{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/4297", "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": 4297, "subject": "urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15", "messages": 10, "voices": 6, "first": "2005-01-11T11:33:22+00:00", "last": "2005-01-11T15:25:06+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeffrey Lefstin", "address": "jeff.lefstin at stanfordalumni.org" }, "date": "2005-01-11T11:33:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this point of view whole-heartedly, \nbut I was struck by how jarring the paeans to supply-side economics and \nuniversal gun ownership were in Exodus from the Long Sun. At the time \nthey seemed so clumsily inserted that I wasn't sure if they were satire \nor GW's views.... Now I assume the latter?\n\nJL" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Jan 11, 2005, at 11:16 AM, urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net \nwrote:\nI don't think Orwell crossed any kind of critical line\nin what he wrote about Chesterton here; he seems to\nattack him more on political than religious grounds\nanyway. But it was clearly posted in the group as an\ninsult to certain members, though I can't claim to\nunderstand why. I mean, the religious views of most\nactive members on this list are well known, as are\nGene Wolfe's. Is the poster implying that Wolfe's\nnovels have become increasingly stale and polemical as\nhis religious and/or political beliefs have found a\nmore overt expression in his writing?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050111193839.58009.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "aqala at yahoo.com", "address": "aqala at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2005-01-11T11:38:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--- urth-urth.net-request at lists.urth.net wrote:\nMessage: 6\nDate: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:57:56 -0800\nFrom: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nSubject: Re: (urth) Orwell on Chesterton\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: <1f76173705011110571de36a2f at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n\nAqala:\n\nI am a great admirer of both Orwell and Chesterton, and a\nman who is converting to Catholicism in his 40s, after a\ngreat deal (more than ten years) of thought.May I ask why\nyou feel it necessary to post something so inflammatorially\ninsulting?\n\n--Dan'l " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What is exactly insulting Orwell’s opinion or my own?\n To whom is it insulting? Chesterton has been dead many for a long time.\nWhy is it insulting? People has been denouncing religion and the church\nfor a long time now, nothing new there, like Robert Burns said:\nProud Priests and Bishops we'll translate\nAnd canonise as Martyrs;\nIf not with swards than with words. If you find Orwell’s opinion (or mine)\ninsulting to YOU than that, sir, is your problem.\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00b801c4f816$06a9b250$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-01-11T11:44:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15", "in_reply_to": "<20050111193839.58009.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What is exactly insulting Orwell's opinion or my own?\nTo whom is it insulting? Chesterton has been dead many for a long time.\nWhy is it insulting? People has been denouncing religion and the church\nfor a long time now, nothing new there, like Robert Burns said:\nProud Priests and Bishops we'll translate\nAnd canonise as Martyrs;\nIf not with swards than with words. If you find Orwell's opinion (or mine)\ninsulting to YOU than that, sir, is your problem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Errr...I think the insulting part was not Orwell's opinion which was\ndirected a Chesterton, but it was rather your own which was directed at the\nintellect of anyone considering converting to Catholicism. That's rather\npersonal and not directed at some dead for nigh on a century.\n\nIn short, it was inflammitory.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<20050111194609.72048.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "aqala at yahoo.com", "address": "aqala at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2005-01-11T11:46:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15", "in_reply_to": "<00b801c4f816$06a9b250$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Message: 8\nDate: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:16:12 -0800 (PST)\nFrom: stilskin \nSubject: Re: (urth) Orwell on Chesterton\nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nMessage-ID: <20050111191612.83372.qmail at web20021.mail.yahoo.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\n\n\n--- Andy Robertson wrote:\n\nI don't think Orwell crossed any kind of critical line\nin what he wrote about Chesterton here; he seems to\nattack him more on political than religious grounds" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You can find the text of Orwell’s essay here:\nhttp://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0300011.txt" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "anyway. But it was clearly posted in the group as an\ninsult to certain members, though I can't claim to\nunderstand why. I mean, the religious views of most" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So anyone who expresses a view that does not confirm to your own (or\ncertain members) views than he is bent on insulting? That must make it\neasy (very easy) to just dismiss anyone with a different view rather than\nengage them!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "active members on this list are well known, as are\nGene Wolfe's. Is the poster implying that Wolfe's\nnovels have become increasingly stale and polemical as\nhis religious and/or political beliefs have found a\nmore overt expression in his writing?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You read all that in a post that didn’t even mention Wolfe? No your\ninterpretation is completely wrong.\n\n\n\n\t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "<00c101c4f817$0a22de10$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-01-11T11:52:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SciFi politics", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this point of view whole-heartedly,\nbut I was struck by how jarring the paeans to supply-side economics and\nuniversal gun ownership were in Exodus from the Long Sun. At the time\nthey seemed so clumsily inserted that I wasn't sure if they were satire\nor GW's views.... Now I assume the latter?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I didn't think they were clumsily inserted. I think they were jarring\nbecause the plurality of SciFi writers are politically liberal.\n\nThus, placing favorable views to gun-ownership and supply-side economics in\nthe mouth of a very simpathic and (presented as) wise character might have\ncaught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative\npolitics.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f7617370501111255475d7fee@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-11T12:55:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: urth-urth.net Digest, Vol 5, Issue 15", "in_reply_to": "<20050111193839.58009.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What is exactly insulting Orwell's opinion or my own?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yours.\n\nSpecifically:\n\n\"A man so lacking in thought and intellect he converted to \nCatholicism when in his 40's.\"\n\nWhile stated as a remark on Chesterton, it is in fact a general\nremark on the intellegence of anyone who converts to \nCatholicism, and especially in their 40s. (Which - by the\nway - does not take an apostrophe.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " To whom is it insulting? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To me and anyone else who voluntarily embraces Catholicism\nafter a great deal of thought." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why is it insulting? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I refuse to insult you by assuming that you are too dim to figure\nit out yourself from teh clues given." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "People has been denouncing religion and the church\nfor a long time now, " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is also a lengthy tradition of denouncing blacks as\nhalf-animals, jews as greedy Christ-killers, atheists as\nclosed-minded bigots, etc. An insult repeated for\na long time does not become less insulting thereby.\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nFreedom has no barcode.\n --J.G. Ballard" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1f76173705011112567193acbe@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-11T12:56:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SciFi politics", "in_reply_to": "<00c101c4f817$0a22de10$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:52:10 -0500, James Wynn wrote:\nI didn't think they were clumsily inserted. I think they were jarring\nbecause the plurality of SciFi writers are politically liberal.\n\nThus, placing favorable views to gun-ownership and supply-side economics in\nthe mouth of a very simpathic and (presented as) wise character might have\ncaught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative\npolitics." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We must not be reading the same SF: Heinlein, Weber, Niven and/or \nPournelle - well, I gave up on those two years ago... There is a long and\nrich tradition of conservatism in SF.\n\nWhich doesn't make it right, of course. 8*)\n\n--Dan'l" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "www.livejournal.com/users/sturgeonslawyer\nFreedom has no barcode.\n --J.G. Ballard" } ] }, { "message_id": "<010701c4f823$f73b02c0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "thewynns at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2005-01-11T13:25:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SciFi politics", "in_reply_to": "<1f76173705011112567193acbe@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We must not be reading the same SF: Heinlein, Weber, Niven and/or\nPournelle - well, I gave up on those two years ago... There is a long and\nrich tradition of conservatism in SF." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's why I said \"the plurality of Sci-Fi writers\" -- not even a majority.\nI have no way of ascertaining whether political liberals are in the\nmajority, but having gone to my share of gatherings of SF writers and\naspiring writers, I feel comfortable in saying that there were far more\nliberals than conservatives there. Or perhaps the liberals and conservatives\nonly *thought* the liberals held an overwhelming majority there, and so were\nmore vocal.\n\nHowever, it was, I didn't find Silk's opinions on gun-ownership any more or\nless jarring than the omnipresent villainous corporate heads in SF\nliterature, or the benign and efficient socialist societies.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "<69FFDC55F2614E418DC056ABC0F9A0D6FEA3D4@bearcat.middlebury.edu>", "from": { "name": "Alexander, Bryan", "address": "balexan at middlebury.edu" }, "date": "2005-01-11T13:37:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SciFi politics", "in_reply_to": "<010701c4f823$f73b02c0$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Bruce Franklin's collection of Vietnam war writing has a reprint from a\n1968 issue of Galaxy, which includes two petitions on that war. One is\na group of writers urging the United States to withdraw, while the other\nrecommends the nation remain in the fighting. It's fascinating to read\nthe two lists (which are roughly equal in size) - in fact, it would make\na great teaching tool for science fiction history!\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: urth-urth.net-bounces at lists.urth.net\n[mailto:urth-urth.net-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of James Wynn\nSent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:25 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Subject: Re: (urth) SciFi politics\nWe must not be reading the same SF: Heinlein, Weber, Niven and/or\nPournelle - well, I gave up on those two years ago... There is a long\nand\nrich tradition of conservatism in SF." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's why I said \"the plurality of Sci-Fi writers\" -- not even a\nmajority.\nI have no way of ascertaining whether political liberals are in the\nmajority, but having gone to my share of gatherings of SF writers and\naspiring writers, I feel comfortable in saying that there were far more\nliberals than conservatives there. Or perhaps the liberals and\nconservatives\nonly *thought* the liberals held an overwhelming majority there, and so\nwere\nmore vocal.\n\nHowever, it was, I didn't find Silk's opinions on gun-ownership any more\nor\nless jarring than the omnipresent villainous corporate heads in SF\nliterature, or the benign and efficient socialist societies.\n\n~ Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Chris", "address": "rasputin_ at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2005-01-11T15:25:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) SciFi politics", "in_reply_to": "<00c101c4f817$0a22de10$4c1e4b0a@vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am undecided on the supply-side economics bit, but I did not think that \nthe gun-ownership bit was clumsily inserted either; it's quite to the point \nand a real concern in the particular political situation Silk found himself \nin. And ultimately it seemed to me like Silk's position on guns, at that \npoint, was largely a matter of political pragmatism rather than universal \nprinciple. To me, the issue there wasn't \"gun control\" but rather the \ndistribution of power to individuals in an unstable, revolutionary \natmosphere.\n\nI am not sure that Wolfe could even have realistically avoided the subject." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I wouldn't go so far as to endorse this point of view whole-heartedly,\nbut I was struck by how jarring the paeans to supply-side economics and\nuniversal gun ownership were in Exodus from the Long Sun. At the time\nthey seemed so clumsily inserted that I wasn't sure if they were satire\nor GW's views.... Now I assume the latter?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I didn't think they were clumsily inserted. I think they were jarring\nbecause the plurality of SciFi writers are politically liberal.\n\nThus, placing favorable views to gun-ownership and supply-side economics in\nthe mouth of a very simpathic and (presented as) wise character might have\ncaught you unaware if you did not previously know of Wolfe's conservative\npolitics.\n\n~ Crush\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] } ] }