RobbinR on March 09, 2013, 09:05:10 pm

Beltapes and Furries and Birdmen and Porpoises and Anthrofish Oh my!

/

Edit: To quote Nicole more exactly, (but not totally exactly) when she and Ventura were in the electronics shop.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 02:07:05 pm by RobbinR »

Tucci78 on March 10, 2013, 12:18:17 pm
This doesn't prevent people in our own world from legislating away our 2nd amendment while ignoring the much higher risk of death and dismemberment that both privately operated cars and privately maintained swimming pools have borne out.  Just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen because a few "feeling" individuals refused to "think" about the situation before acting.

Permit me to enter yet again in this forum that quotation from what is arguably our Mr. Smith's most frequently cited essay:

Quote from: L. Neil Smith, "Why Did it Have to be...Guns?"
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician - or political philosophy - is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians - even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership - hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician - or political philosophy - can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash - for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything - without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude - toward your ownership and use of weapons - conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

Now, considering what we've seen of that "conservative just not a libertarian" to whom you'd also addressed some remarks in your post at 12:49:54 PM on 9 March and how he's unlikely to give you a straight answer, either (you "kook-ball Libertarian" fanatic, you!), let's get an understanding that while Mr. Smith is most assuredly insistent upon holding our present federal government within the rule-of-law limitations established by our Constitution (imperfect as it is, and maculate as were its origins), it wasn't just the Second Amendment to which he was referring, or even the fact that:

Quote from: L. Neil Smith, The Atlanta Declaration, 1987
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon - rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything - any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

...(which right being intrinsic to the nature of sapient life itself is universal, and both precedes the U.S. Constitution and is unarguably superior to that simple, very limited charter of government), but that the speech and actions of politicians anywhere, at any time, can be used as a perfect and absolutely reliable indicator of those governing thugs' intentions to fuck unto death the people they're supposed to be "serving" as the lictors of social comity and good civil order.

Doesn't matter whether we're looking at the city fathers of Ur or the lawless rat-bastards currently machinating against our republic in the festering pest-hole of Washington, D.C., or the downsider mercorps in the fictitious plenum of Quantum Vibe.  

It's a universal trait of the governmentally-inclined, and an index of their tolerability.  When the sons of bitches get to grabbing at the people's guns (or other implements used in exercising retaliatory deadly force), it's time that their heads go up on pikes as a public demonstration of civil rectitude.

As the saying goes (and I regret my inability to attribute it to the originator):

"The relationship between the people
of these United States and their government
is fundamentally sadomasochistic, and the
Second Amendment is the safeword."
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 12:36:45 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Tucci78 on March 10, 2013, 03:05:26 pm
Moved from the Off to "th' ouder system" thread:

Ironically, my father and his parents were/are German, and my grandmother was persecuted for her German lineage.  Although the too easy generalization afforded by such stereotyping is understandable (but not justified) in an actual hot war.

Nothing ironic about it.  Wave after wave of immigration came to our republic from the Germanies, both before and after the American Revolution.  It continued from both the Lutheran and Catholic principalities, with a marked uptick for a while in the wake of the failed European popular uprisings of 1848.

Hell, pretty much a whole corps of the Army of the Potomac - the XI Corps, mauled so badly at both Chancellorsville and Gettysburg in 1863 - consisted of regiments raised among the recent German immigrants.  Tally the names of XI Corps division and brigade commanders, if you've an interest.  "I'm going to fight mit Sigel" was a common proclamation of these recruits during Franz Sigel's tenure as XI Corps commander (1862-63). 

During both World War One and World War Two, German officers and men engaged against U.S. forces were appalled to learn how many of the "Ami" troops were effectively Volksdeutsche, descended from German ancestors, with German names, and many of them without formal schooling nonetheless conversant in the various dialects of German that had come over and been preserved at thousands of kitchen tables all over the Midwest, Pennsylvania, and the mid-Atlantic states. 

In The Doughboys: The Story of the AEF, 1917-1918 (1963), Laurence Stallings wrote about how these sons of Germany had returned to western Europe with weapons and a determination to smash hell out of the Old Country,  the 32nd Infantry Division (composed of Wisconsin and Michigan National Guard) being the subject of Stallings' particular attention in this regard. 

And during World War Two, could a more intimidating name for an Allied supreme commander in the European Theater of Operations have been chosen than "Eisenhower" (which translates as "Iron hewer" or "Iron cutter")?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Tucci78 on March 10, 2013, 03:10:57 pm
Moved from the Off to "th' ouder system" thread:

When one is defending one's self from the aggression of an entire state apparatus, a Bolo seems to me to be the best single device to have.

And I seem to recall a short story where a single Bolo successfully defended an entire planet. Seems like a good thing to have on your side, in my book.

It has always been my position that the size or power of the weapon matters much, much less than the person who is given control of it.

Keith Laumer's "Bolo" first appeared in a 1960 short work titled "Combat Unit," with incidental use in one of his Retief stories ("Courier," 1961) in which it was simply the name for a non-sapient but honkin' big armored fighting vehicle (I think that it was in the Retief stories that they were first described as  "continental siege units" [CSU]), which Laumer's diplomat-at-arms had to neutralize in the course of the story's plot.  A situation along the same lines was more extensively used in the non-Retief story "Night of the Trolls" (1963). 

More sentimental exploitation of the Bolo concept came in "The Last Command" (1966) and "A Relic of War" (1969), and in both of these the plot centered on single cast-off CSUs, mothballed on the battlefield but disconcertingly not "dead."  In the latter story, an old "Bolo Stupendous, Mark XXV" had been moldering immobile in a small colonial community, able to speak idiotically in response to queries but nothing more.  It had become "Bobby," a sort of playground fixture enjoyed by the town's small children, until it detected the re-activation of an alien enemy robotic fighting unit, also thought "dead," but moving toward the settlement with the mission of killing every Terran it could.

"Bobby" powered up, engaged and destroyed the alien residuum, convincing the people of the town - who'd considered it a sort of harmless mascot - that it had to be completely and finally deactivated, allowing itself to be "killed" for once and all as the final discharge of its duty as "Unit Nine five four of the Line."

I'm not familiar with the derivative Bolo stories published by other writers since Laumer's death, but I'd been reading his stuff eagerly as he'd been cranking it out.  I've enjoyed everything he'd written before his stroke in 1971, and though I followed his work after he'd recovered somewhat, he never again produced material up to the standards he'd set in the '60s.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

myrkul999 on March 10, 2013, 03:22:56 pm
And during World War Two, could a more intimidating name for an Allied supreme commander in the European Theater of Operations have been chosen than "Eisenhower" (which translates as "Iron hewer" or "Iron cutter")?

The name does seem well suited to weakening the iron in the spines of German troops - and especially commanders, many of whom had turned back to Norse beliefs, and probably saw that name as some sort of omen.

RobbinR on March 10, 2013, 03:42:52 pm

Designed by Krupp, then approved by Hitler, then cancelled by Albert Speer,
the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte, might well have been the first Bolo.

Article




/

Tucci78 on March 10, 2013, 04:21:36 pm
Designed by Krupp, then approved by Hitler, then cancelled by Albert Speer, the Landkreuzer P. 1000 Ratte, might well have been the first Bolo.

Article

Logistical nightmare, role in mobile warfare nil, and - like the naval rifle caliber railroad cannon of limited employment in World War One and World War Two - hideously vulnerable to aerial attack.

Hell, at least with weapons like Schwerer Gustav and Dora, you could pull 'em into railroad tunnels when necessary.  Each such superdupertank product of that circle-jerk among Krupp's designers would've certainly drawn the attention of No. 617 Squadron and attracted a sufficiency of Tallboy bombs to make of it a mobility casualty at the very least.

On t'other hand, if what you're facing are Posleen landers, there might be a role for something Bun-Bun-yanesque....


"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Redwood Elf on March 10, 2013, 05:32:54 pm
I always fall back on good ol' Leslie Fish - Which puts the truism "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" into perspective.

RobbinR on March 10, 2013, 07:21:15 pm

RobbinR on March 10, 2013, 10:48:20 pm

I always fall back on good ol' Leslie Fish - Which puts the truism "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" into perspective.

I have looked for a video of a performance of the song on youtube and elsewhere, but I can't find one.
Do you know whether or not it was ever recorded?

As a musician and songwriter myself, I can make up the melody spontaneously and sing it, cool song, could be a hit right now.

/

myrkul999 on March 10, 2013, 11:08:38 pm

I always fall back on good ol' Leslie Fish - Which puts the truism "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" into perspective.

I have looked for a video of a performance of the song on youtube and elsewhere, but I can't find one.
Do you know whether or not it was ever recorded?

As a musician and songwriter myself, I can make up the melody spontaneously and sing it, cool song, could be a hit right now.

/

I have the audio of it, but no video. Let me know if you're interested.

Sean Roach on March 10, 2013, 11:27:04 pm
I hope you realize I'm not arguing with your position on basic human rights, but rather with your take on how certain things Would play out.
Not the right of men to self defense, but your statement that L5 would NOT capitulate and allow an "international" treaty that included some disarminamt  when the alternative could be to face a military or financial threat they could not survive.
You addressed both in a previous post, though I still prefer to avoid absolutes, myself.  Life, thus far, has proven to me that I can't anticipate all factors, and I'll usually be bit by one of the unanticipated ones when it's the most embarrassing.

As for a financial threat, it would be one where L5 was still dependent on imports of some type for continued survival, (and I'm thinking "Fallen Angels", by Jerry Pournelle when I say that.)  If they are in need of regular supplies of N2, for instance, then they could possibly be starved into capitulation.
I think, in this case, they probably are capable of mining sufficient N2 from comets.

Correction.
The portion you were quoting, I was saying just because it's stupid, doesn't make it unlikely.  It certainly happens enough in this time, what with regulations on SLBG's but none on in-ground pools, (that I am aware of, anyway), and few effective ones on preventing operator-error or malice from forceably mating a pedestrian with a buick.

This doesn't prevent people in our own world from legislating away our 2nd amendment while ignoring the much higher risk of death and dismemberment that both privately operated cars and privately maintained swimming pools have borne out.  Just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it wouldn't happen because a few "feeling" individuals refused to "think" about the situation before acting.

Permit me to enter yet again in this forum that quotation from what is arguably our Mr. Smith's most frequently cited essay:

Quote from: L. Neil Smith, "Why Did it Have to be...Guns?"
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single-issue thinker, and a single-issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician - or political philosophy - is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians - even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership - hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician - or political philosophy - can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash - for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything - without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude - toward your ownership and use of weapons - conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

Now, considering what we've seen of that "conservative just not a libertarian" to whom you'd also addressed some remarks in your post at 12:49:54 PM on 9 March and how he's unlikely to give you a straight answer, either (you "kook-ball Libertarian" fanatic, you!), let's get an understanding that while Mr. Smith is most assuredly insistent upon holding our present federal government within the rule-of-law limitations established by our Constitution (imperfect as it is, and maculate as were its origins), it wasn't just the Second Amendment to which he was referring, or even the fact that:

Quote from: L. Neil Smith, The Atlanta Declaration, 1987
Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon - rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything - any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

...(which right being intrinsic to the nature of sapient life itself is universal, and both precedes the U.S. Constitution and is unarguably superior to that simple, very limited charter of government), but that the speech and actions of politicians anywhere, at any time, can be used as a perfect and absolutely reliable indicator of those governing thugs' intentions to fuck unto death the people they're supposed to be "serving" as the lictors of social comity and good civil order.

Doesn't matter whether we're looking at the city fathers of Ur or the lawless rat-bastards currently machinating against our republic in the festering pest-hole of Washington, D.C., or the downsider mercorps in the fictitious plenum of Quantum Vibe.  

It's a universal trait of the governmentally-inclined, and an index of their tolerability.  When the sons of bitches get to grabbing at the people's guns (or other implements used in exercising retaliatory deadly force), it's time that their heads go up on pikes as a public demonstration of civil rectitude.

As the saying goes (and I regret my inability to attribute it to the originator):

"The relationship between the people
of these United States and their government
is fundamentally sadomasochistic, and the
Second Amendment is the safeword."
« Last Edit: March 10, 2013, 11:35:10 pm by Sean Roach »

Redwood Elf on March 11, 2013, 01:09:45 am

Big.Swede on March 11, 2013, 01:17:31 am
You know, while i have an understanding (note, not agreement) that goverment agencies of all kinds will do stupid things every now and then due to human incompetence and/or general chance... The BATF seems to be in a league of their own that would fit into a movie that actualy highlights that levels of stupidity. Whether that movie be a comedy or a dystopia ill leave up to others...

Its actualy so bad that a female friend of mine that is staunchly in the camp of "Only police and military should have guns" agree that the BATF is a "bad joke lead by idiots and a danger to people". And we are living in Sweden, one of the more disarmed countries in the world. What i think of them is not fit for print.
"Im purely a layman, wondering from a laymans point of view."

Tucci78 on March 11, 2013, 01:36:58 am
I hope you realize I'm not arguing with your position on basic human rights, but rather with your take on how certain things Would play out.

Not the right of men to self defense, but your statement that L5 would NOT capitulate and allow an "international" treaty that included some disarmament  when the alternative could be to face a military or financial threat they could not survive.

You addressed both in a previous post, though I still prefer to avoid absolutes, myself.  Life, thus far, has proven to me that I can't anticipate all factors, and I'll usually be bit by one of the unanticipated ones when it's the most embarrassing.

As for a financial threat, it would be one where L5 was still dependent on imports of some type for continued survival, (and I'm thinking Fallen Angels, by Jerry Pournelle when I say that.)  If they are in need of regular supplies of N2, for instance, then they could possibly be starved into capitulation. I think, in this case, they probably are capable of mining sufficient N2 from comets.

Back when Isaac Asimov was writing a regular monthly "science fact" essay for The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, I particularly remember one titled "The Thalassogens" (December 1970, re-published in the 1972 collection The Left Hand of the Electron), in which he wrote eloquently of the "sea-forming" compounds of the solar system.

Those were water (H2O), ammonia (NH3), and methane (CH4), which were sufficiently abundant on the surfaces of the various planets - depending upon their distances from the primary - to form oceans.  Meaning that each compound is also to be found in vapor and aerosol forms in these worlds' atmospheres. 

Earth is in the "water" zone, Jupiter and Saturn are in the "ammonia" band, and the outermost planets - Uranus and Neptune - are in the "methane" region.

To get nitrogen (N2), why would the Belters or the Elf Hivers need to go closer in when they've got such abundances of that element further out?

Ain't no goddam way whatsoever that the Elf Hivers "could possibly be starved into capitulation" by the downsiders, for N2 or anything else.  The availability of material resources outside the inhabited gravity wells of Terra and Luna and Huǒxīng is so many orders of magnitude greater than what the authoritarian mercorps can command that it might be said to beggar the imagination. 

As for "a military or financial threat they could not survive" posed by the downside mercorps, consider the first strip of Quantum Vibe, in which Bieser & Bieser picture for us L5-City in the year 566 A.E. (2523 A.D.), "an enormous, jumbled complex of artificial habitats orbiting at the Terra-Luna Lagrange 5 point."

Now consider what we know of canon regarding the adversarial relationship between L5-City and the downsiders through the preceding several centuries.

Per canon, Muc Ar Foulain has been engaged in military conflicts at one time or another with some - probably all - of these mercorp polities, and has not only won handily but has preserved that floating junkyard "at the Terra-Luna Lagrange 5 point" without necessity for visible fortification, in an extremely hostile microTorr, microgravity environment.

You don't go effectively naked in the presence of your enemies unless you've pretty much got your enemies thoroughly whipped. 

Correction.
The portion you were quoting, I was saying just because it's stupid, doesn't make it unlikely.  It certainly happens enough in this time, what with regulations on SLBG's but none on in-ground pools, (that I am aware of, anyway), and few effective ones on preventing operator-error or malice from forcibly mating a pedestrian with a buick.

What the heck is a "SLBG" in the context of this discussion or any other? And what to what "portion [I'd been] quoting" are you making reference?  I'm flummoxed.

"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)