Israelis didn't have Apache helicopters and F-15 fighters to back its tanks.
Without this, fewer people would hate the US, fewer would object to a US
presence in countries like Saudi Arabia, and even among those who hate us,
there would be less reason to hate, and thus generally less hatred.
He _needs_ this hatred to be effective. Indeed, he might never have
considered terrorism against the US if he didn't believe that the Islamic
world hated the US as much as he does. _He_ may not care in the slightest
whether or not the US supported Israel, and only care that the US had
soldiers in Saudi Territory. His supporters, both inside and outside his
organization, and those whose hatred creates a fertile ground for such
support, _do_ care.
Take away even 10% of the fuel for a fire, and the fire might not even
start. Once it gets going, however....
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20009
From: georule@citlink.net
Date: 13 Oct 2001 02:22:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
For 50 years the Palestinians have been the ugly rich girl at the Arab party.
Nobody really wants to marry her, but everybody wants her daddy to think
well of them. In this case "Daddy" is popular opinion in the Arab world.
My favorite saying on the Palestinians is that "They never miss an opportunity
to miss an opportunity". That was a heck of a good deal Barak offered last
year, and it was the Arab street that shot it down.
Our support for Israel has always been moral not practical, even when
they are being idiots (as they often have been). It's hard to accept (maybe
less so now) in a modern civilized world --but the fact is a sizable majority
of Arabs *still* want to drive the Jews into the sea.
So, all you real politik types can bemoan the unpractical aspects
of our support for Israel, but I doubt very much that a majority of Americans
would support ditching them.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20010
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:27:54 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc78e85.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
>
> "Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:3bc32827.0@news.sff.net...
> <snip>
> > If you wish to
> > propose a single Pan-Arabic state throughout the entire Middle East rather
> > than a state on the West Bank for "Arabic persons with historic ties to
> the
> > Palestinian region" (I'm getting a little tired of copying and pasting
> > that - perhaps I could just say "Palestinians"?), fine.
>
> Then just copy it once, and each time you want to say it, hit Ctrl-V. :)
Right. Or I can just use "Palestinian", since it is now clear what I
mean. Which is what I will do here until Jai can back her "propaganda"
charge against Abu-Odeh.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20011
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:37:36 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc78e98.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
....
> I think he is talking about Sharon's remarks prior to his election. Sharon
> clearly indicated before the elections that he was against any peace
> compromises, and that he thought that Israel had a God-given right to expand
> until it occupied its borders of its heights during Biblical times.
And he went to a particular holy site of importance to Arabs (I forget
which) to make one of these speeches. Such religious fundamentalism
mixed with government power is a prescription for disaster. Jews and
Arabs with such views are free to grind each others bones into dust. I
merely insist that they leave me alone. And I would make it easy for
them to comply, were I not held hostage by the stupidity of the U.S.
government.
....
> OTOH, there are only three reason for supporting them that I can see:
>
> 1. History. We can't afford to drop them now, they've been friends for
> years.
>
> 2. A large Jewish population that is heavily in favor of supporting Israel,
> with a strong tendency to yell, "Jew-hater!" at anyone who won't support
> Israel, regardless of motivation.
>
> and
> 3. After years of giving them weapons to use on their neighbors, often
> against UN edicts, everybody else in the area hates us.
Filk, your reasons give a new depth of meaning to the phrase "damning
with faint praise".
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20012
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:44:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc7a561.0@news.sff.net>, georule@citlink.net writes...
....
> So, all you real politik types can bemoan the unpractical aspects
> of our support for Israel, but I doubt very much that a majority of Americans
> would support ditching them.
Then it should be easy for such a majority to aid Israel without any
involvement by the U.S. government. You types who want your moral views
paid for by others have been free-loading parasites long enough.
In any event, I would very much like to see your claim put to the test.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20013
From: georule@citlink.net
Date: 13 Oct 2001 16:04:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I tried to, but damned if they weren't all out of F-16's down at Home Depot.
Maybe next time.
Aid to Israel is a rounding error in the budget. Give another $50 to
charity next year and you'll likely be able to write off *your* aid to Israel
completely.
I don't know where you're coming from; if this is an anti-Israel tirade,
a nativist tirade, or just a generic Libertarian tirade. If the latter,
it is one of the bigger problems I've had with the Libertarian party. Rich
and undefended (volunteer militia and rich-boy coastal defense yachts are
about the extent of the Libertarian idea of a sufficient defense) never
struck me as a good idea.
But that's okay. You go vote for your guy and I'll go vote for mine;
we'll see which gets 5% and which gets 51% --just like they do it in Israel.
Cheers.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20014
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:08:15 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:29:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>I never said that he did. I did not mention the Liberty - James did.
>The fact that I mention one and James the other does not make them
>related, either, as James and I are not related. Especially not over
>politics. ;-)
Pay attention, Gordon. My original comment was directed at James'
post, not yours. I only responded to you when you asked, "What
point?"
As I recall, James brought up the Liberty too.
>However, I think the fact that two persons with such different views of
>political philosophy share certain views about Israel is evidence in
>their favor.
Not at all. Right-wing Chrisitians, except for the KKKish branches,
tend to support Israel, and my politics have almost nothing else in
common with theirs. Does that support my position? Not really.
Ever hear the expression, "Politics makes strange bedfellows"?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20015
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:32:04 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:27:54 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>In article <3bc78e85.0@news.sff.net>, Filksinger writes...
>>
>> "Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:3bc32827.0@news.sff.net...
>> <snip>
>> > If you wish to
>> > propose a single Pan-Arabic state throughout the entire Middle East rather
>> > than a state on the West Bank for "Arabic persons with historic ties to
>> the
>> > Palestinian region" (I'm getting a little tired of copying and pasting
>> > that - perhaps I could just say "Palestinians"?), fine.
>>
>> Then just copy it once, and each time you want to say it, hit Ctrl-V. :)
>
>Right. Or I can just use "Palestinian", since it is now clear what I
>mean. Which is what I will do here until Jai can back her "propaganda"
>charge against Abu-Odeh.
I never "charged" Abu-Odeh with propagandizing. I merely pointed out
several facts about his book that contribute to "a suspicion that it
is political propaganda,"
If I am sceptical of his purpose, you seem unwilling to admit the
possibility that my scepticism may be well grounded.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20016
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 19:59:04 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:50:54 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>I don't believe in government conspiracies, for the most part. But I do
>believe, because it has happened many times before, the our government will
>give short shrift to an investigation, even repeatedly, because it is
>politically expedient.
Many times? I can't really think of one.
From my military experience, I tend to accept the Navy's investigation
as most valid, on its face. First of all, It was made first, while
memories were freshests, records most readily available, and before
politicians could easily intervene and skew the findings. Second,
there was no implication that US Navy personnel were at fault or in
any way negligent, except perhaps the communications procedures which
apparently failed to notify the Liberty that they were supposed to
leave the area, so there was nothing in the Navy's interests to cover
up. Finally, the Navy would have been most likely to be angered, even
enraged, at Israel's actions, IF they thought they were taken on
purpose.
But really, I find significant the fact that every investigation
since, regardless of administration, has found essentially the same
thing. And without at least some faction on the other side crying
fowl? I just don't see how a conspiracy could be that pervasive. You
have more hew and cry about aliens landing in New Mexico or what
"really" happened on the grassy knoll.
>Regardless of whether one supports the nation of Israel (I do, for the most
>part, and don't agree that we should necessarily back off from supporting
>it), after some research back in college, it has become apparent to me that
>our government, especially the state department, and our news services are
>heavily biased in favor of Israel.
No, actually, you're 180 degrees wrong about the State Dept. State is
well known for being historically ANTI-Israel since before that
nation's creation. State argued strongly against the US voting for
the UN's partition, and against Truman's decision to recognize Israel
afterwards. That bias has long been part and parcel of the Mid-East
directorates within the Department, and within the military Foreign
Area specialities, which afterall, get their training largely from the
State Dept. It has only really been since the Reagan administration
that the anti-Israel/pro-Arab slant within the department began to
moderate, and since the Gulf War for the military.
The news media (I'm not counting the TV or movie entertainment
industry) is a little more complex. The conservative media definitely
tends to be pro-Israel. The left-wing media is almost completely
pro-Palestinian (I used that term here on purpose) EXCEPT, I will
admit, for many of the Jewish members of the liberal media who are
not. But many Jewish media-types are in fact, anti-Israel, and they
seem to be the most extreme in that regard, maybe trying to prove
themselves to their collegues. Or maybe to themselves. The
mainstream is usually just clueless, as with most things that take
more than a page of background text to understand. But I suppose the
mainstreamers tend to run along the lines of the American public as a
whole, which is more pro-Israel than against, altho whether that's
because it's how they really feel, or because they know who they want
to sell their products to, I'm not sure.
>The results are downright amusing, at times. Recently, shortly before 9/11,
>I was reading an article on CNN, I believe, talking about groups of Jewish
>settlers on the West Bank who would set up makeshift barricades, wait for a
>cab to drive up to it, and open fire with assault weapons.
I'd like to know more about this. Do you know of an on-line source?
I hate to admit to not having heard it. Off the top of my head, I'd
like to know if there's more to the story, whether it was an isolated
incident, and what was done to the people who perpetrated the crime.
I'm fully aware that there are Jews/Israelis that work every bit as
hard as Muslims/Arabs to keep the conflict going, who are as unwilling
to compromise in any way. But I also believe that you have to judge
the governments involved, since they represent the majority of the
people (even in countries where there are no free elections, imho).
And I resent that Israel is held to a higher standard of behavior than
her neighbors, even as I hold her to a higher standard myself.
>There was an
>interview with an Israeli police officer, who said he was ashamed of the
>behavior of many Israelis in the Occupied Territories.
As am I. As are almost all Israelis. I only wish as many Arabs were
as ashamed of the behavior of their bretheren.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20017
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:50:49 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> But really, I find significant the fact that every investigation
> since, regardless of administration, has found essentially the same
> thing. And without at least some faction on the other side crying
> fowl?
Well, Jai, you're ignoring my posts, but I'll point out here that one of
the factions on the "other side" crying foul is... the majority of the
Liberty's crew. I have this odd tendency to take the words of
participants and eyewitnesses over the judgements of experts analyzing
things later.
And the Liberty crew did not significantly disagree with the assertions
found in Ennes's book. There were one or two who took up the official
line (the XO, as I recall), and those who said next to nothing, taking
either their security oaths or threats seriously (the captain being one
of those). But of those who spoke out - on the order of 100 of the
surviving crew - there was unanimity on the major points that are
disputed by the official accounts.
Funny how that is.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20018
From: georule@citlink.net
Date: 13 Oct 2001 21:52:27 GMT
Subject: Re: article:
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jim--
I have Ennes book. I've talked to Ennes (oh. . .10 years ago?) and
a couple of the other guys. Unfortunately, Ennes experience (including
the names he's been called for writing the book in the first place) seems
to have radicalized him, not that I'm suprised. Still, I think that at
the very least there was a definite lack of vigor and disinclination to
push hard for the truth in the various investigations, particularly the
early ones.
But last time I checked that was 34 years ago. I seem to recall several
much nastier problems with the British from time to time, but we seem to
have gotten over those.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20019
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 17:53:22 -0700
Subject: Re: article:
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
georule@citlink.net wrote:
> I have Ennes book. I've talked to Ennes (oh. . .10 years ago?) and
> a couple of the other guys. Unfortunately, Ennes experience (including
> the names he's been called for writing the book in the first place)
> seems to have radicalized him, not that I'm suprised.
Ditto; we must have been in touch with him about the same time. And I
agree he's carved himself into a certain shape over the issue - as you
say, not surprisingly.
> Still, I think that at the very least there was a definite lack of
> vigor and disinclination to push hard for the truth in the various
> investigations, particularly the early ones.
Yes - almost certainly because of the spook connections. Investigating
after the US has very publicly accepted an excuse and an apology seems
to have taken the wind out of the investigations's sails as well.
> But last time I checked that was 34 years ago. I seem to recall
> several much nastier problems with the British from time to time,
> but we seem to have gotten over those.
Hmm. I've no doubt that the apologists for Israel would agree with you.
Funny, these are the same people who trumpet, "Never Forget!" and "Never
Again!" at every possible opportunity.
My bottom-line feeling on the Liberty incident is that the truth lies
somewhere between the extremes of the official findings and the wilder
claims of Ennes et al., but that Israel's hands are far bloodier than
just "oops" explains or covers. Had the Liberty not been operating in
such black waters, the US never would have let it go so easily.
But I've found that it makes a *lovely* touchstone to smoke out those
who will alibi Israel to ridiculous extremes. Anyone who starts slinging
accusations of anti-Semitism in their first reply... well. Nuff said.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20020
From: georule@citlink.net
Date: 14 Oct 2001 02:28:49 GMT
Subject: Re: article:
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I never said anything about *forgetting*. Besides which, as far as I'm
concerned the crew of the Liberty deserves a congressional investigation
and their chance to tell their story under the spotlights. And with all
restrictions removed on what they and any other government or ex-government
resource can talk about.
They're our guys and we owe it to them. Ditto on the more than "oops";
the only question to me is how high up that more than oops was made. I do
think it is a shame that Jim Ennes has allowed himself to hang out from
time to time near the fringes of the fever swamp; it just clouds the issue.
But, as we both said, it is understandable if regrettable. "The enemy of
my enemy" and all that can be seductive when you feel that those who should
be your friends aren't doing enough.
But these things *can* happen --if I were the Chinese I wouldn't believe
for a moment that we could have been so incredibly stupid as to bomb them
in Yugoslavia by mistake. Then again, maybe it wasn't a mistake. You'll
recall there were rumors on that one about us doing it on purpose because
the Chinese were doing intel work on *us* from there. The spying business
is a nasty thing, even when dealing with putatively "friendly" governments.
But all in all I wouldn't use it to make any particular point about
our relationship today with Israel.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20021
From: georule@citlink.net (Geo Rule)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 03:41:33 GMT
Subject: Re: article:
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On 14 Oct 2001 02:28:49 GMT, georule@citlink.net wrote:
>I never said anything about *forgetting*. Besides which, as far as I'm
>concerned the crew of the Liberty deserves a congressional investigation
>and their chance to tell their story under the spotlights. And with all
>restrictions removed on what they and any other government or ex-government
>resource can talk about.
>
This is just a test of my reinstall of Agent (since the webreader
suxors. Or maybe not for a webreader, but it is unsatisfying and
Outlook didn't want to work right for some reason).
Howdy folks!
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20022
From: georule@citlink.net (Geo Rule)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 03:48:30 GMT
Subject: Re: article:
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 03:41:33 GMT, georule@citlink.net (Geo Rule)
wrote:
Last test. . .
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20023
From: georule@citlink.net (Geo Rule)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 04:29:24 GMT
Subject: Roving Wire Taps
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
There has been some small furor over this provision of the
"anti-terrorist" bill. Frankly, I'm not getting it. Can someone who
is more paranoid than me explain the problem?<g>
It seems to me that the individual has always been the point of
the wiretap anyway, and having a single Federal judge approve a tap
that is good anywhere against the given individual is merely an
efficiency thing.
My only concern would be that if they make this shift it really be
about the *individual* instead of the phone. If Joe mobster comes
into my restaurant and uses the phone, and I then use that same phone
to place a bet with my bookie, my call is not subject to the court
order and is not usable.
Uhhh. . unless this is taken to mean that the FBI can tap all
phones everywhere all the time in order to be able to get the right
call at the right time. *That* would be a problem.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20024
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:22:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc8661a.0@news.sff.net>, georule@citlink.net writes...
> I tried to, but damned if they weren't all out of F-16's down at Home Depot.
> Maybe next time.
>
> Aid to Israel is a rounding error in the budget. Give another $50 to
> charity next year and you'll likely be able to write off *your* aid to Israel
> completely.
Unfortunately, the consequences to U.S. citizens cannot be written off so
easily.
> I don't know where you're coming from; if this is an anti-Israel tirade,
> a nativist tirade, or just a generic Libertarian tirade.
I don't think it is any kind of "tirade". You used the label "real
politik types" - I returned the favor with a label of my own. If the
shoe fits, wear it. The difference is that I take moral considerations
into my theory of politics - which refutes your label as applied to me -
but you have given no evidence that you see any objection to others
financing (and bearing the consequences) of your moral views. So far,
the shoe I gave to you fits better than the one you gave to me.
....
> But that's okay. You go vote for your guy and I'll go vote for mine;
> we'll see which gets 5% and which gets 51% --just like they do it in Israel.
The justification of government is to do what private individuals cannot
do, not what 51% of the people vote for. (It is not unlikely that 51% of
the people would vote against the Bill of Rights). Aid to Is real for
moral reasons is not a public good. Any U.S. citizen who wants to can
contribute aid to Is real; there is no "public goods" problem in that.
As to F-16's, Is real could buy aircraft from the French (or Russians -
they really need the cash) or build their own. If that proves
expensive, then /you/ could double your contribution from $50 to $100.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20025
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:31:19 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc864b8.48400693@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:29:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >I never said that he did. I did not mention the Liberty - James did.
> >The fact that I mention one and James the other does not make them
> >related, either, as James and I are not related. Especially not over
> >politics. ;-)
>
> Pay attention, Gordon.
Good advice for all of us.
> My original comment was directed at James'
> post, not yours. I only responded to you when you asked, "What
> point?"
Your first response was not to my "what point", but to my earlier
question about Pollard. Your reply to that post said that my mention of
Pollard "proved your point". I still have no idea what that point was.
> As I recall, James brought up the Liberty too.
"Too"? He was the only one who mentioned the Liberty. Please note the
good advice you gave above.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20026
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:34:41 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc86944.49565063@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 23:27:54 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> If I am sceptical of his purpose, you seem unwilling to admit the
> possibility that my scepticism may be well grounded.
I have some skepticism about the existence of Australia - after all, I
have never been there. There are always "possibilities" for skepticism.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20027
From: georule@citlink.net (Geo Rule)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:18:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:22:36 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>I don't think it is any kind of "tirade". You used the label "real
>politik types" - I returned the favor with a label of my own.
Yeah, you called me a parasite. Are you suggesting that "real
politik types" is seen by you as a personal insult that you were
justified in returning with a personal insult? Or do you just usually
enter new relationships that way?
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20028
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:34:19 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bc9aa93.22252010@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Geo Rule writes...
> On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:22:36 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't think it is any kind of "tirade". You used the label "real
> >politik types" - I returned the favor with a label of my own.
>
> Yeah, you called me a parasite. Are you suggesting that "real
> politik types" is seen by you as a personal insult that you were
> justified in returning with a personal insult?
I do take it as an insult; the implication is that I do not take moral
considerations seriously in politics. In fact, I take them quite
seriously.
But on rereading, I am willing to grant that my reply went too far. On
reflection, I should have been content to say that "You types who want
your moral views paid for by others have the luxury of not having to
bemoan U.S. support for Israel". Please accept my apologies.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20029
From: georule@citlink.net (Geo Rule)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:17:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 09:22:36 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>The justification of government is to do what private individuals cannot
>do, not what 51% of the people vote for. (It is not unlikely that 51% of
>the people would vote against the Bill of Rights). Aid to Is real for
>moral reasons is not a public good.
I'm having trouble following your argument. Are you arguing that
it is not a *public* good (as above) or that it is not a public *good*
as I thot I'd seen you imply elsewhere. They are different issues and
should be argued separately.
As for the former, I can't agree. As Amex would say:
F-16 $20 million dollars
Patriot missile battery: $10 million dollars
A vote on the U.N. Security council: Priceless
As for the arguement from just the utility point of view --from
what I understand you are drawing cause and effect to the terrorist
attacks and suggesting that if we stayed out of that part of the world
*as a government* it wouldn't have happened. Yet you are willing to
let indivdual Americans spend as much money supporting Israel as they
want. I would suggest to you that if your scheme was in place, and
large sums of money were contributed to Israel by Americans, enough
that they were able to substantially arm themselves from other
sources, the Anti-Israel crowd would still hate us and still hold us
responsible for them not getting what they want. Then an attack would
likely be met by cries of "why are we allowing each American to have
his own foreign policy? We should make it illegal to contribute money
to foreign governments --look what it has led to".
Btw, you do understand don't you, that by attacking the WTC in
New York that the terrorists saw themselves above all else as killing
lots of Jews? You know, the International Jewish Conspiracy, New York
as Jew-central, Jews as money-grubbing shylocks and the WTC as the
symbol of money-grubbing --all that. Of course the reality is they
killed people from all over the world, but these folks have never been
very big on reality. I would suggest to you that as long as they are
thwarted the Arab public will blame the IJC, American Jews as the
richest and most powerful part of the IJC, and America for being a
super-power and not somehow forcing Israel to do what they want them
to do (because, of course, we're controlled by the IJC). They have
perfect circular logic impervious to outside influence.
As for the Bill of Rights. Yes, it is a fundamentally
anti-democratic organ and parts of it might not survive a democratic
test for that reason. Part of the reason it might not survive such a
test is that every interest group has done what it could to get judges
to stuff their fave right into it so as to protect it from democratic
processes. But that's a whole 'nother conversation.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20030
From: georule@citlink.net (Geo Rule)
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:21:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 14 Oct 2001 11:34:19 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>But on rereading, I am willing to grant that my reply went too far. On
>reflection, I should have been content to say that "You types who want
>your moral views paid for by others have the luxury of not having to
>bemoan U.S. support for Israel". Please accept my apologies.
>
>--
>Gordon Sollars
>gsollars@pobox.com
Good enuf, gospodin. I apologize for unintentionally insulting
you in return.
This would be called "withdrawal of corresponce and removal of
personalities". Much better than an "exchange of letters by friends".
<g> (Uh, I've been reading about duelling)
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20031
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 04:36:06 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 13 Oct 2001 13:50:49 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Well, Jai, you're ignoring my posts,
I really hadn't found much of anything in your posts worth responding
to.
>but I'll point out here that one of
>the factions on the "other side" crying foul is... the majority of the
>Liberty's crew.
So now they're a "faction"? I thought they were just a bunch of guys
trying to right a wrong, as they perceived it.
Usually, when a Republican administration tries to cover something up,
the Dems, or Libertarians, or Greens or somebody else cries foul.
When a Democrat administration does so, the Repubs, Libertarians,
Greens or somebody else... well, you get the picture. Everybody has
bought off on the findings of the various investigations. Boy, that
must be some kinda power the Israeli lobby weilds.
>I have this odd tendency to take the words of
>participants and eyewitnesses over the judgements of experts analyzing
>things later.
Except there is little question of what actually happened from the
perspective of those aboard. And their testamony, as given at the
time, was included in the investigations. The question is over the
motives of the attackers, and the communications between the ALL of
the participants (both sides) and their superiors. Not much the crew
could know about that.
>And the Liberty crew did not significantly disagree with the assertions
>found in Ennes's book. There were one or two who took up the official
>line (the XO, as I recall), and those who said next to nothing, taking
>either their security oaths or threats seriously (the captain being one
>of those). But of those who spoke out - on the order of 100 of the
>surviving crew - there was unanimity on the major points that are
>disputed by the official accounts.
>
>Funny how that is.
Yes, I have to wonder about people who would violate their security
oaths as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20032
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:47:14 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bcaaf60.23481404@NEWS.SFF.NET>, Geo Rule writes...
....
> I'm having trouble following your argument. Are you arguing that
> it is not a *public* good (as above) or that it is not a public *good*
> as I thot I'd seen you imply elsewhere. They are different issues and
> should be argued separately.
Now I'm not sure what you mean. I mean "public good" in the sense used
in economics. A public good is one that (simplifying somewhat) if it is
provided to one person it is provided to all. The "classic" example is
national defense. If we live in the same country, then if national
defense is provided to you, it is necessarily provided to me. It can be
difficult for individuals to provide such goods, since I can refuse to
pay once it is provided to you - I get it anyway. One solution is to
create a government that taxes everyone to pay for national defense.
....
> A vote on the U.N. Security council: Priceless
Priceless to whom? To Israel? No doubt. But the U.S. government does
not exist for the benefit of Israel, but for the benefit of U.S.
citizens. Those U.S. citizens who want to aid Israel do not need the
U.S. government to do so.
> As for the arguement from just the utility point of view --from
> what I understand you are drawing cause and effect to the terrorist
> attacks and suggesting that if we stayed out of that part of the world
> *as a government* it wouldn't have happened. Yet you are willing to
> let indivdual Americans spend as much money supporting Israel as they
> want.
It is a compromise that a morally-minded person such as myself - as
opposed to a "real politik" type - has to make. I might be attacked by a
terrorist who failed to distinguish between Americans who aid Israel and
those who do not, but I can't justify restricting the voluntary actions
of others on that basis. Freedom means risks.
> I would suggest to you that if your scheme was in place, and
> large sums of money were contributed to Israel by Americans, enough
> that they were able to substantially arm themselves from other
> sources, the Anti-Israel crowd would still hate us and still hold us
> responsible for them not getting what they want.
Possibly, but not at all necessarily. For instance, it might require
that some of us spend some effort to disassociate ourselves from the
efforts of other Americans.
> Then an attack would
> likely be met by cries of "why are we allowing each American to have
> his own foreign policy? We should make it illegal to contribute money
> to foreign governments --look what it has led to".
That would be unfortunate, but I don't know how "likely" it would be. I
am puzzled why you think that Americans haven't reached the conclusion
that we should not support Israel after we have actually been attacked,
if you think that they would reach the same conclusion in your
hypothetical.
> Btw, you do understand don't you, that by attacking the WTC in
> New York that the terrorists saw themselves above all else as killing
> lots of Jews?
No, I don't know that. I have seen no evidence of this at all. Was bin
Laden so clever that he failed to mention this?
....
> I would suggest to you that as long as they are
> thwarted the Arab public will blame the IJC, American Jews as the
> richest and most powerful part of the IJC, and America for being a
> super-power and not somehow forcing Israel to do what they want them
> to do (because, of course, we're controlled by the IJC). They have
> perfect circular logic impervious to outside influence.
So do a good many people I argue with who are not Arab terrorists. But
as I said to Jai, we can make one of two assumptions about Islamic
fundamentalists. One is that they have a number of objectives, some of
which we ought to do anyway (such a withdrawing troops from the Middle
East), and that we could reach an agreement by doing (only) those things
we ought to do in exchange for them doing what they ought to do. The
other assumption is that their only objective is to destroy us. Again,
as I said before, that assumption might be the correct one. If it is,
where do you want to go with it?
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20033
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:17:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:47:14 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> A vote on the U.N. Security council: Priceless
>
>Priceless to whom? To Israel? No doubt. But the U.S. government does
>not exist for the benefit of Israel, but for the benefit of U.S.
>citizens. Those U.S. citizens who want to aid Israel do not need the
>U.S. government to do so.
>
That is the Public good I was referring to. It is not divisible
and unavailable to private parties. If you and I disagree on its use
only one of us will get our way.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20034
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 05:46:54 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
> I have this odd tendency to take the words of
>participants and eyewitnesses over the judgements of experts analyzing
>things later.
Eyewitnesses and participants to events are not the best sources
from which to draw conclusions. They have only pieces from which to
judge the event, not the whole, and not the things that had an effect
on the incident that took place far outside their view in both time
and location. Eyewitnesses and participants also have the tendency to
recall the events as shaded and recolored by their own experience, and
their own conclusions. They're important elements--important providers
of data--but valid conclusions have to come from those with both
access to all the available information, and the distance from the
event to make non-emotional assessements.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20035
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:47:24 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:47:14 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Btw, you do understand don't you, that by attacking the WTC in
>> New York that the terrorists saw themselves above all else as killing
>> lots of Jews?
>
>No, I don't know that. I have seen no evidence of this at all. Was bin
>Laden so clever that he failed to mention this?
>...
Why would he need to mention it? CNN showed the world the
pictures, and their own culture told them all they needed to know.
Every bond trader in those two buildings was a Jew and card-carrying
member of the International Jewish Conspiracy --just ask the cheering
throngs on the West Bank.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20036
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:05:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:47:14 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>One is that they have a number of objectives, some of
>which we ought to do anyway (such a withdrawing troops from the Middle
>East), and that we could reach an agreement by doing (only) those things
>we ought to do in exchange for them doing what they ought to do. The
>other assumption is that their only objective is to destroy us. Again,
>as I said before, that assumption might be the correct one. If it is,
>where do you want to go with it?
The problem with Danegeld, as Churchill pointed out, is that you
never get rid of the Dane. You will say "we should do it anyway so it
isn't tribute", but I doubt very much that the terrorists will see it
that way.
Look at how many times Arafat sold the Israelis the *same*
promise to recognize Israel's right to exist, each time for a *new*
concession on the Israelis part.
Where do I want to go with it? I'm feeling Heinleinian on that
point. I don't give a rats ass what their motives are --as long as
they want to kill me & mine, I want to kill them first. When they
give up on the former, I'll give up on the latter.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20037
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:41:47 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:32:21 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> And I tend to
>> believe that if these "causes" were resolved to Arab liking, they
>> would just find something else to hate us for. Because they hate us
>> for who we are, not for what we do.
>
>Perhaps they do. If so, that hate will prove to be very unfortunate for
>this world over the next 50-100 years.
Indeed it may. Not unlike our parents' generation after Pearl Harbor,
I feel no certainty that we will win this war, even if we do find and
kill or incarcerate bin Laden and his lieutenants. For me, hope lies
in our ability to contain the threat, to hold on, until enough time
passes for their society and the global economy to evolve to a point
where the hatred will no longer make sense for the majority of their
people.
>Since I lack a sure method of
>looking into their hearts and minds, I think it is more prudent to adopt
>the assumption that these causes they mention are their real concern. On
>my assumption, we have groups that could co-exist if a compromise could
>be reached. On your assumption, there can never be any compromise.
>Where do you want to go with that assumption? I have seen some argue
>that it means we must destroy them before they destroy us. That seems to
>be the most logical conclusion from the assumption, but perhaps you do
>not share it.
>
>So I do not want to embrace the "they hate us" assumption as long as my
>assumption is plausible.
My "assumption" is based upon the totality of what is said and the
history of their actions. And yours in based on... wishful thinking?
>> >Elements of the Arab/Palestinian world have been engaged
>> >in acts of terrorism, and such acts are wrong.
>>
>> And large portions of the Arab world have supported them.
>
>What do "large portions" and "support" mean?
By "large portions" I mean an overwhelming majority of the people and
governments. By support, I mean, money, arms, information, safe
haven, and especially the acceptance and perpetuation of the
terrorists' dogma in various social institutions, to include, but not
limited to, religious, educational, cultural, you name it. And
probably a lot more I can't think of off the top of my head.
>I think it is very
>important to distinguish between a pathetic and otherwise passive Arab
>who in his impotence cheers news of a terrorist attack and the Arab who
>trained or funded the terrorist.
There is a difference, of course. And they must be treated
differently. As must those who make up all the shades of gray in
between. But the terrorist with a gun cannot exist without the
concentric circles of support, from those who directly provide
tangible support (see above), to those who encourage and enable those
who provide that support, to those who sympathize with those who
encourage, to those who refuse to condemn those who sympathize, and so
forth. It's been the same for every "terrorist" group that has ever
existed.
>> So you do deny the right of Israel to exist? Are you saying they've
>> built their nation in the "yard" of Palestine?
>
>I think that I have granted Israel's right to exist implicitly /and/
>explicitly in several of these posts (based on the idea that it has the
>same right as any other state - which right, I happen to think, is rather
>weak for /any/ state, but that is my own idiosyncrasy).
But you've snipped my comments that the Arabs do not. Sometimes I
think maybe you and the rest of the "leave them alone and they'll
leave us alone" chorus, don't have enough respect for the Arabs to
actually listen to what they say.
>> When the British owned Palestine, there were Jewish "terrorists,"
>> altho they only attacked governmental targets, they announced ahead of
>> time when their bombs would go off, and, most importantly, they were
>> completely denounced by the mainstream Jewish resistance.
>
>If they were denounced, why put "terrorists" in quotes? There were
>Jewish terrorists, pure and simple, when they had no state of their own.
>Let's admit than terrorism knows no ethnicity. And if they had no state
>today, there would still be Jewish terrorists.
I was speaking solely of the acts against the British, which is why I
put the "terrorists" in quotes. If Hizbollah/Hammas limited their
attacks to Israeli occupying forces, or even the military and
government in Israel proper, they would not be terrorists either.
Instead they blow up tour buses and teenage discos.
>But I beg to dispute that all targets of Jewish terrorists were state
>owned. My understanding is that reprisals were taken against Arab
>villages for allegedly harboring Arab terrorists, as well as British
>targets in the time before Israel was established.
"Allegedly"? Yes, there were reprisals for Arab attacks against
Jewish civilians, back before WWII. Was it terrorism? I don't know.
It was a different world back then. But are you suggesting that our
current attack on Afghanistan for "harboring terrorists" is an act of
terrorism as well?
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20038
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:38:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<georule@citlink.net> wrote in message news:3bc8661a.0@news.sff.net...
> I tried to, but damned if they weren't all out of F-16's down at
Home Depot.
> Maybe next time.
>
> Aid to Israel is a rounding error in the budget. Give another
$50 to
> charity next year and you'll likely be able to write off *your* aid
to Israel
> completely.
Want to bet? The _obvious_ aid to Israel isn't large, but we also pay
for loan guarantees and separate aid packages from various directions.
The total amount is much larger than you might think.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20039
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 04:36:46 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> I don't believe in government conspiracies, for the most part. But I do
> believe, because it has happened many times before, the our government will
> give short shrift to an investigation, even repeatedly, because it is
> politically expedient.
Not just our government. Most days I think such commissions are given the
final report first and then told to gather the evidence that support it, and
ignore the rest. Cases in point: the Titanic inquiry, the Lusitania inquiry,
and the Hindenberg inquiry. I considered putting the Kennedy assassination in
this category, but there has been so much garbage and conspiracy theories over
it that I despair of ever learning anything worthwhile about it.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20040
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 06:54:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:38:07 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
><georule@citlink.net> wrote in message news:3bc8661a.0@news.sff.net...
>> I tried to, but damned if they weren't all out of F-16's down at
>Home Depot.
>> Maybe next time.
>>
>> Aid to Israel is a rounding error in the budget. Give another
>$50 to
>> charity next year and you'll likely be able to write off *your* aid
>to Israel
>> completely.
>
>Want to bet? The _obvious_ aid to Israel isn't large, but we also pay
>for loan guarantees and separate aid packages from various directions.
>The total amount is much larger than you might think.
>
>Filksinger
>
How do you *pay* for loan guarantees? It's like co-signing a
loan, yes? Have they defaulted?
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20041
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:30:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <44skst82ktevt21f3jeah0o5hbs2v3q0t9@4ax.com>, Geo Rule
writes...
....
> That is the Public good I was referring to. It is not divisible
> and unavailable to private parties. If you and I disagree on its use
> only one of us will get our way.
But there is no free-rider problem for government to solve, because I
don't regard aid to Israel as a good. Indeed, since my government has
given aid without taking proper account of the consequences, for me it is
a bad.
If you and I shared the same evaluations about the good of aiding Israel,
then my failing to contribute would constitute a free-rider problem. But
if I thought it was a good, I could contribute whether others did or not.
As can you.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20042
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:39:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <6rtkstoersh8aud3ioh6efo874jkuhpvch@4ax.com>, Geo Rule
writes...
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:47:14 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> Why would he need to mention it? CNN showed the world the
> pictures, and their own culture told them all they needed to know.
> Every bond trader in those two buildings was a Jew and card-carrying
> member of the International Jewish Conspiracy --just ask the cheering
> throngs on the West Bank.
You complained of "perfect circular logic impervious to outside
influence", and then you follow it up with such an argument yourself.
You know what the "cheering throngs" /really/ believe, so it is pointless
to argue.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20043
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 10:45:28 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <i3ukst8jfuh5o3g1uda5p6k0qpte1njct2@4ax.com>, Geo Rule
writes...
....
> The problem with Danegeld, as Churchill pointed out, is that you
> never get rid of the Dane. You will say "we should do it anyway so it
> isn't tribute", but I doubt very much that the terrorists will see it
> that way.
That is what clever diplomats are for. There is no question that it is
difficult to adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy /after/ you have
been attacked. If you read my posts you will see that I have mentioned
this several times.
....
> Where do I want to go with it? I'm feeling Heinleinian on that
> point. I don't give a rats ass what their motives are --as long as
> they want to kill me & mine, I want to kill them first. When they
> give up on the former, I'll give up on the latter.
And it is even more difficult to kill /all/ the terrorists that might
kill you, especially when your government's actions continually swell the
ranks of the terrorists.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20044
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:28:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bca6cc7.58916337@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 19:32:21 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
....
> >So I do not want to embrace the "they hate us" assumption as long as my
> >assumption is plausible.
>
> My "assumption" is based upon the totality of what is said and the
> history of their actions. And yours in based on... wishful thinking?
Why, "the totality of what is said and the history of their actions",
what else? It is difficult to perform experiments in the social and
political worlds, so it is hard to test assumptions. As I said, yours
might be the correct one. It is true that I "wish" (or hope) that it is
wrong, because the consequences will be dire if it is not.
....
> But the terrorist with a gun cannot exist without the
> concentric circles of support, from those who directly provide
> tangible support (see above), to those who encourage and enable those
> who provide that support, to those who sympathize with those who
> encourage, to those who refuse to condemn those who sympathize, and so
> forth. It's been the same for every "terrorist" group that has ever
> existed.
My question is, how many of these do you want to go to war with? The
more people in the bottom layer of the "wedding cake" you have described,
the more people there will be holding hands at the top. World-wide, that
bottom layer draws from about one billion people. Geo seems to think
that we should just kill them all until they get tired and stop. Is that
your view?
FWIW, I think we would be in a much better position in this new war if
there were some 1000s of young Islamic U.S. citizens who were willing to
die for Uncle Sam. Anyone see them lining up? Anyone wonder why not?
....
> >I think that I have granted Israel's right to exist implicitly /and/
> >explicitly ...
>
> But you've snipped my comments that the Arabs do not. Sometimes I
> think maybe you and the rest of the "leave them alone and they'll
> leave us alone" chorus, don't have enough respect for the Arabs to
> actually listen to what they say.
And there are Jews who say that mere man-made borders cannot stand in the
way of what a burning bush told Moses. The most extreme elements will
not get what they want in any reasonable compromise.
....
> >But I beg to dispute that all targets of Jewish terrorists were state
> >owned. My understanding is that reprisals were taken against Arab
> >villages for allegedly harboring Arab terrorists, as well as British
> >targets in the time before Israel was established.
>
> "Allegedly"? Yes, there were reprisals for Arab attacks against
> Jewish civilians, back before WWII. Was it terrorism? I don't know.
"Allegedly" because claims are difficult to establish when no neutral
judge is present. We are all poor judges of our own cases, as John Locke
pointed out.
I think that targeting people at some remove from your armed opponent is
terrorism; so is threatening to use weapons of mass destruction without
regard to the guilt or innocence of those who would be killed. Figuring
out exactly what "at some remove" means is, of course, a very difficult
moral and practical problem. So far, I don't think that U.S. actions in
Afghanistan are "terrorist". It would be better if we had chosen to act
through the U.N., but it is quite possible the public would not have
stood for that. We should also agree with the Taliban to give bin Laden
up to an agreeable third party, showing them the same evidence that we
have been willing to show other government officials. Bush's "no
negotiation" stance will cause problems that we now will have to address
in less effective ways.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20045
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:02:45 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> I really hadn't found much of anything in your posts worth
> responding to.
Ah.
>> but I'll point out here that one of the factions on the "other
>> side" crying foul is... the majority of the Liberty's crew.
> So now they're a "faction"? I thought they were just a bunch
> of guys trying to right a wrong, as they perceived it.
You're the one who called everyone who didn't agree with the official
findings "factions" who were "crying fowl." Check the thread. Pay
attention. You can't seem to keep Gordon and me straight, even though
the only thing our threads have in common is Israel.
>> I have this odd tendency to take the words of participants and
>> eyewitnesses over the judgements of experts analyzing things
>> later.
> Except there is little question of what actually happened from the
> perspective of those aboard.
No, you're missing the single most important issue: was the Liberty
clearly identified as an American ship? The crew, almost without
exception, testified that the flag was extended and visible at the time
of the first attack. When the mast was shot away, the crew broke out the
parade pennant (some five times larger than a standard flag) and hoisted
it - and by their testimony, it too was extended and visible during the
subsequent attacks.
The Israelis claim - and the official reports concur - that the flag was
not visible and that the ship's nationality was unidentifiable.
Pretty much everything else that follows is window dressing.
> And their testamony, as given at the time, was included in the
> investigations.
No, it was directed, suppressed and struck at many points. The crew was
not allowed to tell its version in the investigations.
>> And the Liberty crew did not significantly disagree with the assertions
>> found in Ennes's book. There were one or two who took up the official
>> line (the XO, as I recall), and those who said next to nothing, taking
>> either their security oaths or threats seriously (the captain being one
>> of those). But of those who spoke out - on the order of 100 of the
>> surviving crew - there was unanimity on the major points that are
>> disputed by the official accounts.
>>
>> Funny how that is.
> Yes, I have to wonder about people who would violate
> their security oaths as well.
Testifiying as to what happened has nothing to do with security or
oaths, except that they were enjoined never to discuss the Liberty's
mission, spook crewing, etc. This was used to suppress straightforward
testimony about events - because they were spooking, what happened to
them was not permitted to be discussed.
Never mind, Jai. As I said to Geo, the Liberty incident has more value
as a touchstone than as any subject of real discussion - and in smoking
out blind apologists for Israel, it works perfectly.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20046
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:07:23 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
>> I have this odd tendency to take the words of participants and >> eyewitnesses over the judgements of experts analyzing
>> things later.
> Eyewitnesses and participants to events are not the best sources
> from which to draw conclusions. They have only pieces from which to
> judge the event, not the whole, and not the things that had an effect
> on the incident that took place far outside their view in both time
> and location.
I'm well aware of the limitation of eyewitness testimony, Deb, but
what's at stake here is not the movement of all the pieces in the game,
and what the crew under fire might have thought about Israel (or the
NSA, or the Navy) is not particularly relevant.
The crew testified that the US flag was flying and visible during all
the attacks. The Israelis claimed that the ship was not flying a visible
flag and was otherwise unmarked/unidentifiable (despite a completely
unique visual outline as well).
The US accepted the explanation and officially approved it before the
last crewmen injured in the attack had died, and no subsequent
investigation was allowed to seriously question the issue.
In this case, on this point, I trust the great majority of eyewitnesses,
and not the malefactors or the brass who weren't there.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20047
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:06:50 -0700
Subject: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Watched it last night on DVD for the first time since I saw it in
the theatre with Deb, Jim, & Audrey.
Had pretty much the same reaction --several things I didn't
like, but I could have forgiven the director everything but Doogie in
that damn Gestapo outfit.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20048
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:13:19 -0700
Subject: Universal Translator
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
It seems to me that given the state of technology in several
related areas --PDAs, processor speed, storage, dynamic translation
(like Babelfish), and speech recognition-- that we are realistically
on the cusp of the portable Universal Translator (for human languages
anyway!).
If only one of the participants has the UT, then one person
speaks into the PDA-like device (eventually it'll be standard
capability of all general capability PDAs, but I would think the first
ones will be dedicated UTs), hands it to the second person who listens
to the translation, replies, and hands it back. If both people have
UT's then they can stick an earphone in their ears and have
practically real-time translation. . .
So, how long until the first decent one shows up? 3 years wouldn't
suprise me, but more than 10 would. . .
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20049
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:02 -0700
Subject: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Anyone running the final version of this yet? Anyone plan to? We
have a copy on the way from Amazon, and Deb will probably get to be
the guinea pig for a couple of reasons. . .
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20050
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:42:29 -0700
Subject: Anthrax
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
I'm very confused about just how scary Anthrax should be
considered.
For years we heard it could cause major devastation and our
troops *had* to be vaccinated against it. In fact, weren't some
people court-martialed for refusing the vaccine?
Now, we are told that it isn't all *that* serious, that it is
extremely hard to get infected, and that it isn't contagious.
Which is it?
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20051
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:57:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:06:50 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
>
> Watched it last night on DVD for the first time since I saw it in
>the theatre with Deb, Jim, & Audrey.
>
> Had pretty much the same reaction --several things I didn't
>like, but I could have forgiven the director everything but Doogie in
>that damn Gestapo outfit.
>
>
Any good "extras" in the DVD?
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20052
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:57:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:15:02 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
>
> Anyone running the final version of this yet? Anyone plan to? We
>have a copy on the way from Amazon, and Deb will probably get to be
>the guinea pig for a couple of reasons. . .
>
No...I'll probably wait until it's out on MSDN, because I qualify for
one of the licenses for our subscription at work. ;) Once I run it
there for a while I'll see who has the best upgrade prices.....
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20053
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:57:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:43:04 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>In short, in the short run we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
>Bin Laden knows this, and I suspect he is very happy over it.
>Extricating ourselves from this sort of dilemma will take patience and a
>planning horizon that is probably longer than a full eight year
>presidency.
>
Well, "damned if we do and damned if we don't" was sort of what I
meant, you just said it better. ;)
Still, none of the damn brains that reads this forum and lurking in
this discussion but don't want to bother coming down on one side or
the other have come forward to give me a good "primer" book. ;)
Since I've been looking and I don't think one such book exists and
that might be why no one's posted, I'll change my request to "two or
three books that should be Required Reading if you ever want to join
in this discussion with Gordon and Jai which will still be going on
when you finish the books." <VBG>
Seriously, I corrected my knowledge deficiency regarding Viet Nam by
taking a class during my college years. I don't have that luxury now
so all I can do is read up a bit. Help out a fellow scholar who's
down on his luck.....
JT
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20054
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:17:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 01:58:27 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>I've started a new thread on this to follow it better.
>
>First, let me say that I've been following it because I know
>next-to-nothing about the region's history and especially Islamic
>history and culture. If anyone can recommend the best book to read as
>a "primer" I'd like to hear the suggestion. I'm looking for something
>less than 500 pages unless it can be skimmed by chapter summaries. ;)
>
Sorry, JT --I came to the conversation so late that I missed the
original request.
A single book? Good luck. The best I can do is offer you three
books. Donald Neff's "Warriors" series --
Warriors at Suez (1957 war)
Warriors for Jerusalem (1967 war)
Warriors Against Israel (1973 war)
Many who are pro-Israel don't particularly like these books, but
I found them to be reasonably balanced and not nearly as Anti-Israel
as some on both sides would have you believe.
In fact, I read them 10 years ago for the same reason you are
looking for books now. Also because I found the Anti's quoting them
extensively and I wanted to know if they were doing so accurately. It
turned out they were much more favorable to Israel than one would have
thought from the people who were quoting them.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20055
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:38:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:17:33 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
s
>
> Sorry, JT --I came to the conversation so late that I missed the
>original request.
>
> A single book? Good luck. The best I can do is offer you three
>books. Donald Neff's "Warriors" series --
>
>Warriors at Suez (1957 war)
>Warriors for Jerusalem (1967 war)
>Warriors Against Israel (1973 war)
>
I guess if you were only going to read one it would be the middle
one about the 1967 war.
And the first war was 1956 (instead of my tyop of 1957), right
during Eisenhower's re-election campaign.
Not heavy on the Islamic history, tho you can pick up a good deal
from it, but these books have the added benefit of having a good bit
of *our* history of involvement in the region.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20056
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 03:56:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Anthrax
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:42:29 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
> I'm very confused about just how scary Anthrax should be
>considered.
>
> For years we heard it could cause major devastation and our
>troops *had* to be vaccinated against it. In fact, weren't some
>people court-martialed for refusing the vaccine?
>
> Now, we are told that it isn't all *that* serious, that it is
>extremely hard to get infected, and that it isn't contagious.
>
> Which is it?
I'm no doctor, or even public health expert, but from what I've heard
(over and over again on the news channels, it seems), anthrax is very
serious, usually fatal, once contracted, and if the proper antibiotics
aren't received fairly quickly. Thus, if an enemy on a battlefield
were to employ some sort of weapon to deliver anthrax spores, or
whatever is involved in the inhaled variety,, it could be deadly to
the friendly military force in a relatively short time. Military
FIELD medical facilities would not be prepared to administer
antibiotics to everyone exposed within the time frame required.
But it is also my understanding that anthrax is not easily
communicable from an infected human being (apparently live stock far
more easily contract the disease). Something about it taking a
relatively large number of spores, or bacteria in the cutaneous form?
I'm not sure about the details.
Fwiw, I did hear one doctor talking about a CDC simulation of a
smallpox outbreak and the results seemed a lot more grisley.
Apparently smallpox "only" kills some 30% of those who contract it,
but it spreads much more easily. In the simulation, they started in
with a handful of infected individuals within a major mid-western
city. They were unable to contain the contagion until it had spread to
something like 29 states and several million people.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20057
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:21:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Anthrax
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 03:56:51 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>
>I'm no doctor, or even public health expert, but from what I've heard
>(over and over again on the news channels, it seems), anthrax is very
>serious, usually fatal, once contracted, and if the proper antibiotics
>aren't received fairly quickly. Thus, if an enemy on a battlefield
>were to employ some sort of weapon to deliver anthrax spores, or
>whatever is involved in the inhaled variety,, it could be deadly to
>the friendly military force in a relatively short time. Military
>FIELD medical facilities would not be prepared to administer
>antibiotics to everyone exposed within the time frame required.
>
>But it is also my understanding that anthrax is not easily
>communicable from an infected human being (apparently live stock far
>more easily contract the disease). Something about it taking a
>relatively large number of spores, or bacteria in the cutaneous form?
>I'm not sure about the details.
>
>Fwiw, I did hear one doctor talking about a CDC simulation of a
>smallpox outbreak and the results seemed a lot more grisley.
>Apparently smallpox "only" kills some 30% of those who contract it,
>but it spreads much more easily. In the simulation, they started in
>with a handful of infected individuals within a major mid-western
>city. They were unable to contain the contagion until it had spread to
>something like 29 states and several million people.
Hey, Jai--
Thanks. That makes sense on the distinction, tho it seems (and
maybe I've misinterpreted what I'm hearing on the TV) that most of
these recent cases they didn't get to them until days or weeks after
they were exposed to it.
I do remember hearing that it takes 5-10K spores to transmit and
that a human sneeze by an infected person would typically only contain
5 or 10 (no 'K' following those).
Smallpox is a lot harder to get ahold of, thank goodness. I
was disappointed to hear that the vaccine wears off after 10 years or
so --I guess they don't even give it to kids anymore, but I had it. .
..
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20058
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 22:23:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 01:57:30 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:06:50 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Watched it last night on DVD for the first time since I saw it in
>>the theatre with Deb, Jim, & Audrey.
>>
>> Had pretty much the same reaction --several things I didn't
>>like, but I could have forgiven the director everything but Doogie in
>>that damn Gestapo outfit.
>>
>>
>Any good "extras" in the DVD?
>
>JT
Couple scenes, director's commentary (haven't listened to that
--thinking it would probably just piss me off and I'm not needing
extra pissed off right now, y'know?), Dolby 5.1 if you have the
equipment to enjoy it.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20059
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:19:38 GMT
Subject: Re: Universal Translator
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:13:19 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
<snipped>
> So, how long until the first decent one shows up? 3 years wouldn't
>suprise me, but more than 10 would. . .
I thought I saw a commericial on instant translation for one of the
phone companies a couple months ago.(not that commercials can be
believed) Some teenager talking to her father's japanese customers (in
real time) & vague memories of another one too.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20060
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 05:51:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Universal Translator
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:19:38 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 18:13:19 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
>wrote:
><snipped>
>> So, how long until the first decent one shows up? 3 years wouldn't
>>suprise me, but more than 10 would. . .
>
>I thought I saw a commericial on instant translation for one of the
>phone companies a couple months ago.(not that commercials can be
>believed) Some teenager talking to her father's japanese customers (in
>real time) & vague memories of another one too.
>
>Fader
Yeah, I've seen that --tho I thot it was Turkey or someplace
like that. Not portable tho. I want to be able to ask for directions
in Berlin or Rome and have the waiter in Greece explain the menu to
me.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20061
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:20:10 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> Watched it last night on DVD for the first time since I saw it in
> the theatre with Deb, Jim, & Audrey.
I caught about 15 minutes on a movie channel and watched in utter
horror, kind of the way I watched "Logan's Run" about five years after
first seeing it.
Gawd. What a piece of utter shit.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20062
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:21:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> Anyone running the final version of this yet? Anyone plan to? We
> have a copy on the way from Amazon, and Deb will probably get to be
> the guinea pig for a couple of reasons. . .
Why? You don't love her any more? :) :) :)
I bought Audrey a notebook that came with Win2K and has an upgrade
certificate for WinXP Pro. I'll probably pick up the CD, but I don't
have any plans to install it.
I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade - it appears to be a
release intended to complete the financing on Bill Gates's megahouse.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20063
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:25:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Anthrax
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:et3nst0t9cpk06efnuoviqvc6tfitppj96@4ax.com...
>
> I'm very confused about just how scary Anthrax should be
> considered.
>
> For years we heard it could cause major devastation and our
> troops *had* to be vaccinated against it. In fact, weren't some
> people court-martialed for refusing the vaccine?
>
> Now, we are told that it isn't all *that* serious, that it is
> extremely hard to get infected, and that it isn't contagious.
>
> Which is it?
>
According to an article from The Journal of the American Medical
Association article from May 12,1999:
1) Anthrax is highly unlikely to be communicable between people.
2) Anthrax is normally the 'cutaneous' version (through the skin, usually
from handling infected animals) and is the least serious of the three forms,
(cutaneous, inhalational and gastrointestinal, the latter occurring usually
in the ingestion of contaminated meat, the article pointed out the attempts
to infect primates with this form failed).
3) All of these forms are normally fairly localized since they require
direct contact with the spores or bacteria.
4) To make it a 'weapon of mass destruction' would require 'aerosolizing'
the anthrax spores and spreading it over a large area.
(direct quote from the article)
"Most experts agree that the manufacture of a lethal anthrax aerosol is
beyond the capacity of individuals or groups without access to advanced
bio-technology. However, autonomous groups with substantial funding and
contact may be able to acquire the requred materials for a successful
attack. One terrorist group, Aum Shinrikyo, responsible for the release of
sarin in a Tokyo, Japan, subway station in 1995, dispersed aerosols of
anthrax and botulism throughout Tokyo on at least 8 occasions. For unclear
reasons, the attacks failed to produce illiness"
(good news)
(continuing quote)
"The accidental aerosolized release of anthrax spores from a military
microbiology facility in Sverdlovsk in the former Soviet Union in 1979
resulted in at least 79 cases of anthrax infrection and 68 deaths and
demonstrated the lethal potential of anthrax aerosols"
(not so good news).
(end of direct quote)
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20064
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:06:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Why? You don't love her any more? :) :) :)
It amuses him to hear me bitch about new versions of Windows.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20065
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:34:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:21:46 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade - it appears to be a
>release intended to complete the financing on Bill Gates's megahouse.
>
If you're already running Win2K, that's true. But from what I'm
reading from the not-in-Microsoft's-pocket sources, it's a good
upgrade if you're still in the 9x (95-98-Me) track. Of course, if
you're still running 95 your hardware is probably too old to really
use it. ;)
On another note, I'm happy they are keeping the NT 4 MCSE
certification. The cynic in me knew they'd keep it, all prior
announcements to the contrary. If they are serious about
certifications they can't just remove a credential because they'd
*like* everyone to move to their latest product. Many companies will
be running NT4 networks for a long time.
If you want to sell your upgrade CD, keep me in mind (as long as an
upgrade from 98 SE is valid).
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20066
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 23:36:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:17:33 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
> A single book? Good luck. The best I can do is offer you three
>books. Donald Neff's "Warriors" series --
>
>Warriors at Suez (1957 war)
>Warriors for Jerusalem (1967 war)
>Warriors Against Israel (1973 war)
>
Thanks for the recommendations, Geo. I'll look into them. Anyone
else has anything to say about these books or for/against any others
in particular I'm still listening. <G>
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20067
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:13:14 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:20:10 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>I caught about 15 minutes on a movie channel and watched in utter
>horror, kind of the way I watched "Logan's Run" about five years after
>first seeing it.
>
>Gawd. What a piece of utter shit.
Heh. I think I will do the director's commentary one of these
days, but I need to be in the proper frame of mind for snickers &
sneers. A couple rum & cokes first would probably help.
Then I'll come here and post the juicy quotes.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20068
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20069
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:35:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BCC5E9A.950478A3@surewest.net...
> Geo Rule wrote:
> > Anyone running the final version of this yet? Anyone plan to? We
> > have a copy on the way from Amazon, and Deb will probably get to be
> > the guinea pig for a couple of reasons. . .
>
> Why? You don't love her any more? :) :) :)
>
> I bought Audrey a notebook that came with Win2K and has an upgrade
> certificate for WinXP Pro. I'll probably pick up the CD, but I don't
> have any plans to install it.
>
> I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade - it appears to be a
> release intended to complete the financing on Bill Gates's megahouse.
While there are some significant issues with it, WinXP _Home_ edition is a
lot more than that, being the most significant change in Windows since
Windows 95. Pro is less so, if you are already using 2K. Keep in mind,
though, that games run better on WinXP.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20070
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:27:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:21:46 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>Why? You don't love her any more? :) :) :)
>
Oh, thaaaaanks. Remind me to "help" you with *your* marriage one of
these days!<g>
What JT said --we're still WinME, so it does make sense. I tried
Win2K on our main machine some months ago and ended up bailing out.
ACPI hell (internal DSL modem didn't like sharing with the home
network), Internet Connection Sharing didn't work quite right, and
networking to the WinME boxes wasn't reliable either. And customer
support people for consumer-type peripherals sounded downright
frightened when I tried to get them to help me with Win2K.
Choosing Deb's PC was a process of elimination ("How long have you
been wanting to eliminate your wife, Mr. Rule?"). We have a WinXP
upgrade coming for the Dell laptop, but I suspect it will be tied to
that machine and Compaq claims that I shouldn't expect to see it until
December (!) anyway. Her laptop is the slowest machine in the house
(Cel 466 192mb RAM), and I think I am SOL on the main machine until I
do something about this internal DSL modem. MS doesn't list *any* PCI
DSL modems on their HCL, and 3Com has stopped support on their modems
since they bailed out on the business. So that ain't looking good
until I switch.
Deb has enuf machine to make it go and no weird hardware. Also, she
does the most multi-tasking (desktop publishing/web design) and gets
the most crashes as a result, so she will benefit the most from the
added stability. Uhh. . .better check that her Snappy won't be a
problem. I know parallel port stuff was known to be a bitch under the
NT kernal.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20071
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:30:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Anthrax
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:25:58 -0400, "David Wright"
<maikosht@alltel.net> wrote:
>
>According to an article from The Journal of the American Medical
>Association article from May 12,1999:
>
Thanks, David.
It occurred to me after that of course we don't just want our
troops to *survive* an anthrax attack long enuf for us to get them the
antibiotics --they have to be able to fight. That makes a big
difference too.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20072
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:28:30 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> What JT said --we're still WinME, so it does make sense. I tried
> Win2K on our main machine some months ago and ended up bailing out.
> ACPI hell (internal DSL modem didn't like sharing with the home
> network)...
Trying to share a DSL connection through a system bus is an awfully
convoluted and problem-prone idea. Use an external modem, hook it to a
firewall/router, and network the good old fashioned way.
Or the new old fashioned way - I just put an 802.11b network in, and
after some teething problems, it works great.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20073
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:32:01 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:06:05 GMT, debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek
Rule) wrote:
>
>>Why? You don't love her any more? :) :) :)
>
> It amuses him to hear me bitch about new versions of Windows.
>
I guess it must. Did you send the weekly flowers to the grave of
Win 3.11's Program Manager yet?<g>
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20074
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:31:27 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bc86c91.50410221@news.sff.net...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 16:50:54 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't believe in government conspiracies, for the most part. But I do
> >believe, because it has happened many times before, the our government
will
> >give short shrift to an investigation, even repeatedly, because it is
> >politically expedient.
>
> Many times? I can't really think of one.
Really? Since I'm sure you've been exposed to more than one case that I find
clear, and yet still came to this conclusion, I won't bother arguing the
point.
In fact, I will go further. I admit that I think the reports you mention are
correct. I think the Liberty was a big accident, and that there was no
deliberate cover-up. I think that the only reason there were no open
hearings was because neither the US nor the Israelis were willing to release
top secret information.
But it isn't top secret any more. It is already admitted that the Liberty
detected transmissions showing that the Israelis, and not the Egyptians,
started the Six Day War. It is already admitted that the Israeli army was
killing Egyptian prisoners at the time, some withing possible view of the
Liberty. The NSA even released documents saying they were told to accept the
Israeli explanation. So, since nothing is being hidden any more, I think it
is time for them to do a full _open_ investigation and finish the job.
> From my military experience, I tend to accept the Navy's investigation
> as most valid, on its face.
That would be the Naval Court of Inquiry investigation? Suppose I agree.
That doesn't show anything about the Israeli involvement in the attack.
"The Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation focused on the U.S. military
communication problems prior to the attack and the heroic efforts of
LIBERTY's crew in controlling damage during the aftermath. Sensitive
international issues were best left for diplomatic and political considerati
on."
J.K. Henriksen Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy Deputy Assistant Judge
Advocate General (International Law)
In other words, they avoided commenting on or investigating the Israeli
explanation or motives.
> First of all, It was made first, while
> memories were freshests, records most readily available, and before
> politicians could easily intervene and skew the findings. Second,
> there was no implication that US Navy personnel were at fault or in
> any way negligent, except perhaps the communications procedures which
> apparently failed to notify the Liberty that they were supposed to
> leave the area, so there was nothing in the Navy's interests to cover
> up. Finally, the Navy would have been most likely to be angered, even
> enraged, at Israel's actions, IF they thought they were taken on
> purpose.
You think the Navy might object to the subject being brushed off, and
object? Maybe in the person of an Admiral on the Joint Chief's of Staff,
such as Thomas Moorer? No, you can't mean that. After all, he still claims
that no proper investigation was done to this day.
> But really, I find significant the fact that every investigation
> since, regardless of administration, has found essentially the same
> thing. And without at least some faction on the other side crying
> fowl? I just don't see how a conspiracy could be that pervasive. You
> have more hew and cry about aliens landing in New Mexico or what
> "really" happened on the grassy knoll.
Several points here:
1) To the best of my knowledge, the popularity of a position has never been
correlated effectively with its truth. "If everyone knows it's so, it ain't,
by a factor of at least 10,000 to 1" (OWTTE). LL was wrong, in my opinion,
but still makes a good point. Heck, most Americans _still_ believe that
Columbus was trying to prove the world was round.
2) Several of your investigations pointedly did not even address the Israeli
conduct, and, as such, are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or
not the Israelis behaved with either "gross negligence" or deliberate
malice. Saying that ten investigations found the same thing, when several
didn't even touch the subject, is disingenuous at best.
3) Aliens in New Mexico has a massive cult following that keeps it in the
public eye. There was more news coverage about the Kennedy assassination the
next day than there has _ever_ been about the USS Liberty. The first is
hardly equivallent, while the second is clearly a much much more public and
more important affair
4) Most importantly, your claim that "the other side" never called foul is
rather strange. Who is this "other side"? Obviously, you don't mean the
majority of the crew of the Liberty. Or Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN, Ret.,
then Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff.. Or Paul C. Warnke, then Under
Secretary of the Navy. Or then Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Or then
Under-Secretary of State David Ball. Or Carl F. Salans, the Legal Advisor to
the Secretary of State.
<snip>
> No, actually, you're 180 degrees wrong about the State Dept. State is
> well known for being historically ANTI-Israel since before that
> nation's creation. State argued strongly against the US voting for
> the UN's partition, and against Truman's decision to recognize Israel
> afterwards.
Excellent. You have now proven that 50 years ago, the State Department
wasn't big on the creation of Israel. Care to prove your point for 40 years
ago? 35, when we started to become the primary supplier of weapons to the
Israelis? 20?
> That bias has long been part and parcel of the Mid-East
> directorates within the Department, and within the military Foreign
> Area specialities, which afterall, get their training largely from the
> State Dept. It has only really been since the Reagan administration
> that the anti-Israel/pro-Arab slant within the department began to
> moderate, and since the Gulf War for the military.
And I disagree. There may have been _less_ pro-Israeli sentiment than _you_
have, and I'll admit I don't have a thorough understanding of the State
Department's opinion of, say, fourty years ago. But for a number of years,
the "anti-Israeli bias" that you claim was, IMHO, more a "not as pro-Israeli
as others".
> The news media (I'm not counting the TV or movie entertainment
> industry) is a little more complex. The conservative media definitely
> tends to be pro-Israel. The left-wing media is almost completely
> pro-Palestinian (I used that term here on purpose) EXCEPT, I will
> admit, for many of the Jewish members of the liberal media who are
> not. But many Jewish media-types are in fact, anti-Israel, and they
> seem to be the most extreme in that regard, maybe trying to prove
> themselves to their collegues. Or maybe to themselves.
Or they are the only ones honest enough to see and tell the truth, being
safe from the accusation of "anti-semetism" that appears whenever someone
criticizes Israel.
> The
> mainstream is usually just clueless, as with most things that take
> more than a page of background text to understand. But I suppose the
> mainstreamers tend to run along the lines of the American public as a
> whole, which is more pro-Israel than against, altho whether that's
> because it's how they really feel, or because they know who they want
> to sell their products to, I'm not sure.
When I was in college, I spent a good month on this particular topic.
The mainstream media is firmly "pro-Israel", though they would deny it. The
"liberal" media you refer to, I'm not certain who you mean. None of the
US-based news sources I found were truly "anti-Israel", though I'll admit I
focused on the main news sources.
For more balanced reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I recommend
"The Christian Science Monitor". I never thought I'd say that, but there it
is.
> >The results are downright amusing, at times. Recently, shortly before
9/11,
> >I was reading an article on CNN, I believe, talking about groups of
Jewish
> >settlers on the West Bank who would set up makeshift barricades, wait for
a
> >cab to drive up to it, and open fire with assault weapons.
>
> I'd like to know more about this. Do you know of an on-line source?
> I hate to admit to not having heard it. Off the top of my head, I'd
> like to know if there's more to the story, whether it was an isolated
> incident, and what was done to the people who perpetrated the crime.
I'm trying to find it. I thought I emailed myself the link some time ago,
but now I cannot find it. I also cannot remember with absolute certainty if
it was CNN or someone else. I'll keep looking.
To summarize, the reporter watched them do it, but they didn't hit anyone
(the cab turned too far back and escaped), and no arrests were made. The
article was about how common such incidents were becoming, and no, they
aren't isolated incidents, though they aren't constant.
My point, however, was that the article, while reporting on these Israeli
terrorists, never actually used the word. High Israeli government officials
were quoted as calling them terrorists, but the article didn't. Articles in
US press virtually never do, even when the Israeli criminals in question are
clearly terrorists. They are Zionists, or extremists, or (my favorite for
balanced reporting) civilians, but never _terrorists_.
> I'm fully aware that there are Jews/Israelis that work every bit as
> hard as Muslims/Arabs to keep the conflict going, who are as unwilling
> to compromise in any way. But I also believe that you have to judge
> the governments involved, since they represent the majority of the
> people (even in countries where there are no free elections, imho).
> And I resent that Israel is held to a higher standard of behavior than
> her neighbors, even as I hold her to a higher standard myself.
But I don't hold her to a higher standard. I hold her to the _same_
standards, and I find that her behavior is often wanting, though not as
often as her enemies. I simply note that this fact is largely ignored by the
US media. How many people actually remember (or even saw news articles on
the subject) when it was revealed that Israeli soldiers murdered Egyption
POWs during the Six Day War?
> >There was an
> >interview with an Israeli police officer, who said he was ashamed of the
> >behavior of many Israelis in the Occupied Territories.
>
> As am I. As are almost all Israelis. I only wish as many Arabs were
> as ashamed of the behavior of their bretheren.
And what percentage of Israelis do you think are ashamed of such behavior as
opposed to what percentage of Arabs? Any surveys done?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20075
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:32:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3bcb907f.23095712@news.sff.net...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:43:04 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
> >In short, in the short run we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
> >Bin Laden knows this, and I suspect he is very happy over it.
> >Extricating ourselves from this sort of dilemma will take patience and a
> >planning horizon that is probably longer than a full eight year
> >presidency.
> >
>
> Well, "damned if we do and damned if we don't" was sort of what I
> meant, you just said it better. ;)
>
> Still, none of the damn brains that reads this forum and lurking in
> this discussion but don't want to bother coming down on one side or
> the other have come forward to give me a good "primer" book. ;)
I don't know any good primer books anymore. Most of the ones I read before
I've forgotten the names of, and there were a whole stack of them.
However, here's general historical information:
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/Middle%20East%20History%20Database/mid%20
east%20index.htm
and some information on espionage in the 20th Century, with Israel under
Other Countries.
http://intellit.muskingum.edu/intellsite/maintoc.html
(very slow at the moment)
Here's some links for more modern information:
http://www.ipcri.org/index1.html
and
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20076
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:35:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Anthrax
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:et3nst0t9cpk06efnuoviqvc6tfitppj96@4ax.com...
>
> I'm very confused about just how scary Anthrax should be
> considered.
>
> For years we heard it could cause major devastation and our
> troops *had* to be vaccinated against it. In fact, weren't some
> people court-martialed for refusing the vaccine?
>
> Now, we are told that it isn't all *that* serious, that it is
> extremely hard to get infected, and that it isn't contagious.
>
> Which is it?
Anthrax on your skin only infects you through a cut, and can be readily
treated. Anthrax inhaled in sufficient quantities to give you anthrax is not
contagious still, but can make you very dead, and probably will before they
can treat it.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20077
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:52:50 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:28:30 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>Trying to share a DSL connection through a system bus is an awfully
>convoluted and problem-prone idea. Use an external modem, hook it to a
>firewall/router, and network the good old fashioned way.
And yet it works reasonably well under WinME. But that's
probably where I'm headed. I'm just thinking I don't want to do WinXP
on this machine until after I get the network straightened out. For
one thing, there is the ACPI issue. I know under Win2K you couldn't
convert the HAL back and forth --you had to do it or not do it at
install time. And do a clean install if you needed to change. I'm
guessing WinXP is the same. I would like the convenience of ACPI on
this machine (dreams of no IRQ issues. . .).
>
>Or the new old fashioned way - I just put an 802.11b network in, and
>after some teething problems, it works great.
Playing with this idea. We are doing HPNA 2.0 (10mb) USB
networking at the moment. Works fine. I really hate the idea of
pulling wire everywhere we would need it (4 connections in three
rooms, none sharing the same wall) for a "traditional" network. Plus I
don't think I can get permission for that.<g>
What did it cost and which manufacturer did you use? Are you
concerned at all about the security issues that have been raised?
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20078
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:30:57 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
>> Trying to share a DSL connection through a system bus is an awfully
>> convoluted and problem-prone idea. Use an external modem, hook it to a
>> firewall/router, and network the good old fashioned way.
> And yet it works reasonably well under WinME.
Well, fine, you're welcome to network with two tin cans and a string if
you like and it works for you. But using ICS to share DSL is a
convoluted and backward way to accomplish the task, given that what
comes out of the DSL modem is Ethernet.
You'd solve a lot of mickeymouse problems and not be constrained to
using an OS that has full mickeymouse support if you'd do things in a
more standard way. The only real point of ICS I've ever seen is for one
dialup connection to be shared. With a broadband connection that
terminates in Ethernet, it's two giant steps backwards to feed that
connection into a single workstation and then use peer-peer sharing.
YMMV.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20079
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:11:17 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 19:30:57 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>You'd solve a lot of mickeymouse problems and not be constrained to
>using an OS that has full mickeymouse support if you'd do things in a
>more standard way.
Okay, that's one vote for 802.11b
>The only real point of ICS I've ever seen is for one
>dialup connection to be shared. With a broadband connection that
>terminates in Ethernet, it's two giant steps backwards to feed that
>connection into a single workstation and then use peer-peer sharing.
>
I don't doubt you're right from a technology point of view.
However, it's cheap, it's easy, it doesn't mess up the house, and it
works. Nice combination. Under Win9x at least. Like I said, I
recognize the day is coming it has to go. The thing I find mildy
amusing about the vaunted NT kernel is that it seems to me that 1/2
its stability improvement is obtained by refusing to deal with the
difficult stuff in the first place. I suppose that's just good
efficient planning (set largerodent=off).
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20080
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:11:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
> Geo Rule wrote:
>
>>Watched it last night on DVD for the first time since I saw it in
>>the theatre with Deb, Jim, & Audrey.
>>
>
> I caught about 15 minutes on a movie channel and watched in utter
> horror, kind of the way I watched "Logan's Run" about five years after
> first seeing it.
>
> Gawd. What a piece of utter shit.
>
>
I've never seen this movie, aside from the odd commercial or scene whizzed
by on cable. Nor do I intend to, I just know it would ruin my memories of the
book.
Sometimes, I'm not sure what annoys me more about this film. Fans who accept
any degree of rape of the story, just so long as it gets on the big screen...
fans who gripe about the lack of powered armor, unsophisticated enough to see
the even more important issues which have been left out...fans who make apologies
for the film by pointing out that the majority of visual SF suffers from
the application of the leucotome...fans who forgive anything as long as the visual
effects are cool (that's what your imagination as you read the book is FOR!)...fans
who think the film was as good as the book (casting pearls before swine).
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20081
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:28:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:11:02 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>>
>
>I've never seen this movie, aside from the odd commercial or scene whizzed
>by on cable. Nor do I intend to, I just know it would ruin my memories of the
>book.
Umm. It sounds like you're more of a fan than that. I saw the
first DUNE and it didn't ruin the book for me. Just ruined my opinion
of the film-makers. If the film really could ruin your memories of
the book, then you really ought to re-read it once in awhile.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20082
From: Jackie <jackie@sff.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:28:23 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:20:10 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Geo Rule wrote:
>> Watched it last night on DVD for the first time since I saw it in
>> the theatre with Deb, Jim, & Audrey.
>
>I caught about 15 minutes on a movie channel and watched in utter
>horror, kind of the way I watched "Logan's Run" about five years after
>first seeing it.
>
>Gawd. What a piece of utter shit.
lol I loved it, but I never expected it to be great, just a good b
type movie...
Jackie
--
news://news.sff.net/sff.people.jackie
jackie@sff.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20083
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:33:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:28:23 -0500, Jackie <jackie@sff.net> wrote:
>
>lol I loved it, but I never expected it to be great, just a good b
>type movie...
>
>Jackie
Not to mention the prurience factor. I wonder what RAH would have
thot of Rico having sex with Dizzy?<g> Who was the yammerhead who
detected homoeroticism in the "swaggering leather-boys" of the book?
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20084
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 07:15:37 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:31:27 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>> >I don't believe in government conspiracies, for the most part. But I do
>> >believe, because it has happened many times before, the our government
>will
>> >give short shrift to an investigation, even repeatedly, because it is
>> >politically expedient.
>>
>> Many times? I can't really think of one.
>
>Really? Since I'm sure you've been exposed to more than one case that I find
>clear, and yet still came to this conclusion, I won't bother arguing the
>point.
No, really, I was just asking for an example. I really can't think of
one. I'd appreciate you're telling me which one(s) you have in mind.
I won't say there has never been a cover-up, or a bad investigation,
but repeatedly? All by different agencies? Over several different
administrations?
>> From my military experience, I tend to accept the Navy's investigation
>> as most valid, on its face.
>
>That would be the Naval Court of Inquiry investigation? Suppose I agree.
>That doesn't show anything about the Israeli involvement in the attack.
>
>"The Navy Court of Inquiry's investigation focused on the U.S. military
>communication problems prior to the attack and the heroic efforts of
>LIBERTY's crew in controlling damage during the aftermath. Sensitive
>international issues were best left for diplomatic and political considerati
>on."
>
>J.K. Henriksen Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy Deputy Assistant Judge
>Advocate General (International Law)
>
>In other words, they avoided commenting on or investigating the Israeli
>explanation or motives.
No, that is incorrect.. Assuming, of course, I'm reading the correct
report (and it's a link from Ennes' website). A legal analysis of the
Israeli government's "7 points of rationale to explain their position
relative to the attack on LIBERTY" were Appendix VI to the report of
inquiry, but it was not included at the site (address below). So I
don't know what they were, but they were included. But here are the
pertinent findings of the board which address Israeli intent.
<< FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Available evidence combines to indicate the attack on
LIBERTY on 8 June was in fact a case of mistaken
identity.
2. The calm conditions and slow ship speed may well have
made the American Flag difficult to identify.
3. The ship's westerly heading at the time of attack - in
the general direction of Egyptian ports may have
reinforced elements of doubt in the minds of the several
Israeli pilots who looked the ship over in the forenoon.
4. The colors were shot down early in the action and were
replaced prior to the PT attack.
5. The immediate confusion milling around astern followed
by peaceful overtures by the attacking surface forces after launching
only two torpedoes of the six presumed available (two on
each PT boat), indicate these craft may well have identified
the colors for the first time when they got in close enough
to see clearly through the smoke and flames billowing, at
times above the mast head.
6. There are no available indications that the attack was
intended against a U. S. Ship.>>
http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/nci.txt
>You think the Navy might object to the subject being brushed off, and
>object? Maybe in the person of an Admiral on the Joint Chief's of Staff,
>such as Thomas Moorer? No, you can't mean that. After all, he still claims
>that no proper investigation was done to this day.
Admiral Moorer became Chief of Naval Operations about 2 months after
the USS Liberty incident and its initial investigation, and Chairman
of Joint Chiefs some three years later. Rear Admiral Kidd was the
Commander in Chief of Naval Forces Europe (CINCNAVEUR) at the time of
the incident and began the Navy's investigation 2 DAYS afterwards.
I could speculate on all sorts of reasons as to why Moorer decided to
voice publically, some 18 years later, his "opinion" (his own word)
that the investigation was flawed, but that would be pointless.
I do notice that he is much more certain of Israeli culpability in his
statement of 1997 than in the original one he wrote in 1985. Those
are the only two statements by Adm Moorer that I have read, so if he
did say something earlier, I am unaware of it.
>Several points here:
>
>1) To the best of my knowledge, the popularity of a position has never been
>correlated effectively with its truth. "If everyone knows it's so, it ain't,
>by a factor of at least 10,000 to 1" (OWTTE). LL was wrong, in my opinion,
>but still makes a good point. Heck, most Americans _still_ believe that
>Columbus was trying to prove the world was round.
That works both ways--all the people who think Israel sunk the Liberty
on purpose don't make it true.
Besides, there is a difference between what "everybody" knows, and
what officials in charge of such things know, or believe to be true.
Should we argue that, because most scientists believe evolution is a
fact, it somehow didn't happen? Do most historians believe that
Columbus was trying to prove the world was round?
>2) Several of your investigations pointedly did not even address the Israeli
>conduct, and, as such, are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether or
>not the Israelis behaved with either "gross negligence" or deliberate
>malice. Saying that ten investigations found the same thing, when several
>didn't even touch the subject, is disingenuous at best.
And it's a bit disingenious for you to neglect to mention that I
identified those which did not find one way or the other, as tho I
were trying to say otherwise. But do you really think those bodies,
absent a cover-up directed from on high, would have failed to mention
it had they found something different?
>3) Aliens in New Mexico has a massive cult following that keeps it in the
>public eye. There was more news coverage about the Kennedy assassination the
>next day than there has _ever_ been about the USS Liberty. The first is
>hardly equivallent, while the second is clearly a much much more public and
>more important affair
>
>4) Most importantly, your claim that "the other side" never called foul is
>rather strange. Who is this "other side"? Obviously, you don't mean the
>majority of the crew of the Liberty. Or Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN, Ret.,
>then Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff.. Or Paul C. Warnke, then Under
>Secretary of the Navy. Or then Secretary of State Dean Rusk. Or then
>Under-Secretary of State David Ball. Or Carl F. Salans, the Legal Advisor to
>the Secretary of State.
I said "faction" which I find in Websters as meaning, "1 : a party or
group (as within a government) ..." My point was that, usually, when
there is a cover-up in govt, the other side usually raises a stink.
><snip>
>> No, actually, you're 180 degrees wrong about the State Dept. State is
>> well known for being historically ANTI-Israel since before that
>> nation's creation. State argued strongly against the US voting for
>> the UN's partition, and against Truman's decision to recognize Israel
>> afterwards.
>
>Excellent. You have now proven that 50 years ago, the State Department
>wasn't big on the creation of Israel. Care to prove your point for 40 years
>ago? 35, when we started to become the primary supplier of weapons to the
>Israelis? 20?
I did say SINCE before 1948, and later, begining to change during the
Reagan years. Prove it? Maybe with a lot of research. I was
speaking from my own experience with and exposure to State Dept
personnel and State Dept reports. You can take that for what it's
worth.
>> That bias has long been part and parcel of the Mid-East
>> directorates within the Department, and within the military Foreign
>> Area specialities, which afterall, get their training largely from the
>> State Dept. It has only really been since the Reagan administration
>> that the anti-Israel/pro-Arab slant within the department began to
>> moderate, and since the Gulf War for the military.
>
>And I disagree. There may have been _less_ pro-Israeli sentiment than _you_
>have, and I'll admit I don't have a thorough understanding of the State
>Department's opinion of, say, fourty years ago. But for a number of years,
>the "anti-Israeli bias" that you claim was, IMHO, more a "not as pro-Israeli
>as others".
So that's your "opinion" too? It doesn't jive with the facts as I
know them.
>> The news media (I'm not counting the TV or movie entertainment
>> industry) is a little more complex. The conservative media definitely
>> tends to be pro-Israel. The left-wing media is almost completely
>> pro-Palestinian (I used that term here on purpose) EXCEPT, I will
>> admit, for many of the Jewish members of the liberal media who are
>> not. But many Jewish media-types are in fact, anti-Israel, and they
>> seem to be the most extreme in that regard, maybe trying to prove
>> themselves to their collegues. Or maybe to themselves.
>
>Or they are the only ones honest enough to see and tell the truth, being
>safe from the accusation of "anti-semetism" that appears whenever someone
>criticizes Israel.
Or not.
>> The
>> mainstream is usually just clueless, as with most things that take
>> more than a page of background text to understand. But I suppose the
>> mainstreamers tend to run along the lines of the American public as a
>> whole, which is more pro-Israel than against, altho whether that's
>> because it's how they really feel, or because they know who they want
>> to sell their products to, I'm not sure.
>
>When I was in college, I spent a good month on this particular topic.
Wow, a whole month? And in college too. Such a wonderfully objective
place to develop opinions.
>The mainstream media is firmly "pro-Israel", though they would deny it. The
>"liberal" media you refer to, I'm not certain who you mean. None of the
>US-based news sources I found were truly "anti-Israel", though I'll admit I
>focused on the main news sources.
Well, I think my first post in this thread involved the automatic
acceptance of the idea that there is a distinct "Palestinian people"
who are deserving of their own state, for whatever reasons. Almost
all of the media accepts that premise without question. I think it's
an example of the Big Lie concept. Repeat something over and over
enough, and people just don't question it any more. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but I suspect you've never questioned it.
But there are plenty of sources of all types which publicize the
tribulations of the Arabs on the West Bank and Gaza (who admittedly
have been treated shabbily for the last 50 years) and never ever
mention the role that Arab governments and, for that matter, the
Palestinians themselves, have played.
>For more balanced reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I recommend
>"The Christian Science Monitor". I never thought I'd say that, but there it
>is.
And I'd sooner have a root canal. <g>
But seriously, I don't have access to the CSM or I probably would look
thru it, at least.
>> >The results are downright amusing, at times. Recently, shortly before
>9/11,
>> >I was reading an article on CNN, I believe, talking about groups of
>Jewish
>> >settlers on the West Bank who would set up makeshift barricades, wait for
>a
>> >cab to drive up to it, and open fire with assault weapons.
>>
>> I'd like to know more about this. Do you know of an on-line source?
>> I hate to admit to not having heard it. Off the top of my head, I'd
>> like to know if there's more to the story, whether it was an isolated
>> incident, and what was done to the people who perpetrated the crime.
>
>I'm trying to find it. I thought I emailed myself the link some time ago,
>but now I cannot find it. I also cannot remember with absolute certainty if
>it was CNN or someone else. I'll keep looking.
Please do.
>To summarize, the reporter watched them do it, but they didn't hit anyone
>(the cab turned too far back and escaped), and no arrests were made. The
>article was about how common such incidents were becoming, and no, they
>aren't isolated incidents, though they aren't constant.
If CNN, as "mainstream" (and that's debabatable, but I wouldn't call
it liberal), is reporting the incident, how pro-Israel could it be?
Do they also show Muslims taking pot shots at Israelis? Or do they
have to actually kill someone? Or maybe twenty? Is this a
dog-bites-man thing? Or was it just a slow news day? Did they have
exciting footage just too good not to put on air? What was their
basis for saying the incident wasn't isolated?
>My point, however, was that the article, while reporting on these Israeli
>terrorists, never actually used the word. High Israeli government officials
>were quoted as calling them terrorists, but the article didn't.
If they quoted "High Israeli government officials," I really don't see
the difference. Heck, makes it sound even more ominous than using it
themselves.
>Articles in
>US press virtually never do, even when the Israeli criminals in question are
>clearly terrorists. They are Zionists, or extremists, or (my favorite for
>balanced reporting) civilians, but never _terrorists_.
It IS significant that they are civilians, acting independently and
without government sanction or military back-up. If the term is used
in that context, it is appropriate.
>> I'm fully aware that there are Jews/Israelis that work every bit as
>> hard as Muslims/Arabs to keep the conflict going, who are as unwilling
>> to compromise in any way. But I also believe that you have to judge
>> the governments involved, since they represent the majority of the
>> people (even in countries where there are no free elections, imho).
>> And I resent that Israel is held to a higher standard of behavior than
>> her neighbors, even as I hold her to a higher standard myself.
>
>But I don't hold her to a higher standard. I hold her to the _same_
>standards
I realize that the subject has not come up here, but I DO consider it
anti-semitism when someone jumps in to criticize Israel for some
wrong, real or perceived, IF they have never criticized anyone else
for the same thing. It's not enough to say, after the fact, "Well, of
course, that was wrong too." There has to be something that causes
the former to excite one's passions enough to feel they must speak
out, when the latter moves them not at all.
I am reminded of those who were quick to criticize the US for the bad
we did in VietNam, but who remained silent about far worse on the part
of the Viet Cong. It doesn't make what we did less wrong, but it does
make the motives of those who criticize suspect.
And, of course, the Viet Cong never investigaged or punished anyone of
their own for an atrocity either. It was business-as-usual.
>.., and I find that her behavior is often wanting, though not as
>often as her enemies. I simply note that this fact is largely ignored by the
>US media. How many people actually remember (or even saw news articles on
>the subject) when it was revealed that Israeli soldiers murdered Egyption
>POWs during the Six Day War?
How many people could beven find Israel or Egypt on a map? (This is a
"Columbus proves the world is round" question) Ignorance abounds.
Most people don't care one way or the other. The news media reflects
that.
In any case, the point I've been trying to make with the
double-standard charge, even more in the other thread than here, is
not that Israel is never guilty of any wrong doing, but that they have
a system of law to punish it, as well as a will to do so. I found
this quote from the Baltimore Sun concerning the killing of Arab POWs:
"Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair is mulling over the possibility of
prosecuting former soldiers [note, this is over 30 years after the
fact], and Justice Minister David Labai has said he will appoint a
high-level committee to deal with the issue." Can you really imagine
Syria, Jordan, or even Egypt doing the same? And how would the people
of those countries react if they did? Where is the Arab outcry tor
Israeli soldiers murdered after they were captured?
>> >There was an
>> >interview with an Israeli police officer, who said he was ashamed of the
>> >behavior of many Israelis in the Occupied Territories.
>>
>> As am I. As are almost all Israelis. I only wish as many Arabs were
>> as ashamed of the behavior of their bretheren.
>
>And what percentage of Israelis do you think are ashamed of such behavior as
>opposed to what percentage of Arabs? Any surveys done?
I believe it to be many, many times higher. You can call that
prejudice if you like. I call it a realistic assessment.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20085
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 07:30:36 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:02:45 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>You're the one who called everyone who didn't agree with the official
>findings "factions" who were "crying fowl."
No, I didn't. As you well know.
>Never mind, Jai. As I said to Geo, the Liberty incident has more value
>as a touchstone than as any subject of real discussion - and in smoking
>out blind apologists for Israel, it works perfectly.
So it's ok to use the Liberty to "smoke out blind apologists" but you
find any suggestion that anti-semitism may be involved in bringing up
the Liberty, not to mention Pollard, out of the blue "tiresome."
Yeah, right.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20086
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:01:17 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:28:11 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> But the terrorist with a gun cannot exist without the
>> concentric circles of support, from those who directly provide
>> tangible support (see above), to those who encourage and enable those
>> who provide that support, to those who sympathize with those who
>> encourage, to those who refuse to condemn those who sympathize, and so
>> forth. It's been the same for every "terrorist" group that has ever
>> existed.
>
>My question is, how many of these do you want to go to war with?
All of them. But it doesn't have to be a war with bullets and blood
against them all. There are other "weapons" in the arsenal: trade,
education, information, time, to name a few.
Besides, don't forget that it is they who have declared war on us, not
the reverse.
>The
>more people in the bottom layer of the "wedding cake" you have described,
>the more people there will be holding hands at the top. World-wide, that
>bottom layer draws from about one billion people. Geo seems to think
>that we should just kill them all until they get tired and stop. Is that
>your view?
I agree with Geo that we have to kill however many it takes to render
them incapable of coming here and killing us. At least, I think
that's what he meant. Geo won't be shy, I'm sure, if I'm
misrepresenting him.
>FWIW, I think we would be in a much better position in this new war if
>there were some 1000s of young Islamic U.S. citizens who were willing to
>die for Uncle Sam. Anyone see them lining up? Anyone wonder why not?
To be quite honest, that has bothered me a great deal. As poorly as
we treated the Japanese Americans in WWII, they still enlisted in
droves and fought bravely whereever assigned.
I hope the difference is that there is, so far, no real need for
increased enlistments, and the military services have not asked for
any. It also bothers me that I haven't heard of a significant
increase in enlistments among any other group of young citizens.
>"Allegedly" because claims are difficult to establish when no neutral
>judge is present. We are all poor judges of our own cases, as John Locke
>pointed out.
They had to be "harbored" somewhere. Whatever the case, the reprisals
seemed to put an end ot the attacks. At least back then.
>I think that targeting people at some remove from your armed opponent is
>terrorism; so is threatening to use weapons of mass destruction without
>regard to the guilt or innocence of those who would be killed.
So Hiroshima was terrorism? Maybe we don't want to go there.
>Figuring
>out exactly what "at some remove" means is, of course, a very difficult
>moral and practical problem. So far, I don't think that U.S. actions in
>Afghanistan are "terrorist". It would be better if we had chosen to act
>through the U.N....
That sounds awful funny (not "ha ha" funny) coming from an anarchist,
or libertarian, or whatever the correct label is. I know, labels
suck. But we are stuck with them from time to time.
>...but it is quite possible the public would not have
>stood for that. We should also agree with the Taliban to give bin Laden
>up to an agreeable third party, showing them the same evidence that we
>have been willing to show other government officials.
Oh, like that would have worked. But even if it did, we'd still be
left with the rest of the network. Not to mention the Taliban, which
is evil enough in its own right.
>Bush's "no
>negotiation" stance will cause problems that we now will have to address
>in less effective ways.
No, President Bush's "no negotiation" gives us a springboard from
which to proceed. The whole point of his position is that this is a
WAR, against terrorism, not a criminal prosecution against specific
individuals. That may be a hard pill for you to swallow, but it's the
only approach that has a chance of working. We've lived under the
threat for far too long, blissfully ignorant that it could ever reach
our shores. Time to grow up and shed that illusion. I only hope Mr.
Bush has the courage and the skill to complete the job. And that the
American people have the determination to see it thru as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20087
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:50:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Universal Translator
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 05:51:51 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
> Yeah, I've seen that --tho I thot it was Turkey or someplace
>like that. Not portable tho. I want to be able to ask for directions
>in Berlin or Rome and have the waiter in Greece explain the menu to
>me.
>
Depends what you mean by portable, I got the idea that it seemed like
it was a network capability, which would seem to indicate that if you
made the call through this setup, with your cel phone, it could be
from anywhere. OTOH, if you're talking about a little box to put on
the table(or pin to wear in your lapel, or ear plug, or implanted
microchip in the mandible[did I get them all<G>]) programmed to have
english come out, irregardless of what goes in portable, then I guess
we have to wait abit yet.
& can replicators & transporters be far behind???<BFG>
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20088
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:19:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jackie wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:20:10 -0700, James Gifford
> <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
> >Geo Rule wrote:
> >> Watched it last night on DVD for the first time since I saw it in
> >> the theatre with Deb, Jim, & Audrey.
> >
> >I caught about 15 minutes on a movie channel and watched in utter
> >horror, kind of the way I watched "Logan's Run" about five years after
> >first seeing it.
> >
> >Gawd. What a piece of utter shit.
>
> lol I loved it, but I never expected it to be great, just a good b
> type movie...
The best summary I've heard, "Not a bad piece of cinematic fluff, as long
as you forget there was a Heinlein book by the same name."
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20089
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:48:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bcd350d.47977492@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 11:28:11 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> But the terrorist with a gun cannot exist without the
> >> concentric circles of support, from those who directly provide
> >> tangible support (see above), to those who encourage and enable those
> >> who provide that support, to those who sympathize with those who
> >> encourage, to those who refuse to condemn those who sympathize, and so
> >> forth. It's been the same for every "terrorist" group that has ever
> >> existed.
> >
> >My question is, how many of these do you want to go to war with?
>
> All of them. But it doesn't have to be a war with bullets and blood
> against them all. There are other "weapons" in the arsenal: trade,
> education, information, time, to name a few.
>
> Besides, don't forget that it is they who have declared war on us, not
> the reverse.
I don't think it is meaningful to say that "those who refuse to condemn
those who sympathize, and so forth" have "declared war on us". So we
need to careful when juxtaposing "all of them" with "they".
And, of course, I am all in favor of conducting this "war" by trade,
education, etc., wherever possible.
....
> I agree with Geo that we have to kill however many it takes to render
> them incapable of coming here and killing us.
If that is to be the policy, the U.S. government better have the resolve
to kill terrorists faster than the policy itself creates them.
....
> >I think that targeting people at some remove from your armed opponent is
> >terrorism; so is threatening to use weapons of mass destruction without
> >regard to the guilt or innocence of those who would be killed.
>
> So Hiroshima was terrorism? Maybe we don't want to go there.
Perhaps there are other places we shouldn't go; there was mass killing of
civilians in WWII with conventional weapons, as well. As I said, the
hard question is deciding what "at some remove" means. Hiroshima may
have been justified; but after Hiroshima, Nagasaki was much less clear.
> >So far, I don't think that U.S. actions in
> >Afghanistan are "terrorist". It would be better if we had chosen to act
> >through the U.N....
>
> That sounds awful funny (not "ha ha" funny) coming from an anarchist,
> or libertarian, or whatever the correct label is. I know, labels
> suck. But we are stuck with them from time to time.
I am a self-labeled "anarchist" and "libertarian", so I don't mind them
at all. I also do not let my ideals of perfection stand in the way of
using the imperfect institutional tools now available to improve things
on the way to a more perfect world.
> >...but it is quite possible the public would not have
> >stood for that. We should also agree with the Taliban to give bin Laden
> >up to an agreeable third party, showing them the same evidence that we
> >have been willing to show other government officials.
>
> Oh, like that would have worked. But even if it did, we'd still be
> left with the rest of the network. Not to mention the Taliban, which
> is evil enough in its own right.
What do you mean by "worked"? You mentioned "information" as a way of
waging war, but then you ignore the the huge problem it causes for the
U.S. to wage war without being willing to provide the evidence that its
cause is just. This greatly strengthens beliefs throughout the world
that the U.S. simply shits wherever it likes. This, in turn, leads to
more terrorists and terrorism.
As to the network, negotiation could include them as well. As to the
Taliban, I don't think that the U.S. government is up to the task of
replacing the evil governments in the world.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20090
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:30:04 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
>> You're the one who called everyone who didn't agree with the official
>> findings "factions" who were "crying fowl."
> No, I didn't. As you well know.
Oh. Was someone else using your account at 8:00 pm on Saturday the 13th?
Viz...
"But really, I find significant the fact that every investigation
since, regardless of administration, has found essentially the same
thing. And without at least some faction on the other side crying
fowl? I just don't see how a conspiracy could be that pervasive. You
have more hew and cry about aliens landing in New Mexico or what
"really" happened on the grassy knoll."
There most definitely is at least one "faction" that is "crying foul,"
in your choice of words, and you've managed to brush them aside both
here and in other posts. And then deny it.
>> Never mind, Jai. As I said to Geo, the Liberty incident has more
>> value as a touchstone than as any subject of real discussion -
>> and in smoking out blind apologists for Israel, it works perfectly.
> So it's ok to use the Liberty to "smoke out blind apologists" but you
> find any suggestion that anti-semitism may be involved in bringing up
> the Liberty, not to mention Pollard, out of the blue "tiresome."
> Yeah, right.
Ooh, your finely-honed logic has me ready to fall on my sword in shame.
Your collective response has been that saying Israel has dealt dirty
here and there makes the sayer an anti-Semite, whether they admit it or
not. Regardless of Israel's culpability or guilt in the matters. You
probably think that everyone who thinks OJ is a murderer is a racist,
too.
What seals it is that your responses don't draw any distinction between
Gordon's posts - who has never mentioned the Liberty - and mine - and
I've never mentioned Pollard. Clearly, your knee is jerking so furiously
that you can't read clearly. Hope the condition clears up.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20091
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:32:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Eli Hestermann wrote:
>>> Gawd. What a piece of utter shit.
>> lol I loved it, but I never expected it to be great, just
>> a good b type movie...
> The best summary I've heard, "Not a bad piece of cinematic
> fluff, as long as you forget there was a Heinlein book by
> the same name."
I have to say I disagree - and I *love* movies, good bad and B.
Heinleinian issues aside, there's just a cheesiness and a pervasive
stupidity about ST:TM that makes my eyes hurt. But mileage does vary.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20092
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 17:04:17 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:30:04 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>>> You're the one who called everyone who didn't agree with the official
>>> findings "factions" who were "crying fowl."
>
>> No, I didn't. As you well know.
>
>Oh. Was someone else using your account at 8:00 pm on Saturday the 13th?
>Viz...
>
>"But really, I find significant the fact that every investigation
>since, regardless of administration, has found essentially the same
>thing. And without at least some faction on the other side crying
>fowl? I just don't see how a conspiracy could be that pervasive. You
>have more hew and cry about aliens landing in New Mexico or what
>"really" happened on the grassy knoll."
>
>There most definitely is at least one "faction" that is "crying foul,"
>in your choice of words, and you've managed to brush them aside both
>here and in other posts. And then deny it.
Someone can't count. Or read. There's a major difference between
"called everyone who didn't agree with the official findings
'factions' who were 'crying foul'" (your words) and my lamenting that
NO "faction" has cried foul. Especially when I very specifically
explained what I meant by "faction" in two other posts, one of which
gave the dictionary definition.
You also choose to ignore my post where I gave my reasons for what I
believe, before all this "faction" nonsense, which said:
"I'm sure that many of the Liberty survivors are embittered by their
sincere beliefs that they have somehow been wronged by their own
government."
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20093
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:24:40 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Discussion's over, Jai. Your repeated point is that I'm an anti-Semite
along with everyone else who thinks the Liberty incident was
whitewashed.
A working touchstone is SUCH a lovely thing.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20094
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:03:38 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:11:02 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>I've never seen this movie, aside from the odd commercial or scene whizzed
>>by on cable. Nor do I intend to, I just know it would ruin my memories of the
>>book.
>>
>
> Umm. It sounds like you're more of a fan than that. I saw the
> first DUNE and it didn't ruin the book for me. Just ruined my opinion
> of the film-makers. If the film really could ruin your memories of
> the book, then you really ought to re-read it once in awhile.
>
>
I re-read it every couple of years. I don't want the movie replacing the
images in my head of what the characters look like (the movie looks like
hitler youth), or what they sound like (the movie characters, I'm sure,
sound closer to "Dude, Where's my Car?" or how they behave (action heroes
vs. soldiers). If Sgt. Zim is in there, I'm sure he's been changed into
two-dimsional WASP. He's the kind of character of whom only the loud
voice and profanity would make it into the screenplay; the scene where
he worries if he's got what it takes to give the recruits the skills they
will need to survive will have been flensed, I'm sure.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20095
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:07:19 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jackie wrote:
>
>>
>
> lol I loved it, but I never expected it to be great, just a good b
> type movie...
>
> Jackie
>
>
That's my point. It *should* have been great. Studios have managed
to produce great films, and great film adaptations of books. Producing
a film adaptation of a great book which happens to be science fiction
can't be any harder. All that's required is a healthy respect for the
source material. Don't accept it when they screw up, rip 'em a new one!
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20096
From: David Wright" <maikosht@alltel.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:19:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<sprocketeer1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BCDC7FA.40309@earthlink.net...
> Geo Rule wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 20:11:02 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> >
> >
(snip)
>
> I re-read it every couple of years. I don't want the movie replacing the
> images in my head of what the characters look like (the movie looks like
> hitler youth), or what they sound like (the movie characters, I'm sure,
> sound closer to "Dude, Where's my Car?" or how they behave (action heroes
> vs. soldiers). If Sgt. Zim is in there, I'm sure he's been changed into
> two-dimsional WASP. He's the kind of character of whom only the loud
> voice and profanity would make it into the screenplay;
Even worse, IMHO, he was turned into a sadistic brute, IIRC.
(snip)
David Wright
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20097
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 19:17:18 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:24:40 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Discussion's over, Jai. Your repeated point is that I'm an anti-Semite
>along with everyone else who thinks the Liberty incident was
>whitewashed.
Suits me. You left the realm of intelligent discussion several posts
ago.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20098
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:05:15 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
>> Discussion's over, Jai. Your repeated point is that I'm an anti-Semite
>> along with everyone else who thinks the Liberty incident was
>> whitewashed.
> Suits me. You left the realm of intelligent discussion several posts
> ago.
This from someone whose entire series of posts in this threa is littered
with factual errors about the posts and posters, denies what she's said,
ignores salient points to keep hammering on her own extremely partisan
interpretation... *Sigh*. Never thought I'd do it in this newsgroup...
....*PLONK!*
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20099
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:30:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BCCED61.D9B03321@surewest.net...
<snip>
> YMMV.
Mine did, though in the end I'll agree. With my external DSL modem and
PPPoE, each machine needed to log on to the network separately. Since they
are going to start charging me for that, I have to go with some product that
can dial up PPPoE once for the entire network.
Of course, these days such products can be found for under $100, and that's
where I will end up, eventually.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20100
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:26:31 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bcd3126.46978484@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> So it's ok to use the Liberty to "smoke out blind apologists" but you
> find any suggestion that anti-semitism may be involved in bringing up
> the Liberty, not to mention Pollard, out of the blue "tiresome."
> Yeah, right.
I don't find it "tiresome". I find it insulting.
It could be "anti-Israel", true, though I don't think that pointing out that
a government occasionally is less than clean is necessarily an attack on
that government, much less an attack on the people. But being overly
critical of Israel, _or even against it_, is not and never was equivalent to
being against Jews. To say that it is an insult to anyone who you use it
against.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20101
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:48:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<sprocketeer1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BCDC8D7.3010600@earthlink.net...
<snip>
>
> That's my point. It *should* have been great. Studios have managed
> to produce great films, and great film adaptations of books. Producing
> a film adaptation of a great book which happens to be science fiction
> can't be any harder. All that's required is a healthy respect for the
> source material. Don't accept it when they screw up, rip 'em a new one!
The problem is, they think they did do the book justice. They really don't
understand what they did wrong. They honestly believe that this is what
being gung-ho for the military is, and that Heinlein's future society in the
book was fascist. They don't even know the difference between the combat
they showed in the movie and real-world tactics that would enable me to
teach 6th graders to total an equal number of their "troopers", in about
three days.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20102
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:21:03 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
> Mine did, though in the end I'll agree. With my external DSL modem
> and PPPoE, each machine needed to log on to the network separately.
> Since they are going to start charging me for that, I have to go
> with some product that can dial up PPPoE once for the entire network.
I wouldn't run on a DSL or cable hookup without a hardware firewall...
didn't we just discuss this in here? Or was it elsewhere? Dang fog.
A firewall/router is a nice thing to have, both for the security and to
mask the number of users - which is none of the ISP's damn business.
You might want to go with an 802.11b wireless router/firewall instead of
the wired one. Linksys makes one that's a four-port wired switch as well
as the wireless router. You can add PC Cards to a laptop or USB adapters
to a workstation and network at 11 mb/s without wires. Neat stuff. (But
DON'T buy the Linksys client units - they suck.)
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20103
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:48:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3bccc1dc.101280320@news.sff.net...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:21:46 -0700, James Gifford
> <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade - it appears to be a
> >release intended to complete the financing on Bill Gates's megahouse.
> >
> If you're already running Win2K, that's true. But from what I'm
> reading from the not-in-Microsoft's-pocket sources, it's a good
> upgrade if you're still in the 9x (95-98-Me) track. Of course, if
> you're still running 95 your hardware is probably too old to really
> use it. ;)
Absolutely true if you are running Win9x/ME. Major, major upgrade. Big and
very important, powerful, and useful changes. I'm using Win98 at home, and I
will most certainly upgrade.
As far as updating Win2k goes, there are some moderate changes, but I don't
know how many. I had what appeared to be an excellent article on the
subject, but by the time I went to read it, it had expired.
> On another note, I'm happy they are keeping the NT 4 MCSE
> certification. The cynic in me knew they'd keep it, all prior
> announcements to the contrary. If they are serious about
> certifications they can't just remove a credential because they'd
> *like* everyone to move to their latest product. Many companies will
> be running NT4 networks for a long time.
Glad to hear it.
> If you want to sell your upgrade CD, keep me in mind (as long as an
> upgrade from 98 SE is valid).
Or me. Bidding war, anyone?:)
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20104
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 16:34:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Filksinger wrote:
>
> The problem is, they think they did do the book justice. They really don't
> understand what they did wrong. They honestly believe that this is what
> being gung-ho for the military is, and that Heinlein's future society in the
> book was fascist. They don't even know the difference between the combat
> they showed in the movie and real-world tactics that would enable me to
> teach 6th graders to total an equal number of their "troopers", in about
> three days.
>
> Filksinger
>
>
>
Then the fans are going to have to stop accepting meekly Hollywood's
thalidomide bastard productions and rip 'em a new one!
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20105
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:04:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:32:25 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>However, here's general historical information:
Thanks for the links, Filk.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20106
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:08:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:03:38 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>I re-read it every couple of years. I don't want the movie replacing the
>images in my head of what the characters look like (the movie looks like
>hitler youth),
Yes and no. Rico is certainly a poster boy that would give the
Hitler Youth wet dreams. But racially the movie is pretty diverse,
even in leadership roles.
> or what they sound like (the movie characters, I'm sure,
>sound closer to "Dude, Where's my Car?" or how they behave (action heroes
>vs. soldiers). If Sgt. Zim is in there, I'm sure he's been changed into
>two-dimsional WASP. He's the kind of character of whom only the loud
>voice and profanity would make it into the screenplay; the scene where
>he worries if he's got what it takes to give the recruits the skills they
>will need to survive will have been flensed, I'm sure.
Zim is brutal in the movie. He does get three small moments of
humanity. But not the one you mentioned.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20107
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:11:23 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 11:07:19 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>That's my point. It *should* have been great. Studios have managed
>to produce great films, and great film adaptations of books. Producing
>a film adaptation of a great book which happens to be science fiction
>can't be any harder. All that's required is a healthy respect for the
>source material. Don't accept it when they screw up, rip 'em a new one!
>
>
>
I don't know about that. I am coming more and more to the
conclusion that great novels don't make great movies about the novels.
I think novels are too big and complex to make a 2 hour movie out of.
Now, a miniseries. . .I thot the recent Skiffy Channel of DUNE was
quite passable.
But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Name for me some great
movies that were made from great novels. Ben Hur? I never read the
book so I can't say how much violence the movie did to the story told
in the book.
I think that maybe it has to be shorter-than-novel-length to make
a great movie and still be close to the story.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20108
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:20:04 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:48:05 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>The problem is, they think they did do the book justice. They really don't
>understand what they did wrong.
>
That was my point about the Gestapo outfit. That was the point
in the movie where I went from "Oh, he <the director> doesn't get it"
to "Oh! He gets it *exactly*, and he just flipped me the Bird!" I
guess I'll have to listen to the commentary after all to see if it
clarifies that point at all.
I don't believe that those <or, at least, all of those> who think
ST is fascist "don't get it". I think a great many of them understand
ST very well and are just extremely hostile to it.
Maybe its fascism they don't get.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20109
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:24:31 -0700
Subject: Wireless Networking
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:21:03 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>You might want to go with an 802.11b wireless router/firewall instead of
>the wired one. Linksys makes one that's a four-port wired switch as well
>as the wireless router. You can add PC Cards to a laptop or USB adapters
>to a workstation and network at 11 mb/s without wires. Neat stuff. (But
>DON'T buy the Linksys client units - they suck.)
Changed the title on this one. . .
So you used Linksys? I'm thinking of Netgear or possibly D-link.
On the client side, does anything but the access point need to
plug into the router? I suppose if the router is next to one of the
clients (most likely would be, I'd think) you could save a little jack
by going into a vanilla ethernet card on that one instead of doing
wireless on that particular client.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20110
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:10:27 -0700
Subject: Re: Wireless Networking
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> So you used Linksys? I'm thinking of Netgear or possibly D-link.
All of the sorta-low-end units have almost identical pricing and
performance. I like Linksys; the router/AP has worked quite well.
I had trouble with the PC Cards and the USB hub clients, though -
absolutely no range at all. On digging and with some advice, I unloaded
them on eBay (only days old, but I'd neatly and efficiently destroyed
the packaging, so couldn't return them). I got Orinoco Gold clients
instead, and ha'lu'ya, I'm a wireless bum,
> On the client side, does anything but the access point need to
> plug into the router? I suppose if the router is next to one of the
> clients (most likely would be, I'd think) you could save a little jack
> by going into a vanilla ethernet card on that one instead of doing
> wireless on that particular client.
Right. We have 100Base-T between the two office workstations, a switch,
and the WLAN router. The two laptops and (for now) one remote
workstation are wireless; another wireless workstation will be added
later. Most of this grew out of necessity, as there are some insuperable
barriers to wiring the end of the house opposite the office.
But it was relatively cheap, and after the initial problem, works like a
champ.
If you route an external DSL modem directly into the WLAN router/AP, you
could put it anywhere (in a closet, for example - up high is good for
range) and use wireless adapters on all your computers. Not the bottom
dollar solution, but not expensive, either. And much neater and more
flexible.
The Linksys router can be had for $200 (Buy.com); the Orinoco USB client
for about $150, and the PC Cards for about $105 (both from Gateway.com).
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20111
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:14:46 -0700
Subject: Re: Wireless Networking
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:10:27 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>But it was relatively cheap, and after the initial problem, works like a
>champ.
>
>If you route an external DSL modem directly into the WLAN router/AP, you
>could put it anywhere (in a closet, for example - up high is good for
>range) and use wireless adapters on all your computers. Not the bottom
>dollar solution, but not expensive, either. And much neater and more
>flexible.
>
>The Linksys router can be had for $200 (Buy.com); the Orinoco USB client
>for about $150, and the PC Cards for about $105 (both from Gateway.com).
I'm definitely jealous. Trying to decide whether to switch from
Bob's telephone (Citizen) and go to ATT Broadband as well. Had a 1
year deal with Bob, but it is just about up. Getting good reports on
speed from the people at work who have the cable setup.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20112
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 22:35:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Wireless Networking
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> I'm definitely jealous. Trying to decide whether to switch from
> Bob's telephone (Citizen) and go to ATT Broadband as well. Had a 1
> year deal with Bob, but it is just about up. Getting good reports on
> speed from the people at work who have the cable setup.
I was at one of their rollout press conferences (after they'd finished
lighting up Dallas/Fort Worth) and got a tour of their prototype
production facility. It looks like they have their act together.
We're lucky to be within Roseville Telco's area... pardon me, SureWest
Communications. When I first moved into the area 15+ years ago, they had
equipment installed by Alexander Graham Bell hisself. Now, they're
cutting edge. I've got 768k DSL and (other than a few glitches with
their security trog) the service has been flawless.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20113
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:16:00 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
>
> I don't know about that. I am coming more and more to the
> conclusion that great novels don't make great movies about the novels.
> I think novels are too big and complex to make a 2 hour movie out of.
> Now, a miniseries. . .I thot the recent Skiffy Channel of DUNE was
> quite passable.
>
> But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Name for me some great
> movies that were made from great novels. Ben Hur? I never read the
> book so I can't say how much violence the movie did to the story told
> in the book.
>
>
Certainly, there's few examples to choose. The movie Contact comes to mind.
I've heard a lot of criticisms of this film (the use of footage of our
then perpetrator-in-chief, changes in the plot and characters, etc.)
but the movie was made by a director who respected the author's intent
and managed, I think, to carry it onto the screen. For all of its debatable
points, Contact the film did not eviscerate Contact the book.
One of my favorite catchphrases is, "The book was better." The book is always
better. I'm not asking for miracles, I just want filmmakers who adapt from
good books to just stop pissing on the source material.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20114
From: fader555@aol.com (Fader)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:01:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:11:23 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
> I don't know about that. I am coming more and more to the
>conclusion that great novels don't make great movies about the novels.
>I think novels are too big and complex to make a 2 hour movie out of.
>Now, a miniseries. . .I thot the recent Skiffy Channel of DUNE was
>quite passable.
>
You've got to be kidding, there were timeline problems( ie: meeting
the Corrino princess too early) there were instances of carachters
speaking other carachter's lines that had the effect of changing the
point of the movie & I thought the BG headgear just a little too Erte.
Good job with the Guild tho, the best I could say for it was that it
was better than the first one.
Fader
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20115
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:13:07 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:01:37 GMT, fader555@aol.com (Fader) wrote:
>
>You've got to be kidding, there were timeline problems( ie: meeting
>the Corrino princess too early) there were instances of carachters
>speaking other carachter's lines that had the effect of changing the
>point of the movie & I thought the BG headgear just a little too Erte.
>
>Good job with the Guild tho, the best I could say for it was that it
>was better than the first one.
>
>Fader
Yeah, Irulan was the biggest problem. I still thot it was pretty
true as these things go. Had to be better than the first one.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20116
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:50:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> I don't know about that. I am coming more and more to the
> conclusion that great novels don't make great movies about the novels.
> I think novels are too big and complex to make a 2 hour movie out of.
> Now, a miniseries. . .I thot the recent Skiffy Channel of DUNE was
> quite passable.
>
> But maybe you can convince me otherwise. Name for me some great
> movies that were made from great novels. Ben Hur? I never read the
> book so I can't say how much violence the movie did to the story told
> in the book.
>
> I think that maybe it has to be shorter-than-novel-length to make
> a great movie and still be close to the story.
I'll agree with you there, for the most part. I think Stephen King's works
make a good body to study this. I thought the miniseries of "The Stand" was
done well, and given the length of the book, a miniseries was necessary.
OTOH, several of his novels have been done as movies with pretty good
results, IMHO. I'm thinking of the early ones like "Carrie" "Christine" and
"Firestarter", as well as some of the more recent stuff: "Thinner" and
"Misery". Passable movies have been done from his novellas: "Running
Man". The movies made from short stories have been pretty bad: "Maximum
Overdrive" for example.
I think the movies done from Clancy novels have been faithful and fun to
watch.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20117
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 06:10:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:50:15 -0400, Eli Hestermann
<Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>I think the movies done from Clancy novels have been faithful and fun to
>watch.
Patriot Games was terrible. A pity too, because I always felt it
should have been the most easy to turn into a good movie.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20118
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 08:54:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
> Certainly, there's few examples to choose. The movie Contact comes
> to mind.
> ...
> For all of its debatable points, Contact the film did not
> eviscerate Contact the book.
Um... Contact was first written as a film treatment and screenplay, and
only novelized when Sagan couldn't get the deal into production. So it's
filmworthiness is not too suprising.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20119
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:59:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:32:25 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>I don't know any good primer books anymore. Most of the ones I read before
>I've forgotten the names of, and there were a whole stack of them.
>
>However, here's general historical information:
>
>http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/Middle%20East%20History%20Database/mid%20
>east%20index.htm
I took a look at this site, altho I could not read all of it, due to
its length. But it seems to be a good example of what I mean by the
liberal anit-Israel bias. Just reading the sections on the various
wars, one would think that Israel started the entire conflict.
The site contains a great deal of erroneous information, but even more
pervasively, the omission of information which provides any thing
close to a balanced account.
I've decided to pick one example to illustrate what I'm trying to say,
since it's practically impossible to go thru every single statement.
So, note this short entry from the nhhschool.org page on the period of
the British Protectorate:
<<From August 20th through September 26th, a series of terror bombings
of Palestinian civilian buses occurs in Haifa. Hundreds are killed.
Irgun and Haganah claim responsibility. >>
Note that this one short quote is the ONLY reference to terrorism in
1937. Now if you read the Irgun account--admitted biased the other
way, but I'm trying to point out there are two sides here--you'll
find:
<<On March 28, 1938, a private vehicle travelling from Haifa to Safed
was attacked on the Acre-Safed road. Four Jewish passengers, including
a child and two women, were shot dead. The driver and a woman
passenger managed to escape, but their bodies were later found not far
from the site of the attack. About two weeks later, a car was ambushed
on the Hanita-Nahariya road. Three Jews were shot and killed,
including David Ben-Gaon, graduate of the Betar battalion at Rosh
Pina. These murders caused a storm of outrage among members of the
Labor Battalion at Rosh Pina and three members of the battalion -
Avraham Shein, Shalom Jurabin and Shlomo Ben-Yosef (Tabachnik) -
decided to retaliate. Without receiving permission from their
commanding officer, they set out for the Safed - Rosh Pina road, where
they fired on an Arab bus. They missed their target, harming no-one,
and then fled to a nearby abandoned building.>>
Now, for a more balanced account of 1937 activities, or at least a
contemporary one, here is a short excerpt of a British report to the
League of Nations, which summarizes the year:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/a47250072a3dd7950525672400783bde/7bdd2c11c15b54c2052565d10057251e!OpenDocument
<<10. During the year covered by this Report, public security in
Palestine was seriously disturbed by a compaign of murder,
intimidation, and sabotage conducted by Arab law breakers, which on a
few occasions provoked Jewish reprisals.>>
The site goes on with incident after incident of Arab attacks, both on
Jewish settlers and on Arab officials who I guess were too willing to
work with the Jews and British. There are a few accounts of Jewish
attacks on Arabs, but no mention of "a series of terror bombings of
Palestinian civilian buses" in Haifa, altho there were apparently 3
near Jerusalem, during which one Arab woman was killed. One--not
"hundreds."
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20120
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 17:01:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 16:59:27 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
> Now if you read the Irgun account--admitted biased the other
>way, but I'm trying to point out there are two sides here--you'll
>find...
Oops, forgot the source address.
http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac03.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20121
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 15:54:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BCE044F.7435091A@surewest.net...
> Filksinger wrote:
> > Mine did, though in the end I'll agree. With my external DSL modem
> > and PPPoE, each machine needed to log on to the network separately.
> > Since they are going to start charging me for that, I have to go
> > with some product that can dial up PPPoE once for the entire network.
>
> I wouldn't run on a DSL or cable hookup without a hardware firewall...
> didn't we just discuss this in here? Or was it elsewhere? Dang fog.
Yes, we did. But for my purposes, putting ZoneAlarm and good anti-virus on
the machines is sufficient.
> A firewall/router is a nice thing to have, both for the security and to
> mask the number of users - which is none of the ISP's damn business.
ICS will do the same.
> You might want to go with an 802.11b wireless router/firewall instead of
> the wired one. Linksys makes one that's a four-port wired switch as well
> as the wireless router. You can add PC Cards to a laptop or USB adapters
> to a workstation and network at 11 mb/s without wires. Neat stuff. (But
> DON'T buy the Linksys client units - they suck.)
No thanks. I prefer something moderately secure. 802.11b has broken
encryption; people have actually demonstrated the ability to eavesdrop on
banking networks using it.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20122
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:23:00 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bcd07d1.36395988@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> No, really, I was just asking for an example. I really can't think of
> one. I'd appreciate you're telling me which one(s) you have in mind.
>
> I won't say there has never been a cover-up, or a bad investigation,
> but repeatedly? All by different agencies? Over several different
> administrations?
Of course, now that you ask, I can't remember a single one.:) And you are
right, most cases are one or two cover-ups, followed by being caught later.
But, IIRC, not always, particularly when long-term interests are involved,
and especially not when merely gross neglegence is what is being covered up.
As I said, though, I believe the Israelis are not truly covering up
anything, beyond possibly gross negligence. I don't know this, though, as it
is quite possible that if the stories about shooting POWs had come out at
that time, they'd have denied it until now, too.
<snip>
> http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/nci.txt
Hmm. That's what I get for reading a report about a report, instead of
digging up the original. Of course, this doesn't indicate whether or not the
original report, _in full_, actually investigated, or if they just rubber
stamped the Israeli answer. Certainly it is now admitted that some of the
Israeli claims were inaccurate, such as the one that the attack only
happened by plane, only happened for five minutes, and that the torpedo
boats didn't fire but instead offered assistance from the begining. We also
know that there was pressure, at least on the NSA, to accept the Israeli
claims.
> Admiral Moorer became Chief of Naval Operations about 2 months after
> the USS Liberty incident and its initial investigation, and Chairman
> of Joint Chiefs some three years later. Rear Admiral Kidd was the
> Commander in Chief of Naval Forces Europe (CINCNAVEUR) at the time of
> the incident and began the Navy's investigation 2 DAYS afterwards.
>
> I could speculate on all sorts of reasons as to why Moorer decided to
> voice publically, some 18 years later, his "opinion" (his own word)
> that the investigation was flawed, but that would be pointless.
Hmm. Rats. I suppose you are right. I find conflicting reports of when
Moorer was on the JCS, but the more I look, the more it looks like someone
mentioned his position, someone else read that as his position at the time,
and it went downhill from there.
<snip>
> >Several points here:
> >
> >1) To the best of my knowledge, the popularity of a position has never
been
> >correlated effectively with its truth. "If everyone knows it's so, it
ain't,
> >by a factor of at least 10,000 to 1" (OWTTE). LL was wrong, in my
opinion,
> >but still makes a good point. Heck, most Americans _still_ believe that
> >Columbus was trying to prove the world was round.
>
> That works both ways--all the people who think Israel sunk the Liberty
> on purpose don't make it true.
That is correct.:) As I said, I don't think they did. Nor, for that matter,
does everyone who thinks there is a cover-up agree that they did. Many
people contend gross negligence rather than deliberate homicide.
> Besides, there is a difference between what "everybody" knows, and
> what officials in charge of such things know, or believe to be true.
> Should we argue that, because most scientists believe evolution is a
> fact, it somehow didn't happen? Do most historians believe that
> Columbus was trying to prove the world was round?
Nope. But that isn't relevant. The "officials in charge" _of the attack_
didn't run these investigations. These are US investigations; the officials
in charge are Israeli. We can assume that the officials in charge have all
the info needed to prove problems on the _US_ side, so I'll trust that we
didn't commit gross negligence, but we have to take the word of the Israelis
on the rest.
<snip>
> And it's a bit disingenious for you to neglect to mention that I
> identified those which did not find one way or the other, as tho I
> were trying to say otherwise.
I'm sorry, I thought I removed that last comment as petty and unfair. I
really shouldn't have said that. My sincere apologies.
> But do you really think those bodies,
> absent a cover-up directed from on high, would have failed to mention
> it had they found something different?
If they didn't look into the question, then it is impossible to say whether
or not they would have reported _possible_ flaws in the Israelis accounts
(since they had no proof), or even noticed them.
<snip>
> I said "faction" which I find in Websters as meaning, "1 : a party or
> group (as within a government) ..." My point was that, usually, when
> there is a cover-up in govt, the other side usually raises a stink.
Ah. If the Republicans cover up, the Democrats point it out. Possible, but I
find that the two sometimes have the _same_ agenda in mind, and bend the
truth the same way to get it. Also, they have been known to avoid
investigations that could make them look bad, even though they weren't the
ones responsible, because the "government" would be blamed. Crusaders
against government waste, for example, are sometimes given powerful
positions for a few months, until the new bosses realize that the waste
being uncovered makes them look bad, even though they weren't responsible,
and then get fired.
However, I agree. As I said, I believe the official story, approximately.
<snip>
> I did say SINCE before 1948, and later, begining to change during the
> Reagan years. Prove it? Maybe with a lot of research. I was
> speaking from my own experience with and exposure to State Dept
> personnel and State Dept reports. You can take that for what it's
> worth.
You may be right, but I tended to see their reports as leaning the other
way. I'd just assume bias on my part, if I didn't know that I was baised
towards your view when I started looking into it.
<snip>
> So that's your "opinion" too? It doesn't jive with the facts as I
> know them.
Ah, so you think your observation of bias _isn't_ an opinion? That's naive.
I simply pointed out a known fact; all observations of bias are themselves
subject to potential bias, and are thus never more than opinions.
<snip>
> >> But many Jewish media-types are in fact, anti-Israel, and they
> >> seem to be the most extreme in that regard, maybe trying to prove
> >> themselves to their collegues. Or maybe to themselves.
> >
> >Or they are the only ones honest enough to see and tell the truth, being
> >safe from the accusation of "anti-semetism" that appears whenever someone
> >criticizes Israel.
>
> Or not.
That was the point. I was only indicating that the guesses as to _motive_
are opinions that vary depending upon how much you agree with or disagree
with them. And I certainly find it interesting that "Jewish media-types" are
"anti-Israel", but other critics of Israel are "anti-Semetic".
<snip>
> Wow, a whole month?
That was the amount of time I spent doing primary in-depth research on the
subject. Tell me: when you looked up Arabic, Israeli, European, and US news
sources, stripped biased language to get just the facts, and compared them
for bias in reporting the same events, and then compared the original
language for bias, how many hours did you spend in this comparison? Any?
What research techniques did you use to find bias in your sources? Any? Or
did you just read reports, and catalog them as biased in your own mind?
> And in college too. Such a wonderfully objective
> place to develop opinions.
And your opinion, I assume, was without outside input at all?
Since my final opinion differed from that of my professor (and my own
original opinion), he never talked about the subject in class (since it
wasn't a class on Israel, but a lesson on bias in the media), I have no idea
the opinions of my fellow students or other professors, I asked for no help
beyond how to find foreign news sources, and I worked strictly from original
documentary evidence throughout (no books on Israel or the Arabic world,
only the news reports), I fail to see why the locale would be relevant.
Other than your assumptions (false, in my opinion) about the political tone
of the school (my teacher was a pro-Israeli conservative, who disagreed but
gave me an A for use of proper technique and for depth), I don't see how it
would be relevant regardless. It is certainly relevant that I did not get
the findings either I or my professor expected.
So who are you assuming was influencing me?
<snip>
> Well, I think my first post in this thread involved the automatic
> acceptance of the idea that there is a distinct "Palestinian people"
> who are deserving of their own state, for whatever reasons.
"...the automatic acceptance..."
The assumption that it was "automatic" is in direct conflict with the posts
of those who said they support this position. For you to assume that it is
"automatic", in direct conflict with what they said, says more about your
biases than theirs.
> Almost
> all of the media accepts that premise without question. I think it's
> an example of the Big Lie concept. Repeat something over and over
> enough, and people just don't question it any more. Correct me if I'm
> wrong, but I suspect you've never questioned it.
The fact that you _assume_ that I've never questioned it, without any
evidence (except that I don't agree with you enough) shows _your_ bias
clearly.
Very well, I'll correct you. I spent considerable time questioning that
concept. In fact, I have never said that there _is_ a distinct "Palestinian
people".
Certainly there was a semi-independent Palestine at one time; documents show
this. How independent, I don't know, nor does the independence of the
government necessarily tell us about the separateness of the "Palestinian
people". It is possible to have a separate people without separate
governments, and vice versa. Much of the former Ottoman Empire is now
separate countries. Were they "separate people" before? Does it even matter
either way if there was a "Palestinian people"?
If the US government sold Texas to someone, and the Texans later claimed
that they were a separate people from the United States who deserve the
territory back, you'd be able to argue this one from either side for a long
time.
> But there are plenty of sources of all types which publicize the
> tribulations of the Arabs on the West Bank and Gaza (who admittedly
> have been treated shabbily for the last 50 years) and never ever
> mention the role that Arab governments and, for that matter, the
> Palestinians themselves, have played.
Certainly. Just as there are plenty of sources of all types who publish the
opposite. There is bias everywhere. I just note that the mainstream media
tends towards a pro-Israel bias, IMO. Of course, if I were to show you how I
came to that conclusion, there is no guarantee that you would come up with
the same conclusion. There is no general method for detecting bias
guaranteed to eliminate the bias of the researcher of which I am aware.
> >For more balanced reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I recommend
> >"The Christian Science Monitor". I never thought I'd say that, but there
it
> >is.
>
> And I'd sooner have a root canal. <g>
> But seriously, I don't have access to the CSM or I probably would look
> thru it, at least.
www.csmonitor.com
Don't forget the novicane.<g>
<snip>
> If CNN, as "mainstream" (and that's debabatable, but I wouldn't call
> it liberal), is reporting the incident, how pro-Israel could it be?
> Do they also show Muslims taking pot shots at Israelis? Or do they
> have to actually kill someone? Or maybe twenty? Is this a
> dog-bites-man thing? Or was it just a slow news day? Did they have
> exciting footage just too good not to put on air? What was their
> basis for saying the incident wasn't isolated?
The article was about how it was happening more and more often. Details were
not generally forthcoming; it was a generic observation piece.
> >My point, however, was that the article, while reporting on these Israeli
> >terrorists, never actually used the word. High Israeli government
officials
> >were quoted as calling them terrorists, but the article didn't.
>
> If they quoted "High Israeli government officials," I really don't see
> the difference. Heck, makes it sound even more ominous than using it
> themselves.
If this were an article about Arabs doing the same things, they would be
called terrorists throughout the article. Instead, the person writing the
article (or the editor) avoided the word themselves scrupulously.
> >Articles in
> >US press virtually never do, even when the Israeli criminals in question
are
> >clearly terrorists. They are Zionists, or extremists, or (my favorite for
> >balanced reporting) civilians, but never _terrorists_.
>
> It IS significant that they are civilians, acting independently and
> without government sanction or military back-up. If the term is used
> in that context, it is appropriate.
Certainly. But I dare you to find a single article saying that Arab
"civilians" (as opposed to government-backed groups) attacked anyone with
lethal weapons. If they are Arab civilians committing such crimes, they are
called terrorists. Sometimes Fundamentalists or extremists. But never
"civilians".
If you compare similar violence from both sides, and look at what the
criminals are called, only Israelis are called "citizens" in the mainstream
media, and only Arabs are called "terrorists", and the general tendency is
for the language describing the Israeli criminals to be "softer" that that
used to describe the Arab criminals. The language is biased.
<snip>
> I realize that the subject has not come up here, but I DO consider it
> anti-semitism when someone jumps in to criticize Israel for some
> wrong, real or perceived, IF they have never criticized anyone else
> for the same thing. It's not enough to say, after the fact, "Well, of
> course, that was wrong too." There has to be something that causes
> the former to excite one's passions enough to feel they must speak
> out, when the latter moves them not at all.
And I most certainly don't. Indeed, I must admit that it disturbs me that
you do.
If you are against the government of some Muslim country, or even the
governmental practices of many or most, are you anti-Muslim? If you are
against the EU, are you anti-Christian, or anti-white? Israel is not
Judaism, Jew is not synonymous with Israeli. They are separate, even though
they overlap.
If you aren't Jewish and you criticize Israel too much, you are
anti-Semetic. Jim Ennes has a good (even if incorrect) reason to be angry
with the Israeli government, but that doesn't make him anti-Semetic, though
it may make him anti-Israeli (though he doesn't look so to me, so far).
Whether or not he is is a different issue.
I find calling someone anti-Semetic when he is, at worst, anti-Israel, to be
a demonizing and an unfair tactic, much the same as, but considerably worse
than, telling people who criticize the government of this country they are
"un-American". I find that the use of the term "anti-Semetism" to describe
"excessive" criticism of Israel, when no evidence of criticism of the Jews
as a whole can be found, to be offensive.
> I am reminded of those who were quick to criticize the US for the bad
> we did in VietNam, but who remained silent about far worse on the part
> of the Viet Cong. It doesn't make what we did less wrong, but it does
> make the motives of those who criticize suspect.
If my goal is to point up US attrocities, for any number of perfectly
acceptable reasons, then this is exactly how I should go about it.
Mentioning other attrocities distracts from your message. Do you go out of
your way to bring up points that detract from your message when you are
trying to get an unpopular message out? I often do, and it works badly as a
convincing tactic. I wouldn't recommend it; I do it for personal reasons.
<snip>
> <snip>Can you really imagine
> Syria, Jordan, or even Egypt doing the same? And how would the people
> of those countries react if they did? Where is the Arab outcry tor
> Israeli soldiers murdered after they were captured?
I don't pretend there isn't a double-standard, though I am not aware of a
mass killing of Israeli POWs in the Six-Day War. That doesn't mean _I_ have
a double-standard holding up the Israelis to a higher standard; if I did,
I'd probably have become anti-Israeli at some point.
<snip>
> >such behavior as
> >opposed to what percentage of Arabs? Any surveys done?
>
> I believe it to be many, many times higher. You can call that
> prejudice if you like. I call it a realistic assessment.
I think it is probably true, too. But I don't _assume_ it is true, and I
specifically avoid guessing or implying that it is a large difference, when
in fact that may just be my bias.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20123
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:26:09 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bcef504.162674040@news.sff.net...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:32:25 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >I don't know any good primer books anymore. Most of the ones I read
before
> >I've forgotten the names of, and there were a whole stack of them.
> >
> >However, here's general historical information:
> >
>
>http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/Middle%20East%20History%20Database/mid%2
0
> >east%20index.htm
>
> I took a look at this site, altho I could not read all of it, due to
> its length. But it seems to be a good example of what I mean by the
> liberal anit-Israel bias. Just reading the sections on the various
> wars, one would think that Israel started the entire conflict.
This wasn't supposed to have been sent. It was a preliminary list of links I
was collecting, but was not only just started, but not yet reviewed. My
apologies. Jai is quite correct; that site looks pretty bad.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20124
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 15:30:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:2iqlstkv0ve4rvv1lh0ahfmi268osku7fq@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> How do you *pay* for loan guarantees? It's like co-signing a
> loan, yes? Have they defaulted?
Oh, no. Israel _never_ defaults. They just get loans forgiven, so that they
don't have to pay _or_ default.
I have heard (but cannot confirm) that they also get their aid payments
early, a neat trick to make money at our expense.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20125
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:09:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in
>
> Or the new old fashioned way - I just put an 802.11b network in, and
> after some teething problems, it works great.
>
Hmmm, an idea I've been toying with, because I'm tired of tripping over my
network cables. Any problems with the speed? One review said that the speed
drop vs. a wired network was huge and noticeable to users.
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20126
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:12:24 -0400
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote >
> >
> >I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade - it appears to be a
> >release intended to complete the financing on Bill Gates's megahouse.
> >
> If you're already running Win2K, that's true. But from what I'm
> reading from the not-in-Microsoft's-pocket sources, it's a good
> upgrade if you're still in the 9x (95-98-Me) track. Of course, if
> you're still running 95 your hardware is probably too old to really
> use it. ;)
>
JT that's interesting. I have Win98SE on my computer, and I copy of Win2k. I
had installed Win2K and wasn't really thrilled with it. So I'm not sure
which way to go (if any) with an upgrade. Maybe I need to try Win2K now that
I have upped my processor speed to 1.4G.
In an upgrade quandry...
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20127
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:16:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" wrote:
> Hmmm, an idea I've been toying with, because I'm tired of tripping
> over my network cables. Any problems with the speed? One review
> said that the speed drop vs. a wired network was huge and
> noticeable to users.
It depends on how heavily you're going to load it. Also remember that
it's "only" 11 mb/s, so if you're going from 100Base-T it will seem a
lot steeper than from 10Base-T.
But for browsing, etc. the broadband link is usually a lot slower than
the network speed, so it's irrelevant. I browse just as quickly (and
print documents, and grab server files) without any noticeable slowdown
on my wireless laptop.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20128
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 20:18:39 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" wrote:
> JT that's interesting. I have Win98SE on my computer, and I copy of
> Win2k. I had installed Win2K and wasn't really thrilled with it.
W2K is extremely sensitive to RAM. Less than 256MB is not recommended.
But we're an all-Win2K shop around here, for serious business use and
some gaming etc., and I'm very happy with it. Only limitation is that
PCs really have to have that whopper RAM, and that a few games just
won't work under it.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20129
From: noone" <no_one@home>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:15:16 -0000
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
was that alexi panshin? i seem to remember a comment on that in spider
robinson's "rah, rah, r.a.h." essay, i haven't read, and do not plan to read
panshin's book.
"gunner"
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:4p5qst81m7rhis53v7iek3okica4qdlar6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 22:28:23 -0500, Jackie <jackie@sff.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >lol I loved it, but I never expected it to be great, just a good b
> >type movie...
> >
> >Jackie
>
> Not to mention the prurience factor. I wonder what RAH would have
> thot of Rico having sex with Dizzy?<g> Who was the yammerhead who
> detected homoeroticism in the "swaggering leather-boys" of the book?
>
>
>
> Geo Rule
>
> www.civilwarstlouis.com
> ****
> Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
> the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
> Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
> the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20130
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:25:08 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:15:16 -0000, "noone" <no_one@home> wrote:
>was that alexi panshin? i seem to remember a comment on that in spider
>robinson's "rah, rah, r.a.h." essay, i haven't read, and do not plan to read
>panshin's book.
>"gunner"
>
It wasn't Panshin. It may have been Panshin quoting someone
else, however.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20131
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:47:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:25:08 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 01:15:16 -0000, "noone" <no_one@home> wrote:
>
>>was that alexi panshin? i seem to remember a comment on that in spider
>>robinson's "rah, rah, r.a.h." essay, i haven't read, and do not plan to read
>>panshin's book.
>>"gunner"
>>
>
> It wasn't Panshin. It may have been Panshin quoting someone
>else, however.
>
Nope, not even Panshin quoting someone else. Spider credits
Thomas Disch for detecting the homosexual themes of ST in the
"swaggering leather boys" (of which Spider notes he can find no one
actually wearing leather in the book).
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20132
From: William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 02:01:11 -0400
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BCF9B8F.2B0D2E07@surewest.net...
> "William J. Keaton" wrote:
> > JT that's interesting. I have Win98SE on my computer, and I copy of
> > Win2k. I had installed Win2K and wasn't really thrilled with it.
>
> W2K is extremely sensitive to RAM. Less than 256MB is not recommended.
>
384 MB shouldn't be a problem then. And I think I still have an open DIMM
slot.
It just seemed slower than Win98SE, to do anything. At the time I had an
800MhZ Athlon, now it's a 1.4GhZ. I think memory went from 256 at the time
to the present 384.
The thing that worried me about WinXP is the activation. I'm always messing
with my computer, adding something, taking something else out, etc. Does the
Home version include the re-activation clause when you've changed x number
of hardware items?
I think the bottom line for me is that I don't feel the _need_ to upgrade to
WinXP. I mostly skipped 95, except for playing games, as I was running NT at
the time. I was impressed with 98 when I installed it on my brother's
computer, it seemed more stable than 95, but kept me from having to re-boot
to play games. I really never considered ME, there was nothing new there I
felt I needed.
Just sharing some upgrade thoughts...
--
WJaKe
http://pages.prodigy.net/wjake
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20133
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:14:03 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:26:31 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>But being overly
>critical of Israel, _or even against it_, is not and never was equivalent to
>being against Jews. To say that it is an insult to anyone who you use it
>against.
Never? Are you trying to say that no one who is anti-Israel is so
because they are anti-semetic? I think that's extremely naive, at
best.
But since you elaborate on your position down-stream, I'll respond in
more detail there. LOL--sure glad I read further before posting
this.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20134
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:04:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:3bcf5a09.0@news.sff.net...
>
> "Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
> news:2iqlstkv0ve4rvv1lh0ahfmi268osku7fq@4ax.com...
> <snip>
> >
> > How do you *pay* for loan guarantees? It's like co-signing a
> > loan, yes? Have they defaulted?
>
> Oh, no. Israel _never_ defaults. They just get loans forgiven, so that
they
> don't have to pay _or_ default.
On Geo's logic, an insurance company's policies cost them nothing until a
claim payment is actually made. That is a true statement about their cash
position, but no accountant or economist would let them count that as
income. You have to take the expected value of the loss into consideration.
If you make enough loan guarentees to enough people, you will have to pay on
some of them.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20135
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:58:24 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 10:24:40 -0700,
>Discussion's over, Jai. Your repeated point is that I'm an anti-Semite
>along with everyone else who thinks the Liberty incident was
>whitewashed.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 13:05:15 -0700,
>This from someone whose entire series of posts in this threa is littered
>with factual errors about the posts and posters, denies what she's said,
>ignores salient points to keep hammering on her own extremely partisan
>interpretation... *Sigh*. Never thought I'd do it in this newsgroup...
>
>...*PLONK!*
What nonsense.
I've debated with myself whether to answer this at all, and then how
to go about it. Perhaps I should just consider the source. But I'm
too irritated by the false accusations and name-calling to let it
stand unanswered.
I've reviewed every post made in this thread, no small task, and find
I nevers directly accused anyone on this board of anti-semitism. In
fact, James brought up the issue of anti-semitism, not me:
___________
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:06:48 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Just in followup: I have a number of USS Liberty materials, but I hadn't
>ever checked for a web site. Glory be.
>
> http://www.ussliberty.com
>
>But, of course, it's just the work of a bunch of anti-Semitic,
>anti-Zionist rabblerousers
In my reply to this, I only said that anti-semitism was involved in
the issue of the Liberty, SPECIFICALLY on the part of those behind
ussliberty.com (altho I do believe it extends further)
__________________
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 05:20:13 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:06:48 -0700, James Gifford
><jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>>But, of course, it's just the work of a bunch of anti-Semitic,
>>anti-Zionist rabblerousers...
>
>Yes, it is.
And in a follow-up, I explained why. But I also admitted, in the
final paragraph, that there are other motives involved:
________________
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 08:06:20 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>OK, I really didn't want to get into this, and probably won't further,
>but I suppose I owe the rest of the group a bit more information on
>why I said that. So here it is.
[Note, there follows a list of 10 investigations, some of which WERE
Congressional, which James had said never happened. But I think it
can be omitted at this point]
>It's hard for me to understand how anyone could believe all those
>investigations were rigged without also believing the "Jews control
>the government" conspiracy theory that is so popular in some circles.
>I also seem to remember that, the last time I visited Ennes' website
>there were a number of links to anti-semetic sites like the Institute
>of Historical Review (Holocaust revisionism), but he seems to have
>cleaned those up.
>I'm sure that many of the Liberty survivors are embittered by their
>sincere beliefs that they have somehow been wronged by their own
>government. Ennis, I believe, mostly just want to hawk his book(s),
>and doesn't mind exploiting his former shipmates in the process..
I later commented on anti-semitism and the Liberty, but still no
accusation against anyone here:
_______________
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:24:06 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>So I guess we're left with those who believe in government
>conspiracies and those who don't. And the anti-semites who don't much
>care one way or the other.
And then I brought it up one final time, in questioning why the charge
that believing the worst of Israel, with regard to the Liberty, might
be an indication of anti-semitism is any more offensive that the idea
that accepting the Israeli version of what happened is to be a "blind
apologist." In any case, it was somewhere in here where James really
lost it, as far as I can tell.
On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:02:45 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Never mind, Jai. As I said to Geo, the Liberty incident has more value
>as a touchstone than as any subject of real discussion - and in smoking
>out blind apologists for Israel, it works perfectly.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 07:30:36 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>So it's ok to use the Liberty to "smoke out blind apologists" but you
>find any suggestion that anti-semitism may be involved in bringing up
>the Liberty, not to mention Pollard, out of the blue "tiresome."
>Yeah, right.
On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:30:04 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Ooh, your finely-honed logic has me ready to fall on my sword in shame.
>Your collective response has been that saying Israel has dealt dirty
>here and there makes the sayer an anti-Semite, whether they admit it or
>not. Regardless of Israel's culpability or guilt in the matters. You
>probably think that everyone who thinks OJ is a murderer is a racist,
>too.
>
>What seals it is that your responses don't draw any distinction between
>Gordon's posts - who has never mentioned the Liberty - and mine - and
>I've never mentioned Pollard. Clearly, your knee is jerking so furiously
>that you can't read clearly. Hope the condition clears up.
Now, I did bring up the issue of anti-semitism and the double-standard
in judging Israeli vs. Arab behavior and attitudes, but that was in
response to Filksinger, so I'm not sure it's relevant here, so I will
not reconstruct that conversation too.
As for the "entire series of posts in this threa [sic]" which is
"littered with factual errors about the posts and posters," I do admit
to a single mistake about who posted what on Pollard. In fact, I
thought I already had (admitted it), but I can't find that reply, so I
guess it never got posted--I don't doubt that will go unbelieved by
some. In any case, it was an honest mistake, I think, since there
were five posts in succession, and James made three of them, before I
chimed in.
If anyone is reading this, you should note that it was James who
specifically brought up anti-semitism again, altho I suppose I implied
it when I questioned why Pollard (an AMERICAN Jew, not an Israeli) is
relevant to the Liberty.
_________________
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:42:06 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Or strafe and bomb your ships so that they can perform illegitimate acts
>without you seeing.
_________________
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 14:25:42 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>That was just a mistake, wasn't it?
_________________
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 12:04:31 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>But of course it was.
________________
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:54:29 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>And the case of Jonathan Pollard?
________________
On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:04:24 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>It was an accident, Gord. They thought he was an Egyptian.
_______________
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 04:15:10 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>Pollard is a traitor who deserves to be locked away. As he is.
>
>But the fact you think it appropriate to bring him up here just proves
>my point.
_______________
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:25:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>What point? That Israel is a strange "ally" for spying on us? That was
>/my/ point. Or does Pollard's conviction have nothing to do with the
>government of Israel's culpability?
_______________
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 09:13:21 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>I think the point, Gordon, is that if you say anything impugning
>Israel's sterling reputation, or imply that they are less than 100%
>honorable in every dealing, you're obviously an anti-Semite who should
>just give up the pretense, shave your head, and tatto swastikas on your
>forehead.
>
>It gets really tiresome after a while, because there are issues related
>to Isr--l that need to be aired and discussed and which have nothing to
>do with Judaism or anti-Semitism. But you'd never know that from the
>chauvinists.
_______________
On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 21:53:16 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>Pollard certainly has NOTHING to do with the Liberty. But he's a Jew
>who did something bad. So I guess that makes them related, doesn't
>it?
I suppose at this point, I should take the offense and line up rest of
the posts where James misquoted me, and then had the chutzpah <g> to
call ME a liar, but I'm probably more tired of all this than anyone
else who may have made it this far. Assuming there is anyone.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20136
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:26:19 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
James Gifford wrote:
> Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> >> Discussion's over, Jai. Your repeated point is that I'm an anti-Semite
> >> along with everyone else who thinks the Liberty incident was
> >> whitewashed.
>
> > Suits me. You left the realm of intelligent discussion several posts
> > ago.
>
> This from someone whose entire series of posts in this threa is littered
> with factual errors about the posts and posters, denies what she's said,
> ignores salient points to keep hammering on her own extremely partisan
> interpretation... *Sigh*. Never thought I'd do it in this newsgroup...
>
> ...*PLONK!*
>
> --
>
> | James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
> | See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
This from out paragon of open discussion who once posted: (Re:
"Irreconcilable Differences"
That this book can be discussed in this forum with any degree of credulity
worries me even more.
I'm politically colorblind, myself, and see most stated political positions
as
good fodder for belly laughs. But the turn in content in this newsgroup over
the
past few weeks has bothered me deeply, and I think I'll find somewhere else
to
hang out for a while.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20137
From: Eli Hestermann <Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:31:08 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai Johnson-Pickett wrote:
> <much snippage>
> I suppose at this point, I should take the offense and line up rest of
> the posts where James misquoted me, and then had the chutzpah <g> to
> call ME a liar, but I'm probably more tired of all this than anyone
> else who may have made it this far. Assuming there is anyone.
Jai, I've read every post in the thread, and since no one's asked my opinion
maybe it's needed. <G>
Given how this thread has gone, it's probably best that James has added you
to his killfile. The fact that no one has said, "No, don't do it!" doesn't
mean the rest of us are ready to do the same. It simply means (IMO) that
given where this thing's been and appears to be headed, it's probably true
that you two aren't going to have productive discussions in the future.
He's not reading your response, and the rest of us still reading have
decided already what we think about the situation. If it's cathartic for
you to line up the posts and go through it again, then please do, but
otherwise it's best to let it go.
I think the original point, "Is the U.S. better off not supporting Israel?"
is an interesting and pertinent discussion to have, but you, Gordon, and
James aren't going to reach agreement on it. You each have an ax to grind.
Gordon's made his bias clear, I think I have a handle on yours, and I have
no clue what James' is, but I doubt anyone lists "smoking out blind
apologists for Israel" as a casual hobby. Those of us without a strong bias
aren't going to get involved, because either 1) we don't have a good enough
grasp of the facts (JT admitted to this, and tried to steer the thread to
something more productive), or 2) we don't really want the headache of
debating someone (or several someones) whose opinion cannot change. For me,
it's both.
In short, further debate is highly unlikely to change anyone's mind. I
wouldn't worry that whoever gets the last word will sway HF opinion to hir
side. Each of you has posted long enough that I think we've formed opinions
of you independently of this thread. I know I have.
--
Eli V. Hestermann
Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu
"Vita brevis est, ars longa." -Seneca
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20138
From: Gordon Sollars" <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:33:07 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd03528.244331192@news.sff.net...
....
> Now, I did bring up the issue of anti-semitism and the double-standard
> in judging Israeli vs. Arab behavior and attitudes, but that was in
> response to Filksinger, so I'm not sure it's relevant here, so I will
> not reconstruct that conversation too.
I think it is relevant that you gave a rather expansive notion of
anti-Semitism, regardless of which thread you stated it in. Such a notion
seems to play a role in your posts on this topic regardless of thread, and I
think that James detected that. But I agree that there is no need to repeat
your conversation with Filk in a single post.
....
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 11:25:17 -0400, Gordon G. Sollars
> <gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >What point? That Israel is a strange "ally" for spying on us? That was
> >/my/ point. Or does Pollard's conviction have nothing to do with the
> >government of Israel's culpability?
I recognize that the point of your post was to clarify the discussion
between you and James, but since he is no longer reading your posts, let me
take this opportunity at ask again, what was your point?
....
> call ME a liar, but I'm probably more tired of all this than anyone
> else who may have made it this far. Assuming there is anyone.
I never killfile anyone, and, having no real social life, I have time to
read all manner of posts. ;-)
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20139
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:19:33 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:23:00 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>As I said, though, I believe the Israelis are not truly covering up
>anything, beyond possibly gross negligence.
I thought the Israelis had admitted to negligence. I do know they
paid reparations.
><snip>
>> http://208.56.153.48/jim/ussliberty/nci.txt
>
>Hmm. That's what I get for reading a report about a report, instead of
>digging up the original. Of course, this doesn't indicate whether or not the
>original report, _in full_, actually investigated, or if they just rubber
>stamped the Israeli answer.
I question whether there was time for there to BE an "Israeli answer."
The Navy's investigation started 2 days after the incident, and
concluded about a week later, or maybe two. Which is pretty long for
most military investigations, especially those involving that such a
high-level court of inquiry. And Israel was at war (for its
existence--not just a "Desert Storm" or even a VietNam) during that
time.
>Certainly it is now admitted that some of the
>Israeli claims were inaccurate, such as the one that the attack only
>happened by plane, only happened for five minutes, and that the torpedo
>boats didn't fire but instead offered assistance from the begining. We also
>know that there was pressure, at least on the NSA, to accept the Israeli
>claims.
Yes, that's true. But many of the claims of those who maintain it was
a deliberate attack have been proven wrong as well. I said at the
very beginning of this I didn't want to get into the particulars. I
just don't have the knowledge at my fingertips, but I know I have read
most of the evidence on both sides in the past, and I just don't find
the ussliberty.com evidence compelling enough to set aside the
official, US Govt-accepted version.
>> Besides, there is a difference between what "everybody" knows, and
>> what officials in charge of such things know, or believe to be true.
>> Should we argue that, because most scientists believe evolution is a
>> fact, it somehow didn't happen? Do most historians believe that
>> Columbus was trying to prove the world was round?
>
>Nope. But that isn't relevant. The "officials in charge" _of the attack_
>didn't run these investigations. These are US investigations; the officials
>in charge are Israeli. We can assume that the officials in charge have all
>the info needed to prove problems on the _US_ side, so I'll trust that we
>didn't commit gross negligence, but we have to take the word of the Israelis
>on the rest.
True. I meant the officials in charge of the investigations. Call
them "the experts" if you prefer. Or not--depends on which
investigation you're talking about. If the Navy or CIA or NSA
investigators were unsatisfied with the information they were getting
from the Israeli govt, I'm sure they were expert enough to identify
what was being withheld or modified. Better qualified than most, at
any rate.
>> So that's your "opinion" too? It doesn't jive with the facts as I
>> know them.
>
>Ah, so you think your observation of bias _isn't_ an opinion? That's naive.
>I simply pointed out a known fact; all observations of bias are themselves
>subject to potential bias, and are thus never more than opinions.
What I know are facts. The conclusions I draw from them are, of
course, opinion.
>And I certainly find it interesting that "Jewish media-types" are
>"anti-Israel", but other critics of Israel are "anti-Semetic".
I don't THINK I ever said, or even implied, that all other critics of
Israel are anti-semitic. I do not think that they are. I do think
that some of them are. And I do think there are actually Jewish
anti-semites (and not "semitic" in the sense of Arab, altho some
people use it that way)
>> Wow, a whole month?
>
>That was the amount of time I spent doing primary in-depth research on the
>subject. Tell me: when you looked up Arabic, Israeli, European, and US news
>sources, stripped biased language to get just the facts, and compared them
>for bias in reporting the same events, and then compared the original
>language for bias, how many hours did you spend in this comparison? Any?
>What research techniques did you use to find bias in your sources? Any? Or
>did you just read reports, and catalog them as biased in your own mind?
>
>> And in college too. Such a wonderfully objective
>> place to develop opinions.
>
>And your opinion, I assume, was without outside input at all?
>
>Since my final opinion differed from that of my professor (and my own
>original opinion), he never talked about the subject in class (since it
>wasn't a class on Israel, but a lesson on bias in the media), I have no idea
>the opinions of my fellow students or other professors, I asked for no help
>beyond how to find foreign news sources, and I worked strictly from original
>documentary evidence throughout (no books on Israel or the Arabic world,
>only the news reports), I fail to see why the locale would be relevant.
>Other than your assumptions (false, in my opinion) about the political tone
>of the school (my teacher was a pro-Israeli conservative, who disagreed but
>gave me an A for use of proper technique and for depth), I don't see how it
>would be relevant regardless. It is certainly relevant that I did not get
>the findings either I or my professor expected.
>
>So who are you assuming was influencing me?
I'm sorry if I got a little snide in my reply. My knowledge and
opinions are based completely on a lifetime of following Israeli-Arab
issues, from a wide variety of sources. About half of it was while I
was in the military (since I'm 47 and spent just under 21 years in),
where I've actually met and worked with Arab officers & Muslim foreign
and US personnel, not to mention US Middle-Eastern Foreign Area
Officers. One guy I worked very closely with over a two year period,
and who was also a great friend (and a Catholic <g>), was actually a
military attache in Tel Aviv (altho after I knew him), as well as in
Islamabad Pakistan and Katmandu Nepal beforehand.
Anyway, I suppose I have a certain "natural" disdain for what people
learn in college. I guess I'm just getting old. Please don't take it
personally.
And I DO admit to being biased for Israel, unashamedly, altho I don't
think I'm anywhere near the extreme.
>> Well, I think my first post in this thread involved the automatic
>> acceptance of the idea that there is a distinct "Palestinian people"
>> who are deserving of their own state, for whatever reasons.
>
>"...the automatic acceptance..."
>
>The assumption that it was "automatic" is in direct conflict with the posts
>of those who said they support this position. For you to assume that it is
>"automatic", in direct conflict with what they said, says more about your
>biases than theirs.
I think MOST Americans accept it automatically. In MY experience,
most people to whom I challenge the assumption seem to react as if I'd
said the earth is flat. If Gordon, you, or any others have questioned
that position before I brought it up, I apologize. But to argue for
the assumption after I claim it to be untrue does NOT mean someone
questioned it beforehand.
And, fwiw, I seem to recall (I'm not up to reviewing all his posts in
this regard right now) that Gordon's arguments centered that there
didn't have to be a ethnically separate "Palestinian people" for there
to be justification for a Palestinian state. Or even "another"
Palestinian state (my distinction, not his). With which I happen to
agree. I just maintain that it's the reason that the Arabs give, and
that most people accept, and that essentially every other separatist
insurgency uses.
>www.csmonitor.com
>
>Don't forget the novicane.<g>
Thanks.
>> It IS significant that they are civilians, acting independently and
>> without government sanction or military back-up. If the term is used
>> in that context, it is appropriate.
>
>Certainly. But I dare you to find a single article saying that Arab
>"civilians" (as opposed to government-backed groups) attacked anyone with
>lethal weapons. If they are Arab civilians committing such crimes, they are
>called terrorists. Sometimes Fundamentalists or extremists. But never
>"civilians".
I'll agree that most Americans, media and otherwise, are quick to
label Arabs as terrorists and reticent to label Israelis as such. I
think the history of Arab terrorism accounts for most of that, but
I'll still grant the point that there is unfair prejudice. The recent
events don't much help their cause in that regard.
Still, it might be kinda meaningless to call them "civilians," since
there is not really a Palestinian military. Even the PLA police force
is technically civilian. The distinction is made, I think, because
when the Israeli govt kills a Palestinian (disregarding the issue of
whether it's justified or not), it is the military that does it. The
media is probably trying to make the distinction between official
Israeli action (military) and those of the West Bank Jewish settlers
(civilian). But you're correct that these people can, and should,
often be labeled terrorists.
>If you compare similar violence from both sides, and look at what the
>criminals are called, only Israelis are called "citizens" in the mainstream
>media, and only Arabs are called "terrorists", and the general tendency is
>for the language describing the Israeli criminals to be "softer" that that
>used to describe the Arab criminals. The language is biased.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Goldberg, or Goldfarb, or
whatever his name was, the American Jew who shot up that mosque in
Hebron, labelled a terrorist? And weren't the guys who assassinated
Rabin as well? I may be wrong about that--but they weren't called
very nice things, at least not within the circles I travel in.
>> I realize that the subject has not come up here, but I DO consider it
>> anti-semitism when someone jumps in to criticize Israel for some
>> wrong, real or perceived, IF they have never criticized anyone else
>> for the same thing. It's not enough to say, after the fact, "Well, of
>> course, that was wrong too." There has to be something that causes
>> the former to excite one's passions enough to feel they must speak
>> out, when the latter moves them not at all.
>
>And I most certainly don't. Indeed, I must admit that it disturbs me that
>you do.
>
>If you are against the government of some Muslim country, or even the
>governmental practices of many or most, are you anti-Muslim? If you are
>against the EU, are you anti-Christian, or anti-white? Israel is not
>Judaism, Jew is not synonymous with Israeli. They are separate, even though
>they overlap.
If someone was "against" every Muslim country (as many Americans are),
I might be tempted to believe they were anti-Muslim. These is,
afterall, only one Jewish nation.
Being against the EU is different altogether, because those who are
against it, are really against the political concept, not the people
who are members.
Altho I suppose an awful lot of Muslims are. The Bin Laden types, and
the people who support him. They really do hate all "infidels" and a
lot of the anti-Israel feelings among Arabs are rooted in a belief
that Israel is a Western country. In fact, the Nazi-brand of
anti-semitism had a fairly recent introduction into the Arab world,
altho there was some of it before this century. In any case, it is
well-rooted now.
I will say again that I don't consider everyone who criticizes Israel
as being anti-Semitic. (please pardon any prior misspellings--I think
I must always choke on that word). What I question is why some people
are so quick to criticize Israel for what other nations, Muslim and
Christian (and even Buddhist?), do all the time. Or even the fact
that there IS a Jewish nation, when there are so many of the others.
Israeli does not equal Jew, but what else is there, really, that
distinguishes Israel from any other country? What have they done that
is different from what others have done? Or still do?
>If you aren't Jewish and you criticize Israel too much, you are
>anti-Semetic. Jim Ennes has a good (even if incorrect) reason to be angry
>with the Israeli government, but that doesn't make him anti-Semetic, though
>it may make him anti-Israeli (though he doesn't look so to me, so far).
>Whether or not he is is a different issue.
>
>I find calling someone anti-Semetic when he is, at worst, anti-Israel, to be
>a demonizing and an unfair tactic, much the same as, but considerably worse
>than, telling people who criticize the government of this country they are
>"un-American". I find that the use of the term "anti-Semetism" to describe
>"excessive" criticism of Israel, when no evidence of criticism of the Jews
>as a whole can be found, to be offensive.
Why is it more offensive than, for example, calling someone
un-American? Altho perhaps that's not a good example. What if you
called someone racist? Is that more or less offensive?
It's hard for me to come up with a racial comparison, since there are
many black nations and many black groups. But I do think there are
people who are more critical of black leaders, for example, when they
do or say stupid things, than they are of white leaders who do the
same thing. At least some of those people are clearly racist, and it
is the racism that motivates their opinions about specific words or
deeds.
This may be way off the subject, but here goes anyway. I had a friend
in college who was half-Japanese. Her father was a US serviceman who
married a Japanese woman he met during the occupation. When they were
stationed in Alabama (back in the 60s), she would be criticized for
dating a black boy, by "friends" who had no problem with the fact that
she was the product of an interracial relationship. Heck, they didn't
even think about it that way, because they were bigotted against
blacks in a way that they were not against Asians.
Am I making any sense here? Or has my brain turned to mush from
spending too much time at this. I think I may need lunch.
Maybe we're having a disconnect going from the individual to the
collective. If you say "Israel sucks" and I say, then, "you're
anti-semitic," that would be unfair (unless you've said something
else, as James did about the wealth and influence of American
Jews--which I ignored, btw--to reinforce the opinion). But if I say,
there are alot of people who say "Israel sucks" and one of the reasons
for that is antisemitism, I don't think that's unfair, or even untrue.
I will admit that we Jews are often too quick to charge anti-semitism.
As a feminist, I have to guard against blaming sexism for slights that
have nothing to do with it. Blacks have the same problem with racism.
But that's not to say none of the above exist, or that they are not
frequently a root cause.
Let me ask you this, again somewhat off-topic. Do you think the
Holocaust deniers are anti-semitic? Because I think they either are
that, or incredibly ignorant. Or both.
>> I am reminded of those who were quick to criticize the US for the bad
>> we did in VietNam, but who remained silent about far worse on the part
>> of the Viet Cong. It doesn't make what we did less wrong, but it does
>> make the motives of those who criticize suspect.
>
>If my goal is to point up US attrocities, for any number of perfectly
>acceptable reasons, then this is exactly how I should go about it.
>Mentioning other attrocities distracts from your message. Do you go out of
>your way to bring up points that detract from your message when you are
>trying to get an unpopular message out? I often do, and it works badly as a
>convincing tactic. I wouldn't recommend it; I do it for personal reasons.
As an American, you have a right, even a duty, to criticize America
for what it does wrong. If a Frenchman, for example, does so, it
might indeed be considered anti-American, if he chooses to ignore the
what his own country has done or is doing, or what some other country
does.
Not necessarily in the same argument, of course. I'll grant you the
point that you only bring up items that support whatever argument
you're trying to make, as do I. I was speaking of attitudes overall.
That all said, I do think there's an element of anti-Americanism that
causes some people to criticize this country in certain circumstances.
Or when they disregard all that is good about it, to focus on what is
bad.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20140
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:36:30 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 14:26:09 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>This wasn't supposed to have been sent. It was a preliminary list of links I
>was collecting, but was not only just started, but not yet reviewed. My
>apologies. Jai is quite correct; that site looks pretty bad.
Why thank you. It would have been much easier for you to say nothing,
and I appreciate your reassessment.
Fwiw, I had intended to post a note that your Library of Congress link
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html
looked much better to me, but I hadn't had a chance to read thru it as
thoroughly as I would have liked. So based on a quick check, I give
it four out of five stars.
Just kidding!
Seriously tho, I haven't given JT a source precisely because I'm sort
of at a loss as to where to find a truly balanced account. Or at the
least, one that is close, given that no one can be totally without
bias.
As I said in the other thread, most of my knowledge was acquired over
many years, and I have, thus far, only sought out sites on the web to
check a particular fact or find background on a specific topic.
I did find a reference to a pamphlet "The Middle-East for Dummies"
<g>, but as it was being pushed by a very pro-Israeli site, I decided
it probably wasn't fair to foist it on someone who has little or no
depth on all the issues.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20141
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:42:49 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
<sprocketeer1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3BCE81B0.2020801@earthlink.net...
<snip> One of my favorite catchphrases is, "The book was better." The book
is always
> better. I'm not asking for miracles, I just want filmmakers who adapt
from
> good books to just stop pissing on the source material.
>
Give me a couple days to come up with some concrete examples, but I will
politely disagree with the absolute statement that "The book is always
better." I've waded through some incomprehensible printed dreck only to
find that when actors, cinematographer, director, composer, editor, and the
rest of a ~skilled~ production company get through with the work--The Movie
is better. (I'm going to use movie to mean all visual presentations.)
Sometimes, as with the questionable project under discussion, you wind up
with two (or more) works sharing the same title, character names, and
superficial plot outline but otherwise bearing no family resemblance to each
other. Rarely there comes a wonderful movie that so compliments the print
version that you almost have to shelve them together. (I like the Anne of
Green Gables series starring Megan Follows, Colleen Dewhearst, and Richard
Farnsworth in this category.) Mostly movies and books are "apples and
oranges"-- both tell the same story but there are limits to each medium.
Just my nickel's worth. (I couldn't let an absolute statement go
unchallenged.)
--
Later,
`rita
Almost live from Finley, WA.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20142
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 16:56:22 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3BD0716B.5EB9B507@dfci.harvard.edu>, Eli Hestermann writes...
....
> I think the original point, "Is the U.S. better off not supporting Israel?"
> is an interesting and pertinent discussion to have, but you, Gordon, and
> James aren't going to reach agreement on it. You each have an ax to grind.
> Gordon's made his bias clear,
Thanks for noting my clarity of expression. It might be easier to be
clear than correct, but it is still a challenge. And a sharp ax is much
more useful than a dull opinion. ;-)
....
> Those of us without a strong bias
> aren't going to get involved, because either 1) we don't have a good enough
> grasp of the facts (JT admitted to this, and tried to steer the thread to
> something more productive), or 2) we don't really want the headache of
> debating someone (or several someones) whose opinion cannot change. For me,
> it's both.
FWIW, my opinion on whether the U.S. is better off supporting Israel
/has/ changed over time. It is true that it has not changed in some time,
and I doubt that it will change easily. I hope that we all feel that way with
regard to opinions we think we have good reason to hold. A person who changes
his or her mind too quickly is unlikely to teach me much. But while a
few exchanges here are unlikely to change my mind, each such conversation
has the possibility of providing me with new information and arguments,
and who knows where that might lead.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20143
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:35:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> It wasn't Panshin. It may have been Panshin quoting someone
> else, however.
No, for a change it was Thomas Disch.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20144
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:39:34 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Eli Hestermann wrote:
> I think the original point, "Is the U.S. better off not supporting
> Israel?" is an interesting and pertinent discussion to have, but
> you, Gordon, and James aren't going to reach agreement on it.
Unless something I've said has been misconstrued, I haven't said word
one about support for Israel or not. I think part of Jai's problem is
that she's read my posts as anti-Israel and anti-support as well as
anti-Semitic.
They are none of the three. I think that the Liberty incident deserves a
full retrospective investigation, and I believe that such an
investigation would show that Israel has some serious contrition due.
(It could well show something else, but only if new evidence shows up
that supports their claims.) I have not attached any of my discussion to
pros or cons of the nation, the people or US support therefor.
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20145
From: SynABit@kc.invalid (Dennis Doms)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:45:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bcf39f1.0@news.sff.net>, "Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
wrote:
>No thanks. I prefer something moderately secure. 802.11b has broken
>encryption; people have actually demonstrated the ability to eavesdrop on
>banking networks using it.
>
>Filksinger
For Internet sharing, it may not be a factor. It's not like the Internet is
secure for normal sessions, either.
I use 802.11b, but not for anything that needs to be secure. If I were, I'd
set up encryption for any sensitive node-to-node connections. (And these days
I'd consider that even for wired connections.)
Remember that anything that displays on your screen is TEMPEST fodder anyway.
:)
--
Dennis Doms SynABit@kc.invalid http://home.earthlink.net/~chemsleuth
[replace "invalid" with "rr.com" for valid mail]
"It doesn't matter if we turn to dust; turn and turn and turn we must
I guess I'll see you, dancing in the ruins tonight..."
-- Blue Oyster Cult
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20146
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:49:11 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
> <sprocketeer1@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3BCE81B0.2020801@earthlink.net...
> <snip> One of my favorite catchphrases is, "The book was better." The book
> is always
>
>>better. I'm not asking for miracles, I just want filmmakers who adapt
>>
> from
>
>>good books to just stop pissing on the source material.
>>
>>
> Give me a couple days to come up with some concrete examples, but I will
> politely disagree with the absolute statement that "The book is always
> better."
Certainly, I phrased it as an absolute. But at best, my statement was
merely 99% accurate.
I can think of a perennial example where the book is worse than the film:
your average novelization. Such books are usually horrible, I'd say 99%
are crap. The only concrete counterexample I can think of is Orson Scott
Card's novelization of The Abyss. It's about the only novelization which has
remained in print years after the film's release. Of course, it took a rather
unlikely set of circumstances to produce such a book: A "name" author who was
willing to work for less money, willing to work on something for which he
would not retain copyright, able to deliver clean copy at the last possible
moment, a director with the clout to get the manuscript's delivery deadline
pushed back to that last possible moment, the clout to get the studio to let
him give the author access to the set, the script, the research material,
the dailies and rough edits, and the clout to just say no when studio weasels
wanted access to the manuscript so that they could "tsk, tsk this won't do"
and mark their territory on it. Consequently, the book makes a good companion
piece to the film; the author gets to explore in text what the director could
not visually, such as the aliens' motivations. Mr. Card was also able to provide
each of the three main characters a compelling backstory. It matches the director's
cut of the film very well.
I'd be interested to hear some concrete examples of where the film was better
than the book, novelizations notwithstanding.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20147
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:53 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:23:00 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>Other than your assumptions (false, in my opinion) about the political tone
>of the school (my teacher was a pro-Israeli conservative, who disagreed but
>gave me an A for use of proper technique and for depth),
As a real aside to the conversation as a whole ;), I think teachers
like this are becoming increasingly hard to find. I remember many of
my peers in political-science-type classes that complained that their
profs only wanted them to spout back what _they_ believed.
To really lighten the tone: My junior year of college, I took a media
class in which we were required to do a term paper. Since the prof
said it could be about anything in any media, my love of comic books
finally paid off with " Levels of Darkness in Batman (from the 30s to
the 90s) relating to Sexual Attitudes". After I pulled that one off,
in my senior year I wrote "Who's Better: Superman or Batman?".
Which may explain why a State University of New York diploma doesn't
mean so much anymore..... <G>
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20148
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 19:36:30 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>I did find a reference to a pamphlet "The Middle-East for Dummies"
><g>, but as it was being pushed by a very pro-Israeli site, I decided
>it probably wasn't fair to foist it on someone who has little or no
>depth on all the issues.
I'll admit that I hadn't even looked at the links yet, so I'll take
the comments here into account.
And I have found an _Idiot's Guide to the Middle-East_ published by
the Idiot's Guide people but in reader reviews it was said to be
fairly "pro-Israel" in the writing style/presentation--so much so that
it was distracting from the ample facts of the book. I'm still
willing to take a look at that one for the major points of the
conflict but I'm not committing any dollars just yet.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20149
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:54 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 23:12:24 -0400, "William J. Keaton"
<wjake@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>JT that's interesting. I have Win98SE on my computer, and I copy of Win2k. I
>had installed Win2K and wasn't really thrilled with it. So I'm not sure
>which way to go (if any) with an upgrade. Maybe I need to try Win2K now that
>I have upped my processor speed to 1.4G.
>
Well, on the same machine I had Win98SE, then upgraded to Win2K. I
was very happy with the OS--much more stable, if a process was fluky
the taskmanager kill would let you restart it.
However, Christine had a few legacy games that just didn't work right,
no matter how much I tweaked compatibility settings. So I listened to
her pleadings, wiped the machine, and went back to Win98SE.
Now we reboot the d@mn thing a couple times a day because it freezes
or we get GPFs. I can't wait to move ahead again.
Under Win2K, two of my peripherals were flaky, but that was more the
product support than an OS issue, in my opinion. I hope that for XP
they will have put the time into upgrading, and where it is the next
consumer upgrade I expect they will have. But I will be checking
before I actually install it--otherwise it will go on my laptop. ;)
As far as the product activation goes, from what I've been reading
there is an algorithm that involves several components at once being
swapped out. Somewhere on the web there's a report from a tech lab
that claims to have reverse-engineered the algorithm. I'm hearing
various claims from people using the Office XP activation and betas of
WinXP that either say it was easy as pie or they're heading for a
fall.
--JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20150
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 18:09:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 11:04:37 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>On Geo's logic, an insurance company's policies cost them nothing until a
>claim payment is actually made. That is a true statement about their cash
>position, but no accountant or economist would let them count that as
>income. You have to take the expected value of the loss into consideration.
>If you make enough loan guarentees to enough people, you will have to pay on
>some of them.
Heh. Insurance reserving is probably not one of the things you
want to lecture me on. Unless you're an actuary?
Unfortunately, our government doesn't do it the proper way anyway
whether it be loan guarantees or anything else.
I wasn't sure what Filk was implying so I asked in the hopes that
he would clarify. Most people when they start griping about
guarantees credit it as money spent irregardless of how it turns out
in actuality.
I *have* heard the accusation that Israel is not allowed to
default by raising their yearly allocation by the amount of the
payments on the understanding that they will use the extra money to
pay the loan. Don't know if its true, but it is one of the
accusations out there. If so tho it is already included in the yearly
total and the guarantee shouldn't be credited again separately.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20151
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:10:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <e3j1ttgjuare7ssinuvr5gbbgpapk1rf9q@4ax.com>, Geo Rule
writes...
....
> Heh. Insurance reserving is probably not one of the things you
> want to lecture me on. Unless you're an actuary?
I don't have a lecture on tap, nor am I an actuary. But I do know a
little about financial concepts.
....
> I wasn't sure what Filk was implying so I asked in the hopes that
> he would clarify. Most people when they start griping about
> guarantees credit it as money spent irregardless of how it turns out
> in actuality.
And many people don't think a guarantee has any cost unless it is
actually paid. I took your question "Have they defaulted?" as evidence
that you were in that camp. But I am happy to know that I somehow
misunderstood you.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20152
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:26:17 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:31:08 -0400, Eli Hestermann
<Eli_Hestermann@dfci.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Given how this thread has gone, it's probably best that James has added you
>to his killfile. The fact that no one has said, "No, don't do it!" doesn't
>mean the rest of us are ready to do the same. It simply means (IMO) that
>given where this thing's been and appears to be headed, it's probably true
>that you two aren't going to have productive discussions in the future.
>He's not reading your response, and the rest of us still reading have
>decided already what we think about the situation. If it's cathartic for
>you to line up the posts and go through it again, then please do, but
>otherwise it's best to let it go.
Well, it WAS cathartic, and it helped me assure myself that I really
hadn't been out of line. Imho, of course.
>I think the original point, "Is the U.S. better off not supporting Israel?"
>is an interesting and pertinent discussion to have, but you, Gordon, and
>James aren't going to reach agreement on it. You each have an ax to grind.
>Gordon's made his bias clear, I think I have a handle on yours, and I have
>no clue what James' is, but I doubt anyone lists "smoking out blind
>apologists for Israel" as a casual hobby. Those of us without a strong bias
>aren't going to get involved, because either 1) we don't have a good enough
>grasp of the facts (JT admitted to this, and tried to steer the thread to
>something more productive), or 2) we don't really want the headache of
>debating someone (or several someones) whose opinion cannot change. For me,
>it's both.
LOL. I don't argue to change someone's opinion. At least, not
usually the someone I'm arguing with. I argue because it helps me
develop my own rationales, define my beliefs, marshal my facts. And
because it's fun--I'm really a cantankerous old b*tch. Under my
Pollyanna exterior, of course. <bg>
>In short, further debate is highly unlikely to change anyone's mind. I
>wouldn't worry that whoever gets the last word will sway HF opinion to hir
>side. Each of you has posted long enough that I think we've formed opinions
>of you independently of this thread. I know I have.
<Gulp> I hope you didn't mean that to be as ominous as it sounded.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20153
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:27:25 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:33:07 -0400, "Gordon Sollars"
<gsollars@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >What point? That Israel is a strange "ally" for spying on us? That was
>> >/my/ point. Or does Pollard's conviction have nothing to do with the
>> >government of Israel's culpability?
>
>I recognize that the point of your post was to clarify the discussion
>between you and James, but since he is no longer reading your posts, let me
>take this opportunity at ask again, what was your point?
I hope I'm understanding your question. You mean my point that the
first, earlier paragraph refers to? That was when James said,
sarcastically, that all the ussliberty.com types are "anti-semitic,
anti-Zionist, rabblerousers," and I said, rather abruptly, "Yes, they
are." And then followed up with a post as to why I thought at least
some of them are. But, as I admitted in my last post, I confused your
remark with James'. So I'm not sure whether it's relevant anymore.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20154
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:27:35 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 13:26:19 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:
>But the turn in content in this newsgroup over the
>past few weeks has bothered me deeply, and I think I'll find somewhere else
>to hang out for a while.
Oh, BigC, please don't leave because of me. You know how I sometimes
get carried away with some topics, or some posters <g>. Just don't
read this thread, if you must. There's still plenty of friendly
conversation going on.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20155
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:28:34 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 14:39:34 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Unless something I've said has been misconstrued, I haven't said word
>one about support for Israel or not. I think part of Jai's problem is
>that she's read my posts as anti-Israel and anti-support as well as
>anti-Semitic.
>
>They are none of the three. I think that the Liberty incident deserves a
>full retrospective investigation, and I believe that such an
>investigation would show that Israel has some serious contrition due.
>(It could well show something else, but only if new evidence shows up
>that supports their claims.) I have not attached any of my discussion to
>pros or cons of the nation, the people or US support therefor.
Note:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 09:30:08 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Israel is only an "ally" because the Jewish population of the US is
>larger, wealthier, better-connected and more vocal than the Arab/Muslim
>population. It makes no sense in any other respect.
>
>Making an ally of one outnumbered, outcast, isolated, warrior-ethic
>nation with serious internal human-rights issues, little strategic value
>and no natural resources is stupid and shortsighted, and always has
>been.
>
>Now more than ever, the US needs a realistic policy for the Middle East,
>one that does not revolve first, foremost and last around Israel.>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20156
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:34:18 GMT
Subject: Re: Israel/Palestine
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:54 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
> And I have found an _Idiot's Guide to the Middle-East_ published by
>the Idiot's Guide people but in reader reviews it was said to be
>fairly "pro-Israel" in the writing style/presentation--so much so that
>it was distracting from the ample facts of the book.
Just as it's nearly impossible to find a balanced account, it's just
as hard to find unbiased reviews of any account. The "Idiot's Guide"
could even be anti-Israel, and you would find many who would claim a
pro-Israel bias.
Note, I'm not saying that it IS pro- or anti-Israel. I haven't read
it. I'm just saying there's no easy way to know what to believe. And
for that reason, I'm not sure you're gonna find a single source you
can trust. At best, you need to read several. Just be aware of who
your sources are, I guess.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20157
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:38:04 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:49:11 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>I'd be interested to hear some concrete examples of where the film was better
>than the book, novelizations notwithstanding.
I thought "Cidar House Rules" was better as a movie than as a book.
And Irving wrote both. But the book was too damned long (altho I
liked it overall--I like long books). Still, the movie was much more
effective, maybe because it didn't try to cover as much.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20158
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:03:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:38:04 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:49:11 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>I'd be interested to hear some concrete examples of where the film was better
>>than the book, novelizations notwithstanding.
>
>I thought "Cidar House Rules" was better as a movie than as a book.
>And Irving wrote both. But the book was too damned long (altho I
>liked it overall--I like long books). Still, the movie was much more
>effective, maybe because it didn't try to cover as much.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. The production values really helped
--the book was kind of dry, y'know?
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20159
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 21:12:39 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 03:27:35 GMT, hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai
Johnson-Pickett) wrote:
>
>Oh, BigC, please don't leave because of me. You know how I sometimes
>get carried away with some topics, or some posters <g>. Just don't
>read this thread, if you must. There's still plenty of friendly
>conversation going on.
Actually, much like the middle-east, that was actually an old
hatchet being exhumed and not BigC promising to leave.
Hey, BigC --I'm actually on the verge of starting it finally!
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20160
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 06:05:59 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>I'd be interested to hear some concrete examples of where the film was better
>than the book, novelizations notwithstanding.
I found "Logan's Run" the movie to be better than the book. The book
was long, dry and rambling with little focus.
I also thought "Hunt for Red October" the movie was better than the
book. The book was loaded with flat, unfleshed out characters whereas
the movie gave them substance (the sub captain as a primary example).
The book also dragged quite a bit. The movie kept the important
elements of the book yet gave it more drama and suspense and _far_
better pacing.
"Great Escape"--movie was better than the book. I'd rather rewatch
the movie than reread the book (I've read the book 2 or 3 times,
however). The book is okay but the author did not put in nearly the
sense of drama, tension, and character development that the movie had.
The movie, of course, made factual changes to enhance the story for
the medium but not so far removed from history as to make it untrue.
Pretty much any Louis L'Amour book made into a movie. His generally
generic plotlines, characters and prose are very much improved by the
addition of good actors who create characters with distinctive
personalities and traits, good visuals, and movie-outline pacing (that
is 3 plotpoints with the major one in the middle).
"Ride With the Devil" is pretty close to 50/50. The movie is almost
exactly the same as the book but I'd have to give the edge to the
movie for the addition of the visuals, great action sequences, and
subtle character interactions missing from the book, though the book
had a few wry comments I'd have liked to see in the movie.
A _good_ book to movie transition usually is from a book that does
not lean heavily on internal character thought. That's a huge reason
"Dune" doesn't work on screen--too much of the book take place inside
a number of characters' heads. A good actor can convey much internal
thought processes with a look or certain gleam in the eye, but they
can't convey lengthy passages of internal monologue.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20161
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:25:07 -0500
Subject: Re: Win XP DONT DO IT YET!!!!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:epmpst0mhbvl9r1k8mha8hbnbf35anbua8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:21:46 -0700, James Gifford
> <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Why? You don't love her any more? :) :) :)
> >
>
> Oh, thaaaaanks. Remind me to "help" you with *your* marriage one of
> these days!<g>
>
> What JT said --we're still WinME, so it does make sense. I tried
> Win2K on our main machine some months ago and ended up bailing out.
> ACPI hell (internal DSL modem didn't like sharing with the home
> network), Internet Connection Sharing didn't work quite right, and
> networking to the WinME boxes wasn't reliable either. And customer
> support people for consumer-type peripherals sounded downright
> frightened when I tried to get them to help me with Win2K.
Know why? None of the customer support reps had an advance look at Win 2K
until it was released commercially. Microsoft does NOT pass around free
copies of its Windows OS so that tech people can provide technical support.
Microsoft is of the opinion that it is the job of peripheral makers to make
sure their software works with Windows, not Microsoft's job to make sure
their OS works with the myriad peripherals out in the marketplace. Beta
versions. Hah!
Makers of printers, scanners, etc. spend a great deal of money to develop
software that works with their equipment. In my opinion, a manufacturer is
under no obligation to retrofit its software for an OS that didn't exist
when the product left the factory. What are they supposed to do, stop
working on new products? That is hardly the way to foster innovation.
And Geo ... as a former tech rep, I have to tell you this: Anyone who
upgrades an OS *before* making sure his/her peripherals are compatible gets
what he/she deserves.
I asked a guy once why he upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. He
couldn't think of one reason why he did so; Win 98 worked fine for him. He
knew how it worked and it never crashed on him. He couldn't name ONE feature
in Win2000 that he needed. But when he upgraded, his $500 multi-fuction
system didn't work.
It must have been the pretty, shiny box Win2000 came in!
I have been reading with amusement all the reviews telling people to run --
not walk -- to the store and buy Windows Xp and that is the most stable OS
ever invented. Which is what they said about Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0,
Windows NT, Windows Me, Windows, 98 and Windows 95.
Myself, I refuse to pay $99 or more to test for bugs in commercially
released software. Wait to buy Windows Xp
> Choosing Deb's PC was a process of elimination ("How long have you
> been wanting to eliminate your wife, Mr. Rule?"). We have a WinXP
> upgrade coming for the Dell laptop, but I suspect it will be tied to
> that machine and Compaq claims that I shouldn't expect to see it until
> December (!) anyway. Her laptop is the slowest machine in the house
> (Cel 466 192mb RAM), and I think I am SOL on the main machine until I
> do something about this internal DSL modem. MS doesn't list *any* PCI
> DSL modems on their HCL, and 3Com has stopped support on their modems
> since they bailed out on the business. So that ain't looking good
> until I switch.
>
> Deb has enuf machine to make it go and no weird hardware. Also, she
> does the most multi-tasking (desktop publishing/web design) and gets
> the most crashes as a result, so she will benefit the most from the
> added stability. Uhh. . .better check that her Snappy won't be a
> problem. I know parallel port stuff was known to be a bitch under the
> NT kernal.
>
>
>
> Geo Rule
>
> www.civilwarstlouis.com
> ****
> Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
> the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
> Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
> the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
>
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20162
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:28:12 -0500
Subject: Re: Wireless Networking
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:v4psst8qf800n029t2rqks6e7pmcv4q3tl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:10:27 -0700, James Gifford
> <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >But it was relatively cheap, and after the initial problem, works like a
> >champ.
> >
> >If you route an external DSL modem directly into the WLAN router/AP, you
> >could put it anywhere (in a closet, for example - up high is good for
> >range) and use wireless adapters on all your computers. Not the bottom
> >dollar solution, but not expensive, either. And much neater and more
> >flexible.
> >
> >The Linksys router can be had for $200 (Buy.com); the Orinoco USB client
> >for about $150, and the PC Cards for about $105 (both from Gateway.com).
>
> I'm definitely jealous. Trying to decide whether to switch from
> Bob's telephone (Citizen) and go to ATT Broadband as well. Had a 1
> year deal with Bob, but it is just about up. Getting good reports on
> speed from the people at work who have the cable setup.
It's a fast as hell. I have NO problems, except the $42 monthly bill (which
will be less of a problem thanx to the new job.)
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
Editor -- Peoria Times-Observer
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20163
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:33:21 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BD09C8F.8A687360@surewest.net...
> Geo Rule wrote:
> > It wasn't Panshin. It may have been Panshin quoting someone
> > else, however.
>
> No, for a change it was Thomas Disch.
Have we have forgotten the rule: Mention Panshin and Panshin shows up and
starts annoying people?
No one wants *that* to happen, right? ;-)
Besides, the merits of the Starship Troopers move (or lack thereof) have
been discussed to death, haven't they?
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
Editor -- Peoria Times-Observer
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20164
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:12:29 -0700
Subject: Re: Wireless Networking
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William B. Dennis 2nd" wrote:
> It's a fast as hell. I have NO problems, except the $42 monthly
> bill...
Oi. Youse guys don't want to know what our combined comm bill is around
here... :) :(
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20165
From: James Gifford <jgifford@surewest.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:13:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William B. Dennis 2nd" wrote:
> Have we have forgotten the rule: Mention Panshin and Panshin shows
> up and starts annoying people?
Well, he certainly proves the old bumperstickerism:
"Summon Demon is a 1st-order spell.
Control Demon is a sixth-order spell."
:)
--
| James Gifford - Nitrosyncretic Press - gifford@nitrosyncretic.com |
| See http://www.nitrosyncretic.com for the Heinlein FAQ & more |
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20166
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:44:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:13:42 -0700, James Gifford
<jgifford@surewest.net> wrote:
>Well, he certainly proves the old bumperstickerism:
>
>"Summon Demon is a 1st-order spell.
> Control Demon is a sixth-order spell."
>
>:)
Heh. Y'know, if I was collecting additions to Woodie's Wisdom
(Notebooks of Lazarus Long --the Apocrypha) that would make the list.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20167
From: Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 11:40:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Novelizations don't really count, do they? When I think of "The Book" I
mean something that was in print and the filmmaker had to buy the rights to
it not pay someone to write it.
I think Deb gives some great examples. I'm still wading through I, CLAUDIUS
by Robert Graves after 4 months and still have CLAUDIUS THE GOD to find.
Give me the new set of DVDs with Derek Jacoby! ("I, Claudius," Image
Entertainment, 1976, 740 minutes <BBC miniseries later aired on PBS>)
For me, I'll add anything by Hemmingway and Faulkner. I can't read those
guys.
Foriegn books often make more sense in film than in translation. Perhaps,
it's better to say foriegn books make more sense to us in conjunction with
film. Especially, a film made in the country of origin. With language
"drift" and conotation changes, film is often the only way our youth and the
non-english major are exposed to the classics. (I can't get young people to
read books over *ten* years old becuse they don't understand the language!)
Bad filmaking like bad publishing is a sin against humanity. (attack my
absolute now, PLEASE!)
I admit, based on comments by this group, I have NOT seen ST:TM. I was
turned off by an Anglo Johnny to begin with and as more obvious nits came to
light I just put the movie out of my conciousness. I suffered through
X-Men, Batman Returns, and a couple other movies I really looked forward to
and just couldn't take the disappointment of having one of my top three RAH
novels destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20168
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:09:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:54 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>
>Under Win2K, two of my peripherals were flaky, but that was more the
>product support than an OS issue, in my opinion. I hope that for XP
>they will have put the time into upgrading, and where it is the next
>consumer upgrade I expect they will have. But I will be checking
>before I actually install it--otherwise it will go on my laptop. ;)
>
Exactly. That is the real long-term benefit of XP to Win2K users
--getting the consumer type software/hardware developers (and their
cusotmer support people) working on making their products better for
them as a primary goal instead of an afterthought.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20169
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:35:02 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP DONT DO IT YET!!!!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:25:07 -0500, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
<dwilliam16@home.com> wrote:
>
>Know why? None of the customer support reps had an advance look at Win 2K
>until it was released commercially. Microsoft does NOT pass around free
>copies of its Windows OS so that tech people can provide technical support.
>
I *didn't* try to go early on Win2k. It had been out a full
*year* before I tried it. I still gots of fear and . . ."uh, yours
won't look like this" explanations.
>Makers of printers, scanners, etc. spend a great deal of money to develop
>software that works with their equipment. In my opinion, a manufacturer is
>under no obligation to retrofit its software for an OS that didn't exist
>when the product left the factory. What are they supposed to do, stop
>working on new products? That is hardly the way to foster innovation.
>
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Me, when I evaluate
a hardware purchase one of the things I evaluate is their record for
taking care of my purchase *over time*. Sometimes it still doesn't
work out --I would have thot 3Com was a lock for good modem support
with their history in the business. Then they dropped the business
entirely. It happens.
>And Geo ... as a former tech rep, I have to tell you this: Anyone who
>upgrades an OS *before* making sure his/her peripherals are compatible gets
>what he/she deserves.
I agree. . up to a point. Due diligence and all that, but at
some point you actually have to *do* the upgrade and see the results.
When I take the time to ensure that I have the latest drivers from the
manufacturer before the upgrade and that they are for the new OS, I
think I've done my part and am entitled to have them work.
>
>I asked a guy once why he upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. He
>couldn't think of one reason why he did so; Win 98 worked fine for him. He
>knew how it worked and it never crashed on him. He couldn't name ONE feature
>in Win2000 that he needed. But when he upgraded, his $500 multi-fuction
>system didn't work.
>
>It must have been the pretty, shiny box Win2000 came in!
>
Me, I've been trying to squish a particular bug for 15 months.
Upgrading from Win98SE to WinME didn't squish it. Win2K did squish it
--but the cost was too high in other areas that didn't work as well
they should have, even tho I had the latest Win2K drivers from the
manufacturers.
This particular bug causes DUN to crash intermittently on the
machine serving ICS to the rest of the network. When it crashes you
cannot kill it without rebooting the computer. A small annoyance, but
sometimes a couple times a day Deb has to come from her office and
reboot the server in the library so she can use the internet in her
office. It isn't the end of Western Civilization --but it also
shouldn't happen. I would like it to stop happening.
I have four computers at home (actually 5, but one is on loan
and is a 486 laptop with no cdrom). Buying a copy of WinXP to
evaluate whether it meets my needs yet doesn't strike me as a
wild-eyed thing to do. Win9x is dead as of next week; the memorial
services will continue for some time.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20170
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 12:41:48 -0700
Subject: Re: Wireless Networking
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:28:12 -0500, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
<dwilliam16@home.com> wrote:
>It's a fast as hell. I have NO problems, except the $42 monthly bill (which
>will be less of a problem thanx to the new job.)
They're coming next Wednesday. No more internal modem, they
promised Win2k/XP compatibility, free installation, $19.95/month for
the first three months, after the first three months it is still
$3/month cheaper than my current DSL, no long-term contract, a fixed
IP address, and by the reports I'm getting it will be 2-5 times faster
than my current 384k.
Now, if it actually works, that would be a pretty good
combination.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20171
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:07:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 00:56:54 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>
>Now we reboot the d@mn thing a couple times a day because it freezes
>or we get GPFs. I can't wait to move ahead again.
>
JT--
Dual boot?
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20172
From: sprocketeer1@earthlink.net
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 16:02:06 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Lorrita Morgan wrote:
> Novelizations don't really count, do they?
Only because most of them are crap. I do recommend the novelization of
The Abyss, however.
> I think Deb gives some great examples. I'm still wading through I, CLAUDIUS
> by Robert Graves after 4 months and still have CLAUDIUS THE GOD to find.
> Give me the new set of DVDs with Derek Jacoby! ("I, Claudius," Image
> Entertainment, 1976, 740 minutes <BBC miniseries later aired on PBS>)
Guess I won't go looking for the books, then. The miniseries is well worth
having on DVD. I dunno what the real Claudius was like, but Graves, Jacobi,
et al managed to make him an interesting and sympathetic character.
'As to the charge that I am half-witted...well what can I say? But that
I have survived, with half my wits while thousands died all around me with
all of theirs intact! Apparently, quality of wits is more important than
quantity.'
>
> I admit, based on comments by this group, I have NOT seen ST:TM. I was
> turned off by an Anglo Johnny to begin with and as more obvious nits came to
> light I just put the movie out of my conciousness.
Nor have I seen it. I could tell from the advertising and the buzz it was
going to be retarded and crippled. Kind of makes one appreciate trailers
and commercials that reveal all too much in the way of plot details.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20173
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:33:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Win XP DONT DO IT YET!!!!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:26j3tt80liftrprr85vjc2cq522n0a8bch@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 01:25:07 -0500, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
> <dwilliam16@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Know why? None of the customer support reps had an advance look at Win 2K
> >until it was released commercially. Microsoft does NOT pass around free
> >copies of its Windows OS so that tech people can provide technical
support.
> >
>
> I *didn't* try to go early on Win2k. It had been out a full
> *year* before I tried it. I still gots of fear and . . ."uh, yours
> won't look like this" explanations.
When I worked in tech support, about 95 percent of the calls I answered were
for Win 9x customers. About 4 percent were for Windows NT and 2000. The rest
were from Apple OS users --- with an occasional Linux user thrown in for our
amusement.
Most of the training we got was on-the-job. That's why we had such a hard
time handling calls from NT, 2000 and Apple OC callers.
It would have been nice to have official training, but that would have meant
time away from the phones ... and more angry callers on hold and less
revenue for the company. I didn't work for the manufacturer of the product,
but for the company contracted to provide tech support. They were paid the
number of minutes we were on the phone with a breathing customer.
I am not defending this practice .. I am simply explaining it.
>
>
> >Makers of printers, scanners, etc. spend a great deal of money to develop
> >software that works with their equipment. In my opinion, a manufacturer
is
> >under no obligation to retrofit its software for an OS that didn't exist
> >when the product left the factory. What are they supposed to do, stop
> >working on new products? That is hardly the way to foster innovation.
> >
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Me, when I evaluate
> a hardware purchase one of the things I evaluate is their record for
> taking care of my purchase *over time*. Sometimes it still doesn't
> work out --I would have thot 3Com was a lock for good modem support
> with their history in the business. Then they dropped the business
> entirely. It happens.
The company for which I worked provided tech support for 3M.
If you base your tech purchases on long-term support, you are in the
minority. Most people will chose to save $5 on the cost of a printer,
scanner, etc., and buy a cheap brand. They will regret it, but then do the
same thing when they replace it.
>
> >And Geo ... as a former tech rep, I have to tell you this: Anyone who
> >upgrades an OS *before* making sure his/her peripherals are compatible
gets
> >what he/she deserves.
>
> I agree. . up to a point. Due diligence and all that, but at
> some point you actually have to *do* the upgrade and see the results.
> When I take the time to ensure that I have the latest drivers from the
> manufacturer before the upgrade and that they are for the new OS, I
> think I've done my part and am entitled to have them work.
Then you did it right, again making you a member of a minority. Most buy an
upgrade because of the pretty box.
>
> >
> >I asked a guy once why he upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows 2000. He
> >couldn't think of one reason why he did so; Win 98 worked fine for him.
He
> >knew how it worked and it never crashed on him. He couldn't name ONE
feature
> >in Win2000 that he needed. But when he upgraded, his $500 multi-fuction
> >system didn't work.
> >
> >It must have been the pretty, shiny box Win2000 came in!
> >
>
> Me, I've been trying to squish a particular bug for 15 months.
> Upgrading from Win98SE to WinME didn't squish it. Win2K did squish it
> --but the cost was too high in other areas that didn't work as well
> they should have, even tho I had the latest Win2K drivers from the
> manufacturers.
>
> This particular bug causes DUN to crash intermittently on the
> machine serving ICS to the rest of the network. When it crashes you
> cannot kill it without rebooting the computer. A small annoyance, but
> sometimes a couple times a day Deb has to come from her office and
> reboot the server in the library so she can use the internet in her
> office. It isn't the end of Western Civilization --but it also
> shouldn't happen. I would like it to stop happening.
>
> I have four computers at home (actually 5, but one is on loan
> and is a 486 laptop with no cdrom). Buying a copy of WinXP to
> evaluate whether it meets my needs yet doesn't strike me as a
> wild-eyed thing to do. Win9x is dead as of next week; the memorial
> services will continue for some time.
With my new job, I will be in the market for a new PC (although I am
thinking of switching to a Mac) and I dread getting a first-release Windows
Xp system. Except for my cable modem, I don't network and my only
peripherals will be a printer and scanner. I simply don't need all the bells
and whistles Xp is promising, but I will have to pay for them anyway.
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
Editor -- Peoria Times-Observer
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20174
From: William B. Dennis 2nd" <dwilliam16@home.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:37:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd1c544.0@news.sff.net...
> Novelizations don't really count, do they? When I think of "The Book" I
> mean something that was in print and the filmmaker had to buy the rights
to
> it not pay someone to write it.
>
> I think Deb gives some great examples. I'm still wading through I,
CLAUDIUS
> by Robert Graves after 4 months and still have CLAUDIUS THE GOD to find.
> Give me the new set of DVDs with Derek Jacoby! ("I, Claudius," Image
> Entertainment, 1976, 740 minutes <BBC miniseries later aired on PBS>)
A great series and a great set of books.
One comment: I am convinced that historians lied about the women in Roman
history. Messilina (Claudius's second wife) could not have been the out of
control slut she is portrayed as being. A contest with a prostitute to see
who could screw the most men in an evening? Oh, please! It sounds like a
letter to Penthouse.
Methinks Robert Graves had a problem with women.
--
William B. Dennis 2nd
Editor -- Peoria Times-Observer
http://peoriatimesobserver.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20175
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:11:34 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Deb Houdek Rule wrote:
> I also thought "Hunt for Red October" the movie was better than the
> book. The book was loaded with flat, unfleshed out characters whereas
> the movie gave them substance (the sub captain as a primary example).
Youch, y'really think so? I guess it just goes to show you that it takes all
kinds: My opinion was exactly 180 degrees out from yours. I thought Marko Ramius
was an extremely well-drawn character in the book, and nothing but a cardboard
cutout as played by Sean Connery (an actor whose work I normally love, BTW).
Further , I thought Alec Baldwin was a disastrous choice as Jack Ryan -- they
should have gone straight to Harrison Ford. Finally, the movie turns the
"caterpillar" drive, which is a perfectly plausible current-technology gadget in
the book, into a sort of underwater warp-drive, despite the fact that making it
bizarrely exotic really adds nothing of value to the storyline.
OTOH, my own favorite example of a movie that's better than the book is a
*different* Clancy work: _Patriot Games_. I found it painful to read (esp. the
scene in which a wounded Ryan dresses down the Prince of Wales like an errant
schoolboy), but even as I was gritting my teeth through it, I was thinking
"This'll make a great movie." Sure enuff....
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20176
From: Bill Dauphin <dauphinb@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:19:09 -0400
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Geo Rule wrote:
> Patriot Games was terrible.
"'To each his own,' said the lady as she kissed the cow!" Note my opinion to
the contrary in my earlier post to Deb.
> A pity too, because I always felt it
> should have been the most easy to turn into a good movie.
Well, here, at least, we agree... except that I would have said "was" in
place of "should have been." ;^)
-JovBill
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20177
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:43:31 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP DONT DO IT YET!!!!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:33:30 -0500, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
<dwilliam16@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>When I worked in tech support, about 95 percent of the calls I answered were
>for Win 9x customers. About 4 percent were for Windows NT and 2000. The rest
>were from Apple OS users --- with an occasional Linux user thrown in for our
>amusement.
>
>Most of the training we got was on-the-job. That's why we had such a hard
>time handling calls from NT, 2000 and Apple OC callers.
>
>It would have been nice to have official training, but that would have meant
>time away from the phones ... and more angry callers on hold and less
>revenue for the company. I didn't work for the manufacturer of the product,
>but for the company contracted to provide tech support. They were paid the
>number of minutes we were on the phone with a breathing customer.
>
>I am not defending this practice .. I am simply explaining it.
>
And I wasn't placing blame; just noting the phenomenon. Tho in
larger support organizations there *is* a solution --dedicated (i.e.
to Win2k only) reps and a skills-based call-center phone system.
Actually, they don't even have to be dedicated, but at 4% it probably
works out better that way. Unless Gifford says differently --it's
probably marginally safer to argue Heinlein with him than phone
systems.<g>
>The company for which I worked provided tech support for 3M.
>If you base your tech purchases on long-term support, you are in the
>minority. Most people will chose to save $5 on the cost of a printer,
>scanner, etc., and buy a cheap brand. They will regret it, but then do the
>same thing when they replace it.
>
Yeah, well I buy cheap once in a while too. But I do it on
purpose and take my lumps and move on when it is time to do so.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20178
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 20:55:28 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 22:19:09 -0400, Bill Dauphin
<dauphinb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>Geo Rule wrote:
>
>> Patriot Games was terrible.
>
>"'To each his own,' said the lady as she kissed the cow!" Note my opinion to
>the contrary in my earlier post to Deb.
>
>> A pity too, because I always felt it
>> should have been the most easy to turn into a good movie.
>
>Well, here, at least, we agree... except that I would have said "was" in
>place of "should have been." ;^)
>
>-JovBill
And to disagree further, I thot Baldwin would have been much
better in Patriot Games. Harrison Ford was too old --remember it was
*first* chronologically. Prince of Wales? What Prince of Wales --it
was some damn absent-minded Lord or other in the movie, wasn't it?
Btw, I believe that Clancy is on record as hating Patriot Games
The Movie. . .
But just to end on a note of agreement --I agree with you and
not my wife on Hunt for Red October, with this caveat --Sean Connory
was the right guy, just not written with enough depth.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20179
Article no longer available
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20180
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:14:19 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"James Gifford" <jgifford@surewest.net> wrote in message
news:3BD09D96.A5B0E9CE@surewest.net...
> Eli Hestermann wrote:
> > I think the original point, "Is the U.S. better off not supporting
> > Israel?" is an interesting and pertinent discussion to have, but
> > you, Gordon, and James aren't going to reach agreement on it.
>
> Unless something I've said has been misconstrued, I haven't said
word
> one about support for Israel or not. I think part of Jai's problem
is
> that she's read my posts as anti-Israel and anti-support as well as
> anti-Semitic.
I don't think that was what Jai meant. In fact, she didn't bring up
the charge of anti-Semetism against the work of Jim Ennes in the first
response, as you claimed she did. You brought it up.
Can you actually find a point where she claims that you or your ideas
are themselves anti-Semetic, rather than Jim Ennes?
> They are none of the three. I think that the Liberty incident
deserves a
> full retrospective investigation, and I believe that such an
> investigation would show that Israel has some serious contrition
due.
> (It could well show something else, but only if new evidence shows
up
> that supports their claims.) I have not attached any of my
discussion to
> pros or cons of the nation, the people or US support therefor.
It might show that, true, and I want an _open_ investigation. However,
it could show something like the link below claims, and, personally, I
think it will. In the last six or seven years, documents in both the
US and Israel have been released that give us a good look into the
entire incident, and the documents paint a picture such that, if it is
a cover-up, you won't be able to prove it by documents.
I do want an open hearing, still, but I doubt it will give a different
answer.
http://www.azure.org.il/9-Oren.htm
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20181
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:17:06 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd05be2.254246385@news.sff.net...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:23:00 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >As I said, though, I believe the Israelis are not truly covering up
> >anything, beyond possibly gross negligence.
>
> I thought the Israelis had admitted to negligence. I do know they
> paid reparations.
They admitted that it was a mistake and their fault. No negligence was
admitted. Negligence is a different matter.
<snip>
> >Certainly it is now admitted that some of the
> >Israeli claims were inaccurate, such as the one that the attack
only
> >happened by plane, only happened for five minutes, and that the
torpedo
> >boats didn't fire but instead offered assistance from the begining.
We also
> >know that there was pressure, at least on the NSA, to accept the
Israeli
> >claims.
>
> Yes, that's true. But many of the claims of those who maintain it
was
> a deliberate attack have been proven wrong as well. I said at the
> very beginning of this I didn't want to get into the particulars. I
> just don't have the knowledge at my fingertips, but I know I have
read
> most of the evidence on both sides in the past, and I just don't
find
> the ussliberty.com evidence compelling enough to set aside the
> official, US Govt-accepted version.
Me, neither. But I agree, it is time for an _open_ hearing. Most of
the reasons for holding a closed hearing (not wanting to embarass our
allies by admitting that we knew they attacked first, for example)
that no longer hold.
<snip>
> >And I certainly find it interesting that "Jewish media-types" are
> >"anti-Israel", but other critics of Israel are "anti-Semetic".
>
> I don't THINK I ever said, or even implied, that all other critics
of
> Israel are anti-semitic. I do not think that they are. I do think
> that some of them are. And I do think there are actually Jewish
> anti-semites (and not "semitic" in the sense of Arab, altho some
> people use it that way)
I didn't mean _you_ said that. I phrased that badly. I meant that it
seems a common reaction. Say too many critical things about Israel,
and you get labelled an anti-Semite, by some groups and some people.
Unless you are Jewish, then the same remarks are "anti-Israel".
As for whether or not some Jews are anti-Semetic, that would depend
upon whether you meant practicing or ethnic Jews, and just exactly
what was meant by "anti-Semetic". Certainly it would be strange to be
a practicing Jew of a particular sect and be against that sect, though
I have met people that strange.
<snip>
>
> I'm sorry if I got a little snide in my reply. My knowledge and
> opinions are based completely on a lifetime of following
Israeli-Arab
> issues, from a wide variety of sources. About half of it was while
I
> was in the military (since I'm 47 and spent just under 21 years in),
> where I've actually met and worked with Arab officers & Muslim
foreign
> and US personnel, not to mention US Middle-Eastern Foreign Area
> Officers. One guy I worked very closely with over a two year
period,
> and who was also a great friend (and a Catholic <g>), was actually a
> military attache in Tel Aviv (altho after I knew him), as well as in
> Islamabad Pakistan and Katmandu Nepal beforehand.
>
> Anyway, I suppose I have a certain "natural" disdain for what people
> learn in college. I guess I'm just getting old. Please don't take
it
> personally.
>
> And I DO admit to being biased for Israel, unashamedly, altho I
don't
> think I'm anywhere near the extreme.
Thank you for the apology, and the explaination.
And I do admit that as a general expert, you know a lot more than I
do. My investigation at the time was strictly into bias in the news
media, with a sideline into official governemnt bias for my own
interest. I claim to be reasonably sure of newspaper bias prior to
1995, note that it appears to still be there in 2001 (but I haven't
kept up on it in depth). I am not an expert on the affairs in that
part of the world; I have too damn many interests now to keep up as it
is.
<snip>
> But, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Goldberg, or Goldfarb, or
> whatever his name was, the American Jew who shot up that mosque in
> Hebron, labelled a terrorist? And weren't the guys who assassinated
> Rabin as well? I may be wrong about that--but they weren't called
> very nice things, at least not within the circles I travel in.
Most newspapers did _not_ call them terrorists, IIRC. It was still an
exception; the word was used.
<snip>
> I will say again that I don't consider everyone who criticizes
Israel
> as being anti-Semitic. (please pardon any prior misspellings--I
think
> I must always choke on that word). What I question is why some
people
> are so quick to criticize Israel for what other nations, Muslim and
> Christian (and even Buddhist?), do all the time. Or even the fact
> that there IS a Jewish nation, when there are so many of the others.
>
> Israeli does not equal Jew, but what else is there, really, that
> distinguishes Israel from any other country? What have they done
that
> is different from what others have done? Or still do?
Become or been born Israelis?
Seriously, there are many people who, correctly or not, don't have
anything against the Jews, but are against the creation of the state
of Israel. There are reasons to be against it; many people consider
the act wrong no matter who did it or how much the nominal government
agreed. The fact that they were Jews didn't come into the equation.
Indeed, I have met people who consider it acceptable only because they
_were_ Jews, and because of the Holocaust.
It is also possible to believe that the Israeli government is worse
than it is without thinking that it has anything to do with them being
Jews, or even Israelis. Many people who rant and rave about today's
government are very much in favor of the United States, as a country.
<snip>
> Why is it more offensive than, for example, calling someone
> un-American? Altho perhaps that's not a good example. What if you
> called someone racist? Is that more or less offensive?
Yes and no. I phrased that badly. I am _extremely_ cautious about
false accusations of any form of bigotry. However, I think in our
country, "anti-Semetism" is seen as a worse form of bigotry than any
other.
It appears to me that "Anti-semetic" holds a special place in our
society. I initially noticed this years ago, and still see it today.
Note that I admit this is quite possibly biased; after all, I was
looking for it, so I could expect to find it. But I still think it is
there.
In my opinion, people in our country have a special aversion to being
called or perceived as "anti-Semetic", and treat being anti-Semetic as
worse than most bigotries. The result is that people will go to
greater lengths to avoid the _appearance_ of anti-Semetism than other
bigotries.
I don't know why this is true, but I have a guess. When people use
words like "un-American", "racist", "bigot", or "anti-Semetic", people
have an idea, usually an image, in their minds as to what that means.
Generally, from what I have seen, "un-American" is seen, these days,
as being overly critical of the US, and possibly being a Communist.
Racist is seen as saying nasty words, deliberatly snubbing people, and
maybe being violent, though they get tossed about by some people so
readily that in some cases people give them less weight than they used
to. "Bigot" is seen as an Archie Bunker type.
Possibly the worst image any of these call up is the Ku Klux Klan.
"Anti-Semetic", however, makes people think of Nazis and the
Holocaust.
<snip>
> This may be way off the subject, but here goes anyway. I had a
friend
> in college who was half-Japanese. Her father was a US serviceman
who
> married a Japanese woman he met during the occupation. When they
were
> stationed in Alabama (back in the 60s), she would be criticized for
> dating a black boy, by "friends" who had no problem with the fact
that
> she was the product of an interracial relationship. Heck, they
didn't
> even think about it that way, because they were bigotted against
> blacks in a way that they were not against Asians.
>
> Am I making any sense here? Or has my brain turned to mush from
> spending too much time at this. I think I may need lunch.
I know what you are saying. I just am cautious about using a broader
label than that which is clearly earned. If a person is for the Arab
point of view over that of Israel, this doesn't mean that they are
anti-Semetic any more than being for Israel means you are anti-Arabic.
> Maybe we're having a disconnect going from the individual to the
> collective. If you say "Israel sucks" and I say, then, "you're
> anti-semitic," that would be unfair (unless you've said something
> else, as James did about the wealth and influence of American
> Jews--which I ignored, btw--to reinforce the opinion). But if I
say,
> there are alot of people who say "Israel sucks" and one of the
reasons
> for that is antisemitism, I don't think that's unfair, or even
untrue.
Oh, I agree that this can be a reason, no doubt. But I am meticulous
about keeping my biases straight; I never see unfair attacks on Israel
as more than a data point, except to note that the person shows bias
against Israel. I then collect more information: do they think that
everyone should stick to the UN resolution? Do they think Israel
should never have been formed? How do they react to careful questions
about Jews? Until I have this information, I make no further
judgements. If I cannot collect any more information, then this is as
far as I go.
> I will admit that we Jews are often too quick to charge
anti-semitism.
> As a feminist, I have to guard against blaming sexism for slights
that
> have nothing to do with it. Blacks have the same problem with
racism.
> But that's not to say none of the above exist, or that they are not
> frequently a root cause.
Agreed.
> Let me ask you this, again somewhat off-topic. Do you think the
> Holocaust deniers are anti-semitic? Because I think they either are
> that, or incredibly ignorant. Or both.
Usually, yes. I think that they are, as a rule, though I believe it is
possible to be fooled by them and not be an anti-Semite. Usually,
though, this is temporary and easily corrected, or the person is a
fool in general, of the sort who believes conspiracy theories just
because they postulate conspiracies.
This sort of person (the believer in any conspiracy theory) annoys me.
They treat any accusation as more important than any investigation.
Somebody whose only credentials are that he says so is a better source
than a decent open investigation, in their opinion. They also seem to
hold to the theory that the government says X, therefore the truth
must be not-X.
<snip>
> That all said, I do think there's an element of anti-Americanism
that
> causes some people to criticize this country in certain
circumstances.
> Or when they disregard all that is good about it, to focus on what
is
> bad.
Granted.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20182
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:17:21 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd0237e.239808275@news.sff.net...
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001 14:26:31 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >But being overly
> >critical of Israel, _or even against it_, is not and never was
equivalent to
> >being against Jews. To say that it is an insult to anyone who you
use it
> >against.
>
> Never? Are you trying to say that no one who is anti-Israel is so
> because they are anti-semetic? I think that's extremely naive, at
> best.
That isn't what I said. I said it is never _equivalent_ to being
against Jews. If I hated Jesse Jackson, that isn't the equivalent of
hating blacks. I might also hate blacks, and that may even be _why_ I
hate Jesse Jackson (if I did), but they aren't equivalent.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20183
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:20:09 -0700
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Jai Johnson-Pickett" <hf_jai@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd05be2.254246385@news.sff.net...
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2001 13:23:00 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >As I said, though, I believe the Israelis are not truly covering up
> >anything, beyond possibly gross negligence.
>
> I thought the Israelis had admitted to negligence. I do know they
> paid reparations.
They admitted that it was a mistake and their fault. No negligence was
admitted. Negligence is a different matter.
<snip>
> >Certainly it is now admitted that some of the
> >Israeli claims were inaccurate, such as the one that the attack
only
> >happened by plane, only happened for five minutes, and that the
torpedo
> >boats didn't fire but instead offered assistance from the
beginning.
We also
> >know that there was pressure, at least on the NSA, to accept the
Israeli
> >claims.
>
> Yes, that's true. But many of the claims of those who maintain it
was
> a deliberate attack have been proven wrong as well. I said at the
> very beginning of this I didn't want to get into the particulars. I
> just don't have the knowledge at my fingertips, but I know I have
read
> most of the evidence on both sides in the past, and I just don't
find
> the ussliberty.com evidence compelling enough to set aside the
> official, US Govt-accepted version.
Me, neither. But I agree, it is time for an _open_ hearing. Most of
the reasons for holding a closed hearing (not wanting to embarrass our
allies by admitting that we knew they attacked first, for example)
that no longer hold.
<snip>
> >And I certainly find it interesting that "Jewish media-types" are
> >"anti-Israel", but other critics of Israel are "anti-Semitic".
>
> I don't THINK I ever said, or even implied, that all other critics
of
> Israel are anti-Semitic. I do not think that they are. I do think
> that some of them are. And I do think there are actually Jewish
> anti-semites (and not "Semitic" in the sense of Arab, altho some
> people use it that way)
I didn't mean _you_ said that. I phrased that badly. I meant that it
seems a common reaction. Say too many critical things about Israel,
and you get labeled an anti-Semite, by some groups and some people.
Unless you are Jewish, then the same remarks are "anti-Israel".
As for whether or not some Jews are anti-Semitic, that would depend
upon whether you meant practicing or ethnic Jews, and just exactly
what was meant by "anti-Semitic". Certainly it would be strange to be
a practicing Jew of a particular sect and be against that sect, though
I have met people that strange.
<snip>
>
> I'm sorry if I got a little snide in my reply. My knowledge and
> opinions are based completely on a lifetime of following
Israeli-Arab
> issues, from a wide variety of sources. About half of it was while
I
> was in the military (since I'm 47 and spent just under 21 years in),
> where I've actually met and worked with Arab officers & Muslim
foreign
> and US personnel, not to mention US Middle-Eastern Foreign Area
> Officers. One guy I worked very closely with over a two year
period,
> and who was also a great friend (and a Catholic <g>), was actually a
> military attache in Tel Aviv (altho after I knew him), as well as in
> Islamabad Pakistan and Katmandu Nepal beforehand.
>
> Anyway, I suppose I have a certain "natural" disdain for what people
> learn in college. I guess I'm just getting old. Please don't take
it
> personally.
>
> And I DO admit to being biased for Israel, unashamedly, altho I
don't
> think I'm anywhere near the extreme.
Thank you for the apology, and the explanation.
And I do admit that as a general expert, you know a lot more than I
do. My investigation at the time was strictly into bias in the news
media, with a sideline into official government bias for my own
interest. I claim to be reasonably sure of newspaper bias prior to
1995, note that it appears to still be there in 2001 (but I haven't
kept up on it in depth). I am not an expert on the affairs in that
part of the world; I have too damn many interests now to keep up as it
is.
<snip>
> But, correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Goldberg, or Goldfarb, or
> whatever his name was, the American Jew who shot up that mosque in
> Hebron, labelled a terrorist? And weren't the guys who assassinated
> Rabin as well? I may be wrong about that--but they weren't called
> very nice things, at least not within the circles I travel in.
Most newspapers did _not_ call them terrorists, IIRC. It was still an
exception; the word was used.
<snip>
> I will say again that I don't consider everyone who criticizes
Israel
> as being anti-Semitic. (please pardon any prior misspellings--I
think
> I must always choke on that word). What I question is why some
people
> are so quick to criticize Israel for what other nations, Muslim and
> Christian (and even Buddhist?), do all the time. Or even the fact
> that there IS a Jewish nation, when there are so many of the others.
>
> Israeli does not equal Jew, but what else is there, really, that
> distinguishes Israel from any other country? What have they done
that
> is different from what others have done? Or still do?
Become or been born Israelis?
Seriously, there are many people who, correctly or not, don't have
anything against the Jews, but are against the creation of the state
of Israel. There are reasons to be against it; many people consider
the act wrong no matter who did it or how much the nominal government
agreed. The fact that they were Jews didn't come into the equation.
Indeed, I have met people who consider it acceptable only because they
_were_ Jews, and because of the Holocaust.
It is also possible to believe that the Israeli government is worse
than it is without thinking that it has anything to do with them being
Jews, or even Israelis. Many people who rant and rave about today's
government are very much in favor of the United States, as a country.
<snip>
> Why is it more offensive than, for example, calling someone
> un-American? Altho perhaps that's not a good example. What if you
> called someone racist? Is that more or less offensive?
Yes and no. I phrased that badly. I am _extremely_ cautious about
false accusations of any form of bigotry. However, I think in our
country, "anti-Semitism" is seen as a worse form of bigotry than any
other.
It appears to me that "Anti-emetic" holds a special place in our
society. I initially noticed this years ago, and still see it today.
Note that I admit this is quite possibly biased; after all, I was
looking for it, so I could expect to find it. But I still think it is
there.
In my opinion, people in our country have a special aversion to being
called or perceived as "anti-Semitic", and treat being anti-Semitic as
worse than most bigotries. The result is that people will go to
greater lengths to avoid the _appearance_ of anti-Semitism than other
bigotries.
I don't know why this is true, but I have a guess. When people use
words like "un-American", "racist", "bigot", or "anti-Semitic", people
have an idea, usually an image, in their minds as to what that means.
Generally, from what I have seen, "un-American" is seen, these days,
as being overly critical of the US, and possibly being a Communist.
Racist is seen as saying nasty words, deliberately snubbing people,
and
maybe being violent, though they get tossed about by some people so
readily that in some cases people give them less weight than they used
to. "Bigot" is seen as an Archie Bunker type.
Possibly the worst image any of these call up is the Ku Klux Klan.
"Anti-Semitic", however, makes people think of Nazis and the
Holocaust.
<snip>
> This may be way off the subject, but here goes anyway. I had a
friend
> in college who was half-Japanese. Her father was a US serviceman
who
> married a Japanese woman he met during the occupation. When they
were
> stationed in Alabama (back in the 60s), she would be criticized for
> dating a black boy, by "friends" who had no problem with the fact
that
> she was the product of an interracial relationship. Heck, they
didn't
> even think about it that way, because they were bigotted against
> blacks in a way that they were not against Asians.
>
> Am I making any sense here? Or has my brain turned to mush from
> spending too much time at this. I think I may need lunch.
I know what you are saying. I just am cautious about using a broader
label than that which is clearly earned. If a person is for the Arab
point of view over that of Israel, this doesn't mean that they are
anti-Semitic any more than being for Israel means you are anti-Arabic.
> Maybe we're having a disconnect going from the individual to the
> collective. If you say "Israel sucks" and I say, then, "you're
> anti-Semitic," that would be unfair (unless you've said something
> else, as James did about the wealth and influence of American
> Jews--which I ignored, btw--to reinforce the opinion). But if I
say,
> there are alot of people who say "Israel sucks" and one of the
reasons
> for that is antisemitism, I don't think that's unfair, or even
untrue.
Oh, I agree that this can be a reason, no doubt. But I am meticulous
about keeping my biases straight; I never see unfair attacks on Israel
as more than a data point, except to note that the person shows bias
against Israel. I then collect more information: do they think that
everyone should stick to the UN resolution? Do they think Israel
should never have been formed? How do they react to careful questions
about Jews? Until I have this information, I make no further
judgments. If I cannot collect any more information, then this is as
far as I go.
> I will admit that we Jews are often too quick to charge
anti-semitism.
> As a feminist, I have to guard against blaming sexism for slights
that
> have nothing to do with it. Blacks have the same problem with
racism.
> But that's not to say none of the above exist, or that they are not
> frequently a root cause.
Agreed.
> Let me ask you this, again somewhat off-topic. Do you think the
> Holocaust deniers are anti-Semitic? Because I think they either are
> that, or incredibly ignorant. Or both.
Usually, yes. I think that they are, as a rule, though I believe it is
possible to be fooled by them and not be an anti-Semite. Usually,
though, this is temporary and easily corrected, or the person is a
fool in general, of the sort who believes conspiracy theories just
because they postulate conspiracies.
This sort of person (the believer in any conspiracy theory) annoys me.
They treat any accusation as more important than any investigation.
Somebody whose only credentials are that he says so is a better source
than a decent open investigation, in their opinion. They also seem to
hold to the theory that the government says X, therefore the truth
must be not-X.
<snip>
> That all said, I do think there's an element of anti-Americanism
that
> causes some people to criticize this country in certain
circumstances.
> Or when they disregard all that is good about it, to focus on what
is
> bad.
Granted.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20184
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:26:32 -0700
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Lorrita Morgan" <lorrita-m@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bd09097.0@news.sff.net...
<snip>
> Rarely there comes a wonderful movie that so compliments the print
> version that you almost have to shelve them together. (I like the
Anne of
> Green Gables series starring Megan Follows, Colleen Dewhearst, and
Richard
> Farnsworth in this category.) Mostly movies and books are "apples
and
> oranges"-- both tell the same story but there are limits to each
medium.
My wife and I both agree on the Anne of Greene Gables mini-series. We
think it was just about perfect.
For another example of a just about perfect book to movie transfer,
consider The Last Unicorn. Plot, tone, everything, transferred
beautifully.
And for an example of a good book and movie pair in the opposite
direction, consider "Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep" and "Blade
Runner". Both good, interesting, and one based (loosely) upon the
other, but very very different.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20185
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:53:25 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP DONT DO IT YET!!!!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:26j3tt80liftrprr85vjc2cq522n0a8bch@4ax.com...
<snip>
> You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Me, when I
evaluate
> a hardware purchase one of the things I evaluate is their record for
> taking care of my purchase *over time*. Sometimes it still doesn't
> work out --I would have thot 3Com was a lock for good modem support
> with their history in the business. Then they dropped the business
> entirely. It happens.
If it isn't supported on the 3COM site, it is probably supported on
the US Robotics site. It takes a bit of hunting, but I'll bet you can
find it.
Or tell me the make and model, and I'll find it. It is part of what I
do professionally, after all.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20186
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:12:32 -0700
Subject: Books to Movies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On the subject of books being made into movies, has anyone heard
anything about the book "The Bourne Identity" coming out as a movie in
January 2002?
From what little I've heard, I'm afraid that it isn't going to be much
like the book at all. I hope it is; I enjoyed the book, and frankly
think it would be a perfect book to make into a movie.
It also concerns me that I haven't heard a thing about it in movie
trailers or commercials. I don't see many movies, so maybe I just
missed them, but they intend to make all three books into movies, and
I want the first to be a success.
Anyone else heard anything?
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20187
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:30:14 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"William J. Keaton" <wjake@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:3bcfc155.0@news.sff.net...
> The thing that worried me about WinXP is the activation. I'm always
messing
> with my computer, adding something, taking something else out, etc.
Does the
> Home version include the re-activation clause when you've changed x
number
> of hardware items?
The last I heard, Microsoft announced that you would only have to call
in to re-activate if you swapped the motherboard. I don't know if that
is true or not. However, they have supposedly improved the situation
from the earlier tight connection between hardware and software.
Of course, detractors will point out that Microsoft started with a
soft line, went to a hard line, then backed up to the original soft
line. Maybe so. I don't recall the details of the new OS, as I didn't
participate in the beta trials and didn't look into it too heavily.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20188
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:31:29 -0700
Subject: Windows XP Geekiness
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
For those of you who want a better view of how WinXP is different than
other versions, and don't mind moderate geekiness, try:
http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s%253D1027%2526a%253D2473,00
..asp
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20189
From: Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:53:43 -0500
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Jai--
That was not me making that threat, that was a copy of Mr.
Gifford's response to an earlier discussion.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
Dogs have masters; cats have staff.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20190
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 07:27:54 -0700
Subject: Re: Books to Movies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:12:32 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>On the subject of books being made into movies, has anyone heard
>anything about the book "The Bourne Identity" coming out as a movie in
>January 2002?
>
>From what little I've heard, I'm afraid that it isn't going to be much
>like the book at all. I hope it is; I enjoyed the book, and frankly
>think it would be a perfect book to make into a movie.
>
>It also concerns me that I haven't heard a thing about it in movie
>trailers or commercials. I don't see many movies, so maybe I just
>missed them, but they intend to make all three books into movies, and
>I want the first to be a success.
>
>Anyone else heard anything?
>
>Filksinger
>
Isn't there a live action Lord of the Rings trilogy starting in a
month or two also?
Wasn't Bourne Identity done once already as a miniseries or TV
movie with Richard Chamberlain? Very enjoyable book. The next two
weren't nearly as good, imo. Haven't heard anything about a new
movie.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20191
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:29:20 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:17:06 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>> I thought the Israelis had admitted to negligence. I do know they
>> paid reparations.
>
>They admitted that it was a mistake and their fault. No negligence was
>admitted. Negligence is a different matter.
Hmmm, maybe you're right. Altho it's a bit of a fine line, perhaps
just legalese? Not that legal definitions aren't important in an
issue like this. If I admit to making a mistake, esp one that causes
grevious harm, it's hard to imagine that I have not been negligent
somehow. "Gross" negligence is another matter, I guess, because it
means I've purposely done something that I knew could lead to whatever
harm could result, even if I didn't mean for it to occur. If I'm
remembering my legal terms correctly. I once was an investigating
officer and I found the NCO in charge guilty of "simple" negligence,
because he gave an order that was in direct conflict with the
governing regulation that, in turn, caused the accident. But he
didn't know he was in conflict with the reg, and I did not judge that
it was something the average NCO (or officer) would know, so it wasn't
"gross" negligence. As I recall, he was not required to pay for the
damage, because it was only "simple"--had it been "gross" he would
have. But that has nothing to do with the Liberty reparations, I
realize. I only mention it because it may be the basis, in part, for
my associating reparations with the admission of negligence.
>Me, neither. But I agree, it is time for an _open_ hearing. Most of
>the reasons for holding a closed hearing (not wanting to embarass our
>allies by admitting that we knew they attacked first, for example)
>that no longer hold.
I'm not sure THIS is a particularly good time for it either, but I
suppose that after the current war is over, perhaps. Altho I can
understand the frustruation the Liberty survivors must feel that there
never seems to be a "right" time.
>As for whether or not some Jews are anti-Semetic, that would depend
>upon whether you meant practicing or ethnic Jews, and just exactly
>what was meant by "anti-Semetic".
I'll grant the distinction, but what is "practicing"? There are
plenty of orthodox Jews who barely recognize the Jewishness of what
conservative and reform Jews practice. Heck, there are probably some
orthodox of one sect who don't recognize the validity of another sect.
>Certainly it would be strange to be
>a practicing Jew of a particular sect and be against that sect, though
>I have met people that strange.
LOL. Yes, there are some strange ones around. But you're right.
Unless I brand the intra-Judaism infighting as "anti-Semitism" (which
some of it actually might be), it would mostly be the ethnic Jews,
those who are pointedly not religious, who are guilty of it.
>Seriously, there are many people who, correctly or not, don't have
>anything against the Jews, but are against the creation of the state
>of Israel. There are reasons to be against it; many people consider
>the act wrong no matter who did it or how much the nominal government
>agreed. The fact that they were Jews didn't come into the equation.
>Indeed, I have met people who consider it acceptable only because they
>_were_ Jews, and because of the Holocaust.
The Holocaust is a major factor in most American Jews supporting the
state of Israel. Before WWII, and the revelations that went with it,
the Reform movement officially denounced Zionism.
Personally, I might as well, altho it's hard to judge how I would have
felt in an era before my birth. Certainly the Holocaust proves to me,
and many others, that there MUST be a Jewish nation. While I can
understand the feeling that it might not be exactly "fair" to the
non-Jewish people who lived in what is now Israel, I also know that
there many were Jews there before Hitler came to power, even before
the birth of Zionism in the late 1800s. And that many of the more
recent Jewish immigrants to Israel are there because they were thrown
out of Arabic countries--I recall one estimate that their number is
comparable to the number of Arabs who fled Israel in the late
40s/early 50s. In any case, and however "unfair" it might be, I don't
find that many Jews chose to move there, for whatever reasons,
particularly wrong, any more than I find it wrong that the US Hispanic
population has increased manyfold in the last century. Demographics
change, for all sorts of reasons.
>It is also possible to believe that the Israeli government is worse
>than it is without thinking that it has anything to do with them being
>Jews, or even Israelis. Many people who rant and rave about today's
>government are very much in favor of the United States, as a country.
Very true. Still, I have heard too many people rant about Israeli
offsenses, attributing them to what they consider to be the Jewish
"character." Heck, even I think there may be something to that--we
are a contentious lot (given that the stereotypical Jew does not
define all of us, and there are many Jews who are as meek and
inoffensive as in any other group, still, I won't deny that we tend to
be agressive and argumentative--not that that's a bad thing <g>).
But you know, as much as those of us who are Jewish and pro-Israel may
be sometimes guilty of unfairly accusing the anti-Israel types with
anti-Semitism, there is also the charge against us, sometimes implied,
sometimes direct, that we have "dual loyalties" or worse, outright
disloyalty to America. As someone who considers herself very
American, very patriotic, this one really gets to me, and may be part
of the reason for the anger in some of my responses in this thread.
>> Why is it more offensive than, for example, calling someone
>> un-American? Altho perhaps that's not a good example. What if you
>> called someone racist? Is that more or less offensive?
>
>Yes and no. I phrased that badly. I am _extremely_ cautious about
>false accusations of any form of bigotry. However, I think in our
>country, "anti-Semetism" is seen as a worse form of bigotry than any
>other.
>
>It appears to me that "Anti-semetic" holds a special place in our
>society. I initially noticed this years ago, and still see it today.
>Note that I admit this is quite possibly biased; after all, I was
>looking for it, so I could expect to find it. But I still think it is
>there.
>
>In my opinion, people in our country have a special aversion to being
>called or perceived as "anti-Semetic", and treat being anti-Semetic as
>worse than most bigotries. The result is that people will go to
>greater lengths to avoid the _appearance_ of anti-Semetism than other
>bigotries.
Do ya think? I've never noticed that, and I'll have to give it more
thought. You may be right. Certainly one of the worst things you can
call someone, and one of the first that appears as a discussion
degrades, is a Nazi. Whether that's because of the anti-semitism, or
just the general fascism, I'm not sure. Probably both.
>I don't know why this is true, but I have a guess. When people use
>words like "un-American", "racist", "bigot", or "anti-Semetic", people
>have an idea, usually an image, in their minds as to what that means.
>Generally, from what I have seen, "un-American" is seen, these days,
>as being overly critical of the US, and possibly being a Communist.
>Racist is seen as saying nasty words, deliberatly snubbing people, and
>maybe being violent, though they get tossed about by some people so
>readily that in some cases people give them less weight than they used
>to. "Bigot" is seen as an Archie Bunker type.
>
>Possibly the worst image any of these call up is the Ku Klux Klan.
>"Anti-Semetic", however, makes people think of Nazis and the
>Holocaust.
If anit-semitism is the cause of making Nazi such an offensive term,
or to the extent that it is, perhaps we, as Americans, have some
collective guilt at work for not doing more, earlier, to stop the
Holocaust. For not believing the early evidence that it was happening
(which was true of even some prominent American Jews, and it has been
the source of not a little guilt within our community--but we're good
at guilt <g>). For even sending escaping Jews back to Germany, even
as most Americans are not aware that ever happened.
That said, I probably do believe that anti-Semitism is much more
pervasive than you do. Maybe it's because I've experienced it with my
kids (and as any mother-lion type, I'm likely to over-react where the
kids are concerned). Maybe because I read Jewish periodicals which
report every incident (well, not every one, but enough to color my
perceptions). Maybe it's because I'm aware of my own prejudices, at
least most of them, much as I try to keep them in check, sometimes
even to the point of over-compensating.
But I don't think I'm the type who sees an anti-Semite under every
rock. And I know there are people who do.
>> Let me ask you this, again somewhat off-topic. Do you think the
>> Holocaust deniers are anti-semitic? Because I think they either are
>> that, or incredibly ignorant. Or both.
>
>Usually, yes. I think that they are, as a rule, though I believe it is
>possible to be fooled by them and not be an anti-Semite. Usually,
>though, this is temporary and easily corrected, or the person is a
>fool in general, of the sort who believes conspiracy theories just
>because they postulate conspiracies.
I wouldn't say "easily corrected," because there is a human tendancy
to believe the theory or evidence you hear first. But I do believe
that many people know very little of how very much evidence of the
Holocaust there is, and thus are easily deceived by the revisionists.
Those are the ones I called "incredibly ignorant," because the proof
abounds, from all sectors.
>This sort of person (the believer in any conspiracy theory) annoys me.
>They treat any accusation as more important than any investigation.
>Somebody whose only credentials are that he says so is a better source
>than a decent open investigation, in their opinion. They also seem to
>hold to the theory that the government says X, therefore the truth
>must be not-X.
I find them annoying, and occassionally dangerous. As contrary as I
can sometimes be, I have little sympathy for that certain type of
person who latches on to whatever unorthodox theory comes along,
whether it be something silly like a "Chariot of the Gods" or some of
the new-age mysticism, or something more substantial, like
creationism. The problem lies, maybe, when there are people who push
these "alternative" theories for some political agenda, and the
average Joe, not having enough education to know better, says, yeah,
well, one's just as valid a theory as the other.
I guess I tend to be very conventional, for the most part, when it
comes to standard explanations of events. In the absense of direct
and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I tend to accept the
official line.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20192
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:28:12 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP DONT DO IT YET!!!!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 00:53:25 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
>Or tell me the make and model, and I'll find it. It is part of what I
>do professionally, after all.
>
>Filksinger
>
Thanks for the offer, but hopefully after Wednesday I won't need
it. Switching ISPs and leasing a modem from the cable company for
$10/month. I could buy one for around $150 (i.e. 15 months to break
even), but I think I'll let them worry about obsolence this time.
Geo Rule
www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison,
Jesse James & Friends, Copperheads,
the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20193
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:32:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 17:49:11 -0700, sprocketeer1@earthlink.net wrote:
>I'd be interested to hear some concrete examples of where the film was better
>than the book, novelizations notwithstanding.
How 'bout Forest Gump? I didn't think it was a great movie, but Tom
Hanks and most of the rest of the cast made it reasonably
entertaining. The book was just stupid.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20194
From: hf_jai@prodigy.net (Jai Johnson-Pickett)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 15:37:41 GMT
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 08:53:43 -0500, Charles Graft <chasgraft@aol.com>
wrote:
>Jai--
> That was not me making that threat, that was a copy of Mr.
>Gifford's response to an earlier discussion.
Oops.
Went back and reread it from that perspective. Sorry to have
misunderstood. But very glad that you aren't bowing out from the
Forum.
That's what I get for not following every thread. I might not have
even been around for that one.
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20195
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:11:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:07:05 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
wrote:
> JT--
>
> Dual boot?
>
>Geo Rule
'Dems fightin' words. <G> I don't want to install apps doubly and
take the time to boot in-between. Or worse-- "Which OS has xxx
installed again?"
I just don't use the PC at home enough to play with multiple configs.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20196
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:11:07 GMT
Subject: Re: Win XP DONT DO IT YET!!!!!
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 18:33:30 -0500, "William B. Dennis 2nd"
<dwilliam16@home.com> wrote:
>When I worked in tech support, about 95 percent of the calls I answered were
>for Win 9x customers. About 4 percent were for Windows NT and 2000. The rest
>were from Apple OS users --- with an occasional Linux user thrown in for our
>amusement.
>
Which conveniently works out to market share for PC users, doesn't it?
<VBG>
You make good points about upgrading. I always ask people that come
to me for advice: "What do you want to DO with your PC?" And I never
advise OS upgrades if the person isn't capable of understanding how to
upgrade their hardware. I tell them to wait until it comes with their
next PC. <G>
I'm rather mad about the two peripherals in question on my machine,
though. Both "worked" under Win2K with drivers *written for* Win2K.
However, my digital camera would bluescreen about 25% of the time I
transferred pictures No reports of problems with either Kodak or MS.
And my OfficeJet printer/scanner combo worked with updated drivers,
but HP didn't update the flashy software that did all the one-touch
scanning and printing for Win2K--you had to use a kludgier "open the
software first" approach.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20197
From: JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:11:08 GMT
Subject: Re: Windows XP Geekiness
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:31:29 -0700, "Filksinger"
<filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>For those of you who want a better view of how WinXP is different than
>other versions, and don't mind moderate geekiness, try:
>
>http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s%253D1027%2526a%253D2473,00
>.asp
>
>Filksinger
>
Filk, what was the article name, columnist, etc.? The site doesn't
let you go directly to the article, at least it didn't for me.
JT
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20198
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:53:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
>Youch, y'really think so? I guess it just goes to show you that it takes all
>kinds: My opinion was exactly 180 degrees out from yours.
I knew Hunt for Red October was the most controversial of the ones I
included--especially here where there's lots of Clancy fans. :-) I'm
not terribly fond of Clancy's writing. I like his material but his
books are somewhat torturous for me to wade through. I got through Red
October by grabbing 100 pages in the middle and turning them without
reading them. Leon Uris is another author I would compare to Clancy in
the kind of books they write--big, complex, sweeping in scope--yet
Uris, after some slow starts, makes them very compelling page-turners
with very solid, real characters. I never get that from Clancy (but I
haven't read any recently--last one had something to do with Iceland
"Red" something or other--maybe his style has developed, he certainly
has readership).
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20199
From: debrule@citlink.net (Deb Houdek Rule)
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 20:53:05 GMT
Subject: Re: Starship Troopers -- The Movie
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
A no-contest one is "No Way Out" with Kevin Costner. The movie is
based on a book called "The Big Clock". The book is tedious drivel;
the movie is, IMO, masterfully done with a great deal of subtlety.
Some of Costner's best acting, too.
Deb (D.A. Houdek)
http://www.dahoudek.com
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20200
From: Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 13:46:37 -0700
Subject: Re: Win XP
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 19:11:07 GMT, JT@REM0VE.sff.net (JT) wrote:
>On Sat, 20 Oct 2001 15:07:05 -0700, Geo Rule <georule@citlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>> JT--
>>
>> Dual boot?
>>
>>Geo Rule
>
>'Dems fightin' words. <G> I don't want to install apps doubly and
>take the time to boot in-between. Or worse-- "Which OS has xxx
>installed again?"
>
>I just don't use the PC at home enough to play with multiple configs.
>
>
>JT
Why double-install apps? Maybe I misunderstood your problem --I
thot it was game compatibility that forced you back to Win98. Just
install those games there and boot to Win98 when you want to play
them. No apps double installed anywhere.
Geo Rule
http://www.civilwarstlouis.com
****
Specializing in the Confederate Secret Service,
the Sultana, Gratiot St. Prison, Jesse James & Friends,
Copperheads, the Northwest Conspiracy, and the Damn Dutch
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20201
From: Gordon G. Sollars <gsollars@pobox.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:51:32 -0400
Subject: Re: article: "BUT IF IT SAVES EVEN ONE LIFE, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
In article <3bd05be2.254246385@news.sff.net>, Jai Johnson-Pickett
writes...
....
> And, fwiw, I seem to recall (I'm not up to reviewing all his posts in
> this regard right now) that Gordon's arguments centered that there
> didn't have to be a ethnically separate "Palestinian people" for there
> to be justification for a Palestinian state. Or even "another"
> Palestinian state (my distinction, not his).
Correct. Ethnicity is often a factor, but it is not a necessary one.
For example, Abu-Odeh can be read as providing reasons why "another"
Palestinian state is needed that are not based on "Palestinians" and
"Transjordanians" (his distinction, not yours) being ethnically separate.
And even if his reasons fail, I think that there are other reasons.
> With which I happen to
> agree.
No reason to let agreement stand in the way of a good argument. ;-)
> I just maintain that it's the reason that the Arabs give, and
> that most people accept, and that essentially every other separatist
> insurgency uses.
People often give reasons for what they want because they think /other/
people will find those reasons acceptable. And they often believe in, or
come to believe in, those reasons. And sometimes those reasons are even
correct.
But it is even more complicated than that. Sometimes their reasons are
not correct, but they are nevertheless right for reasons they failed to
give.
--
Gordon Sollars
gsollars@pobox.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20202
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:05:58 -0700
Subject: Re: Books to Movies
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"Geo Rule" <georule@citlink.net> wrote in message
news:ajm5tt4k5voa7fh6ogugse89647i082sm8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:12:32 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >On the subject of books being made into movies, has anyone heard
> >anything about the book "The Bourne Identity" coming out as a movie
in
> >January 2002?
> >
> >From what little I've heard, I'm afraid that it isn't going to be
much
> >like the book at all. I hope it is; I enjoyed the book, and frankly
> >think it would be a perfect book to make into a movie.
> >
> >It also concerns me that I haven't heard a thing about it in movie
> >trailers or commercials. I don't see many movies, so maybe I just
> >missed them, but they intend to make all three books into movies,
and
> >I want the first to be a success.
> >
> >Anyone else heard anything?
> >
> >Filksinger
> >
>
> Isn't there a live action Lord of the Rings trilogy starting in
a
> month or two also?
Yes. The first book is November this year, the next next year, etc.
> Wasn't Bourne Identity done once already as a miniseries or TV
> movie with Richard Chamberlain?
Yes.
> Very enjoyable book. The next two
> weren't nearly as good, imo. Haven't heard anything about a new
> movie.
Early next year. Matt Damon. Some characters evidently added, such as
a woman in Paris who knows some of his past, but isn't any of the
people in the first book.
Of course, when translating to a movie, that may be the best way to
reveal his past. The book was both full of action _and_ confusing
revelations about his past.
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
Article 20203
From: Filksinger" <filksinger@earthling.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 17:17:43 -0700
Subject: Re: Windows XP Geekiness
Newsgroups: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
"JT" <JT@REM0VE.sff.net> wrote in message
news:3bd31d93.95406192@news.sff.net...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001 01:31:29 -0700, "Filksinger"
> <filksinger@earthling.net> wrote:
>
> >For those of you who want a better view of how WinXP is different
than
> >other versions, and don't mind moderate geekiness, try:
> >
>
>http://www.extremetech.com/article/0,3396,s%253D1027%2526a%253D2473,0
0
> >.asp
> >
> >Filksinger
> >
>
> Filk, what was the article name, columnist, etc.? The site doesn't
> let you go directly to the article, at least it didn't for me.
>
> JT
Windows XP Kernel Enhancements
by Jay Monroe
Filksinger
------------------------------------------------------------
============================================================
Archive of: sff.discuss.heinlein-forum
Archive desc: The Internet home for the Heinlein Forum
Archived by: webnews@sff.net
Archive date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:14:53
First article in this archive: 19456
Last article in this archive: 20203
Oldest article in this archive: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:14:15 -0700
Newest article in this archive: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 09:24:27 -0400