Groff Conklin disappointment

Bud Webster wrote in message . ..
On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

[...] Snip of lots of interesting material
that was just posted on this thread.

Does this answer your question?

Yes, it does. Basically, my wonderful little Bantam
with the fascinating Pwoers cover is a "chop job."
Well, maybe sometime I will run across the hardcover
(it is not in the Tower Room) and then I can read
Conklin's six page introduction that you mentioned.


Mr. Palmer
Room 314

John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:
[...] Some snippage.

Yes, it is easy enough to find other
books edited by Mr. Conklin, with passages
which he himself wrote. However, that
particular fact is not very satisfying,
because I really wanted to see what Mr.
Conklin would say, in 1955, about "thinking
machines."

Why?

People's curosity can be piqued for
no particular reason, Mr. Pelen.
After all, Mr. Conklin had taken it
upon himself to edit a book about
"thinking machines." I disagree
with what seems to be your
insinuation that because he was not
a scientic expert on the matter,
then it should be surprising that
I might care to learn what he
said regarding the subject. Your
suggestion seems to be that people
should only be curious about what
experts have to say on a topic, and
that is ridiculous. Most good
writers have written successfully
about matters in which they are
in no way expert. Readers are
curious regarding what writers have
to say on one topic or another
merely because of the writer's
proven talent for entertaining
and/or stirring up thinking in
the readers.

Mr. Conklin was neither an engineer involved in computers, nor
was he trying to upstage the AMazing Kreskin. He was an anthologist
and reviewer and a damned good one.

[...]

*yawns* Oh, I see... You're just trolling Bud. Be careful what you ask
for, Palmjob; you're out of your depth here.

By the way, your lack of manners in mangling
my last name -- which an ancestor of mine
acquired during the Third Crusade -- is not
especially pleasing to me. Yes, once I
know I am being addressed by a certifiable
net guttersnipe, I let the matter pass in
consideration of the lowly source, but
mangling people's family names is not
really something that civilized people
engage in in public forums. The name
is Palmer, P - A - L - M - E - R.

[...]

Nor can it be claimed that Mr. Conklin
was discovering unknown work by any of
the great writers, because, as I have
already said, the stories by Asimov
and the others mentioned had already
appeared in well-known SF periodicals.


Well known? "Unknown" and "Super Science" were well-known in the
1950s? What do you base this interesting claim on?

I base it on the copyright page of the
paperback in question, on which I note,
for instance, that the story by Poul
Anderson was reprinted from ASTOUNDING
SCIENCE FICTION, as was the tale by Walter
Miller. Now, I see no need to cite the
entire copyright page, but most of the
publications cited there, including
GALAXY in addition to ASTOUNDING, are
far from obscure. The fact that you
combed through the list and picked
out a couple of the less well-known
publications merely makes you look
like someone grasping at straws to
try and support an invalid assertion.
(And, by the way, UNKNOWN was not all
that, well, UNKNOWN, either. It was
essentially the fantasy companion to
ASTOUNDING, but it also ran some
enduring sf works such as Eric Frank
Russel's "Sinister Barrier.")


[...]



Pretty damn clear to anyone that's not a complete idiot. The book was
originally published by Vanguard and apparently the paperback house in
a bid to save money and unable to anticipate that fifty years later
some nutjob would pitch a fit about it, excised the introduction. Nice
try, Palmjob, but there are far too many people here that know you for
what you are.

You can learn far more about me from reading
any of my famous stand-alone posts than from
listening to the wails of "spankards" (sore
flame war losers).

Fortunately, I type rather quickly and you didn't cause
more than a waste of about thirty seconds.

My, my, you sound terribly important.
How wonderful that you would even take
time to from your busy day to share
your gems of wisdom with this forum.

Mr. Palmer
Room 314

Cheers,

John

On 26 Aug 2004 23:45:38 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:
[...] Some snippage.

Yes, it is easy enough to find other
books edited by Mr. Conklin, with passages
which he himself wrote. However, that
particular fact is not very satisfying,
because I really wanted to see what Mr.
Conklin would say, in 1955, about "thinking
machines."

Why?

People's curosity can be piqued for
no particular reason, Mr. Pelen.
After all, Mr. Conklin had taken it
upon himself to edit a book about
"thinking machines." I disagree
with what seems to be your
insinuation that because he was not
a scientic expert on the matter,
then it should be surprising that
I might care to learn what he
said regarding the subject.

In which case you should have sprung for the complete book instead of
opting for the abridged paperback version...

Your suggestion seems to be that people
should only be curious about what
experts have to say on a topic, and
that is ridiculous. Most good
writers have written successfully
about matters in which they are
in no way expert.

Well, you've certainly written about many subjects that you are in no
way an expert on, but then, you're not really much of a writer.

Readers are curious regarding what writers have
to say on one topic or another
merely because of the writer's
proven talent for entertaining
and/or stirring up thinking in
the readers.

Mr. Conklin was neither an engineer involved in computers, nor
was he trying to upstage the Amazing Kreskin. He was an anthologist
and reviewer and a damned good one.

[...]

*yawns* Oh, I see... You're just trolling Bud. Be careful what you ask
for, Palmjob; you're out of your depth here.

By the way, your lack of manners in mangling
my last name -- which an ancestor of mine
acquired during the Third Crusade -- is not
especially pleasing to me. Yes, once I
know I am being addressed by a certifiable
net guttersnipe, I let the matter pass in
consideration of the lowly source, but
mangling people's family names is not
really something that civilized people
engage in in public forums. The name
is Palmer, P - A - L - M - E - R.

[...]

Whatever you say, Palmjob.

Nor can it be claimed that Mr. Conklin
was discovering unknown work by any of
the great writers, because, as I have
already said, the stories by Asimov
and the others mentioned had already
appeared in well-known SF periodicals.


Well known? "Unknown" and "Super Science" were well-known in the
1950s? What do you base this interesting claim on?

I base it on the copyright page of the
paperback in question, on which I note,
for instance, that the story by Poul
Anderson was reprinted from ASTOUNDING
SCIENCE FICTION, as was the tale by Walter
Miller. Now, I see no need to cite the
entire copyright page, but most of the
publications cited there, including
GALAXY in addition to ASTOUNDING, are
far from obscure. The fact that you
combed through the list and picked
out a couple of the less well-known
publications merely makes you look
like someone grasping at straws to
try and support an invalid assertion.
(And, by the way, UNKNOWN was not all
that, well, UNKNOWN, either. It was
essentially the fantasy companion to
ASTOUNDING, but it also ran some
enduring sf works such as Eric Frank
Russel's "Sinister Barrier.")

You want to argue SF history with me, Palmjob?
This is going to be priceless...

Let's take a moment to review the facts, shall we?

Unknown/Unknown Worlds was indeed the companion to Astounding. In
addition to "Sinister Barrier" it was also home to some of the most
enduring classics of the fantasy/sf genre... However, and this is a
big however; it ceased publication in 1945. The mass-market paperback
that we're discussing was published in 1955. Are you going to tell me
that you believe that "Unknown" was well known to the casual book
buyer in 1955?



[...]



Pretty damn clear to anyone that's not a complete idiot. The book was
originally published by Vanguard and apparently the paperback house in
a bid to save money and unable to anticipate that fifty years later
some nutjob would pitch a fit about it, excised the introduction. Nice
try, Palmjob, but there are far too many people here that know you for
what you are.

You can learn far more about me from reading
any of my famous stand-alone posts than from
listening to the wails of "spankards" (sore
flame war losers).

"Famous"? Only in your own rather deranged mind.


Fortunately, I type rather quickly and you didn't cause
more than a waste of about thirty seconds.

My, my, you sound terribly important.
How wonderful that you would even take
time to from your busy day to share
your gems of wisdom with this forum.

Not at all, it's just that I usually try to refrain from dealing
with complete idiots such as yourself.


Mr. Palmer
Room 314

Do let us know how your bleach experiment turns out, won't you.

Cheers,

John

John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Aug 2004 23:45:38 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

In which case you should have sprung for the complete book instead of
opting for the abridged paperback version...

You are begging the question. First, you were
faulting me for being curious about what Mr. Conklin
might have had to in the mid-1950's on artifical
intelligence.

Now that I have refuted your bale of horsefeathers
on that score by reminding you that is very common
for readers to be curious about what writers
(including experts on non-experts on a particular
topic) have to say on a topic, you are trying a
different tack.

Saying I should have sprung for a book I did not
know about (until Mr. Webster informed me) is
pretty silly. Yes, I assumed that a hardcover
preceded the paperback in question. But I had
no way of knowing how much was chopped from
the original. Further, what is so odd about
this little brouhaha is that any idiot can
see I made my query because I did not know
some things I desired to know. But for ill-
motivated, half-informed twits like you,
Pelan, someone's admission of not knowing
something is a signal that it is time to
post another pompous, flatuent attempt at
witticism at the sincere person's expense.
Instead, you merely come off like the
brainstem of a rabid mandrill injected
with battery acid and wired to a keyboard,
and, I've got to tell you the bad news,
Pelan, the posted results are pretty darn
shabby.

Your suggestion seems to be that people
should only be curious about what
experts have to say on a topic, and
that is ridiculous. Most good
writers have written successfully
about matters in which they are
in no way expert.

Well, you've certainly written about many subjects that you are in no
way an expert on, but then, you're not really much of a writer.

How would you know? I ran a Google on
you, and I was interested to see that you
have been in Usenet apparently for quite
a while and have interested so few readers
that you have only amassed a measly 7,000
so GEMS, and only that many if you are the
only John Pelan posting to Usenet. In
fact, on the first page that popped up, I
saw plenty of information indicating you
are nothing more than a pesky local troll
with an anemic GEM count. That makes two
of you I have smoked out of the electronic
woods over here so far.

You are no writer at all, Pelan. I could
find reference to no notable stand alone
posts by you whatsover, Pelan. Just a
lot of silly trolls. Talk about folks
wasting their time: It quickly became
clear to me that I was wasting MY valuable
time making serious responses to a local
troll and all-around Usenet featherweight
in the thinking and writing departments
with a very meager Usenet calling card.

Try to understand this: I did not become
the most famous writer in Usenet history
by pestering people, the way your GOOGLE
history shows that you habitually do, Pelan.

I earned upwards of 100,000 GEMS the
honest way, by writing stand-alone
postings such as "Facts in the Case of
Bill Palmer" (a Usenet work which is
better known than YOU are, Pelan,
because so many posters have read and
re-read it). Not bad for a few
autobiographical fragments, eh, Pelan
the Obscure, Trolling Midge?

Visit the Google Nova, my region of
Google. Read "Prosthetic Extension,"
ya' gosh darn crazy pest, Pelan. Read
it and grow. It will make you ashamed
of the way you have been acting. Read
"If this be webtrance..." Read
"Yes, MARY KENNEDY, you try to square
things with the BIG boss!" Read
"MORE ELDRITCH THAN FICTION!" Or
"Charles Manson Predicted in 1953
Comic Book!" Or any of the hundreds
of other well-known stand alones of mine.
Read the most famous poem ever written
for Usenet audiences, "Gothic Whispers."
Read the prose poem, "Wordscreens of
the World."

(Just be sure when you Google them
to make sure you are reading the
original article at the top of the
thread, not any of the many reactions,
pro and con, to the original article.)

Read them and grow, I say again, Mr.
Small Potatoes Pelan. You are a 7,000
GEM pimple on the Usenet body politic,
and you are suddenly in far over your
head, having made the mistake of
rudely accosting a vast man of words
you know as little about as you known
about the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.


Mr. Palmer
Room 314 in the office upstairs from rec.arts.prose

On 27 Aug 2004 22:21:39 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On 26 Aug 2004 23:45:38 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On 25 Aug 2004 14:32:09 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:

In which case you should have sprung for the complete book instead of
opting for the abridged paperback version...

You are begging the question. First, you were
faulting me for being curious about what Mr. Conklin
might have had to in the mid-1950's on artifical
intelligence.

Now that I have refuted your bale of horsefeathers
on that score by reminding you that is very common
for readers to be curious about what writers
(including experts on non-experts on a particular
topic) have to say on a topic, you are trying a
different tack.

Saying I should have sprung for a book I did not
know about (until Mr. Webster informed me) is
pretty silly. Yes, I assumed that a hardcover
preceded the paperback in question. But I had
no way of knowing how much was chopped from
the original. Further, what is so odd about
this little brouhaha is that any idiot can
see I made my query because I did not know
some things I desired to know. But for ill-
motivated, half-informed twits like you,
Pelan, someone's admission of not knowing
something is a signal that it is time to
post another pompous, flatuent attempt at
witticism at the sincere person's expense.
Instead, you merely come off like the
brainstem of a rabid mandrill injected
with battery acid and wired to a keyboard,
and, I've got to tell you the bad news,
Pelan, the posted results are pretty darn
shabby.

Your suggestion seems to be that people
should only be curious about what
experts have to say on a topic, and
that is ridiculous. Most good
writers have written successfully
about matters in which they are
in no way expert.

Well, you've certainly written about many subjects that you are in no
way an expert on, but then, you're not really much of a writer.

How would you know? I ran a Google on
you, and I was interested to see that you
have been in Usenet apparently for quite
a while and have interested so few readers
that you have only amassed a measly 7,000
so GEMS, and only that many if you are the
only John Pelan posting to Usenet. In
fact, on the first page that popped up, I
saw plenty of information indicating you
are nothing more than a pesky local troll
with an anemic GEM count. That makes two
of you I have smoked out of the electronic
woods over here so far.

You are no writer at all, Pelan. I could
find reference to no notable stand alone
posts by you whatsover, Pelan. Just a
lot of silly trolls. Talk about folks
wasting their time: It quickly became
clear to me that I was wasting MY valuable
time making serious responses to a local
troll and all-around Usenet featherweight
in the thinking and writing departments
with a very meager Usenet calling card.

Try to understand this: I did not become
the most famous writer in Usenet history
by pestering people, the way your GOOGLE
history shows that you habitually do, Pelan.

I earned upwards of 100,000 GEMS the
honest way, by writing stand-alone
postings such as "Facts in the Case of
Bill Palmer" (a Usenet work which is
better known than YOU are, Pelan,
because so many posters have read and
re-read it). Not bad for a few
autobiographical fragments, eh, Pelan
the Obscure, Trolling Midge?

Visit the Google Nova, my region of
Google. Read "Prosthetic Extension,"
ya' gosh darn crazy pest, Pelan. Read
it and grow. It will make you ashamed
of the way you have been acting. Read
"If this be webtrance..." Read
"Yes, MARY KENNEDY, you try to square
things with the BIG boss!" Read
"MORE ELDRITCH THAN FICTION!" Or
"Charles Manson Predicted in 1953
Comic Book!" Or any of the hundreds
of other well-known stand alones of mine.
Read the most famous poem ever written
for Usenet audiences, "Gothic Whispers."
Read the prose poem, "Wordscreens of
the World."

(Just be sure when you Google them
to make sure you are reading the
original article at the top of the
thread, not any of the many reactions,
pro and con, to the original article.)

Read them and grow, I say again, Mr.
Small Potatoes Pelan. You are a 7,000
GEM pimple on the Usenet body politic,
and you are suddenly in far over your
head, having made the mistake of
rudely accosting a vast man of words
you know as little about as you known
about the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.


Mr. Palmer
Room 314 in the office upstairs from rec.arts.prose


Come now, Palmjob; you'll have to do better than this. If in fact you
are a "vast man of words", I fail to see how a weight problem or
tendency to bloviate is germane to the issue. You've once again been
called out for your trolling. Now run along...


Cheers,

John

On 26 Aug 2004 23:45:38 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:
(snip)
How would you know? I ran a Google on
you, and I was interested to see that you
have been in Usenet apparently for quite
a while and have interested so few readers
that you have only amassed a measly 7,000
so GEMS, and only that many if you are the
only John Pelan posting to Usenet. In
fact, on the first page that popped up, I
saw plenty of information indicating you
are nothing more than a pesky local troll
with an anemic GEM count. That makes two
of you I have smoked out of the electronic
woods over here so far. You are no writer
at all, Pelan. I could
find reference to no notable stand alone
posts by you whatsover, Pelan. Just a
lot of silly trolls.
(snip)

"John Pelan" wrote in message
...
On 27 Aug 2004 22:21:39 -0700, (Bill

Come now, Palmjob; you'll have to do better than this. If in fact you
are a "vast man of words", I fail to see how a weight problem or
tendency to bloviate is germane to the issue. You've once again been
called out for your trolling. Now run along...



And you could do better than this, John. Why not point out that this is a
book collecting forum and in the realm of books, as opposed to the net, you,
despite being "no writer at all", have written, edited and published quite a
few of those obscure paper constructions, and with plaudits from the
readership. Also you could note that in several on-line forums concerned
with weird tales etc. there are dozens upon dozens of posts by some John
Pelan or another that provide extensive useful information, the latest being
the discovery that an author thought to be deceased is stil lliving. But
perhaps you're shy ;-)

- Todd T.

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:07:47 -0400, "Todd T"
wrote:

On 26 Aug 2004 23:45:38 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:
(snip)
How would you know? I ran a Google on
you, and I was interested to see that you
have been in Usenet apparently for quite
a while and have interested so few readers
that you have only amassed a measly 7,000
so GEMS, and only that many if you are the
only John Pelan posting to Usenet. In
fact, on the first page that popped up, I
saw plenty of information indicating you
are nothing more than a pesky local troll
with an anemic GEM count. That makes two
of you I have smoked out of the electronic
woods over here so far. You are no writer
at all, Pelan. I could
find reference to no notable stand alone
posts by you whatsover, Pelan. Just a
lot of silly trolls.
(snip)

"John Pelan" wrote in message
.. .
On 27 Aug 2004 22:21:39 -0700, (Bill

Come now, Palmjob; you'll have to do better than this. If in fact you
are a "vast man of words", I fail to see how a weight problem or
tendency to bloviate is germane to the issue. You've once again been
called out for your trolling. Now run along...



And you could do better than this, John. Why not point out that this is a
book collecting forum and in the realm of books, as opposed to the net, you,
despite being "no writer at all", have written, edited and published quite a
few of those obscure paper constructions, and with plaudits from the
readership. Also you could note that in several on-line forums concerned
with weird tales etc. there are dozens upon dozens of posts by some John
Pelan or another that provide extensive useful information, the latest being
the discovery that an author thought to be deceased is stil lliving. But
perhaps you're shy ;-)

- Todd T.


A most constructive suggestion, Todd... I'm not much given to
bragging, and I seriously doubt that a dumpster-diver like Palmjob
would have encountered any of my books and it's a bit much much to
expect that he'd have read any of my essays, reviews, or articles on
the genre of fantastic fiction.

However it was disguised, Palmjob's post was nothing more or less than
an on-topic troll, much like his nonsense about bleach; and I just
have very little use or patience for his idiocy. In his own way, he's
every bit as useless as the Adams-creature or Hoppy.

Yes, I'd be delighted to discuss the discovery of H.B. Gregory, but
that's more suited for another forum, other than to point out that we
can now confirm from first-hand experience the reason for the scracity
of the entire Rider line from circa 1939. Book collectors have always
known that thousands of books were destroyed in the Blitz, but to
discover that at least in this case the publishers had to hit the
author up for one of his two copies of a book in attempt to secure a
foreign sale, is an interesting if very sad footnote.

Cheers,

John

"Todd T" wrote in message ...
On 26 Aug 2004 23:45:38 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:
(snip)
How would you know? I ran a Google on
you, and I was interested to see that you
have been in Usenet apparently for quite
a while and have interested so few readers
that you have only amassed a measly 7,000
so GEMS, and only that many if you are the
only John Pelan posting to Usenet. In
fact, on the first page that popped up, I
saw plenty of information indicating you
are nothing more than a pesky local troll
with an anemic GEM count. That makes two
of you I have smoked out of the electronic
woods over here so far. You are no writer
at all, Pelan. I could
find reference to no notable stand alone
posts by you whatsover, Pelan. Just a
lot of silly trolls.
(snip)

"John Pelan" wrote in message
...
On 27 Aug 2004 22:21:39 -0700, (Bill

Come now, Palmjob; you'll have to do better than this. If in fact you
are a "vast man of words", I fail to see how a weight problem or
tendency to bloviate is germane to the issue. You've once again been
called out for your trolling. Now run along...



And you could do better than this, John. Why not point out that this is a
book collecting forum and in the realm of books, as opposed to the net, you,
despite being "no writer at all", have written, edited and published quite a
few of those obscure paper constructions, and with plaudits from the
readership. Also you could note that in several on-line forums concerned
with weird tales etc. there are dozens upon dozens of posts by some John
Pelan or another that provide extensive useful information, the latest being
the discovery that an author thought to be deceased is stil lliving. But
perhaps you're shy ;-)

Well, something is very peculiar about John
Pelan, because his actual Google archive
shows a good deal of trolling poppycock,
and little if any of the food for thought
you suggest. In fact, when I ran his name
though Google groups, the first page which
popped up showed a good deal of puerile
silliness. I hard time discerning any real
substance in his entire Google archive.
I don't know, maybe Pelan should look into it.
Perhaps someone somehow hacked in and deleted
most or all of his intelligent postings --
charitably assuming there were any to begin
with.

Further, Pelan has been tallking rather big,
but the odd thing is, his actual GEM count --
considering he has been hanging around Usenet
for a few years -- could only be described as
anemic. People just don't seem to find his
comments very interesting, and by and large,
outside this one group, they don't respond
to him, unless he simply starts insulting them
to get a littly shabby attention. Sad.

Maybe there are two John Pelans, because
his statements don't fit very well with his
actual Google history, if one can dignify such
a feeble collection of stale trolling tidbits
and general juvenile silliness with such a
grand word as "history," that is...

No, there is something about John Pelan
which just does not add up. It doesn't
add up in Google, and it doesn't add up
in any of the customary ways of trying
to evaluate someone as a thinker and/or
a writer. There is something seriously
lacking about that fellow.

Further, since this odd chap has seen fit to
rudely question my own accomplishments, I can
cite quite a few of them, including discovering
a 1953 comic book cover which eerily predicted
Charles Manson, and being contacted by the
actual Mary Kennedy of "Murder, Morphine,
and Me," a true crime comic book of the late
1940's. I found that Mary Kennedy is alive
and living in Boston. She is a little
embarrassed by the mistakes of her younger
years. After getting clean of dope, she
found a prince of a husband and had a family
and a great life. Mary contacted me after my
article appeared because she wanted to set the
record straight and to let the world know
that, while, "Murder, Morphine, and Me"
was factual, it was only a small, unhappy
part of what turned out to be a wonderful
life.

Because Dr. Frederic Wertham reprinted
(very misleadingly) a panel from TRUE CRIME
COMICS book in his SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT, I
took off on that panel and came up with my fanciful
short-short story, "Yes, MARY KENNEDY, you try
to square things with the BIG boss!" which
readers can enjoy in Google -- but, since there
have been quite a few posts under that subject
line, be sure -- should you dedide to check
it out -- you read the actual short story. Just
don't read it if you are prone to nightmares,
since it will leave you unsettled, if not
terrified.

Now, if I have lost anyone there, I will add
that the unique writing experiment involved taking
one panel from a comic book and then writing an
entirely original short-short story for newsgroup
audiences. In no way was I summarizing or echoing
"Murder, Morphine and Me," which certainly would be
no accomplishment worth mentioning -- let alone for
knocking the pompous, diapered, baby-rattle shaking
Mr. John Pelan off his rec.collecting.books high
chair.

By the way, has anyone in rec.collecting.books
heard any news on the rumored reprinting of
Doctor Wertham's SEDUCTION OF THE INNOCENT?

As some of our readers no doubt know, a copy
of that screed in very good condition with dust
jacket can now bring several hundred dollars.
The book itself is famous (or "notorious" some
will say) and no doubt would sell very well
in a reprinted copy. Of course, most people
now consider SOTI to be a textbook example of
bad logic accompanied by an unscrupulous habit
of taking one comic book panel and distorting
it entirely out of context with its story.

Wertham, by the way, was -- before his anti-
comic crusade -- a respected psychiatrist
who had done considerable good work, and
wrote eariler books, all of which are now
considered collector items simply because
the controversial Dr. Wertham wrote them.

Anyway, this distinguished shrink simply
flipped his lid over comics in the late 1940's
though. One of the ironies of SOTI, as viewed
today, is that Wertham's "rogues gallery" of
reproductions of panels from what he saw as
dangerous and unhealthy comic book illustrations
are, for the most part created by people who
are no considered the finest comic book artists
of their generation. Their distinguished number,
for instance, includes Jack Davis, who went on to
an impressive number of TIME MAGAZINE covers after
the demise of William Gaines' EC Comics (finished
off by the Wertham-inspired Comics Code Authority
of America in the mid-1950's).

All in all, I would encourage Mr. Pelan -- if
indeed he is responsible for the trivialities
and general poppycock found under his name in
Google -- to read, learn, and grow. Cheers.

Mr. Palmer
Room 314 (in the office upstairs from rec.arts.prose)




Mr. Palmer
Room 314

- Todd T.

John Pelan wrote in message . ..
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:07:47 -0400, "Todd T"
wrote:

On 26 Aug 2004 23:45:38 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote:
perhaps you're shy ;-)

- Todd T.

[...] Some snippage


A most constructive suggestion, Todd... I'm not much given to
bragging, and I seriously doubt that a dumpster-diver like Palmjob
would have encountered any of my books and it's a bit much much to
expect that he'd have read any of my essays, reviews, or articles on
the genre of fantastic fiction.

The ironic thing is, I have no doubt
written considerably more such articles
than you have. The difference is not
only that mine are likely far more
original, but also that I don't need to
direct readers outside of Usenet in order
for them to enjoy what I have written.

Were I a gambling chap, for instance, I would
bet that -- if a survey were taken among students
and faculty in all the universities of world --
far more people could tell you who wrote "MORE
ELDRITCH THAN FICTION!" than could identify the
writer of any piece YOU have published. Why?
Because they have thrilled to my articles
on their computer screens for quite a few
years now.

(I might add that you are trying to buffalo
a veteran of The Flame War over Russia, as
well as the main target of the forgery bot
invasion of a few years back. (See "HUMAN
MIND A BATTLEFIELD IN CYBER WAR" for details.)


Look, I have run into plenty of people like
you in writers' groups, Pelan. They come into
the forum in a very condescending fashion and
never let the newsgroup peasants forget that
THEY ARE REAL PRINTED WRITERS.

Now, I am going to tell it to you like it
is, Pelan: I sprinkle people like you on
my breakfast cereal because for all your
print world huffery and puffery you don't
really understand net culture, while, on
the other hand, as much as any other Usenet
poster, I could for excellent reason be
said to have INVENTED net culture; that is,
when we limit our terms as we should to the
unique part of it which does not simply mirror
or echo what transpires in the traditional
print world. Maybe you had better visit
Google and read "Tar Baby" and "Keyboarding
Quasimodo," Pelan, because you are far
over your head already in this little
brouhaha.

Yes, Pelan, it is becoming more and
more apparent that I am encountering
another REAL PRINTED WRITER, so of
course I am supposed to be shaking in
my boots. I am not, though. In fact,
YOU are encountering something new:
a famous writer who is so much a part
of net culture -- someone who was born
and the net and came from within the
net -- that for him moving into the
print world would be to slide into
stasis. So, Mr. REAL PRINTED WRITER,
I am not one bit intimidated by you
and your cowardly, vicious swipes.

However it was disguised, Palmjob's

Every time you mangle my good name in such
a fashion you demonstrate to readers tha
you are low fellow, Pelan. There are
several hundred thousand Palmers in the
English speaking world, and you insult
every one of them with your boorish slurs.

post was nothing more or less than
an on-topic troll,

It was not. I was completely sincere.

much like his nonsense about bleach;

No nonsense there at all -- and I have a
lovely 70 year old Scribners classic with
pristine white page edges to refute your
hide-bound twaddle.

and I just
have very little use or patience for his idiocy.

So to prove it, you make an obnoxious,
braying ass of yourself, eh,` Pelan?
(Any excuse will do, I suppose.)

In his own way, he's
every bit as useless as the Adams-creature or Hoppy.

Yes, I'd be delighted to discuss the discovery of H.B. Gregory, but
that's more suited for another forum, other than to point out that we
can now confirm from first-hand experience the reason for the scracity
of the entire Rider line from circa 1939. Book collectors have always
known that thousands of books were destroyed in the Blitz, but to
discover that at least in this case the publishers had to hit the
author up for one of his two copies of a book in attempt to secure a
foreign sale, is an interesting if very sad footnote.

Cheers,

John


Mr. Palmer
Room 314 in the upstairs office

On 28 Aug 2004 17:07:19 -0700, (Bill
Palmer) wrote more of his general idiocy which has been snipped...


All that one needs to know about Mr. Palmer may be found he

http://www.lart.com/auk/whiners.html

Cheers,

John