Science Fiction > Written > Re: Oldest SF n...

Latest [ Topics | Posts ]

Post A New Topic

Post a Reply

Post 86 of 158 Topic 21372 of 22908

Re: Oldest SF not necessarily most dated?

by tmcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim McDaniel) May 22, 2008 at 06:58 PM

In article
<97cd940e-0700-4a9f-8fbe-2fd17738a8e8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
DougL  <lampert.doug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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 ???.

Aussies.

-- 
Tim "Advance Austria Fair" McDaniel, tmcd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]

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:

About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup
tan12V112 Fri Nov 21 11:28:11 CST 2008.