Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

If you would like to contribute anything further to the following discussion: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/..., you may not. The moderators are not interested in your input, especially if it runs counter to their opinion. If you would like to read post #27 on the topic, you can't. Again, the moderators.

I am guest here. I shall abide by all rules from Amazon and Goodreads moderators.

If your looking for Uncensored anything goes try using "usenet newsgroups". I still use them once in a while. Every topic imaginable, uncensored. It can be fun, however never use your real name, always use a fake email address that does not work and always keep your VPN service on at all times while using any usenet group. From cooking, science fiction to politics, where chaos reigns.

Not sure I want to know the background to this. But I object to your definition of the books. If like literary sci-fi, maybe you should find a literary sci-fi group.

This is more of a people's choice sci-fi. I enjoy this group because it is getting me back into sci-fi after a long break.

PS - I just joined Literary Darkness - haven't noticed anything yet. But I do see they are very friendly about posts of personal writings.

ha! well anyone can feel to get as melodramatic or as maudlin or as driven by suspicion as they want. for now at least, it is still a free country!

but there's at least one thing I can't abide and that's overt rudeness from one member to another member.

Randolph, it should be clear to you that there is no cult of personality thing happening here with the moderators. we are not Robert Dunbar (an excellent author in my opinion) so the parallel is meaningless. like Dan and it looks like yourself, I have been frequently disappointed by the mundane quality of some of this group's choices. it is laughable to me that anyone would think that the people voting in this group's polls are part of some conspiracy to allow SFA moderators to get the group to read what the moderators want to read. because if so, this grand conspiracy is certainly failing!

Dan, your rude and entirely unnecessary insult that you delivered to Mickey caused me to delete your rude and entirely unnecessary post in that thread, and then freeze that topic for discussion. this is not a group for flaming. your behavior closed that discussion and you should take responsibility for your actions because, as you know, this sort of behavior has come from you in the past in at least one other group where I am a member. this is not the first time you have been unnecessarily insulting when someone disagrees with you - here or there. learn a lesson, for crissakes! I was actually quite interested in the topic and I was following your ideas closely, but I enforce group rules on insults, and so dealing with your insulting behavior became the priority rather than the interesting topic at hand. it saddened me because you are one of my favorites in here (does that mean you are a part of Randolph's conspiracy??) and I tend to love the intelligence and I'd say very unappreciated humor in your posts. but it doesn't matter how smart or funny I think you are; continued rudeness will not be tolerated.

the same thing would occur at a party or event that I am hosting. if one guest is consistently rude to other guests, I would show them the door. now I'm not showing you the door (yet) but just the fact that I am talking to you this directly may cause you to run off. it has certainly happened before with other members. I sincerely hope you don't leave because for the most part, I love your posts. but I'm not going to tolerate any more insults from you towards other members, and I will show you the door myself if you do it again. but I hope you don't! you are a great part of this group and in general I love having you here. you too, Randolph.

Kirsten *Make Margaret Atwood Fiction Again!" wrote: "Not sure I want to know the background to this. But I object to your definition of the books. If like literary sci-fi, maybe you should find a literary sci-fi group...."

your comment popped up while I was writing mine, so I just want to make it clear that I was responding to Randolph and Dan's posts, not your own!

Dan... Don't leave, I enjoyed the discussion. However, I am rarely swayed by anything, I enjoy being the antagonist in any discussion.

One of my favorite books that I read when I was in high school. "How to Argue". The book listed is not the book I read decades ago, but the topic is the same. This is the kind of book that one can keep from getting fired and live long enough to collect a pension. Writing letters (emails) to ones bosses without insults, is much harder than one thinks.

How to Argue: Powerfully, Persuasively, Positively

Comment #27 was not (intended to be) rude. My brief comment was on slogans and their usefulness (or lack thereof in terms of value to a discussion, any discussion), not on Mickey per se. (Why would I intentionally insult someone I don't know?)

In my opinion, little of what was written above addresses my point on censorship, except Randolph's comment that censoring topics designed to be helpful to a group is not good for a group's growth. Randolph and I obviously believe that censorship of possibly valid points just because they differ from the group's norms ultimately harms the group.

I do recognize censorship is a popular trend among liberals these days. Free speech of differing points of view than the norm isn't even being allowed on college campuses, for example, to which Ms. Ann Coulter can testify. The fact censorship is fashionable doesn't make it right. It only impoverishes diversity and being able to hear all sides of a debate.

Censorship here is happening in two ways:

1) Deletion of comment #27, which I could live with if a moderator really thought it was insulting (even if that wasn't its purpose; I realize I can sometimes be overly blunt). The deletion wouldn't trouble me because it was a few lines written on a peripheral issue (slogans) of no real importance.

What I am concerned enough to write about now is how censorship is continuing by:

2) Closing off the topic so no further posts can be made to it.

My main concern at this point is the censorship that ended the discussion for all who were interested with post #26. What if someone else had a contribution to make to the discussion, either pro (to improve on my suggestions) or con (to bring up a point not yet considered)? Their voice is being squelched (censored). To my mind, there's no possible excuse for that.

And now further censorship is threatened above in terms of banishing me from the group unless I make my views conform, in which case it's hoped I'll stay? Mix messages much? Personally, it's okay with me if I'm banished. I felt my proposition would likely be controversial, especially among the closed-minded and highly conventional thinking. To be fair, my proposition actually got a more considered hearing than I expected.

In any event, I don't know how interested I am in continuing to be a part of a group that censors so quickly and freely. If I were a financially supportive alum of UC Berkeley, the treatment Ms. Coulter received would have me withdrawing my support immediately, for example, even though I personally disagree with her on just about everything. Banish me as you threatened then if that helps you achieve a group cohesiveness more to your liking. I refuse to change my opinions to comply with group norms that I disagree with though.

I'm going to ignore your comments about Ann Coulter because that's like bringing a flaming bag of shit to a debate and I'm not interested in handling such things. also, comparing yourself to her is really doing yourself a profound disservice. you are infinitely more tolerable.

to your three points:

- I will be happy to re-open that thread. it was closed because of your insult towards Mickey and the threat of escalating insults flying back and forth. if you are going to be a good, respectful member, then I will be a good, respectful moderator and re-open that topic. it will be closed again, and just as swiftly, if the situation devolves again.

- there is no mixed message being delivered. abide by the group rule of not being an overt dick and thus not insulting people overtly, and you will be fine. continue on the dick path and you will find it to be a short one here at SFA.

- stay or leave, that's your decision. I've made it clear that I'd like you to stay and that I appreciate your posts. if your feelings are in an uproar over my comments, then take a break or leave. the feelings of one individual, and my positive feelings towards that individual, do not take precedence over my desire to make sure this group remains relatively drama-free. SFA is not Twitter, nor is it UC Berkeley.

I don't think I've ever commented in this group before, Mark, but I have to say that your snarky comment about a "profound disservice" shows that you have a profound intolerance for political viewpoints that differ from yours, not to mention the unnecessary name-calling. Whether or not Dan leaves the group, I certainly am doing so now. Political discussion introduced into a group supposedly dedicated to books and reading never ends well, and sidetracks any meaningful discussion about the subject the group was founded for: books.

Dan wrote:
"(Why would I intentionally insult someone I don't know?)

For personal enjoyment :)


In my opinion, little of what was written above addresses my point on censorship, except Randolph's comment that censoring topics designed to be helpful to a group is not good for a group's growth. Randolph and I obviously believe that censorship of possibly valid points just because they differ from the group's norms ultimately harms the group.

Censorship is needed in a civil society. There are limits to free speech in most forums. It is often for the protection of individuals, financial and social institutions. There is also a difference between Censorship and Constructive criticism. Personal insults are not part of any constructive criticism. I kept to the argument of "benefits vs harm of a weighted system".



I do recognize censorship is a popular trend among liberals these days.

This is a false statement. This is a person bias statement, based upon no facts. All institutions, educational, legal, places of worship and corporations all have limits to free speech. It has nothing to do with ones political point of view. Free speech in a public forum, one needs to be aware that their statements should be based upon facts.


The fact censorship is fashionable doesn't make it right. It only impoverishes diversity and being able to hear all sides of a debate.

Again not a true statement. Statements need to be factual not fashionable. Making statements not based upon facts can get can one into trouble.

However, many statements have a vast grey area that can be argued, like "Global Warming is Real" or "God does not exist" or even "Weighted Voting". In those cases let the arguments begin.


Censorship here is happening in two ways:

Censorship is happening in more ways than two. Goodreads is a corporate entity, they can can censor anyone for any reason. Goodreads provides a forum for book discussions as long as it relates to books. Goodreads is also, I hope, part of a profit making institution.

An old saying: "There is a place for everything". This is not a forum for free speech.

Really, give "usenet newsgroups" a try, it is a riot, anything goes and I mean anything goes. Just remember to keep things I said about using usenet on message 2. You might find yourself at home.

Ken wrote: "I don't think I've ever commented in this group before, Mark, but I have to say that your snarky comment about a "profound disservice" shows that you have a profound intolerance for political viewp..."

if rank pieces of publicity-hungry human garbage disguised as human beings are introduced into a discussion, I will certainly feel free to make my opinions known. unless of course the person in question is a fellow group member! than I shall obey group norms and keep my insults to myself. fortunately the person in question is not a group member.

farewell, Ken! that reduces our number to 2,220. certainly feel free to bring any like-minded people with you, including other lurkers who pop up simply to announce their exit.

mark wrote: "there is no mixed message being delivered. abide by the group rule of not being an overt dick and thus not insulting people overtly, and you will be fine. continue on the dick path and you will find it to be a short one here at SFA"

So this comment is not insulting, but my post #27 qualified? Hypocrisy much?

Sorry Mickey, I know it may not seem like it, but I truly am here with a wish to only discuss science fiction.

Really sorry to lose Ken. He's 100% right though on all counts. So I'm not going to engage any more in non-SF chat.

mark wrote: "farewell, Ken! that reduces our number to 2,220. certainly feel free to bring any like-minded people with you, including other lurkers who pop up simply to announce their exit."

That I had any role whatsoever in costing our group a member really troubles me.

I notice that this particular fellow southerner and former group member is a published science fiction author of four books. I just ordered three of them from Amazon in soft cover for a total $27 even, which includes tax and made the shipping free. I lose so much money by not owning a Kindle. His work would be almost free if I did! To Summon the Blackbird was the priciest of the four choices. If I like the first three I selected, I'll pick Blackbird up at a later date.

Cheers!

sorry this discussion went off the rails...... :(
I had a family emergency and have not been around this week. However, I THINK the thread was shut down just because it was all off topic from what the group is about...

Yeah Dan get a Kindle, all mine are 99c. Just an update on Minawah. Ive got 9000 words in and have reached a point where it would be good to hand it back to you if that's alright. i know its not as many words as we said but we can do it in more stages. I need a few days to edit. Cheers

Dan wrote: "Sorry Mickey, I know it may not seem like it, but I truly am here with a wish to only discuss science fiction."

I only responded to your topics of discussions :)

Dan wrote: "So this comment is not insulting, but my post #27 qualified? Hypocrisy much?..."

nope, certainly not hypocritical. and only insulting if you find an accurate description of your insults to be insulting. I have not insulted you, I've only described the behavior that resulted in one of your posts being deleted and a thread being shut down (as it turns out, only temporarily).

and with that said, I think I've made myself clear and have said enough on this topic.

I'm glad it appears you are sticking with the group, Dan. I'm happy to have you here. cheers.

Maggie wrote: "I THINK the thread was shut down just because it was all off topic from what the group is about..."

Randolph wrote: "Discussion relevant to the operation of a group is always relevant especially as it relates to the quality of the group."

I agreed with Randolph when I started the topic. Upon seeing what resulted, which is nothing but hurt feelings and no change--a book few will read or comment on (despite its 50+ votes) will take up the BOTM slot--I no longer think it was so relevant.

yeah- such is the goodreads world, Dan. I used to get frustrated with it, but if we make too many rules, then we get complaints for that! so we're pretty lax about things like that

Dan wrote: "a book few will read or comment on (despite its 50+ votes) will take up the BOTM slot--I no longer think it was so relevant.
"

I believe in the past, Science Fiction Aficionados has had group read selections of science fiction books that could not exceed 100 Goodreads reviews. Perhaps next year as a group selection (perhaps 3-4 times next year), this would knock out the big named authors.

probably a good idea for a theme!

That would be cool for a once in a while thing.

I like that idea as well. Maybe not as much as 3-4 times, because that potentially leaves us reading mainly self-published authors and/or really obscure works (neither of which is necessarily a bad thing, of course), rather than classics of the genre like our current Foundation read. but it would be interesting to read less well-read books too, maybe once or twice.

If I were still living in Mississauga I could probably have walked down to my bedroom and pulled from my bookshelves a dozen older books that would qualify as less well-read books. I'd list some of them if I could still remember the names (age does that to a person I suppose). I happen to enjoy the Professor Jameson stories by Neil R. Jones but I daresay many of you will not have heard of either the author or the series. My point is that less well-read is something we have had in literature since the first book was published. So to equate less well-read with self-published is not an accurate comparison in my view.
For the record I seldom do the group reads only because 1. I can't afford to buy a lot of books and 2. if my local branch of he library system doesn't have a copy of the book but it is in the system it can still take weeks to get the book due to the way the system works.

to equate less well-read with self-published is not an accurate comparison in my view.

it is accurate if you are looking at books that have less than 100 reviews, which is Mickey's suggestion. that is the only comparison being made.

Ah. I read it as A=B whereas what was meant was if A then B.

I should also add, there is a difference between "ratings" and "reviews". Reviews are people's comments on the book. If you want a tougher one go by Ratings.

It is probably a lot harder to find a book that has been less well read from a public library. Kindle seems to have everything. Which may be impossible for those without eReaders for those once in while less read books.

However, I am not positive about this. Does some libraries loan out kindles with a specific book on it?

I have a kindle voyager and an iPad Pro. I also have read eBooks on my iPhone (large print setting) on occasion.

First let me state that up here in Canada the eReader of choice seems to be Kobo. This is the brand carried by our national bookseller (Indigo/Chapters). Our regional library system here on Vancouver Island does have the machines to borrow and also has a good selection of books for the system.

Talking to one of our librarians and apparently the one drawback for libraries with eBooks is that while publishers often give discounts to libraries for physical books they don't tend to do that with eBooks as much.