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 78 of 158 Topic 21372 of 21807
Post > Topic >>

Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?

by Mike Stone <mwstone@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 14, 2008 at 02:02 PM

On May 14, 7:24=EF=BF=BDpm, John Schilling <schil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 08:01:58 +0100, "Mike stone" <mwst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >"Dan Tilque" <dtil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:UJvWj.7732$mc1.2177@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> "Mike Stone" <mwst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
> >> >The fact that the 15yo ends the book in glum anticipation of a
> >> >spanking might also be considered "dated".by some people.
> >> I suppose so. And the fact that Latin was on his curriculum might be
> >> another although not necessarily.
> >> So a few minor changes and the book could be moved forward half a
> >> century or more. Not bad, considering.
> >Oh, agreed entirely. It's an old favourite of mine (first encountered
at
> >about the same age as the young hero) and my battered pb copy bears the
> >author's signature, obtained at the 1979 Worldcon.
> >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 re****t 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 re****ting
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
abo=
ut
> >attitudes in the US.
>
> There's still enough stigma attached to mental illness in the United
> States that it wouldn't surprise me for someone to refuse to self-re****t
> a "nervous disorder". =EF=BF=BDEven if they weren't personally ashamed
of =
it, a
> rational person would fear for how they might be treated by others in
the
> future with a "nervous disorder" on their permanent record.
>
> And most people aren't really that good at distingui****ng between "other
> people will look down on me, and, "I should feel ashamed of myself".
>



Indeed. Shades of Thomas Eagleton.

--

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 Tue Jul 8 23:57:49 CDT 2008.