{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3389",
    "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it.  Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.",
    "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'"
  },
  "archive": "urth",
  "thread": {
    "id": 3389,
    "subject": "annoying silliness",
    "messages": 3,
    "voices": 3,
    "first": "2002-07-31T00:02:56+00:00",
    "last": "2002-08-01T00:14:37+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0208-1504@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi",
        "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com"
      },
      "date": "2002-07-31T23:51:30+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) annoying silliness",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 2,
          "text": "Hartshorn quoted blattid and wrote:\nAs for granting Orwell primacy in this matter, well, that's\npretty silly."
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Oh, pish-tosh."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Indeed.\n\nWe were drawn (or \"suckered\") into discussing Orwell because blattid\nexpressed incomprehension as to why =anyone= would link Orwell to Ascian\nCorrect Thought.\n\nWas blattid unaware of the Newspeak notion (a top-down language reform that\nattempts to shape a new national character by design rather than the\nnatural accident that has produced for example the stereo-typical\nFrenchman, Spaniard, German, Italian, etc.)?  No, not at all -- so he is\nnot strangely ignorant of Orwell (a relief, in a sense).\n\nWas blattid aware that Mao's little red book had not historically been used\nacross an entire culture the way that it had been used, anecdotally, by a\ncouple of Berkeleyites in the 70s?  Yes, he was aware (a relief, in a\nsense).\n\nBlattid has presented an inscrutable position, and seems to relish it that\nway.\n\nNo matter: blattid was the one who asked for explanation; between us,\nhartshorn and I have presented the case.  Case closed.\n\n=mantis="
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0208-1505@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes",
        "address": "ddanehy at siebel.com"
      },
      "date": "2002-08-01T00:14:37+00:00",
      "subject": "RE: (urth) annoying silliness",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0208-1504@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Sigh.\n\nOkay, let me clarify things here ...\n\nI believe my original statement was:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "I was quite certain, reading the utterances of Loyal\nto the Group of Seventeen, that Wolfe was pointing his\nbarb at Maoism and the \"Little-read Book.\" Others, I\nhave learned on this list, have been equally certain\nthat Wolfe is satirizing Orwell's \"Newspeak,\" which I\nfind simply implausible."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Okay, that was way too strong ... I think I had better\nhave said that I find it implausible that \"Newspeak\" was\nthe primary target of the satire.\n\nI frankly feel that the insistence that it _is_, is an\nexample of the parochialism of the SF community; there\nis (imho) extremely powerful evidence, both biographical \nand stylistic, for Maoist-style Communism as the primary\ntarget. \n\nI would also dispute one point of facticity in Mantis'\nlatest post on this subject:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "Was blattid aware that Mao's little red book had not \nhistorically been used across an entire culture the way\nthat it had been used, anecdotally, by a couple of\nBerkeleyites in the 70s?  Yes, he was aware (a relief, \nin a sense)."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "I said no such thing, nor am I convinced by any means that\nyou are correct here. It is my understanding that a major\naspect of Chinese Communist culture of the later Mao years,\nand probably through the next few years after his death, \n_was_ the frequent quoting of Mao. I am unwilling to do the\nresearch to \"prove\" this right now, but will stick to my\nguns on the point unless and until strong counterevidence\nis posed; I admit this is stubbornness on my part, but it's\nstubbornness based on my memory of the period.\n "
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0208-1506@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Andy Robertson",
        "address": "andywrobertson at clara.co.uk"
      },
      "date": "2002-07-31T00:02:56+00:00",
      "subject": "Re: (urth) annoying silliness",
      "in_reply_to": "<urth-v0208-1505@digest.urth.net>",
      "reply_link": "subject",
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "----- Original Message ----- \nFrom: \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" <ddanehy at siebel.com>\n\nAnnoying?  Never!!!    \"pish-tosh\" does not indicate annoyance!!"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}