A crying shame

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bascially

hiccup


you were being the trolling
pest you always are, Fundoc. I have
explained all this for others in the group
before, but some people did not get it,
so here goes again. Let's put it in
simple terms for those who
did not grasp it previously:

Most newsgroup trolls have a
particular schtick they favor. Fundoc's
routine involves his posting his pestiferous
nonsense in groups where (at least
SOME) fairly intelligent people hang
out. Of course, his trolls and flames
are very low quality, and -- as I have
have observed more than once --
are so trite and dull that they might
have been spit out by some sort of
low-grade "flame software." He belongs
in a group like alt.flame, but he knows
he would not stand out there; he would
simply be another pathetic pest that
on one paid attention to. Fundoc
hangs out in groups like misc.writing
and this book collecting forum where
his lowbrow, scurillious comments
stand out for their lack of originality
and taste. He's a pathetic sap, that's
the best that might be said of him.

Fundoc does not write, but he loves
to POST. In fact despite his
thousands of annoyance postings,
I have yet to see evidence that he
knows how to compose a decent
paragraph. When it comes to writing,
Fundoc is a vile wimp of the lowliest
order.

Face it, then. You are not going
to cure whatever malady it is which
seems to have corroded Fundoc's thought
processes -- if they ever existed in
the first place. You are not going
to shame him for his habit of using
respectable forums for his litter box.
Fundoc is far beneath shame. You
might as well be trying to shame a
blowfly or a midge. Essentially,
he is just one of the insect pests
in the newgroup woodwork. Sad.

{Memo from the upstairs office.}

fvndoc wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Bascially

hiccup

Oh, I knew you would try to take the
coward's way out and typo-pounce,
Fundoc. It will do you no good,
though. In fact, your latest "lame"
merely helps demonstate the factuality
of my observations about you as I
presented them in my previous post.
It is difficult to try and rebut reality,
isn't it, Fundoc? So, like the mangy
pseudo-intellectual scarecrow you
are, you typo-pounce. Sad.
...


[Memo from the upstairs office.]

wrote:
Bud Webster wrote:
3. In general, Knight doesn't seem to be heavily collected. He never
really wrote a novel as well-respected as his best short stories.

In fact, a good many science fiction
writers of the past are not, as you say,
"heavily collected." Even regarding the
mass market paperbacks, I see fine copies
which should be considered collectible
remaining on shelves week after week,
sometimes month after month. To be
more specific, I should add that I am
talking aboiut old paperbacks from the
1950's and 1960's, with cover prices
in the 35 cent to 75 cent range, mainly.
Any science fiction paperback in that
range is a collectible, for its cover art if
not for its story. And I am not talking
about store prices being too high for
collectors, either. Most dealers in
this area would charge $3 or $4 for
an Aldiss or a Murray Leinster in the
above category. For instance, I noticed
the wonderful old ACE paperback "Bow
Down to Null" by Aldiss, in great
condition, priced at $3 and sitting on
a shelf for a couple of years! I guess
what it boils down to, is that while
a lot of people will snap up old
Heinleins, E. R. Burroughs, and
Bradburys of the vintage I am talking
about, they will ignore books of the
same vintaghe by Knight, Aldiss,
Leinster, and a great many others.
As paperback collectors of science
fiction, they are incredibly narrow,
in other words. Passing up "Bow
Down to Null" in the Ace F-382
edition, with the striking Schoenherr
orange cover, in fine condition, and
priced at $3.00 is just crazy -- for
anyone who considers himself a
collector of science fiction paperbacks,
I mean.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]

Lawrence Person
Lame Excuse Books
Stock available online at www.tomfolio.com (searched by
www.bookfinder.com), or at:
http://home.austin.rr.com/lperson/lame.html

wrote in message
oups.com...

demonstate

What the devil!?

fvndoc wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

demonstate

What the devil!?

Just as I said, Fundoc is nothing but
a typo-pouncing coward. I've pretty
well got him boxed up now, simply
by explaining his schtick to readers
in most of the groups where he
hangs out and pesters others. But
since he is boxed up, and he knows
it, all he can do is take a feeble little
claw swipe now and then in the form
of a pathetic typo-pounce from a hole
in the dingy, ramshackle carton that
he himself created of his own
dishonesty, laziness and bad thought.
In so doing, of course, he further
exposes himself for what he is. Sad.

[Memo from the upstairs office.]

Bud Webster wrote:
[...]

...this is DAMON KNIGHT we're
talking about here, the author of one of the most famous stories in
the field, the editor of the ORBIT series, an unsurpassed critic,
founder of SFWA, and originator of the Milford Writers' Conferences,
which mutated into the Clarion workshops.

Why was I the only bidder? Why wasn't the minimum bid higher? Why
did I luck out so egregiously? Is Damon Knight *really* forgotten
already, only a few years after his death?

I should have had to fight for this one.

What you seem to miss is the fact
that we could make the same complaint
regarding William Tenn, C. M. Kornbluth,
Cordwainer Smith, Hal Clement, Eric
Frank Russell, and whole heck of a
lot of other science fiction greats.

Since this is the computer age, I am
particularly incensed over the fact that
so many s.f. readers/computer users of
today know nothing about the Dean of
Science Fiction, Murray Leinster. After
all, Leinster/Jenkins wrote the first science
fiction story with a subject which got anywhere
close to a vision of p.c.'s and the net. I refer
to "A Logic Named [or "called"(?)] Joe".
And while of course Leinster could not be
expected to know in the mid-1940's that
his "logics" would be called "p.c."'s and
while he made the error of thinking they
would all be hooked into one centralized data
"tank" rather than using data dispersed through
servers, he was far ahead of his day and
well deserves the title of the all time
Dean of Science Fiction. And yet, these
louts today don't know anything about
"the Dean."

Anyway, Webby, while you are justified
in your rant about Damon Knight being
undeservedly forgetton today, I could
rant about a few dozen others. Yet,
just as you came across the great
bargain you told us about, I might add
that I have picked up a good many old
paperbacks by paying from 25 cents to
a buck or two, editions, I might add,
with great covers by Powers, Freas,
Gaughan, Schoenherr, Ellis, and many
others, simply because the vintage
mass-market paperbacks I refer to
were written by these neglected
science fiction writers of the past.
Ironically, if people were more read
in science fiction, probably many of
those great finds would have been
snapped up before I got to them --
I certainly have not found many 1950's
Asimov, Bradbury, Dick or Heinlein
paperbacks in fine condition lying
around at thrift and library donation
venues, that's for sure...Those are the
authors everyone grabs, while often
missing a lot of other great vintage
paperbacks...

[Memo from the upstairs office.]

wrote in message
oups.com...

Fundoc
him
his
he
he
he
he
he
himself
his
he
himself
he

Hi Blip. I'm surprised you have time to continue humping my leg with all the
entries to the DJ contest coming over the transom. What is it now, one? Good
job. Anyway, as much as I appreciate being stalked, please try and keep
posts on topic in this forum, they're sticklers for that. Perhaps you'll
favor us with an interminable essay about a scary comic book you read
recently or the appraisal of your valuable collection of Richie Rich
coloring books or whatever. As for myself, I'm pretty excited about my own
recent acquisition: a beautiful FE of Orgy Slaves inscribed by Joan Blondell
to Linda Darnell. Rumor has it that those two posed for the cover.

http://www.strangesisters.com/a-z/im...orgyslaves.jpg

Hubba hubba.

Incidentally, I'm directly referenced (he/his/himself) in 12.6 percent of
your post (13 words out of 103). That's pretty impressive, even for somone
as mentally ill as are you. Good job. And thanks for spell checking, it
meant a lot to me.

On Mon, 15 May 2006 13:31:17 GMT, Bud Webster
wrote:

On 15 May 2006 05:50:16 -0700, wrote:


1. Because Pulphouse put out enormous reams of books in their brief,
unwise heyday. (The chapter on them in Chalker & Ownings is a good
cautionary tale of how not to run a small press publisher.) Anyone who
just wanted to read the book could pick up the trade paperback edition,
which is very cheap indeed.
2. Everyone who really wanted a copy has had a chance to pick one up in
th last 15 years or so since it's been published. There are still
plenty of copies on bookfinder, starting at $17.50.
3. In general, Knight doesn't seem to be heavily collected. He never
really wrote a novel as well-respected as his best short stories.

All of which I knew; I guess I was just decrying the state, is all.
It's still a shame.


Darn. I missed it! As reviled as Pulphouse is by collectors, they did
do some very worthy material... Considering that there's a major award
named after the man, it is bizarre how far Knight's star has fallen
among modern collectors. I don't think too much of his novels, but a
"best of" collection would be a very fine book indeed!

Cheers,

John