MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 492 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) Absolutely the last I'm going to say about E&N by Heather Watson 2) Re: I Blame Kris by Heather Watson 3) Re: more lifebonded ??? by ramsdend-+AT+-uk.psi.com 4) RE: First Fantasy books, (was re:antony) by ramsdend-+AT+-uk.psi.com 5) Re: Rolan, MOC, soulbonds, etc... by "Diana L. Heald" 6) Re: I Blame Kris (was Re: Jean Auel) -Reply by Saranhct-+AT+-aol.com 7) Re: Rolan, MOC, soulbonds, etc... by Rossinyol 8) Re: Anthony by adowd-+AT+-brynmawr.edu 9) Re: Prostitutes by adowd-+AT+-brynmawr.edu 10) Oy by Heather Watson 11) Re: Eagle & Nightengale by Susan5683-+AT+-aol.com 12) Re: Prostitutes by Susan5683-+AT+-aol.com 13) Re: Prostitution by Susan5683-+AT+-aol.com 14) Re: Rolan, MOC, soulbonds, etc... by Adrienne York 15) Hello? by Katy Hill 16) age and ""Rif and Rat" by Carolyn Taylor 17) Hello! (Delurk) by starlite-+AT+-intergate.bc.ca (Kay) 18) those footers/sig lines/hooking (Toronto penalty..) by Vivian Choh 19) Re: more lifebonded ??? by be248-+AT+-scn.org (SCN User) 20) Re: Usenet newsgroup(was Re: Cecelia's Delurk) by ywlau-+AT+-singnet.com.sg (Jeanette) 21) Re: Tech Level on Velgarth by catwoman ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 03:35:54 CST From: Heather Watson To: Subject: Absolutely the last I'm going to say about E&N Message-ID: <20APR96.03886278.0053.MUSIC-+AT+-NEMOMUS> Blick, I give up, I don't want to fight anymore about this. I realize my last post was harsh -- I can only plead the dynamic combination of my temper and end-of-semester stress. Can we all at least agree not to presume that our attitudes about sex are morally superior to other people's attitudes? I happen to believe that sex is more than just a service like any other, or should be. That's not necessarily more correct than Susanna's views, but I don't think it's necessarily any less correct either. It really galls me that, IMO, Susanna's comments took on a very "why are you so wrong?" tone. I am not the Church Lady, and I am not unhealthy. I just don't see some things the same way Susanna does. Christ. This is the first time I can remember that I've gotten into trouble for being too *conservative* regarding sex. I've been told that I have a problem with committment, that I'm unromantic, too kinky, and too gay. But never too conservative. Live and learn, I guess. And one point as a history major before I abandon this thread now and forever: it's an oversimplification to say that sometimes the Church is good and sometimes it's bad. Yeah, the Church did some horrid things -- though few things that were horrid in the context of their own time, i.e. they didn't often do things that other people weren't doing on a smaller scale all around them -- but even *while* things like the Inquisition and witch hunts were going on, other things were happening as well which were less heinous. There was never a time when the Church was nothing but bad. Few things in this world are ever nothing but bad. So goodnight, sweet prince. Finals week looms, and I don't need stress from my recreation on top of that. I'm sticking to happy, non-controversial topics for at least a couple of weeks. HTH "We're not alcoholics. We're authors." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 03:46:12 CST From: Heather Watson To: Subject: Re: I Blame Kris Message-ID: <20APR96.04071748.0053.MUSIC-+AT+-NEMOMUS> Gee, I didn't mean for this to turn into why Kris sucks. I *like* Kris. I think he's pretty cool, except for this one glitch. I do think it was out of character. Kris had his flaws, yes, but he was never selfish. How many Heralds are selfish? I believe he would have gone to hell and back, barefoot and carrying Tantris on his head, if it would have made Dirk happy -- everything he says, all his reactions in the first two books indicate that. I think that, acting without interference from the Gods of the Plot , Kris would have moved heaven and earth to fix things for Dirk when he realized that Dirk was seriously miserable. Remember how fierce he got when talking about what he'd do to the next woman who didn't treat Dirk right? I don't think he was really the type just to stay out of Dirk's love life and let it all resolve itself in its own sweet time. Not as worried as he obviously was from the very beginning about Dirk getting hurt by the Talia-Kris relationship. Is direct textual evidence required here, or will you all submit quietly ? Don't make me look up quotes. I know how to cite a source, and I'm not afraid to use that knowledge, but I don't want any trouble. HTH "We're not alcoholics. We're authors." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:43:18 +0000 From: ramsdend-+AT+-uk.psi.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: more lifebonded ??? Message-ID: <199604201041.LAA10220-+AT+-staff.uk.psi.com> > Why do Misty characters never seem to notice that they're lifebonded? > Vanyel, okay, Vanyel was naive in general. But 'Lendel had to be told. > And Talia and Dirk like to never have figured it out (sorry, little > Missouri dialect creeping in there). Stefen was clueless, and it took > Vanyel a bloody long time that time around, too. In this case I think Vanyel didn't want to admit the fact that he was lifebonded to Stefen, becuase (a) he thought it was a betrayal of Tylendal and (b) he didn't want to put Stefan in danger. > Keren and Sherri > didn't know until after Talia did (okay, maybe Sherril knew, not sure on > that one, but I don't think Keren did). Keren didn't know, but she and Ylsa did have there suspicions. Keren tells Talia so at some point when they are discussing lifebonds, just after she gets her whites i think, but I'm not to sure on that. > HTH > Ladies' Aid & Armor Society > I wonder about Mardic and Donni, I'm pretty sure the books give an impression they knew, tho it dosen't say for sure. David Ramsden Pipeline Customer Support E-mail: ramsdend-+AT+-uk.pipeline.com Web: http://www.uk.pipeline.com/support/home/david/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:43:18 +0000 From: ramsdend-+AT+-uk.psi.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: RE: First Fantasy books, (was re:antony) Message-ID: <199604201041.LAA10201-+AT+-staff.uk.psi.com> One of the first Fantasy books I read was the Chronicles of Prydain by Lloyd Alexander. I've still got copies of them on my shelf with the pages turning rather yellow. I think Disney made an animated version of the books called the Black Cauldron. If any one knows how I can see this I would be most grateful. While I'm on the subjuect of animated Fantsy films does anyone know where I can order a copy of the Last Unicorn or the Flight of the Dragons? I haven't seen those films in years. David Ramsden Pipeline Customer Support E-mail: ramsdend-+AT+-uk.pipeline.com Web: http://www.uk.pipeline.com/support/home/david/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 10:44:50 EST From: "Diana L. Heald" To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Rolan, MOC, soulbonds, etc... Message-ID: <6260ED4C59-+AT+-ais.syr.edu> >> I think they die from the shock more often than suiciding, or maybe > they will themselves to death. I've always held that the severing by > death of a Companion-Herald bond was something like the severing by > death of a Lifebond, and we saw Vanyel's reaction to that when Lendel > died. I remember it being mentioned that when Savil was killed , > her Companion (Kellan?)'s heart went from shock, or something like > that. Rolan didn't die - he just went looking for Talia. When a Herald died, it was usually in a fight and his Companion was there to defend him (her) and died too. Other times the Companion was looked for to ease the pain. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't. Diana *********************************************************** Diana L. Heald Syracuse University Email: dlheald-+AT+-ais.syr.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 11:43:55 -0400 From: Saranhct-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: I Blame Kris (was Re: Jean Auel) -Reply Message-ID: <960420114354_379101077-+AT+-emout09.mail.aol.com> Actually, Dirk thought that Kris and Talia were in love with each other and that he (Dirk) was in love with Talia. Dirk also felt he had no hope of competing with Kris. Boy was he proved wrong! And yes, things political got in the way of the lifebond between Talia and Dirk but in real life these things happen. Saranhct-+AT+-aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:46:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Rossinyol To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Rolan, MOC, soulbonds, etc... Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, McCaffrey's White Dragon wrote: > There are, indeed, several diferences. First, companions are > magical, goddess-sent creatures and as such, they are free to choose > heralds with good character. The impressing of dragons, however, is more Um, one picky detail. Unless there has been a change in Storm Rising, the Companions are not necessarily "goddess-sent." Certainly, they are not sent by the Star-Eyed (see her reaction to Roald's Companion in Oathbreakers--It is clear that Companions are new to her.) Misty's position, stated in the free indirect discourse of a number of characters is that no-one knows what Power or *Powers* sent the Companions. > Thus, the requirements for being chosen as a herald would be the > appropriate character, at least a bare minimum of mind-magic, and being > within range (as companions rarely travel out of Valdemar to find their > chosen). The requirements to impress a dragon, on the other hand, would > include being there at the right time, having a character which one of > the hatchlings finds appealing, and being in the immediate area. You have to be careful about that, though. How do you define immediate area? Remember that when Mirrim impressed Path she wasn't even on the Hatching Grounds. She was way, way up in the back of the stands with Menolly. This is very like what happened with Rolan (although Path wasn't a particularly important dragon). He had to go outside the normal "immediate area" to find his Chosen, just as Path had to go outside the normal "immediate area" to find her rider. May the seas be your solace and the forests a refuge for your spirit, Cennydd, Mage of the Green Silences. Eu guardo a luz das estrelas a alma de cada folha Sem folhas nao tem vida, Sem folhas nao tem nada, Salve as folhas! Kenneth Allen Hyde | No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife Univ. of Delaware | between the shoulder blades will seriously Dept. of Linguistics | cramp his style -- Old Jhereg proverb kenny-+AT+-strauss.udel.edu | A mind is a terrible toy to waste! -- Me ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:06:05 -0400 From: adowd-+AT+-brynmawr.edu To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Anthony Message-ID: >Vrondi wrote: >> > >> I think one of the first "fantasy" things I read was a book called "The Girl >> With The Silver Eyes." It shall always be a fave. I checked it out of >> the library numerous times. I was about 9 I think when I read it. I >> don't 'member who the author was because I never owned a copy. It >> was about a girl who was telekinetic. she had silver eyes and >> telekinesis as side effects of some experimental drugs her mom worked >> with while pregnant. She finds out that there are 4 more kids like >> her and goes looking for them. It's very cool.I didn't get to Tolkien >> 'till I was 14. after Misty. >> >> -Free Bard Oriole >> known on IRC as Vrondi >> a.k.a. Chrys Amy Dean. > >*FLASHBACK* > >Sorry. Took me back a couple of years. It sounds like Lois Duncan. I >read a lot of her stuff. It wasn't "fantasy", but paranormal. That's >why I think It was her. Any one else read her stuff? I just picked up >a copy of _The Gift of Magic_ at a thrift store for $.25!!!! Oh well. > >the NiteBird >-- Yes, I read Lois Duncan. Not all of her stuff, but some of it. I remember reading and re-reading a book of hers called _Down a Dark Hall_. I think I was in the 5th grade (about 10 years old or so) when I first read it, and bits of it scared me silly! Lois Duncan is also one of the few authors my sister reads. Well, not so much anymore; she's outgrown her. But she read her when she was in middle school. Neither my brother or my sister are big readers. It's so odd. I turned out to be an absolutely voracious reader, and they both hardly ever pick up a book that's not for school. And my brother at least used to read more than he does now. In fact, he introduced me to several authors! I borrowed his copies of the Dragonlance books in middle school, and Douglas Adams and Barbara Hambly in high school. Trying to return the favor, I recently gave him a copy of one of Lois McMaster Bujold's books, _The Warrior's Apprentice_, I think. It just lay around in his room collecting dust, so I took it back. Maybe I should try Terry Pratchett. If he liked Douglas Adams, he should like Terry Pratchett, right? If I can get him to actually sit down and read it, that is. I did manage to get my sister to read, though! =) She had just had her wisdom teeth out, and was lying around on the couch looking sick and miserable. She didn't have anything to do, so I started reading a Barbara Michaels book to her, _Vanish With the Rose_. It's not fantasy or science fiction, but it's still good stuff. When she was feeling better, she realized that she had actually enjoyed the part I had read to her, and she wanted to know what happened next! So she took my copy and started reading it. What is it about fiction addiction that makes you so happy to spread it to someone else? Hmmm... --Aimee ****************************************************************************** "Living is dancing and you are the dancer, *"Outside of a dog a book is man's within you the answer if only you'll dare."*best friend. Inside of a dog *it's too dark to read!" --- Mercedes Lackey, "Dream Rider."* --Groucho Marx ****************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:57:01 -0400 From: adowd-+AT+-brynmawr.edu To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Prostitutes Message-ID: On April 20, Firemist said: >(rant ON) Anyway, about the happy hooker thing. It's not the >hookers' fault! Do you really think they want to take their lives >into their own hands every time they entertain a customer. Aside from >AIDS, there are houses were the Madame or the pimp will allow abuse >to go own provided the customer pays enough for it! (In holland, they >actually have a S&M college where professional submissives and >professional dominators have get their certificates from. otherwise, >they aren't allowed to go into business). There's always the sicko >who likes to degrade people. Prostitues are looked down on in >general, don't you think they are pretty desperate to take the job >knowing that the general population will look down on them? (rant OFF) > Um. Excuse me, but in all the debate about prostitution that's been going on, I haven't come across anyone who was looking down on or blaming the *prostitute*. It is perfectly possible to have serious problems with the *institution* of prostitution and the way it degrades and objectifies women but feel nothing but compassion for the prostitute herself. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. --Aimee ****************************************************************************** "Living is dancing and you are the dancer, *"Outside of a dog a book is man's within you the answer if only you'll dare."*best friend. Inside of a dog *it's too dark to read!" --- Mercedes Lackey, "Dream Rider."* --Groucho Marx ****************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 15:32:59 CST From: Heather Watson To: Subject: Oy Message-ID: <20APR96.16793845.0077.MUSIC-+AT+-NEMOMUS> I just deleted six messages instead of viewing them. I'm going to have to give myself a good talking-to about paying attention at the computer. It's not my fault. Pre-finals stress has just kicked in, and I've had insomnia for days. I'm running on about six or seven hours of sleep over the last three days. I think I'll go up to my room, put Wanderlust on the CD player and whimper until I finally fall asleep. Then miss dinner, probably. Is anyone else really agitated that Muppets Tonight seems to have disappeared from the ABC Friday night lineup? Is it ever coming back? Surely it hasn't been cancelled already. Wouldn't they at least give it a full season, even if the ratings weren't up to par, seeing as how the Muppets have always been pretty reliable? Two more weeks. Do they have finals at the collegium? As I understand it, classes are scheduled to take as long as they need to take for the students to grasp the material, thereby eliminating that end-of-semester, last-chance-to-fix-my-grade-in-this-class stress. Sounds pretty nice. HTH "We're not alcoholics. We're the authors." ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:03:07 -0400 From: Susan5683-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Eagle & Nightengale Message-ID: <960420170307_474368880-+AT+-emout19.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 96-04-20 14:13:02 EDT, you write: >Susanna, I'm sorry if I seemed unkind or flippant. I didn't mean to >imply that prostitutes weren't real people with hopes, dreams, etc. >Quite the opposite. I thought the handling of prostitution in the >Bardic series trivialized the sexual exploitation of women, which is a >serious issue. lots of very good but long points snipped it seems to me we are really essentially on the same side, neither of use want women exploited, both of us want women and sex respected, i just dont see why prostitutes cant be women, provide sex and still be respected for the service, in the same way a kestra'chern would be, in the mode perhaps of therapeutic release than service, does that make sense? i do not like to see women and men for that mattere denigrated, humiliated, degraded, objectified or mistreated simply by virtue of how they make their living, do you see what i am saying? Sex should always, always, always be by choice and mutual consent but if it is sometimes accompanied by a monetary transaction we need not thow stones at those participating. Okay, i am sure everybody is really tired of this subject Apologies everyone, but as you can see, this is a very serious issue to us. Also, i dont think Misty's representations were completely on target, but let us remember this is a work of fiction and it was a least a stab at a controversial topic. Lady Susanna green pathways open before thee and wind ever at thy back ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:03:11 -0400 From: Susan5683-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Prostitutes Message-ID: <960420170309_474368909-+AT+-emout07.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 96-04-20 15:04:05 EDT, you write: > was just talking to my sons yesterday why men that sleep around are >called 'studs' (good thing) and women that sleep around are called >'sluts' (bad thing). Men that have sex for money are called gigalos >and women who have sex for money are call whores. > > exactly, why should it be bad either way and why cant we respect each other for who and what we are, not for how we make money Lady Susanna who cannot seem to get off her soapbox ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:03:02 -0400 From: Susan5683-+AT+-aol.com To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Prostitution Message-ID: <960420170302_474368854-+AT+-emout14.mail.aol.com> In a message dated 96-04-20 02:46:48 EDT, you write: Folks, i think Heather is not the only one who may have taken my post wrongly, please allow me to defend myself, Read on Heather wrote: >No, Susanna, that post wasn't directed at you. But this one is. > How dare you? > I've never been really angry at anyone on this list before, but I am >now. In a nutshell, you've accused me of being moralistic and >man-hating, negative about sex, and contemptuous of prostitutes. That >was unnecessary, as well as untrue. > I fail to see why your attitude is morally superior to mine. I fail >to see the inherent nobility in believing that sex is without value, >"one person providing a service with portions of their anatomy." I fail >to see why it is negative, moralistic, and chest-banging to believe that >sex should always be a free choice between participants, given and >received among equals. If you've ever worked in a service profession, >such as hairdressing or waiting tables, you know that the relationship >between a service provider and a customer is anything but equal. You >get paid to cater to their needs; they do not get paid to care what you >think or feel. > I fail to see why sex should be "*one* person providing a service." >Why can't people engage in sex for the mutual satisfaction of both? >What's so marvelous about viewing sex as a transaction where one person >gives and one receives? If I believe that people ought to have sex >because they will enjoy both their own pleasure and giving pleasure to >their partners, is that so negative? I would revise your definition of >sex, to say that ideally it would be: "two (or more) people engaging in >an activity with portions of their anatomy for the pleasure and >well-being of everyone involved." I think anything less than that is, >well, less than ideal and should not be left unchallenged. Heather, you have totally taken everything personnally and missed the point of what i was saying. I expected to get flamed but honestly did you read everything i said as if it were a personal attack? I never ever would say that sex for the mutual satisfaction of both parties was negative, that would be incredibly foolish, since i happen to enjoy sex on those terms very much. I said that some of the attitudes, including yours, towards prostitution were negative. In general circumstances, in the BEST possible circumstances i believe sex to be an expression of mutual love, desire, passion, understanding and genuine feeling. I could not agree more with those statements. However, there are times (see the book i mentioned by Sydney Biddle Barrows,) when men and women have a serious desire, no one whome they love and care for and seek solace in a "professional". Is that so terrible? All i am saying is to negate the worth of people who provide that service is cruel, unkind and unfair. I also still say that because you are talking about sex instead of say massage which is a very intimate service, we all get a lot more upset about it. You will notice i never compared sex to waiting tables, which society still looks down on as a job. If you also know much about waitressing or bartending, many people are in it for the appreciative tips they may make rather than for the actual wages which are usually incredibly low. > I fail to see why believing that a capitalist, employer-employee >model is inappropriate for a sexual relationship is "negative >moralistic, feminist, chest banging noise." I value sex. I consider it >an intimate part of a person, and I believe its value is such that it >should never, ever be coerced or degraded. Thats exactly the point i was trying to make, prostitution is degraded and coercive in the minds of our current society. Why, and i hate to say this again, but because the "morals" of our society and church told us to. In need not be. I believe that treating sex >as though it were nothing more than a commodity is degrading. I believe >that treating women as though their bodies were nothing more than >commodities is degrading. Excuse me, Heather, but i did NOT say commodity, i said service. For instance, i had a pedicure last week and i felt very embarrassed about it because i felt having someone else take care of that part of my body was degrading to the other person. However, the pedicurist assured me that she in no way felt degraded and in felt took pride in how well she provided that service. WE see prostitution as degrading, and in many cases it is, but that could be changed if the minds of society were changed. And i want to point out that prostitution is not merely a female thing, there are many males also. And yes, i agree completely that objectifying anyone male or female, or making them less than we are based on there profession is totally wrong. what i said was this and secondly, a highly paid courtesan such as those who befriended Lady Lark does indeed bed whom she chooses when she chooses, if she is that highly paid and sought after she can afford too I consider it delusional to find something wrong with sex for money just because it is sex. Excuse me but what is that anyway, one person providing a service with portions of their anatomy for the pleasure and or well being of another person and getting paid for it and i compared that to other intimate services, perhaps hairdressing was not as good but the others are still valid and you said It makes women's bodies into objects, in the >same way that slavery makes people into objects by stating that it is >morally justifiable to buy and sell them. Objectifying someone is the >first step toward convincing yourself that they aren't like you, and >therefore are not entitled to the rights you claim for yourself by >virtue of your humanity. Saying that the privilege of touching a >woman's body is something that canbe bought is a step toward >believing that women themselves are for sale, and therefore not fully >human. I'm sorry if this exceeds your doctrine of Feminism To A Point, >but this is why I believe that prostitution is not just hunky dory. Why does prostitution have to be objectifying? Again that is what we have been taught, brainwashed into believing for centuries, since Eve came to be the scapegoat for original sin. Adam did not damn well have to eat the apple did he? and we do not have to view prostitution in the same old way. Picture this, a man or woman seeks a companion for conversation and possible sex. He or she goes to a large well appointed office building. A receptionist listens to his or her preferences and dials a number. Would so and so care to come meet Mr or Ms Seeker? The first so and so declines so the receptionist dials again. This person agrees. Mr or Ms Seeker is directed to wait in an adjoining lounge They are treated to beautiful music and a relaxing drink. The person enters and says hello I am whoever. You must be Mr/Ms Seeker. The person is well dressed and well cared for. Mr/Ms Seeker says, I'd like to go to see whatever (movie, opera, theatre,symphony, the stars etc but i dont want to go alone, would you care to join me?" The provider agrees and the two leave the building together, they enjoy the whatever Seeker had in mind and the encounter may be over or it may proceed to sex. If it does it is done in the spirit of the provider having had a chance to spend time with the seeker but also being a professional who is well paid to provide a service (no drug addictions, no beatings, no humiliations, no being forced) and does it well, in addition, one hopes it will be done in the spirit of mutual satisfaction. One plays in the symphony, answers the phone in an office because one chooses to not becaus eone has to. They return to the office building and an upper floor, designed like a plush hotel. There are no rat infested, cockroach crawling dirty sheeted spaces here. The sex,`if there is sex, occurs in mutual respect, not service me baby!! Are you seeing the difference here? I am advocating respect and care for prostitutes not humilation of them!!!!! > I fail to see why asking that all sex be consensual and shared is >considered man-hating these days. It's really not my fault that >virtually all of the people who hire prostitutes are men. I can >disapprove, even strongly disapprove of the actions that some men take >without hating men. I like men just fine. It's prostitution I'm not >too thrilled with. > I fail to see why believing that there should be moral standards in >matters of sex and sexuality means that I'm loading the issue with >negative moralizing. You disapprove of rape, I assume, not because you >believe sex is dirty, but because you believe that is an immoral use of >the human capability to have sex. Frankly, I like sex. I think people >should be able to have sex whenever and however they bloody well please, >so long as they can find someone else who wants to participate. If I >believe that sex is not a product to be bartered, it's precisely because >I think sex is too important for that. You don't seem to believe that >it's important. That's your perogative. But kindly refrain from >putting yourself on a moral high horse for believing that sex is trivial >or mechanistic. I dont want to take up any more space on this but i am sincerely hurt and angry that you would totally misread what i said. I neither said nor implied that sex was either trivial or mechanistic. I simply dont see the need for all the moral baggage attached to it and i do think that perhaps it is you who is on a moral high horse, since you cant seem to open your mind to the point i was making that if we saw prostitution as a service provided, by choice, by one person to another person with neither lack of respect or degradation involved, it would not raise the outcry that it has, and incidentally hundreds of those involved in the profession would not have to risk disease, public humiliation, arrest, beatings etc in order to provide it. And may i also point out that if some hundreds of persons would stand up and say, prostitution should be legal, large numbers of those virtually enslaved in the true degradation you despise so much would be free. I am neither blind nor deaf to the sad fact that millions of women and men are trapped in this way, by virtue of fear. Legalisation would provide protection and choice. Heather, i am sincerely sorry you took what i said wrongly, but i was angry too, angry that feminists go on and on about free choice in abortion which i wholly support but deride prostitution which should also be a free choice. And finally, I dare to say what i believe is right, if i do not then i am nothing. Lady Susanna green pathways open before thee and wind ever at thy back ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:05:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Adrienne York To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Rolan, MOC, soulbonds, etc... Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Diana L. Heald wrote: > >> I think they die from the shock more often than suiciding, or maybe > > they will themselves to death. I've always held that the severing by > > death of a Companion-Herald bond was something like the severing by > > death of a Lifebond, and we saw Vanyel's reaction to that when Lendel > > died. I remember it being mentioned that when Savil was killed , > > her Companion (Kellan?)'s heart went from shock, or something like > > that. > Rolan didn't die - he just went looking for Talia. When a Herald > died, it was usually in a fight and his Companion was there to defend > him (her) and died too. Other times the Companion was looked for to > ease the pain. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't. Rolan was the MOC, he only dies if killed in battle (cf that all important teaching session in Arrows). However, wasn't Kellan murdered, as well as Savil? I thought the one who died from shock was Herald ?Kilchas.? He was the one who helped with the Vrondi spell. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ L'Enfant Terrible Wanna Warrior Protocol Officer The WitchQueen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "You haven't found god yet? Why in havens' name not? God is everywhere... Have you tried buying a rubber chicken? Sometimes they have two gods." -Moi ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:14:35 -0700 From: Katy Hill To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Hello? Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19960420211435.006a12a0-+AT+-micron.net> Hi, all! I just subscribed to this list a couple of days ago, and I thought that introducing myself would be the "polite" thing to do. I'm 17 years old and a Junior at Post Falls High School in Post Falls, Idaho (about halfway between Spokane, WA and Coeur d'Alene, ID). I got hooked on fantasy about two or three years ago when I read "Strands of Starlight" by Gael Baudino. Before that I read C.S. Lewis and Tolkien without really realizing they were fantasy... Anyhow, you all seem like a nice group of people, and I'm really hoping that this list isn't as... cliquish (sp?) as some of the newsgroups I've belonged to. My favorite Misty Lackey books are the LHM trilogy... it's one of those books that I re-read every time I run out of other stuff to read. What can I say? I guess I'm an addict. Mmmmmm, more about me.... My favorite authors are Mercedes Lackey, David Eddings, Anne Rice, and John Grisham. I play the French Horn and I'm on the Forestry team at school, as well as the INEL Scholastic Bowl team and I play in the pep band. I'm tall (5'11") and thin with dark brown hair (about as close to black haired as a person can get without actually being black haired) and have green eyes. Well, that's about all I can think of for the moment, and I sincerely hope that you welcome newcomers to your list. Especially since I have the tendency to ramble and have consequently told you everything about myself that I can remember... I'll probably start posting more in the next few days when I have the chance. School is hectic right now, to say the least, so I'll post when I have time... Vkandis' Light shine upon you all, Sun-Priest A'Lyra ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 96 14:11 PDT From: Carolyn Taylor To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: age and ""Rif and Rat" Message-ID: Just to make all of you feel young, I'm 64 this September. Does anyone else remember waiting for Dragon Rider sections to come out as a serial? Cant remember whether it was Galaxy or Analog. Regarding the characters referred to on the tape "Mercedes Lackey Live" what stories were Rif (Sp?) and Rat in. Carolyn ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 14:17:18 -0700 From: starlite-+AT+-intergate.bc.ca (Kay) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-herald.co.uk Subject: Hello! (Delurk) Message-ID: <199604202117.OAA18933-+AT+-diablo.intergate.bc.ca> Hi, everyone! My name's Kay, and I've been following the mail for about a week now. Well, don't anyone feel bad about their age because you can't beat me - I'm 70!! Okay, so maybe I'm not. (Did I shock anyone?). I'm sorry - I can be serious, too... I agree with you guys - age shouldn't matter at all. Since I'm new, I don't know exactly what you guys have talked about already, so please, bear with me if I'm repeating something. I have always wondered - somewhere in the Last Herald Mage trilogy, there's a mage whose magic is very good, yet not quite good enough to meet the requirements of a really great adept. When asked why he wasn't an adept, he said something like, "Better a first class mage, than a second class adept." (I can't remember exactly - it's been a while since I read the book, but this line has always stayed with me). I've always wondered if this idea is right. I mean, supposing that someone's skills/gifts were limited, and that whatever abilities they had were as good as they could ever become, I think that the idea of staying a first class mage ( or whatever) is best. However, if one's skills were able to improve, I have always thought that it would be better to aim high. What do you guys think? KAY PS. Anyone mind if I take up the username Midnite Whisper? PSS. If anyone's looking at my add and/or my choice of name, just to let you know, I CAN spell with the "ight"; I'm just weird. =-D ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 17:45:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Vivian Choh To: Mercedes Lackey mailing list Subject: those footers/sig lines/hooking (Toronto penalty..) Message-ID: Heyla all, Not to step on our Auntie Mel's toes or anything, but I've noticed that the quoting and footers are still a bit out of control. (I especially noticed this last night when the only connection I could get was at a 1200 baud rate - grrr - it took ages just to get through one screen, and folks, when the post has more than 1 screen of unnecessary quoting and footers, well, I think you can understand why I'm taking the time to bother you all with this!!) Folks, please remember that your posts should only have one signature, (i.e. YOUR OWN of course!!) and nobody else's (in other words: Don't quote anybody else's signature!!). Another thing re: footers - The netiquette guidelines state that the usual number of lines that a .sig file should be is 4 (but I've also heard/read 6). Personally, I don't mind the extra long sigs TOO much since I don't read them (I just skip to the next message) and I don't have to PAY for SPACE in my mailbox (unlike others). My only concern (worst-case scenario) is that if everyone had a sig file that was 7+ lines long (and some of those sigs can end up being more than a screen-length long), then my mailbox explodes, I get what's called "MAIL RESTRICTIONS" IMPOSED, which basically means that my mail gets bounced back. And THAT means (according to what I'd previously read from Auntie Mel's FAQs) that I get unsubscribed, miss out on some mail, etc. And *I'VE* got the GOOD deal, since I'll only lose the mail and have to resubscribe - others have to PAY either for TIME and/or MONEY for sifting through their mail. So folks, please, please try to keep the sig files at the limit? The biggest space-taker is the QUOTING of course. A LOT of the time, much of the quotes can be eliminated, since the reply pertains only to one or two SENTENCES of the whole paragraph/page. (So just quote the sentence that you are referring to). And please don't forget that if you are replying to the gist of a paragraph (and hence cannot pick out only one or two of the sentences to reply to) then the gist of the message SHOULD BE SUMMARISED. I'm not sure what the guidelines are for quoted material would be, but I'm pretty sure that if your quote is more than 1 screen-length long, then it probably COULD be summarised.. :) Also, for the most part, we've all read the original post, so we don't really need to read it all over again and much more importantly, the answer to the quotes usually have part of the "question" in it! One more thing that was noticeably bothersome at 1200 bps: attributions to quotes really SHOULD go at the beginning of the quoted material (not at the end), since it is then easier to follow. While reading some of the posts, I'll come across a quote whose writer is unacknowledged, only to find WAAAAY at the end who wrote it (at which time I'd lose track of what was actually being said). I think (for me anyway, maybe not for the rest of you), the problem stems in the fact that the attributes end up being on the next screen rather than together with the quote. And of course, once you've acknowledged who's written the quote (at the beginning, at the beginning), you don't really need his/her name again at the bottom of the quote, right? Ok, enough bitching and complaining. I'm sorry if I offended anyone (i.e. sorry if I said it in an offensive manner) but not sorry for the well-meaning idea/purpose behind it - in the long term, I think it would make everyone happier (Ok, ok, so it'll only make ME much happier.. ;-) ). Flame away! --- next topic--- On Sat, 20 Apr 1996, Jill wrote: > Hooking people on Misty>>> Hehehehe .... did this to my best friend > when I was about a sophmore in high school. Actually, it started I did a double take (actually triple) when I read this. I was reading all those posts re: prostitution when I came across this. I thought "She did WHAT to her friend???!!!" (read that line again; I think you'll see what I mean), but then read on and realised that Jill meant she had created another Misty fan (See? Toldja the "question" is in part of the answer!! ;-) ). The triple take was when I thought, "Does Jill play hockey?" :) ("Jill's friend, up to the blue line, oh! and Jill hauls friend down who falls and takes out Misty as well.. there's going to be a penalty... ) :) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Vivian Choh "I'm all that I claim to be. I simply have not bi189-+AT+-torfree.net claimed all that I am." v.choh-+AT+-utoronto.ca - M. Lackey, "Oathbreakers" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 18:20:56 -0700 From: be248-+AT+-scn.org (SCN User) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: more lifebonded ??? Message-ID: <199604210120.SAA05444-+AT+-scn.org> > Why do Misty characters never seem to notice that they're lifebonded? >Vanyel, okay, Vanyel was naive in general. But 'Lendel had to be told. >And Talia and Dirk like to never have figured it out (sorry, little >Missouri dialect creeping in there). Stefen was clueless, and it took >Vanyel a bloody long time that time around, too. Keren and Sherri >didn't know until after Talia did (okay, maybe Sherril knew, not sure on >that one, but I don't think Keren did). What's wrong with these people? >Lifebonding is supposed to be comparable to being Chosen, right? Well, >if you get Chosen, you sure as heck notice it, unless you're a total >innocent, like Talia was. Even then, it was more not recognizing it >than not noticing it. I think it's more of a cultural mindset, that Lifebonds don't occur and most people probably don't know them, so what's the point in looking for them? The differences I can see between being Lifebonded and Chosen is that the Companion tells them (and eventually lets them remember in Talia's case) that they are Chosen and a Lifebond, while it may be obvious to a reader, develops slowly. This is comparable to King Randale's illness. Doesn't Van say after coming back from his Rethwellan mission how much worse the King looks and yet no one familiar and constantly at Court recognizes it? Seems a similar phenomenon. Just my thoughts... Zhai'helleva, Herald Briana -- Herald Briana Kestyl For some reason I never had any trouble Lady In Green figuring out what death was all wc814-+AT+-freenet.victoria about; but life - that's taken be248-+AT+-scn.org me until now. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 10:06:05 +0800 From: ywlau-+AT+-singnet.com.sg (Jeanette) To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Usenet newsgroup(was Re: Cecelia's Delurk) Message-ID: <199604210206.KAA22680-+AT+-sunflower.singnet.com.sg> (very extensuve snippage) >I went one step further and unsubscribed from the group. The mailing list is >keeping me all occupied. My mom threatens to liimit the time I spend on the >com.! AH!!!!! <-- 5! Can you imagine how much mail will pile up if she does >that? > > >Cecilia (ckwok-+AT+-rgs.edu.sg) Greetings to all! I've just given up and unsubscribed too! It's all I can do with the time I have on my hands to keep up here, much less to sift through the newsgroup. Are all mums the same? My mum has been complaining lately about all the time I spend on the 'Net. If she limits the time I spend, then the mail will PILE up! Ah!!!!!<---5!!!!!<5!etc. Sorry this is so off topic. Wind to thy wings all, Lady Windsong Lady in Green ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Apr 1996 20:02:32 -0700 (PDT) From: catwoman To: mercedes-lackey-+AT+-vanyel.herald.co.uk Subject: Re: Tech Level on Velgarth Message-ID: <199604210302.UAA23685-+AT+-inreach.com.> At 06:11 4/18/96 +0100, you wrote: >> Daren says in BTS that they used a "ballista" (cannon?) and took off a corner >> of the Prophet's shrine. Gunpowder, for certain. >See, "ballista" to me implied "catapult". Why would a big rock thrown at >high speed not be able to take off a corner of a shrine? Why would it >have to be gunpowder? Someone who actually knows physics want to say >something? I play a game called Warcraft 2, and there are ballistas in that game, and the picture looks like a HUGE crossbow on wheels. No gupowder involved. Its a lot more like a crossbow or catapult than anything with gunpowder. And man, do those things do some DAMAGE. When Daren said that one of 'em took of a corner of the shrine, he wasn't kidding. I've had 'em take out a person with one hit, and a building in two or three. Not bad, eh? -catwoman-+AT+-inreach.com Cat Person and still looking for a spiffy sig.. ------------------------------ End of MERCEDES-LACKEY Digest 492 *********************************