From: hachiman@milton.u.washington.edu (Matt Downer)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Go to alt.fan...we don't want you(was Re: rec.arts.sf.written FAQ)
Date: 20 Aug 92 02:26:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug20.022607.22566
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug19.181500.545@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca> aaron@space.ualberta.ca writes:
>Perhaps something that should be added to the FAQ is something akin to the
>following:
>
>"Many popular authors are not held in high esteem by most of the r.a.sf.w
>crowd.  In particular, coming out with positive comments about Piers Anthony,
>Anne McCaffrey, or David Eddings is likely to stimulate responses on the order
>of
>
>'I gave up reading {his|her} puling commercial crud years ago, as soon as I
>realized they were just turning out crap for money.'
>
>If you really want more positive discussions of the above authors, please go to
>the newsgroups alt.fan.anthony, alt.fan.pern, and alt.fan.eddings respectively.
>Here you will meet with a warm reception and you can talk about your favourite
>authors's supposed hidden virtues, and gripe about how the snobbish r.a.sf.w
>crowd can't see {his|her} true quality.  Go away and don't come back unless
>you have some _real_ SF to talk about.  Thank you."
>
>I'm only half-kidding here.  
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(This denotes that the original poster was being facetious.)  

>I've taken to responding to these people in email, given the kind of reception 
>I've seen.					    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^^^^^
(This refers to the recent flames that people have recieved upon expressing
any appreciation for the works of Anne McCaffrey, David Eddings, and others.)

>I originally composed this message as a reply to Rich Holmes' recent McCaffrey
>flame, 			    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 ^^^^^
(He provides a specific example of the type of "reception" McCaffrey fans have
received at the hands of their "betters".)

>until I saw that he'd set followups to talk.bizarre and misc.test.
>Good one, there, Rich.  But it did strike a chord in me, and brought to mind
>the examples I'd seen before of this kind of behaviour...
>
>Any comments?  Defenses?  Flames?  Learned discussions?

Some of us got the point, I think...

In article <Bt8voI.Dz0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> ericg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Eric Chris Garrison) writes:

(above post deleted to avoid redundancy)

>/* sarcasm on */
>Gee, what a great idea!  Yeah, and we can also add a list of all
>the authors we *do* like to the FAQ.  Yeah, we can have only stuff
>all of us like!  And I bet YOU know all the BEST, REAL SF there
>ever was!  I nominate aaron@space.ualberta.ca to be the moderator
>from now on, HE *obviously* knows his SF!  We'll talk about stuff
>HE likes, and tell all those poor deluded schmucks to go to hell!
>/* sarcasm off */
>
>Look, this is a PUBLIC forum for discussing written science fiction
>and fantasy.  Not just "real" SF.  Not just "classic" SF.  Not
>just YOUR idea of what is good, not just what is MY idea of what 
>is good.  I think it is awfully pompous of you to presume to 
>decide what is not _real_ SF.  Why don't you create a newsgroup
>"rec.sf.written.real" with a charter clearly defining "real SF",
>and then YOU can go away and not come back unless you have some-
>thing civil to say.  Thank you.
>
>Eric

(Um... he was being facetious Eric.  He's on our side.)
 _______________________________
|  Matthew B. Downer       	|
|  hachiman@u.washington.edu	|
|  				|
|  Ore no denwa bango wa 911 da.|
|_______________________________|