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 85 of 158 Topic 21372 of 22908
Post > Topic >>

Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?

by Graham Woodland <gray@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 17, 2008 at 04:17 PM

DougL wrote:
> On May 14, 4:16 pm, "Mike stone" <mwst...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Gene" <g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9A9E746A5BDC9genewardsmithsbcglob@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>> DougL <lampert.d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:c7611077-aeaa-
>>> 463d-b250-19bdf4a2d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Much like the 'All Frenchmen in 1945 had been members of the
>>>> resistance since 1941' phenomena I'm sure that 'All Austrians
>>> opposed
>>>> the Anschluss, including especially any named Kurt Waldheim
>>> who really
>>>> had nothing to do with it at all'.
>> And "all Brits in 1945 remebered how appalled they had been by Munich
in
>> '38", and "the vast majority of Americans in Nov 1963 remembered voting
for
>> Kennedy two years before, and an almost equal majority, in August 1974,
>> remembered having voted for McGovern in '72". Memory is a funny bthing.
> 
> But the wierd thing about the Anschluss especially and the Frogs to a
> lesser extent is that the REST of us mostly go along with the gag.
> 
> And in the case of the Frogs we insult them and use them for comic
> relief on Hogan's Heroes and other comedies. I can't think of an
> Austrian specific insulting term, Italians are Wogs, French are Frogs,
> Brits are Limeys, Spaniards are Spics, Poles are Polacks, Austrians
> are ???.
> 

MORE Krauts!

I think you may overestimate the level of precision upon which 
such guys as mostly use these terms are wont to insist.

-- 
Cheers,

Gray

---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.
 




 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 Fri Nov 21 14:21:43 CST 2008.