Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!ut-sally!jsq
From: jsq@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: John Quartermain's of V8 #95
Message-ID: <119@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Oct-83 10:49:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.119
Posted: Sun Oct  9 10:49:34 1983
Date-Received: Mon, 10-Oct-83 23:36:22 EDT
References: <12295@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 29

Replying to:
	
	"[list of allegedly good sources of titles...] ... Any of these are more
	reliable than an sf-lovers poll."
	
	What in Yafa's name do you mean by that??  Do you mean that the opinions
	of sf-lovers are somehow of less "merit" than the other sources you
	named?  Do you mean that sf-lovers will give spurious and useless
	suggestions?

I like the clever way you:
a) ignore what value any of the "allegedly good sources of titles" might have;
b) imply that all sources of information are of equal merit;
c) spell my name wrong (it *was* right there in front of your face, you know).

I certainly do mean to say that a poll in sf-lovers is of less merit than
the other sources I mentioned.  If you want to know why, you might *try*
some of the other sources and see for yourself.  You might not agree, but
then at least you would have some basis for an argument.

There has been some good stuff in sf-lovers lately (the David Brin and
John Shirley recommendations, for instance), and people do post occasional
news from Locus there.  However, there is still a lot of pointless discussion
of the latest media hype, especially movies.  Seems like net.books was formed
as a reaction to the current nature of net.sf-lovers, so I can't be the only
one with this sort of opinion.
-- 
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
{ihnp4,kpno,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq, jsq@ut-sally.{ARPA,UUCP}