Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Science Fiction > Written > Re: Oldest SF n...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 19 of 158 Topic 21372 of 23005
 Post > Topic >>

Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?

by Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 13, 2008 at 05:30 AM

"Steven L." <sdlitvin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in 
news:LIydnXe1ffwxYbXVnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Circa 1990, at least one investment newsletter I subscribed 
to predicted 
> that the West vs. Islam would be the new Cold War of the 21st 
century. 
> (And they suggested investing accordingly.)

From a 70's point of view, Islamism instead of Coummunism and 
the resurgence of nationalism has a retro feel. Capitalism vs 
Communism was about ideas and ideology. "Hooray for Russia!" or 
"Hooray for China!" seems like a throwback. The religious 
ideologues are not looking to the future, but to the past. It's 
religion as atavism. Hence in some ways 2008 feels like it is 
in the past of 1978, not in the future.




 158 Posts in Topic:
Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-12 13:48:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 David Cowie <me@[EMAIL  2008-05-12 20:59:08 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-12 21:44:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Schilling&quo  2008-05-12 16:52:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Nobody in particula  2008-05-12 17:15:43 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Eric D. Berge <eric _   2008-05-12 17:37:21 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Schilling"  2008-05-12 21:44:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Schilling&quo  2008-05-12 18:17:14 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 00:29:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-13 19:33:27 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-14 05:25:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Dworetsky"  2008-05-14 07:38:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-14 20:26:26 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-14 20:19:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 mvp@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-05-16 06:04:29 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-19 00:44:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 David Johnston <david@  2008-05-20 02:31:55 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Steven L." <  2008-05-12 22:27:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-13 05:30:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Tapio Erola <txr@[EMAI  2008-05-13 13:25:32 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Christopher Adams&q  2008-05-16 07:04:01 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-12 22:24:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Tilque" &l  2008-05-13 09:29:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 pedrodias@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-05-12 15:56:29 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 00:28:13 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Steven L." <  2008-05-12 22:15:42 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 04:24:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Lawrence Watt-Evans <l  2008-05-13 03:18:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Wolfspawn <cr608@[EMAI  2008-05-13 14:12:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "John" <john  2008-05-13 17:23:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 lal_truckee <lal_truck  2008-05-12 20:54:15 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-13 04:28:04 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 nebusj-@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-13 04:13:18 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:57:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 05:49:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 John Schilling <schill  2008-05-13 19:39:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-13 06:11:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-13 20:41:26 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 John Schilling <schill  2008-05-14 11:24:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-15 00:38:20 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-15 00:27:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-15 05:40:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 John Schilling <schill  2008-05-17 16:24:03 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 tmcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-05-22 19:19:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-23 07:16:10 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-23 14:43:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 mvp@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (M  2008-05-29 04:39:43 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Schilling"  2008-05-28 23:27:54 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-29 09:52:00 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D  2008-05-29 01:50:42 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-13 12:20:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Tilque" &l  2008-05-14 06:34:28 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 08:01:58 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 urban@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-14 14:55:31 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 ted@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-14 16:01:20 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 21:40:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-14 21:01:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-15 07:30:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-14 20:22:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 dbd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (D  2008-05-14 18:58:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-15 05:38:19 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 mimus <tinmimus99@[EMA  2008-05-15 15:58:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-15 17:32:43 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 21:59:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 John Schilling <schill  2008-05-14 11:24:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-14 12:51:12 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 netcat <netcat@[EMAIL   2008-05-14 15:00:25 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 crystal@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-14 16:52:03 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 JXStern <JXSternChange  2008-05-14 01:37:01 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-14 05:26:19 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 JXStern <JXSternChange  2008-05-14 18:24:46 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "artyw2@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-14 06:09:55 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "John" <john  2008-05-15 08:59:28 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 DougL <lampert.doug@[E  2008-05-14 09:55:10 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-14 18:27:25 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-14 22:16:42 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-14 13:53:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-14 14:02:12 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "artyw2@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-14 17:12:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 ilya2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-15 05:27:08 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Bill Snyder <bsnyder@[  2008-05-15 08:08:09 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-15 14:30:40 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 DougL <lampert.doug@[E  2008-05-15 07:38:16 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-15 21:59:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Graham Woodland <gray@  2008-05-17 16:17:22 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 tmcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (  2008-05-22 18:58:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Kurt Busiek <kurt@[EMA  2008-05-22 12:07:44 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "John" <john  2008-05-23 12:59:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 pmfan57 <jwragusa@[EMA  2008-05-15 08:19:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-15 23:36:47 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-05-16 10:10:25 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Lawrence Watt-Evans <l  2008-05-23 16:26:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-23 21:08:55 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 ted@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-23 21:11:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Kurt Busiek <kurt@[EMA  2008-05-23 14:28:45 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 cgoodin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-26 20:17:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Steve Coltrin <spcoltr  2008-05-27 07:56:49 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-16 00:12:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-16 06:01:58 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 David Johnston <david@  2008-05-16 15:44:14 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Christopher Adams&q  2008-05-19 01:58:22 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-19 19:32:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-16 01:15:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Mike Stone <mwstone@[E  2008-05-16 01:37:49 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-16 10:10:28 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 DougL <lampert.doug@[E  2008-05-22 18:39:12 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-23 02:00:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "rick++" <ri  2008-05-23 10:37:59 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-23 18:55:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:05:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Thomas Lindgren <*****  2008-06-01 15:02:46 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:06:17 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-31 07:30:03 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Schilling"  2008-05-30 23:43:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Matthias Warkus <Warku  2008-06-01 21:07:16 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Peter Huebner <no.one@  2008-06-02 11:07:21 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:11:04 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:12:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 ted@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T  2008-05-29 14:33:22 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 acwheele@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-29 21:38:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-30 03:43:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-30 13:49:44 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 mchary@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-30 18:44:46 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-30 23:16:21 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 goldfarb@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-31 10:03:57 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Schilling"  2008-05-31 07:59:40 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-31 15:30:41 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Michael S. Schiffer  2008-05-31 15:42:39 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:22:20 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 P. Taine <user@[EMAIL   2008-05-29 13:59:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 douglas winston <dougl  2008-05-29 11:24:31 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike Schilling&quo  2008-05-29 09:10:40 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Andrew Plotkin <erkyra  2008-05-29 16:31:36 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 chrisb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-29 15:10:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 nance@[EMAIL PROTECTED]   2008-05-30 13:08:29 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Howard Brazee <howard@  2008-05-29 17:12:56 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 acwheele@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-29 21:38:52 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Peter Huebner <no.one@  2008-06-02 11:16:02 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Christopher Adams&q  2008-06-02 02:34:51 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Christopher Adams&q  2008-06-02 02:39:34 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:25:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Lawrence Watt-Evans <l  2008-05-29 11:43:05 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Dan Goodman" &  2008-05-29 18:02:50 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Mike stone" &l  2008-05-31 07:38:19 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 wdstarr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-29 18:43:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Taki Kogoma <quirk@[EM  2008-05-29 18:51:09 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Quadibloc <jsavard@[EM  2008-05-29 06:33:35 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-29 09:30:54 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 jdnicoll@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-29 16:50:07 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Aaron Denney <wnoise@[  2008-05-29 17:53:08 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 throopw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-29 21:21:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Gene <gene@[EMAIL PROT  2008-05-29 22:33:01 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Robert A. Woodward&  2008-05-29 22:24:23 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "Paul Ian Harman&quo  2008-05-30 18:23:31 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 Kurt Busiek <kurt@[EMA  2008-05-29 22:05:06 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-30 12:00:24 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 William Hyde <wthyde19  2008-05-31 13:10:32 
Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?
 "ppint. at pplay&quo  2008-06-01 22:55:33 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup
Contact
tan12V112 Wed Dec 3 1:49:56 CST 2008.