Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath

Expand Messages
  • Mike Foster
    Carl, Hmmm..not enough asterisks for Burrahobbit ...I m stumped...can anyone help? Cheers, Mike that s b******t, and you know it ... [Non-text portions of
    Message 1 of 45 , Mar 3 7:21 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Carl,
      Hmmm..not enough asterisks for 'Burrahobbit'...I'm stumped...can anyone help?

      Cheers,
      Mike

      that's b******t, and you know it




      Mike Foster wrote:

      >Carl,
      >Now there's a fine idea to encourage discussion. All in favor...?
      >Mike.
      >
      >Third, since this forum is not a government institution, the First
      >Amendment doesn't apply.
      >
      >
      >
      >Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      >>Mike, you are astonishing. You asked me why I thought this thread was
      >>about what I said it was about (even though I had already told you). I
      >>then obligingly performed the simple bit of review of the discussion
      >>that _you_ could have done, to answer _your_ question.
      >>
      >>And for that, you now imply that I had said that Bonnie had no right to
      >>speak her mind.
      >>
      >>First, that's b******t, and you know it.
      >>
      >>Second, if anyone was trying to squelch the free expression of opinion,
      >>it was _Bonnie_ ("we have to mask some of that animosity on their
      >>behalf when they show up at our events"), not me.
      >>
      >>Third, since this forum is not a government institution, the First
      >>Amendment doesn't apply.
      >>
      >>Fourth, the First Amendment confers no rights; instead it imposes
      >>restrictions on the Federal Government. Rights are held by virtue of
      >>being human.
      >>
      >>But now this is leaning in the direction of going as far afield from
      >>the point of this discussion as are your own non-sequiturial "replies"
      >>to what I _actually_ wrote.
      >>
      >>Sheesh.
      >>
      >>Carl
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>On Mar 3, 2005, at 4:29 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>>Carl,
      >>>Okay. Bonnie has utilized that pesky First Amendment to state her
      >>>opinion. Isn't sharing opinions the point of such discourse?
      >>>Mike Foster wrote again....
      >>>Carl F. Hostetter wrote:
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>>On Mar 3, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Mike Foster wrote:
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>>Carl,
      >>>>>How did you get the idea that some of this discourse was suggesting
      >>>>>change to attract m-o-fans?
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>Hm, let me think. Could it perhaps have been from _where I said it was
      >>>>derived_? Namely, Bonnie, in her post of Feb. 23
      >>>><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/message/13865>?:
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>>Hi David, and all of you:
      >>>>>It occurred to me this eve that I'm worried (probably co-dependently)
      >>>>>about the possibility of discouraging film-led neo-scholars from
      >>>>>feeling welcomed by our group--if we let too much of our "prejudices"
      >>>>>leak out.
      >>>>>We can have our emotions of indignation, frustration, condemnation;
      >>>>>they're ours. We have a right to them. Somehow, however, we have to
      >>>>>mask some of that animosity on their behalf when they show up at our
      >>>>>events. We want them to feel they can grow and flourish in the
      >>>>>Mythsoc. Honey, rather than vinegar.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>Can that be it? Or maybe I'm wrong? Hm. On the other hand, David B.
      >>>>seems to have derived the same idea from it
      >>>><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/message/13866>:
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>>Bonnie,
      >>>>>Let's distinguish "film-led neo-scholars" into two groups:
      >>>>>a) those who have come to the book through the films, but have
      >>>>>discovered that the book is better [the ones that Mike and John are
      >>>>>insisting are so common];
      >>>>>b) those who prefer the films or who either can't or won't tell the
      >>>>>difference.
      >>>>>The first group we should welcome into the MythSoc. The second group
      >>>>>we
      >>>>>should not. They're welcome to do their own thing, but they should do
      >>>>>it
      >>>>>somewhere else.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>But that was _that_ thread and this is _this_ thread. Well, gosh, now
      >>>>I'm just confused.
      >>>>Oh wait, this then led to a further statement on the same theme by
      >>>>David B., to which John Rateliff responded in... well, gosh, look at
      >>>>that, the post that started this very thread that you subsequently
      >>>>joined and in which we are conversing presently!
      >>>><http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythsoc/message/13958>:
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>>>I don't want to catch those flies. I want them to . . . stop
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>bothering us.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>This is a book-readers' society. If we try for a "balance" with the
      >>>>>>film-watchers, they'll overwhelm us through
      >>>>>>sheer numbers and the lowest-denominator effect. Let them have their
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>own
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>societies and their own fun. Those who come to us should be those
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>who want
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>>to know about the book.
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>>
      >>>>>I don't think we have to worry: the more we hang out the Unwelcome
      >>>>>Mat, the
      >>>>>more it'll drive away everybody who might want to join, book-fan and
      >>>>>film-fan
      >>>>>alike, solving that little problem. Besides, the film fans have
      >>>>>TheOneRing.net
      >>>>>and many another online site; they've built up their own community
      >>>>>and
      >>>>>started
      >>>>>their own branch of Tolkien scholarship that in time will probably
      >>>>>turn out to
      >>>>>be just as valid as the one that grew out of fanzines.
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>>
      >>>>Isn't that interesting.
      >>>>Huh.
      >>>>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>>
      >>>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >>>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>>
      >>
      >>
      >>The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >>Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
      >Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Beth Russell
      ... From: Mike Foster [mailto:mafoster@direcway.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:22 PM To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath
      Message 45 of 45 , Mar 9 3:25 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        -----Original Message-----
        From: Mike Foster [mailto:mafoster@...]
        Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 4:22 PM
        To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [mythsoc] loyalty oath

        >From here in the sweet shires of farm country in Middle-Illinois, I can

        >attest to you that both the care of kine and the making of butter and
        >especially cheese is rather like, uh, work. And if Bombadil and
        >Goldberry are Ab-Original and Unfallen, why would they work?


        Two answers:

        1. Goldberry (at least) did work. She had a washing-day while the
        hobbits were there.

        2. The Lord labored six days.

        Beth
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.