[LMB] List Love

[Marilyn Traber]

Andrew Barton wrote:
> At 06:13 PM 2/28/2008, Marilyn Traber wrote:
>   
>> And as I have [unpopularly] maintained, that is the advantage of top
>> posting. No wading through dreck to get to the new goodies. Right  there,
>>     
>> pop open the message and read. If you need to refresh your memory  about
>>     
>> what was said, scroll down.
>>
>> Of course this does not apply to digest, but I have always hated
>>     
>  digest
>   
>> mode.
>>     
>
> So the fact that you don't like digest mode is a reason for you to make life difficult for those who do?
>    
>   Andrew
> lois-bujold-request at lists.herald.co.uk wrote:
>   Send Lois-Bujold mailing list submissions to
> lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> lois-bujold-request at lists.herald.co.uk
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> lois-bujold-owner at lists.herald.co.uk
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Lois-Bujold digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: List Love (Paula Lieberman)
> 2. Re: List Love (Peter H. Granzeau)
> 3. Re: List Love (James Nicoll)
> 4. Re: List Love (Mark Allums)
> 5. general QOTD stuff (was QOTD #6: Sharing Knife expectations)
> (Tora K. Smulders-Srinivasan)
> 6. Re: QOTD #6: Sharing Knife expectations, reading in order,
> (Rachel Ganz)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:06:17 -0500
> From: "Paula Lieberman" 
>
> Subject: Re: [LMB] List Love
> To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
>
> Message-ID: <03ac01c87a88$711d84c0$800101df at portage>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1;
> reply-type=original
>
> May I quote you on another list?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Nancy L. Barber" 
> To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMasterBujold." 
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 2:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [LMB] List Love
>
>
>   
>> At 11:28 AM -0800 2/28/08, Meg Justus wrote:
>>     
>>> May I ask if the old-fashioned kind of mailing "list" would be called a
>>> loop? My first mailing list (not this one, obviously) did not use special
>>> software. It was small enough (and this was long ago enough) that we just
>>> hit "reply all" when we posted to it.
>>>       
>> That doesn't seem to be the current usage, and to the best of my
>> knowledge using "email loop" to mean "email list" seems to be
>> quite recent. To a technical type, an email loop is a serious
>> problem, capable of bringing down a mail server. I speculate that
>> a non-technical type saw the phrase and decided that the email
>> list they had joined was a "loop" of people emailing each other.
>> I see that the phrase is heavily used by support group email lists,
>> who might tend to think of their members as a circle/loop.
>>
>> Nancy Barber
>> -- 
>> Lois-Bujold mailing list
>> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
>> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
>>
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:33:50 -0500
> From: "Peter H. Granzeau" 
>
> Subject: Re: [LMB] List Love
> To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
>
> Message-ID:
> <20080229044847.DLWO19740.eastrmmtao102.cox.net at eastrmimpo01.cox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> As this is a matter that leads to almost religious arguments, my last 
> word on the subject is
>
> At 06:13 PM 2/28/2008, Marilyn Traber wrote:
>   
>> And as I have [unpopularly] maintained, that is the advantage of top
>> posting. No wading through dreck to get to the new goodies. Right there,
>> pop open the message and read. If you need to refresh your memory about
>> what was said, scroll down.
>>
>> Of course this does not apply to digest, but I have always hated digest
>> mode.
>>     
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:20:23 -0500 (EST)
> From: James Nicoll 
> Subject: Re: [LMB] List Love
> To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
>
> Message-ID: 
>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>
>   
>> As this is a matter that leads to almost religious arguments, my last
>> word on the subject is
>>
>> At 06:13 PM 2/28/2008, Marilyn Traber wrote:
>>     
>>> And as I have [unpopularly] maintained, that is the advantage of top
>>> posting. No wading through dreck to get to the new goodies. Right there,
>>> pop open the message and read. If you need to refresh your memory about
>>> what was said, scroll down.
>>>
>>> Of course this does not apply to digest, but I have always hated digest
>>> mode.
>>>       
> If god had wanted us to top-post, he wouldn't have written trn!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 23:28:19 -0600
> From: Mark Allums 
> Subject: Re: [LMB] List Love
> To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
>
> Message-ID: <47C797F3.1030507 at allums.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> James Nicoll wrote:
>   
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Peter H. Granzeau wrote:
>>
>>     
>>> As this is a matter that leads to almost religious arguments, my last
>>> word on the subject is
>>>
>>> At 06:13 PM 2/28/2008, Marilyn Traber wrote:
>>>       
>>>> And as I have [unpopularly] maintained, that is the advantage of top
>>>> posting. No wading through dreck to get to the new goodies. Right there,
>>>> pop open the message and read. If you need to refresh your memory about
>>>> what was said, scroll down.
>>>>
>>>> Of course this does not apply to digest, but I have always hated digest
>>>> mode.
>>>>         
>> If god had wanted us to top-post, he wouldn't have written trn!
>>
>>     
>
> So Larry Wall is God?
>
>
> --Mark Allums
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:30:39 +0000
> From: "Tora K. Smulders-Srinivasan" 
> Subject: [LMB] general QOTD stuff (was QOTD #6: Sharing Knife
> expectations)
> To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
>
> Message-ID:
> <4afcc1280802290130u2184eb8es127b457f4bcefe0b at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 2/28/08, Elizabeth Holden wrote:
>   
>> Tora -
>>
>> Not a big deal, but you didn't say who today's question came from. Was it yours?
>>
>> Good one.
>>
>> namaste,
>> Elizabeth
>>     
>
> Hi Elizabeth!
>
> The person that submitted this question (QOTD #6 about the Sharing
> Knife series) asked to be kept anonymous.
>
> So no, it wasn't my question. I said I wasn't going to ask any of my
> own questions for the first bit. I thought that would be a bit unfair
> since I'm the one doing the collecting and deciding! I'll definitely
> include my name in if it's my question! :-D
>
> Up to this point I've on purpose only sent out 1 question submitted by
> any individual, even if they submitted 10-20. ;-)
>
> I thought it was more fair to give everyone a chance to have his/her
> question be the QOTD before returning to the same person again and
> again.
>
> However, more people have submitted Vorkosigan-topic questions than
> either of the fantasy series, so if I want to vary the topics a bit, I
> might have to do more from one person subsequently.
>
> Plus, some of the questions are more specific than others, and I was
> trying to go for more general ones to start with to get everyone
> going.
>
> I'm glad you liked the question though! And I'm hoping everyone's
> enjoying the whole question of the day thing! :-D
>
> -Tora
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:26:44 +0100 (CET)
> From: Rachel Ganz 
> Subject: Re: [LMB] QOTD #6: Sharing Knife expectations, reading in
> order,
> To: "Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold."
>
> Message-ID: <11098221.47961204284404232.JavaMail.www at wwinf3107>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> Can I top post - I agree with everything Chen Yen has written below?
>
> Read Beguilement, in the UK and not inspired enough to make any effort to get the later books until thery're around here in paperback.
>
> It's just not gritty enough and not edited enough. I reckon Beguilement would've benefited by being cut by at least half
>
> Top post ends here.
>
> (THis message has also been bottom-posted for the benefit of other listees)
>
> ========================================
> Message Received: Feb 29 2008, 12:09 AM
> From: "Chen Yen" 
> To: "'Discussion of the works of Lois McMaster Bujold.'" 
> Cc: 
> Subject: Re: [LMB] QOTD #6: Sharing Knife expectations, reading in order,
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>   
>> I was approaching the series as an SF/F fan who has never been fond of
>>     
> genre Romance, and knew I'd be running into different tropes and narrative
> expectations. [snip]
>
>
> I, on the other hand, am a huge fan of SF who has read a fair number of
> romances. I'm okay with Fantasy and I read a fair bit of YA as well, which
> tends to be fantasy.
>
> As a long-time fan, I REALLY wanted to like it but I found 'Beguilement' a
> bit lightweight in all respects. It didn't feel new or enlightening as
> Lois' books normally are, so that was not up to my expectations. It wasn't
> crazily original on the fantasy front. I kept thinking of Fawn and farmers
> as hobbits of a less cute cast and Lakewalkers as the longer-lived humans
> (Isn't Dag a bit of a Strider figure?) In terms of the romance, there
> wasn't enough tension (I think someone else mentioned this) and not enough
> opposition, and frankly, it wasn't sexy enough! It wouldn't have been a
> problem if the book did not posit itself so strongly as a romance, but it
> did, and I found the love scenes rather happy-happy-joy-joy, candy rather
> than Godiva chocolates. I mentioned my YA reading above because this is
> what this book reminds me most strongly of genre-wise, with the rather
> child-like quality of the love scenes, the easy fantasy level, and the very
> straightforward plot. Challenges are quite easily resolved (and I may seem
> very callous, but I thought even the way her unwanted pregnancy was resolved
> was rather convenient - what would have been really tough was for her to
> have to baby, and for her and Dag to still be in love and cope with it).
> Also, Fawn is a very typical YA-type heroine, young, lively, innocent,
> smart, misunderstood and underappreciated.
>
> The way it is written, I think this series is best appreciated if read in
> order.
>
> Considering the complexity of the romances and relationships Lois has
> tackled which really delved into the darkest parts of human nature, this
> book did not quite live up to what I have come to expect.
> ==================
>
> Bottom posting
> I agree with everything Chen Yen has written above. I'm totally unable to snip it as I agree with ALL of it. I hereby offer my wrist to the Quote Pixie.
>
> Read Beguilement, in the UK and not inspired enough to make any effort to get the later books until they're around here in paperback.
>
> It's just not gritty enough and not edited enough. I reckon Beguilement would've benefited by being cut by at least half
> =====================
>
> Rachel
> Brevity, clarity and cups of tea
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>   
My, look at all this crap you have to scroll down to get to my post. Of 
course I am not cutting because I havee absolutely no freaking idea what 
he is intending with all the matter he posted, so I dont want to leave 
out something important.

If you look at my past history of posting, I rarely go into huge 
diatribes on multiple different peoples postings [or segments of 
posting] so in general you get about a paragraph of quoted text and my 
response. If I were to get digest [which I dont because I hate digest, i 
want each email individually so I can respond to a specific email, or 
save an individual email for future reading or use, with a digest you 
have to save the whole thing for a single line of great tag line you 
might want to refer to later....] I would cut everything out but the 
paragraph I am referring to, and would not have the entire digest like 
is apparently above.

Perhaps the quote tixie would care to comment on the dreckage above, as 
it apparently serves no particular thing other than to make me look 
silly ... but enjoy wading through the dreck to get to my new posting.