One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very
quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them).
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for
any present:
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very
quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them).
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for
any present:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very
quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them).
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for
any present:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
On 11/29/2024 11:59 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very
quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them).
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for
any present:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies
appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
I have been bingeing "Dexter" on Netflix all day between running errands.
I am going to take my 86 year old father to go see our Aggies beat the
hell out of Texas University on Saturday.
Or, maybe he is taking me since he got the tickets.
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very
quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them).
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for
any present:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list)
or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very=20 >quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them).
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for==20
any present:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.=20
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies=20 >appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their=20
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of=20
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the=20 >latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary=20
taste, was this block voting?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:59:54 -0800, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
Yes it is. But (IIRC) it /was/ on-topic!
Thanksgiving, in the USA, is, of course, a major holiday, and I
believe the East Coast is currently snowed in down to at least
Northern Florida, but that's no excuse for residents of other places.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very
quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them).
I strange affliction and, no doubt, an irritating one.
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for
any present:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies
appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
I am divided on this point. While I would think even nominating a book
one hasn't read is ungood, it is, of course, a part of block voting to
vote with others in the same block, so not nominating them is ungood.
Fortunately for me, I never have and never plan to nominate anything
for anything.
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
Robert Woodward wrote:
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
This may be the first time ever that there have been more posts on rec.games.chess.misc than here. Certainly the first in the last couple of decades.
The chess group is experiencing a micro-renaissance, with posters mostly from
Canada and Europe, hence not impacted by American Thanksgiving.
William Hyde
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies >appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
In article <robertaw-D56189.21595429112024@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies >appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the >latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
My understanding of the "puppies" thing was that the "Sad
Puppies" (name inspired by that "Give to the Humane Society"
ad with all the forlorn looking doggies in it) thought that
the kinds of stories they liked (and thought a bunch of
other people liked) were getting short shrift at the Hugos,
so made a list of what they considered worthy works, and said
"Here's some stuff we like that you might like as well; if so,
consider nominating it for a Hugo."
I'd kind of lost interest in the Hugos years before, anyway;
little of the kind of thing I like ever seems to get nominated,
at least, since "The Mote in God's Eye." I note in particular
that no stories from Analog *ever* get nominated. (Or, hardly
ever. I can't think the last time I saw one on the list.)
In article <robertaw-D56189.21595429112024@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo
nominations. While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block
voting, the Sad Puppies appeared to be different. Either there
were secret puppies with their own nominations lists (which
overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of the Sad Puppies were
only nominating works that they had read. If the latter was the
case, while they could be accused of ungood literary taste, was
this block voting?
My understanding of the "puppies" thing was that the "Sad
Puppies" (name inspired by that "Give to the Humane Society"
ad with all the forlorn looking doggies in it) thought that
the kinds of stories they liked (and thought a bunch of
other people liked) were getting short shrift at the Hugos,
so made a list of what they considered worthy works, and said
"Here's some stuff we like that you might like as well; if so,
consider nominating it for a Hugo."
I don't see anything wrong with that, though it sure got a
lot of people upset.
A separate issue, of course, from Vox Diaboli, who glommed
onto the campaign with his "Rabid Puppies" block, which,
as you said, was definitely block voting.
In article <robertaw-D56189.21595429112024@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies >>appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the >>latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
My understanding of the "puppies" thing was that the "Sad
Puppies" (name inspired by that "Give to the Humane Society"
ad with all the forlorn looking doggies in it) thought that
the kinds of stories they liked (and thought a bunch of
other people liked) were getting short shrift at the Hugos,
so made a list of what they considered worthy works, and said
"Here's some stuff we like that you might like as well; if so,
consider nominating it for a Hugo."
I don't see anything wrong with that, though it sure got a
lot of people upset.
A separate issue, of course, from Vox Diaboli, who glommed
onto the campaign with his "Rabid Puppies" block, which,
as you said, was definitely block voting.
The upset seemed to me to be a lot more about politics than
about quality of the works. And conflating the original
(arguably legitimate) campaign with the (reprehensible)
block vote.
I wasn't involved in either group, being a non-attender of
Worldcon that year.
I'd kind of lost interest in the Hugos years before, anyway;
little of the kind of thing I like ever seems to get nominated,
at least, since "The Mote in God's Eye." I note in particular
that no stories from Analog *ever* get nominated. (Or, hardly
ever. I can't think the last time I saw one on the list.)
In article <vig6du$1vtgk$1@dont-email.me>,
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <robertaw-D56189.21595429112024@news.individual.net>,
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations. >>While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies >>appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their >>own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of >>the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the >>latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary >>taste, was this block voting?
My understanding of the "puppies" thing was that the "Sad
Puppies" (name inspired by that "Give to the Humane Society"
ad with all the forlorn looking doggies in it) thought that
the kinds of stories they liked (and thought a bunch of
other people liked) were getting short shrift at the Hugos,
so made a list of what they considered worthy works, and said
"Here's some stuff we like that you might like as well; if so,
consider nominating it for a Hugo."
Nah, it started off as a scheme to get Larry Correia in particular
a Hugo, and "worthy works" were defined as "stuff Larry wrote",
to which "stuff Larry's pals" wrote being added later on. They
had an evolving set of justications, often contradictory because
it doesn't seem to have occurred to them people could read their
old posts.
I don't see anything wrong with that, though it sure got a
lot of people upset.
Because block-voting was legal (so the votes couldn't be tossed)
but completely against convention.
A separate issue, of course, from Vox Diaboli, who glommed
onto the campaign with his "Rabid Puppies" block, which,
as you said, was definitely block voting.
Nope. Vox got invited in by Larry and then hijacked the idea
with more effective organization. The Rabid Puppies are an
offshoot of the Sad Puppies but definitely connected to them.
The upset seemed to me to be a lot more about politics than
about quality of the works. And conflating the original
(arguably legitimate) campaign with the (reprehensible)
block vote.
Please point out to me the Sad/Rabid Puppies nominees (human
shields aside) you think were worthy of a Hugo.
On 11/30/24 2:03 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 11/29/2024 11:59 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
I should try to fill the void; but I find myself unable to write very
quickly (it doesn't help that I keep deleting words after I write them). >>>
I did finish something after 15 minutes of struggle, thus a question for >>> any present:
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies
appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
I have been bingeing "Dexter" on Netflix all day between running errands.
I am going to take my 86 year old father to go see our Aggies beat the
hell out of Texas University on Saturday.
A friend of mine put both kids through A&M (one in Mech Eng), and his
ex-wife got her degree from Texas. He is very much rooting for the same result you are.
Or, maybe he is taking me since he got the tickets.
This is the first year we didn't get season tickets since 1988. It was always fun to do, but turning a 7-8 hour commitment with 100K+ people
(and all that entails) into a 3-4 hour commitment in the comfort of my
home has gone pretty well.
Tony
I once spent a good deal of time studying the 2015 Hugo nominations.
While the Rabid Puppies were definitely block voting, the Sad Puppies >appeared to be different. Either there were secret puppies with their
own nominations lists (which overlapped the Sad Puppy list) or many of
the Sad Puppies were only nominating works that they had read. If the
latter was the case, while they could be accused of ungood literary
taste, was this block voting?
I wasn't involved in either group, being a non-attender of
Worldcon that year.
I'd kind of lost interest in the Hugos years before, anyway;
little of the kind of thing I like ever seems to get nominated,
at least, since "The Mote in God's Eye." I note in particular
that no stories from Analog *ever* get nominated. (Or, hardly
ever. I can't think the last time I saw one on the list.)
Here in northern MA we got a dusting of snow last night. Further north
snow was over foot. It looks like upper NY will get slammed with lake
effect snow this winter.
For reasons, I had to drive in the vicinity to two major area
malls on 'Black Friday' - both were slammed with customers.
This year, we didn't do Thanksgiving dinner at home - we went
out to a restaurant 45 miles away that was doing a
Thanksgiving buffet. It was very nice, though spendy. There
were sand and salt trucks on the roads as we returned.
Robert Woodward wrote:
One post in 24 hours; this is really bad.
This may be the first time ever that there have been more posts on >rec.games.chess.misc than here. Certainly the first in the last couple
of decades.
The chess group is experiencing a micro-renaissance, with posters mostly >from Canada and Europe, hence not impacted by American Thanksgiving.
William Hyde
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 12:08:48 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
Here in northern MA we got a dusting of snow last night. Further north
snow was over foot. It looks like upper NY will get slammed with lake >>effect snow this winter.
For reasons, I had to drive in the vicinity to two major area
malls on 'Black Friday' - both were slammed with customers.
This year, we didn't do Thanksgiving dinner at home - we went
out to a restaurant 45 miles away that was doing a
Thanksgiving buffet. It was very nice, though spendy. There
were sand and salt trucks on the roads as we returned.
Here in Vancouver BC we've had a snowfall and have woken up to snow on
the lawn but not the road but mostly it's been high 30s / low 40s
around here. (And we live at the foot of the mountain higher up than
most locals)
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 191:33:45 |
| Calls: | 62 |
| Files: | 21,500 |
| Messages: | 70,988 |