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 63 of 158 Topic 21372 of 23003
 Post > Topic >>

Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?

by Howard Brazee <howard@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 15, 2008 at 05:32 PM

On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:58:34 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>> _Iceworld_ might be dated by the specific drug used in the plot.
>
>Are you joking? the drug is practically regarded the same now, in the US
>at least, by various Prohibitionist hysterics and profiteers (frauds and
>thugs), as the aliens did in the novel.

But if it were written today, the Americans would be talking about it
differently - because of what you say.




 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 Mon Dec 1 23:20:49 CST 2008.