What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
special or un-special about it as it were.

On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> special or un-special about it as it were.

Try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestine_Prophecy

ChrisC wrote:
> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> special or un-special about it as it were.
> 

I vote for tripe. With or without onions.

On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> special or un-special about it as it were.

It's not tripe. It's what comes encased in tripe before it is
cleaned.

Will in New Haven

--

Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
>> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
>> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
>> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
>> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
>> special or un-special about it as it were.
> 
> It's not tripe. It's what comes encased in tripe before it is
> cleaned.

and after it's continued its way through the rest of the digestive 
system ...

In article ,
Paul Ilechko   wrote:
>ChrisC wrote:
>> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
>> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
>> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
>> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
>> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
>> special or un-special about it as it were.
>> 
>
>I vote for tripe. With or without onions.

It's the Da Vinci Code of a few years back.  Renaissance (or
later) mythology sauced up with New-Age woo-woo.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On May 2, 2:04 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article ,
> Paul Ilechko   wrote:
>
> >ChrisC wrote:
> >> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> >> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> >> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> >> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> >> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> >> special or un-special about it as it were.
>
> >I vote for tripe. With or without onions.
>
> It's the Da Vinci Code of a few years back.  Renaissance (or
> later) mythology sauced up with New-Age woo-woo.

ObBook: CHARIOTS OF THE CLODS...

Ted

On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
> What is this book really about?

It's New Age bullshit, with lofty insights garnered from pop
psychology and pseudo-mysticism.

Think of it as both a bastard offspring of Carlos Castaneda's hoaxes
and a forerunner  of Dan Brown's inanities.

J. Del Col

In article ,
Will in New Haven   wrote:
>On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
>> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
>> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
>> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
>> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
>> special or un-special about it as it were.
>
>It's not tripe. It's what comes encased in tripe before it is
>cleaned.

Rasfw award with mortadella garnishes.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

Hmm. I was getting ready to defend Dan Brown on the grounds that
fiction should be free to claim that it's true, and not the reverse of
course, but I see that The Celestine Prophecy was published as
fiction. I had no idea; in fact I'm sure I've seen it in nonfiction
sections in bookstores.

On May 2, 2:53 pm, jadel  wrote:
> On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>
> > What is this book really about?
>
> It's New Age bullshit, with lofty insights garnered from pop
> psychology and pseudo-mysticism.
>
> Think of it as both a bastard offspring of Carlos Castaneda's hoaxes
> and a forerunner  of Dan Brown's inanities.
>
> J. Del Col

Except that Castaneda sounds really good when read aloud when you are
stoned. At least if the right person is reading it to you.

Will in New Haven

--

In article ,
JimC   wrote:
>Hmm. I was getting ready to defend Dan Brown on the grounds that
>fiction should be free to claim that it's true, and not the reverse of
>course, but I see that The Celestine Prophecy was published as
>fiction. I had no idea; in fact I'm sure I've seen it in nonfiction
>sections in bookstores.

Well, there are a great many people who can't tell nonfiction
from fiction (having no concept that the latter even exists), and
it would not suprise me to learn that some of them work in
bookstores.

E.g.,

   "I had another telephone adventure during the day which was
enlightening too.  I had had a business cable from Paul Reynolds,
Jr., in New York, concerning a story I had written called "Black
Plumes," which had been sold to Collier's magazine.  The war had
overtaken us all before publication, and the cable contained a
request for my consent to the story's being altered to bring in a
war background.  It proved not to be possible, as it happened,
but I cabled back, using the telephone.  I said, 'Plumes realize
exceptional circumstances demand alteration plan.  Trust Colliers
not to ruin construction.'

   "Within twenty minutes I received an urgent call, and a
suspicious voice demanded an instant explanation.

   "'Which colliers might ruin what construction, please?'  What
sabotage was this?  I had a most difficult ten minutes explaining.
'Collier's" could be checked, but "construction" proved a
difficult word.  The technical side of story writing is a mystery
to many people, and it appeared to be an incomprehensible one to
my questioner.  I heard myself saying helplessly, 'It's a tale.
I made it up.  It's fiction,' and the voice at the other end said
blankly, 'Fiction?  Do you mean it's a lie?"

   "In the end I cleared myself, but the incident made the solid
world appear a little less so for the evening."

From Margery Allingham's _The Oaken Heart,_ 1941, pp. 192-3.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On May 2, 2:53 pm, jadel  wrote:
> On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>
> > What is this book really about?
>
> It's New Age bullshit, with lofty insights garnered from pop
> psychology and pseudo-mysticism.
>
> Think of it as both a bastard offspring of Carlos Castaneda's hoaxes
> and a forerunner  of Dan Brown's inanities.

Seems to be an enduring genre.

Dorothy J Heydt quoted an anecdote regarding the doctoring
of an article submitted to _Collier's_, the crusading / muckraking
mag of yore, depending on whose ox was being gored.

Speaking of goring, dearest Dottie, are you the writer of this?

   The lancetip struck his shield gently and did not break.
   It bent. It bent like a strand of half-cooked spaghetti,
   like the tales still told of that legendary Pennsic War when
   somebody had substituted a fiberglass War Arrow for the usual
   wood: no one could break it in token of defiance, and they had
   had to redefine the terms of the war. So the lance bent, and bent,
   and the tip slipped downward across the shield to catch the Black
   Knight in the groin. Now it straightened with an audible twang,
   and tossed the Black Knight high into the air, impossibly high,
   above the treetops.

Are you married or attached?  Send your significant other out
for surgical repair and let's meet for lunch.


Jim Collier

*Anarcissie* wrote:

> Seems to be an enduring genre.

yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
it... where do they get the time, i wonder?


michael

In article ,
Stratum   wrote:
>
>Dorothy J Heydt quoted an anecdote regarding the doctoring
>of an article submitted to _Collier's_, the crusading / muckraking
>mag of yore, depending on whose ox was being gored.

Are we talking about the same Collier's?  The one I remember,
from the 1950s, was a general-purpose magazine like the Saturday
Evening Post.  The only article I can remember from it was on
"stereatronics," which promised (and eventually turned out to be)
transistor technology, solid-state, electroluminescent panels,
and other neat stuff.  And what Allingham (or rather, her
American agent) submitted to Collier's in 1939, and which found
itself outdated in 1940, was a mystery novel callled _Black
Plumes_.  Collier's wanted to put something into the story about
the war; but as it turned out there was no way of doing it.
>
>Speaking of goring, dearest Dottie, are you the writer of this?

Don't call me Dottie.
>
>   The lancetip struck his shield gently and did not break.
>   It bent. It bent like a strand of half-cooked spaghetti,
>   like the tales still told of that legendary Pennsic War when
>   somebody had substituted a fiberglass War Arrow for the usual
>   wood: no one could break it in token of defiance, and they had
>   had to redefine the terms of the war. So the lance bent, and bent,
>   and the tip slipped downward across the shield to catch the Black
>   Knight in the groin. Now it straightened with an audible twang,
>   and tossed the Black Knight high into the air, impossibly high,
>   above the treetops.
  
Yup.  As for the legendary Pennsic War, it was 1992 and I was
there.

"The bold War-Arrow to break in twain
The Midrealm's Ronin raises high:
It bends like a stalk of golden grain;
He lets it fall, and the fighters sigh."
>
>Are you married or attached?  Send your significant other out
>for surgical repair and let's meet for lunch.

I have been happily married for thirty-five years next Monday,
and my husband still has all his body parts except his appendix
and his right radial artery, neither of which are my fault.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

michael wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> 
>> Seems to be an enduring genre.
> 
> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?

You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, surely 
you're not that naive ...

Paul Ilechko wrote:
> michael wrote:
>> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to be an enduring genre.
>>
>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
> 
> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, surely 
> you're not that naive ...

you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...

and just as a thought-experiment: how does the "it" that follows "about" 
in your sentence relate to the "it" that follows "read"? surely their 
referents cannot be the same, at least not by the "logic" of the 
sentence itself...

michael

michael wrote:
> Paul Ilechko wrote:

>> michael wrote:


>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?

>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>> surely you're not that naive ...

> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...

Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...

> and just as a thought-experiment: how does the "it" that follows "about" 
> in your sentence relate to the "it" that follows "read"? surely their 
> referents cannot be the same, at least not by the "logic" of the 
> sentence itself...

"It" is the book in question, in both places. What else would "it" be?

Paul Ilechko wrote:
> michael wrote:
>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
> 
>>> michael wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
> 
>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>> surely you're not that naive ...
> 
>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
>> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
>> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
> 
> Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
> actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...

maybe if you were to read a few more of the books you hold opinions of 
you'd eventually understand...

>> and just as a thought-experiment: how does the "it" that follows 
>> "about" in your sentence relate to the "it" that follows "read"? 
>> surely their referents cannot be the same, at least not by the "logic" 
>> of the sentence itself...
> 
> "It" is the book in question, in both places. What else would "it" be?

....and then again, maybe not...


michael

michael wrote:
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> michael wrote:
>>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>>
>>>> michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>>
>>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>>> surely you're not that naive ...
>>
>>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
>>> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general 
>>> direction of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
>>
>> Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what 
>> you actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual 
>> words ...
> 
> maybe if you were to read a few more of the books you hold opinions of 
> you'd eventually understand...

I don't have any opinions of Lewis Carroll

On May 2, 7:52 pm, Paul Ilechko  wrote:
> michael wrote:
> > *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> >> Seems to be an enduring genre.
>
> > yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise
> > it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>
> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, surely
> you're not that naive ...

I read Castaneda's earlier books.  So there.

Paul Ilechko wrote:
> michael wrote:
>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>>> michael wrote:
>>>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>>>
>>>>> michael wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to 
>>>>>> despise it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>>>
>>>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>>>> surely you're not that naive ...
>>>
>>>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for 
>>>> those who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general 
>>>> direction of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
>>>
>>> Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what 
>>> you actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual 
>>> words ...
>>
>> maybe if you were to read a few more of the books you hold opinions of 
>> you'd eventually understand...
> 
> I don't have any opinions of Lewis Carroll

but if you'd just double your efforts for a moment you'd be a wit...


michael

In article ,
Paul Ilechko   wrote:
>michael wrote:
>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
>>> michael wrote:
>
>
>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>
>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>> surely you're not that naive ...
>
>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
>> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
>> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
>
>Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
>actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...

He means "spite".  I think.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
(layers of attributions snipped)
> >> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
> >> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
> >> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
> >
> >Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
> >actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...
> 
> He means "spite".  I think.

He means "despite", and is showing off his o-so-kewl vocabulary.  It
can be used as basically a synonym for spite, and also contempt.  From
dictionary.com:

de·spite      /d\u026a\u02c8spa\u026at/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-spahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation preposition, noun, verb, -spit·ed, -spit·ing.
\u2013preposition
1.	in spite of; notwithstanding.
\u2013noun
2.	contemptuous treatment; insult.
3.	malice, hatred, or spite.
\u2013verb (used with object)
4.	Obsolete. to anger or annoy (someone) out of spite.
\u2014Idiom
5.	in despite of, in spite of; notwithstanding: He was tolerant in despite of his background and education.
[Origin: 1250\u20131300; orig. in despite of; ME despit < OF < L
déspectus view from a height, scorn, equiv. to déspec-, var. s. of
déspicere (see despicable) + -tus suffix of v. action]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> In article ,
> Stratum   wrote:
> 
>>Dorothy J Heydt quoted an anecdote regarding the doctoring
>>of an article submitted to _Collier's_, the crusading / muckraking
>>mag of yore, depending on whose ox was being gored.
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same Collier's?  The one I remember,
> from the 1950s, was a general-purpose magazine like the Saturday
> Evening Post.  The only article I can remember from it was on
> "stereatronics," which promised (and eventually turned out to be)
> transistor technology, solid-state, electroluminescent panels,
> and other neat stuff.  


Yes, but that's an example of the kind of text that appeared
in Collier's and Saturday Evening Post in contrast with
Life and Look which were photo magazines.  I vaguely remember
the article to which you refer.  Circa 1955.  Maybe '54.
Of course I was still practically an infant in '55.

Collier's was the home mag of Ernest Hemingway and Sinclair
Lewis, the chief journal both wrote for in the field, much
as the Chicago Trib had been the ostensible outlet for
William Shirer's writing.  Hemingway used Collier's to report
on the Spanish Civil War, and Lewis, well, Lewis used it to
blast the Booboisie with the anger of Mencken.  In the years
after its demise, Saturday Evening Post continued to publish
articles by investigative journalists like Jim Phelan, who
exposed Jim Garrison in New Orleans, and dug up data on the
mysterious Mr. Hughes.

Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
"Appalachian Spring.")

Collier's was the superior of the two (naturally!),
while the Post had an edge in circulation that enabled
it to survive more than a decade longer.

> Don't call me Dottie.

Surely, Shirley.  Yipers!  Please put the big
lance down.

On May 3, 3:23 am, Stratum  wrote:

> Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
> were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
> journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
> ("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
> night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
> and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
> program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
> "Appalachian Spring.")

I remember NBC's Sunday afternoon radio show, MONITOR. It used the
Rite of Spring as its theme song, I seem to recall. Not good for
jingle-like poesy. Nossir.

Ted

ObBook Jim Harrison's RETURNING TO EARTH

michael wrote:
> i guess i just reserve my despite for those
> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction
> of books they haven't read...
..
Why?

After all, it's clear and obvious, just by looking at the cover, that
we're talking about books that encourage people to believe in things
like aliens from outer space, or angels, or other spirit beings.

Doesn't that make it *immediately* obvious that such books are written
with the harmful agenda of exploiting the ignorant, by creating some
kind of cult that will, at the least, rake in their money for stuffing
their heads with stupid nonsense that can't possibly be true, and at
the worst might encourage them to go off and fly airplanes into
buildings, or drink cyanide-laced crystal fruit-flavored beverages, or
elect socially-conservative politicians, or do all sorts of other
harmful things?

Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
based civilization?

John Savard

On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:

> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> based civilization?

Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....

Ted

In article ,
  wrote:
>On May 3, 3:23 am, Stratum  wrote:
>
>> Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
>> were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
>> journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
>> ("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
>> night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
>> and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
>> program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
>> "Appalachian Spring.")
>
>I remember NBC's Sunday afternoon radio show, MONITOR. It used the
>Rite of Spring as its theme song, I seem to recall. Not good for
>jingle-like poesy. Nossir.

The one I remember is _Omnibus_ (I *think* that's what it as
called), which had as its theme music the fanfare from the
overture to Purcell's _Indian Queen._

But we didn't have a television till I was eleven, so I don't
remember a lot of the really early stuff.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

JimC wrote:
> Hmm. I was getting ready to defend Dan Brown on the grounds that
> fiction should be free to claim that it's true, and not the reverse of
> course, but I see that The Celestine Prophecy was published as
> fiction. I had no idea; in fact I'm sure I've seen it in nonfiction
> sections in bookstores.
> 
Some bookstores deliberately place books where they think people might 
look for them rather than where they belong. They believe this boosts 
sales. For instance I have seen Asimov's _The Human Brain_ in science 
fiction, and Nixon's memoirs in humor.



-- 
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.

tbsamsel@att.net wrote:
> On May 3, 3:23 am, Stratum  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
>>were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
>>journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
>>("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
>>night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
>>and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
>>program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
>>"Appalachian Spring.")
> 
> 
> I remember NBC's Sunday afternoon radio show, MONITOR. It used the
> Rite of Spring as its theme song, I seem to recall. Not good for
> jingle-like poesy. Nossir.

Well, it had the futuristic "Monitor Beacon" captured here
in RealAudio format:

http://www.monitorbeacon.net/sounds/beacon.rm

On May 3, 12:23 am, Stratum  wrote:

> Collier's was the home mag of Ernest Hemingway and Sinclair
> Lewis, the chief journal both wrote for in the field, much
> as the Chicago Trib had been the ostensible outlet for
> William Shirer's writing.  Hemingway used Collier's to report
> on the Spanish Civil War, and Lewis, well, Lewis used it to
> blast the Booboisie with the anger of Mencken.  In the years
> after its demise, Saturday Evening Post continued to publish
> articles by investigative journalists like Jim Phelan, who
> exposed Jim Garrison in New Orleans, and dug up data on the
> mysterious Mr. Hughes.
>
  .  .  .
>
> Collier's was the superior of the two (naturally!),
> while the Post had an edge in circulation that enabled
> it to survive more than a decade longer.


In the wake of his passing, I've been rereading Vonnegut. Most of the
novels don't wear well at all, but the story collection _Welcome to
the Monkey House_ still has a lot of bright and charming spots. I
mention it here because the copyright page says nearly a dozen of his
fine stories first appeared in Collier's and the Post in the 1950s and
early 1960s.


David Loftus

tbsamsel@att.net wrote:
> On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
> 
>> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
>> based civilization?
> 
> Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....

since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of 
novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...


michael

On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
> tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> >> based civilization?
>
> > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...

Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
Col. James Churchward's
MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
got it out of my system.
But I kept on reading skiffy.

Ted

On May 4, 8:13 am, tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
>
> > tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> > >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> > >> based civilization?
>
> > > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> > since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> > novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...
>
> Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
> Col. James Churchward's
> MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
> got it out of my system.
> But I kept on reading skiffy.


Aww. come on, Ted, surely you can spend a few moments reading a book
which claims that the meaning of life is to be found in an ancient
Peruvian manuscript (in Aramaic, no less!!)  Yeah, it's a novel, but
he could at least have gotten the language right. But since the none
of  ancient Peruvian cultures ever developed a written language, that
would have been tough.

Let's see, the author also claims that a person's eyes are an reliable
means of judging his character.  Apparently he never met Geryon.

Then there is much insightful prattle about "energy" and "vibrations"
and how a "critical mass" of "believers" will bring about  some kind
of New Age paradise of the enlightened.

The author self-published this marvelous tome and peddled it out of
the trunk of his car until TIme/Warner decided there were enough fools
out there that they could make a bundle on  it.  Saint Phineas would
be proud.

J. Del Col

On May 4, 8:53 am, jadel  wrote:
> On May 4, 8:13 am, tbsam...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
>
> > > tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> > > >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> > > >> based civilization?
>
> > > > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> > > since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> > > novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...
>
> > Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
> > Col. James Churchward's
> > MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
> > got it out of my system.
> > But I kept on reading skiffy.
>
> Aww. come on, Ted, surely you can spend a few moments reading a book
> which claims that the meaning of life is to be found in an ancient
> Peruvian manuscript (in Aramaic, no less!!)  Yeah, it's a novel, but
> he could at least have gotten the language right. But since the none
> of  ancient Peruvian cultures ever developed a written language, that
> would have been tough.
>
> Let's see, the author also claims that a person's eyes are an reliable
> means of judging his character.  Apparently he never met Geryon.
>
> Then there is much insightful prattle about "energy" and "vibrations"
> and how a "critical mass" of "believers" will bring about  some kind
> of New Age paradise of the enlightened.
>
> The author self-published this marvelous tome and peddled it out of
> the trunk of his car until TIme/Warner decided there were enough fools
> out there that they could make a bundle on  it.  Saint Phineas would
> be proud.
>
> J. Del Col


So this is the author that no one will admit to having
read (even though his books are blockbuster bestsellers),
even though everyone wants to say that they've read
Dan Brown, ...hmm.

Somewhat more enchanting and original than Dan
Brown, BTW, but, as you suggest, some serious
doubts as to whether a lot of it is 'true.' But some
of the psychological advice might have something
to it, and who knows? --maybe there are people
who can train themselves to see auras in plants.

C.

On May 5, 10:30 am, laraine  wrote:
> On May 4, 8:53 am, jadel  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 8:13 am, tbsam...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
>
> > > > tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > > > > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> > > > >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> > > > >> based civilization?
>
> > > > > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> > > > since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> > > > novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...
>
> > > Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
> > > Col. James Churchward's
> > > MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
> > > got it out of my system.
> > > But I kept on reading skiffy.
>
> > Aww. come on, Ted, surely you can spend a few moments reading a book
> > which claims that the meaning of life is to be found in an ancient
> > Peruvian manuscript (in Aramaic, no less!!)  Yeah, it's a novel, but
> > he could at least have gotten the language right. But since the none
> > of  ancient Peruvian cultures ever developed a written language, that
> > would have been tough.
>
> > Let's see, the author also claims that a person's eyes are an reliable
> > means of judging his character.  Apparently he never met Geryon.
>
> > Then there is much insightful prattle about "energy" and "vibrations"
> > and how a "critical mass" of "believers" will bring about  some kind
> > of New Age paradise of the enlightened.
>
> > The author self-published this marvelous tome and peddled it out of
> > the trunk of his car until TIme/Warner decided there were enough fools
> > out there that they could make a bundle on  it.  Saint Phineas would
> > be proud.
>
> > J. Del Col
>
> So this is the author that no one will admit to having
> read (even though his books are blockbuster bestsellers),
> even though everyone wants to say that they've read
> Dan Brown, ...hmm.
>
> Somewhat more enchanting and original than Dan
> Brown, BTW, but, as you suggest, some serious
> doubts as to whether a lot of it is 'true.' But some
> of the psychological advice might have something
> to it, and who knows? --maybe there are people
> who can train themselves to see auras in plants.


 Maybe pigs can fly.

J. Del Col

"JimC"  wrote in message
news:1178135233.079783.190620@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Hmm. I was getting ready to defend Dan Brown on the grounds that
> fiction should be free to claim that it's true, and not the reverse of
> course, but I see that The Celestine Prophecy was published as
> fiction. I had no idea; in fact I'm sure I've seen it in nonfiction
> sections in bookstores.
>
Surprising what winds up in non-fiction. I remember "Bored of the rings" was
on the best-selling non-fiction lists for months.

On May 5, 4:30 pm, laraine  wrote:
> On May 4, 8:53 am, jadel  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 8:13 am, tbsam...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
>
> > > > tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > > > > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> > > > >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> > > > >> based civilization?
>
> > > > > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> > > > since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> > > > novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...
>
> > > Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
> > > Col. James Churchward's
> > > MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
> > > got it out of my system.
> > > But I kept on reading skiffy.
>
> > Aww. come on, Ted, surely you can spend a few moments reading a book
> > which claims that the meaning of life is to be found in an ancient
> > Peruvian manuscript (in Aramaic, no less!!)  Yeah, it's a novel, but
> > he could at least have gotten the language right. But since the none
> > of  ancient Peruvian cultures ever developed a written language, that
> > would have been tough.
>
> > Let's see, the author also claims that a person's eyes are an reliable
> > means of judging his character.  Apparently he never met Geryon.
>
> > Then there is much insightful prattle about "energy" and "vibrations"
> > and how a "critical mass" of "believers" will bring about  some kind
> > of New Age paradise of the enlightened.
>
> > The author self-published this marvelous tome and peddled it out of
> > the trunk of his car until TIme/Warner decided there were enough fools
> > out there that they could make a bundle on  it.  Saint Phineas would
> > be proud.
>
> > J. Del Col
>
> So this is the author that no one will admit to having
> read (even though his books are blockbuster bestsellers),
> even though everyone wants to say that they've read
> Dan Brown, ...hmm.
>
> Somewhat more enchanting and original than Dan
> Brown, BTW, but, as you suggest, some serious
> doubts as to whether a lot of it is 'true.' But some
> of the psychological advice might have something
> to it, and who knows? --maybe there are people
> who can train themselves to see auras in plants.
>
> C.

I have read Dan Brown and have to admit to liking it in a popcorn B
movie sort of way.

On May 2, 1:57 pm, Paul Ilechko  wrote:
> ChrisC wrote:
> > What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> > have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> > new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> > mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> > not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> > special or un-special about it as it were.
>
> I vote for tripe. With or without onions.

Tripe with treacle. More likely.

Ted

On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> special or un-special about it as it were.

Try Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestine_Prophecy

ChrisC wrote:
> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> special or un-special about it as it were.
> 

I vote for tripe. With or without onions.

On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> special or un-special about it as it were.

It's not tripe. It's what comes encased in tripe before it is
cleaned.

Will in New Haven

--

Will in New Haven wrote:
> On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
>> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
>> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
>> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
>> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
>> special or un-special about it as it were.
> 
> It's not tripe. It's what comes encased in tripe before it is
> cleaned.

and after it's continued its way through the rest of the digestive 
system ...

In article ,
Paul Ilechko   wrote:
>ChrisC wrote:
>> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
>> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
>> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
>> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
>> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
>> special or un-special about it as it were.
>> 
>
>I vote for tripe. With or without onions.

It's the Da Vinci Code of a few years back.  Renaissance (or
later) mythology sauced up with New-Age woo-woo.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On May 2, 2:04 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article ,
> Paul Ilechko   wrote:
>
> >ChrisC wrote:
> >> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
> >> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
> >> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
> >> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
> >> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
> >> special or un-special about it as it were.
>
> >I vote for tripe. With or without onions.
>
> It's the Da Vinci Code of a few years back.  Renaissance (or
> later) mythology sauced up with New-Age woo-woo.

ObBook: CHARIOTS OF THE CLODS...

Ted

On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
> What is this book really about?

It's New Age bullshit, with lofty insights garnered from pop
psychology and pseudo-mysticism.

Think of it as both a bastard offspring of Carlos Castaneda's hoaxes
and a forerunner  of Dan Brown's inanities.

J. Del Col

In article ,
Will in New Haven   wrote:
>On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>> What is this book really about? Is it fact or fiction. So many people
>> have told me it has changed there lives. Is it all a load of psuedo
>> new age nonsense? Or does it actually have some substance? I'd also
>> mention, that some people have told me it was a load of tripe to. I'm
>> not really interested in reading it, just want to know whats so
>> special or un-special about it as it were.
>
>It's not tripe. It's what comes encased in tripe before it is
>cleaned.

Rasfw award with mortadella garnishes.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

Hmm. I was getting ready to defend Dan Brown on the grounds that
fiction should be free to claim that it's true, and not the reverse of
course, but I see that The Celestine Prophecy was published as
fiction. I had no idea; in fact I'm sure I've seen it in nonfiction
sections in bookstores.

On May 2, 2:53 pm, jadel  wrote:
> On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>
> > What is this book really about?
>
> It's New Age bullshit, with lofty insights garnered from pop
> psychology and pseudo-mysticism.
>
> Think of it as both a bastard offspring of Carlos Castaneda's hoaxes
> and a forerunner  of Dan Brown's inanities.
>
> J. Del Col

Except that Castaneda sounds really good when read aloud when you are
stoned. At least if the right person is reading it to you.

Will in New Haven

--

In article ,
JimC   wrote:
>Hmm. I was getting ready to defend Dan Brown on the grounds that
>fiction should be free to claim that it's true, and not the reverse of
>course, but I see that The Celestine Prophecy was published as
>fiction. I had no idea; in fact I'm sure I've seen it in nonfiction
>sections in bookstores.

Well, there are a great many people who can't tell nonfiction
from fiction (having no concept that the latter even exists), and
it would not suprise me to learn that some of them work in
bookstores.

E.g.,

   "I had another telephone adventure during the day which was
enlightening too.  I had had a business cable from Paul Reynolds,
Jr., in New York, concerning a story I had written called "Black
Plumes," which had been sold to Collier's magazine.  The war had
overtaken us all before publication, and the cable contained a
request for my consent to the story's being altered to bring in a
war background.  It proved not to be possible, as it happened,
but I cabled back, using the telephone.  I said, 'Plumes realize
exceptional circumstances demand alteration plan.  Trust Colliers
not to ruin construction.'

   "Within twenty minutes I received an urgent call, and a
suspicious voice demanded an instant explanation.

   "'Which colliers might ruin what construction, please?'  What
sabotage was this?  I had a most difficult ten minutes explaining.
'Collier's" could be checked, but "construction" proved a
difficult word.  The technical side of story writing is a mystery
to many people, and it appeared to be an incomprehensible one to
my questioner.  I heard myself saying helplessly, 'It's a tale.
I made it up.  It's fiction,' and the voice at the other end said
blankly, 'Fiction?  Do you mean it's a lie?"

   "In the end I cleared myself, but the incident made the solid
world appear a little less so for the evening."

From Margery Allingham's _The Oaken Heart,_ 1941, pp. 192-3.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

On May 2, 2:53 pm, jadel  wrote:
> On May 2, 12:45 pm, ChrisC  wrote:
>
> > What is this book really about?
>
> It's New Age bullshit, with lofty insights garnered from pop
> psychology and pseudo-mysticism.
>
> Think of it as both a bastard offspring of Carlos Castaneda's hoaxes
> and a forerunner  of Dan Brown's inanities.

Seems to be an enduring genre.

Dorothy J Heydt quoted an anecdote regarding the doctoring
of an article submitted to _Collier's_, the crusading / muckraking
mag of yore, depending on whose ox was being gored.

Speaking of goring, dearest Dottie, are you the writer of this?

   The lancetip struck his shield gently and did not break.
   It bent. It bent like a strand of half-cooked spaghetti,
   like the tales still told of that legendary Pennsic War when
   somebody had substituted a fiberglass War Arrow for the usual
   wood: no one could break it in token of defiance, and they had
   had to redefine the terms of the war. So the lance bent, and bent,
   and the tip slipped downward across the shield to catch the Black
   Knight in the groin. Now it straightened with an audible twang,
   and tossed the Black Knight high into the air, impossibly high,
   above the treetops.

Are you married or attached?  Send your significant other out
for surgical repair and let's meet for lunch.


Jim Collier

*Anarcissie* wrote:

> Seems to be an enduring genre.

yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
it... where do they get the time, i wonder?


michael

In article ,
Stratum   wrote:
>
>Dorothy J Heydt quoted an anecdote regarding the doctoring
>of an article submitted to _Collier's_, the crusading / muckraking
>mag of yore, depending on whose ox was being gored.

Are we talking about the same Collier's?  The one I remember,
from the 1950s, was a general-purpose magazine like the Saturday
Evening Post.  The only article I can remember from it was on
"stereatronics," which promised (and eventually turned out to be)
transistor technology, solid-state, electroluminescent panels,
and other neat stuff.  And what Allingham (or rather, her
American agent) submitted to Collier's in 1939, and which found
itself outdated in 1940, was a mystery novel callled _Black
Plumes_.  Collier's wanted to put something into the story about
the war; but as it turned out there was no way of doing it.
>
>Speaking of goring, dearest Dottie, are you the writer of this?

Don't call me Dottie.
>
>   The lancetip struck his shield gently and did not break.
>   It bent. It bent like a strand of half-cooked spaghetti,
>   like the tales still told of that legendary Pennsic War when
>   somebody had substituted a fiberglass War Arrow for the usual
>   wood: no one could break it in token of defiance, and they had
>   had to redefine the terms of the war. So the lance bent, and bent,
>   and the tip slipped downward across the shield to catch the Black
>   Knight in the groin. Now it straightened with an audible twang,
>   and tossed the Black Knight high into the air, impossibly high,
>   above the treetops.
  
Yup.  As for the legendary Pennsic War, it was 1992 and I was
there.

"The bold War-Arrow to break in twain
The Midrealm's Ronin raises high:
It bends like a stalk of golden grain;
He lets it fall, and the fighters sigh."
>
>Are you married or attached?  Send your significant other out
>for surgical repair and let's meet for lunch.

I have been happily married for thirty-five years next Monday,
and my husband still has all his body parts except his appendix
and his right radial artery, neither of which are my fault.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

michael wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> 
>> Seems to be an enduring genre.
> 
> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?

You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, surely 
you're not that naive ...

Paul Ilechko wrote:
> michael wrote:
>> *Anarcissie* wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to be an enduring genre.
>>
>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
> 
> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, surely 
> you're not that naive ...

you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...

and just as a thought-experiment: how does the "it" that follows "about" 
in your sentence relate to the "it" that follows "read"? surely their 
referents cannot be the same, at least not by the "logic" of the 
sentence itself...

michael

michael wrote:
> Paul Ilechko wrote:

>> michael wrote:


>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?

>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>> surely you're not that naive ...

> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...

Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...

> and just as a thought-experiment: how does the "it" that follows "about" 
> in your sentence relate to the "it" that follows "read"? surely their 
> referents cannot be the same, at least not by the "logic" of the 
> sentence itself...

"It" is the book in question, in both places. What else would "it" be?

Paul Ilechko wrote:
> michael wrote:
>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
> 
>>> michael wrote:
> 
> 
>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
> 
>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>> surely you're not that naive ...
> 
>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
>> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
>> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
> 
> Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
> actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...

maybe if you were to read a few more of the books you hold opinions of 
you'd eventually understand...

>> and just as a thought-experiment: how does the "it" that follows 
>> "about" in your sentence relate to the "it" that follows "read"? 
>> surely their referents cannot be the same, at least not by the "logic" 
>> of the sentence itself...
> 
> "It" is the book in question, in both places. What else would "it" be?

....and then again, maybe not...


michael

michael wrote:
> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>> michael wrote:
>>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>>
>>>> michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>>
>>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>>> surely you're not that naive ...
>>
>>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
>>> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general 
>>> direction of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
>>
>> Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what 
>> you actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual 
>> words ...
> 
> maybe if you were to read a few more of the books you hold opinions of 
> you'd eventually understand...

I don't have any opinions of Lewis Carroll

On May 2, 7:52 pm, Paul Ilechko  wrote:
> michael wrote:
> > *Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> >> Seems to be an enduring genre.
>
> > yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise
> > it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>
> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, surely
> you're not that naive ...

I read Castaneda's earlier books.  So there.

Paul Ilechko wrote:
> michael wrote:
>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>>> michael wrote:
>>>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>>>
>>>>> michael wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to 
>>>>>> despise it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>>>
>>>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>>>> surely you're not that naive ...
>>>
>>>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for 
>>>> those who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general 
>>>> direction of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
>>>
>>> Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what 
>>> you actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual 
>>> words ...
>>
>> maybe if you were to read a few more of the books you hold opinions of 
>> you'd eventually understand...
> 
> I don't have any opinions of Lewis Carroll

but if you'd just double your efforts for a moment you'd be a wit...


michael

In article ,
Paul Ilechko   wrote:
>michael wrote:
>> Paul Ilechko wrote:
>
>>> michael wrote:
>
>
>>>> yes... and one that seems very popular with those likely to despise 
>>>> it... where do they get the time, i wonder?
>
>>> You think anyone talking about it here actually read it? Come on, 
>>> surely you're not that naive ...
>
>> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
>> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
>> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
>
>Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
>actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...

He means "spite".  I think.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
(layers of attributions snipped)
> >> you're right of course... i guess i just reserve my despite for those 
> >> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction 
> >> of books they haven't read... an enduring ilk here on rab...
> >
> >Huh? Reserve your despite ... ? I'm having a hard time guessing what you 
> >actually meant to say. I mean, I get the gist, but not the actual words ...
> 
> He means "spite".  I think.

He means "despite", and is showing off his o-so-kewl vocabulary.  It
can be used as basically a synonym for spite, and also contempt.  From
dictionary.com:

de·spite      /d\u026a\u02c8spa\u026at/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-spahyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation preposition, noun, verb, -spit·ed, -spit·ing.
\u2013preposition
1.	in spite of; notwithstanding.
\u2013noun
2.	contemptuous treatment; insult.
3.	malice, hatred, or spite.
\u2013verb (used with object)
4.	Obsolete. to anger or annoy (someone) out of spite.
\u2014Idiom
5.	in despite of, in spite of; notwithstanding: He was tolerant in despite of his background and education.
[Origin: 1250\u20131300; orig. in despite of; ME despit < OF < L
déspectus view from a height, scorn, equiv. to déspec-, var. s. of
déspicere (see despicable) + -tus suffix of v. action]

Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> In article ,
> Stratum   wrote:
> 
>>Dorothy J Heydt quoted an anecdote regarding the doctoring
>>of an article submitted to _Collier's_, the crusading / muckraking
>>mag of yore, depending on whose ox was being gored.
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the same Collier's?  The one I remember,
> from the 1950s, was a general-purpose magazine like the Saturday
> Evening Post.  The only article I can remember from it was on
> "stereatronics," which promised (and eventually turned out to be)
> transistor technology, solid-state, electroluminescent panels,
> and other neat stuff.  


Yes, but that's an example of the kind of text that appeared
in Collier's and Saturday Evening Post in contrast with
Life and Look which were photo magazines.  I vaguely remember
the article to which you refer.  Circa 1955.  Maybe '54.
Of course I was still practically an infant in '55.

Collier's was the home mag of Ernest Hemingway and Sinclair
Lewis, the chief journal both wrote for in the field, much
as the Chicago Trib had been the ostensible outlet for
William Shirer's writing.  Hemingway used Collier's to report
on the Spanish Civil War, and Lewis, well, Lewis used it to
blast the Booboisie with the anger of Mencken.  In the years
after its demise, Saturday Evening Post continued to publish
articles by investigative journalists like Jim Phelan, who
exposed Jim Garrison in New Orleans, and dug up data on the
mysterious Mr. Hughes.

Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
"Appalachian Spring.")

Collier's was the superior of the two (naturally!),
while the Post had an edge in circulation that enabled
it to survive more than a decade longer.

> Don't call me Dottie.

Surely, Shirley.  Yipers!  Please put the big
lance down.

On May 3, 3:23 am, Stratum  wrote:

> Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
> were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
> journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
> ("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
> night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
> and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
> program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
> "Appalachian Spring.")

I remember NBC's Sunday afternoon radio show, MONITOR. It used the
Rite of Spring as its theme song, I seem to recall. Not good for
jingle-like poesy. Nossir.

Ted

ObBook Jim Harrison's RETURNING TO EARTH

michael wrote:
> i guess i just reserve my despite for those
> who stroke themselves publicly by flatulating in the general direction
> of books they haven't read...
..
Why?

After all, it's clear and obvious, just by looking at the cover, that
we're talking about books that encourage people to believe in things
like aliens from outer space, or angels, or other spirit beings.

Doesn't that make it *immediately* obvious that such books are written
with the harmful agenda of exploiting the ignorant, by creating some
kind of cult that will, at the least, rake in their money for stuffing
their heads with stupid nonsense that can't possibly be true, and at
the worst might encourage them to go off and fly airplanes into
buildings, or drink cyanide-laced crystal fruit-flavored beverages, or
elect socially-conservative politicians, or do all sorts of other
harmful things?

Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
based civilization?

John Savard

On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:

> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> based civilization?

Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....

Ted

In article ,
  wrote:
>On May 3, 3:23 am, Stratum  wrote:
>
>> Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
>> were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
>> journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
>> ("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
>> night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
>> and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
>> program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
>> "Appalachian Spring.")
>
>I remember NBC's Sunday afternoon radio show, MONITOR. It used the
>Rite of Spring as its theme song, I seem to recall. Not good for
>jingle-like poesy. Nossir.

The one I remember is _Omnibus_ (I *think* that's what it as
called), which had as its theme music the fanfare from the
overture to Purcell's _Indian Queen._

But we didn't have a television till I was eleven, so I don't
remember a lot of the really early stuff.

Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djheydt@kithrup.com

JimC wrote:
> Hmm. I was getting ready to defend Dan Brown on the grounds that
> fiction should be free to claim that it's true, and not the reverse of
> course, but I see that The Celestine Prophecy was published as
> fiction. I had no idea; in fact I'm sure I've seen it in nonfiction
> sections in bookstores.
> 
Some bookstores deliberately place books where they think people might 
look for them rather than where they belong. They believe this boosts 
sales. For instance I have seen Asimov's _The Human Brain_ in science 
fiction, and Nixon's memoirs in humor.



-- 
An opinion should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it.

tbsamsel@att.net wrote:
> On May 3, 3:23 am, Stratum  wrote:
> 
> 
>>Both magazines were aimed at the middlebrow, but they
>>were both pretty good in an age before invesitgative
>>journalism on TV meant much more than CBS Reports.
>>("CBS Reports," if you'll recall, was on Friday
>>night.  It was narrated by Eric Sevareid among others,
>>and brought Rachel Carson to prominence.  The
>>program's theme song was the Shaker melody from
>>"Appalachian Spring.")
> 
> 
> I remember NBC's Sunday afternoon radio show, MONITOR. It used the
> Rite of Spring as its theme song, I seem to recall. Not good for
> jingle-like poesy. Nossir.

Well, it had the futuristic "Monitor Beacon" captured here
in RealAudio format:

http://www.monitorbeacon.net/sounds/beacon.rm

On May 3, 12:23 am, Stratum  wrote:

> Collier's was the home mag of Ernest Hemingway and Sinclair
> Lewis, the chief journal both wrote for in the field, much
> as the Chicago Trib had been the ostensible outlet for
> William Shirer's writing.  Hemingway used Collier's to report
> on the Spanish Civil War, and Lewis, well, Lewis used it to
> blast the Booboisie with the anger of Mencken.  In the years
> after its demise, Saturday Evening Post continued to publish
> articles by investigative journalists like Jim Phelan, who
> exposed Jim Garrison in New Orleans, and dug up data on the
> mysterious Mr. Hughes.
>
  .  .  .
>
> Collier's was the superior of the two (naturally!),
> while the Post had an edge in circulation that enabled
> it to survive more than a decade longer.


In the wake of his passing, I've been rereading Vonnegut. Most of the
novels don't wear well at all, but the story collection _Welcome to
the Monkey House_ still has a lot of bright and charming spots. I
mention it here because the copyright page says nearly a dozen of his
fine stories first appeared in Collier's and the Post in the 1950s and
early 1960s.


David Loftus

tbsamsel@att.net wrote:
> On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
> 
>> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
>> based civilization?
> 
> Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....

since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of 
novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...


michael

On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
> tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> >> based civilization?
>
> > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...

Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
Col. James Churchward's
MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
got it out of my system.
But I kept on reading skiffy.

Ted

On May 4, 8:13 am, tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
>
> > tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> > >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> > >> based civilization?
>
> > > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> > since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> > novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...
>
> Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
> Col. James Churchward's
> MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
> got it out of my system.
> But I kept on reading skiffy.


Aww. come on, Ted, surely you can spend a few moments reading a book
which claims that the meaning of life is to be found in an ancient
Peruvian manuscript (in Aramaic, no less!!)  Yeah, it's a novel, but
he could at least have gotten the language right. But since the none
of  ancient Peruvian cultures ever developed a written language, that
would have been tough.

Let's see, the author also claims that a person's eyes are an reliable
means of judging his character.  Apparently he never met Geryon.

Then there is much insightful prattle about "energy" and "vibrations"
and how a "critical mass" of "believers" will bring about  some kind
of New Age paradise of the enlightened.

The author self-published this marvelous tome and peddled it out of
the trunk of his car until TIme/Warner decided there were enough fools
out there that they could make a bundle on  it.  Saint Phineas would
be proud.

J. Del Col

On May 4, 8:53 am, jadel  wrote:
> On May 4, 8:13 am, tbsam...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 9:57 pm, michael  wrote:
>
> > > tbsam...@att.net wrote:
> > > > On May 3, 8:33 am, Quadibloc  wrote:
>
> > > >> Are you trying to impede the growth of a rational, scientifically-
> > > >> based civilization?
>
> > > > Is there one? Surely you jest. Maybe on another planet....
>
> > > since he applauds the "rational, scientifically-based" trashing of
> > > novels one hasn't read, it's hard to deny...
>
> > Get the reading of such tripe over with. I feel that my reading of
> > Col. James Churchward's
> > MU series and some Edgar Cayce (at a grandparent's) before I was 13
> > got it out of my system.
> > But I kept on reading skiffy.
>
> Aww. come on, Ted, surely you can spend a few moments reading a book
> which claims that the meaning of life is to be found in an ancient
> Peruvian manuscript (in Aramaic, no less!!)  Yeah, it's a novel, but
> he could at least have gotten the language right. But since the none
> of  ancient Peruvian cultures ever developed a written language, that
> would have been tough.
>
> Let's see, the author also claims that a person's eyes are an reliable
> means of judging his character.  Apparently he never met Geryon.
>
> Then there is much insightful prattle about "energy" and "vibrations"
> and how a "critical mass" of "believers" will bring about  some kind
> of New Age paradise of the enlightened.
>
> The author self-published this marvelous tome and peddled it out of
> the trunk of his car until TIme/Warner decided there were enough fools
> out there that they could make a bundle on  it.  Saint Phineas would
> be proud.
>
> J. Del Col


So this is the author that no one will admit to having
read (even though his books are blockbu