I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one short
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to complain about this?
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one short
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one short
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
Proposed explanation:
1. The author is being paid by the word
2. The author knows he is padding things out and that the reader knows he
is padding things out and has a sense of humor about it.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >>> to about one third of its length.
Why would they do that when they are trying to fill out a magazine? Cut
the story down and you'll have to find other stories to get your page count back.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It is a common problem. On the other hand, the books that L. Ron Hubbard wrote after his death are mostly better than the ones he wrote while living. --scott
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to complain about this?
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. >>
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the
worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the
padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to
complain about this?
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a
reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy.
You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate
authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated.
Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the
critical equivalent of believing a novel?s villain is the author?s autobiography.
The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself
annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >>> to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to
complain about this?
--
Peter Moylanÿÿÿÿÿÿ peter@pmoylan.orgÿÿÿ http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a
reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then
tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy.
ÿÿÿÿ You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one
character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate
authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated.
Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the
critical equivalent of believing a novel?s villain is the author?s
autobiography.
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. >>
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the
worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the
padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to
complain about this?
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a
reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy.
You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate
authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated.
Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the
critical equivalent of believing a novel?s villain is the author?s autobiography.
"Could have been cut to one-third" is pure assertion without a
single concrete cut. You offer zero page counts, zero scene breakdowns,
zero demonstration that removing two-thirds would leave a coherent plot, character arc, or thematic payoff. That is not editing advice. That is fantasy surgery performed with a chainsaw and no anatomy knowledge.
You leap from one book you dislike to a sweeping claim about
Asimov?s later career and reputation. "I?ve seen comments" is anecdotal garbage. No sales data, no critical consensus metrics, no comparison of contemporaneous reviews versus later ones. You are treating your own annoyance as a proxy for market and critical judgment.
The "paid by the page" explanation is historically illiterate.
Modern trade publishing does not pay authors by the page or by the word
in the way pulp magazines once did. Advances and royalties are based on projected sales and contract terms, not length. Blaming "payment by the
page" for 1980s?90s hardcovers is simply wrong.
You treat thickness as an automatic quality defect. Many of the most commercially and critically successful novels of the last fifty years
are long. Length is not the variable; density and necessity are. You
never distinguish between the two.
You assume that every reader shares your patience threshold and that
anything exceeding it is objectively padded. You assume publishers have abandoned editing because books are long, ignoring the existence of developmental editors, copy editors, and the commercial reality that
certain audiences buy thick books precisely because they want immersion.
You assume declining sales (if real) are caused by length rather than competing media, changing leisure habits, price, or content. You never
admit the possibility that Robots and Empire was written at that length because Asimov chose to expand the political and historical scope of his universe rather than because he was padding for money.
Readers who buy series finales and late-career works by established
authors often want more of the same world, not less. Publishers know
this; they are not stupid. Editors who routinely gut bestselling
authors? manuscripts risk losing the author and the revenue. Your
preferred "one-third length" version would have to sell to the same
audience that already accepted the longer book. Competitors and
imitators in science fiction have thrived with both lean and expansive styles. Your refusal to read thick books is a personal filter, not a
market signal that forces publishers to change.
Asimov?s later novels sold in large numbers despite (or because of)
their length. The physical and economic constraints of publishing do not
make long books inherently unprofitable; paper, printing, and
distribution costs scale, but so can price and perceived value. Your
claim that "books don?t sell as well as they used to" is too vague to
test and ignores category differences, format shifts (ebooks,
audiobooks), and the fact that some long books still move hundreds of thousands of copies. A single reader?s irritation does not scale into industry failure.
The entire causal chain?character dialogue equals authorial padding
equals payment incentives equals editorial collapse equals sales
decline?must be discarded. Replace it with actual textual analysis of specific scenes that fail to advance plot, character, or theme,
supported by evidence rather than feelings. The industry diagnosis must
be rebuilt from contracts, sales data, and editorial practice rather
than nostalgia and anecdote.
Nothing of structural value survives. The observation that some late
Asimov is less tight than early Asimov is a commonplace, not an insight
you originated or substantiated.
You are not diagnosing a publishing disease. You are complaining that a
book refused to finish at the exact moment your personal tolerance
expired, then dressing the complaint up as systemic critique.
The Swarmmaker Fleet
The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed. >>
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >> to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to
complain about this?
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy.
You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated.
Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the
critical equivalent of believing a novel?s villain is the author?s autobiography.
one character may not demonstrate the failure he is referring to, but it struck a chord with me. Try getting very far into the followups in
Stephen R. Donaldson's space opera with Angus Thermopyle. It's just like
this and of such badness that it reminds one of someone using
copy-paste, but with an AI to twist up the words slightly so that it
can't be labeled that simply. The reader just doesn't need that many
similar brushups on what happened last novel. I set it down before
finishing.
--
Can you strip away so we may start again?
"There?s a switch and they don't
seem authentic or themselves. It
feels like I?m an unnecessary
body and it?s a waste of time to
even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine.
Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff..
Mars is not a planet!
There is no reason to go to Mars because
Mars is not a planet!
It's just a rock.
No different from the Moon.
Mars is just a balancing system
to keep the Earth on course..
and from flying away to some freeway.
Blaine wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >> to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >> read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >> complain about this?
--
Peter Moylan peter@pmoylan.org http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy.
You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated. Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the
critical equivalent of believing a novel?s villain is the author?s autobiography.
one character may not demonstrate the failure he is referring to, but it struck a chord with me. Try getting very far into the followups in
Stephen R. Donaldson's space opera with Angus Thermopyle. It's just like this and of such badness that it reminds one of someone using
copy-paste, but with an AI to twist up the words slightly so that it
can't be labeled that simply. The reader just doesn't need that many similar brushups on what happened last novel. I set it down before finishing.
--
Can you strip away so we may start again?
"There?s a switch and they don't
seem authentic or themselves. It
feels like I?m an unnecessary
body and it?s a waste of time to
even be there." -- Grim, playful Blaine.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
That's like giving a
3 year old LSD.
Who do you think reads
science fiction books? People
who want to go to Mars!
Fiction and
science fiction...
that's a fucking double wammy!!!
Give the kid a half a tab of LSD.
The Starmaker wrote:
Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff..
Mars is not a planet!
There is no reason to go to Mars because
Mars is not a planet!
It's just a rock.
So is the Earth but the Earth got infected
with Life and certain conditions and if not imported
perhaps from other infected rocks eventually Life
Evolved and here we are. Thank you rock, Thank you
Moon and Sun and the rest of the Universe because
without Time and Space where would we be?
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
ÿÿÿÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
ÿÿÿÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, some idiot wrote:
If you do not read Science Fiction books and you post off topic
here you must be a troll and I call on all good users to cast you
out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially
amusing, most people will have binned it already but still see its
posts when replied to.
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
ÿÿÿÿNor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw. [...]
Le 18/10/2026 … 07:07, BobbieSellers a ‚crit :
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
ÿÿÿÿÿNor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw. [...]
I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful
experiment.
I came across some interesting material yesterday in 'L'Express' about
the history of reading and its present decline. I had time only to scan
it, and mean to return to it for a closer look. The argument, in several articles over many pages, was that reading fiction and non-fiction is fundamental to enlightenment and human development, allows one to escape oneself and see the world from other points of view. In politics, the
book is detached from face-to-face immediacy and emotion. It is
infinitely patient, allows time for reflection and checking, and is the antidote to, for example, Trump's unstable superficiality. Reading
fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years' increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but
I didn't see it; must look again).
Unfortunately for present purposes, the articles are in French and
behind a paywall (I was using Pressreader, courtesy of our local library):
<https://www.lexpress.fr/idees-et-debats/la-fin-de-la-lecture-mene- lhumanite-vers-un-nouvel-age-des-tenebres-le-cri-dalarme-de-james- marriott-Q5YW5AT2PJCFRPA3F6JXWIRRUA/?cmp_redirect=true>
At least some of the original work is in English - e.g.:
<https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1847929516>
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself
annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly the >>> worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but the >>> padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the point, >>> Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by cutting it >>> to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to
complain about this?
--
Peter Moylanÿÿÿÿÿÿ peter@pmoylan.orgÿÿÿ http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
ÿÿÿÿActually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid
usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s.ÿ The
best author were not necessarily prolix.
ÿÿÿÿIn the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the
Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due
to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory
to the bookshelves of the stores.
This is not literary criticism. It is a self-indulgent tantrum from a
reader who confuses personal irritation with objective analysis and then
tries to inflate it into an industry-wide conspiracy.
ÿÿÿÿPretty much the case I believe.
ÿÿÿÿ You mistake dialogue for padding and call it proof. Quoting one
character telling another to get to the point does not demonstrate
authorial failure. It demonstrates a character who is frustrated.
Treating in-story dialogue as a meta-confession by Asimov is the
critical equivalent of believing a novel?s villain is the author?s
autobiography.
ÿÿÿÿ "Could have been cut to one-third" is pure assertion without a
single concrete cut. You offer zero page counts, zero scene breakdowns,
zero demonstration that removing two-thirds would leave a coherent plot,
character arc, or thematic payoff. That is not editing advice. That is
fantasy surgery performed with a chainsaw and no anatomy knowledge.
ÿÿÿÿ You leap from one book you dislike to a sweeping claim about
Asimov?s later career and reputation. "I?ve seen comments" is anecdotal
garbage. No sales data, no critical consensus metrics, no comparison of
contemporaneous reviews versus later ones. You are treating your own
annoyance as a proxy for market and critical judgment.
ÿÿÿÿ The "paid by the page" explanation is historically illiterate.
Modern trade publishing does not pay authors by the page or by the word
in the way pulp magazines once did. Advances and royalties are based on
projected sales and contract terms, not length. Blaming "payment by the
page" for 1980s?90s hardcovers is simply wrong.
ÿÿÿÿ You treat thickness as an automatic quality defect. Many of the most
commercially and critically successful novels of the last fifty years
are long. Length is not the variable; density and necessity are. You
never distinguish between the two.
You assume that every reader shares your patience threshold and that
anything exceeding it is objectively padded. You assume publishers have
abandoned editing because books are long, ignoring the existence of
developmental editors, copy editors, and the commercial reality that
certain audiences buy thick books precisely because they want immersion.
ÿÿÿÿI was formerly a very fast reader and chose longer stories by
trusted authors for that sort of reason.ÿ I have never seen movies of
popular books that I have read because they are usually disappointing.
I read all of the Vampire stories of Charlene Harris before I saw
the multi-episode "True Blood" and I found it far inferior to the book. People who prefer the visual version of such stories suffer I fear
from stunted imaginations.ÿ That is the same reason I have never
watched the Lord of the Rings motion pictures though I understand
that these are deemed marvelous by viewers.
You assume declining sales (if real) are caused by length rather than
competing media, changing leisure habits, price, or content. You never
admit the possibility that Robots and Empire was written at that length
because Asimov chose to expand the political and historical scope of his
universe rather than because he was padding for money.
Readers who buy series finales and late-career works by established
authors often want more of the same world, not less. Publishers know
this; they are not stupid. Editors who routinely gut bestselling
authors? manuscripts risk losing the author and the revenue. Your
preferred "one-third length" version would have to sell to the same
audience that already accepted the longer book. Competitors and
imitators in science fiction have thrived with both lean and expansive
styles. Your refusal to read thick books is a personal filter, not a
market signal that forces publishers to change. Asimov?s later novels
sold in large numbers despite (or because of)
their length. The physical and economic constraints of publishing do not
make long books inherently unprofitable; paper, printing, and
distribution costs scale, but so can price and perceived value. Your
claim that "books don?t sell as well as they used to" is too vague to
test and ignores category differences, format shifts (ebooks,
audiobooks), and the fact that some long books still move hundreds of
thousands of copies. A single reader?s irritation does not scale into
industry failure.
The entire causal chain?character dialogue equals authorial padding
equals payment incentives equals editorial collapse equals sales
decline?must be discarded. Replace it with actual textual analysis of
specific scenes that fail to advance plot, character, or theme,
supported by evidence rather than feelings. The industry diagnosis must
be rebuilt from contracts, sales data, and editorial practice rather
than nostalgia and anecdote.
Nothing of structural value survives. The observation that some late
Asimov is less tight than early Asimov is a commonplace, not an insight
you originated or substantiated.
You are not diagnosing a publishing disease. You are complaining that a
book refused to finish at the exact moment your personal tolerance
expired, then dressing the complaint up as systemic critique.
The Swarmmaker Fleet
ÿÿÿÿPretentious title but Ok for this time.
ÿÿÿÿBooks face declining sales for several reasons but the principal
one is that we spend too much time on the Internet and choices by the paper-makers and politicians have forced cost up up and away beyond
the means of many working and retired people.
ÿÿÿÿbliss
Well, I'm not sure decline in reading fiction measures anything much.
After all, people are inundated with more interesting storytelling
methods nowadays, mostly videos.
A lot of people are "addicted" [1] to short form video dramas, the same
way people listened to radio dramas -- literal soap operas -- in the
1930s.ÿ These are shot in phone proportions and one minute segments to maximize advertisement revenue.ÿ You can subscribe to these drama "sta- tions" to get rid of the ads.
As much of entertainment is literally slush [2], and people aren't very judgemental when bored, I don't see much value in reading physical books
over audiobooks, or phone dramas, for consooming the fiction.
Of course, reading comprehension is developed over time and by reading
lots of books, but we can also argue that reading comprehension isn't
all that necessary in daily life for regular people.ÿ After all, higher education is now considered "passe" -- the accent is missing -- and just
a formality to get through to enter /adult life/ and employment; it
really doesn't matter what education people get.ÿ It's just a random
flip of the coin by someone in H.R. if a person gets a job or not [3].
And to counter my prior arguments, sort of, I have to mention that I
read a lot of nonfiction, which without reading comprehension, I would
not understand at all.ÿ You can see some of the easier tomes in the background of my BlueSky profile, linked below.
And to counter the counter argument, I'll finish with: I don't /need/
regular people to have such reading comprehension to enjoy their daily
lives.ÿ I'm not an educational snob, and don't care if a particular per-
son goes through higher education or not.
Then to finish off, we can discuss these things at length, but please
have a well formed -- if not well informed -- opinion about regular peo-
ple and reading, so at least we can argue in good faith and don't have
to move the goal posts all over the battleground for the ensuing flame-
war [4].
[relativity.crackpots snipped]
On 18/10/26 17:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
ÿÿÿÿ So is the Earth but the Earth got infected
with Life and certain conditions and if not imported
perhaps from other infected rocks eventually Life
Evolved and here we are. Thank you rock, Thank you
Moon and Sun and the rest of the Universe because
without Time and Space where would we be?
That sounds like a Bokononist prayer.
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
ÿÿÿÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing,
most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when
replied to.
ÿÿÿÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
Le 18/10/2026 … 07:07, BobbieSellers a ‚crit :
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
ÿÿÿÿÿNor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw. [...]
I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful
experiment.
Le 18/10/2026 ? 07:07, BobbieSellers a ?crit :
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
Nor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw. [...]
I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful experiment.
I came across some interesting material yesterday in 'L'Express' about
the history of reading and its present decline. I had time only to scan
it, and mean to return to it for a closer look. The argument, in several articles over many pages, was that reading fiction and non-fiction is fundamental to enlightenment and human development, allows one to escape oneself and see the world from other points of view. In politics, the
book is detached from face-to-face immediacy and emotion. It is
infinitely patient, allows time for reflection and checking, and is the antidote to, for example, Trump's unstable superficiality. Reading
fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years' increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but
I didn't see it; must look again).
On 10/18/2026 3:28 AM, Hibou wrote:
Le 18/10/2026 ? 07:07, BobbieSellers a ‚crit :
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
? ? ? ? ? Nor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw. [...]
I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful experiment.
Especially as it is mandatory to read some assigned fiction in almost
all schools.
--
On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote:
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
ÿÿÿÿÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing,
most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when
replied to.
ÿÿÿÿÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
ÿÿÿÿWhen I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
ÿÿÿÿMy elementary school calculator was a pencil with
a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated
it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed
but your fingers.
BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote:
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
ÿÿÿÿÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing,
most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when
replied to.
ÿÿÿÿÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
ÿÿÿÿÿWhen I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
ÿÿÿÿÿMy elementary school calculator was a pencil with
a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated
it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed
but your fingers.
We wouldn't have been allowed that in Toronto in the 1950s.ÿ If you
couldn't memorize products up to 12X12 you got at best a D in arithmetic.
A friend who teaches at a junior college in Arizona tells me that two of
his students failed to multiply 7X9.ÿ One knew that it was "around 60".
Graduates from this course are supposed to be qualified for any second
year Calculus course in the US.ÿ Even one offered by MIT.ÿ This could
end in tears.
William Hyde
On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself
annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly
the
worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but
the
padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the
point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by
cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier
writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with
it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up
any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>>> read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>>> complain about this?
--
Peter Moylanÿÿÿÿÿÿ peter@pmoylan.orgÿÿÿ http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
ÿÿÿÿÿActually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid
usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s.ÿ The
best author were not necessarily prolix.
ÿÿÿÿÿIn the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the
Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due
to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory
to the bookshelves of the stores.
Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- lishers' minds.ÿ It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo-
ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher.
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself
annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly >>>> the
worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but >>>> the
padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the
point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by
cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>> writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>>> read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>>> complain about this?
--
Peter Moylan? ? ? ? ? ? peter@pmoylan.org? ? ? http://www.pmoylan.org >>>> Newcastle, NSW
? ? ? ? ? Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid
usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s.? The
best author were not necessarily prolix.
? ? ? ? ? In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the
Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due
to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory
to the bookshelves of the stores.
Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- lishers' minds.? It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher.
According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is
something like:
"The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste".
which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to
find any.
William Hyde
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself
annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is possibly >>>> the
worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told, but >>>> the
padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the
point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They take >>>> half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by
cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>> writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I refuse to >>>> read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only person to >>>> complain about this?
--
Peter Moylan? ? ? ? ? ? peter@pmoylan.org? ? ? http://www.pmoylan.org >>>> Newcastle, NSW
? ? ? ? ? Actually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid
usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s.? The
best author were not necessarily prolix.
? ? ? ? ? In the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the
Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due
to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory
to the bookshelves of the stores.
Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub- lishers' minds.? It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo- ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher.
According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is
something like:
"The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack of taste".
which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s. But I can't seem to
find any.
William Hyde
Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Le 18/10/2026 ? 07:07, BobbieSellers a ?crit :
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
Nor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw. [...]
I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful experiment.
I came across some interesting material yesterday in 'L'Express' about
the history of reading and its present decline. I had time only to scan
it, and mean to return to it for a closer look. The argument, in several articles over many pages, was that reading fiction and non-fiction is fundamental to enlightenment and human development, allows one to escape oneself and see the world from other points of view. In politics, the
book is detached from face-to-face immediacy and emotion. It is
infinitely patient, allows time for reflection and checking, and is the antidote to, for example, Trump's unstable superficiality. Reading
fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years' increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but
I didn't see it; must look again).
Ah, yes, and it has been proven scientifically as well
that going to church every sunday inproves your life expectancy
by several years,
Jan
BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote:
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
ÿÿÿÿÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing,
most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when
replied to.
ÿÿÿÿÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
ÿÿÿÿÿWhen I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
ÿÿÿÿÿMy elementary school calculator was a pencil with
a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated
it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed
but your fingers.
We wouldn't have been allowed that in Toronto in the 1950s.ÿ If you
couldn't memorize products up to 12X12 you got at best a D in arithmetic.
A friend who teaches at a junior college in Arizona tells me that two of
his students failed to multiply 7X9.ÿ One knew that it was "around 60".
Graduates from this course are supposed to be qualified for any second
year Calculus course in the US.ÿ Even one offered by MIT.ÿ This could
end in tears.
William Hyde
Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 10/18/2026 3:28 AM, Hibou wrote:
Le 18/10/2026 ? 07:07, BobbieSellers a ‚crit :
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
? ? ? ? ? Nor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw. [...]
I plonked The Starmaker a while back, but it seems hard to believe that someone has never read a work of fiction, not even as a youthful experiment.
Especially as it is mandatory to read some assigned fiction in almost
all schools.
--
By "mandatory", do you mean Homework???
i don't recall if they gave out fiction books to students to read at
home.
How does that work? Does everybody get a copy of Moby Dick to take
home??
All i know is i didn't do my homework.
and wats wrong wit dat?
i probably read more non-fiction books than any kid in New York City!
Did you know Al Capone killed a prosecutor to stay of of jail?
dats wat i call a free get-of-jail card!
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
--scott
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
I never read a fiction book
and I certaintly never read
a science fiction book
Nor do ever appear to even cracked
any book especially not even one on classical
physicw.
That's like giving a
3 year old LSD.
Believe me you seem ignorant
of drugs and giving anyone incapable of
consent any drug even legal ones except
by physician's prescription or parental
directions
Who do you think reads
science fiction books? People
who want to go to Mars!
No! Not Mars but certainly not 1950's
Earth. We wanted to go to the stars if you
have ever watch the TV show Star Trek and
its enlargements that was want we wanted.
Fiction and
science fiction...
that's a fucking double wammy!!!
Give the kid a half a tab of LSD.
The Starmaker wrote:
Let's stop with all dis science fiction stuff..
Mars is not a planet!
There is no reason to go to Mars because
Mars is not a planet!
It's just a rock.
So is the Earth but the Earth got infected
with Life and certain conditions and if not imported
perhaps from other infected rocks eventually Life
Evolved and here we are. Thank you rock, Thank you
Moon and Sun and the rest of the Universe because
without Time and Space where would we be?
If you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
At 89 I got no more time for you...
On 10/18/26 17:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
--scott
Generally disappointment was the rule but we were very poor and i never
fell for sea monkeys or a lot of the other advertised crap.
The commonest one was for devices to extend your gas mileage in many magazines. My step-father spent a lot on stamps to send in answers
to Hearst newspaper games which netted him nada.
bliss
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been experienced
enough to realize that the Troll was there but no worry about that
because at that time we only had comic books and SF magazines. No
handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth of
rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at the
time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
On 10/18/26 17:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
--scott
Generally disappointment was the rule but we were very poor and i never
fell for sea monkeys or a lot of the other advertised crap.
The commonest one was for devices to extend your gas mileage in many >magazines. My step-father spent a lot on stamps to send in answers
to Hearst newspaper games which netted him nada.
On 19/10/26 11:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
I wonder how many people bought the glasses that let you see through >clothes.
Most of those ads required that you send them a "S.A.S.E.". Would
anyone under 50 understand what was being asked for?
On Sun, 18 Oct 2026 18:56:30 -0700, BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
On 10/18/26 17:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! >>> NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
--scott
Generally disappointment was the rule but we were very poor and i never >> fell for sea monkeys or a lot of the other advertised crap.
The commonest one was for devices to extend your gas mileage in many
magazines. My step-father spent a lot on stamps to send in answers
to Hearst newspaper games which netted him nada.
Most of those ads required that you send them a "S.A.S.E.". Would
anyone under 50 understand what was being asked for?
On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:06:03 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 19/10/26 11:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! >>> NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
I wonder how many people bought the glasses that let you see through
clothes.
There was no charge to own a Capt. Midnight Decoder Ring. Just a
label from a jar of Ovaltine.
On 19/10/26 11:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been experienced
enough to realize that the Troll was there but no worry about that
because at that time we only had comic books and SF magazines. No
handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth of
rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at the
time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone wrote a
short story where a man invented an antigravity device, but couldn't get
the patent office (or something like that) to take him seriously. So he created a magician's fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a
party trick, together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the thread was too
fine to support the weight.
BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote:
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
ÿÿÿÿÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing,
most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when
replied to.
ÿÿÿÿÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
ÿÿÿÿWhen I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
ÿÿÿÿMy elementary school calculator was a pencil with
a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated
it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed
but your fingers.
We wouldn't have been allowed that in Toronto in the 1950s. If you
couldn't memorize products up to 12X12 you got at best a D in arithmetic.
In article <11b40ne$1mp0m$1@dont-email.me>,snip
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone wrote a
short story where a man invented an antigravity device, but couldn't get
the patent office (or something like that) to take him seriously. So he
created a magician's fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a
party trick, together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the thread was too
fine to support the weight.
I think I have read this (I am fairly certain in appeared in Astouding/Analog sometime during John W. Campbell's editorship). I
thought it might be "Trade Secret" by Raymond F. Jones, but that toy was free flying. Unfortunately, the ISFDB is down, so I can't check listings
of several other authors for a title that rings a bell.
On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 13:06:03 +1100, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 19/10/26 11:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY! >>> NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
I wonder how many people bought the glasses that let you see through >>clothes.
There was no charge to own a Capt. Midnight Decoder Ring. Just a
label from a jar of Ovaltine.
In article <11b40ne$1mp0m$1@dont-email.me>,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
On 19/10/26 11:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
BobbieSellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.invalid> wrote:
When I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been experienced
enough to realize that the Troll was there but no worry about that
because at that time we only had comic books and SF magazines. No
handy Internet at all.
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth of
rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at the
time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone wrote a
short story where a man invented an antigravity device, but couldn't get
the patent office (or something like that) to take him seriously. So he
created a magician's fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a
party trick, together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the thread was too
fine to support the weight.
I think I have read this (I am fairly certain in appeared in
Astouding/Analog sometime during John W. Campbell's editorship). I
thought it might be "Trade Secret" by Raymond F. Jones, but that toy was
free flying. Unfortunately, the ISFDB is down, so I can't check listings
of several other authors for a title that rings a bell.
Hibou wrote:
[...] Reading
fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years'
increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but
I didn't see it; must look again).
Ah, yes, and it has been proven scientifically as well
that going to church every sunday inproves your life expectancy
by several years,
Le 18/10/2026 … 20:39, J. J. Lodder a ‚crit :
Hibou wrote:
[...] Reading
fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years'
increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but
I didn't see it; must look again).
Ah, yes, and it has been proven scientifically as well
that going to church every sunday inproves your life expectancy
by several years,
Droll - well a bit - maybe.
The article in question, 'Lire les romans aide … vivre mieux et plus longtemps' ('L'express', 2026-10-15, pp. 48-49) speaks of numerous
studies, but does not cite them. Some are observational and one may
query the rigour of others. Pour ce que ‡a vaut - for what it's worth, 'bibliotherapy' is supposed to help with cognitive decline, memory loss, shell shock, mood, depression, anxiety, and sleep.
At least some of this is plausible. Reading requires mental effort. It
seems quite a large task to convert a mess of black squiggles? into
ideas, characters, worlds, and plots that can excite fascination,
concern, outrage, and so on (marvellous thing, the human brain). To the extent that using it avoids losing it, this mental exercise is likely beneficial.
?Other colours of squiggle are available.
On 10/19/2026 9:00 PM, Hibou wrote:
[...] The article in question, 'Lire les romans aide … vivre mieux et plus longtemps' ('L'express', 2026-10-15, pp. 48-49) speaks of numerous studies, but does not cite them. Some are observational and one may query the rigour of others. Pour ce que ‡a vaut - for what it's worth, 'bibliotherapy' is supposed to help with cognitive decline, memory loss, shell shock, mood, depression, anxiety, and sleep.
At least some of this is plausible. Reading requires mental effort. It seems
quite a large task to convert a mess of black squiggles? into ideas, characters, worlds, and plots that can excite fascination, concern, outrage,
and so on (marvellous thing, the human brain). To the extent that using it avoids losing it, this mental exercise is likely beneficial.
?Other colours of squiggle are available.
The counter argument, of course, is that so does competitive DOOM. DOOM
is perhaps not the best 1st person shooter, but it's sufficient to make
a point. Competitive DOOM seems on the surface even better at prevent-
ing cognitive decline than reading books.
I also admit to be a failure at DOOM, so I prefer to read books. YMMV
and so forth.
In article <11b3b0g$1g1bi$1@dont-email.me>,
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote:
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing, >>>> most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when
replied to.
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿWhen I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿMy elementary school calculator was a pencil with
a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated
it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed
but your fingers.
We wouldn't have been allowed that in Toronto in the 1950s. If you
couldn't memorize products up to 12X12 you got at best a D in arithmetic.
I can write out that entire table even now (I can go higher, but I would
be adding the numbers as I go).
However, I must admit that about 2 decades ago, I discovered that I had forgotten how to extract a square root. I devoted a bit of effort to
relearn that and I think I still remember it.
ÿÿÿÿI did ok in HS calculus and learned to use a slice rule but
calculus escapes the prison of my memory.
Le 18/10/2026 ? 20:39, J. J. Lodder a ?crit :
Hibou wrote:
[...] Reading
fiction for thirty minutes a day was even correlated with two years'
increase in life expectancy (there may be mention of a causal link, but
I didn't see it; must look again).
Ah, yes, and it has been proven scientifically as well
that going to church every sunday inproves your life expectancy
by several years,
Droll - well a bit - maybe.
The article in question, 'Lire les romans aide ? vivre mieux et plus longtemps' ('L'express', 2026-10-15, pp. 48-49) speaks of numerous
studies, but does not cite them. Some are observational and one may
query the rigour of others. Pour ce que ?a vaut - for what it's worth, 'bibliotherapy' is supposed to help with cognitive decline, memory loss, shell shock, mood, depression, anxiety, and sleep.
At least some of this is plausible. Reading requires mental effort. It
seems quite a large task to convert a mess of black squiggles? into
ideas, characters, worlds, and plots that can excite fascination,
concern, outrage, and so on (marvellous thing, the human brain). To the extent that using it avoids losing it, this mental exercise is likely beneficial.
On 19/10/26 11:48, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Didn't you look at the ads in the back? They were 100% trolling!
Start your own empire of sea horses! Get a thousand dollars worth
of rare stamps for only a penny!
A friend of mine sent $5 which was an enormous amount of money at
the time to a PO box in the midwest to get directions for "ANTI-GRAVITY!
NO MAGNETS, GASSES OR EXOTIC FUELS!" He was disappointed.
I wonder how many people bought the glasses that let you see through >clothes.
BobbieSellers wrote:
ÿÿÿÿÿI did ok in HS calculus and learned to use a slice rule but
calculus escapes the prison of my memory.
HS calculus was terrible.ÿ Had I not gone on to take it in University
I'd have forgotten it completely.
This was not a problem with the teacher, but with the curriculum.
Studying calculus in university we had to start from scratch.
We were among the last classes to learn to use slide rules.ÿ I never got
to the point where I was better at that than at mental arithmetic.
William Hyde
Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <11b3b0g$1g1bi$1@dont-email.me>,
ÿ William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/18/26 01:02, Titus G wrote:
On 18/10/2026 19:07, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 22:38, The Starmaker wrote:
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿIf you do not read Science Fiction books and
you post off topic here you must be a troll and I call
on all good users to cast you out...
Starmaker used to be a daily poster here and whilst initially amusing, >>>>> most people will have binned it already but still see its posts when >>>>> replied to.
?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿAt 89 I got no more time for you...
Even if you were 8 or 9 you wouldn't.
ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿWhen I was 8 in 1945 or 9 in 1946 I would not have been
experienced enough to realize that the Troll was there but no
worry about that because at that time we only had comic books
and SF magazines. No handy Internet at all.
ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿMy elementary school calculator was a pencil with
a celluloid sleeve with the times table and you just rotated
it to the 6 X 9 column to get 54, and no more power needed
but your fingers.
We wouldn't have been allowed that in Toronto in the 1950s.ÿ If you
couldn't memorize products up to 12X12 you got at best a D in
arithmetic.
I can write out that entire table even now (I can go higher, but I would
be adding the numbers as I go).
However, I must admit that about 2 decades ago, I discovered that I had
forgotten how to extract a square root. I devoted a bit of effort to
relearn that and I think I still remember it.
It just occurred to me the other day that I had forgotten how to use
that method, plus the related methods for cube roots and so on.
I never really used them, though.ÿ I just guessed and iterated.
As I recall the proof that such methods work was quite nice.
William Hyde
Ar an nao£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Johann Oskarsson:
> On 10/19/2026 9:00 PM, Hibou wrote:
>
> > [...] The article in question, 'Lire les romans aide … vivre mieux et plus
> > longtemps' ('L'express', 2026-10-15, pp. 48-49) speaks of numerous
> > studies, but does not cite them. Some are observational and one may query
> > the rigour of others. Pour ce que ‡a vaut - for what it's worth,
> > 'bibliotherapy' is supposed to help with cognitive decline, memory loss,
> > shell shock, mood, depression, anxiety, and sleep.
> >
> > At least some of this is plausible. Reading requires mental effort. It seems
> > quite a large task to convert a mess of black squiggles? into ideas,
> > characters, worlds, and plots that can excite fascination, concern, outrage,
> > and so on (marvellous thing, the human brain). To the extent that using it
> > avoids losing it, this mental exercise is likely beneficial.
> >
> > ?Other colours of squiggle are available.
>
> The counter argument, of course, is that so does competitive DOOM. DOOM
> is perhaps not the best 1st person shooter, but it's sufficient to make
> a point. Competitive DOOM seems on the surface even better at prevent-
> ing cognitive decline than reading books.
>
> I also admit to be a failure at DOOM, so I prefer to read books. YMMV
> and so forth.
The awkward thing about both these is that the more you do something, the less
it takes out of you, the fewer incremental new neuronal connections you need for learning in that area.
My rule of thumb on preventing cognitive decline, which is mostly the loss of ability to retain new memories, is to constantly practice storing new memories,
learn something difficult that you?re bad at.
So a couple of months of DOOM, then Kant in German with some assessment by an external party that you?ve understood it, then learn 500 Kanji with flashcards
until you?re happy you?ve retained them, then join Toastmasters for six months
and get to the point you and your audience are happy with your speeches, then,
then, then ...
I don?t phrase it in quite as daunting a way to patients.
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
William Hyde wrote:
BobbieSellers wrote:I guess we were lucky. We were among the (first?) classes that mocked
ÿÿÿÿÿI did ok in HS calculus and learned to use a slice rule but
calculus escapes the prison of my memory.
HS calculus was terrible.ÿ Had I not gone on to take it in University
I'd have forgotten it completely.
This was not a problem with the teacher, but with the curriculum.
Studying calculus in university we had to start from scratch.
We were among the last classes to learn to use slide rules.ÿ I never
got to the point where I was better at that than at mental arithmetic.
William Hyde
the slide rule. There were one or two brought into class to gawk at. My father owned a calculator as far back as I can remember. The first ones
I encountered had limited battery strength.
On 19/10/2026 18:18, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <11b40ne$1mp0m$1@dont-email.me>,snip
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone wrote a
short story where a man invented an antigravity device, but couldn't get >> the patent office (or something like that) to take him seriously. So he
created a magician's fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a
party trick, together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the thread was too
fine to support the weight.
I think I have read this (I am fairly certain in appeared in Astouding/Analog sometime during John W. Campbell's editorship). I
thought it might be "Trade Secret" by Raymond F. Jones, but that toy was free flying. Unfortunately, the ISFDB is down, so I can't check listings of several other authors for a title that rings a bell.
The Quy Effect by Arthur Sellings (1966)?
In article <11b4ant$1oktu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 19/10/2026 18:18, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <11b40ne$1mp0m$1@dont-email.me>,snip
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone wrote a
short story where a man invented an antigravity device, but couldn't get >>>> the patent office (or something like that) to take him seriously. So he >>>> created a magician's fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a
party trick, together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the thread was too
fine to support the weight.
I think I have read this (I am fairly certain in appeared in
Astouding/Analog sometime during John W. Campbell's editorship). I
thought it might be "Trade Secret" by Raymond F. Jones, but that toy was >>> free flying. Unfortunately, the ISFDB is down, so I can't check listings >>> of several other authors for a title that rings a bell.
The Quy Effect by Arthur Sellings (1966)?
Where was it published? (the ISFDB is still down and the MIT index
doesn't list it).
My rule of thumb on preventing cognitive decline, which is mostly the loss of ability to retain new memories, is to constantly practice storing new memories,
learn something difficult that you?re bad at.
So a couple of months of DOOM, then Kant in German with some assessment by an external party that you?ve understood it, then learn 500 Kanji with flashcards
until you?re happy you?ve retained them, then join Toastmasters for six months
and get to the point you and your audience are happy with your speeches, then,
then, then ...
I don?t phrase it in quite as daunting a way to patients.
Le 19/10/2026 … 18:31, Aidan Kehoe a ‚crit :
My rule of thumb on preventing cognitive decline, which is mostly the loss of ability to retain new memories, is to constantly practice storing new memories, learn something difficult that you?re bad at.
So a couple of months of DOOM, then Kant in German with some assessment by an external party that you?ve understood it, then learn 500 Kanji with flashcards until you?re happy you?ve retained them, then join Toastmasters for six months and get to the point you and your audience are happy with your speeches, then, then, then ...
I don?t phrase it in quite as daunting a way to patients.
That's a good point, and a troublesome one.
Perhaps there's a parallel with physical fitness.
Is it worth extending
one's life by 10% by spending 10% of it in the gym, i.e. doing something that one may not want to do and is boring? (Answer, based on these figures, which I've just conjured out of the air - no: 110% x 90% = 99%, a small net loss.)
Is it worth staving off mental decrepitude by spending time learning things one
doesn't care two hoots about? (I acknowledge I have a problem in this respect -
I've always found it easy to apply myself to things I want to do, devilishly difficult to do what doesn't interest me. I feel the answer is to integrate beneficial activities into what one has to do - eschew the car and the bus, and
walk instead; shun the lift and escalator and take the stairs; make a two-fingered gesture to AI, do the research and thinking yourself?.)
Le 19/10/2026 … 18:31, Aidan Kehoe a ‚crit :
My rule of thumb on preventing cognitive decline, which is mostly the loss of
ability to retain new memories, is to constantly practice storing new memories,
learn something difficult that you?re bad at.
So a couple of months of DOOM, then Kant in German with some assessment by an
external party that you?ve understood it, then learn 500 Kanji with flashcards
until you?re happy you?ve retained them, then join Toastmasters for six months
and get to the point you and your audience are happy with your speeches, then,
then, then ...
I don?t phrase it in quite as daunting a way to patients.
That's a good point, and a troublesome one.
Perhaps there's a parallel with physical fitness. Is it worth extending one's life by 10% by spending 10% of it in the gym, i.e. doing something that one may not want to do and is boring? (Answer, based on these
figures, which I've just conjured out of the air - no: 110% x 90% = 99%,
a small net loss.)
Is it worth staving off mental decrepitude by spending time learning
things one doesn't care two hoots about? (I acknowledge I have a problem
in this respect - I've always found it easy to apply myself to things I
want to do, devilishly difficult to do what doesn't interest me. I feel
the answer is to integrate beneficial activities into what one has to do
- eschew the car and the bus, and walk instead; shun the lift and
escalator and take the stairs; make a two-fingered gesture to AI, do the research and thinking yourself?.)
On 10/20/2026 1:31 AM, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
Ar an nao£ l d‚ag de m¡ Deireadh F¢mhair, scr¡obh Johann Oskarsson:
> On 10/19/2026 9:00 PM, Hibou wrote:
>
> > [...] The article in question, 'Lire les romans aide … vivre mieux et plus
> > longtemps' ('L'express', 2026-10-15, pp. 48-49) speaks of numerous
> > studies, but does not cite them. Some are observational and one may query
> > the rigour of others. Pour ce que ‡a vaut - for what it's worth,
> > 'bibliotherapy' is supposed to help with cognitive decline, memory loss,
> > shell shock, mood, depression, anxiety, and sleep.
> >
> > At least some of this is plausible. Reading requires mental effort. It seems
> > quite a large task to convert a mess of black squiggles? into ideas, >> > > characters, worlds, and plots that can excite fascination, concern, outrage,
> > and so on (marvellous thing, the human brain). To the extent that using it
> > avoids losing it, this mental exercise is likely beneficial.
> >
> > ?Other colours of squiggle are available.
>
> The counter argument, of course, is that so does competitive DOOM. DOOM >> > is perhaps not the best 1st person shooter, but it's sufficient to make >> > a point. Competitive DOOM seems on the surface even better at prevent- >> > ing cognitive decline than reading books.
>
> I also admit to be a failure at DOOM, so I prefer to read books. YMMV >> > and so forth.
The awkward thing about both these is that the more you do something, the less
it takes out of you, the fewer incremental new neuronal connections you need >> for learning in that area.
My rule of thumb on preventing cognitive decline, which is mostly the loss of
ability to retain new memories, is to constantly practice storing new memories,
learn something difficult that you?re bad at.
So a couple of months of DOOM, then Kant in German with some assessment by an
external party that you?ve understood it, then learn 500 Kanji with flashcards
until you?re happy you?ve retained them, then join Toastmasters for six months
and get to the point you and your audience are happy with your speeches, then,
then, then ...
I don?t phrase it in quite as daunting a way to patients.
Well, I started cryptohack recently,
In article <11b4ant$1oktu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 19/10/2026 18:18, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <11b40ne$1mp0m$1@dont-email.me>,snip
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone wrote a
short story where a man invented an antigravity device, but couldn't get >> the patent office (or something like that) to take him seriously. So he >> created a magician's fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a
party trick, together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the thread was too
fine to support the weight.
I think I have read this (I am fairly certain in appeared in Astouding/Analog sometime during John W. Campbell's editorship). I thought it might be "Trade Secret" by Raymond F. Jones, but that toy was free flying. Unfortunately, the ISFDB is down, so I can't check listings of several other authors for a title that rings a bell.
The Quy Effect by Arthur Sellings (1966)?
Where was it published? (the ISFDB is still down and the MIT index
doesn't list it).
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
In article <11b4ant$1oktu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 19/10/2026 18:18, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <11b40ne$1mp0m$1@dont-email.me>,snip
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone wrote a
short story where a man invented an antigravity device, but couldn't get >>>> the patent office (or something like that) to take him seriously. So he >>>> created a magician's fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a
party trick, together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the thread was too
fine to support the weight.
I think I have read this (I am fairly certain in appeared in
Astouding/Analog sometime during John W. Campbell's editorship). I
thought it might be "Trade Secret" by Raymond F. Jones, but that toy was >>> free flying. Unfortunately, the ISFDB is down, so I can't check listings >>> of several other authors for a title that rings a bell.
The Quy Effect by Arthur Sellings (1966)?
Where was it published? (the ISFDB is still down and the MIT index
doesn't list it).
Le 18/10/2026 … 12:33, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson a ‚crit :
Well, I'm not sure decline in reading fiction measures anything much.
After all, people are inundated with more interesting storytelling
methods nowadays, mostly videos.
A lot of people are "addicted" [1] to short form video dramas, the same
way people listened to radio dramas -- literal soap operas -- in the
1930s.ÿ These are shot in phone proportions and one minute segments to
maximize advertisement revenue.ÿ You can subscribe to these drama "sta-
tions" to get rid of the ads.
As much of entertainment is literally slush [2], and people aren't very
judgemental when bored, I don't see much value in reading physical books
over audiobooks, or phone dramas, for consooming the fiction.
Of course, reading comprehension is developed over time and by reading
lots of books, but we can also argue that reading comprehension isn't
all that necessary in daily life for regular people.ÿ After all, higher
education is now considered "passe" -- the accent is missing -- and just
a formality to get through to enter /adult life/ and employment; it
really doesn't matter what education people get.ÿ It's just a random
flip of the coin by someone in H.R. if a person gets a job or not [3].
And to counter my prior arguments, sort of, I have to mention that I
read a lot of nonfiction, which without reading comprehension, I would
not understand at all.ÿ You can see some of the easier tomes in the
background of my BlueSky profile, linked below.
And to counter the counter argument, I'll finish with: I don't /need/
regular people to have such reading comprehension to enjoy their daily
lives.ÿ I'm not an educational snob, and don't care if a particular per-
son goes through higher education or not.
Then to finish off, we can discuss these things at length, but please
have a well formed -- if not well informed -- opinion about regular peo-
ple and reading, so at least we can argue in good faith and don't have
to move the goal posts all over the battleground for the ensuing flame-
war [4].
I've not expressed an opinion yet, save that the articles seem
interesting. Here's one, though: the idea that books are good for people seems plausible.
I think I know a bit about a few subjects, and I've forgotten a lot
about others. They are the ones in which I've read a number of books -
which is not to say that books are the only way to acquire knowledge -
far from it - but they do let one delve more deeply.
Films and videos, yes, love them; but novels are more versatile. It's
hard to have a first-person viewpoint and inner narrative on film.
'Nineteen Eighty-Four' and 'The Reader' just aren't the same on screen,
and I don't think 'La m‚taphysique des tubes' could ever be filmed.
Fiction expands experience. One can live through alien invasions - in 'A
for Andromeda', for instance; the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre; descend among the Morlocks, armed with just some matches and sulphur; hear about
the politics of the Lilliputians; travel through Middle Earth; visit the Planet of the Apes; hunt for a mole in the Circus; suffer amorous
bondage with Somerset Maugham, the torture of Japanese corporate life
with Am‚lie Nothomb, or be a slave to pity with Stefan Zweig?.
And writing? Writing is the least expensive medium and has the fewest limitations - and the pictures are even better than those on the radio.
Le 19/10/2026 … 18:31, Aidan Kehoe a ‚crit :
My rule of thumb on preventing cognitive decline, which is mostly the
loss of
ability to retain new memories, is to constantly practice storing new
memories,
learn something difficult that you?re bad at.
So a couple of months of DOOM, then Kant in German with some
assessment by an
external party that you?ve understood it, then learn 500 Kanji with
flashcards
until you?re happy you?ve retained them, then join Toastmasters for
six months
and get to the point you and your audience are happy with your
speeches, then,
then, then ...
I don?t phrase it in quite as daunting a way to patients.
That's a good point, and a troublesome one.
Perhaps there's a parallel with physical fitness. Is it worth extending one's life by 10% by spending 10% of it in the gym, i.e. doing something that one may not want to do and is boring? (Answer, based on these
figures, which I've just conjured out of the air - no: 110% x 90% = 99%,
a small net loss.)
Is it worth staving off mental decrepitude by spending time learning
things one doesn't care two hoots about? (I acknowledge I have a problem
in this respect - I've always found it easy to apply myself to things I
want to do, devilishly difficult to do what doesn't interest me. I feel
the answer is to integrate beneficial activities into what one has to do
- eschew the car and the bus, and walk instead; shun the lift and
escalator and take the stairs; make a two-fingered gesture to AI, do the research and thinking yourself?.)
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself
annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is
possibly the
worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told,
but the
padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader.
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the
point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the
characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They
take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort
paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by
cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen
comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>>> writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're used to >>>>> being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I
refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that books >>>>> don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only
person to
complain about this?
--
Peter Moylanÿÿÿÿÿÿ peter@pmoylan.orgÿÿÿ http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
ÿÿÿÿÿActually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid
usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s.ÿ The
best author were not necessarily prolix.
ÿÿÿÿÿIn the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the
Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due
to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory
to the bookshelves of the stores.
Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub-
lishers' minds.ÿ It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo-
ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher.
According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is something like:
"The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack ofÿ taste".
which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s.ÿ But I can't seem to
find any.
William Hyde
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:ÿI was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in domestic use,ÿ There was a similar increase in burglaries.ÿ In fact,
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you.ÿ For some of them -- not all of course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church. >>>
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
there was a straight line correlationÿ between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church. >>>
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact,
there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
[1] Some years ago, so I'm not current on what's good and what isn't.
I hope Ben Eater is still teaching people how to make a 6502 with bread- >boards.
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statisticsI was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact,
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
"Refridgerator", agreeably, is the correct spelling of "refridgerator",
with "the fridge" being common parlance.
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church. >>>
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact,
there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local
church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact,
there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years
following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact,
there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:ÿI was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in domestic use,ÿ There was a similar increase in burglaries.ÿ In fact,
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you.ÿ For some of them -- not all of course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church. >>>
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
there was a straight line correlationÿ between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
On 10/20/2026 7:00 AM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:ÿÿI was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you.ÿ For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local
church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
domestic use,ÿ There was a similar increase in burglaries.ÿ In fact,
there was a straight line correlationÿ between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
I suspect that the two were independently rising because of the post-war economic boom.
On 10/19/2026 4:57 AM, William Hyde wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/18/2026 9:59 AM, BobbieSellers wrote:
On 10/17/26 11:47, The Starmaker wrote:
Peter Moylan wrote:
I've griped about this issue before, but once again I find myself >>>>>> annoyed.
I was reading "Robots and Empire", by Isaac Asimov. This is
possibly the
worst novel Asimov ever wrote. As a story it's mostly well-told,
but the
padding and waffle are enough to irritate the most patient reader. >>>>>>
Let me quote from Chapter 45. "I think you must either get to the >>>>>> point,
Dr Mandamus, or leave." This is not the only such case. Many of the >>>>>> characters in the book are incapable of getting to the point. They >>>>>> take
half a dozen pages to say something that could be put in one chort >>>>>> paragraph. Get to the point, Dr Asimov. It's so bad that even the
characters in the story are complaining about the padding.
A competent editor could have made this a much better book by
cutting it
to about one third of its length.
I wonder whether this hurt Asimov's reputation. I've certainly seen >>>>>> comments that his later (thick) books are not as good as his earlier >>>>>> writing.
It's not all his fault. Many other authors are as bad. They're
used to
being paid by the page, and publishers are letting them get away with >>>>>> it. Maybe publishers don't employ editors any more, and have given up >>>>>> any attempt at quality control. There are some authors that I
refuse to
read because their books are too thick.
But surely, I tell myself, the publishers must have noticed that
books
don't sell as well as they used to. Or do they? Am I the only
person to
complain about this?
--
Peter Moylanÿÿÿÿÿÿ peter@pmoylan.orgÿÿÿ http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW
ÿÿÿÿÿActually Peter Moylan is incorrect. Authors were paid
usually by the word from SF magazines back in the 1940s.ÿ The
best author were not necessarily prolix.
ÿÿÿÿÿIn the case of JRR Tolkien the published cut the
Lord of the Rings from one big fat book to a Trilogy due
to the difficulty of getting so much paper from the factory
to the bookshelves of the stores.
Which in turn created the /fantasy trilogy/, in both readers' and pub-
lishers' minds.ÿ It's not really worth mentioning, other than some peo-
ple attribute this to Tolkien himself, rather than his publisher.
According to Samuel Delaney one of Wilde's less well known quips is
something like:
"The only thing necessary to write a trilogy is a total lack ofÿ taste".
which implies that trilogies existed in the 1890s.ÿ But I can't seem
to find any.
William Hyde
I'm not sure trilogies of the late 1800s, nor Wilde for that matter,are
worth much.ÿ I believe most multi-volume stories published back then
were collections of serials, and the number of volumes wasn't fixed.ÿ I
give
ÿ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysteries_of_Paris
as an example [1].
Unlike say the fantasy trilogies of the 80s and 90s, of which I only re- cently started to listen to /The Diamond Throne/ by David Eddings,
ÿ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Elenium
which I've read multiple times since coming across it in a library in my teens.
Plus, I believe Wilde only wrote one novel length story.ÿ I've only seen
the (?) black & white movie, but it's enough to know the character.
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad! --scott
On 20/10/2026 17:14, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ross Finlaysonÿ <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad!
--scott
certainly mine keeps my weekly, self inflicted, injections,>
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad! --scott
Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <11b4ant$1oktu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 19/10/2026 18:18, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <11b40ne$1mp0m$1@dont-email.me>, Peter Moylansnip
<peter@pmoylan.org> wrote:
ObSF: I've forgotten the details and the author, but someone
wrote a short story where a man invented an antigravity
device, but couldn't get the patent office (or something
like that) to take him seriously. So he created a magician's
fake antigravity trick and sold it to them as a party trick,
together with instructions on how to manipulate the fine
thread that lifted the weight.
Then he sat back and waited for them to figure out the
thread was too fine to support the weight.
I think I have read this (I am fairly certain in appeared in
Astouding/Analog sometime during John W. Campbell's
editorship). I thought it might be "Trade Secret" by Raymond
F. Jones, but that toy was free flying. Unfortunately, the
ISFDB is down, so I can't check listings of several other
authors for a title that rings a bell.
The Quy Effect by Arthur Sellings (1966)?
Where was it published? (the ISFDB is still down and the MIT index
doesn't list it).
Google says it is a book, published originally by Berkley Medallion,
On 10/20/2026 10:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:ÿI was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you.ÿ For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church. >>>>
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of
fridges in domestic use,ÿ There was a similar increase in
burglaries.ÿ In fact, there was a straight line correlationÿ between
fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
There are some possibilities, so let's think this through. The people installing the fridges also engaged in burglaries. The people buying
the fridges were well-to-do and prime targets for burglaries. Then see-
ing the fridge getting installed gave the local hooligans the idea.
I guess the biggest factor is people being well-to-do makes them prime targets for burglaries. Especially if they don't have security -- eith-
er guards, or nowadays, security cameras.
For that matter, I can be convinced some of the /burglars caught on sec- urity cameras/ were staged either by the company selling them, or the
people who own the home. After all, what do bored suburbanites get up
to?
So, just because there's a correlation doesn't mean there isn't a caus- ation; it just may not be obvious from the data at hand.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics that regularly going
to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy is bunk. It is a
textbook example of how not to do statistics,
On 10/20/2026 09:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ross Finlaysonÿ <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad!
--scott
Might as well put your head in the microwave.
On 2026-10-20, Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson wrote:
On 10/20/2026 10:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:ÿI was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you.ÿ For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local church. >>>>>
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>>> claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy >>>> is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
years following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of
fridges in domestic use,ÿ There was a similar increase in
burglaries.ÿ In fact, there was a straight line correlationÿ between
fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
There are some possibilities, so let's think this through. The people
installing the fridges also engaged in burglaries. The people buying
the fridges were well-to-do and prime targets for burglaries. Then see-
ing the fridge getting installed gave the local hooligans the idea.
I guess the biggest factor is people being well-to-do makes them prime
targets for burglaries. Especially if they don't have security -- eith-
er guards, or nowadays, security cameras.
For that matter, I can be convinced some of the /burglars caught on sec-
urity cameras/ were staged either by the company selling them, or the
people who own the home. After all, what do bored suburbanites get up
to?
So, just because there's a correlation doesn't mean there isn't a caus-
ation; it just may not be obvious from the data at hand.
The way I read the parent post, the increase may not even be linked to households that had acquired a fridge, merely happening in tandem with
the increase in the number of fridges.
On 20/10/26 22:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics that regularly going
to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy is bunk. It is a
textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Statistics is a problem generally. Hardly anyone understands statistics
at the level that statisticians do. High school statistics only
scratches the very edge of the subject, with no warnings about how a simple-minded aplication of the formulae can give wrong answers. A small handful of us studied a more advanced level as part of our education,
but how much of it sank in?
I have read published research papers where wrong conclusions were drawn
from a too-naive use of statistics, and the authors were clearly unaware
of what they did wrong.
We need to treat anything involving statistics with caution. In
particular, we need to ask "Have these results been checked by a
qualified statistician?"
Another thing I've come across in the past, is people not understanding
the existence of something. My example is to do with people, so I'll
try to recreate an example, because I don't remember the original con-
text.
So, I basically got in an "argument" online, because I suggested some
subset of people existed. It may have been something to do with health,
as it cannot have been hair colour or something.
And the person getting upset and/or not believing it, asked for "proof"
and said that anectdata was not valid in statistics; or something along
those lines.
And the person getting upset and/or not believing it, asked for
"proof" and said that anectdata was not valid in statistics; or
something along those lines.
My dear pal mike does not keep his cannabis
pre-rolls long enough to need refrigeration AFAIK. People
who use opiates and the synthetics also tend to use it
as fast as they can get it. Meth and coke heads tend
to use it as fast as they can.
They don't want possession charges.
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> writes:
Another thing I've come across in the past, is people not understanding
the existence of something. My example is to do with people, so I'll
try to recreate an example, because I don't remember the original con-
text.
So, I basically got in an "argument" online, because I suggested some
subset of people existed. It may have been something to do with health,
as it cannot have been hair colour or something.
And the person getting upset and/or not believing it, asked for "proof"
and said that anectdata was not valid in statistics; or something along
those lines.
The hillbilly, who has never been further from his cabin far up the
holler than the general store in the village, has been invited to the
big city by a distant relative. Making his way to the village, into
town and thence to the bigger town on the railway, he's met by the
relative and given the big tour of city sights. At the zoo, he stands gawking for several minutes, watching the giraffes do whatever it is
that giraffes do.
Turning away, he opines, "They ain't no sich animule!"
On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local
church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and
claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact,
there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
On 10/20/2026 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of course -- >>>>> it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend other >>>>> social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local
church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>>> claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy >>>> is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact,
there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries.
Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
Since that time in many segments of American culture,
"the nazis & the commies" were considered antithetical
to American ideals, and the enemy of good Americans,
terrorists are small change, while yet the nazis and
the commies and their codependency with suppression &
repression and run-away filthy lucre, have it so that
the lifetime of propaganda has very firmly established
that it's virtuous to be against the nazis and the commies,
particularly those that are both, progressive radicals
of the self-serving variety.
The Bayesian, about statistics, is only a partial account,
working fine for classical probabilities, while yet there's
that continuous distributions are not modeled after counting
arguments and otherwise closed by classical probabilities.
So, not only is the statistical method a rigorous course
itself, the actual foundations of probability theory have
large gaps about the Bayesian as the inductive and empirical,
about uncertainty and chance in probability theory yet with
actual accounts of non-standard and extra-ordinary mathematics
itself, has that there are lies and lies.
Lots of people hear "Bayesian" and think "sound", yet,
it's notable that "Bayesian" is "incomplete" about the
continuous after the discrete, chopping off fingers
to infinity.
On 10/21/2026 10:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/20/2026 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:ÿ I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you.ÿ For some of them -- not all of
course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend
other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local
church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>>>> claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life
expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in
domestic use,ÿ There was a similar increase in burglaries.ÿ In fact,
there was a straight line correlationÿ between fridges and burglaries. >>>> Did one cause the other??
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
Since that time in many segments of American culture,
"the nazis & the commies" were considered antithetical
to American ideals, and the enemy of good Americans,
terrorists are small change, while yet the nazis and
the commies and their codependency with suppression &
repression and run-away filthy lucre, have it so that
the lifetime of propaganda has very firmly established
that it's virtuous to be against the nazis and the commies,
particularly those that are both, progressive radicals
of the self-serving variety.
The Bayesian, about statistics, is only a partial account,
working fine for classical probabilities, while yet there's
that continuous distributions are not modeled after counting
arguments and otherwise closed by classical probabilities.
So, not only is the statistical method a rigorous course
itself, the actual foundations of probability theory have
large gaps about the Bayesian as the inductive and empirical,
about uncertainty and chance in probability theory yet with
actual accounts of non-standard and extra-ordinary mathematics
itself, has that there are lies and lies.
Lots of people hear "Bayesian" and think "sound", yet,
it's notable that "Bayesian" is "incomplete" about the
continuous after the discrete, chopping off fingers
to infinity.
Recent polls show most people aren't in the vocal cohort,
and more than two-thirds of people consider themselves
reasonable common-sense moderates, given a very basic
account of equal rights & equal protections as the
cornerstone of what justness is where "democracy"
is "rule of law" with rights & protections since Aristotle,
then vis-a-vis "rule of the mob" or "rule of mob",
about majority and meritocracy, then that the
anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are
considered subject their own deconstructive account
as not pertaining to society overall and good governance,
instead as symptomatic of inefficiences in the economy.
The Bayesian as completing itself is turned over many
times in the mathematics, for example about Frege's
completeness then Russell's incompleteness then Russell's
retro-thesis of completeness then Goedel's completeness
then Goedel's incompleteness, that though for the
actual accounts of the continuous and completeness,
and then repleteness, that since antiquity there are
the multiple models of continuous domains like as for
Xenocrates and line-drawing like Hilbert's postulate
of continuity or Cavalieri's indivisibles vis-a-vis
the Eudoxan after the Archimedean the rational extension,
that the _repleteness_ of the super-standard and the
continuous, then as well for the _extra-ordinary_ of
the actually infinite then is for the _super-standard_,
since Zeno's "moving rows" and for quasi-invariant
measure theory as for real and mathematically real
accounts of convergence and emergence.
Yeah, statistics will lie if you let them.
On 10/22/2026 1:44 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/21/2026 10:28 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/20/2026 08:05 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 10/20/2026 02:00 PM, Charles Hope wrote:
On 20/10/2026 12:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> wrote:I was taught to e very careful about using statistics. In the years >>>>> following WW2, you could see an increase in the number of fridges in >>>>> domestic use, There was a similar increase in burglaries. In fact, >>>>> there was a straight line correlation between fridges and burglaries. >>>>> Did one cause the other??
On 10/20/2026 3:40 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is a classical example of not correcting for bias.
(to obtain a wanted result)
The parishioners going to church every sunday
will be in better health (on average)
than those who stay at home.
Don't let the bias bite you. For some of them -- not all of
course --
it's because they go to church every Sunday, and probably attend >>>>>>> other
social related activities -- many of which are tied to the local >>>>>>> church.
I mean, it's not like you can just magically use the word /bias/ and >>>>>>> claim it doesn't work for some people.
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics
that regularly going to chuch on sundays increases your life
expectancy
is bunk.
It is a textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Jan
Mostly the mobility and the transience,
then also there were a lot of drug habits.
Fridges just keep food cold.
Since that time in many segments of American culture,
"the nazis & the commies" were considered antithetical
to American ideals, and the enemy of good Americans,
terrorists are small change, while yet the nazis and
the commies and their codependency with suppression &
repression and run-away filthy lucre, have it so that
the lifetime of propaganda has very firmly established
that it's virtuous to be against the nazis and the commies,
particularly those that are both, progressive radicals
of the self-serving variety.
The Bayesian, about statistics, is only a partial account,
working fine for classical probabilities, while yet there's
that continuous distributions are not modeled after counting
arguments and otherwise closed by classical probabilities.
So, not only is the statistical method a rigorous course
itself, the actual foundations of probability theory have
large gaps about the Bayesian as the inductive and empirical,
about uncertainty and chance in probability theory yet with
actual accounts of non-standard and extra-ordinary mathematics
itself, has that there are lies and lies.
Lots of people hear "Bayesian" and think "sound", yet,
it's notable that "Bayesian" is "incomplete" about the
continuous after the discrete, chopping off fingers
to infinity.
Recent polls show most people aren't in the vocal cohort,
and more than two-thirds of people consider themselves
reasonable common-sense moderates, given a very basic
account of equal rights & equal protections as the
cornerstone of what justness is where "democracy"
is "rule of law" with rights & protections since Aristotle,
then vis-a-vis "rule of the mob" or "rule of mob",
about majority and meritocracy, then that the
anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism are
considered subject their own deconstructive account
as not pertaining to society overall and good governance,
instead as symptomatic of inefficiences in the economy.
The Bayesian as completing itself is turned over many
times in the mathematics, for example about Frege's
completeness then Russell's incompleteness then Russell's
retro-thesis of completeness then Goedel's completeness
then Goedel's incompleteness, that though for the
actual accounts of the continuous and completeness,
and then repleteness, that since antiquity there are
the multiple models of continuous domains like as for
Xenocrates and line-drawing like Hilbert's postulate
of continuity or Cavalieri's indivisibles vis-a-vis
the Eudoxan after the Archimedean the rational extension,
that the _repleteness_ of the super-standard and the
continuous, then as well for the _extra-ordinary_ of
the actually infinite then is for the _super-standard_,
since Zeno's "moving rows" and for quasi-invariant
measure theory as for real and mathematically real
accounts of convergence and emergence.
Yeah, statistics will lie if you let them.
Can people lie with statistics without /letting them/?
On 10/20/2026 09:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ross Finlaysonÿ <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Fridges just keep food cold.
But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad!
and other perishable drugs.ÿ I keep my cannabis in the
fridge which is actually in gummy candy format to make it
last at the proper strength for as long as I can.
On 20/10/26 22:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Nonsense. The 'scientific' proof from statistics that regularly going
to chuch on sundays increases your life expectancy is bunk. It is a
textbook example of how not to do statistics,
Statistics is a problem generally. Hardly anyone understands statistics
at the level that statisticians do. High school statistics only
scratches the very edge of the subject, with no warnings about how a >simple-minded aplication of the formulae can give wrong answers. A small >handful of us studied a more advanced level as part of our education,
but how much of it sank in?
I have read published research papers where wrong conclusions were drawn
from a too-naive use of statistics, and the authors were clearly unaware
of what they did wrong.
We need to treat anything involving statistics with caution. In
particular, we need to ask "Have these results been checked by a
qualified statistician?"
On 21/10/2026 14:32, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 10/20/2026 09:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Ross Finlayson? <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
Fridges just keep food cold.
But fridges can ALSO keep your drugs cold and keep them from going bad!
and other perishable drugs.? I keep my cannabis in the
fridge which is actually in gummy candy format to make it
last at the proper strength for as long as I can.
I don't know about gummy candy but it is my belief that the flower, the
head, keeps its strength for years just stored in a cool dark dry place.
I am in the minority believing that chilling is just another of the
mythical rituals surrounding drug use as in New Zealand the first place
that the police look when searching for drugs is the fridge or freezer.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 497972:21:15 |
| Calls: | 190 |
| Files: | 846 |
| Messages: | 71,480 |