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 64 of 158 Topic 21372 of 21773
Post > Topic >>

Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?

by "Mike stone" <mwstone@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 14, 2008 at 09:59 PM

"Michael Urban" <urban@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:g0euh3$f3a$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <68vh32F2uf8boU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Mike stone <mwstone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >One other possibly (I'm not certain) "dated" bit. The Hunter's first
> >attempts to communicate make Bob fear that he is suffering from a
nervous
> >complaint of some kind. School rules require him to report all
illnesses,
> >but he is reluctant to do so because "somehow the idea of owning to a
> >nervous disorder seemed rather shameful, and the thought of reporting
his
> >trouble was repugnant." Would that be as true today as 60 years ago?
I'm
> >pretty sure it wouldn't in England, but don't like to be too dogmatic
about
> >attitudes in the US.
>
> I haven't read the story, but all this discussion makes me wish I had.
> Anyway, I think that today, there would still be a stigma (for some),
> not because of a 'nervous disorder', but because of the likelihood
> of someone jumping to the conclusion that drugs were involved.  Or
> conversely, someone might be unwilling to report a nervous disorder
> because they would fear being required to take medication for it.


There's also the personal factor.

Bob was quite a bright kid, but not an intellectual. He could get
respectable grades when he made the effort, but was basically more into
sports and physical stuff than the academic side of things. It might be
fair
to call him an intelligent Jock, if that's not a contradiction in terms.

He is described as being "hardened to the possibility of physical injury"
at
hockey or fotball, and is unhappy at needing to find or fake "something
that
calls for a rest cure" in order to get sent home. He also rather looks
down
on those who have been removed from the school due to homesickness, and is
even more reluctant to use that excuse. I suspect that a personality like
that might indeed be unhappy about admitting to a nervous complaint,
simply
from a gut feeling that only "wimps" contracted such ailments.


--

Mike Stone - Peterborough, England

You can tell what God thinks of money by looking at the people He gives it
to.




 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
tan13V112 Fri Jul 4 15:40:56 CDT 2008.