Alpha Centauri 2

Community => Recreation Commons => Topic started by: Elok on April 10, 2018, 02:49:27 AM

Title: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 10, 2018, 02:49:27 AM
So, I checked The Better Angels of our Nature out from the library, because I figured I had no business not reading a book that had generated so much talk about a subject I was interested in.  I started out sort-of agreeing with Pinker; I think violence has indeed become much less an everyday part of life, and we are much safer and more secure in a variety of ways than our ancestors.  And the experts Pinker cited sounded interesting.  Sadly, Pinker himself came across as an insufferable dingbat, and I stopped reading the book a third of the way through when I realized I was only reading it to say I'd read the whole thing, and it just didn't matter to me that much.  It seemed like he'd started with a conclusion he liked ("the Enlightenment was rad!") and was working in whatever evidence he could find to fit it, forcing in or eliding what didn't work.  With lots of bizarre theories and special pleading along the way.

Just for example, he posits that perhaps we're less violent in part because we have better manners and hygiene, and people Back Then were so dirty and gross that they didn't think twice about hitting each other.  The past was full of people entertaining themselves with horrible violent narratives like Grimm or the Bible; we have far more explicitly violent narratives today, but we've obviously compartmentalized this since we're not violent so past violent narratives count as evidence but Call of Duty and Dexter don't.  Lots of statements like "today we are shocked by X behavior," where it's clear that "we" means "people in Steven Pinker's subculture."  As it happens, lots of moderns see nothing wrong with hitting people who insult your family.  However, they're disadvantaged or reactionary and don't count as modern, or something.

Even the harder analysis of history is pretty weaksauce.  He shifts back and forth between materialistic and cultural explanations of history, whichever will suit him better at present, but tends to favor cultural because it's friendlier to sweeping assertions.  He misses obvious stuff like the very different conditions surrounding the American and French Revolutions (ours worked and theirs didn't because we followed the right Enlightenment thinkers instead of crappy ones like Rousseau), and dismisses the idea that the extended great-powers peace since 1950 is due to nukes by failing to account for the game-changing impact of ICBMs.

Mostly, I feel that a lot of "people have become less violent" is really another way of phrasing "life today is better than the past in general."  Like, in the old days, most of war deaths were due to starvation and disease, because armies back then were forced to feed themselves by robbing whatever village was closest along the campaign trail.  Good preserved food didn't come along until the 19th century.  Wars dragged on interminably because the means to make them quick and decisive didn't exist.  Communications were slow, transport was slow, everything was unreliable, most politics were local.  What does it mean, really, to call technological and economic improvements a "better angel"?

This is a thread, so I should probably have input from people other than me, huh?  Anybody else read it, or tried to?
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Lorizael on April 10, 2018, 03:41:00 AM
I haven't read this book, but I know the thesis (duh) and I've read The Language Instinct. My general opinion is that Pinker is an engaging writer and a linguist/cognitive scientist. The former means he can make us believe the things he writes. The latter means there's not any particular reason we should believe the stuff that isn't about linguistics or cognitive science. (Which is not to say he can't be right about material outside his area of expertise. It's just that the only reason people are bothering to debate his thesis is because he's a good enough communicator to get people's attention.)
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 15, 2018, 03:56:23 AM
Well, this died, so I'll make it into an Elok-and-authors sort of thread in general.  Hey, BUncle.  You mentioned taking a class from Orson Scott Card at one point.  Does he talk/think in the same weird way he assigns to all of his characters, or at least all the recent ones?  E.g., does he run on the assumption that all women devote fifty percent of their mental energies to getting impregnated, or turn routine conversations into variations on the iocaine powder scene from The Princess Bride?  Is he tremendously entertained by scatological humor, and if so does he interweave it effortlessly with abstract discussions of moral philosophy?  I realize you may have met him some time ago, but after reading the Pathfinder books I begin to wonder just what's going on in that head of his.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 15, 2018, 11:40:10 AM
Lovely thing - I didn't wake up super-alert. 

The short answer is I thought he was sane and sensible when I sorta knew the man (we met several times at UNCG in 86, and the class at Appalachian in 87 was interactive, and we were more than just acquaintances; he might even remember my name if I was in Greensboro NC and ran into him) in the late 80s, and I still think he was then.  The stuff you mention was always there, and of course he's from a ultra-conservative cultural background - but he appears to have dennis millered; turned stupid-full-reactionary over the thing that happened in New York.

I can only guess about the new Scott Card from his public behavior -and there was a distinction needed making there when I knew him- but I know his work pretty well, and will have much more to say later if this isn't a crazy-busy Sunday...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Lorizael on April 16, 2018, 04:04:03 AM
Some writer friends of mine did his workshop maybe 5-10 years ago? They came away from it with a positive image of him as a person, despite disagreeing with him a lot on social stuff. So whatever may have happened to him politically since 9/11, he is apparently still a decent human being.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 04:29:24 AM
SO - I haven't read any of the Pathfinder books -

(but if I was in contact with Scott, I swear I'd mock him w/o ANY concept of let or mercy whatsoever for actually going there and doing a, judging from the Wikipedia article, pre-Garden of Eden story, not only ripping off the Battlestar Galactica remake finale I seriously doubt he ever saw, BUT ALSO a trilogy of the lamest most overused bullcrap fan idea in science fiction?  REALLY Scott?  He gave me down the road -loudly and with swearing in front of the class for the first. third person omniscient narrator. fiction. story. I. EVER. wrote. because it was a humor-piece series of dreams mocking various clichés and he thought I was flipping him off.  -He also harshly criticized in red ink the bit I sent up near the end w/ a prospector on Mars digging up, basically the monster from Who goes There, only to be interrupted -and saved, actually- by an alien lawyer cease-and-desisting him in person on behalf on John W. Campbell's estate before the plot could get going.  It was illusion-breaking and all that, "But it a good fan move.", he concluded.  [He also told me if I fixed the bits he pointed out, I could sell it - gave me an A - and offered to publish it for no money in Short Pages -a well-thought-of-in-the-biz critical zine he put out in those days- if it didn't sell.  I did another draft, but never tried any of the publishing stuff...  I need to dig that sucker up and have a go...]  But, you know, for Pathfinder, I think he deserves the Oerdin-said-panda-about-me level of mock, almost.  Jeeze - )

- but I have read the Alvin Maker books, the Ender books -the three still about Ender Wiggins- Folk of the Fringe, many short story collections (w/ extensive autobiography and world-view revealed in intros and endnotes; he's one of those George Bernard Shaw-type writers who never let the work just speak for itself when he can elaborate and opine)-even A Planet Called Treason- and most significantly, The Worthing Saga.

Now, if you've read none of those -and you should; he's almost as good as he thinks he is, at least his old stuff, and writes about characters who had mothers and much of it should suit you well enough, emphasizing wholesomeness and the value of family and native culture and traditions and so on - Alvin is about an early America in a world where people have "knacks" -magical talents- and there's a lot of faux frontier tall-tale stuff, like I gather you saw in Pathfinder to find him vulgar.  Alvin meets historical figures like Mike Fink, Davy Crocket, and a young Abe Lincoln in this river-rafting logger period - none of which is nearly as lame as my description makes it sound.

-And the last on my list above has Jason Worthing -later in the book when he's setting up his scheme starting a colony world single-handed, making preparations for the tank embryos to be able to live when born- experiences a profound and lovingly/lengthily-described satisfaction at working the land with his own hands, tilling the fields and finding the work good.  -There's a little of that Amish-porn in the Alvin books and even the last Ender one, but The Worthing Saga REALLY shoves it up your ass and dares you to (be wrong and) dissent.


WELL - Scott's from the 50s southern Cal 'burbs, albeit LDS w/ many cultural roots glorifying agriculture that obviously informs his world-view/leanings (and has made it crystal clear in not only my personal hearing all the way back to SF club speaking in 86 and teaching in 87, and endlessly in various non-fiction commentaries that the FIRST thing you have to know to ever understand him is that he's Mormon - culturally, if not believing for one second 2/3rds of it, certainly not the most bizarre stuff, when I knew him).

I, on the other hand, am a sharecropper's grandson; when Gramma died, a decent chunk of the farmland was left, willed to be divided six ways to the children.  Daddy was all hell no, he didn't want no tobacco-field land.  He was toiling in those fields getting a red neck when he was in single digits, they all were - and not a soul, not a single soul of the six of them EVER worked in farming from the second they left home - Daddy ranked farming up there with serving in the Korean War, getting shot at and handling dead bodies, some so rotten in the river limbs pulled off, as roughly equivalently desirable - and he told me if he had Korea to do over, he'd rather go to jail or starve.  Four have gone to their graves not-farming and glad - another's close, never farmed, and the sister who lived next door and got all the land the rest refused to take -this despite a decade of retarded fighting with her sisters over the will- sold the lot of the fields off, pronto.

-Scot's worship of farming life embedded in his (sitting in air-conditioned indoors) work all over, is, like he opened calling my first story in front of the whole class at full volume, "A piece of [poop]!"


-Now, I only read his stuff after I got to know him, and I'm a big, big fan of his on the actual merits of the work.  The man I knew then was sane and sensible, a fine teacher, a hell of a writer -and don't make too much of his considerable moral failing in cursing me out in front of the class, then apologizing just to me out of hearing when I explained my true motivational set after class.  You know I can talk story like a mother, like a much more experienced writer of fiction than I am -though I daresay there's proof enough I'm good in Planet Tales, just this week- and he thought I had a trunk-full of stories and gave him a freshman effort and was disrespecting him -probably some of the clichés I mocked could be found in something he sold in 1977 starting out- and I was an immature, annoying, 23, and the not making the apology in front of the class was just an oversight -human nature that it only mattered to me- the A and offer to publish was apology enough for me, really, and he made me believe it wasn't for apology.

-I thought enough of the man that I was shocked and sick of heart when I found out he'd dennis millered and joined the enemy a few years ago.  There's a post, if you want to dig it up, 2012 post-election thread, ISTR...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 04:47:23 AM
The Worthing Saga by Orson Scott Card.
This was a re-read, but the last time might have been over 20 years ago, and I barely remembered even having read it after so long, so it hardly counts as one.  The long time I took to read it this time is reflective of how late I've been going to bed recently, and not the good quality/readability of the story.

Despite being science fiction, with psychic powers and all taking place on other planets, this reads a lot like a first draft of the Alvin Maker series.  Most of it's set in fairly primitive agrarian communities and centers around a guy with special powers.

Recommended, but with the caveat that Card in this seems to think so well of the pre-technological farming life that one is led to wonder whether his idea of hot pron is a documentary about the Amish.

My dad grew up on a working farm, and he strongly begged to differ about the joys of the life.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 05:10:33 AM
...Speaking of people driven insane by the New York thing:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2012-11-08-1.html (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2012-11-08-1.html)
That's Orson Scott Card, the SF author.  I know this guy a little - if I ran into him on the streets of Greensboro, he might actually remember my name, and it's been 24 years.  He was hardly ever going to write the sequel to Das Kapital, and I was vaguely aware that he'd been taken in by the monkey, but I. am. shocked.  He was a thoughtful man, a genius intellect and always talked good sense.

If your have no time or a weak stomach for bull, leave the link up there alone.  Check out four consecutive entries from his article sidebar:

Quote
• OSC says: Don't just take my
word about the state of scientific
evidence on same-sex
"marriage."
• OSC asks: Why do we allow
them to teach global warming to
our children in science class? As
Bret Stephens points out, it's
really religion
• Bush never lied to us about Iraq
• Environmentalists Pick Up
Where Communists Left Off


 :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o

Sometimes people just sap my will to live.

:(

We're not talking about some ignoramus, either.  We're talking about a brilliant, well-educated, scientifically-literate man who's EARNED his pile of Hugo awards and always struck me as entirely sane, if an angry fellow. 

The right has run on fairy tales since Reagan, the Reagan fairy tale itself being one of the greatest, but this --- this just as well be Richard Bachman talking about ascending to higher dimensions, this is as rooted in reality as the cubic sun and the flat earth.  We are all in deep, deep trouble, and I take back all my lol smilies in this thread.

Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 16, 2018, 01:13:35 PM
Okay, by "the New York thing," are you referring to 9/11, as Lori implies, or Joseph Smith and the golden plates?

I've read everything Enderverse except the short stories (including the silly prequels he's cowriting with a Hollywood screenwriter), a bunch of standalone novels (Pastwatch, Treasure Box, Magic Street), the two Empire books, and the Gate trilogy, as well as reading the first two Alvin books (said meh) and the Pathfinder trilogy.  I looked at the Worthing Saga but never got around to actually reading it.  I wasn't actually referring to his political views, though I'm aware those are extreme; I'm quite capable of keeping my enjoyment of an author's work separate from his politics.  I got through all of Falkenberg's Legion in spite of Pournelle's view, very clear from the text itself, that people on welfare are the enemies of the human race.

Card's generally a good writer, but his more recent works are very hit-and-miss.  His (still generally good) sci-fi or fantasy conceits tend to be undermined by his fundamentally bizarre opinions, not just about politics, but human nature.  Also, Mormonism.  I don't know about Pathfinder's wiki, but I didn't spot any obvious cliches in the trilogy--not that I have your level of exposure to sci-fi.  The way he actually implemented time travel seemed novel enough.  But the characters and their interaction ... oy.  Almost every character spouts off dialogue about alpha males, dominance hierarchies, and the desires of women to have men's babies, and gets into these Machiavellian mind-game conversations where there's ten lines of analysis of psychological motives (self and others') for every one line of actual speech.  And I'm talking about conversations between ostensible friends and allies, here.  I have to wonder if he is under the impression that actual human beings act this way.

And then you have the Gate books.  He starts out with a neat magic system in the first book, sets us up for a cool war between tribes of magic people and modern human armies.  He then abandons that promise for two books full of rehashing ideas from previous books, with a completely different magic system based on (surprise!) soul procession from a higher plane and notions of demonic possession.  It makes the hero literally invincible, and the actual magic war gets shoved into the background.  Actually, he shoved a war into the background in Pathfinder too, come to think of it.  Perhaps someone should write him a note suggesting that wars are interesting?  Anyway, he kicks up the misogyny to eleven in that'n.  It's mostly tolerable in the first one (every teenage girl wants to screw the all-powerful teenage wizard, but it's, uh, a relatively minor element you can roll your eyes past), but key plot points in the sequels depend on female characters being treacherous sperm-hounds.  And then a girl who is literally possessed by Satan seduces the hero, transferring the devil to him and getting pregnant along the way.  That's right, Satan's an STD.  Of course she doesn't get an abortion, because Card, but the hero basically ignores her and the child from that point on except to remark that she's doing well for a teenager with a baby (living with said kid and its gym-coach grandpa).  Now, that kid almost certainly has some amount of magical power, which the mother is not equipped to handle, but her whole pregnancy only existed to make a pro-life point so whatever, to hell with her.  I maybe should have spoilered all that, but anything that keeps you from reading the last two Gate books is more of a public service than a spoiler.  You can spoiler it if you want.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Lorizael on April 16, 2018, 01:35:57 PM
...and gets into these Machiavellian mind-game conversations where there's ten lines of analysis of psychological motives (self and others') for every one line of actual speech.  And I'm talking about conversations between ostensible friends and allies, here.  I have to wonder if he is under the impression that actual human beings act this way.

There was kiiiind of a reason for Ender et al. to do this, but yeah that shouldn't be how everyone operates.

Quote
...not that I have your level of exposure to sci-fi.

Is this self-deprecation of yours reflexive? Because I'm honestly not sure it's true. You always talk about your relative lack of exposure in the context of < a long list of the relevant SF you have read >.  ;)
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 16, 2018, 01:49:24 PM
Well, he's listed a bunch of stuff I've never read or been exposed to, like Lord Foul's Bane or basically any sci-fi television outside of a bit of Star Trek.  I don't know crap about Battlestar Galactica, for example.  For context, I grew up reading Lewis and Tolkien, Redwall (yes, shut up), Anne McCaffrey, and Star Wars EU books, along with a few lightweights from my dad's old sci-fi bookshelf.  Including Ender's Game.  Much later in life I moved on to read some other specfic, including big classics like Dune and Foundation.  I've read a lot of Timothy Zahn because I liked his Star Wars stuff, I've gone through Neal Stephenson after Guy recommended him, and I read most of the Card books at the library.  I get the feeling that I still don't qualify as "well-read in the classics," whatever that would entail.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 01:58:30 PM
Yo, 'Lok really knows his poop, but then I surmise you do, too, Lori - I bet you both have been reading for pleasure since you were both in single digits, just like me, but I have had more decades to do it, albeit I've settled for more re-reads of what I own and don't buy much, thus all the Card I can speak to past going nuts over that terrorist incident 17 years ago is Empire.  (I'm strongish on Golden Age 50s SF, because that's what school libraries had in the 70s.  I was an Asimov kid, too.)

Maybe Card was tonally trying to do a Herbet/Dune thing - that series -and other of his work- was full of hyper-capable people who wasted time lecturing each other, more one-upping dominance games than anything else.  -I can say from long bitter experience that what you mostly get from condescension IRL (or online) is people pissed at you - I bet that's happened with both of you to me, Lori for sure...


Funny.  Elok ninja'd me, leaving my open exactly on-topic.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Lorizael on April 16, 2018, 02:01:26 PM
As a kid I read a lot of D&D fantasy crap (Weis and Hickman) along with the stuff you're supposed to read (Tolkien, Lewis). Didn't really start getting into SF books until middle or high school, when I read Niven, Asimov, Herbert, Card, and others. Most of my early SF exposure was via TV/movies (Trek, Star Wars, Stargate, etc.). I also feel like I'm not well-read and that there's a lot (both recent and classic) I've never touched. Truth is, there's just too much stuff out there to have no blind spots.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 02:07:08 PM
That last is true. 

Check for my edits.

As for TV, y'all can't know how hungry and desperate we were in the 70s before nerds took over the world.  We all watched Buck Rogers and the real Battlestar Galactica and Space: 1999 - all three children's shows on the face of it, none very good, especially that last - and even Fantastic Island/Journey/Voyage whichever was on and island not by Vern.  Starved, I tell you.  This future we're living in is rather a nerd heaven.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 02:08:57 PM
I've remarks on Folk of the Fringe, but first, find/quote on Empire a few years ago...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 02:25:50 PM
Empire by Orson Scott Card.

Taking the bull by the horns -I've noticed that my enjoyment of Card's always-excellent work has been decidedly hurt since I found out he went all Miller after the thing happened in New York 12 years ago- I picked up a novel by him that I knew was about the American political Left and Right having a civil war.  I started it late last night and finished it, bumping 400 pages, a few hours ago.

...I could write all day about all the crap the man is wrong about in the book, about the ridiculous false premises throughout and a million things in the story that I don't believe for a second, but the fact remains that I kept reading, because it's good anyway.  This would make a fantastic Tom Clancy-ish movie, the sort of thing that stars Ben Afleck and Samuel L. Jackson.  It's got strong elements of buddy adventure, political thriller, and plenty of sequences that would make strong movie chase scenes, yet work as prose.  Lots of snappy, often funny, dialogue, too. 

Card still pisses me off, not least for a hypocritical afterword from a man too smart to be such a hypocrite and not know it, but gosh, when he's good, he's the best.  Recommended if you think you can stomach the politics - he clearly bent over backwards to try to be fair, and just as clearly doesn't know how badly he failed.  But still, I already finished it, because it worked so well as a story that my need to throw the book across the room in disgust lost out to my need to turn the page and read more 355 times in a row.


Empire by Orson Scott Card.

Card still pisses me off, not least for a hypocritical afterword from a man too smart to be such a hypocrite and not know it, but gosh, when he's good, he's the best.  Recommended if you think you can stomach the politics - he clearly bent over backwards to try to be fair, and just as clearly doesn't know how badly he failed.  But still, I already finished it, because it worked so well as a story that my need to throw the book across the room in discust lost out to my need to turn the page and read more 355 times in a row.

/.../

But yes, not very science-fictiony, and no one less conservative than me, let alone less American, will understand the book at all.  It's still really good. Caveat emptor.


Hey, I've read that book and I think I understood it, in spite of being considerably less American and, well, maybe equally non-conservative. It was fascinating to see how little of the world Card understands, though. And while it's a good yarn (Card is an amazing story-teller - in that way he's probably the most worthy successor of Heinlein) I wouldn't really recommend it, if only because there are so many other books that are more rewarding, not the least many of Card's other books; even the shadow novels, the ones that retell the Ender story from another perspective, are a lot better.

I wonder what you mean when you say that Card is a hypocrite. In my view, the scary thing about him has always been that he seems to believe in what he says.  ???

That's precisely the point, though - a man to whom truth is so important, who has long written about finding truth, has cast his lot in with the murderous, fascistic, liars of the right.  That afterward is false premises and false moral equivalence from beginning to end - being slightly more even-handed in his portrayal of the political climate than Rush Limbaugh is not the same as being even-handed, and anyone who thinks criticizing  Bush Jr. is bad has lost all acquaintance with truth, indeed, the American Way.

He was a hypocrite for making himself out to be fair in writing a book where liberals are the bad guys.  Do that, fine -the right is so far gone into fantasy that they just well write them up as stories- but don't pretend you're being fair.  Don't pretend that the most rapaciously, nakedly, evil administration of my entire life -and I'm old enough to remember Nixon- is headed by a decent person who is only criticized by fools and liars.

Card was never a liberal, but used to be reasonable, and mostly made a lot of sense.  It's painful to see yet another good man (and remember, I know him a little in real life; he was always enormously more angry than ever shows in his work, but mostly still sensible) ruined by that thing that happened in New York in 2001.  It just makes me sick and angry and sad.

I can't talk about Card anymore and not talk about the politics - maybe that's on both of us; it's definitely on him.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: ColdWizard on April 16, 2018, 04:11:47 PM
I was going to ask y'all Paragons of Literature which sci-fi book featured a puzzle game, but I was able to trick google into telling me it was (allegedly) pentominoes in Imperial Earth by Clarke.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Vishniac on April 16, 2018, 05:21:40 PM
We all watched Buck Rogers and the real Battlestar Galactica and Space: 1999 ... none very good, especially that last
;grrr
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 06:05:53 PM
Pooh.  Discuss/argue, don't just growl-and-run, fer chrissakes; you know perfectly well how I hate the drive-bys, but don't mind arguing.

All had their charms, but Space: 1999 was oppressively bad when you re-watch as an adult -which I did, the first season, circa seven years ago- the whole show was literally built around model-shot action sequences of the Eagle - it was made by the Thunderbirds are Go! Anderson family...



I was going to ask y'all Paragons of Literature which sci-fi book featured a puzzle game, but I was able to trick google into telling me it was (allegedly) pentominoes in Imperial Earth by Clarke.
I re-read that one just a few months ago - not Clarke's best, not even his top ten, but Clarke was never terrible.

-If SF featuring games along that line intrigue, OX by Piers Anthony and Glory Season by Greg Bear both sorta center around Life, the latter being a lot better on multiple levels.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Syn on April 16, 2018, 06:27:15 PM
You're going to hate me. All I do are drive-bys.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 07:12:47 PM
Naw - drive-bys are ideal for crap-talking forum comedy, at which you have excellent instincts and fill a niche I've been missing having someone (besides me) fill for the entire life of AC2.


-Glory Season is by Davis Brin, BTW.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Vishniac on April 16, 2018, 07:45:36 PM
Space: 1999 was oppressively bad when you re-watch as an adult -which I did, the first season, circa seven years ago- the whole show was literally built around model-shot action sequences of the Eagle - it was made by the Thunderbirds are Go! Anderson family...
Second season I only saw a few episodes.
First season I can remember a lot in details 35 years after watching them. It wasn't oppressively bad: it was oppressive!

Almost no humor. A lot of deaths. Philosophical themes making you think for hours.
Often the show was bordering on horror, either visual or told:
- the guy possessed by an energy life-form sucking life out of people until it burnt himself inside the nuclear reactor
- the last survivors of a planet passed by a Project-Orion earth probe and who seeked vengeance
- the guy who wanted to ride back to earth but didn't have time to properly cryogenize and was left screaming in the dark until, we imagine, he died of thirst, hunger and despair.

It had something of the original Star Trek but without any lightness, flirting and good words. At the episode's end, they were left wondering why and what if, journeying without hope farther into space. A dark show...

Quote
-If SF featuring games along that line intrigue, OX by Piers Anthony and Glory Season by Greg Bear both sorta center around Life, the latter being a lot better on multiple levels.
About SF and games, I bought for a younger brother "Carrion Comfort" by Dan Simmons. I never read it but he said it was good. I know it's about games because its French title is "The Evil Chessboard".
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Lorizael on April 16, 2018, 07:58:09 PM
I remember watching some Space: 1999 reruns when I was younger. I don't remember much except me not being able to get over the premise.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 16, 2018, 08:03:15 PM
There's a go-round a few years ago with me and Geo where I pointed out the science of the premise was so bad I was shouting at the TV during the pilot, age 11.  That would have destroyed Earth - twice over.  -And I knew it instantly. at. 11. - and adults made it and aired it anyway.

(There's a post-apocalypse adventure/quest Earth: 1999 sequel idea in that...)


Space: 1999 was oppressively bad when you re-watch as an adult -which I did, the first season, circa seven years ago- the whole show was literally built around model-shot action sequences of the Eagle - it was made by the Thunderbirds are Go! Anderson family...
Second season I only saw a few episodes.
First season I can remember a lot in details 35 years after watching them. It wasn't oppressively bad: it was oppressive!

Almost no humor. A lot of deaths. Philosophical themes making you think for hours.
Often the show was bordering on horror, either visual or told:
- the guy possessed by an energy life-form sucking life out of people until it burnt himself inside the nuclear reactor
- the last survivors of a planet passed by a Project-Orion earth probe and who seeked vengeance
- the guy who wanted to ride back to earth but didn't have time to properly cryogenize and was left screaming in the dark until, we imagine, he died of thirst, hunger and despair.

It had something of the original Star Trek but without any lightness, flirting and good words. At the episode's end, they were left wondering why and what if, journeying without hope farther into space. A dark show...

Quote
-If SF featuring games along that line intrigue, OX by Piers Anthony and Glory Season by Greg Bear both sorta center around Life, the latter being a lot better on multiple levels.
About SF and games, I bought for a younger brother "Carrion Comfort" by Dan Simmons. I never read it but he said it was good. I know it's about games because its French title is "The Evil Chessboard".
That sums a lot of the suck up nicely.

I like the say in the average first season episode (I recall the second season with Maya the alien metamorph being better to my very young sensibilities, but the first season burned us out before we rewatched more) half or all the crew of Moonbase Alpha  would get killed in the middle - and then the wizard would die at the end and everything reset - that's literally more than one episode described...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 17, 2018, 07:08:53 AM
Re: hypocrisy, I don't think it's reasonable to expect smart people to be less hypocritical.  If anything, I'd expect the reverse, or at least some sort of bell-curve effect, since intelligence lets you handle more complex ideas and thus allows ever finer distinctions to be parsed as to why it's different in your personal case.  I think everyone's a hypocrite to some extent.  Remember the last election, when everyone said with a straight face that we needed to elect Bill Clinton's wife to show the world that we don't turn a blind eye to sexual predators?

I read Empire, thought it was open-minded by Card's low-bar wackadoo standards.  Then read Hidden Empire and found it was a completely different book with an essentially unrelated plot which just happened to have certain common characters.  Because Card got ambushed by an idea halfway through writing and felt compelled to jam it into his current WIP come hell or high water.  He can be bad about that.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 17, 2018, 10:19:51 AM
Remember the last election, when everyone said with a straight face that we needed to elect Bill Clinton's wife to show the world that we don't turn a blind eye to sexual predators?
Nossir, I don't remember a single soul before you saying that.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 17, 2018, 10:41:30 AM
I'll award five internets to anyone who can satisfactorily work out and explain how Space: 1999 was even faintly possible...

(I think a wizard did it.)

Maybe we should explain for the younger ones, BU.

The premise of Space:1999 was that the moon left Earth orbit and became it's own planet. That is not that bad. Thre are things that can knock moons out of orbit and the Moon IS traveling AWAY at 1 cm a year.

The way the story has it is that nuclear waste from Earth stored in mass bulk on a part of the Moon blew up. The explosion rocketed the Moon out of orbit with inhabitants of a moonbase still on the Moon.
Yes, and my point is that in just the first episode, the Moon is knocked of into space, and on the way out of the solar system Moonbase Alpha sees a newscast from Earth about the tidal disaster caused by the Moon leaving. 

Yeah.  Something well over half the human race and closer to 90% of the broadcast news facilities are situated on a coast, and if that happened to the Moon, they'd most all be dead in hours.  Alpha might catch a local newscast from Colorado, and it would be all Armageddon, not widespread disaster.  This is assuming it's traveling, at that point, slow enough for speed of light transmissions to catch up, slow enough that doppler effects don't screw up the frequency too bad for the communications system to adjust.

And at the beginning of the second hour, the Moon arrives in a new solar system, having traveled FTL, and dawdles there long enough for some Eagle flights and an adventure...
Yeah.  Something well over half the human race and closer to 90% of the broadcast news facilities are situated on a coast, and if that happened to the Moon, they'd most all be dead in hours.  Alpha might catch a local newscast from Colorado, and it would be all Armageddon, not widespread disaster.  This is assuming it's traveling, at that point, slow enough for speed of light transmissions to catch up, slow enough that doppler effects don't screw up the frequency too bad for the communications system to adjust.


- The broadcast would most likely be satellite-enhanced, not coming from Earth's surface directly.
- I don't remember if searises were mentioned as the disaster. It could as well be that lots of harbors became less accessible because tides are lower. For instance, the Schelde river here in the lowlands can only carry huge container ships during high tide. Economic rather then natural disaster thus.
- Alpha would always be able to catch speed of light transmissions. It is matter, so always traveling slightly slower then electromagnitic signals.
- descrambling a signal (if strong enough) only needs a good doppler filter to make it intelligable. The newscast becoming garbled while the Alpha crew was watching only means they crossed a signal strength boundary when it was received.

Quote
And at the beginning of the second hour, the Moon arrives in a new solar system, having traveled FTL, and dawdles there long enough for some Eagle flights and an adventure...


Blame "the story is larger then real physics" syndrome here. ;)
But the studio was on Earth, probably within 20 miles of a sea coast, and ain't there to film the show no more.

You're not even talking sensible physics about what would happen if the Moon's pull suddenly vanished.  All the high and low tides in the world would suddenly seek a new equilibrium, i.e., God's Own Apocalyptic Tidal Wave happens in every body of water on Earth large enough to have tides.  Which would travel hundreds of miles inland up the major rivers.  -Good for your career, if you work in TV news in Denver or Ulan Bator.

You'd be one of the dead, along with everyone in Belgium.

Incidentally, most every fault on Earth just had the biggest earthquake it could.  This occurred to me when I was 11.  The entire Pacific rim is uninhabitable for hundreds of years because of the volcanoes.  And the ash cloud ruins the environment everywhere in the whole world for at least ten years.

And if the Moon didn't move away from Earth exactly straight out, all the water got a sideways twist, making it a lot worse.  We're talking easily three-four billion dead in weeks, assuming current population levels.

-And it gets better.  Where did the push come from?  The side of the Moon away from Earth.  The Moon got a lot closer to Earth on its way out.  On top of how THAT would exacerbate the effects on Earth, it's a bad day to be in LEO, the trojan  points, or anywhere nearby.

Earth: 1999 would be a possibility for a post-apocalyptic spin-off...

-Finally, the Moon inexplicably travels at varying velocities even in that one episode, so Alpha would NOT always be able to do anything.  Koening and crew don't die of old age between episodes, so FTL between stars, not so much while near them.  This is the fundamental WTF of the show, BTW.

The newscast alone doesn't work, because that wasn't a guy at some mountainous inland station reporting the end of the world.  At the most top-crack, professional operation imaginable, there'd be people constantly handing the anchor bulletins, and a thinly-veiled atmosphere of near-hysteria - at best.  I've worked professionally as a journalist, and have a degree in broadcasting, for what appeal to authority that's worth.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 17, 2018, 04:57:31 PM
C'mon, don't be tiresome, you know what I mean.  The [cat]-grabbing tape comes out, and everyone's horrified.  You see scores of people on the Left arguing that we can't possibly elect a man with that kind of attitude towards women--ignoring the fact that his opponent's husband has spent his career dogged by accusations of worse, and admitted to a "consensual" relationship with a girl half his age and fifty ranks lower on the White House totem pole.  After the election was done, the MeToo spotlight turned retroactively onto Bill--but it would never have touched him during the election proper, because that would be party disloyalty.  Everyone's a hypocrite somehow.  The more interesting question is how we react when our hypocrisy is pointed out.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 17, 2018, 05:24:57 PM
I'm not being tiresome.

My mommies calling, so back soon on that...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Lorizael on April 17, 2018, 06:27:34 PM
Everyone's a hypocrite somehow.  The more interesting question is how we react when our hypocrisy is pointed out.

I agree that everyone's a hypocrite, but I think the reason why is largely to do with the world being too complex and interconnected for us to be morally uncompromised. I don't think the answer is to not care about hypocrisy, though; I think the answer is to realize we have almost no power to produce unalloyed, certain good and should therefore focus our attention elsewhere.

(An easy refutation is, duhhhh everything's uncertain, but we can measure uncertainty. If the odds of some act being morally positive are good, do the bleeping act, man. My answer to that is I think the complexity of the world makes the uncertainty significantly greater than we realize in a butterfly -> hurricane kind of way.)
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 17, 2018, 06:32:58 PM
Everyone's a hypocrite somehow.  The more interesting question is how we react when our hypocrisy is pointed out.

I agree that everyone's a hypocrite, but I think the reason why is largely to do with the world being too complex and interconnected for us to be morally uncompromised. I don't think the answer is to not care about hypocrisy, though; I think the answer is to realize we have almost no power to produce unalloyed, certain good and should therefore focus our attention elsewhere.

(An easy refutation is, duhhhh everything's uncertain, but we can measure uncertainty. If the odds of some act being morally positive are good, do the bleeping act, man. My answer to that is I think the complexity of the world makes the uncertainty significantly greater than we realize in a butterfly -> hurricane kind of way.)
^This^ is probably a better answer than mine - but there's still some specifics need thrashing when I get caught up...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Syn on April 17, 2018, 06:42:30 PM
Hypocrisy is fine. The problem comes when people deny that they are hypocrites.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Vishniac on April 17, 2018, 08:40:34 PM
The more interesting question is how we react when our hypocrisy is pointed out.
I have only one policy: DENY EVERYTHING!  8)

(http://the-x-files.fr/_media/img/small/6a01348361f24a970c014e88667180970d-320wi-zpsa9b26c4b.jpg)
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 17, 2018, 09:06:18 PM
Inappropriate.

-Solver is consistent about not answering when he'd need to deny.  Some jokes are true.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 18, 2018, 02:49:52 PM
Re: hypocrisy, I don't think it's reasonable to expect smart people to be less hypocritical.  If anything, I'd expect the reverse, or at least some sort of bell-curve effect, since intelligence lets you handle more complex ideas and thus allows ever finer distinctions to be parsed as to why it's different in your personal case.  I think everyone's a hypocrite to some extent.  Remember the last election, when everyone said with a straight face that we needed to elect Bill Clinton's wife to show the world that we don't turn a blind eye to sexual predators?

I read Empire, thought it was open-minded by Card's low-bar wackadoo standards.  Then read Hidden Empire and found it was a completely different book with an essentially unrelated plot which just happened to have certain common characters.  Because Card got ambushed by an idea halfway through writing and felt compelled to jam it into his current WIP come hell or high water.  He can be bad about that.
I'm virtually certain Scott was having serious marital problems IRL circa 1996 - it's right there on the page in whichever Alvin book, and Xenocide or Children of the Mind.  -Then either they worked it out or I just didn't keep up with his work, 'cause I stopped seeing that pop up.  Most of his work is very personal on some level, no matter how divorced from his actual reality of a very successful writer living in suburban Greensboro NC and working indoors, who really would rather be a professor.


-I'm going to presume on our friendship and mutual respect and be rude, Elok - apology for that in advance.

You know, the kind of political I am, it's not so much that I'd boycott a fellow for being a political nut -or no Heinlein or Poul Anderson or a lot of those guys for me- it's just, he decided to be part of the problem, and after Empire -and I daresay I speak conservative as a native, while you don't speak liberal at all, Elok- I can't stomach his bullcrap anymore.  That book picked a side, the wrong side, pretending not to, and that's precisely the problem.  You people are blind; the Regan Revolution was reactionary, NOT conservative, and we're still paying for the mistake of tolerating that empty-shirt sack of crap, with unqualified fascist-leaning presidents from the right, Eisenhower conservatives posing as Democrats from the "left" - both sides of the isle have lost their way THAT badly, contrary to the rightist lie, stuck in the sixties, that the mainstream "left" is even left, let alone getting more strident and aggressive and extreme.

It. is. a. LIE - and Empire is nothing but an 80-page adventure novella without that assumption - but probably a very good one.

I wouldn't pee on the Clintons or Mrs. Pelosi if they were on fire, and I'm glad Ted Kennedy is dead so I don't get him thrown up in my face anymore. Like Mr. Clinton, he was a loathsome, contemptible sack I'd cross the street to avoid.

I'm a social conservative with a libertarian take on the moral/political intersection, and if there was a REAL conservative party left in this country, I'd take a serious look.  My politics are a mishmash of column A and column B -outside labor issues, where I'm genuinely liberal- but I look like a lefty from the cheap seats, Regan having hopelessly soiled the mode zeitgeist before I was old enough to vote - and one of the greatest failures of his moronic Revolution being that it drove people like me into the arms of the less contemptible -not my fellow travelers and not even competent opposition- side.

Don't blame me; I've voted against a Clinton in the primaries every chance I've ever had, starting with voting Tsongas in 91 after he'd already dropped out.

Mr. Clinton got away with it -he was guilty as hell and everybody knew and most said so at the time- because screw giving the professional Clinton haters what they want after he sprang their trap; those guys' moral failings are out there in public professional behavior, whether a single soul of them suffers from any private problem with their pants staying on or not.  It was a trap, and that's why he got away with perjury; the question had no business being asked, being as the circumstance/motivation of the questioning was evil and wrong.

I'm not defending the POS.  I'm just calling his dedicated enemies (that the Clintons have professional haters is on them for being faithless scum, but irrelevant to criticism of the excesses of said haters) on their excessive and inarguable sins.

"Sexual Predator"?  The #Me Too stuff makes me twitchy -I think I posted about that around six months ago- but from your POV, a convenient club to beat Scumbag Bill with, assuming facts not in (credible) evidence.  That koolaide tastes bad, man.

C'mon, don't be tiresome, you know what I mean.  The [cat]-grabbing tape comes out, and everyone's horrified.  You see scores of people on the Left arguing that we can't possibly elect a man with that kind of attitude towards women--ignoring the fact that his opponent's husband has spent his career dogged by accusations of worse, and admitted to a "consensual" relationship with a girl half his age and fifty ranks lower on the White House totem pole.  After the election was done, the MeToo spotlight turned retroactively onto Bill--but it would never have touched him during the election proper, because that would be party disloyalty.  Everyone's a hypocrite somehow.  The more interesting question is how we react when our hypocrisy is pointed out.
I really don't remember ANYbody saying "we needed to elect Bill Clinton's wife to show the world that we don't turn a blind eye to sexual predators".  A good 95% of this is koolaide, plainly because you don't care for the man and understand the left about as well as you do Protestants.


-Note that I didn't soil any of this mentioning Bakrama and the vigorous fantasies about HIM on both sides...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 18, 2018, 03:10:52 PM
-Really recent, as it turns out...
-And this is getting a bit afield, but the #MeToo movement and the High School students protesting for sanity in our policies re: murder tools both make me a little twitchy, even though I strongly agree that men being horrible pigs are bad, and so are murder tools everywhere.  -I wish the former hadn't nailed Charley Rose and Kevin Spacey, but that's not my problem with it; it's just that both movements are setting off my Group Mind detector - it looks to me like a lot of pile-on mob psychology going on, and --- I won't be surprised if both movements end up going way too far -again, not because I have reservations about either cause- and causing more harm than good, if the later even turns out to have any staying power and achieves anything.  Call it the French Revolution Effect, as a great example of the Group Mind going so way too far that they end up with Napoleon, and all the political murder being for nothing.  (It's a fundamental problem with revolutionary movements -witness how Lenin perverted Marx, leading to Stalin- not knowing when to ease off on the killing, but it's definitely also a mob psychology problem and something responsible mass communications gatekeepers need to be aware of and wrestle with how to handle.)  Journalism has a way of being about life the universe, and everything, in the end, when it's done responsibly with awareness of the power wielded for good or evil.


Empire is 400+ pages of "Stop hitting yourself.  Stop hitting yourself" over and over is all - this isn't the 60's and the hippie movement, is all, and any claim/implication that the "left" is the aggressor -or even a fraction as guilty; au contraire, with collaborationist leadership of the Democrats for decades now- is MORE than just koolaide.  -It's the OG poison Jim Jones kind.  It's a lie, and it IS hypocrisy, and nothing but.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 18, 2018, 03:14:39 PM
No, they did not literally put it in my deliberately-ironic formulation, but there was a HUGE uproar over those tapes.  Which fundamentally didn't make sense, because that was one of the few moral flaws the two candidates had in common.  Hillary was "better" only insofar as she was merely married to somebody who obviously viewed and treated women the same way [Sleezebag] did, rather than being that way herself.  And that's not much of an improvement.  It was ludicrously hypocritical.

... I don't like Reagan or the RR, never have.  Not sure where you got that impression.  I didn't think the impeachment proceedings against Clinton were reasonable back when they were happening (and I was a teenager), and I still don't.  I'm just saying, everybody's a hypocrite.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 18, 2018, 03:33:30 PM
I don't disagree.

I just had to lay out some bit of high-points context of who I am and how the climate has polarized me - and koolaide, and all that.

I dunno what being a faithful and put-upon wife has to do with it - it made the choice/contrast even clearer, if anything; between two black holes of charisma, why not the one who's worked in the White House, held elected high office (ANY elected office winning that, from local dog catcher on up) and spent a life in public service and arguably demonstrated she's an actual capable administrator (if not principled, courageous or a competent politician, still hands-down better than the alternative)?  Saying Bill is even AS BAD as Pig is still Kool-Aid.  He, at worst, doesn't brag about all the groping, even privately, or some former friend -of the legion he's thrown under the bus- would have come forward by now.

I don't want to be on the same planet as any of them.

-And I'm still pretty sure it was you who said something somewhere about the Pig's "election" maybe finally driving "a steak through Reagan's filthy heart".  -I LOVE that, whoever said it, and wish it was working out that way - and it makes me sad when I see good, thoughful people like you in bed with the racist/bossman/statist party...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 18, 2018, 04:22:22 PM
One right-wing blogger compared our current situation to being in prison; when you're inside, you don't bother over whether the gangs agree with you philosophically, or have good people in them.  You're only concerned with which gang will have you, and whether they are strong enough to keep the other gangs from beating or shanking you.  It's not quite that bad yet, and the odious Reaganite wing has mostly subverted the radicals since the election, because [Sleezebag] has turned out even more incompetent and careless than I expected.  I don't know if his counterpart of SJWs and sundry hard-left moonbats have any real chance of taking the Dems for a spin this year or 2020, or if they will be similarly squashed back when they try it.  I don't identify with either, but I'm uncomfortably aware that the generally-better Dems' radicals hate me, the white Christian male, personally, while the generally-worse Republicans' hold me in mostly-benign contempt.  Which has to be balanced against the awareness that the Dem radicals are far less competent and effective, or have been historically.  But what does historical precedent count for, in a world where [Sleezebag] can be elected?  I don't know.

I don't think of HRC as a faithful and put-upon wife.  I have no idea what their relationship is like, beyond "presumably strained," but she stood by a man with a long history of sexual aggression (who, yes, is not dumb, drugged-out, and/or insecure enough to brag about it), nobody really believes he's in any way repentant, and that makes it hypocritical to frame her as the moral high ground.  Their relative merits in every other area notwithstanding; yes, [Sleezebag] is completely inept, corrupt, childish, etc.  He's a walking bag of character flaws and apparently devoid of literally every virtue, I've said as much multiple times.  That doesn't change the fact that Hillary has no advantage over him in the very narrow coddling-perversion field.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 18, 2018, 04:31:47 PM
No.  Just no.  One's obviously a perversion enabler, yes - the other's an actual PREvert, and only your selection bias could make those morally equivalent.  She STILL wins on that, if a very dubious achievement.

This is like me having to stick up for Bakrama for being the opposite of a socialist, and I despise being stuck in a world such as where it comes up so often.  I would be fine, just fine, with not having the backs of people who don't have mine and I hold in contempt, if only regard for the truth in an atmosphere of lies would LET me...

-True about the prison gangs; we just disagree about which crowd of trashy murders is worse...
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 18, 2018, 04:57:30 PM
If one gang will have you and the other won't, it hardly matters which is worse.  Yes, the orcs are overall worse than the goblins.  But the goblins wouldn't have somebody like me in their ranks even if I wanted to join.  That limits my options to joining the orcs or staying out of the fight.  I'm opting for the latter as long as it's an option.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: ColdWizard on April 18, 2018, 05:22:33 PM
Which is why I voted for the kobolds and promptly gave up when they didn't even make 4%.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Syn on April 18, 2018, 05:27:16 PM
Could not care less about politicians getting fellated and getting peed on. Supremely low on the list of reasons why one should take issue with an authority figure.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 18, 2018, 05:28:16 PM
I feel our country would benefit enormously from preferential voting.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Lorizael on April 18, 2018, 05:40:54 PM
I dunno I feel like maybe democracy has run its course and we should try out the philosopher-king option.
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Syn on April 18, 2018, 05:48:05 PM
I dunno I feel like maybe democracy has run its course and we should try out the philosopher-king option.


(http://i.imgur.com/O5UIQVR.jpg)
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on April 18, 2018, 05:53:13 PM
I dunno I feel like maybe democracy has run its course and we should try out the philosopher-king option.

But what if the philosopher is ... Steven Pinker?

(see what I did there?)
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Buster's Uncle on April 18, 2018, 06:56:31 PM
I dunno I feel like maybe democracy has run its course and we should try out the philosopher-king option.
I fancy that works here... :D
Title: Re: The Inscrutability of Angels
Post by: Elok on May 31, 2018, 11:57:33 PM
Bumping this because OSC was mentioned, and I never recounted my favorite WTF OSC-reading moment.  Spoilers follow for two rather bad OSC books.
(click to show/hide)
So, yeah.  Next to that, the sins of Empire are rather trivial.
EDIT: Derp, I shared this on the very first page, I just forgot I did.  Anyway, that was incredibly FUBAR.
Templates: 1: Printpage (default).
Sub templates: 4: init, print_above, main, print_below.
Language files: 4: index+Modifications.english (default), TopicRating/.english (default), PortaMx/PortaMx.english (default), OharaYTEmbed.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Files included: 33 - 892KB. (show)
Queries used: 19.

[Show Queries]