• MT VOID, 07/31/26 -- Vol. 45, No. 5, Whole Number 2443

    From Evelyn C. Leeper@evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sun Aug 2 09:09:27 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    THE MT VOID
    07/31/26 -- Vol. 45, No. 5, Whole Number 2443

    Editor: Evelyn Leeper, evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
    All material is the opinion of the author and is copyrighted by
    the author unless otherwise noted.
    All comments sent or posted will be assumed authorized for
    inclusion unless otherwise noted.

    To subscribe or unsubscribe, send mail to
    evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com
    The latest issue is at <http://www.leepers.us/mtvoid/latest.htm>.
    An index with links to the issues of the MT VOID since 1986 is at <http://leepers.us/mtvoid/back_issues.htm>.

    Topics:
    Middletown (NJ) Public Library Science Fiction Discussion
    Group
    Picks for Turner Classic Movies in August (comments
    by Evelyn C. Leeper)
    MOBY DICK (1930) (film comments by Mark R. Leeper)
    A DROP OF CORRUPTION by Robert Jackson Bennett
    (audio book review by Joe Karpierz)
    How Seriously Should We Take UFO Sightings? (pointer
    by Taras Wolansky)
    Can Giant Space Mirrors Boost Green Energy on Earth?
    (pointer by Taras Wolansky)
    This Week's Reading ("Masterpieces of Short Fiction",
    Part 2) (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: Middletown (NJ) Public Library Science Fiction Discussion
    Group

    Aug 6: 2010: THE YEAR WE MAKE CONTACT (1984) & novel
    2010: ODYSSEY TWO by Arthur C. Clarke
    <https://archive.org/details/2010odyss00clar/page/n5/mode/2up>

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: Picks for Turner Classic Movies in August (comments by
    Evelyn C. Leeper)

    For those who think the new film THE ODYSSEY is inaccurate to its
    source, TCM Is running the 1930 MOBY DICK. Mark's review from the
    01/03/1992 issue of the MT VOID is included below; it's a classic.

    MOBY DICK (1930), Wednesday, August 5, 9:00 AM

    August is also when TCM features a different star every day. For
    example, they are running ten Steve McQueen films starting at 8:15
    AM August 8:
    8:15 AM The Getaway (1972)
    10:30 AM Nevada Smith (1966)
    12:45 PM The Magnificent Seven (1960)
    3:00 PM The Great Escape (1963)
    6:00 PM The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)
    8:00 PM The Blob (1958)
    9:30 PM Bullitt (1968)
    11:30 PM Papillon (1973)
    2:15 AM The Cincinnati Kid (1965)
    4:15 AM Soldier in the Rain (1963)

    And there are *fifteen* Groucho Marx films starting at 6:00 AM
    August 12! (Well, Groucho's films were shorter.)

    SATAN MET A LADY is the second version of THE MALTESE FALCON by
    Dashiell Hammett. The 1941 version with Humphrey Bogart was the
    third. (There was also a 1931 version titled THE MALTESE FALCON.)

    [SATAN MET A LADY (1936), Thursday, August 27, 10:30 AM]

    Other films of interest:

    THURSDAY, August 6
    12:00 AM Suspiria (1977)
    2:00 AM House of Dark Shadows (1970)

    FRIDAY, August 7
    1:45 AM Sleeper (1973)

    SATURDAY, August 8
    12:00 AM Tower of London (1939)

    SUNDAY, August 9
    12:00 PM The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947)
    2:00 PM Dragonwyck (1946)
    6:00 PM Heaven Can Wait (1943)

    TUESDAY, August 11
    4:00 AM The Power (1968)

    THURSDAY, August 13
    4:15 AM The Story of Mankind (1957)

    FRIDAY, August 21
    3:15 PM Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955)

    MONDAY, August 24
    6:00 PM Brainstorm (1965)

    WEDNESDAY, August 26
    6:00 PM Bell Book and Candle (1958)

    THURSDAY, August 27
    10:30 AM Satan Met a Lady (1936)

    FRIDAY, August 28
    2:15 PM Soylent Green (1973)
    4:15 AM Alligator II: The Mutation (1991)

    SUNDAY, August 30
    4:45 AM The Most Dangerous Game (1932)

    MONDAY, August 31
    3:30 PM Seven Days in May (1964)

    [-ecl]

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: MOBY DICK (1930) (film comments by Mark R. Leeper)

    [This originally ran in the 01/03/1992 issue of the MT VOID.]

    What follows is a true and accurate synopsis of the 1930 film MOBY
    DICK, starring John Barrymore (as Ahab) and Joan Bennett. Noble
    Johnson plays Queequeg. It is based on Herman Melville's classic
    of men and the sea.

    The film opens with the camera moving in for a look at the book
    Moby Dick, or The White Whale. The novel begins, "There never was,
    nor ever will be, a braver life than the life of the whaler.
    Compared to the game they hunted the mightiest land beast was but
    a poodle dog." [Boy, that Melville! He sure can write!]

    Fade to the harbor of the New Bedford seaport. The Mary Anne is
    pulling into harbor; all eyes are on the callow young seaman doing
    acrobatics on top of the mast. Why, it's handsome young Ahab
    showing off again! Ahab comes ashore and flirts with some of the
    girls and hilariously insults others. ("If they cut into you
    they'd certainly get plenty of blubber.") Ahab sees his brother
    Derek escorting a new girl in town--Faith, the parson's daughter--
    to church. Ahab is struck with Faith's beauty but decides to go to
    the grog shop instead of church. There Ahab meets Queequeg, a
    primitive man who carries an idol he talks to. Queequeg becomes
    Ahab's sidekick. Eventually Ahab does go to church and flirts with
    Faith.

    Before long Faith is losing interest in Derek's courting because,
    like all the girls, she is intrigued by the handsome Ahab. As Ahab
    is setting sail again Faith tells him that it is he, not Derek,
    that she loves. They agree to marry when Ahab returns. Ahab and
    the Mary Anne are at sea when Ahab sights Moby Dick, the black
    whale with a white hump and forehead. [This allows the use of
    stock footage.] As Ahab and his cronies chase the whale in the
    long boat, Ahab takes one risk too many. The whale turns on Ahab
    and bites him. Ahab loses a leg and it is replaced by a peg.

    When Faith sees Ahab is returning she is overjoyed. But when she
    sees the peg leg she is momentarily shocked and runs away. Weeks
    later, we see Ahab unable to get work as a whaler. Faith asks
    Derek to tell Ahab that she still loves Ahab. Derek twists the
    message so Ahab thinks Faith does not really love him. Derek then
    tells Faith that Ahab has cursed her.

    Ahab goes to sea for seven years, but not as a whaler. Faith
    realizes too late that she should not have trusted Derek. Eagerly
    she awaits Ahab's return. Eventually Ahab manages to buy his own
    whaling ship, the Shanghai Lady. He sails it back to New Bedford
    to get a crew to go after Moby Dick.

    [It should be noted that we are now fifty minutes into a
    seventy-five-minute movie and are ready to start telling
    Melville's story.

    Melville tells only the last third of the story, which, of course,
    is why Moby Dick is such a thin book.]

    Ahab is unable to get a crew so must shanghai one from the
    brothels and grog shops. The meaner and nastier the crew, the
    better, he decided since he really wants revenge on Moby Dick.
    Once at sea, however, the shanghaied crew is surly and
    unmanageable. They are cutthroats one and all. There is one
    exception. It is Derek who was shanghaied onto the Shanghai Lady
    with the rest. Derek finds out his brother Ahab is the captain,
    but the mates don't believe it and will not let him see Ahab.

    During a storm Derek decides to break out of the hold to confront
    Ahab. The rest of the crew take this opportunity to mutiny. With
    storm and mutiny raging, Derek finds Ahab at the wheel and accuses
    him of intentionally shanghaiing him. The two fight and Ahab is
    winning when Derek throws a knife into Ahab's back.
    Queequeg--Ahab's old friend--picks up Derek and breaks his back.
    There is no explanation about what happened to the mutiny, but it
    seems to have ended by the next scene.

    Fair weather returns, but Ahab is depressed. He decides Moby Dick
    has beaten him. "He's licked me, Mr. Stubbs," he says. Just then
    Moby Dick is sighted. The longboats hit the water. Moby Dick turns
    on Ahab's longboat but Ahab swims to the whale and, demoniacally
    laughing, repeatedly stabs the whale with a harpoon. Moby Dick
    dies. We last see pieces of Moby Dick being cut up on the deck of
    the Shanghai Lady.

    Ahab and the Shanghai Lady return to New Bedford. There Ahab
    discovers that Faith has waited for him. The two fall into each
    other's arms.

    Boy, that Herman Melville! He sure can write! [-mrl]

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: A DROP OF CORRUPTION by Robert Jackson Bennett (copyright
    2025, Random House Audio, 15 hours and 51 minutes, ASIN:
    B0D5Z15LZ7, narrated by Andrew Fallaize; copyright 2025, Del Rey,
    480pp, paperback, ISBN-10: 0593723848, ISBN-13: 978-0593723845)
    (audio book review by Joe Karpierz)

    A DROP OF CORRUPTION is the second novel in Robert Jackson
    Bennett's "Shadow of the Leviathan" series, with the third and
    currently final book in the series to be published in early August
    of 2026. THE TAINTED CUP, the first novel in the series, netted
    Bennett the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 2025. It is not
    inconceivable that A DROP OF CORRUPTION will win that award in
    2026. While I did enjoy THE TAINTED CUP quite a bit, given my TBR
    pile and my preference for science fiction over fantasy (although
    Cup did blur the lines between the two), I was not planning on
    reading the follow up. Then the Hugo finalists for 2026 were
    announced, and well, here we are. And I'm glad of it.

    Anagosa (Ana) Dolabra and Dinios (Din) Kol once again take center
    stage, this time in the investigation of the death of a treasury
    official named Sujedo, a servant of the Empire, which Ana and Din
    represent. The Empire and the Kingdom of Yarrow have a fraught and
    antagonistic relationship. Yarrow is not part of the Empire, but
    due to an agreement forged many years prior to the story will
    become part of the Empire shortly. In fact, many members of the
    Empire's Treasury are in Yarrow for one of their periodic meetings
    to discuss the eventual merger--although that's really not the
    right word, as Yarrow will become part of the Empire. In any
    event, Sujedo is killed inside a room that was locked from the
    inside. Actually, the word killed is a little mild and not as
    descriptive as what really happened, but it's better if I spare
    the reader the details. And thus, the investigation begins, and as
    usual Ana and Din are hip deep in the mystery. And as you might
    expect, what starts out as a murder investigation turns into
    something significantly more complex than the reader might imagine.

    Again, Yarrow is at odds with the Empire, and the current crop of
    leaders, including the King of Yarrow himself, don't actually want
    to be annexed (yeah, that's a better word) by the Empire. At the
    center of the more complex plot is the Shroud, a laboratory
    floating in the Bay of Yarrow which is central to the Empire's
    research into creatures called the Leviathans (introduced in the
    first book) as well as uses for the blood of the Leviathans, which
    among other things contributes to the potions that result in the
    creation of Sublimes. Sublimes (if you remember from THE TAINTED
    CUP) have different abilities that are useful to the Empire, such
    as perfect memory, which is Din's specialty (I do like the name
    for this ability: Engraver. It just seems to fit quite nicely.)

    What starts out as a locked room (well, yes, but not the way we
    normally think about it) mystery morphs into a very twisted and
    tricky investigation into familial and governmental politics
    (yeah, I know that's obvious, but upon reading the book what I'm
    saying will probably explain it a lot better than I can), almost
    cult-like groups, intrigue, multiple deaths and, well you get the
    idea. Along the way Ana and Din perform the same kind of wizardry
    (not with actual magic, mind you) they did in THE TAINTED CUP to
    solve the much larger issue that they've found themselves involved
    in.

    Aside from the terrifically told story, Bennett expands the scope
    of information he supplies to the reader about the world of these
    stories. We learn more about the structure of the government of
    the Empire, the source of the powers of the Sublime, and the
    relationship between Ana and Din. If you squint really hard (okay,
    not so hard), you can see Ana's growing fondness for Din, and
    Din's loyalty to both Ana and the Empire. I found myself liking
    the two characters more as the story went on.

    The story, as with THE TAINTED CUP, was well written and fun to
    listen to, which brings me to my next point. As I've mentioned
    elsewhere, my reading generally consists of listening to audio
    books. Thus, my impression of the novels I listened to is heavily
    influenced by the narrator and how they approach and read the
    material. A DROP OF CORRUPTION is narrated by Andrew Fallaize, who
    is also the narrator of THE TAINTED CUP. Fallaize does a terrific
    job, and I especially like his portrayal of Ana. A good narrator
    can go a long way in influencing the listener, and in the case of
    the first two books of the "Shadow of the Leviathan" series, is
    actually going to make me go and get the audio book of the third
    book in the series, A TRADE OF BLOOD. For someone who doesn't
    intentionally read fantasy very often, this is saying something. A
    DROP OF CORRUPTION is an excellent book, and worthy of its status
    as a finalist for the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 2026. [-jak]

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: How Seriously Should We Take UFO Sightings? (pointer by
    Taras Wolansky)

    Article begins:

    On a recent Monday afternoon, Columbia astrophysicist David
    Kipping was strolling through the quiet streets of Tunbridge
    Wells, a town thirty miles southeast of London, when his phone
    rang. The caller was a journalist seeking his thoughts on the new
    Steven Spielberg film Disclosure Day. The sci-fi thriller,
    starring Emily Blunt and Colin Firth, will serve for many viewers
    as a primer on modern UFO mythology, with flying saucers crashing
    down in the American Southwest, US military personnel swooping in
    to sequester the spaceships and their egg-headed crew members, and
    Men in Black-!-style agents fanning out to silence anyone with
    knowledge of the visitation. Kipping, a Cambridge-educated Brit
    who is spending the summer writing a book about the search for
    extraterrestrial life, let out an audible sigh when he heard the
    question. "I'm a bit disappointed it's coming out," he admitted.
    "I'm afraid it may hoodwink people, and lead them down the wrong
    path."

    Full article at:

    <https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/ how-seriously-should-we-take-ufo-sightings>

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: Can Giant Space Mirrors Boost Green Energy on Earth?
    (pointer by Taras Wolansky)

    [Or will they just mess up astronomers' work and the biological
    clocks of all living beings in the target areas? -ecl]

    Full article at:

    <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-02218-9>

    ===================================================================

    TOPIC: This Week's Reading (book comments by Evelyn C. Leeper)

    Finishing the comments on the stories in "Masterpieces of Short
    Fiction"...

    13. "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson: I find that there is little
    I can add to the vast amount that has been written about this
    story, other than observing what I'm sure other have noted: this
    seems to be a major inspiration for the premise of THE HUNGER
    GAMES.

    14. "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Connor: This is in
    some way a monster story--with the grandmother as the monster. She
    brings the cat in a basket, which is the cause of their accident.
    She insists they go down a dirt road to see some mansion she
    remembers, and convinces them by lying and saying there is silver
    hidden behind a panel since the Civil War (except she later
    realizes that the mansion was not here but in Tennessee, so it's
    the wrong road anyway).

    After the accident she is the one who flags down the car with the
    three escapees, and then admits she recognizes them (and even they
    say it would have bene better if she hadn't).

    By this point, it seems pretty clear that if the grandmother
    wasn't totally senile before, She doesn't seem to recognize
    Bailey's shirt or the pistol shots, or realize what they mean. She
    reminds me (and others) of Amanda Wingfield, the mother in THE
    GLASS MENAGERIE, totally out of touch with the present reality,
    even to the extent of similarly talking about being courted by a
    gentleman when she was a "maiden lady" (though she doesn't use the
    term "gentlemen callers").

    Ironically, the first thing O'Connor describes the grandmother as
    doing--trying to get the trip changed from Florida to
    Tennessee--is one of the two "good things" she does, or tries to
    do--she fails. (She also keeps the children from throwing the
    trash out the car window.)

    15."An Interest in Life" by Grace Paley: This has made so little
    impression on me that I cannot recall enough to be able to write
    about it. Even looking up the plot brings no recollection.

    16. "A Very Old Man with Enormous Wings" by Gabriel Garcia
    Marquez: Krasny talks about how the woman who is turned into a
    spider, but with "the head of a sad maiden", and how Marquez is
    making a pun on "maidenhead", e.g., she retains her virginity.
    This would be more convincing if it were not for the fact that
    Garcia Marquez wrote in Spanish, which does not have the same
    "constructed word". The Spanish reads, "Era una tarantula
    espantosa del tamano de un carnero y con la cabeza de una doncella
    triste," which is a straightforward, non-punning description of
    someone with the head of a young girl. One is reminded of the
    translation of Isaiah 7:14, where the Hebrew "almah" means "young
    woman" but the Septuagint translates it as "virgin". (Well,
    actually "parthenos", since it was a translation into Greek.)
    There is a word for "virgin" in Hebrew, "bethulah", but that was
    not the word used.

    This may be an intentional pun inserted by translator Gregory
    Rabassa. Or it may be just Krasny's desire to find puns where none
    exist. (He also claims that the miracle given the paralyzed man is
    that he doesn't get the use of his legs back, but that he wins the
    lottery; however, Garcia Marquez says that he "didn't get to walk,
    but almost won the lottery" ("que no pudo andar pero estuvo a
    punto de ganarse la loteria")).

    In terms of the elements of magical realism, Krasny notes that
    this bears not a little resemblance to Franz Kafka's METAMORPHOSIS
    (and also to "A Hunger Artist", though more because of the
    setting), and perhaps even Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" in its
    invoking of the fantastical, or at least the mostly unbelievable.
    The willing suspension of disbelief is definitely at work, though
    in various degrees. (I remember trying to explain the willing
    suspension of disbelief to my niece when we were reading a book
    about horses with wings. I think she was about six at the time.)

    17. "The Jewbird" by Bernard Malamud: Birds (or at least winged
    creatures) seem to recur in fantasy stories: Poe's raven, Garcia
    Marquez's very old man with enormous wings, and now Malamud's
    Jewbird. Both Garcia Marquez's old man and Malamud's Jewbird are
    pitiful creatures, with bedraggled wings, in need of food,
    shelter, and aid.

    18. "Sonny's Blues" by James Baldwin: At this point, it became
    harder to find the stories. This was not because they were more
    obscure, but because unlike the early stories, these were still
    under copyright, and unlike the Garcia Marquez and the Malamud, I
    could not easily put my hands on them in my collection. And the
    Garcia Marquez and the Malamud were fantasy, meaning I could look
    up in the ISFDb where they had been anthologized. On the other
    hand, for "mainstream" stories there is no easy way to do this.
    Back in the day, there was a set of books where one could look up
    where stories were anthologized, but "the day" was over fifty
    years ago, when the number of short stories, and of collections
    and anthologies, was much smaller than now.

    "Sonny's Blues" was relatively easy to find, because Wikipedia
    said which Baldwin collection it first appeared in, and that
    collection was available through inter-library loan (although not
    in my library).

    Of course, none of this has anything to do with "Sonny's Blues",
    but frankly, I have no specific comments on it. This does not mean
    it's not an important story; it just means I had no specific
    response.

    19: "A&P" by John Updike: Readers of the future (or even the
    present) will presumably figure out that the A&P of the story is a
    grocery store, though as a title that is never referenced in the
    story, it could stand for just about anything. Updike wrote the
    story in 1961, when the chain was just over a hundred years old;
    it lasted a little over another fifty, finally going out of
    business in 2015. Will readers in another twenty years recognize
    "A&P" as a store name? (For that matter, will they recognize that
    the bathing suits being described were considered inappropriate
    off the beach then? Certainly going into a store now with your
    shoulders exposed is not anything that makes people grab their
    pearls.)

    I have to say that Updike's style doesn't appeal to me. He seems
    to love repeating words (or syllables). In the following passage,
    he repeats "round" three times in the first two short sentences,
    and "heels" twice in the third, longer one:

    "She kind of led them, the other two peeking around and making
    their shoulders round. She didn't look around, not this queen, she
    just walked straight on slowly, on these long white prima donna
    legs. She came down a little hard on her heels, as if she didn't
    walk in her bare feet that much, putting down her heels and then
    letting the weight move along to her toes as if she was testing
    the floor with every step, putting a little deliberate extra
    action into it."

    Updike does do something that Stephen King may have picked up from
    him; he mentions specific brands (HiHo crackers, Diet Delight
    peaches, Kingfish herring, a Falcon station wagon, and of course,
    A&P itself) to make the story more "real".

    20. "No Name Woman" by Maxine Hong Kingston: Some stories just
    don't generate any special comments from me; this is one of them.

    21. "Happy Endings" by Margaret Atwood: Krasny says about this
    story that Atwood is breaking down the third wall. Actually, it's
    the fourth wall (unless you have a triangular stage).

    Atwood claims that all plots lead to death. Well, this may not
    always be true in science fiction or fantasy, but Atwood wrote
    this before she didn't write science fiction, or rather before she
    wrote science fiction but didn't realize it. (I think she's come
    to terms with the field now.)

    Interestingly, what Atwood has written here could be thought of as
    a form of science fiction--a pseudo-alternate history--in which
    she starts with two characters and then spins out different
    timelines for them.

    22. "The Moment Before the Gun Went Off" by Nadine Gordimer: It is
    hard to discuss this without spoilers, but I'll give it a shot.
    (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.)

    The story is told from the point of view of a friend of the main
    character, so there's a lot left unsaid. We don't find out how
    much any other characters know: not Lucas, not Lucas's mother, not
    Alida Van der Vyer's, not Van der Vyer's little son, not even
    Marais Van der Vyer himself. And there is much we don't know
    either--what is the true back story, what are the true feelings?
    And is the narrator an unreliable narrator?

    23. "Cathedral" by Raymond Carver: Again, no special thoughts. As
    Angelica says in JOE VS. THE VOLCANO, "I have no response to that."

    24. Why Short Fiction Masterpieces?: That's easy--because they
    don't take forever to read!

    [-ecl]

    ===================================================================

    Evelyn C. Leeper
    evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com


    Oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice
    to deceive.
    So if deception doth attract us we must have a lot
    of practice.
    --Mark R. Leeper
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sun Aug 2 15:46:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/2/26 9:09 AM, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:

    TOPIC: MOBY DICK (1930) (film comments by Mark R. Leeper)

    [This originally ran in the 01/03/1992 issue of the MT VOID.]

    What follows is a true and accurate synopsis of the 1930 film MOBY
    DICK, starring John Barrymore (as Ahab) and Joan Bennett. Noble
    Johnson plays Queequeg. It is based on Herman Melville's classic
    of men and the sea.

    I'd never heard of this Moby Dick before. I can see why.

    Recently a Leslie Fish video about Moby Dick called my attention to the version with Patrick Stewart. It's on YouTube. I've only watched about
    fifteen minutes of it so far, since I plan to watch it with a friend in
    the near future, but it looks well-done and close to the book.

    (Trivia question: Which Star Trek character quoted Ahab's last words?)

    By the way, the New Bedford Whaling Museum's souvenir shop has an entire bookcase full of various editions of and commentaries on Moby Dick. I recommend visiting it if you're in the area.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 02:10:32 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:09:27 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:

    The sci-fi thriller, starring Emily Blunt and Colin Firth, will
    serve for many viewers as a primer on modern UFO mythology, with
    flying saucers crashing down in the American Southwest, US military
    personnel swooping in to sequester the spaceships and their
    egg-headed crew members, and Men in Black-!-style agents fanning out
    to silence anyone with knowledge of the visitation.

    How could such a myth coexist in the same minds of a nation where it
    is taken as a given that the Government is inherently incompetent and
    will always make a hash of things, without private help?
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Keith F. Lynch@kfl@KeithLynch.net to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 02:26:33 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
    The sci-fi thriller, starring Emily Blunt and Colin Firth, will
    serve for many viewers as a primer on modern UFO mythology, with
    flying saucers crashing down in the American Southwest, US military
    personnel swooping in to sequester the spaceships and their
    egg-headed crew members, and Men in Black-!-style agents fanning
    out to silence anyone with knowledge of the visitation.

    How could such a myth coexist in the same minds of a nation where it
    is taken as a given that the Government is inherently incompetent
    and will always make a hash of things, without private help?

    Well, according to mainstream UFO mythology, men in black and UFOs
    coexist with widespread public knowledge of men in black and UFOs.
    So the men in black are obviously not competent at keeping themselves
    or UFOs secret.

    Why, I hear they've even made multiple Hollywood movies about both
    phenomena!

    Or maybe that's just intended to make us think the concepts of men in
    black and UFOs are completely ridiculous. Thus everyone will ignore
    the risk until we learn too late that aliens are real, that they are
    here To Serve Man, and that it's a cookbook.

    Or maybe aliens aren't real, but are faked by AIs in order to distract
    us from the real threat, Terminators.
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
    Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From djheydt@djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 02:41:51 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    In article <114otao$usid$2@dont-email.me>,
    Lawrence D Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:09:27 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:

    The sci-fi thriller, starring Emily Blunt and Colin Firth, will
    serve for many viewers as a primer on modern UFO mythology, with
    flying saucers crashing down in the American Southwest, US military
    personnel swooping in to sequester the spaceships and their
    egg-headed crew members, and Men in Black-!-style agents fanning out
    to silence anyone with knowledge of the visitation.

    How could such a myth coexist in the same minds of a nation where it
    is taken as a given that the Government is inherently incompetent and
    will always make a hash of things, without private help?

    [Hal Heydt]
    You are expecting consistency and rational thought from people
    who believe conspiracy theories? Wanna buy a bridge I happen to
    have for sale?
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Keith F. Lynch@kfl@KeithLynch.net to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 02:51:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
    [Hal Heydt]
    You are expecting consistency and rational thought from people who
    believe conspiracy theories?

    You believe that all conspiracy theories are false? If so, then why
    is "conspiracy" a crime? And why have many people been convicted of
    that crime?
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
    Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Charles Packer@mailbox@cpacker.org to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 07:52:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:09:27 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:

    TOPIC: How Seriously Should We Take UFO Sightings? (pointer by Taras Wolansky)

    Article begins:

    On a recent Monday afternoon, Columbia astrophysicist David Kipping was strolling through the quiet streets of Tunbridge Wells, a town thirty
    miles southeast of London, when his phone rang. The caller was a
    journalist seeking his thoughts on the new Steven Spielberg film
    Disclosure Day. The sci-fi thriller, starring Emily Blunt and Colin
    Firth, will serve for many viewers as a primer on modern UFO mythology,
    with flying saucers crashing down in the American Southwest, US military personnel swooping in to sequester the spaceships and their egg-headed
    crew members, and Men in Black-!-style agents fanning out to silence
    anyone with knowledge of the visitation. Kipping, a Cambridge-educated
    Brit who is spending the summer writing a book about the search for extraterrestrial life, let out an audible sigh when he heard the


    It amused me to discover that in 1947 the second person to witness
    a flying saucer was named Byron Savage. He was quoted as affirming
    the veracity of the story by the first person to witness one,
    Kenneth Arnold. Both names, of course, allude to British poets.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 05:31:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/2/26 10:51 PM, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
    Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
    [Hal Heydt]
    You are expecting consistency and rational thought from people who
    believe conspiracy theories?

    You believe that all conspiracy theories are false? If so, then why
    is "conspiracy" a crime? And why have many people been convicted of
    that crime?

    The definition of "conspiracy theory," in practice, is a theory which
    one considers ridiculous. No conspiracy is required; some conspiracy
    theories involve one person conspiring alone. It directly follows that
    anyone who believes a "conspiracy theory" is irrational. If it turns out
    to be true, then it wasn't a conspiracy theory.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 05:35:11 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/2/26 10:10 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 09:09:27 -0400, Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:

    The sci-fi thriller, starring Emily Blunt and Colin Firth, will
    serve for many viewers as a primer on modern UFO mythology, with
    flying saucers crashing down in the American Southwest, US military
    personnel swooping in to sequester the spaceships and their
    egg-headed crew members, and Men in Black-!-style agents fanning out
    to silence anyone with knowledge of the visitation.

    How could such a myth coexist in the same minds of a nation where it
    is taken as a given that the Government is inherently incompetent and
    will always make a hash of things, without private help?

    It would hardly be a unique case. Politicians make a living claiming
    they can solve all our problems, and their record of failure at most
    convinces people that they just picked the wrong politicians.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Keith F. Lynch@kfl@KeithLynch.net to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 11:33:13 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    Gary McGath <garym@mcgath.com> wrote:
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    How could such a myth coexist in the same minds of a nation
    where it is taken as a given that the Government is inherently
    incompetent and will always make a hash of things, without private
    help?

    It would hardly be a unique case. Politicians make a living
    claiming they can solve all our problems, and their record of
    failure at most convinces people that they just picked the wrong
    politicians.

    Nearly every American agrees that the two major political parties
    consist of devils and angels, and the only reason we're not living in
    Utopia is because half the time the devils are elected. When things
    go wrong when the angels are in power, that's entirely due to the
    previous administration, not the current one. The only disagreement
    is over which party is which.

    My Modest Proposal is that we flip a coin to decide which party will
    rule for the next 20 years. That party is then put in charge, and
    the other party is suspended for the duration. If they fail to bring
    Utopia, then we permanently abolish that party and put the other party
    in charge for the next 20 years. If they too fail to bring Utopia,
    then we permanently abolish that party, too.
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
    Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 23:43:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:

    Nearly every American agrees that the two major political parties
    consist of devils and angels, and the only reason we're not living
    in Utopia is because half the time the devils are elected.

    Is there this automatic assumption that the USA is best at everything,
    so if it sucks at something, nobody else could possibly be doing it
    better?

    I ask because if you want examples of free, democratic, secular
    societies that operate according to the rule of law, respect freedom
    of the press, political independence of the judiciary and electoral
    system and so on, there are many better ones to look at outside the
    USA.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Mon Aug 3 20:10:27 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/3/26 7:43 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:

    Nearly every American agrees that the two major political parties
    consist of devils and angels, and the only reason we're not living
    in Utopia is because half the time the devils are elected.

    Is there this automatic assumption that the USA is best at everything,
    so if it sucks at something, nobody else could possibly be doing it
    better?

    I ask because if you want examples of free, democratic, secular
    societies that operate according to the rule of law, respect freedom
    of the press, political independence of the judiciary and electoral
    system and so on, there are many better ones to look at outside the
    USA.

    It seems more like an automatic assumption by lots of little factions
    within the USA that they're the best at everything and everyone else sucks.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Charles Packer@mailbox@cpacker.org to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Tue Aug 4 07:45:47 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:43:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:

    Nearly every American agrees that the two major political parties
    consist of devils and angels, and the only reason we're not living in
    Utopia is because half the time the devils are elected.

    Is there this automatic assumption that the USA is best at everything,
    so if it sucks at something, nobody else could possibly be doing it
    better?

    I ask because if you want examples of free, democratic, secular
    societies that operate according to the rule of law, respect freedom of
    the press, political independence of the judiciary and electoral system
    and so on, there are many better ones to look at outside the USA.

    How do these others "respect freedom of the press" exactly?
    That is, where is it established in their basic law?
    I would bet that no other nation so far has made press freedom as
    explicit as has the U.S.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Tue Aug 4 08:25:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 07:45:47 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:43:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:

    Nearly every American agrees that the two major political parties
    consist of devils and angels, and the only reason we're not living
    in Utopia is because half the time the devils are elected.

    Is there this automatic assumption that the USA is best at
    everything, so if it sucks at something, nobody else could possibly
    be doing it better?

    I ask because if you want examples of free, democratic, secular
    societies that operate according to the rule of law, respect
    freedom of the press, political independence of the judiciary and
    electoral system and so on, there are many better ones to look at
    outside the USA.

    How do these others "respect freedom of the press" exactly? That is,
    where is it established in their basic law? I would bet that no
    other nation so far has made press freedom as explicit as has the
    U.S.

    Your much-vaunted rCLFirst AmendmentrCY doesnrCOt seem to translate in
    practice to much in the way of freedom of the press.

    Censorship doesnrCOt have to be based on explicit legal regulation
    (though the present US regime definitely wants to move in that
    direction).
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Tue Aug 4 05:50:47 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/4/26 4:25 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    How do these others "respect freedom of the press" exactly? That is,
    where is it established in their basic law? I would bet that no
    other nation so far has made press freedom as explicit as has the
    U.S.

    Your much-vaunted rCLFirst AmendmentrCY doesnrCOt seem to translate in practice to much in the way of freedom of the press.

    Censorship doesnrCOt have to be based on explicit legal regulation
    (though the present US regime definitely wants to move in that
    direction).

    You need to look at more than the headlines. Yes, US leaders (not just
    the present ones) have engaged in blatant intimidation of news media.
    However, the courts have (so far) held firm in upholding press freedom.

    Compare that with some other countries. In the UK, people have been
    arrested for saying that pro-Palestinian groups should have the freedom
    to protest. In Quebec, it's illegal to hold group prayers in public.
    Germany arrested a comedian for making fun of Erdogan, and the case got national attention before the charges were dropped. I don't have to get
    into specifics about Iran, India, or China.

    There's no use imagining most of the world lives up to an ideal of
    perfect freedom in order to criticize the assaults by any particular
    country.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Tue Aug 4 23:03:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 05:50:47 -0400, Gary McGath wrote:

    On 8/4/26 4:25 AM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    How do these others "respect freedom of the press" exactly? That
    is, where is it established in their basic law? I would bet that
    no other nation so far has made press freedom as explicit as has
    the U.S.

    Your much-vaunted rCLFirst AmendmentrCY doesnrCOt seem to translate in
    practice to much in the way of freedom of the press.

    Censorship doesnrCOt have to be based on explicit legal regulation
    (though the present US regime definitely wants to move in that
    direction).

    You need to look at more than the headlines. Yes, US leaders (not
    just the present ones) have engaged in blatant intimidation of news
    media. However, the courts have (so far) held firm in upholding
    press freedom.

    The other point with that is that in the US you donrCOt have a tradition
    of political independence of the judiciary. This allows the Government
    to shop around until they find a suitably pliant judge who will rule
    their way.

    Compare that with some other countries. In the UK, people have been
    arrested for saying that pro-Palestinian groups should have the freedom
    to protest.

    And in the US, people have been arrested and deported for saying the
    same sort of thing. Students have been expelled from University -- or
    allowed to continue their studies, but only under strict conditions
    which involve shutting up.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Cryptoengineer@petertrei@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Tue Aug 4 23:24:17 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/4/2026 3:45 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:43:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:

    Nearly every American agrees that the two major political parties
    consist of devils and angels, and the only reason we're not living in
    Utopia is because half the time the devils are elected.

    Is there this automatic assumption that the USA is best at everything,
    so if it sucks at something, nobody else could possibly be doing it
    better?

    I ask because if you want examples of free, democratic, secular
    societies that operate according to the rule of law, respect freedom of
    the press, political independence of the judiciary and electoral system
    and so on, there are many better ones to look at outside the USA.

    How do these others "respect freedom of the press" exactly?
    That is, where is it established in their basic law?
    I would bet that no other nation so far has made press freedom as
    explicit as has the U.S.

    There's a difference between having something 'written into basic law',
    and actually exercising it.

    You might find this interesting:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index

    The US isn't at the top.

    pt
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Charles Packer@mailbox@cpacker.org to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Wed Aug 5 07:51:12 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 23:24:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:

    On 8/4/2026 3:45 AM, Charles Packer wrote:
    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:43:43 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:33:13 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:

    Nearly every American agrees that the two major political parties
    consist of devils and angels, and the only reason we're not living in
    Utopia is because half the time the devils are elected.

    Is there this automatic assumption that the USA is best at everything,
    so if it sucks at something, nobody else could possibly be doing it
    better?

    I ask because if you want examples of free, democratic, secular
    societies that operate according to the rule of law, respect freedom
    of the press, political independence of the judiciary and electoral
    system and so on, there are many better ones to look at outside the
    USA.

    How do these others "respect freedom of the press" exactly?
    That is, where is it established in their basic law?
    I would bet that no other nation so far has made press freedom as
    explicit as has the U.S.

    There's a difference between having something 'written into basic law',
    and actually exercising it.

    You might find this interesting:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index

    The US isn't at the top.

    pt

    The problem with this index is that it factors in extralegal
    variables. If an American spits in the face of a reporter
    (possible) that's weighted along with whether a reporter is
    jailed in America (impossible, or at least not for long).
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu Aug 6 00:06:27 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 05:50:47 -0400, Gary McGath wrote:

    Compare that with some other countries. In the UK, people have been
    arrested for saying that pro-Palestinian groups should have the
    freedom to protest.

    Apropos the UK, here <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/5/uk-tribunal-confirms-professors-anti-zionism-is-legally-protected-belief>
    is an interesting case: an employment tribunal has ruled that being
    against Zionism is a rCLlegally-protected beliefrCY under the countryrCOs freedom of speech laws.

    Compare that to what happens in the US to those who try to speak out
    against IsraelrCOs crimes.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Keith F. Lynch@kfl@KeithLynch.net to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu Aug 6 00:36:17 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    Lawrence D\377Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
    Apropos the UK, here <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/5/uk-tribunal-confirms-professors-anti-zionism-is-legally-protected-belief>
    is an interesting case: an employment tribunal has ruled that being
    against Zionism is a \342\200\234legally-protected
    belief\342\200\235 under the country\342\200\231s freedom of speech
    laws.

    Compare that to what happens in the US to those who try to speak out
    against Israel\342\200\231s crimes.

    What happens in the US if you try to speak out against Israel? You
    get elected mayor of New York City.
    --
    Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
    Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Wed Aug 5 21:44:34 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/5/26 8:06 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 05:50:47 -0400, Gary McGath wrote:

    Compare that with some other countries. In the UK, people have been
    arrested for saying that pro-Palestinian groups should have the
    freedom to protest.

    Apropos the UK, here <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/5/uk-tribunal-confirms-professors-anti-zionism-is-legally-protected-belief>
    is an interesting case: an employment tribunal has ruled that being
    against Zionism is a rCLlegally-protected beliefrCY under the countryrCOs freedom of speech laws.

    Compare that to what happens in the US to those who try to speak out
    against IsraelrCOs crimes.

    The difference is that the United States doesn't have a list of "legally protected beliefs" that your words have to be on. It has freedom of
    speech, period.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu Aug 6 03:46:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 00:36:17 -0000 (UTC), Keith F. Lynch wrote:

    What happens in the US if you try to speak out against Israel? You
    get elected mayor of New York City.

    Good for you. Maybe the US can get a bit closer to joining the league
    of free, democratic, secular societies that operate according to the
    rule of law, respect freedom of the press, political independence of
    the judiciary and electoral system and so on.

    Just a few more boxes to tick. ;)
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu Aug 6 03:47:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 07:51:12 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 23:24:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:

    There's a difference between having something 'written into basic
    law', and actually exercising it.

    The problem with this index is that it factors in extralegal
    variables.

    IsnrCOt that the very point Cryptoengineer was trying to make?
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Charles Packer@mailbox@cpacker.org to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu Aug 6 07:45:57 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 03:47:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 07:51:12 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 23:24:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:

    There's a difference between having something 'written into basic
    law', and actually exercising it.

    The problem with this index is that it factors in extralegal variables.

    IsnrCOt that the very point Cryptoengineer was trying to make?

    He was referring to the cultural moment, not to the legal protectiions
    of freedom of speech, which remain secure.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu Aug 6 08:48:15 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 07:45:57 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 03:47:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 07:51:12 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 23:24:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:

    There's a difference between having something 'written into basic
    law', and actually exercising it.

    The problem with this index is that it factors in extralegal
    variables.

    IsnrCOt that the very point Cryptoengineer was trying to make?

    He was referring to the cultural moment, not to the legal
    protectiions of freedom of speech, which remain secure.

    Those rCLlegal protectionsrCY donrCOt seem to mean much in practice. That is CryptoengineerrCOs point, and also mine.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Cryptoengineer@petertrei@gmail.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Thu Aug 6 15:10:14 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/5/2026 11:47 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
    On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 07:51:12 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 23:24:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:

    There's a difference between having something 'written into basic
    law', and actually exercising it.

    The problem with this index is that it factors in extralegal
    variables.

    IsnrCOt that the very point Cryptoengineer was trying to make?

    Indeed.

    It's been frequently observed that the 'written into Law'
    Soviet Constitution is a shining example freedom and liberty.

    When the PTB decide 'we're not going to do that, and you
    can't stop us', its meaningless.

    If you're beaten to death extra-legally, you're just as dead
    as if a 'full and fair' trial ordered you shot.

    pt
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Charles Packer@mailbox@cpacker.org to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Fri Aug 7 07:27:19 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 08:48:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 07:45:57 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 03:47:05 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    On Wed, 5 Aug 2026 07:51:12 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Tue, 4 Aug 2026 23:24:17 -0400, Cryptoengineer wrote:

    There's a difference between having something 'written into basic
    law', and actually exercising it.

    The problem with this index is that it factors in extralegal
    variables.

    IsnrCOt that the very point Cryptoengineer was trying to make?

    He was referring to the cultural moment, not to the legal protectiions
    of freedom of speech, which remain secure.

    Those rCLlegal protectionsrCY donrCOt seem to mean much in practice. That is CryptoengineerrCOs point, and also mine.

    You'll have to provide an example. The current administration creates
    the illusion that freedom of speech is being violated. In your case,
    it seems to be working.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?=@ldo@nz.invalid to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Fri Aug 7 08:19:25 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 07:27:19 -0000 (UTC), Charles Packer wrote:

    On Thu, 6 Aug 2026 08:48:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:

    Those rCLlegal protectionsrCY donrCOt seem to mean much in practice. That
    is CryptoengineerrCOs point, and also mine.

    You'll have to provide an example.

    Already done, elsewhere in this thread.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From kludge@kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sat Aug 8 17:33:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
    You'll have to provide an example. The current administration creates
    the illusion that freedom of speech is being violated. In your case,
    it seems to be working.

    But freedom of speech IS being violated, most notably by the current administration. Threatening of peaceful protesters, for example.
    --scott
    --
    "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Gary McGath@garym@mcgath.com to rec.arts.sf.fandom on Sat Aug 8 18:04:01 2026
    From Newsgroup: rec.arts.sf.fandom

    On 8/8/26 5:33 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
    Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
    You'll have to provide an example. The current administration creates
    the illusion that freedom of speech is being violated. In your case,
    it seems to be working.

    But freedom of speech IS being violated, most notably by the current administration. Threatening of peaceful protesters, for example.

    Someone might say it's an "illusion" since people ultimately win in the courts. But the possibility of being arrested or facing made-up charges
    is a powerful chilling effect. And there are the corporations who
    conclude, just as a business decision, that it's cheaper and more
    prudent to give in than to fight.

    Specific examples: Comey being prosecuted for taking a picture of some
    shells. Apple and Google taking down legal apps for tracking ICE because
    of government "jawboning." DHS notifying critics of ICE that their
    perfectly legal statements "may" violate the law.
    --
    Gary McGath http://www.mcgath.com
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2