Retro computing and gaming, sci-fi books, tv and movies and other geeky stuff.

Home » Archive » net.sf-lovers » Rules for reading SF-Lovers.
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Rules for reading SF-Lovers. [message #280414] Wed, 25 September 1985 13:16 Go to next message
Originally posted by: OC.TREI@CU20B.ARPA
Article-I.D.: topaz.3782
Posted: Wed Sep 25 13:16:29 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Sep-85 07:01:32 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 71

From: Peter G. Trei 

7 Rules of thumb for reading SF-Lovers:
    I have been watching SF-Lovers for about 4 years now, and have
also delved extensively into the archives. Certain patterns have
emerged, and I thought the list might find them of interest.
Rule 1:
     If quotations are nested to a depth greater than two, the
topic has been mined out.
    Comments on comments on comments are of very little interest
to most people (including me). Some of the discussion of Quality
in SF/Dhalgren is now preceded by '>>>>' and thus the submission
consists of a counter-blast to a flame against a rebuttal to an
alternate opinion to a comment on Dhalgren. Does anyone, save the
individuals involved, really care? The horse they are beating is
not merely dead, it's fossilized. (I suppose this submission goes
to another level, and is a complaint about counter-blasts to flames
against rebuttals to counter-opinions to comments on Dhalgren).
Rule 2:
     If there is a movie/book you are interested in, some jerk will
submit a spoiler without a warning. (Also known as the 'But I thought
EVERYBODY had seen The Prisoner.' rule).
Rule 3:
     If you have limited storage for mail, it will be on a weekend
when you are away that Saul will clear the backlog, and mail out 10
     This is not really a complaint, but a comment on our embarassment
of riches; SFL this year is far more voluminous than last or any other
year. Keep 'em coming Saul!
Rule 4:
     Info in SFL, provided it does not fall to Rule 2, will be far
more timely, and often more informative, than info from almost
any other source. (Not all my rules are sarcastic).
Rule 5:
     If a question/topic is not inextricably bound to a recently
released work, SFL has probably tackled it before:- in depth. For
example, SF Music was covered extensively a couple years ago, and
Showscan was first mentioned around '81. The source of Sturgeon's
Law appears definitively in volume 1. Inconsistancies in Niven's
Known Space series were disscussed soon after Ringworld Engineers
came out. Going back into the archives is often a good idea.
     This probably results from the average reader watching SFL only
for a year or two before going on to other things. I suspect that
the modal reader is a 3rd or 4th year undergrad who loses contact when
he/she graduates.
Rule 6:
     There is no Rule 6.
Rule 7:
     Often, comments contain deeply obscure in-jokes (Also known as
'The Rule 6 Rule').
Anyone else, particularly long-time SFL'ers, have some favorite rules?
                'about 30% of submissions will have a "cute" signoff'
                                                        Peter Trei
Re: Rules for reading SF-Lovers. [message #280456 is a reply to message #280414] Thu, 26 September 1985 16:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
oyster is currently offline  oyster
Messages: 11
Registered: January 1986
Karma: 0
Junior Member
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1496
Posted: Thu Sep 26 16:04:31 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 09:59:44 EDT
References: <3782@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 5


Rule number 8:
    The 7 rules for reading SF-Lovers are also the rules for reading every
    other newsgroup.
Re: Rules for reading SF-Lovers. [message #280475 is a reply to message #280414] Tue, 01 October 1985 20:45 Go to previous message
Originally posted by: ewan@uw-june (Ewan Tempero)
Article-I.D.: uw-june.300
Posted: Tue Oct  1 20:45:10 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 3-Oct-85 04:37:07 EDT
References: <3782@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 15

Unless it's a discussion I'm particularly interested in, I "n" most Re:
articles. This may result in my missing some interesting comments on
some other topic but then the poster should have changed the header
to reflect that...... The comment that Nothing is new in SFL ( paraphrased )
may be true ( almost certainly ) but some of us have only been around a year
or so and like to partipate in "live" discussions rather than dig around
archives ( assuming they exist - some poor state run universities have
barely enough space for current stuff :-). End of rambling....

Ewan Tempero                                      "Oh no, not again"
UUCP: ...!uw-beaver!uw-june!ewan    ARPA: ewan@washington.ARPA
Please check all nuclear arms at the door.
  Switch to threaded view of this topic Create a new topic Submit Reply
Previous Topic: ST IV
Next Topic: JHEREG by Stephen Brust
Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Sat May 21 01:37:12 EDT 2022

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01736 seconds