Bring Me the Head of Pete McCutcheon

[akirlu]

...with a side order of Joel Rosenberg tartare.

liveavatar suggests in the comments thread to this post that those who loved Rasseff That Was might be well served by storming the Bastille and taking the fucker back by sheer numbers. I think that might work, if enough people went at once, and stuck it out long enough, and generated enough group policing fu. But I have no idea how much pent up demand there really is for such an assault. And I'm pretty sure I'm not, just now, the girl to tackle the project if it's going to require a lot of pep rallies and support wrangling. I am just a wee bit overcommitted at the moment, even as things stand. So I am starting a new post to see who all else out there is interested in such a project. Organizational volunteers especially welcome, but a gauge of enthusiasm (depth and breadth) would be good, too.

So, where are y'all at?

Comments

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I re-discovered RASFF around 1995 (I say rediscovered, because back in '87 or so I was reading its parent group, rec.arts.sf-lovers), and I would say it was good then but maybe picked up in tone and group ethos over the next couple of years. David's suggested range of 1998-2001 is a good one, imho.

But much as I like and admire Graydon, he has a writing style that is sufficiently compressed and idiosynchratic that he takes some getting used to, and may be a bit opaque to the uninitiated. Ray Radlein was always good for taking a thread funny. So, was Kip Williams. Patrick Neilsen Hayden was usually a very good filter for interesting conversations, though threads which develop a dynamic of posts ping-ponging back and forth between Patrick and Gary Farber are probably not so worth your time.

Okay, not Graydon

[davidgoldfarb.livejournal.com]

While I miss Graydon a lot, on consideration I think you're exactly right about why he's not a good starting point. As substitutes, perhaps Patrick Nielsen Hayden and you -- with the caveat that PNH had a distinct tendency to go political and if you don't want politics you can abandon his threads when they do.

Re: Okay, not Graydon

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

oooh. I'll just go off and be flattered now, thanks.

Re: Okay, not Graydon

[kate-schaefer.livejournal.com]

Part of the problem is that politics is one of the most interesting things there is for human beings to discuss, and one of the most dull. What could be more important than the principles upon which people organize themselves for work, play, reproduction, food, and housing? What could be less interesting than having one's attention snagged unrelentingly upon some minor detail of those principles? Worse, what could be more dull than to argue about some minor detail of those principles with someone whose own principles or intelligence one does not greatly respect?

I like discussing politics with those with whom I also like discussing books, food, music, childraising, gardening, and what-not. It's difficult for me to discuss politics -- or anything else -- with those who don't charm me in some way. I'm willing to accept that this is a flaw in my character, but not a large flaw, nor an uncommon flaw. In person, I am able to converse for a while with those who don't charm me, and then be done with the interaction without being rude; on line, there is no particular reason for any conversation to end, even if it has long since ceased to have content.

I liked using Alison as a filter, since she never bothers with anyone she finds boring. During my busiest periods as a student, I used anyone I'd known 20 years or more as a filter, since Alison was off being a civil servant and eccentric mother.

On the one hand, I don't think this will work. On the other hand, I've always maintained that the answer to bad speech is more speech. Now, I suppose, the answer is more speech, and build thee more stately killfiles, o my soul.