{
  "export": {
    "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/810",
    "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": 810,
    "subject": "Substitute me for him, substitute my coke for gin...",
    "messages": 1,
    "voices": 1,
    "first": "1998-06-16T08:26:41+00:00",
    "last": "1998-06-16T08:26:41+00:00"
  },
  "messages": [
    {
      "message_id": "<urth-v0014-0017@digest.urth.net>",
      "from": {
        "name": "Dan Parmenter",
        "address": "dan at lec.com"
      },
      "date": "1998-06-16T08:26:41+00:00",
      "subject": "(urth) Substitute me for him, substitute my coke for gin...",
      "in_reply_to": null,
      "reply_link": null,
      "blocks": [
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "Here's some older stuff I've been meaning to reply to:"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "From: \"Dan'l Danehy Oakes\" <DDANEHYO at us.oracle.com>\nThe same holds true, to a lesser extent, for many prelinguistic\nanimals -- cats and birds can readily be seen teaching their \noffspring how to perform various survival-oriented activities.  "
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "And if that skill is not acquired during a particular phase of\ndevelopment, it is never acquired.  Kittens never taught to hunt can\ncoexist with pet mice without the slightest problem.\n\nBTW, that makes for an interesting thought right there.  What if the\nshape-shifting ability (to whatever extent it exists) is like language\n- a characteristic of the species the particulars of which must be\nrealized during a \"critical stage\" of their development.  All abos\nhave the capacity to shape-shift but if its \"parameters\" aren't set\n(through parental/societal examples and interactions, as with\nlanguage) the knack is never fully realized and such abos are like the\nexamples one hears about occasionally of children raised in severely\nabusive isutations where they aren't allowed to interact and learn\nlanguage (e.g. Kaspar Hauser).  Such abos would have limited or\nnonexistant shape-shifting ability and no ability to use tools.\n\nThere's no evidence in the text of anything like this, but I found it\ninteresting enough to type the above paragraph about it.  Certainly a\nquestion might be asked of Wolfe: what is your \"model of shape\nshifting\"?"
        },
        {
          "kind": "quote",
          "depth": 1,
          "text": "From: \"Robert Borski\" <rborski at coredcs.com>\nFor my paradigm, I'd like to deviate from literature and cite the various\nschools of analysis used to evaluate film. Even the most monomaniacal\nfoaming-at-the-mouth practitioneers of a certain cant would never insist\ntheir critical dissections are the only valid approach. (Hey, Gene, how's\nthe head wound? Roger misses you.) Hence the various schools of thought\nthat are taught in most collegiate film courses. Each has its own tenets,\nand while various conceits often overlap, each school has its own\nevaluatory dicta. Is it possible, however, to use the standards of one to\ncritique the analysis of the other? I maintain no. Hence the auteur cahiers\ndu cinema approach to analyzing CITIZEN KANE will always be every bit as\nvalid as the Marxist approach, as long as each adheres to its referential\nframe. Each has its own grammar and rules; each generates its own true\nsentences. But mix them together, you have more gibberish than sense."
        },
        {
          "kind": "text",
          "depth": 0,
          "text": "But don't we get into some hazy areas here?  On the one hand there is\nthe tenet of semiotics: the text stands alone.  All interpretations\nthat conform to the facts of the text are valid, regardless of whether\nthe author intended them or not.  And perhaps even the \"mistaken\"\ninterpretation reveal the author's hidden intentions (to paraphrase\none of Eno's Oblique Strategies).  On the other hand there is Gene\nWolfe, engineer and technical writer who is without question, one of\nthe tightest plotters in the biz who documents everything.  But that\ndoesn't mean that there isn't room for ambiguity.  This is the middle\nground between the two extremes.  For example, in the context of BOTNS\nwe know that there are these \"sliver\" Severians (as they've been\ncalled here) because Wolfe establishes it over the course of things.\nBut I'm certain that Wolfe probably has no idea exactly how many there\nare (I believe that our Mantis has even speculated that there could be\nzillions of 'em).  So yes, within certain parameters, a number of\nhypotheses are available.  I'm starting to wonder if this sort of\nambiguity isn't the whole point of 5HC - that there is no one right\nanswer, just many hypotheses.\n\nD"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}