From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern
Subject: Re: A Bedtime Story
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:24:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.345565.35353@ghostwheel.dartmouth.edu>, takkyon@dartmouth.edu (Dr. Tachyon) writes:
 
>>If you think AM wimped out then I guess it must seem terrible to you
> that 
>>she allowed a riders sexual preferences to hold some sway in the matter. 
>>Ah yes, what a terrible thing. 
> 
> AM *did* wimp out.  As far as I can determine, 95% of the people who read
> her books got the idea that mating flights resulted in sex between the
> riders.   For her to temporize in the way she did in her reply on the
> subject is something of a disappointment.

Belittlement of AM's vision of a the hypothetical world she calls Pern is
a classic sign of intolerance. The same tactic has been used in the past
against homosexuals & various minorities.
 
>>I still don't understand why you find it necessary to be so intolerant of
>>those who don't share your opinions. First me & now AM. Who's next?
> 
> PHIL, buddy, I'm not intolerant of you because of your opinions, no
> matter how moronic I consider them.  

The what exactly is the excuse you're using to justify your intolerance.

> If you want to think the Red Star is
> made of hot coals, you go right ahead and think that.  I'm intolerant of
> you because you are...now listen carefully and see if you can understand
> the words...acting...like...a...twink.

*I'm* acting like a twink! You seem to have forgotten about a few others.
(hmmmmm. Could the fact that they share your discredited interpretation have 
something to do with it?) They were the ones that resorted to insults & slan-
der when, for instance, in reply to my statement that I saw nothing in the
books that ruled allowing a riders sexual preferences to have an impact in
this matter, they posted , in an attempt at rebuttal, examples from the book
in which rider's sexual preferences were NOT contravened! When I noted this
flaw in their logic it apparently incensed then to the point that all sorts
of baseless charges were hurled at me; namely, that I was opposed to any
trace of homosexuality on Pern, amongst others. Even after I had posted
a number of clarifications in an attempt to keep the debate on track they
continued to make these baseless charges rather that address the central
issue, which was whether the books indicated that sex between 2 riders
whose dragons mated with each other was mandatory. Furthermore, a number
of them the resorted to DEMANDING that I stop responding to the posts
that were attacking me. I guess they felt that only those who hold the
"correct" views should be allowed to post here. I call this intolerance.
 
> Incidentally, you seem to have completely missed the point of Ophelia's
> bedtime story.  The Point, according to L'rtes, is (drumroll):
> 
> L>        P'hil has a point.  He may even be right, since, technically,
> if you sit
> L> on it and it has four legs, you have some grounds for calling it a
> chair.  
> L> But this doesn't change the fact that he's acting like an idiot.

This is *exactly* my point. My opponents have failed to make a logical
case to support their views, they've failed to get AM's support so now
they're resorting to a malicious distorted whispering campaign. BTW, it
wasn't "may even be right". I *was* right & they were wrong. This would
indicate to me that they've misinterpreted what AM intended to portray
in her vision of Pern.
 
>>> I actually was rather amused by the story posted earlier.
>>> I _am_ curious as to how Aunt_Pol ended up with all those Hamlet
>>> characters, though.  :)
>>Yes, well, *you* would wouldn't you? Says alot about your character
>>or lack thereof actually.
> 
> Exsqueeze me?  What the hell do you of all people know about Lydia's
> character, or lack thereof?  Your comment betrays not only an astonishing
> absence of tact, good sense, and knowledge of when you actually know what
> the flaming scarlet shards you're talking about (which, admittedly, is
> probably a rare state), but also shows quite clearly that not only did
> you not get the joke, you're clueless enough to show the world you
> didn't.  Lydia, IMNVHO and the NHVOs of others, has a damn fine
> character, and precisely where you get off criticizing it, when I
> seriously doubt if you know anything about her beyond the fact that she
> flames idiots on a.f.p., I do not know.  If, as I suspect, you meant to
> criticize her taste in literature instead of her character, and through
> either basic stupidity or bad typing managed not to convey it, then you
> couldn't be more wrong.  I am quite sure she would have no problem
> reciting the complete cast of _Hamlet_ from memory, as well as
> substantion portions of the play.  Instead of merely ignoring a joke
> which you obviously did not understand, you instead elected to make
> yourself look, if possible, like more of an idiot than you already are.  
>

Oh I get it! Only certain "acceptable" individuals get to flame on this
board! Look bud, if someone's going to flame me then I intend to get in
my shots too, whether you like it or not! Her endorsement of this low
tactic is *not* something I find laudable. As I said, this tactis has
been used before against various minorities & dissidents. I guess in
your vision of society there are 2 types of people. Those who hold the
proper views & are above criticism & those who don't, who are below con-
tempt. 

> Head on down to the local Timex/Sinclair dealer, PHIL.  Your logic board
> needs to be replaced.
> 

My logic board need to be replaced? :*) 
Well, you seem to forgotten *another* little item, haven't you?
*My* logic yielded the correct interpretation.
*Yours* failed to do so.
Now, most people could learn something from this. In you case you
seem determined not to.

PHIL
Newsgroups: alt.fan.pern