"Edited for the Modern Reader"

Jordan179 <JSBassior2007.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in news:c79cca03-7c8c-4df7-beaf-
74fda3450636.TakeThisOut@l25g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

>> What's obvious is that it's the ground exerting force on my feet, pushing
> me
>> away from the path I would otherwise naturally follow.
>
> It's obvious _now_. It _wasn't_ obvious before Newton pointed it out.

Newton didn't point it out. He claimed it was me pushing on the ground,
whereas it's obvious it's the ground pushing on me.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

::: What's obvious is that it's the ground exerting force on my feet,
::: pushing me away from the path I would otherwise naturally follow.

:: It's obvious _now_. It _wasn't_ obvious before Newton pointed it out.

: Gene Ward Smith <gene RemoveThis @chewbacca.org>
: Newton didn't point it out. He claimed it was me pushing on the ground,
: whereas it's obvious it's the ground pushing on me.

Um. Given Newton's third law, aren't those the same thing? Does it
matter which is action, and which is re? But yes, Newton had gravity
being a "force", which is not really quite the current view. Freefall
being the "path one would naturally follow" is more due to the
equivalence principle.


Wayne Throop throopw RemoveThis @sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Wayne Throop wrote:
> ::: What's obvious is that it's the ground exerting force on my feet,
> ::: pushing me away from the path I would otherwise naturally follow.
>
> :: It's obvious _now_. It _wasn't_ obvious before Newton pointed it out.
>
> : Gene Ward Smith <gene.RemoveThis@chewbacca.org>
> : Newton didn't point it out. He claimed it was me pushing on the ground,
> : whereas it's obvious it's the ground pushing on me.
>
> Um. Given Newton's third law, aren't those the same thing?

Bah. There is no gravity. The Earth sucks.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

throopw RemoveThis @sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote in news:1208723414@sheol.org:

> But yes, Newton had gravity
> being a "force", which is not really quite the current view. Freefall
> being the "path one would naturally follow" is more due to the
> equivalence principle.

Exactly. The OP was trying to promote the farce of gravity, which Laplace had
pointed out long ago would need to propagate at at least 7,000,000 c.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Jordan179 wrote:
>
> So tell me, quick: is Sam Gamgee a servile xenophobe, or an
> indomitable neophile? No nuances, please -- he's simply a "cardboard
> cutout defined by a single virtue or flaw," so I'm sure it can't be
> hard to figure out _which_.
>
> Be prepared to defend your choice.

Okay. He's neither. He's servile, and properly rewarded for his faithful
servility to the real movers and shakers with the highest position available
to someone of his class - mayor of a town dominated by the landed gentry.

That's his character. He's only ever excited by things which touch on his
commoner's interests (gardening, for instance), or which awe him by their
obvious superiority. He might be a hero, but he's a hero because he never
dares to think above his station - he's too ensconced in a servile, humble
mindset to be tempted by the power of the Ring, which is Not For The Likes
of Him.

--
Christopher Adams
Sydney, Australia

For theirs is the power and this is their kingdom
As sure as the sun does burn
So enter this path, but heed these four words:
You shall never return
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Christopher Adams wrote:
> Jordan179 wrote:
>>
[Re: Sam Gamgee]

>He's only ever excited by things which touch on
> his commoner's interests (gardening, for instance), or which awe him
> by their obvious superiority. He might be a hero, but he's a hero
> because he never dares to think above his station - he's too
> ensconced in a servile, humble mindset to be tempted by the power of
> the Ring, which is Not For The Likes of Him.

Neither statement is supported by the text. Sam Gamgee is excited by the
tales he hears about dragons and wizards and especially elves; he learns
poetry, and writes his own. This is very obvious in his discussion with Ted
Sandyman. He is well-rooted in his life as a gardener, sure, but in no way
limited.

And when he gets the ring, he is tempted all right - he sees himself as
"Gamgee the Great, hero of the ages". He resists the temptation, just as
Galadriel, Gandalf or Frodo do. This is clearly a choice, an act of will of
his part, and not in any way a result of his servility.

--
Regards,

Cosmin Corbea
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.sf.written.]
On 2008-04-18, John W. Kennedy <jwkenne.RemoveThis@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Aaron Denney wrote:
>> Well then, everything is hard to read, especially for the "great unwashed
>> masses". Clearly you have some threshold. For me, Shakespeare is well
>> below that threshold. Chaucer or Delany are at the level that causes
>> some difficulty. Shakespeare merely has a bit of somewhat obscure
>> vocabulary, and I'm well practiced in groking that from context, mostly
>> from reading science fiction as a child.
>
> Well, actually, that depends somewhat on what you mean by "Shakespeare".
> The masculine, end-stopped, straightforward style of, say, "The Comedy
> of Errors" is a long way from the feminine, enjambed, elliptical,
> stream-of-consciousness style of, say, "Cymbeline". Compare:

It's not at all surprising that different works have different styles.
Even today, authors have works that differ greatly in how easy they are
to understand. It's not something that marks Shakespeare as a markedly
different exception.

I really don't understand the point of your descriptions of these two
plays as masculine or feminine.

--
Aaron Denney
-><-
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Mike Schilling
declared:
> Also, foreign sales
> matter more than they used to, and explosions don't require much
> translation.
>

Good directors have always realized that film is a visual medium and
relying upon dialogue to tell the story is a bad idea. And yet Ford,
Hawks, and Lang rarely resorted to explosions. (Hitchcock used them
quite a bit -- Saboteur, Sabotage, Foreign Correspondent, Lifeboat,
North by Northwest, The Birds -- but didn't come close to Michael Bay.)

--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Bender: I've got wealth, fame, and access to the depths of sleaze
those things bring.
-Futurama
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Mike Schilling
> declared:
>> Also, foreign sales matter more than they used to, and explosions
>> don't require much translation.
>>
> Good directors have always realized that film is a visual medium and
> relying upon dialogue to tell the story is a bad idea. And yet Ford,
> Hawks, and Lang rarely resorted to explosions. (Hitchcock used them
> quite a bit -- Saboteur, Sabotage, Foreign Correspondent, Lifeboat,
> North by Northwest, The Birds -- but didn't come close to Michael
> Bay.)

And there's a good bit of difference between the use of explosions
there. Likewise, the opening sequence of Orson Welles' _Touch of Evil_
has an explosion, but--

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:56:13 -0700 (PDT), norrin <adweiland RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Catawumpus <kimmer... RemoveThis @fastmail.fm>:

>> > You referenced Mr. Peachum, but I don't think the name
>> > means anything to you.

>> No, peaches, I alluded to Shelley, but I agree that you're
>> not thinking. Now beggar off, eh?

>Without law, soldiers are reduced to beggars.

Or elevated to warlords. Not something legislators or poets like
to acknowledge, but worth keeping in mind.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*John.Schilling@alumni.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Jordan179 declared:
> On Apr 17, 3:41 pm, Sean O'Hara <seanoh... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>> Smith didn't write in a different version of English. He wrote in
>> our language, badly. Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Howard are perfectly
>> understandable from the same period.
>
> Smith didn't write "badly." He wrote in an earlier and more florid
> style. Just because Hemingway popularized extremely bald prose does
> not mean that florid prose is therefore "bad."
>

Oh, please, just compare him to Lord Dunsany -- the failings of
Smith are obvious.


--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
It's a common occurrence, actually: People get wasted on the company
dime, then grab a few adventurous colleagues and head to the local
porn superstore to titter en masse at the anal beads and cyberjelly
sleeves.
-Diablo Cody
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Sean O'Hara wrote:
> In the Year of the Earth Rat, the Great and Powerful Jordan179 declared:
>
>> On Apr 17, 3:41 pm, Sean O'Hara <seanoh... RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Smith didn't write in a different version of English. He wrote in
>>> our language, badly. Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Howard are perfectly
>>> understandable from the same period.
>>
>>
>> Smith didn't write "badly." He wrote in an earlier and more florid
>> style. Just because Hemingway popularized extremely bald prose does
>> not mean that florid prose is therefore "bad."
>>
>
> Oh, please, just compare him to Lord Dunsany -- the failings of Smith
> are obvious.

You mean the failings of DUNSANY are obvious. Starting with the lack
of coruscating beams of ravening energy.




--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader" 

Sea Wasp <seawaspObvious.DeleteThis@sgeObviousinc.com> wrote:
>> Oh, please, just compare him to Lord Dunsany -- the failings of Smith
>> are obvious.
>
> You mean the failings of DUNSANY are obvious. Starting with the lack
>of coruscating beams of ravening energy.

Well, there's a _reason_ you don't want the Fae mad at you.

Dave "sign of Saturn Astra" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from dbd.DeleteThis@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
 >> Stay informed about: "Edited for the Modern Reader"