Subject: (urth) is Gene Wolfe among us?

From: b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 21:55:30 +0000

Once there was a rumor that Gene Wolfe was disguised in this community.  If 
that were true, how could we identify him?

If he is actually a technophobe then we wouldn't expect he has been here 
from the begininning. But once he arrived we'd expect him to be intelligent 
and insightful, yet circumspect.  To make regular entries focusing on 
factual evidence more than grand fanciful theories.  His writing would 
reflect the culture of an older American.

What sort of name would he choose?  Since this archive is composed of his 
loyal fans, he might pick a name which reflects his feeling that he is our 
humble servant, the artist serving his patrons.  On the other hand his name 
might also reflect that he and his work are the focus, the center of 
everything here; that we honor and revere him. His name might also reflect 
that this is a place where an anonymous sovereign might view his subjects, 
the monarch can see his vassals, lord see peons,
King C. Servant

-bsharp (=what note on the keyboard?)

---

From: mournings glory <mourningsglory at hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 00:19:22 +0000

>From: "b sharp" <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
>To: urth at lists.urth.net
>Subject: (urth) is Gene Wolfe among us?
>Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 17:55:30 -0400
>

*Ahem.* Pardon the familiarity, Roy, but I believe this is addressed to you.

emmmmm

---

From: maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 00:44:50 +0000

> *Ahem.* Pardon the familiarity, Roy, but I believe this is addressed to you.

I am a dunce. It actually took me a few moments to get this one.

~maru
Roi c. lackey

---

From: b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:09:04 +0000

Just so it is clear, my original post in this thread was completely 
tongue-in-cheek.  If I really thought Roy was Gene Wolfe I wouldn't out him 
in such a cavalier manner.  If there was any purpose to it, other than play, 
it might be as a parable to warn against the dangers of seeking only 
positive evidence when trying to support a pet theory.

---

From: mournings glory <mourningsglory at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 14:55:58 +0000

>positive evidence when trying to support a pet theory.

Couple points you missed, however: Gene Wolfe has both a father and a son 
named Roy, and hails originally from Tejas, as does, I believe, Mr. Lackey 
(who himself, so ignominiously outed, has yet to undot the conspiracy 'i').

mg

---

From: Transentient <transentient at gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:17:58 +0000

> positive evidence when trying to support a pet theory.

It would put Roy's general denouncement of Able and WK late last year  
in a new light...

---

From: b sharp <bsharporflat at hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:34:50 +0000

named Roy, and hails originally from Tejas, as does, I believe, Mr. Lackey
(who himself, so ignominiously outed, has yet to undot the conspiracy 'i').>

OMG what have I done!!
http://www.maison-de-stuff.net/john/pictures/ParisFeb2005/SANY0060.JPG

Sorry Gene!

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 06:34:51 +0000

>positive evidence when trying to support a pet theory.

I have been known to inveigh against buffet-style theorizing myself, but it
is usually a waste of time. People tend to see what they want to see.
Meanwhile, carry on!

Who was that in the picture?

-Roy