Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usage.english > #1152180 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-14 15:18 +1100 |
| Last post | 2026-10-20 15:09 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 263 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english
Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-14 15:18 +1100
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-14 09:21 +0200
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-14 18:31 +1100
Re: Fat books occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-14 11:11 +0200
Re: Fat books Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> - 2026-10-16 06:53 +1100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-16 04:54 +0800
Re: Fat books Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> - 2026-10-16 07:59 +1100
Re: Fat books occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-16 09:04 +0200
the fact that Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-17 10:01 +0200
Re: the fact that athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-17 08:52 +0000
Re: the fact that Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:25 +0800
Re: the fact that Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-10-17 12:20 +0200
Re: the fact that John Dunlop <dunlop.john@ymail.com> - 2026-10-17 13:57 +0100
Re: the fact that John Dunlop <dunlop.john@ymail.com> - 2026-10-17 14:21 +0100
Re: the fact that Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-17 17:17 +0100
Re: the fact that athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-17 16:30 +0000
Re: the fact that John Dunlop <dunlop.john@ymail.com> - 2026-10-19 13:14 +0100
Re: the fact that athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-19 12:50 +0000
Re: the fact that John Dunlop <dunlop.john@ymail.com> - 2026-10-23 14:07 +0100
Re: the fact that Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-10-19 15:51 +0200
Re: the fact that Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-18 09:44 +1100
Re: the fact that occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-18 15:05 +0200
Re: the fact that Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-18 14:44 +0100
Re: the fact that occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-18 16:33 +0200
Re: the fact that Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-18 18:59 +0200
Re: the fact that Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-18 18:57 +0200
Re: the fact that richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-10-18 18:29 +0000
Re: the fact that Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-19 00:33 +0200
Re: the fact that athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-19 06:30 +0000
Re: the fact that nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-26 23:30 +0100
Re: the fact that nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-26 23:30 +0100
Re: the fact that nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-26 23:30 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 17:05 +0800
Re: Fat books athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-14 13:04 +0000
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-15 06:25 +0200
Re: Fat books athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-15 06:21 +0000
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-15 12:43 +0100
Re: Fat books John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-10-14 08:02 -0700
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-15 06:46 +0200
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:02 +0800
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-15 12:46 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 21:48 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-15 21:57 +0200
Re: Fat books Madhu <enometh@meer.net> - 2026-10-18 10:07 +0530
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-18 10:33 +0100
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-18 12:30 +0200
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-18 19:22 +0100
Re: Fat books Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 12:59 -0700
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-18 22:35 +0200
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-19 00:53 +0100
Re: Fat books Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 23:35 -0400
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-19 13:21 +0100
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-19 20:14 +0100
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-19 21:40 +0200
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-19 14:47 +0200
Re: Fat books Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 12:59 -0700
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 10:31 +0100
Re: Fat books Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-10-21 10:56 -0400
Re: Fat books ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-10-21 15:33 +0000
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 23:34 +0800
Re: Fat books Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2026-10-21 18:29 -0400
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 10:46 +0800
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-22 14:36 +1100
Re: Fat books Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 22:25 -0700
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-22 12:54 +0100
Re: Fat books Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2026-10-22 17:40 -0400
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-23 10:52 +0800
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-22 20:06 +0100
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-23 07:22 +1100
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-23 10:00 +0100
Re: Fat books Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-10-22 17:33 -0300
Re: Fat books Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-10-22 16:41 -0400
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-23 00:43 +0100
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-23 10:43 +0200
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-23 10:43 +0200
Re: Fat books athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-23 13:32 +0000
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 00:22 +0800
Re: Fat books Carlo XYZ <carloxyz@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-23 21:50 +0200
Re: Fat books athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-24 07:00 +0000
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-24 08:10 +0100
Re: Fat books occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-24 11:38 +0200
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-24 10:50 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-24 18:07 +0800
Re: Fat books Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 09:13 -0400
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-24 17:27 +0100
Re: Fat books Silvano <Silvano@noncisonopernessuno.it> - 2026-10-24 21:18 +0200
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-25 06:17 +0000
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-25 06:22 +0000
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-25 10:36 +0000
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-25 20:22 +1100
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-25 10:38 +0000
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-25 04:25 +0800
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-24 21:35 -0700
Re: Fat books squalk <sq@net.invalid> - 2026-10-25 20:34 +0000
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 14:56 -0700
Re: Fat books athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-24 10:10 +0000
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-24 11:18 +0100
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-25 20:30 +1100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-25 18:18 +0800
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-25 18:09 +0000
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-26 05:47 +0000
Re: Fat books Janet <nobody@home.com> - 2026-10-26 10:56 +0000
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-24 14:23 +0200
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:13 +0100
Re: Fat books Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> - 2026-10-22 14:30 -0400
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-21 21:26 +0200
Re: Fat books Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-10-19 10:53 +0200
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-18 22:35 +0200
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-16 03:42 +0200
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-19 13:18 +0100
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-20 05:18 +0200
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-16 19:40 +1300
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-16 21:19 +1100
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-16 23:32 +1300
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-19 16:00 +1300
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-20 17:01 +1300
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-17 09:27 +0200
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 09:40 +1300
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-18 04:02 +0200
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 17:55 +1300
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-14 10:31 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-14 17:48 +0800
Re: Fat books Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-10-14 20:02 -0300
Re: Fat books occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-15 08:19 +0200
Re: Fat books Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2026-10-15 16:09 -0300
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-16 04:56 +0800
Re: Fat books occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-16 09:09 +0200
Re: Fat books richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-10-16 09:03 +0000
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-16 10:27 +0100
Re: Fat books occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-10-16 12:22 +0200
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-19 11:05 +0100
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-15 12:34 +0100
Re: Fat books wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) - 2026-10-14 16:44 +0000
Re: Fat books athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-14 17:21 +0000
Re: Fat books wollman@hergotha.csail.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) - 2026-10-14 17:46 +0000
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-14 22:29 +0200
Re: Fat books Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-14 18:15 +0000
Re: Fat books Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-10-14 20:37 +0200
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-14 21:40 +0100
Re: Fat books Janet <nobody@home.com> - 2026-10-14 23:19 +0100
Re: Fat books Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-10-15 00:42 +0200
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-15 08:48 +0100
Re: Fat books Bertel Lund Hansen <rundtosset@lundhansen.dk> - 2026-10-15 00:34 +0200
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-14 22:29 +0200
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-15 16:57 +1100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:01 +0800
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:06 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-15 12:15 +0200
Re: Fat books Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-10-14 20:16 +0100
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-14 22:49 +0200
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-15 12:33 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-15 22:00 +0800
Re: Fat books athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-10-16 09:35 +0000
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-16 10:49 +0100
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-16 21:37 +1100
Ferraro's Programmer's Guide to the EGA, VGA, and Super VGA Cards (was: Re: Fat books) Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-16 19:29 +0800
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-16 19:33 +0800
Re: Fat books Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-10-16 13:49 -0700
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-16 21:49 +1100
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-16 11:28 -0400
Re: Fat books Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-10-16 09:33 -0700
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-17 06:35 +0100
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 11:47 -0700
Re: Fat books Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-17 12:54 -0600
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 09:40 +1300
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 22:33 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-17 22:38 -0700
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-17 23:07 -0700
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-18 18:14 +1100
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:33 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-18 21:02 +1300
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-18 21:22 +1100
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 07:42 -0700
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 16:42 -0400
Re: Fat books Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-10-18 14:48 -0600
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-18 20:48 -0400
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 18:56 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 19:53 -0700
Re: Fat books Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 23:39 -0400
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-19 15:07 +1100
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:51 -0700
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-19 13:06 +1100
Re: Fat books Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 23:45 -0400
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-18 21:54 -0700
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-19 11:44 +0200
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-19 15:42 -0400
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-19 13:53 +1100
Re: Fat books Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2026-10-18 22:18 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-19 18:43 +1300
Re: Fat books Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2026-10-19 22:03 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-20 18:37 +1300
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-21 09:30 +1100
Re: Fat books Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 07:15 -0400
Re: Fat books "Gary R. Schmidt" <grschmidt@acm.org> - 2026-10-19 23:08 +1100
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-18 11:28 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:33 +0800
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-18 13:45 +0100
Re: Fat books Madhu <enometh@meer.net> - 2026-10-18 20:06 +0530
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:40 +0800
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:35 +0800
Re: Fat books Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-10-18 09:04 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 13:02 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 17:25 -0700
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-18 21:39 +0200
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 17:06 -0700
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-19 14:47 +0200
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-20 08:33 +1100
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-19 14:00 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-19 21:04 +0800
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-19 18:31 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 05:55 +0800
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:43 +0800
Re: Fat books Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2026-10-20 05:39 +0200
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-20 07:01 +0100
Re: Fat books Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> - 2026-10-20 08:57 +0100
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 10:42 +0100
Re: Fat books Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 12:23 -0700
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-22 12:56 +0100
Re: Fat books Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-10-21 09:17 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 20:51 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 20:51 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-19 21:40 +0200
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 05:58 +0800
Re: Fat books nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-20 13:09 +0200
Re: Fat books Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-20 14:00 +0000
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 22:06 +0800
Re: Fat books Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-10-21 01:01 +0100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:38 +0800
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 07:18 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 23:02 +0800
Re: Fat books Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2026-10-20 15:15 +0100
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 08:05 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 08:28 -0700
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 12:14 -0400
Re: Fat books Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-10-20 19:15 +0000
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 12:43 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:29 -0700
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 18:32 -0700
Re: Fat books Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-10-22 12:02 +1300
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-21 20:35 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:28 -0700
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:44 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-22 01:49 +0800
Re: Fat books Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 10:59 -0700
Re: Fat books kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-10-20 12:13 -0400
Re: Fat books Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-10-20 09:13 -0700
Re: Fat books Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-10-20 09:53 -0700
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-21 11:22 +1100
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-21 10:48 +0800
Re: Fat books Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-10-21 17:25 +1100
Re: Fat books Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2026-10-21 19:19 -0400
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 19:50 -0700
Re: Fat books BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> - 2026-10-17 18:59 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-18 19:46 +0800
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-18 16:57 -0400
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 16:48 -0700
Re: Fat books The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-18 16:57 -0700
Re: Fat books Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> - 2026-10-20 21:04 +0800
Re: Fat books William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-10-20 15:09 -0400
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <-JGdnUECKIWgdkr3nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #1152631 |
On 10/20/2026 09:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Did one cause the other?? >> >> >> Mostly the mobility and the transience, >> then also there were a lot of drug habits. >> >> Fridges just keep food cold. > > But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad! > --scott > > Might as well put your head in the microwave.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 18:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b94o2$3hh7r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152644 |
On 10/20/26 15:29, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/20/2026 09:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: >> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Did one cause the other?? >>> >>> >>> Mostly the mobility and the transience, >>> then also there were a lot of drug habits. >>> >>> Fridges just keep food cold. >> >> But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad! >> --scott >> >> > > Might as well put your head in the microwave. Then you must overcome the safety interlocks to run the microwave with you head inside. A lot of initiative is required to boil your brain with the microwave while a frequent slug of hard liquor will do the job. Drugs is a generic term which may include insulin and other perishable drugs. I keep my cannabis in the fridge which is actually in gummy candy format to make it last at the proper strength for as long as I can. My dear pal mike does not keep his cannabis pre-rolls long enough to need refrigeration AFAIK. People who use opiates and the synthetics also tend to use it as fast as they can get it. Meth and coke heads tend to use it as fast as they can. They don't want possession charges. Fentanyl users don't last that long and have to be refrigerated to keep them from smelling very bad. ;^) Some great SF writers have been users of hard illegal drugs thinking of Philip K. Dick and good old William Burroughs. I think they might have done better without drugs. For a long time the DEA successor to the old Bureau of Narcotic Control under Harry J. Ansliner was free to post a lot of nonsense about drugs and it corrupted the American mind. Narcotics given for pain may not be addictive at all. Pain relief may be addiction but with the Harrison Tax Act back around 2016 the social class of "junkies" was created. Lots of war veterans with morphine habits used to go around to their physician's offices to get their pain shots and suddenly they were criminals and so were their doctors. Refrigerators are very handy. I wish mine was not over-condensing but it still keeps my food cold along with some other odds and ends. bliss- study, practice, experience
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-22 12:02 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <11bbgd6$ani8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152650 |
On 21/10/2026 14:32, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >> On 10/20/2026 09:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: >>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Fridges just keep food cold. >>> But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad! > and other perishable drugs. I keep my cannabis in the > fridge which is actually in gummy candy format to make it > last at the proper strength for as long as I can. I don't know about gummy candy but it is my belief that the flower, the head, keeps its strength for years just stored in a cool dark dry place. I am in the minority believing that chilling is just another of the mythical rituals surrounding drug use as in New Zealand the first place that the police look when searching for drugs is the fridge or freezer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD98465.2254@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #1152709 |
Titus G wrote: > > On 21/10/2026 14:32, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> On 10/20/2026 09:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: > >>> Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Fridges just keep food cold. > > >>> But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad! > > > and other perishable drugs. I keep my cannabis in the > > fridge which is actually in gummy candy format to make it > > last at the proper strength for as long as I can. > > I don't know about gummy candy but it is my belief that the flower, the > head, keeps its strength for years just stored in a cool dark dry place. > I am in the minority believing that chilling is just another of the > mythical rituals surrounding drug use as in New Zealand the first place > that the police look when searching for drugs is the fridge or freezer. Is it true people put batteries in the fridge to make it last longer or reenergize? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 10:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <C22dncj4yMbMa0X3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #1152627 |
On 10/20/2026 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote: >> On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> It is a classical example of not correcting for bias. >>>>> (to obtain a wanted result) >>>>> The parishioners going to church every sunday >>>>> will be in better health (on average) >>>>> than those who stay at home. >>>> >>>> Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local >>>> church. >>>> >>>> I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>> claim it doesn't work for some people. >>> >>> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics >>> that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy >>> is bunk. >>> It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics, >>> >>> Jan >> I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >> following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >> domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >> there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >> Did one cause the other?? > > > Mostly the mobility and the transience, > then also there were a lot of drug habits. > > Fridges just keep food cold. Since that time in many segments of American culture, "the nazis & the commies" were considered antithetical to American ideals, and the enemy of good Americans, terrorists are small change, while yet the nazis and the commies and their codependency with suppression & repression and run-away filthy lucre, have it so that the lifetime of propaganda has very firmly established that it's virtuous to be against the nazis and the commies, particularly those that are both, progressive radicals of the self-serving variety. The Bayesian, about statistics, is only a partial account, working fine for classical probabilities, while yet there's that continuous distributions are not modeled after counting arguments and otherwise closed by classical probabilities. So, not only is the statistical method a rigorous course itself, the actual foundations of probability theory have large gaps about the Bayesian as the inductive and empirical, about uncertainty and chance in probability theory yet with actual accounts of non-standard and extra-ordinary mathematics itself, has that there are lies and lies. Lots of people hear "Bayesian" and think "sound", yet, it's notable that "Bayesian" is "incomplete" about the continuous after the discrete, chopping off fingers to infinity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 10:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <SRGdnYtlcb9yZEX3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #1152688 |
On 10/21/2026 10:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/20/2026 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote: >>> On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> It is a classical example of not correcting for bias. >>>>>> (to obtain a wanted result) >>>>>> The parishioners going to church every sunday >>>>>> will be in better health (on average) >>>>>> than those who stay at home. >>>>> >>>>> Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local >>>>> church. >>>>> >>>>> I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>>> claim it doesn't work for some people. >>>> >>>> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics >>>> that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy >>>> is bunk. >>>> It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics, >>>> >>>> Jan >>> I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >>> following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >>> domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >>> there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >>> Did one cause the other?? >> >> >> Mostly the mobility and the transience, >> then also there were a lot of drug habits. >> >> Fridges just keep food cold. > > > Since that time in many segments of American culture, > "the nazis & the commies" were considered antithetical > to American ideals, and the enemy of good Americans, > terrorists are small change, while yet the nazis and > the commies and their codependency with suppression & > repression and run-away filthy lucre, have it so that > the lifetime of propaganda has very firmly established > that it's virtuous to be against the nazis and the commies, > particularly those that are both, progressive radicals > of the self-serving variety. > > > The Bayesian, about statistics, is only a partial account, > working fine for classical probabilities, while yet there's > that continuous distributions are not modeled after counting > arguments and otherwise closed by classical probabilities. > So, not only is the statistical method a rigorous course > itself, the actual foundations of probability theory have > large gaps about the Bayesian as the inductive and empirical, > about uncertainty and chance in probability theory yet with > actual accounts of non-standard and extra-ordinary mathematics > itself, has that there are lies and lies. > > Lots of people hear "Bayesian" and think "sound", yet, > it's notable that "Bayesian" is "incomplete" about the > continuous after the discrete, chopping off fingers > to infinity. > > > Recent polls show most people aren't in the vocal cohort, and more than two-thirds of people consider themselves reasonable common-sense moderates, given a very basic account of equal rights & equal protections as the cornerstone of what justness is where "democracy" is "rule of law" with rights & protections since Aristotle, then vis-a-vis "rule of the mob" or "rule of mob", about majority and meritocracy, then that the anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are considered subject their own deconstructive account as not pertaining to society overall and good governance, instead as symptomatic of inefficiences in the economy. The Bayesian as completing itself is turned over many times in the mathematics, for example about Frege's completeness then Russell's incompleteness then Russell's retro-thesis of completeness then Goedel's completeness then Goedel's incompleteness, that though for the actual accounts of the continuous and completeness, and then repleteness, that since antiquity there are the multiple models of continuous domains like as for Xenocrates and line-drawing like Hilbert's postulate of continuity or Cavalieri's indivisibles vis-a-vis the Eudoxan after the Archimedean the rational extension, that the _repleteness_ of the super-standard and the continuous, then as well for the _extra-ordinary_ of the actually infinite then is for the _super-standard_, since Zeno's "moving rows" and for quasi-invariant measure theory as for real and mathematically real accounts of convergence and emergence. Yeah, statistics will lie if you let them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-22 01:49 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <SW6CS.2$Mev6.0@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #1152689 |
On 10/22/2026 1:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 10/21/2026 10:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/20/2026 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote: >>>> On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>> It is a classical example of not correcting for bias. >>>>>>> (to obtain a wanted result) >>>>>>> The parishioners going to church every sunday >>>>>>> will be in better health (on average) >>>>>>> than those who stay at home. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of >>>>>> course -- >>>>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend >>>>>> other >>>>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local >>>>>> church. >>>>>> >>>>>> I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>>>> claim it doesn't work for some people. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics >>>>> that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life >>>>> expectancy >>>>> is bunk. >>>>> It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics, >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>> I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >>>> following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >>>> domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >>>> there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >>>> Did one cause the other?? >>> >>> >>> Mostly the mobility and the transience, >>> then also there were a lot of drug habits. >>> >>> Fridges just keep food cold. >> >> >> Since that time in many segments of American culture, >> "the nazis & the commies" were considered antithetical >> to American ideals, and the enemy of good Americans, >> terrorists are small change, while yet the nazis and >> the commies and their codependency with suppression & >> repression and run-away filthy lucre, have it so that >> the lifetime of propaganda has very firmly established >> that it's virtuous to be against the nazis and the commies, >> particularly those that are both, progressive radicals >> of the self-serving variety. >> >> >> The Bayesian, about statistics, is only a partial account, >> working fine for classical probabilities, while yet there's >> that continuous distributions are not modeled after counting >> arguments and otherwise closed by classical probabilities. >> So, not only is the statistical method a rigorous course >> itself, the actual foundations of probability theory have >> large gaps about the Bayesian as the inductive and empirical, >> about uncertainty and chance in probability theory yet with >> actual accounts of non-standard and extra-ordinary mathematics >> itself, has that there are lies and lies. >> >> Lots of people hear "Bayesian" and think "sound", yet, >> it's notable that "Bayesian" is "incomplete" about the >> continuous after the discrete, chopping off fingers >> to infinity. >> >> >> > > > Recent polls show most people aren't in the vocal cohort, > and more than two-thirds of people consider themselves > reasonable common-sense moderates, given a very basic > account of equal rights & equal protections as the > cornerstone of what justness is where "democracy" > is "rule of law" with rights & protections since Aristotle, > then vis-a-vis "rule of the mob" or "rule of mob", > about majority and meritocracy, then that the > anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are > considered subject their own deconstructive account > as not pertaining to society overall and good governance, > instead as symptomatic of inefficiences in the economy. > > > > > The Bayesian as completing itself is turned over many > times in the mathematics, for example about Frege's > completeness then Russell's incompleteness then Russell's > retro-thesis of completeness then Goedel's completeness > then Goedel's incompleteness, that though for the > actual accounts of the continuous and completeness, > and then repleteness, that since antiquity there are > the multiple models of continuous domains like as for > Xenocrates and line-drawing like Hilbert's postulate > of continuity or Cavalieri's indivisibles vis-a-vis > the Eudoxan after the Archimedean the rational extension, > that the _repleteness_ of the super-standard and the > continuous, then as well for the _extra-ordinary_ of > the actually infinite then is for the _super-standard_, > since Zeno's "moving rows" and for quasi-invariant > measure theory as for real and mathematically real > accounts of convergence and emergence. > > > Yeah, statistics will lie if you let them. Can people lie with statistics without /letting them/? -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <yticnXa2i8Q5YEX3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #1152690 |
On 10/21/2026 10:49 AM, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 10/22/2026 1:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 10/21/2026 10:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>> On 10/20/2026 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >>>> On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote: >>>>> On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>> It is a classical example of not correcting for bias. >>>>>>>> (to obtain a wanted result) >>>>>>>> The parishioners going to church every sunday >>>>>>>> will be in better health (on average) >>>>>>>> than those who stay at home. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of >>>>>>> course -- >>>>>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend >>>>>>> other >>>>>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local >>>>>>> church. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>>>>> claim it doesn't work for some people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics >>>>>> that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life >>>>>> expectancy >>>>>> is bunk. >>>>>> It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics, >>>>>> >>>>>> Jan >>>>> I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >>>>> following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >>>>> domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >>>>> there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >>>>> Did one cause the other?? >>>> >>>> >>>> Mostly the mobility and the transience, >>>> then also there were a lot of drug habits. >>>> >>>> Fridges just keep food cold. >>> >>> >>> Since that time in many segments of American culture, >>> "the nazis & the commies" were considered antithetical >>> to American ideals, and the enemy of good Americans, >>> terrorists are small change, while yet the nazis and >>> the commies and their codependency with suppression & >>> repression and run-away filthy lucre, have it so that >>> the lifetime of propaganda has very firmly established >>> that it's virtuous to be against the nazis and the commies, >>> particularly those that are both, progressive radicals >>> of the self-serving variety. >>> >>> >>> The Bayesian, about statistics, is only a partial account, >>> working fine for classical probabilities, while yet there's >>> that continuous distributions are not modeled after counting >>> arguments and otherwise closed by classical probabilities. >>> So, not only is the statistical method a rigorous course >>> itself, the actual foundations of probability theory have >>> large gaps about the Bayesian as the inductive and empirical, >>> about uncertainty and chance in probability theory yet with >>> actual accounts of non-standard and extra-ordinary mathematics >>> itself, has that there are lies and lies. >>> >>> Lots of people hear "Bayesian" and think "sound", yet, >>> it's notable that "Bayesian" is "incomplete" about the >>> continuous after the discrete, chopping off fingers >>> to infinity. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> Recent polls show most people aren't in the vocal cohort, >> and more than two-thirds of people consider themselves >> reasonable common-sense moderates, given a very basic >> account of equal rights & equal protections as the >> cornerstone of what justness is where "democracy" >> is "rule of law" with rights & protections since Aristotle, >> then vis-a-vis "rule of the mob" or "rule of mob", >> about majority and meritocracy, then that the >> anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are >> considered subject their own deconstructive account >> as not pertaining to society overall and good governance, >> instead as symptomatic of inefficiences in the economy. >> >> >> >> >> The Bayesian as completing itself is turned over many >> times in the mathematics, for example about Frege's >> completeness then Russell's incompleteness then Russell's >> retro-thesis of completeness then Goedel's completeness >> then Goedel's incompleteness, that though for the >> actual accounts of the continuous and completeness, >> and then repleteness, that since antiquity there are >> the multiple models of continuous domains like as for >> Xenocrates and line-drawing like Hilbert's postulate >> of continuity or Cavalieri's indivisibles vis-a-vis >> the Eudoxan after the Archimedean the rational extension, >> that the _repleteness_ of the super-standard and the >> continuous, then as well for the _extra-ordinary_ of >> the actually infinite then is for the _super-standard_, >> since Zeno's "moving rows" and for quasi-invariant >> measure theory as for real and mathematically real >> accounts of convergence and emergence. >> >> >> Yeah, statistics will lie if you let them. > > Can people lie with statistics without /letting them/? Yes, that's the definition of "liars making lies".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 12:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11b83ug$ahb$1@panix2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #1152622 |
Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> wrote: > I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >Did one cause the other?? Of course. You install fridges, and people fill them up with expensive imported food, then burglars break in to take it. It happens all the time. Have you heard the song "Tony the Ice Man?" --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 09:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b83vo$35j5c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152622 |
On 10/20/2026 7:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: > On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> It is a classical example of not correcting for bias. >>>> (to obtain a wanted result) >>>> The parishioners going to church every sunday >>>> will be in better health (on average) >>>> than those who stay at home. >>> >>> Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church. >>> >>> I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>> claim it doesn't work for some people. >> >> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics >> that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy >> is bunk. >> It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics, >> >> Jan > I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years > following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in > domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, > there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. > Did one cause the other?? I suspect that the two were independently rising because of the post-war economic boom. -- I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky dirty old man.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-20 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b869v$36psn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152630 |
On 10/20/26 09:13, Dimensional Traveler wrote: > On 10/20/2026 7:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote: >> On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> It is a classical example of not correcting for bias. >>>>> (to obtain a wanted result) >>>>> The parishioners going to church every sunday >>>>> will be in better health (on average) >>>>> than those who stay at home. >>>> >>>> Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local >>>> church. >>>> >>>> I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>> claim it doesn't work for some people. >>> >>> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics >>> that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy >>> is bunk. >>> It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics, >>> >>> Jan >> I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >> following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >> domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >> there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >> Did one cause the other?? > > I suspect that the two were independently rising because of the post-war > economic boom. > I was raised in the christian tradition but have not been a regular church-goer since adolescence and I am 89 yoa but then the last time I attended a Unitarian church was in the 1970s before I developed Chronic Exhaustion Disease following a couple of year of increased stress physically and a viral illness of the sort that never seems to go away but just gets worse. I think that regular church-goers are healthy enough to get to the church. The strictures of the Christian churches if followed can lead to better health because you are not doing a lot of popular but deliterious activities like boozing and smoking, whoring and gambling. I on the other had suffer the results of my stressful youth and benefit from the reduction in several activities which would have resulted in very bad health if continued. I take my doctor's advice relatively seriously these days. BUT Life is a Terminal Condition. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 11:22 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <11b90l6$3gcci$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152607 |
On 20/10/26 22:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics that regularly going > to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy is bunk. It is a > textbook example of how not to do statistics, Statistics is a problem generally. Hardly anyone understands statistics at the level that statisticians do. High school statistics only scratches the very edge of the subject, with no warnings about how a simple-minded aplication of the formulae can give wrong answers. A small handful of us studied a more advanced level as part of our education, but how much of it sank in? I have read published research papers where wrong conclusions were drawn from a too-naive use of statistics, and the authors were clearly unaware of what they did wrong. We need to treat anything involving statistics with caution. In particular, we need to ask "Have these results been checked by a qualified statistician?" -- Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 10:48 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <kKVBS.215544$WzI1.79691@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #1152649 |
On 10/21/2026 8:22 AM, Peter Moylan wrote: > On 20/10/26 22:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics that regularly going >> to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy is bunk. It is a >> textbook example of how not to do statistics, > > Statistics is a problem generally. Hardly anyone understands statistics > at the level that statisticians do. High school statistics only > scratches the very edge of the subject, with no warnings about how a > simple-minded aplication of the formulae can give wrong answers. A small > handful of us studied a more advanced level as part of our education, > but how much of it sank in? > > I have read published research papers where wrong conclusions were drawn > from a too-naive use of statistics, and the authors were clearly unaware > of what they did wrong. > > We need to treat anything involving statistics with caution. In > particular, we need to ask "Have these results been checked by a > qualified statistician?" > Another thing I've come across in the past, is people not understanding the existence of something. My example is to do with people, so I'll try to recreate an example, because I don't remember the original con- text. So, I basically got in an "argument" online, because I suggested some subset of people existed. It may have been something to do with health, as it cannot have been hair colour or something. And the person getting upset and/or not believing it, asked for "proof" and said that anectdata was not valid in statistics; or something along those lines. But that's not really how this works. I mean, I can have been wrong as I just don't remember what I was originally stating, but it only takes one person to /exist/. and that's enough -- even for double blinded medical experiments. So, to finalize this ramble, some person didn't want to believe in the existence of some subset of people, because I had no /statistics/ to back me up. Like I need to know exactly how rare central heterochromia is just for me to exist in the real world [1]? Best wishes, and happy statistical arguments! [1] I've actually read recently that it's something like 1/1600 accord- ing to a study with numbers, but I'm not sure I can trust that number if there's only one study. -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 17:25 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <11b9ltb$3m3nv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152652 |
On 21/10/26 13:48, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > > And the person getting upset and/or not believing it, asked for > "proof" and said that anectdata was not valid in statistics; or > something along those lines. That reminds me of one of my experiences. I was having lunch with someone who was quite eminent in the circuit theory world. In the course of conversation he mentioned a conjecture he had about nonlinear circuits. It sounded plausible, but after a little thought I thought of a circuit where the conjecture would be false. I grabbed a paper napkin -- lots of technical discussions are carried out on paper napkins in cafes and restaurants -- and sketched the circuit. "No, it's not true", I said. "Here's an example of a circuit where it doesn't work." He looked at it, then drew another circuit. "But here's an example where it does work." "It only takes one counterexample", he then said, as if that proved his point. I let him have his victory. -- Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-21 19:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <gvgidlteobjqahj9su4qjgqgdt5fn2gqff@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1152649 |
On Wed, 21 Oct 2026 11:22:59 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote: >On 20/10/26 22:09, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics that regularly going >> to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy is bunk. It is a >> textbook example of how not to do statistics, > >Statistics is a problem generally. Hardly anyone understands statistics >at the level that statisticians do. High school statistics only >scratches the very edge of the subject, with no warnings about how a >simple-minded aplication of the formulae can give wrong answers. A small >handful of us studied a more advanced level as part of our education, >but how much of it sank in? > >I have read published research papers where wrong conclusions were drawn >from a too-naive use of statistics, and the authors were clearly unaware >of what they did wrong. I spent my career as a data analyst and statistician and statistical adviser. In years of reviewing the publications and proposals of researchers for their statistics, bad reasoning was more often the problem than bad use of statistics. Bad design of the problem may have been more prevalent than bad inference from the results. The reseach scientist whom I worked with for more than 30 years had gone to seminary before he turned to science. He was an excellent reviewer of proposals and of articles -- only occasionally did he need to turn to me for a comment on the statistics, manily, like, "Isn't there something wrong with this?" Usually he was right. He claimed that he learned to analyze propositions from his study of Aquinas's proof of the existence of God. > >We need to treat anything involving statistics with caution. In >particular, we need to ask "Have these results been checked by a >qualified statistician?" Only ask a statistician who has been successful in analyzing data; some of the academics lack experience. Epidemiologists - even in training - have greater experience in dealing with biases and fallacies and 'paradoxes' (see: Simpson's paradox). (Data show that the most expensive fire damage is reported when the number of fire trucks responding is greatest: Logic says,, reduce the number of trucks sent.) -- Rich Ulrich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD5856C.3448@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #1152476 |
BobbieSellers wrote: > > On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote: > > I never read a fiction book > > and I certaintly never read > > a science fiction book > > Nor do ever appear to even cracked > any book especially not even one on classical > physicw. > > > > > That's like giving a > > 3 year old LSD. > > Believe me you seem ignorant > of drugs and giving anyone incapable of > consent any drug even legal ones except > by physician's prescription or parental > directions > > > > > > Who do you think reads > > science fiction books? People > > who want to go to Mars! > > No! Not Mars but certainly not 1950's > Earth. We wanted to go to the stars if you > have ever watch the TV show Star Trek and > its enlargements that was want we wanted. > > > > > Fiction and > > science fiction... > > that's a fucking double wammy!!! > > > > Give the kid a half a tab of LSD. > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > >> > >> Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff.. > >> Mars is not a planet! > >> > >> There is no reason to go to Mars because > >> Mars is not a planet! > >> > >> It's just a rock. > > So is the Earth but the Earth got infected > with Life and certain conditions and if not imported > perhaps from other infected rocks eventually Life > Evolved and here we are. Thank you rock, Thank you > Moon and Sun and the rest of the Universe because > without Time and Space where would we be? > > If you do not read Science Fiction books and > you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call > on all good users to cast you out... > At 89 I got no more time for you... With one foot in Usenet and the other foot in the grave then that's stranger than fiction! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-17 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <11b1960$ot1n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152448 |
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: > Peter Moylan wrote: >> >> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. >> >> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >> >> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >> >> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >> to about one third of its length. >> >> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >> writing. >> >> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >> read because their books are too thick. >> >> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >> complain about this? >> >> -- >> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >> Newcastle, NSW Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The best author were not necessarily prolix. In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory to the bookshelves of the stores. > > > > This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a > reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then > tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. Pretty much the case I believe. > > You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one > character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate > authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. > Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the > critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s > autobiography. > "Could have been cut to one-third" is pure assertion without a > single concrete cut. You offer zero page counts, zero scene breakdowns, > zero demonstration that removing two-thirds would leave a coherent plot, > character arc, or thematic payoff. That is not editing advice. That is > fantasy surgery performed with a chainsaw and no anatomy knowledge. > You leap from one book you dislike to a sweeping claim about > Asimov’s later career and reputation. "I’ve seen comments" is anecdotal > garbage. No sales data, no critical consensus metrics, no comparison of > contemporaneous reviews versus later ones. You are treating your own > annoyance as a proxy for market and critical judgment. > The "paid by the page" explanation is historically illiterate. > Modern trade publishing does not pay authors by the page or by the word > in the way pulp magazines once did. Advances and royalties are based on > projected sales and contract terms, not length. Blaming "payment by the > page" for 1980s–90s hardcovers is simply wrong. > You treat thickness as an automatic quality defect. Many of the most > commercially and critically successful novels of the last fifty years > are long. Length is not the variable; density and necessity are. You > never distinguish between the two. > > > You assume that every reader shares your patience threshold and that > anything exceeding it is objectively padded. You assume publishers have > abandoned editing because books are long, ignoring the existence of > developmental editors, copy editors, and the commercial reality that > certain audiences buy thick books precisely because they want immersion. I was formerly a very fast reader and chose longer stories by trusted authors for that sort of reason. I have never seen movies of popular books that I have read because they are usually disappointing. I read all of the Vampire stories of Charlene Harris before I saw the multi-episode "True Blood" and I found it far inferior to the book. People who prefer the visual version of such stories suffer I fear from stunted imaginations. That is the same reason I have never watched the Lord of the Rings motion pictures though I understand that these are deemed marvelous by viewers. > You assume declining sales (if real) are caused by length rather than > competing media, changing leisure habits, price, or content. You never > admit the possibility that Robots and Empire was written at that length > because Asimov chose to expand the political and historical scope of his > universe rather than because he was padding for money. > Readers who buy series finales and late-career works by established > authors often want more of the same world, not less. Publishers know > this; they are not stupid. Editors who routinely gut bestselling > authors’ manuscripts risk losing the author and the revenue. Your > preferred "one-third length" version would have to sell to the same > audience that already accepted the longer book. Competitors and > imitators in science fiction have thrived with both lean and expansive > styles. Your refusal to read thick books is a personal filter, not a > market signal that forces publishers to change. > Asimov’s later novels sold in large numbers despite (or because of) > their length. The physical and economic constraints of publishing do not > make long books inherently unprofitable; paper, printing, and > distribution costs scale, but so can price and perceived value. Your > claim that "books don’t sell as well as they used to" is too vague to > test and ignores category differences, format shifts (ebooks, > audiobooks), and the fact that some long books still move hundreds of > thousands of copies. A single reader’s irritation does not scale into > industry failure. > The entire causal chain—character dialogue equals authorial padding > equals payment incentives equals editorial collapse equals sales > decline—must be discarded. Replace it with actual textual analysis of > specific scenes that fail to advance plot, character, or theme, > supported by evidence rather than feelings. The industry diagnosis must > be rebuilt from contracts, sales data, and editorial practice rather > than nostalgia and anecdote. > Nothing of structural value survives. The observation that some late > Asimov is less tight than early Asimov is a commonplace, not an insight > you originated or substantiated. > > You are not diagnosing a publishing disease. You are complaining that a > book refused to finish at the exact moment your personal tolerance > expired, then dressing the complaint up as systemic critique. > > The Swarmmaker Fleet Pretentious title but Ok for this time. Books face declining sales for several reasons but the principal one is that we spend too much time on the Internet and choices by the paper-makers and politicians have forced cost up up and away beyond the means of many working and retired people. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 19:46 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <wk2BS.563$K1P4.277@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #1152469 |
On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: > On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: >> Peter Moylan wrote: >>> >>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>> annoyed. >>> >>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>> >>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >>> >>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >>> to about one third of its length. >>> >>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>> writing. >>> >>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>> read because their books are too thick. >>> >>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>> complain about this? >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >>> Newcastle, NSW > > Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid > usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The > best author were not necessarily prolix. > In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the > Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due > to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory > to the bookshelves of the stores. Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. > >> >> >> >> This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a >> reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then >> tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy. > > Pretty much the case I believe. > >> >> You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one >> character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate >> authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. >> Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the >> critical equivalent of believing a novel’s villain is the author’s >> autobiography. >> "Could have been cut to one-third" is pure assertion without a >> single concrete cut. You offer zero page counts, zero scene breakdowns, >> zero demonstration that removing two-thirds would leave a coherent plot, >> character arc, or thematic payoff. That is not editing advice. That is >> fantasy surgery performed with a chainsaw and no anatomy knowledge. >> You leap from one book you dislike to a sweeping claim about >> Asimov’s later career and reputation. "I’ve seen comments" is anecdotal >> garbage. No sales data, no critical consensus metrics, no comparison of >> contemporaneous reviews versus later ones. You are treating your own >> annoyance as a proxy for market and critical judgment. >> The "paid by the page" explanation is historically illiterate. >> Modern trade publishing does not pay authors by the page or by the word >> in the way pulp magazines once did. Advances and royalties are based on >> projected sales and contract terms, not length. Blaming "payment by the >> page" for 1980s–90s hardcovers is simply wrong. >> You treat thickness as an automatic quality defect. Many of the most >> commercially and critically successful novels of the last fifty years >> are long. Length is not the variable; density and necessity are. You >> never distinguish between the two. >> >> >> You assume that every reader shares your patience threshold and that >> anything exceeding it is objectively padded. You assume publishers have >> abandoned editing because books are long, ignoring the existence of >> developmental editors, copy editors, and the commercial reality that >> certain audiences buy thick books precisely because they want immersion. > > I was formerly a very fast reader and chose longer stories by > trusted authors for that sort of reason. I have never seen movies of > popular books that I have read because they are usually disappointing. > I read all of the Vampire stories of Charlene Harris before I saw > the multi-episode "True Blood" and I found it far inferior to the book. > People who prefer the visual version of such stories suffer I fear > from stunted imaginations. That is the same reason I have never > watched the Lord of the Rings motion pictures though I understand > that these are deemed marvelous by viewers. I'm still a /fast reader/, but it depends on the subject and day. My current reading speed is more a function of physical health, than any- thing else. > > >> You assume declining sales (if real) are caused by length rather than >> competing media, changing leisure habits, price, or content. You never >> admit the possibility that Robots and Empire was written at that length >> because Asimov chose to expand the political and historical scope of his >> universe rather than because he was padding for money. >> Readers who buy series finales and late-career works by established >> authors often want more of the same world, not less. Publishers know >> this; they are not stupid. Editors who routinely gut bestselling >> authors’ manuscripts risk losing the author and the revenue. Your >> preferred "one-third length" version would have to sell to the same >> audience that already accepted the longer book. Competitors and >> imitators in science fiction have thrived with both lean and expansive >> styles. Your refusal to read thick books is a personal filter, not a >> market signal that forces publishers to change. Asimov’s later novels >> sold in large numbers despite (or because of) >> their length. The physical and economic constraints of publishing do not >> make long books inherently unprofitable; paper, printing, and >> distribution costs scale, but so can price and perceived value. Your >> claim that "books don’t sell as well as they used to" is too vague to >> test and ignores category differences, format shifts (ebooks, >> audiobooks), and the fact that some long books still move hundreds of >> thousands of copies. A single reader’s irritation does not scale into >> industry failure. >> The entire causal chain—character dialogue equals authorial padding >> equals payment incentives equals editorial collapse equals sales >> decline—must be discarded. Replace it with actual textual analysis of >> specific scenes that fail to advance plot, character, or theme, >> supported by evidence rather than feelings. The industry diagnosis must >> be rebuilt from contracts, sales data, and editorial practice rather >> than nostalgia and anecdote. >> Nothing of structural value survives. The observation that some late >> Asimov is less tight than early Asimov is a commonplace, not an insight >> you originated or substantiated. >> >> You are not diagnosing a publishing disease. You are complaining that a >> book refused to finish at the exact moment your personal tolerance >> expired, then dressing the complaint up as systemic critique. >> >> The Swarmmaker Fleet > > Pretentious title but Ok for this time. > Books face declining sales for several reasons but the principal > one is that we spend too much time on the Internet and choices by the > paper-makers and politicians have forced cost up up and away beyond > the means of many working and retired people. > > bliss > And in turn, a lot of the working and retired people are now reading free fiction on Gutenberg, RoyalRoad, and similar sites; if not sub- scribing to Kindle Unlimited. Note a lot of ebooks are also available through library "subscriptions." So I guess it's also normal for books to raise prices [1] when the com- petition is literally free [2]. I have previously stated that I prefer well written and edited stories, so prefer to buy my own fiction when I have the budget. That also means I have reading material waiting when I don't have a budget, nor can eas- ily go to a library. Of course, /most people/ aren't reading the books on Gutenberg nor Roy- alRoad, but those people wouldn't buy a book in a book store either, so I don't see much point in counting the people who don't read. I'm veering too much into basic economics [3] so I'll stop now, and try to find myself something to read. [1] This is convoluted, but I'm not going to fix it. Books don't raise their own prices, publishers and bookstores do. [2] Sometimes, when a person can get access to free wifi, and such. [3] Which I have never studied formally, but a lot of people who call themselves economists never think of the /free competition/, which is honestly weird. -- Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/ I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:; Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 16:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <11b3bsi$1gcuk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #1152487 |
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: >> On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: >>> Peter Moylan wrote: >>>> >>>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>>> annoyed. >>>> >>>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly >>>> the >>>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but >>>> the >>>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>>> >>>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the >>>> point, >>>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the >>>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. >>>> >>>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by >>>> cutting it >>>> to about one third of its length. >>>> >>>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>> writing. >>>> >>>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>>> read because their books are too thick. >>>> >>>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>>> complain about this? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org >>>> Newcastle, NSW >> >> Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid >> usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The >> best author were not necessarily prolix. >> In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the >> Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due >> to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory >> to the bookshelves of the stores. > > Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- > lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- > ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is something like: "The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste". which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to find any. William Hyde
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-18 16:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6AD55AB3.5DA8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #1152514 |
William Hyde wrote: > > Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote: > > On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote: > >> On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> Peter Moylan wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself > >>>> annoyed. > >>>> > >>>> I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly > >>>> the > >>>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but > >>>> the > >>>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. > >>>> > >>>> Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the > >>>> point, > >>>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the > >>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take > >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort > >>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the > >>>> characters in the story are complaining about the padding. > >>>> > >>>> A competent editor could have made this a much better book by > >>>> cutting it > >>>> to about one third of its length. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen > >>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier > >>>> writing. > >>>> > >>>> It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to > >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with > >>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up > >>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to > >>>> read because their books are too thick. > >>>> > >>>> But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books > >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to > >>>> complain about this? > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Peter Moylan      peter@pmoylan.org   http://www.pmoylan.org > >>>> Newcastle, NSW > >> > >>      Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid > >> usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s. The > >> best author were not necessarily prolix. > >>      In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the > >> Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due > >> to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory > >> to the bookshelves of the stores. > > > > Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- > > lishers' minds. It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- > > ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher. > > According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is > something like: > > "The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste". > > which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to > find any. books were expensive in those days..so they divided it into 3 season episodes.. tripple feature, "three decker"... Season 4 canceled. > > William Hyde -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english
csiph-web