Discussion:
[MilSF That Doesn't Suck] An Ancient Peace (Peacekeeper, book 1) by Tanya Huff
Add Reply
James Nicoll
2017-04-26 12:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
An Ancient Peace (Peacekeeper, book 1) by Tanya Huff

http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/searching-for-light
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
m***@sky.com
2017-04-26 20:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
An Ancient Peace (Peacekeeper, book 1) by Tanya Huff
http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/searching-for-light
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
I've enjoyed at least my fair share of MilSF, but now when I read a review like this, I keep thinking of those collections of books everybody must read that just happened to have almost all female authors. Is this one of the same style, or a straight review? Would I be better considering only reviews of books I know to have male authors? What exactly is the criterion by which MilSF that doesn't suck is selected?

There's still a good deal of stuff by David Drake I haven't read, and I have only read one of the Family d'Alembert series, and I know that if I follow them up I can be pretty confident of what I will get. What should my priorities be here?
David DeLaney
2017-04-27 20:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by James Nicoll
An Ancient Peace (Peacekeeper, book 1) by Tanya Huff
http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/review/searching-for-light
I've enjoyed at least my fair share of MilSF, but now when I read a review
like this, I keep thinking of those collections of books everybody must read
that just happened to have almost all female authors. Is this one of the same
style, or a straight review? Would I be better considering only reviews of
books I know to have male authors? What exactly is the criterion by which
MilSF that doesn't suck is selected?
James is doing those lists to make something of a point, really; they're not
related to his book reviews, but more so to some of the things he posts about
on his LiveJournal. He takes the actual reviewing seriously - it's what he
makes his living off of, after all.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Joy Beeson
2017-04-30 00:22:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:48:06 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
James is doing those lists to make something of a point, really; they're not
related to his book reviews, but more so to some of the things he posts about
on his LiveJournal. He takes the actual reviewing seriously - it's what he
makes his living off of, after all.
The first one was to make a point. The rest are condescension.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Gary R. Schmidt
2017-04-30 08:01:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:48:06 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
James is doing those lists to make something of a point, really; they're not
related to his book reviews, but more so to some of the things he posts about
on his LiveJournal. He takes the actual reviewing seriously - it's what he
makes his living off of, after all.
The first one was to make a point. The rest are condescension.
No, they aren't. They point out that there is more stuff being written
by women than many (most) of us realise.

This may be obvious to you, but the reactions have shown that is not
true of the population of rasfw, the males of which who are far more
likely to read books by women than out in the muggleverse.

Cheers,
Gary B-)
--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other.
They don't really mean it.
When women talk to their friends, they compliment each other.
They don't mean it either.
Chris Buckley
2017-05-01 14:58:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:48:06 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
James is doing those lists to make something of a point, really; they're not
related to his book reviews, but more so to some of the things he posts about
on his LiveJournal. He takes the actual reviewing seriously - it's what he
makes his living off of, after all.
The first one was to make a point. The rest are condescension.
No, they aren't. They point out that there is more stuff being written
by women than many (most) of us realise.
This may be obvious to you, but the reactions have shown that is not
true of the population of rasfw, the males of which who are far more
likely to read books by women than out in the muggleverse.
Really? What reactions are you talking about here? I haven't see much
gender related to support what you say. There is support for the
claim that "there is more stuff being written than many (most) of us realize."
Links to good books are always appreciated.

From my perspective, James's lists are hurting his cause rather than
helping it, once you get beyond the fact of making people think about
a reverse bias list (a worthwhile endeavor that I support). He's
having to stretch his definitions and criteria to the point where they
are simply either unbelievable or useless. (The only definition that
makes logical sense, given his selections, is that true SF fans have
every SF book (and all short stories are books) on their shelves.)

And equating a very minor military sf by a man (Dickson) with some of
the best military sf by women (some of the rest of the list), does the
women a disservice.

Chris
Gene Wirchenko
2017-05-02 04:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Gary R. Schmidt
Post by Joy Beeson
On Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:48:06 -0500, David DeLaney
Post by David DeLaney
James is doing those lists to make something of a point, really; they're not
related to his book reviews, but more so to some of the things he posts about
on his LiveJournal. He takes the actual reviewing seriously - it's what he
makes his living off of, after all.
The first one was to make a point. The rest are condescension.
No, they aren't. They point out that there is more stuff being written
by women than many (most) of us realise.
This may be obvious to you, but the reactions have shown that is not
true of the population of rasfw, the males of which who are far more
likely to read books by women than out in the muggleverse.
Really? What reactions are you talking about here? I haven't see much
gender related to support what you say. There is support for the
claim that "there is more stuff being written than many (most) of us realize."
Links to good books are always appreciated.
From my perspective, James's lists are hurting his cause rather than
helping it, once you get beyond the fact of making people think about
a reverse bias list (a worthwhile endeavor that I support). He's
Calling a list "core" when pushing an agenda is dishonest, and I
find it highly repugnant.

How about "Alternative ___genre name___: 10 [20, whatever] good
books in the genre that you might never have heard of" followed by a
list of author, title, and a brief statement? Such a list could
include mainly books by women without being inaccurate.
Post by Chris Buckley
having to stretch his definitions and criteria to the point where they
are simply either unbelievable or useless. (The only definition that
makes logical sense, given his selections, is that true SF fans have
every SF book (and all short stories are books) on their shelves.)
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Post by Chris Buckley
And equating a very minor military sf by a man (Dickson) with some of
the best military sf by women (some of the rest of the list), does the
women a disservice.
Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
-dsr-
2017-05-02 11:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
As opposed to the unimpeachable judgement of list-makers who purely
by coincidence end up with 80-100% male lists?

Everybody is biased. The point of list making is never (or should not
ever be) to canonize the books or authors; the point is to recommend
and celebrate books.

-dsr-
m***@sky.com
2017-05-02 17:32:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
As opposed to the unimpeachable judgement of list-makers who purely
by coincidence end up with 80-100% male lists?
Everybody is biased. The point of list making is never (or should not
ever be) to canonize the books or authors; the point is to recommend
and celebrate books.
-dsr-
I'm sorry, but I reject defenses of obvious bias on the grounds that nobody is entirely unbiased (I will accept the dodgy lists as some sort of political statement, or grudgingly along the lines of "I was only joking" but not for the reason you give).

Are we to accept that the activities of the Ministry of Truth in 1984 are to be regarded as unexceptionable because it is impossible to eliminate all bias? Am I to dismiss the xenophobic genocide of the Molothos in Grand Central Arena as "just their little way" because sufficiently sensitive (or just sufficiently p-hacked) implicit association tests can convict pretty much everybody of some degree of prejudice?
-dsr-
2017-05-03 00:51:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by -dsr-
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
As opposed to the unimpeachable judgement of list-makers who purely
by coincidence end up with 80-100% male lists?
Everybody is biased. The point of list making is never (or should not
ever be) to canonize the books or authors; the point is to recommend
and celebrate books.
-dsr-
I'm sorry, but I reject defenses of obvious bias on the grounds that
nobody is entirely unbiased (I will accept the dodgy lists as some sort
of political statement, or grudgingly along the lines of "I was only
joking" but not for the reason you give).
Which lists are you calling dodgy?
Post by m***@sky.com
Are we to accept that the activities of the Ministry of Truth in
1984 are to be regarded as unexceptionable because it is impossible
to eliminate all bias? Am I to dismiss the xenophobic genocide of the
Molothos in Grand Central Arena as "just their little way" because
sufficiently sensitive (or just sufficiently p-hacked) implicit
association tests can convict pretty much everybody of some degree of
prejudice?
You have just escalated from "making lists of books that fans might like to
read" to genocide. Do you really feel that way, or are you engaged in
parody?

-dsr-
m***@sky.com
2017-05-03 04:14:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
(trimmed)
Post by -dsr-
Post by m***@sky.com
I'm sorry, but I reject defenses of obvious bias on the grounds that
nobody is entirely unbiased (I will accept the dodgy lists as some sort
of political statement, or grudgingly along the lines of "I was only
joking" but not for the reason you give).
Which lists are you calling dodgy?
I am referring to lists posted by James Nicoll with titles starting "Twenty Core.." such as "Twenty Core Military Speculative Fiction Books Every True SF Fan Should Have On Their Shelves"
Post by -dsr-
Post by m***@sky.com
Are we to accept that the activities of the Ministry of Truth in
1984 are to be regarded as unexceptionable because it is impossible
to eliminate all bias? Am I to dismiss the xenophobic genocide of the
Molothos in Grand Central Arena as "just their little way" because
sufficiently sensitive (or just sufficiently p-hacked) implicit
association tests can convict pretty much everybody of some degree of
prejudice?
You have just escalated from "making lists of books that fans might like to
read" to genocide. Do you really feel that way, or are you engaged in
parody?
-dsr-
It is not parody, but I am not claiming that the consequences are comparable. I believe that you have used a fallacious argument. In order to demonstrate that the argument does not hold, I am demonstrating its application in a situation where it leads to what most people would regard as an incorrect conclusion.
-dsr-
2017-05-03 11:29:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
(trimmed)
Post by -dsr-
Post by m***@sky.com
I'm sorry, but I reject defenses of obvious bias on the grounds that
nobody is entirely unbiased (I will accept the dodgy lists as some sort
of political statement, or grudgingly along the lines of "I was only
joking" but not for the reason you give).
Which lists are you calling dodgy?
I am referring to lists posted by James Nicoll with titles starting "Twenty Core.." such as "Twenty Core Military Speculative Fiction Books Every True SF Fan Should Have On Their Shelves"
And I am to take it that specifically you are not referring to lists
such as:

https://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/nation/best-science-fiction-books

(33 books, 5 not by men)

or

https://www.abebooks.com/books/features/50-essential-science-fiction-books.shtml
(50 books, 5 not by men)

or

http://bestsciencefictionbooks.com/top-25-best-science-fiction-books.php

(25 books, 4 not by men)

I gathered these by looking at the top google results for "twenty best
sf novels", for what that's worth.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by -dsr-
Post by m***@sky.com
Are we to accept that the activities of the Ministry of Truth in
1984 are to be regarded as unexceptionable because it is impossible
to eliminate all bias? Am I to dismiss the xenophobic genocide of the
Molothos in Grand Central Arena as "just their little way" because
sufficiently sensitive (or just sufficiently p-hacked) implicit
association tests can convict pretty much everybody of some degree of
prejudice?
You have just escalated from "making lists of books that fans might like to
read" to genocide. Do you really feel that way, or are you engaged in
parody?
-dsr-
It is not parody, but I am not claiming that the consequences are comparable. I believe that you have used a fallacious argument. In order to demonstrate that the argument does not hold, I am demonstrating its application in a situation where it leads to what most people would regard as an incorrect conclusion.
No, you misrepresented an obvious observation about bias (that it exists)
as the entirety of my argument, and then constructed a slippery slope.


-dsr-
Gene Wirchenko
2017-05-03 03:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by -dsr-
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
As opposed to the unimpeachable judgement of list-makers who purely
by coincidence end up with 80-100% male lists?
No. I generally do not trust lists of that sort. If they
included why an item was included, they would be more credible.
Post by -dsr-
Everybody is biased. The point of list making is never (or should not
ever be) to canonize the books or authors; the point is to recommend
and celebrate books.
Sure, but I dislike trickery. I would prefer an honest statement
of what is behind the list. e.g. "It recently occurred to me that
most <genre> that I had read was by men. I decided to seek out
<genre> works by women. Here is a list of ten <genre> works that I
think are worth reading and why for each. Some of the reasons may
startle you."

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-03 11:21:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
And even those who are non-Puppy who happen to be Baen-published (e.g.,
Eric Flint and myself both thought the Puppies were idiots; there are
probably others -- Bujold's Vorkosigan series, of course, is Baen)

(Note that this is not to criticize James' stance, just to note that
it's not ONLY a Puppy ban)
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Carl Fink
2017-05-03 13:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
And even those who are non-Puppy who happen to be Baen-published (e.g.,
Eric Flint and myself both thought the Puppies were idiots; there are
probably others -- Bujold's Vorkosigan series, of course, is Baen)
Eliminating Baen is weird, to this Rabid Puppies-despising Worldcon member.
I mean, they publish the Poul Anderson back catalog and such ... will James
refuse to review *Beyond This Horizon* because Baen has reprinted it? Where
is the line?

James? Did you really exclude all Baen books?
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
James Nicoll
2017-05-03 13:31:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
And even those who are non-Puppy who happen to be Baen-published (e.g.,
Eric Flint and myself both thought the Puppies were idiots; there are
probably others -- Bujold's Vorkosigan series, of course, is Baen)
Eliminating Baen is weird, to this Rabid Puppies-despising Worldcon member.
I mean, they publish the Poul Anderson back catalog and such ... will James
refuse to review *Beyond This Horizon* because Baen has reprinted it? Where
is the line?
James? Did you really exclude all Baen books?
I excluded Terri wossname's work and her work is being publisher at
Baen. I'd be more specific if it was possible to sort out what she
does from what the other senior staff there does but it's not.

I do review older stuff with a current edition at Baen. I just don't
review the Baen edition. Authors exclusively with Baen, otoh, I pass
on.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
James Nicoll
2017-05-03 13:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
And even those who are non-Puppy who happen to be Baen-published (e.g.,
Eric Flint and myself both thought the Puppies were idiots; there are
probably others -- Bujold's Vorkosigan series, of course, is Baen)
Eliminating Baen is weird, to this Rabid Puppies-despising Worldcon member.
I mean, they publish the Poul Anderson back catalog and such ... will James
refuse to review *Beyond This Horizon* because Baen has reprinted it? Where
is the line?
James? Did you really exclude all Baen books?
I excluded Terri wossname's work and her work is being publisher at
Baen. I'd be more specific if it was possible to sort out what she
does from what the other senior staff there does but it's not.
I do review older stuff with a current edition at Baen. I just don't
review the Baen edition. Authors exclusively with Baen, otoh, I pass
on.
I will admit in a lot of cases, there was never any chance I'd
review their books. I mean, I've read A STATE OF DISOBEDIENCE.
I don't need to read another Kratman.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-03 21:47:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Carl Fink
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
And even those who are non-Puppy who happen to be Baen-published (e.g.,
Eric Flint and myself both thought the Puppies were idiots; there are
probably others -- Bujold's Vorkosigan series, of course, is Baen)
Eliminating Baen is weird, to this Rabid Puppies-despising Worldcon member.
I mean, they publish the Poul Anderson back catalog and such ... will James
refuse to review *Beyond This Horizon* because Baen has reprinted it? Where
is the line?
James? Did you really exclude all Baen books?
I excluded Terri wossname's work and her work is being publisher at
Baen. I'd be more specific if it was possible to sort out what she
does from what the other senior staff there does but it's not.
I do review older stuff with a current edition at Baen. I just don't
review the Baen edition. Authors exclusively with Baen, otoh, I pass
on.
I will admit in a lot of cases, there was never any chance I'd
review their books. I mean, I've read A STATE OF DISOBEDIENCE.
I don't need to read another Kratman.
You know, that makes one tempted to sponsor a review of _Caliphate_.
https://www.amazon.com/Caliphate-Tom-Kratman/dp/1439133425/

Lynn
Carl Fink
2017-05-03 15:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
I do review older stuff with a current edition at Baen. I just don't
review the Baen edition. Authors exclusively with Baen, otoh, I pass
on.
As a huge PC Hodgell fan, I have to say this is perhaps not a great idea.
--
Carl Fink ***@nitpicking.com

Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
James Nicoll
2017-05-03 17:24:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Carl Fink
Post by James Nicoll
I do review older stuff with a current edition at Baen. I just don't
review the Baen edition. Authors exclusively with Baen, otoh, I pass
on.
As a huge PC Hodgell fan, I have to say this is perhaps not a great idea.
I have no idea why but I don't seem to be a Hodgell fan any more. Same
with Brust: I don't want to read their next book but I cannot point to
a specific reason.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
James Nicoll
2017-05-02 14:51:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose shit to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
James Nicoll
2017-05-02 16:27:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose shit to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
Well, shit and human shields. I have to say trying to use Chuck
Tingle as a human shield was a gambit I believe will keep paying off
for years to come.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-02 16:31:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to
trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material, which
is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line will be excluded regardless of the quality of their writing.

Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Dorothy J Heydt
2017-05-02 19:26:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to
trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material, which
is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line will be excluded regardless of the quality of their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list a
few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?

(I *think* I've read that they want to get SF back into the pulpy
gutter where it belongs, but I'm not at all sure.)
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 05:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to
trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material,
which is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get
nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list a
few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the rules
changes, it's unlikely you'll see them at any con involved in
Hugos.

(I predict that, if anyone answers, they will not point out there
are two completely separate groups referred to as "Puppies," and
they seem to dislike each other as much as they do anyone else.
"Puppies," by itself, is literally meaningless, but is commonly
used to dismiss those who have a legitimate point by conflating
them with the actual assholes.)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(I *think* I've read that they want to get SF back into the
pulpy gutter where it belongs, but I'm not at all sure.)
Depends on which group of Puppies. Sad Puppies feel, for reasons a
rational person might disagree with, but which are not irrational,
that the awards are controlled by people who are more interested in
promoting a poltical agenda (that they disagree with, of course)
than they are in the quality of writing, and would like to change
that. Rapid Puppies are psychotic, racist assholes who revel in
destroying anything they can destroy, even if they bear the cost
themselves.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
h***@gmail.com
2017-05-03 06:17:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to
trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material,
which is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get
nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list a
few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the rules
changes,
They haven't.
Slate voting has been addressed. They can still make suggestions for people to vote for.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
it's unlikely you'll see them at any con involved in
Hugos.
(I predict that, if anyone answers, they will not point out there
are two completely separate groups referred to as "Puppies," and
they seem to dislike each other as much as they do anyone else.
"Puppies," by itself, is literally meaningless, but is commonly
used to dismiss those who have a legitimate point by conflating
them with the actual assholes.)
Neither of the puppies groups has managed to show that they have a legitimate point and both groups made themselves extremely unpopular by going for slate voting rather than making some recommendations.
Also several of the rabid puppies were originally associated with the sad puppies campaign.
If you decide to nominate Vox Day as a poke in the eye to annoy people (which Correia has admitted) then you don't get to complain too much when he runs with it).
There was also a fair overlap between the lists they produced at for at least some of the awards.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 16:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult
to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would
have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off
the top of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad
material, which is why they had to resort to gaming the
rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude
those whose politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to
list a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid
them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the rules
changes,
They haven't.
Slate voting has been addressed. They can still make suggestions for people to vote for.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
it's unlikely you'll see them at any con involved in
Hugos.
(I predict that, if anyone answers, they will not point out
there are two completely separate groups referred to as
"Puppies," and they seem to dislike each other as much as they
do anyone else. "Puppies," by itself, is literally meaningless,
but is commonly used to dismiss those who have a legitimate
point by conflating them with the actual assholes.)
Neither of the puppies groups has managed to show that they have
a legitimate point and both groups made themselves extremely
unpopular by going for slate voting rather than making some
recommendations. Also several of the rabid puppies were
originally associated with the sad puppies campaign. If you
decide to nominate Vox Day as a poke in the eye to annoy people
(which Correia has admitted) then you don't get to complain too
much when he runs with it). There was also a fair overlap
between the lists they produced at for at least some of the
awards.
You're a very loyal little party aparatchik.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Woodward
2017-05-03 16:46:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <726598bf-5882-4e42-ae54-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@gmail.com wrote:


(re: Sad & Rabid Puppies)
Post by h***@gmail.com
Neither of the puppies groups has managed to show that they have a
legitimate point and both groups made themselves extremely unpopular
by going for slate voting rather than making some recommendations.
Also several of the rabid puppies were originally associated with the
sad puppies campaign. If you decide to nominate Vox Day as a poke in
the eye to annoy people (which Correia has admitted) then you don't
get to complain too much when he runs with it). There was also a fair
overlap between the lists they produced at for at least some of the
awards.
That is because the Diseased One borrowed from the Sad Puppy list to
make his list. This year, with no Sad Puppy list available, he had the
choice of coming up with all the items for a full slate, or wimp out and
only list the 1 to 3 items per category he had done in the past. He
wimped out.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-03 11:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to
trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material,
which is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get
nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list a
few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the rules
changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that are harder to
game. If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they can still
be nominated.

What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so that this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that approach in the
first place. They just wanted everything to CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 16:35:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult
to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would
have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the
top of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad
material, which is why they had to resort to gaming the
rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude
those whose politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list
a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the rules
changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that are
harder to
game.
They played by the rules. The powers that be didn't like that they
had a real chance to affect the outcome. So they changed the rules.

It's like the ten year old boys who don't want girl cooties in
their treehouse.

If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
can still be nominated.
What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so that
this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that
approach in the first place. They just wanted everything to
CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
Which is to say, you agree that the politics of the people involved
is more important than the quality of the writing. Or it wouldn't
"be much harder."

Which was the Sad Puppies point all along.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-04 01:10:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult
to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would
have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the
top of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad
material, which is why they had to resort to gaming the
rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude
those whose politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list
a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the rules
changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that are
harder to
game.
They played by the rules. The powers that be didn't like that they
had a real chance to affect the outcome. So they changed the rules.
It's like the ten year old boys who don't want girl cooties in
their treehouse.
If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
can still be nominated.
What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so that this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that
approach in the first place. They just wanted everything to
CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
Which is to say, you agree that the politics
No. The group dynamics. You come into a club and kick everything over,
you will find the group does not like you. Politics aren't the issue,
even though the Puppies deluded themselves into thinking it was. Yes,
there was preference for more literary and socially conscious works over
straight entertainment and Mil-SF, but it was just that, preference, not
politics, not some weird cabal as they wanted desperately to believe.

And then they came in and kicked everything around -- oh, all within
the rules, like any asshole munchkin rules-lawyers do -- and now they're
"vindicated" because they succeeded in CREATING the group of people
opposing them. Before, at most, it was "we don't particularly care for
the kind of stuff you're writing, and so we're not likely to vote for
it"; that could have been addressed by just joining the group, working
with them, and becoming part of the group.

Instead they chose to rules-lawyer and yell and scream, and so NOW it's
"I really don't care what they write, I'm not voting for those
assholes". Congratulations, Puppies, you've created that cabal you were
talking about.

Eric Flint and I felt the same way about it; he wrote some quite
detailed dissections of the entire idiocy on his site.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-04 02:10:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very
difficult to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would
have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off
the top of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad
material, which is why they had to resort to gaming the
rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow
the poltical line will be excluded regardless of the
quality of their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude
those whose politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I
believe we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and
this whole Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody
like to list a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I
can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the
rules changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that are harder to
game.
They played by the rules. The powers that be didn't like that
they had a real chance to affect the outcome. So they changed
the rules.
It's like the ten year old boys who don't want girl cooties in
their treehouse.
If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
can still be nominated.
What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so that this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that
approach in the first place. They just wanted everything to
CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
Which is to say, you agree that the politics
No. The group dynamics.
Yes, politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
You come into a club and
play strictly by the rules, but don't act the way the insiders want
you to
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
kick
everything over,
you will find the group does not like you. Politics aren't the
issue,
Politics is precisely the issue.

even though the Puppies deluded themselves into thinking
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it was. Yes, there was preference for more literary and socially
conscious works over straight entertainment and Mil-SF, but it
was just that, preference, not politics, not some weird cabal as
they wanted desperately to believe.
Note that the Hugos are open to _anyone_ who pays the fee. It's not
a *private* club. However assholish the various Puppies - I note
you still refuse to distinguish between two very distinct groups -
might have been, the response was childish, and demonstrated very
convincingly that this was all about girl cooties in the treehouse,
and that it was pure politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And then they came in and kicked everything around -- oh,
all within
the rules, like any asshole munchkin rules-lawyers do -- and now
they're "vindicated" because they succeeded in CREATING the
group of people opposing them. Before, at most, it was "we don't
particularly care for the kind of stuff you're writing, and so
we're not likely to vote for it"; that could have been addressed
by just joining the group, working with them, and becoming part
of the group.
Before, it was "we don't want that stuff to win." Now, it's "we
don't want that stuff to win, and we'll keep changing the rules
until it can't." Well, it was *always* that, but now it's overt.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Instead they chose to rules-lawyer and yell and scream, and so NOW it's
"I really don't care what they write, I'm not voting for those
assholes".
Once again, you agree that it's not about the quality of the
writing. At all. It's about politics, personal, group, whatever,
but about politics. Girl cooties in the treehouse.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Congratulations, Puppies, you've created that cabal
you were talking about.
It's always been there.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Eric Flint and I felt the same way about it; he wrote some quite
detailed dissections of the entire idiocy on his site.
And he and you are exactly as credible as anyone else. Including
any particular Puppy.

But what's been done publicly has been done publicly, and cannot be
undone. And what's been done publicly is the people who run the
Hugos didn't like that outsiders brought those girl cooties into
their treehouse, and, realizing they were losing control of that
treehouse, changed the rules to ensure it never happens again, _no
matter how many people feel it should_.

They have, in effect, said "Hey, we're going to pretend this is
open to anyone with a few bucks to spare, but really, only those
who vote the way we want them to."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Magewolf
2017-05-04 04:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very
difficult to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would
have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off
the top of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad
material, which is why they had to resort to gaming the
rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow
the poltical line will be excluded regardless of the
quality of their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude
those whose politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I
believe we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and
this whole Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody
like to list a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I
can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the
rules changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that are harder to
game.
They played by the rules. The powers that be didn't like that
they had a real chance to affect the outcome. So they changed
the rules.
It's like the ten year old boys who don't want girl cooties in
their treehouse.
If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
can still be nominated.
What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so that this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that
approach in the first place. They just wanted everything to
CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
Which is to say, you agree that the politics
No. The group dynamics.
Yes, politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
You come into a club and
play strictly by the rules, but don't act the way the insiders want
you to
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
kick
everything over,
you will find the group does not like you. Politics aren't the issue,
Politics is precisely the issue.
even though the Puppies deluded themselves into thinking
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it was. Yes, there was preference for more literary and socially
conscious works over straight entertainment and Mil-SF, but it
was just that, preference, not politics, not some weird cabal as
they wanted desperately to believe.
Note that the Hugos are open to _anyone_ who pays the fee. It's not
a *private* club. However assholish the various Puppies - I note
you still refuse to distinguish between two very distinct groups -
might have been, the response was childish, and demonstrated very
convincingly that this was all about girl cooties in the treehouse,
and that it was pure politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And then they came in and kicked everything around -- oh, all within
the rules, like any asshole munchkin rules-lawyers do -- and now
they're "vindicated" because they succeeded in CREATING the
group of people opposing them. Before, at most, it was "we don't
particularly care for the kind of stuff you're writing, and so
we're not likely to vote for it"; that could have been addressed
by just joining the group, working with them, and becoming part
of the group.
Before, it was "we don't want that stuff to win." Now, it's "we
don't want that stuff to win, and we'll keep changing the rules
until it can't." Well, it was *always* that, but now it's overt.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Instead they chose to rules-lawyer and yell and scream, and so NOW it's
"I really don't care what they write, I'm not voting for those
assholes".
Once again, you agree that it's not about the quality of the
writing. At all. It's about politics, personal, group, whatever,
but about politics. Girl cooties in the treehouse.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Congratulations, Puppies, you've created that cabal
you were talking about.
It's always been there.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Eric Flint and I felt the same way about it; he wrote some quite
detailed dissections of the entire idiocy on his site.
And he and you are exactly as credible as anyone else. Including
any particular Puppy.
But what's been done publicly has been done publicly, and cannot be
undone. And what's been done publicly is the people who run the
Hugos didn't like that outsiders brought those girl cooties into
their treehouse, and, realizing they were losing control of that
treehouse, changed the rules to ensure it never happens again, _no
matter how many people feel it should_.
They have, in effect, said "Hey, we're going to pretend this is
open to anyone with a few bucks to spare, but really, only those
who vote the way we want them to."
I try to keep up with these thing but you keep mentioning the Hugos
rules being changed to keep the puppies out which I am unaware of. The
only changes I know of are to reduce the effect of slate voting which
effects everyone equally.

You would think that the puppies would be happy about that since it
would keep the secret sjw masters of the Worldcon from using their
secret slates to control the award. It is almost as if they were just
making up the secret slates and are upset because if they want an award
they have to have the numbers to win one fairly now.
h***@gmail.com
2017-05-04 04:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very
difficult to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would
have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off
the top of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad
material, which is why they had to resort to gaming the
rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow
the poltical line will be excluded regardless of the
quality of their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude
those whose politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I
believe we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and
this whole Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody
like to list a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I
can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the
rules changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that are harder to
game.
They played by the rules. The powers that be didn't like that
they had a real chance to affect the outcome. So they changed
the rules.
It's like the ten year old boys who don't want girl cooties in
their treehouse.
If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
can still be nominated.
What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so that this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that
approach in the first place. They just wanted everything to
CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
Which is to say, you agree that the politics
No. The group dynamics.
Yes, politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
You come into a club and
play strictly by the rules, but don't act the way the insiders want
you to
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
kick
everything over,
you will find the group does not like you. Politics aren't the issue,
Politics is precisely the issue.
even though the Puppies deluded themselves into thinking
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it was. Yes, there was preference for more literary and socially
conscious works over straight entertainment and Mil-SF, but it
was just that, preference, not politics, not some weird cabal as
they wanted desperately to believe.
Note that the Hugos are open to _anyone_ who pays the fee. It's not
a *private* club. However assholish the various Puppies - I note
you still refuse to distinguish between two very distinct groups -
might have been, the response was childish, and demonstrated very
convincingly that this was all about girl cooties in the treehouse,
and that it was pure politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And then they came in and kicked everything around -- oh, all within
the rules, like any asshole munchkin rules-lawyers do -- and now
they're "vindicated" because they succeeded in CREATING the
group of people opposing them. Before, at most, it was "we don't
particularly care for the kind of stuff you're writing, and so
we're not likely to vote for it"; that could have been addressed
by just joining the group, working with them, and becoming part
of the group.
Before, it was "we don't want that stuff to win." Now, it's "we
don't want that stuff to win, and we'll keep changing the rules
until it can't." Well, it was *always* that, but now it's overt.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Instead they chose to rules-lawyer and yell and scream, and so NOW it's
"I really don't care what they write, I'm not voting for those
assholes".
Once again, you agree that it's not about the quality of the
writing. At all. It's about politics, personal, group, whatever,
but about politics. Girl cooties in the treehouse.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Congratulations, Puppies, you've created that cabal
you were talking about.
It's always been there.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Eric Flint and I felt the same way about it; he wrote some quite
detailed dissections of the entire idiocy on his site.
And he and you are exactly as credible as anyone else. Including
any particular Puppy.
But what's been done publicly has been done publicly, and cannot be
undone. And what's been done publicly is the people who run the
Hugos didn't like that outsiders brought those girl cooties into
their treehouse, and, realizing they were losing control of that
treehouse, changed the rules to ensure it never happens again, _no
matter how many people feel it should_.
They have, in effect, said "Hey, we're going to pretend this is
open to anyone with a few bucks to spare, but really, only those
who vote the way we want them to."
I try to keep up with these thing but you keep mentioning the Hugos
rules being changed to keep the puppies out which I am unaware of. The
only changes I know of are to reduce the effect of slate voting which
effects everyone equally.
You're assuming that Terry actually believes what he's posting.
Odds are good that he's just trolling this one.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-04 05:28:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Robert Woodward
In article
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very
difficult to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think
would have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo
shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most of them
write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they
had to resort to gaming the rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not
tow the poltical line will be excluded regardless of
the quality of their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to
exclude those whose politics they disagree with. Twice,
so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I
believe we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby)
and this whole Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would
anybody like to list a few of the most egregious
Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the
rules changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that are harder to
game.
They played by the rules. The powers that be didn't like
that they had a real chance to affect the outcome. So they
changed the rules.
It's like the ten year old boys who don't want girl cooties
in their treehouse.
If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
can still be nominated.
What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so
that this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that
approach in the first place. They just wanted everything
to CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
Which is to say, you agree that the politics
No. The group dynamics.
Yes, politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
You come into a club and
play strictly by the rules, but don't act the way the
insiders want you to
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
kick
everything over,
you will find the group does not like you. Politics aren't
the issue,
Politics is precisely the issue.
even though the Puppies deluded themselves into thinking
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it was. Yes, there was preference for more literary and
socially conscious works over straight entertainment and
Mil-SF, but it was just that, preference, not politics, not
some weird cabal as they wanted desperately to believe.
Note that the Hugos are open to _anyone_ who pays the fee.
It's not a *private* club. However assholish the various
Puppies - I note you still refuse to distinguish between two
very distinct groups - might have been, the response was
childish, and demonstrated very convincingly that this was
all about girl cooties in the treehouse, and that it was pure
politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And then they came in and kicked everything around --
oh, all within
the rules, like any asshole munchkin rules-lawyers do -- and
now they're "vindicated" because they succeeded in CREATING
the group of people opposing them. Before, at most, it was
"we don't particularly care for the kind of stuff you're
writing, and so we're not likely to vote for it"; that could
have been addressed by just joining the group, working with
them, and becoming part of the group.
Before, it was "we don't want that stuff to win." Now, it's
"we don't want that stuff to win, and we'll keep changing the
rules until it can't." Well, it was *always* that, but now
it's overt.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Instead they chose to rules-lawyer and yell and scream, and so NOW it's
"I really don't care what they write, I'm not voting for
those assholes".
Once again, you agree that it's not about the quality of the
writing. At all. It's about politics, personal, group,
whatever, but about politics. Girl cooties in the treehouse.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Congratulations, Puppies, you've created that cabal
you were talking about.
It's always been there.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
some quite
detailed dissections of the entire idiocy on his site.
And he and you are exactly as credible as anyone else.
Including any particular Puppy.
But what's been done publicly has been done publicly, and
cannot be undone. And what's been done publicly is the people
who run the Hugos didn't like that outsiders brought those
girl cooties into their treehouse, and, realizing they were
losing control of that treehouse, changed the rules to ensure
it never happens again, _no matter how many people feel it
should_.
They have, in effect, said "Hey, we're going to pretend this
is open to anyone with a few bucks to spare, but really, only
those who vote the way we want them to."
I try to keep up with these thing but you keep mentioning the
Hugos rules being changed to keep the puppies out which I am
unaware of. The only changes I know of are to reduce the
effect of slate voting which effects everyone equally.
You're assuming that Terry actually believes what he's posting.
Odds are good that he's just trolling this one.
The best troll is one that the target knows is true. Nothing pisses
people off faster.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-04 05:27:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Magewolf
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very
difficult to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would
have turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off
the top of my head, most of them write unremarkable to
bad material, which is why they had to resort to gaming
the rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow
the poltical line will be excluded regardless of the
quality of their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all,
*they* haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude
those whose politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I
believe we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and
this whole Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would
anybody like to list a few of the most egregious Puppies,
so that I can avoid them?
Now that they have been completely disenfranchised by the
rules changes,
Not at all. They just now have to play by rules that
are harder to
game.
They played by the rules. The powers that be didn't like that
they had a real chance to affect the outcome. So they changed
the rules.
It's like the ten year old boys who don't want girl cooties
in their treehouse.
If they can get enough members to like their stuff, they
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
can still be nominated.
What they HAVE done is piss everyone involved off so
that this will be
much harder than it would've been if they had taken that
approach in the first place. They just wanted everything to
CHANGE RIGHT NOW OR ELSE.
Which is to say, you agree that the politics
No. The group dynamics.
Yes, politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
You come into a club and
play strictly by the rules, but don't act the way the insiders
want you to
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
kick
everything over,
you will find the group does not like you. Politics aren't the issue,
Politics is precisely the issue.
even though the Puppies deluded themselves into thinking
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
it was. Yes, there was preference for more literary and
socially conscious works over straight entertainment and
Mil-SF, but it was just that, preference, not politics, not
some weird cabal as they wanted desperately to believe.
Note that the Hugos are open to _anyone_ who pays the fee. It's
not a *private* club. However assholish the various Puppies - I
note you still refuse to distinguish between two very distinct
groups - might have been, the response was childish, and
demonstrated very convincingly that this was all about girl
cooties in the treehouse, and that it was pure politics.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
And then they came in and kicked everything around -- oh, all within
the rules, like any asshole munchkin rules-lawyers do -- and
now they're "vindicated" because they succeeded in CREATING
the group of people opposing them. Before, at most, it was "we
don't particularly care for the kind of stuff you're writing,
and so we're not likely to vote for it"; that could have been
addressed by just joining the group, working with them, and
becoming part of the group.
Before, it was "we don't want that stuff to win." Now, it's "we
don't want that stuff to win, and we'll keep changing the rules
until it can't." Well, it was *always* that, but now it's
overt.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Instead they chose to rules-lawyer and yell and scream,
and so NOW it's
"I really don't care what they write, I'm not voting for those
assholes".
Once again, you agree that it's not about the quality of the
writing. At all. It's about politics, personal, group,
whatever, but about politics. Girl cooties in the treehouse.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Congratulations, Puppies, you've created that cabal
you were talking about.
It's always been there.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
some quite
detailed dissections of the entire idiocy on his site.
And he and you are exactly as credible as anyone else.
Including any particular Puppy.
But what's been done publicly has been done publicly, and
cannot be undone. And what's been done publicly is the people
who run the Hugos didn't like that outsiders brought those girl
cooties into their treehouse, and, realizing they were losing
control of that treehouse, changed the rules to ensure it never
happens again, _no matter how many people feel it should_.
They have, in effect, said "Hey, we're going to pretend this is
open to anyone with a few bucks to spare, but really, only
those who vote the way we want them to."
I try to keep up with these thing but you keep mentioning the
Hugos rules being changed to keep the puppies out which I am
unaware of.
That says far more about you than it does about the issue at hand.

Like climate alarmists, pretending that no one disagrees with you
is a cult-like behavior.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2017-05-05 12:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
That says far more about you than it does about the issue at hand.
Like climate alarmists, pretending that no one disagrees with you
is a cult-like behavior.
If you really want to cross the beams ... er, threads ... you need to get
this up at the top of a short reply, rather than way way down a
non-snipped-ever long exchange.

Dave, hope this helps!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-05 16:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2017-05-04, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
That says far more about you than it does about the issue at
hand.
Like climate alarmists, pretending that no one disagrees with
you is a cult-like behavior.
If you really want to cross the beams ... er, threads ... you
need to get this up at the top of a short reply, rather than way
way down a non-snipped-ever long exchange.
And yet, you replied, hook firmly embedded in yoru check.
Dave, hope this helps!
Heh.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-03 11:42:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to
trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material, which
is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line will be excluded regardless of the quality of their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list a
few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
(I *think* I've read that they want to get SF back into the pulpy
gutter where it belongs, but I'm not at all sure.)
It's slightly more complex than that, and the Puppies themselves range
from people you wouldn't want to read anything by at all, to people who
write decent stuff, to a couple who've written some pretty good stuff.
Kr*tm*n is one of the Puppies. Larry Correia basically started the
movement; Brad Torgersen took up the torch later. Sarah Hoyt is another
major booster.

Since I didn't agree with them but didn't want to get into a big fight
over it either, I didn't pay attention to the entire membership. The
biggest stupid thing they did was bring Vox Day (who is one of the more
vile people I've encountered online) into the whole thing, and then they
doubled down by not clearly disassociating themselves from him.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 16:39:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult
to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top
of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material,
which is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get
nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list
a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
(I *think* I've read that they want to get SF back into the
pulpy gutter where it belongs, but I'm not at all sure.)
It's slightly more complex than that, and the Puppies
themselves range
from people you wouldn't want to read anything by at all, to
people who write decent stuff, to a couple who've written some
pretty good stuff. Kr*tm*n is one of the Puppies. Larry Correia
basically started the movement; Brad Torgersen took up the torch
later. Sarah Hoyt is another major booster.
Since I didn't agree with them but didn't want to get into a big fight
over it either, I didn't pay attention to the entire membership.
The biggest stupid thing they did was bring Vox Day (who is one
of the more vile people I've encountered online) into the whole
thing, and then they doubled down by not clearly disassociating
themselves from him.
I not that, as predicted, you make no distinction between two very
distinct groups.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-04 01:00:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult
to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top
of my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material,
which is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get
nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line will be excluded regardless of the quality of
their writing.
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
Guys, I haven't been to a Worldcon in years (though I believe
we're going to go to ConJose, it being nearby) and this whole
Puppy thing has gone over my head. Would anybody like to list
a few of the most egregious Puppies, so that I can avoid them?
(I *think* I've read that they want to get SF back into the
pulpy gutter where it belongs, but I'm not at all sure.)
It's slightly more complex than that, and the Puppies
themselves range
from people you wouldn't want to read anything by at all, to
people who write decent stuff, to a couple who've written some
pretty good stuff. Kr*tm*n is one of the Puppies. Larry Correia
basically started the movement; Brad Torgersen took up the torch
later. Sarah Hoyt is another major booster.
Since I didn't agree with them but didn't want to get into a big fight
over it either, I didn't pay attention to the entire membership.
The biggest stupid thing they did was bring Vox Day (who is one
of the more vile people I've encountered online) into the whole
thing, and then they doubled down by not clearly disassociating
themselves from him.
I not that, as predicted, you make no distinction between two very
distinct groups.
They didn't, either. None of the major Sads ever really put forth any
effort to separate from Vox. So by default they're either the same
group, or two groups which ended up dominated by their little recruited
monster; the Rabids even turned out to be dominant in the slating over
the Sads.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gene Wirchenko
2017-05-03 19:42:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 3 May 2017 07:42:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<***@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Since I didn't agree with them but didn't want to get into a big fight
over it either, I didn't pay attention to the entire membership. The
biggest stupid thing they did was bring Vox Day (who is one of the more
vile people I've encountered online) into the whole thing, and then they
doubled down by not clearly disassociating themselves from him.
They asked why they should have to. It was obvious that they
were two different groups.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
James Nicoll
2017-05-03 19:58:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 3 May 2017 07:42:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Since I didn't agree with them but didn't want to get into a big fight
over it either, I didn't pay attention to the entire membership. The
biggest stupid thing they did was bring Vox Day (who is one of the more
vile people I've encountered online) into the whole thing, and then they
doubled down by not clearly disassociating themselves from him.
They asked why they should have to. It was obvious that they
were two different groups.
That is certainly what the Sads would have the world believe. Probably
would be more believable if the Sads had not been the ones to bring VD
in in the first place. The Sads may want to distance themselves but
they didn't mind back in the day making it clear that Larry Correia,
John C. Wright, Sarah Hoyt, and Vox Day were part of the so-called
Evil Legion of Evil, SP3's steering committee.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 20:31:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 3 May 2017 07:42:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Since I didn't agree with them but didn't want to get into a big fight
over it either, I didn't pay attention to the entire
membership. The biggest stupid thing they did was bring Vox Day
(who is one of the more vile people I've encountered online)
into the whole thing, and then they doubled down by not clearly
disassociating themselves from him.
They asked why they should have to. It was obvious that
they
were two different groups.
That is certainly what the Sads would have the world believe.
Probably would be more believable if the Sads had not been the
ones to bring VD in in the first place. The Sads may want to
distance themselves but they didn't mind back in the day making
it clear that Larry Correia, John C. Wright, Sarah Hoyt, and Vox
Day were part of the so-called Evil Legion of Evil, SP3's
steering committee.
You're a very well trained little aparatchik, son. Have a cookie.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-03 11:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors.
There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to
trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material, which
is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
will be excluded regardless of the quality of their writing.
Which is bullpuckey, since even Correia got ON the ballot a few years
before he started the Puppy thing. It's a stupid, stupid position
they've taken, and the whole Puppy fiasco was even stupider; Eric Flint
wrote at length -- more than once -- about it.

Is there an "in" group? Sure. There is in ANY collection of people that
meet regularly and have some kind of defined purpose. And they do have
*preferences* which are going to reduce the number of
straight-entertainment books that make it onto the list. It doesn't
PREVENT them from getting on the list, and there is no rule -- spoken or
unspoken -- that such books cannot, or Harry Potter would NEVER have
gotten on the ballot, let alone WON, nor would Correia have been
nominated, nor any of a number of other books that have been nominated
and/or won.

NOW, of course, things are different. They chose to choose to use a
baseball bat and mob tactics to try to change an established group,
rather than doing the ONLY tactic that works on such established
clubs/groups: joining them, participating, becoming an accepted member,
and working to change the overall perception of the group. THAT works.
Bulling your way in, yelling about how you're ignored, and using
technicalities to force your tastes onto the group? That only serves to
prove that you ARE a bunch of self-important boors, even if your
opposition IS, in fact, literati snobs (which they aren't, certainly not
as an overall group).
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Why is your claim more credible than theirs? After all, *they*
haven't changed the rules specifically to exclude those whose
politics they disagree with. Twice, so far.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
2017-05-03 16:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies
authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult
to trust his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have
turned up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of
my head, most of them write unremarkable to bad material,
which is why they had to resort to gaming the rules to get
nominated.
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the
poltical line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.
Heh.

No one has accused either set of Puppies of breaking a single rule.
They followed the rules scrupulously. The powers that be didn't
like that their agenda might end up not being followed, so they
change the rules to prevent any threat to it in the future.

The Hugos are an insider's only club, and they have declared that
publicly. (Not that they've matter for a long, long time anyway.)
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Greg Goss
2017-05-05 07:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.

--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
David DeLaney
2017-05-05 12:53:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.
thank you gracias shalom!

Dave, +1, would read again
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-05 13:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.
Hear Hear!

The other one I see (e.g. Kim Harrision's Rachel Morgan) is
"Fire in hold" - which should instead be "Fire in the Hole!"
Jay E. Morris
2017-05-05 16:24:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.
Hear Hear!
The other one I see (e.g. Kim Harrision's Rachel Morgan) is
"Fire in hold" - which should instead be "Fire in the Hole!"
Unless it's aboard a ship.
Anthony Nance
2017-05-08 17:29:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.
Hear Hear!
The other one I see (e.g. Kim Harrision's Rachel Morgan) is
"Fire in hold" - which should instead be "Fire in the Hole!"
Unless it's aboard a ship.
And it would have been funny/ironic if Scott had (purposely) said
"Here Here!"
Scott Lurndal
2017-05-08 18:27:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Nance
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Or so you claim. They claim that anyone who does not tow the poltical
line
Ob Pet Peeve: TOE the line. Not Tow.
Hear Hear!
The other one I see (e.g. Kim Harrision's Rachel Morgan) is
"Fire in hold" - which should instead be "Fire in the Hole!"
Unless it's aboard a ship.
And it would have been funny/ironic if Scott had (purposely) said
"Here Here!"
I though about it, but didn't. Another pet peave, along with
the misuse of 'decimated' and the use of prone when the author
meant supine.
m***@sky.com
2017-05-02 17:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose shit to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
I don't know about the timing, but I think Sarah Hoyt's "Through Fire" is good material. It works well as an adventure story (there is also a romance element, which I do not consider myself a good judge of) and also as a reflection on the French Revolution, specifically on the theory that promising equality was aiming for the wrong target.

There is also a non-political critique of the Hugos - that they favour literary style and experimentation over entertainment. I have no idea whether your inbox is open to works of SF which merely provide entertainment and enjoyment. I think finding a way to highlight these to attract new readers would be useful.
James Nicoll
2017-05-03 13:37:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
There is also a non-political critique of the Hugos - that they favour
literary style and experimentation over entertainment. I have no idea
whether your inbox is open to works of SF which merely provide
entertainment and enjoyment.
I am pretty skeptical that there's any work that's purely entertainment
and enjoyment, except in the sense to specific readers certain elements
are so normal they don't notice them any more than a fish does water.

Meat and potatoes SF still wins Hugos. I mean, John Scalzi is in no
sense the 21st century Harlan Ellison but he wins Hugos. Bujold's
prose is unchallenging and she probably needed to build an extension
onto her house for her Hugos. Connie Willis (37 minutes of angry
ranting) wins Hugos. What doesn't win Hugos is the crap the Puppies
offered in 2015 and 2016.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Robert Woodward
2017-05-03 16:29:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by m***@sky.com
There is also a non-political critique of the Hugos - that they favour
literary style and experimentation over entertainment. I have no idea
whether your inbox is open to works of SF which merely provide
entertainment and enjoyment.
I am pretty skeptical that there's any work that's purely entertainment
and enjoyment, except in the sense to specific readers certain elements
are so normal they don't notice them any more than a fish does water.
Meat and potatoes SF still wins Hugos. I mean, John Scalzi is in no
sense the 21st century Harlan Ellison but he wins Hugos. Bujold's
prose is unchallenging and she probably needed to build an extension
onto her house for her Hugos. Connie Willis (37 minutes of angry
ranting) wins Hugos. What doesn't win Hugos is the crap the Puppies
offered in 2015 and 2016.
I might agree with you about the 2015 lists (I think I could come up
with a better novel list just from books published by Baen), but the Sad
Puppie 2016 lists were a bit different. There were 10 items on the novel
list (3 were on Locus's recommended lists, all 3 made the final ballot);
there were 7 items on the novellas list (3 were on Locus's recommended
list, all 3 made the final ballot including the winner); there were 6 on
the novelette list (3 were on Locus's recommended list, 2 of those were
on the final ballot including the winner); and there were 10 on the
short story list (3 were on Locus's recommended list, only 1 of those
made the ballot, where it won with No Award in 2nd place).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
‹-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Lynn McGuire
2017-05-02 20:58:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose s*** to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
I find Larry Corriea's urban fantasy books to be awesome. I also enjoy
Sarah Hoyt's Good Men series.

https://www.amazon.com/International-Monster-Hunter-Larry-Correia/dp/1439132852/
and
https://www.amazon.com/DarkShip-Thieves-Sarah-Hoyt/dp/1439133174/

And to blacklist an entire publisher and their authors is over the top.

Lynn
-dsr-
2017-05-03 00:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose s*** to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
I find Larry Corriea's urban fantasy books to be awesome. I also enjoy
Sarah Hoyt's Good Men series.
Correia tends to write pulpy SFF action, along the lines of "men's adventure"
from the 1960s. I think most of them are entertaining in the same way that
John Barnes' Time Wars trilogy was entertaining.

Somehow the Puppies nominated the end of a trilogy for a Hugo, presumably
because the much better beginning book was not eligible.
Post by Lynn McGuire
https://www.amazon.com/DarkShip-Thieves-Sarah-Hoyt/dp/1439133174/
Hoyt, on the other hand, tends to degrade into L. Neil Smith-style libertarian
spluttering about half-way through any given book.
Post by Lynn McGuire
And to blacklist an entire publisher and their authors is over the top.
Mnyeh. Only if James had market power, which he clearly doesn't. He doesn't
even own a bookstore any more.

-dsr-
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-03 11:49:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose s*** to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
I find Larry Corriea's urban fantasy books to be awesome. I also enjoy
Sarah Hoyt's Good Men series.
https://www.amazon.com/International-Monster-Hunter-Larry-Correia/dp/1439132852/
and
https://www.amazon.com/DarkShip-Thieves-Sarah-Hoyt/dp/1439133174/
And to blacklist an entire publisher and their authors is over the top.
To PERSONALLY choose to do so as an individual? No, it's not. If the
publisher did something you object to, you have EVERY right to decide
you're not going to support them. Since Baen did take official sides in
that battle, James is completely justified in deciding he's not going to
support them as an individual reviewer.

If James were, say, running Ingram or Bowker or some other major
industry player, yes, it might be different, but that's not the case.
He's a well-known -- in fandom and parts of the industry -- reviewer,
but he acts as an individual and is perfectly right to make decisions
about what he wants to read and review on the basis of his personal
preferences of ANY sort.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Gene Wirchenko
2017-05-03 19:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 3 May 2017 07:49:49 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
And to blacklist an entire publisher and their authors is over the top.
To PERSONALLY choose to do so as an individual? No, it's not. If the
publisher did something you object to, you have EVERY right to decide
you're not going to support them. Since Baen did take official sides in
that battle, James is completely justified in deciding he's not going to
support them as an individual reviewer.
However, as a reviewer, there is an implied standard of non-bias.

And I am perfectly justified in deciding that I am not going to
support that bigotry.
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
If James were, say, running Ingram or Bowker or some other major
industry player, yes, it might be different, but that's not the case.
He's a well-known -- in fandom and parts of the industry -- reviewer,
but he acts as an individual and is perfectly right to make decisions
about what he wants to read and review on the basis of his personal
preferences of ANY sort.
He can have whatever biases he wants. And anyone can call him on
them.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
James Nicoll
2017-05-03 20:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 3 May 2017 07:49:49 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
And to blacklist an entire publisher and their authors is over the top.
To PERSONALLY choose to do so as an individual? No, it's not. If the
publisher did something you object to, you have EVERY right to decide
you're not going to support them. Since Baen did take official sides in
that battle, James is completely justified in deciding he's not going to
support them as an individual reviewer.
However, as a reviewer, there is an implied standard of non-bias.
Nobody has no biases. Anyone who says they don't is deluded or selling
a bridge. Reviewers should be aware of their biases, I'd argue making
them clear isn't bad, although I think in most cases readers can work
out what they are.

If I am a food reviewer, I am not being unjust if I allow my distaste for
stings to steer me away from the Live Bees with Angry Hornets garnish entree.
It might make me a poor choice to review Hymenoptera Hut. But Hymenoptera Hut
cannot legitimately complain if I say "Since I am ambivilent about anaphylaxis,
I will not review anthing at Hymenoptera Hut."
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Gene Wirchenko
2017-05-04 00:44:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 3 May 2017 07:49:49 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
And to blacklist an entire publisher and their authors is over the top.
To PERSONALLY choose to do so as an individual? No, it's not. If the
publisher did something you object to, you have EVERY right to decide
you're not going to support them. Since Baen did take official sides in
that battle, James is completely justified in deciding he's not going to
support them as an individual reviewer.
However, as a reviewer, there is an implied standard of non-bias.
Nobody has no biases. Anyone who says they don't is deluded or selling
a bridge. Reviewers should be aware of their biases, I'd argue making
them clear isn't bad, although I think in most cases readers can work
out what they are.
Someone who knowingly adopts biases is a different story
altogether. Stating that one only reviews sf is one thing. Avoiding
a publisher is quite another.
Post by James Nicoll
If I am a food reviewer, I am not being unjust if I allow my distaste for
stings to steer me away from the Live Bees with Angry Hornets garnish entree.
It might make me a poor choice to review Hymenoptera Hut. But Hymenoptera Hut
cannot legitimately complain if I say "Since I am ambivilent about anaphylaxis,
I will not review anthing at Hymenoptera Hut."
How many books killed reviewers last year?

I think the risk is low, whether the books use anaphylaxis or
some other method to kill.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
James Nicoll
2017-05-04 02:41:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I don't know and have made my resistance roll against trying to
find out.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Dimensional Traveler
2017-05-04 04:48:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I don't know and have made my resistance roll against trying to
find out.
Darn, I could have used the entertainment from the Tale of Another
Nicoll Event. :)
--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!
James Nicoll
2017-05-04 05:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I don't know and have made my resistance roll against trying to
find out.
Darn, I could have used the entertainment from the Tale of Another
Nicoll Event. :)
So this happened Tuesday:

Was out for a walk and a big guy started following me real close at
Charles and Cedar. When I asked if he was following me, he said yes.
But there were always cars around and when I cut over to King, he ran
off, apparently to get the number 7 bus.

The interesting thing is this happened right across the street from where
I got pegged with a beer bottle by a parolee a few years back. I never saw
beer bottle guy. Wonder if it was him?

I got a call from a cop half an hour after I called the police to report
being followed. Turns out A: my description was actually pretty spot-on,
and B: happened to match a guy who got kicked out of the half-way house
about 20 minutes before I got accosted. Connecting the dots turned out to
be very easy. OK, not as easy as the time the guy who attacked me had his
name tattooed on his chest but pretty easy.

(my exgf has asked me to stop taking late night walks past that particular
corner)
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Dimensional Traveler
2017-05-04 14:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I don't know and have made my resistance roll against trying to
find out.
Darn, I could have used the entertainment from the Tale of Another
Nicoll Event. :)
Was out for a walk and a big guy started following me real close at
Charles and Cedar. When I asked if he was following me, he said yes.
But there were always cars around and when I cut over to King, he ran
off, apparently to get the number 7 bus.
The interesting thing is this happened right across the street from where
I got pegged with a beer bottle by a parolee a few years back. I never saw
beer bottle guy. Wonder if it was him?
I got a call from a cop half an hour after I called the police to report
being followed. Turns out A: my description was actually pretty spot-on,
and B: happened to match a guy who got kicked out of the half-way house
about 20 minutes before I got accosted. Connecting the dots turned out to
be very easy. OK, not as easy as the time the guy who attacked me had his
name tattooed on his chest but pretty easy.
(my exgf has asked me to stop taking late night walks past that particular
corner)
Thank you, that was so considerate of you. :D (I'm glad no one got hurt.)
--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!
James Nicoll
2017-05-04 14:58:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I don't know and have made my resistance roll against trying to
find out.
Darn, I could have used the entertainment from the Tale of Another
Nicoll Event. :)
Was out for a walk and a big guy started following me real close at
Charles and Cedar. When I asked if he was following me, he said yes.
But there were always cars around and when I cut over to King, he ran
off, apparently to get the number 7 bus.
The interesting thing is this happened right across the street from where
I got pegged with a beer bottle by a parolee a few years back. I never saw
beer bottle guy. Wonder if it was him?
I got a call from a cop half an hour after I called the police to report
being followed. Turns out A: my description was actually pretty spot-on,
and B: happened to match a guy who got kicked out of the half-way house
about 20 minutes before I got accosted. Connecting the dots turned out to
be very easy. OK, not as easy as the time the guy who attacked me had his
name tattooed on his chest but pretty easy.
(my exgf has asked me to stop taking late night walks past that particular
corner)
Thank you, that was so considerate of you. :D (I'm glad no one got hurt.)
I didn't point out to her that the neighborhood near the bus terminal
has had a spate of muggings. I can avoid Charles and Cedar but I use
the terminal once or twice a day...
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
David DeLaney
2017-05-05 13:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Darn, I could have used the entertainment from the Tale of Another
Nicoll Event. :)
... of COURSE you have one handy.
Post by James Nicoll
Was out for a walk and a big guy started following me real close at
Charles and Cedar. When I asked if he was following me, he said yes.
But there were always cars around and when I cut over to King, he ran
off, apparently to get the number 7 bus.
The interesting thing is this happened right across the street from where
I got pegged with a beer bottle by a parolee a few years back. I never saw
beer bottle guy. Wonder if it was him?
I got a call from a cop half an hour after I called the police to report
being followed. Turns out A: my description was actually pretty spot-on,
and B: happened to match a guy who got kicked out of the half-way house
about 20 minutes before I got accosted. Connecting the dots turned out to
be very easy. OK, not as easy as the time the guy who attacked me had his
name tattooed on his chest but pretty easy.
Heh. Are they gonna follow up & let you know what the outcome was?
Post by James Nicoll
(my exgf has asked me to stop taking late night walks past that particular
corner)
Whereas the cops have requested to be let in on your schedule, as part of an
effort to attract and neutralize the criminal element in the vicinity. Yes?

Dave, take what you've got and run with it

ps: i ... might have assumed some other motivation had it happened to me
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
James Nicoll
2017-05-06 04:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Darn, I could have used the entertainment from the Tale of Another
Nicoll Event. :)
... of COURSE you have one handy.
Post by James Nicoll
Was out for a walk and a big guy started following me real close at
Charles and Cedar. When I asked if he was following me, he said yes.
But there were always cars around and when I cut over to King, he ran
off, apparently to get the number 7 bus.
The interesting thing is this happened right across the street from where
I got pegged with a beer bottle by a parolee a few years back. I never saw
beer bottle guy. Wonder if it was him?
I got a call from a cop half an hour after I called the police to report
being followed. Turns out A: my description was actually pretty spot-on,
and B: happened to match a guy who got kicked out of the half-way house
about 20 minutes before I got accosted. Connecting the dots turned out to
be very easy. OK, not as easy as the time the guy who attacked me had his
name tattooed on his chest but pretty easy.
Heh. Are they gonna follow up & let you know what the outcome was?
Past experience says no.
Post by David DeLaney
Post by James Nicoll
(my exgf has asked me to stop taking late night walks past that particular
corner)
Whereas the cops have requested to be let in on your schedule, as part of an
effort to attract and neutralize the criminal element in the vicinity. Yes?
That happened once: reported someone broke a small window pane in the
ten minutes I was out, cops thought it was someone testing to see if
I actually had an alarm or just a sticker for one so they camped out
nearby to watch. 3 AM, I woken by the sound of a guy being arrested on
my porch.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2017-05-04 03:06:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
On Wed, 3 May 2017 07:49:49 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
[snip]
Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Post by Lynn McGuire
And to blacklist an entire publisher and their authors is over the top.
To PERSONALLY choose to do so as an individual? No, it's not. If the
publisher did something you object to, you have EVERY right to decide
you're not going to support them. Since Baen did take official sides in
that battle, James is completely justified in deciding he's not going to
support them as an individual reviewer.
However, as a reviewer, there is an implied standard of non-bias.
Nobody has no biases. Anyone who says they don't is deluded or selling
a bridge. Reviewers should be aware of their biases, I'd argue making
them clear isn't bad, although I think in most cases readers can work
out what they are.
Someone who knowingly adopts biases is a different story
altogether. Stating that one only reviews sf is one thing. Avoiding
a publisher is quite another.
Post by James Nicoll
If I am a food reviewer, I am not being unjust if I allow my distaste for
stings to steer me away from the Live Bees with Angry Hornets garnish entree.
It might make me a poor choice to review Hymenoptera Hut. But Hymenoptera Hut
cannot legitimately complain if I say "Since I am ambivilent about anaphylaxis,
I will not review anthing at Hymenoptera Hut."
How many books killed reviewers last year?
http://www.gocomics.com/peanuts/1978/01/12
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
David DeLaney
2017-05-05 12:57:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Post by James Nicoll
Nobody has no biases. Anyone who says they don't is deluded or selling
a bridge. Reviewers should be aware of their biases, I'd argue making
them clear isn't bad, although I think in most cases readers can work
out what they are.
Someone who knowingly adopts biases is a different story
altogether. Stating that one only reviews sf is one thing. Avoiding
a publisher is quite another.
He's noted before that he'd rather not, but he doesn't have enough inside info
from that publisher to be able to avoid the one _editor_ he wants to avoid
works edited by.
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
They're just spending time dead for tax purposes, you know.

Dave, since their tax forms get so complex from all the dough they rake in
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
2017-05-05 13:28:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David DeLaney
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Post by James Nicoll
Nobody has no biases. Anyone who says they don't is deluded or selling
a bridge. Reviewers should be aware of their biases, I'd argue making
them clear isn't bad, although I think in most cases readers can work
out what they are.
Someone who knowingly adopts biases is a different story
altogether. Stating that one only reviews sf is one thing. Avoiding
a publisher is quite another.
He's noted before that he'd rather not, but he doesn't have enough inside info
from that publisher to be able to avoid the one _editor_ he wants to avoid
works edited by.
Perhaps, but I've pointed out to him (more than once) that it IS
possible; you can ask. For instance, all of mine (since Tony Daniel
arrived, anyway) have been edited by Tony Daniel, not Toni Weisskopf.

Now, does that mean that Toni had no input? Of course not, she's
running the company, and Baen's small enough that I have little doubt
she at least takes a look at almost everything, and has something to say
about it -- ranging from "looks good" to "could you ask [author] to
[some change in book]?" to actually officially editing ones that are
particularly important.

If what James means by "edited" is "had any significant input into the
editing at all, even if they weren't the primary editor", then it's
probably pretty much all Baen books he has to avoid.

If what he means is "anything primarily edited by Toni", then that CAN
be known.

However, I expect that doing that investigation isn't necessarily
something that James cares to do, and it is certainly easier to just say
"eh, I'll just avoid anything with that publisher's stamp on it".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org
John F. Eldredge
2017-05-25 20:44:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I think the risk is low, whether the books use anaphylaxis or
some other method to kill.
Does being crushed by a toppling pile of books count?
Titus G
2017-05-26 05:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John F. Eldredge
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I think the risk is low, whether the books use anaphylaxis or
some other method to kill.
Does being crushed by a toppling pile of books count?
Was there intent?
Robert Carnegie
2017-05-26 19:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Titus G
Post by John F. Eldredge
Post by Gene Wirchenko
How many books killed reviewers last year?
I think the risk is low, whether the books use anaphylaxis or
some other method to kill.
Does being crushed by a toppling pile of books count?
Was there intent?
Offing a reviewer? "Pour encourager les autres."

Gene Wirchenko
2017-05-03 03:48:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose shit to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
My objection is that you flatly stated that you will not review
them. Quality is their problem. If it is bad, state so. If it is
good, state so.

The rules were already being gamed.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
James Nicoll
2017-05-03 04:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gene Wirchenko
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Gene Wirchenko
He has also stated that he does not cover Puppies authors. There
are two biases out in the open. It makes it very difficult to trust
his judgement.
Out of curiosity, which Puppy authors do you think would have turned
up in my in-box absent Hugo shenanigans? Off the top of my head, most
of them write unremarkable to bad material, which is why they had to
resort to gaming the rules to get nominated. If there were talented
puppies out there, why did they chose shit to represent them on the
2015 and 2016 ballots?
My objection is that you flatly stated that you will not review
them. Quality is their problem. If it is bad, state so. If it is
good, state so.
You seem to think the default is I will read and review everything.
The default is that I won't. It's not physically possible for me to
do so. The Puppies are not entitled to my time.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My Livejournal at http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Gene Wirchenko
2017-05-03 19:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 3 May 2017 04:26:42 +0000 (UTC), ***@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

[snip]
Post by James Nicoll
You seem to think the default is I will read and review everything.
The default is that I won't. It's not physically possible for me to
do so. The Puppies are not entitled to my time.
Because you can not read everything, that justifies bigotry?

And so, you are not worth my time since I can not tell if your
statements of best or core or whatever have any grounding. Your
biases make you an incompetent/malicious reviewer.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
Loading...