This a traditional letter column.
You are encouraged to write a letter of comment on anything that you
find worthy of comment. It will (may) be published in this column along
with my reply. As editor I reserve the right to delete material;
however I will not alter the undeleted material. E-mail to me that solely
references the contents of this site will be assumed to be publishable
mail. All other e-mail is assumed to be private. And, of course, anything
marked not for publication is not for publication. Oh yes, letters of
appreciation for the scholarly resources provided by this site will be
handled very discreetly. This page contains the correspondence for
June 2001.
My mom is looking for the story of the guy who used a bucket to haul tools
to fix his ham radio tower. I got it via e-mail about the time of the
rocket story. Do you have it?
From: Alfredo Illescas ([email protected])
Thanks for so wonderful page. Fantastic. Sugestion: include something about
von Neumann and new computer technology.
Please give me alert to any added
From: “Joe Parnell” ([email protected])
In recent years a colony of grackles has moved into my neighborhood.
Besides eating the eggs of robins and other songbirds they have taken up
the habit of dumping their nestlings shit bags around and in my inground
swimming pool. I can’t imagine why. If anyone has a clue, please
enlighten me.
From: Morris Keesan ([email protected])
I notice you referred someone to Ring of Fire for a Darwin fish.
They’re also available at (easier to remember, for me)
http://www.darwinfish.com/ , in many forms and variations.
From: “stephen cooper” ([email protected])
Nice one mate! Appeals to my sense of humour. Personally I find the
amount of Gor-sites on web quite disturbing but then I had to go to a lot
of trouble to find them all which says it all really…. VITOR (a use
name)
From the very few people I know who read them it is about 50-50. Note also
one of the fantasies in Nancy Friday’s WOMEN ON TOP (a lass called Wendy –
or should that be wendy? I think.) Having rumaged about in the various sites
they do seem to be chock full of females indulging in wanton submission on
line (and apparently off) but for all I know many of these wanton, hot,
vital, nubile she-dancing sleen may be flabby middle-aged males off line.
I was quite gob-smacked by some of the sites. You get things like the
Silkandsteel paga tavern where a lot of the material is actually humourous,
witty interesting etc then they start earnestly warning you how seriously
they take it and its their whole life philosophy and not to whip a slave on
line because they may feel compelled to do it to themselves for real off
lineand I’m like ‘Whoooah…’ And when they tell you they’re ‘real
Goreans’- well no comment.
I’m in Dark age reenactment and hairy morons who
claim to be real Vikings are bad enough, at least Vikings were real once…
What did Professor John Lange publish on sociology under his own name
anyway? The mind boggles? And is he dead or alive? And wasn’t the film BAD!
My interest at present is that I’m a freelance sculptor of wargames
miniatures and I want to design a range suitable for Gor. I’m trying to
aquire and comb books 1-10 for military ‘facts’. The early books are naive
ripping yarns (OUTLAW is pure Gulliver) the middle preposterous fun (and
HUNTERS is a clever psychological study of a messed up sad arse banging his
head on the wrong tree) and the late stuff sort of grey monotonous and sick.
(eg MERCENARIES has 1/4 of a plot is tediously repetitive and plain nasty.)
Often witty, gripping and – well, I do like young ladies in chains, in their
place NB not real life. The overall concept is clever. But great
philosophical literature, no.
Found the rules for Kaissa last night- Great!
All the best,
STEVE (since you’re sensible enough to use your real name- or is R.H. a
actually a pseudonym for a real nubile she-sleen?)
I don’t think that I’ve ever actually read a Gor book; one doesn’t have to
to appreciate their place in the underground folklore of our time. I’m told
that John Norman (something Lange) is real life is a perfectly normal looking
academic type. OTOH his non-fiction work is supposedly even further out
than Gor.
DAW (Donald A. Wollheim books) books used to be his publisher. The way
I heard it is that Don kept the Gor line because they were by far the most
profitable books that he published. When he died and Betsy inherited the
business axing John Norman was early on the agenda.
Someone of these days I suppose I shall have to surf around the role-playing
sites and see what tricks these clever bipeds are up to now. Your account
is not entirely reassuring.
I’m intrigued- you’ve never read a book but you took the trouble to put
the site together and you’re obviously knowledgable about the ethos and
the author- what’s your angle?
You have to remember that “The Dancing Slave Girls of Gor” is just one
of the approximately 500 pages on my web site (that doesn’t count the
approximately 500 pages in the Reincarnation Game.)
Imagine though if you will a creature like a giant beetle with a vulva in
mid-thorax, a multitude of grasping legs, and a human face. She grasps
her legs around you from head to toe enveloping you. Sex with this lady
is no ordinary thing nor is it safe. Like a predatory beetle she sucks all
of your precious vital bodily fluids out of you, leaving you as a desicated
hulk.
Pleasant dreams.
From: Norberto Chavez ([email protected])
I had the unfortunate experience to answer all five of
your questions on a night out with my wife. I found
the being consistant with my answers avoided any bad
experience. I do note DO NOT use these answers with
women with no sense of humor.
Question: “What are you thinking?”
Question: “Do you love me?”
Question: “Do I look fat?”
Question: “Do you think she is prettier than me?”
Question: “What would you do if I died?”
Don’t be hating on me. I’m a mutant. So what? You gonna do something about it?
From: Alex ([email protected])
thank you so much for that moment of unadulterated hilarity re low self
esteem. just what i needed to kick off the pursuit of raising mine. will
keep in mind the importance of a laughing.
I found your site by chance whilst searching for ‘Intellectual impostors’.
Particularly enjoyed the former, Reflections On C.S. Lewis, and Post Modern
Creationism.
When we speak of theology we ought, perhaps, to specify which theology
– if we are not to be utterly parochial we should not merely speak of
the various branches of Christian theology (with Judaism thrown in as
a filip) but also Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zorastianism, Islam, usw.
Still the various religions and their theologies tend to have in common a
source of truth that is outside the world; theology reasons from outside in,
from pre-established truth to application in the world about us. Science,
on the other hand, reasons from the inside out, starting with bits and
pieces of the world around us and reaching outward for more generality.
Science may have started modestly and even in its farthest reaches its
truths have a provisional nature. None-the-less it has the peculiar power
to multiply and manufacture truth.
It is this power, this ability to generate further reaching truths, that has led
to it outstripping theology. Science can encroach on theology; theology
has difficulty returning the favor. Even so, the truths of science are limited
in their utility. The enterprise of science answers questions that it can
answer. The enterprise of theology answers questions that must be
answered.
From: “Ron Swink” ([email protected])
Thanx for the humor………..
From: “krystal tucker” ([email protected])
that is the fourth time ive heard that joke on the internet
… continued on next rock …
a young punk gets no a bus and the old man is staring at him and he asks
why and the old man says that when he was younger and in the navy he got
drunk and had sex with a parrot and was wandering if he was his son.
actually that is the fifth time i heard that
re zen & waiting for godot –
what is sound of two clowns waiting for godot?
godot arrives when he does not arrive
because godot has disappeared he is always here – therefore he will never
come
when is godot not godot? – when he’s coming
In any event the notion of a zen formulation of Godot is an intriguing one.
I have posted your suggestions to a newsgroup (rec.arts.books) with the
hope that readers might expand upon them.
From: Lora Feld ([email protected])
I won’t blame you if you find my letter shallow. However I NEED one of those
fish with legs and Darwin inside for the back of my car. If you have any
leads I’d appreciate the information. Regards, Lora Feld ([email protected])
Howdy from a fellow former jarhead of the Hollywood marine type.
When I went down to the post office (that’s where the recruiters all had
their ofices) I was intending to join the Coast Guard, but Oklahoma
doesn’t have enough coast to have coast guard recruiters. I was in from
’71 to ’75.
But we do not understand evolution.
“The strange thing about the theory of evolution,” said one of the
Huxleys (although I cannot find which one), “is that everyone thinks
that he understands it.
And yet people try to reduce all this complexity to a handful verbal
formulas. It is a feature of our species that we insist on believing that
WE UNDERSTAND, when manifestly we do not.
From: Karen Wright ([email protected])Index of contributors
Karen Wright
Alfredo Illescas
Joe Parnell
Morris Keesan
stephen cooper
Norberto Chavez
WEYHKNOT
Alex
Richard
Ron Swink
krystal tucker
Bradley Chequer
Lora Feld
Billy Hensley
Brian Boenigk
Other Correspondence Pages
Archived Letters For 1996
Archived Letters For 1997
Master page for correspondence
January 2001 Letters
February 2001 Letters
March 2001 Letters
April 2001 Letters
May 2001 Letters
Date: 6/8/2001
Subj: Bucket Story
I recall the story but I don’t think I have it.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 6/8/2001
Subj: great job
Thank you for the kind words but I shall make no promises. I shall
probably add some material on software configuration management –
I plan to do a book on the subject at some point – and a computer
llanguage project. Then again, I put up pages on whatever interests
me at the moment; it varies.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 6/4/2001
Subj: Grackle’s dirty habits
Grackles are generally obnoxious birds. I don’t have an answer. If anyone
does I’d be glad to hear of it.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 6/5/2001
Subj: Darwin Fish
My impression is that the Ring of Fire site preceded the darwinfish
site by several years. However I will list both the next time someone
asks. For some obscure reason people think (or hope) that I am a
reliable source of information on obscure matters. Little do they
know …
Return to index of contributors
Date: 6/5/2001
Subj: your site
I have heard that the Gor books appeal more to women than to men.
I am neither prepared to believe that nor disbelieve it. The world is a
strange place filled with strange people.
… continued on next rock …
I’m sorry to disappoint you but I am just what I purport to be (insofar as any
one can be what they purport to be); you shall have to search elsewhere
for a nubile she-sleen.
… continued on next rock …
For many years I was an active SF fan. The Gor books are SF –
marginal SF perhaps, but definitely part of the territory. In the nature
of things I would know about them. I have an, ah, active mind; lots of
things interest me.
I’m not actually looking for a she-sleen, I’ve got my hands full with the
one I’ve got, she’s not very submissive though.
They never are, you know.
The psychological ramifications of comparing a woman to a creature with
six legs are quite profound, thinking about it.
Now that is an interesting thought. One of the Indian Godesses has six
arms and Burrough’s Martians had four. I can’t think of any mythological
women with multiple legs unless you count lady centaurs. Centaurs I
suppose would have had sex in the manner of horses; face to face sex
would have been quite impractical.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 6/1/2001
Subj: My answers to the 5 questions
Answer: Your panties
Answer: I love your panties
Answer: the term is Phat (Pretty Hot And Tempting)
especially in your panties
Answer: I like you panties more
Answer: I’ld keep your panties
You, Sir, are a man with a quick wit and an acute understanding
of women, at least of the woman you have to understand.
Return to index of contributors
From: WEYHKNOT ([email protected])
Date: 6/1/2001
Subj: mutants
The really nice thing about the internet is that people like you aren’t stuck
using crayons to write with. You are slightly behind the times ducky. The
mutantwatch web site was a promotional gimmick for the X-men movie
which has come and gone quite some time ago. The link you followed to
send me email is not part of the mutantwatch.com web site. A lot of
people made the same booboo. See
let00mut.html
for some of your fellow illiterates.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 6/1/2001
Subj: low self esteem
I always say that it is important to be able laugh at yourself; it makes you
one of the crowd.
Return to index of contributors
From: Richard ([email protected])
Date: 5/28/2001
Subj: Science & Religion
Now there’s an eclectic albeit intellectual olio.
I wondered, do you see science and theology as actually incompatible (in the
broader sense, not w.r.t. Creationism), or do you see them as simply
‘talking past each other’ (a la Khun) or are you with Wittgenstein and his
“what we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence”; (is what really
matters what we can only remain silent about?) or something else?
I would say that they are talking past each other – they rest on incommensuable
root metaphors in their respective world views. My library is in an almost
permanent state of disarray, a circumstance created by a radical deficiency
of bookshelf space or, rather unthinkably, a deplorable surplus of books.
Said disarray means that I cannot lay my hands on a particularly delicious
philosophic tome that illuminates the subject of world views and root
metaphors so I shall stumble on as best I can.
I have my social theory exam on Friday; never has the summer break looked so
enticing 🙂
Do well and perhaps someday hapless students will think wistfully of summer
break as they sweat out your exams.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 5/26/2001
Subj: humor
You’re welcome.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 5/25/2001
Subj: young punk
Now that’s sad. BTW which joke are you talking about? I
have hundreds of them on my web site.
Thank you. It’s important to me to know what the customers are
dissatisfied with and why. Your refund check is in the mail.
Return to index of contributors
From: “Chequer, Bradley” ([email protected])
Date: 5/25/2001
Subj: zen & waiting for godot
Thanks for the idea. I don’t think you’ve quite caught the spirit of the Zen
koan but then I’m not sure that my example did either. An object of a
koan is to bring the student following the path of “thinking about” to a
precipice where all reason, rationalization, and editorializing end. It is
not simply an absurdity or contradiction.
Return to index of contributors
Date: 5/28/2001
Subj: darwin fish for back of car
We do shallow here. Oh, boy do we do shallow here. What you want is
Ring of Fire Enterprises at http://www.rof.com/.
Return to index of contributors
From: “Billy Hensley” ([email protected])
Date: 5/28/2001
Subj: God and Religion
I’m impressed. Few youngsters, particularly not me when I was one,
have the imagination to think of joining the coast guard.
I have learned to reckonize this scam as the old “bait and switch” con
game. It is quite common among supporters of microbe to man evolution. I
enjoyed this article and am looking forward to reading more of your
thoughts in this area.
Yep, the bait and switch scam. I’m currently reading “Investigations” by
Stuart Kauffman. Early in the book there is the following:
Most people know me as Unclemonkey.
We do not understand evolution. We live it with moss, fruit, fin, and
quill fellows. We see it since Darwin. We have insights of forms
and their formation, won from efforts since Aristotle codified the
embryological investigations that over twenty-five centuries ago
began with the study of deformed fetuses in sacrificial animals.
He’s right. (Am I alone or is that sentence with the deformed fetuses
a rather deformed thing in its own right?) The general facts of evolution
are well established. The wherefores, whys, and hows are another
matter. This should not be surprising. The Earth is rather large place,
home to about ten million different species, with some going extinct and
new ones appearing regularly. Many species have billions of members.
A single cell has a complexity rivalling a 747 and a good sized vertebrate
has trillions of cells. It is notorious that biology is messy.
I suspect that I don’t want to know why.
… continued on next rock …
I read your thesis “origins” and will need to read it several times to get a grasp on it as there is an obvious discrepancy in our education levels. It is the most impressive explanation for abiogensis I have seen to date. I must also say that I will never accept it until I see actually see life formed from base materials in a test tube. I am a Bible literalist so I am naturally biased against abiogensis. I honestly believe that God literally created the universe, formed the earth into a life friendly biosphere, filled the earth with a varity of animal and plant kinds, formed man from dust and woman from one of his ribs all in a literal six days. I am also not so arrogant as to deny verified experimental evidence. My argument is with the interpretation of evidence and I am willing to admit that some of the interpretations I accept are probably wrong.
I shan’t argue with you – I make it a policy not to argue creationism/evolution in email – but I will toss in a few thoughts before bowing out.One example of interpretations deals with the Grand Canyon. You probably see it as hundreds of thousand or maybe millions of years of erosion. The interpretation I accept has the layers put in place by a global flood, a rise in the land forming a gigantic lake followed by one or maybe a few dam bursts carving out the canyon in a few weeks or months, before the sediments had time to solidify.I will suggest that young-earth literalism need not be and should not be integral to your Faith. The center-piece of Christianity is Jesus and salvation. He, rather than Genesis, is important. More than that, most Christians have no difficulty with accepting that the Earth and the universe are old, that evolution happened, and that God is the creator of everything. Genesis can be understood as a teaching story, or as a parable, as well as being literal truth.
More importantly, either Genesis is not literally true, or God is a great deceiver. The evidences of the antiquity of the Earth and the universe are quite overwhelming. This is no new discovery; the geologists of two centuries ago already had realized this. There are really only two paths one can follow in the face of the evidence, the path of ignorance and the path of deceit. Those who follow the path of ignorance shut their eyes to the evidences. It is an easy path to follow. We cannot know all things and learn about all things so we must, by chance or by policy, choose that which we will not attempt to know. All that the path of ignorance asks is that one choose not to see that which is inconvenient to see. Some would call this a sin.
The path of deceit is a harder one. Those who follow it bend and twist reason and knowledge to force the evidences to fit their desire. In so doing it is necessary to carefully ignore all manner of flaws in their arguments. This, I reckon, is a greater sin for the taint of dishonesty spreads everywhere and poisons the Faith itself.
You may accept it but your interpretation is totally inconsistent with geophysics. Gigantic dam bursts form scab lands as in western Washington. You would do better to say that God reformed the surface of the Earth as it is now as a miracle.Your origins thesis tells me you believe in microbe to man evolution. Your scam article tells me that you have the integrity to admit that influential people who share your beliefs will stoop to dishonesty to support their dogmas. For this I respect you because it tells me that you are sincere in your convictions although I don’t share those convictions.
I thank you but the scam article wasn’t really directed towards “influential people” and wasn’t really directed at dishonesty as such. The simple fact is that most people know rather less than they think they do about evolution. Unfortunately this includes many of the contributors to talk.origins who post faulty (and often vociferous) defences of evolution. I cannot say that I regard most of the contributors to that newsgroup as being particularly influential or as being particularly knowledgable.You are probably really puzzled by now about my web handle. It is really quite simple and not dubious at all, although it does raise some eyebrows when people discover my religious convictions. A little over 30 years go my nieces and nephews started calling me uncle monkey because I reminded them of a monkey when we played. Even today it aptly describes my personality, so why not?
I don’t like the blood letting at talk origins. I contend that everyone has a right to believe what ever they choose to believe. I am not offended because you believe different than I do and I cannot understand those who are offended because I believe different than they.
I don’t much blame you for not liking the blood letting at talk.origins. It is sort of a snake pit. I suppose that is inevitable; there is a class of people who lack civility. When all speak, those who lack civility speak loudly and their voices inflame the passions of others.Return to index of contributorsBe all of that as it may, this is as much as I want to discuss about the subject in email. By the way, my little article on abiogenesis is nothing but rank speculation.
It has been a pleasure hearing from you.
From: “Brian Boenigk” ([email protected])
Date: 5/28/2001
Subj: The Fortress
I like your web site. I was reading your story about birdfeeders, and was wondering what your reference to the “fortress” was all about. Is there such a product?
The “fortress” was a square bird feeder with a grill surrounding it. The space between wires is about an inch. The finches could reach in between to get at the feeder holes but the grackles couldn’t.Return to index of contributorsCurrently I’m using very cheap feeders without baseplates. The grackles can feed from them but only at the price of standing on one of the feeder rods and wrapping their bodies around the feeder to get at a different feeder hole. They look quite ridiculous doing it and the amusement value is well worth the little bit of seed that they get.
At this moment the feeders are being depleted by goldfinches and housefinches.
Yes, there was such a product. Whether there is now is another matter. My observation is that they keep changing products. As soon as one discovers a truly satisfactory product the manufacturers discontinue it and bring out a “new and improved” product that is no such thing.
This page was last updated June 9, 2001.