Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!zen!cory.Berkeley.EDU!chapman From: chapman@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Brent Chapman) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: Heinlein's panegyric for the Bomb Message-ID: <160@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Fri, 12-Sep-86 22:18:47 EDT Article-I.D.: zen.160 Posted: Fri Sep 12 22:18:47 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Sep-86 04:58:16 EDT References: <1071@hoptoad.uucp> <571@dg_rtp.UUCP> <1084@hoptoad.uucp> Sender: news@zen.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: chapman@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Brent Chapman) Organization: UNIXversity of California at Berkeley Lines: 83 Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8393 talk.politics.misc:58 In article <1084@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >>Aaaaaah yes, the old "quote out of context" ploy. Most ingenious. > >It is highly questionable whether any quote eight paragraphs long can be >reasonably said to be "out of context". > WHO LET THIS (SELF-ADMITTED; CHECK HIS SIGNATURE!) IDIOT OUT OF HIS CAGE! Will someone lock him up before he wanders onto a freeway or something? Yes, the quote is 8 paragraphs long. Call it two pages. HOW long is the book it is quoted FROM? Call it 200 (I'm guessing; the book's at home, but I'm mad _NOW_!). Lessee, 2/200 == ~1%. From a 1%, non representative sample, you are going to draw a conclusion? By the way, have you even bothered to READ the WHOLE of either of the two works you seem so bent on quoting? I hope not; if you have, that makes you guilty of deliberately and maliciously trying to pass off misleading information. Perhaps you let someone ELSE talk you into this position, and now are too "proud" (read: "dogmaticly convinced that you're always correct, right from the start") to back down? >>Here, I *am* more familiar with the context, and, as I suspected, the >>quote in context is far less clearly nucleophilic. Consider: The quote >>explores the hypothesis that a nuclear war would cull the "unfit", and >>that hardy, freedomloving folk might selectively survive. (Even so, it >>is worth noting that again he did *not* say that the net effect would be >>beneficial.) > >YOU LIE!!! He said that the war would be good for the country in the very >first paragraph. What the hell is wrong with you jerks, can't you read >perfectly plain and straightforward English? Am I to be reduced to simply >quoting him again and again while you deny that he said what he said in the >very clearest possible terms? Tell me, what does it mean to you to say that >something will be good for the country? That the country has been going >downhill and that this will be the turning point? Tell me which particular >word you don't understand and I'll be happy to define it for you. You have demonstrated to my satisfaction (and probably to many others, as well) that you are utterly incapable of COMPREHENDING, much less RECOGNIZING, the distinction between a CHARACTER and the artist BEHIND that character. > >Oh, I forgot. HEINLEIN said it. Therefore, it can't say anything wrong. >If it does say something wrong, just squint during that sentence. I notice >not one of you Heinlein supporters has had the balls to include the relevant >quotes I gave from "Farnham's Freehold", because if you did, the discussion >would be over. FOR THE THIRD TIME: the quotes you gave from Farnham's Freehold are taken completely out of context. Including them would be a waste of space. The book's actual "moral" is the exact antithesis of what you seem so dead set on believing (which leads me to ask again: HAVE YOU READ THE BOOK? Or are you flaming just because one of YOUR heroes (Moorcock, perhaps? I couldn't say; I haven't read much of his work.) said "THIS is the WORD: I am RIGHT. HEINLEIN is EVIL."...). How can a book where the RESULT of a nuclear war is shown to be a cannabalistic slave society, where one of the main characters dies during childbirth, where, as someone else so aptly summarized, "life is definitely NOT a cakewalk", be accused of being PRO nuclear war? We'll not even go into your twisting of "Pie From the Sky", a piece whose STATED PURPOSE is to convince people to take action to PREVENT a nuclear war. Are you deliberately trying to smear Heinlein, or are you just shooting off your mouth with too many opinions, too much speculation, and too few facts? >-- >Tim Maroney, Electronic Village Idiot and Damn Proud of It Every time I see that signature, the comment becomes more self-evident and appropriate. Brent -- Brent Chapman chapman@cory.berkeley.edu or ucbvax!cory!chapman