What is the name of the series of books you were (are) reading on alternate American history? Are they by Harry Turtledove? (I just got a book order in and have Walk in Hell).

Also, why don't you have a catagory in this forum titled "Cherri and her views"?

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2001

Answers

When I saw the categories, I wondered that, too. Some people just have no taste and/or sensibilities ;-)

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2001

Shoot, I just want the answer to one little thing. Now that everyone knows Katherine Harris is going to be 'envoy to the Americas', we know what she was shooting for all last year.

During the election crisis, it was claimed and repeated by lots of folks, many here, that she was NOT after any appointment whatsoever.

We now KNOW that was a lie.

So who started it? Who told that lie first? Was it Limbaugh, or was he repeating something from that conservative fax center? Does anyone know the answer to that?

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2001

If you want a separate category, I shall create one. (Are you kidding, or are you serious?) :)

Yeah, Harry Turtledove is the guy. The very first book in the series is How Few Remain, which sets up American Front. In "How Few," Stonewall Jackson leads the Confederacy in a successful second war against the US, at which point the frustrated US develops closer ties with Germany. This sets up the rest of the series.

After American Front comes Walk In Hell; the most recent is Breakthroughs.

I disagree with some of his premises -- for example, in WWI, the British Navy was by far the best; the US wasn't very good at the time, and yet, he has the US Navy defeat a COMBINED British AND Japanese task force in the "Sandwich Islands" (Hawaii). I guess his premise here is that the US would have trained with the Germans and would have gotten much better than they were in real history.

But then, the Germans weren't that great at the time, either ... they had a few better-armed ships, but they were NOT as good as the Brits. Given this, and a few other quibbles, I disagree with his final conclusion; I think it would have been more of a "draw" than an outright defeat.

(I won't say anymore, because I don't want to spoil it.)

He also has the US, rather than the British, introduce the tank to combat, which is the opposite of how it happened historically. You'll probably enjoy the introduction of the airplane and how it was used. :)

But these are quibbles. It's a great series, and it does illustrate an important "what if" -- if the Confederacy had won the Civil War and had become a separate state, following by worsening relations with the US, what he sees happening later is possible.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2001

Actually I would like my own "topic". I would like to write some things about and maybe write down some situations in my life which I will eventually use in a book about my life- why, how and what happened in my quest to pursue a field formally all male. Maybe people will ask questions that will bring back memories about things I don't remember right off. Also I would like to throw some ideas around and get help with them for non information use of technology i.e. robotics, buildings, structures etc. If you don't mind?

Can I read this book before reading the first? Or will it be okay to start with this one since I have it on hand? I'm a good reader, I can be in the process of reading numerous books at one time without loosing the train of the story in any of them. I have read thousands of books and enjoy rereading some decades later to grasp parts I missed when I was young and less knowledgeable

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2001

Paul Davis:

Do you know what "post hoc, ergo prompter hoc" means? You've provided a wonderful illustration, too bad you illustrate a fallacy and can't see it.

-- Anonymous, January 06, 2001

For Flint:

"Ad hoc, add lock, and quid pro quo! So little time -- heh heh -- so much to know." -- Jeremy, the Nowhere Man, "Yellow Submarine"

Too bad you're still so self-inflated with your own pseudo-intellect.

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001

Cherri,

Turtledove repeats himself at times, so I think you can safely read just about any of them at any time. I prefer reading a series like this in chronological order, but it's not a requirement in Turtledove's case.

He writes each book to be stand-alone tomes, which is probably WHY the repetition. For example, he reintroduces each character in each novel, complete with description.

On the category thingie: I'll do that now. :)

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001

[Flint, you are slipping badly.]

Shoot, I just want the answer to one little thing. Now that everyone knows Katherine Harris is going to be 'envoy to the Americas', we know what she was shooting for all last year.

[Widely reported in Florida papers and elsewhere, that Ms. Harris was pushing for a post. It was also widely reported, a week or so later, that she was NOT seeking a post, and that no such post would be offered, because it would reek of payoff.]

During the election crisis, it was claimed and repeated by lots of folks, many here, that she was NOT after any appointment whatsoever.

We now KNOW that was a lie.

[An official act has now been taken, after loud denial that it could occur. If you don't like the word, 'lie', might I ask that you suggest one?]

So who started it? Who told that lie first? Was it Limbaugh, or was he repeating something from that conservative fax center? Does anyone know the answer to that?

[A simple request for information. I didn't think Ms. Harris office started that story - but perhaps it did. Do you have the answer?]

-- Anonymous, January 07, 2001

Thanks Stephen, I will try to act in such a way as to prevent you from regretting this decision :o)

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

You pathetic piece of excrement. The only reason you could work with those men is because you looked and talked like them. I saw you cussing and spitting and mirroring the same values as them. You are as blue collar as the rest of them. You are uneducated and uncouth.

If you want to write a book, save it to disk or start your own password protected forum. Quit begging for attention in this forum. I have a better idea, go use one of those dead password protected forums you started last year----you censoring piece of sh*t.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

Paul:

I believe the situation is more complex than you describe. To hear you tell it:

1) Harris knew perfectly well that following Florida law literally was "wrong" because it tended to assist Bush, which is of course a terrible thing no honest person would do.

2) Therefore, Harris worked out a deal -- she'd follow the law (gasp!) and in exchange, if Bush won, he'd pay her off with some juicy sinecure.

3) She deliberately lied and said there was no such deal when she was questioned.

4) When Bush won, he made good on the deal and the lie was exposed!

In reality (see Stephen's spin thread) the spin machines were all working overtime. Literally, Harris *legally* used her discretion, as provided by law, not to accept late recounts. When the FSC decided that when the law said 7 days, it really *meant* 19 days, Harris accepted this judicial legislation and waited the full 19 days, but wouldn't allow late recounts according to this new date "fashioned" by the FSC.

Of course, Harris' unwillingness to let specific heavily democratic counties keep counting by different rules until Gore won was a Mortal Sin to the Democratic Spin Machine. Why, Harris was acting in a *partisan manner*! (As though letting counts continue was impartial! As though Harris wasn't elected to Secretary of State *as a Republican* for this very purpose!)

By law and by design, Harris did her job, fully legally, following every requirement in every detail. Whether she was expecting an appointment for doing so, who can say? And why even wonder? She didn't do a single thing differently from what she would have done either way -- she followed the law using the legally specified discretion she was elected as a Republican to exercise. Are you seriously suggesting she'd have violated an implicit trust by reneging on the constituency that elected her, *except* that she was paid off not to?

I seriously doubt any such "deal" was ever explicitly made. I doubt Harris was surprised by the offer, but I doubt she'd have been any more surprised if it had never been made. But your wordplay is disturbing. I'm not "after" another job right now, perhaps you aren't either. If you are offered what you consider a much better job, would you take it? I would. Does this mean I was "after" it? No, it doesn't. I'm always open to a much better job offer, even if I'm not actively soliciting one. Aren't you?

But the democratic spin machine took the position that Harris MUST have been angling for some juicy appointment, because no honest person could ever *dream* of working against Gore's best interests. And you fell for it, which is why you now see lies where they didn't exist.

Tell you what. Why don't you post that you aren't seeking new employment. That way, if you EVER change jobs, we can write "We now KNOW that was a lie" just like you did. The difference is, we know better and you don't seem to. There's a big difference between actively seeking a job, and being willing to accept one if offered. Saying there isn't is a lie on your part.

As elected *Republican* Secretary of State, Harris *could not* have honestly done anything different than she actually did. Sorry you don't like it, but that doesn't make it a lie.

-- Anonymous, January 08, 2001

Nice answer, Flint. Pity it didn't have a damn thing to do with my post.

I asked a simple question.

The question, knocked down to fourth grade level words, is: Who began the story that says Harris would not seek a job from Bush?

Is that too hard for you to understand? Should I send someone over from the Reading Wagon or PBS to help you figure out what I asked?

Quit putting words in my mouth.

And I don't even think Harris was making that claim, I think it was Rove or Hughes. But I'm not sure. If you don't know the answer, then you are not being helpful.

And, I'll repeat, whoever made that claim, was lying. The rewards and punishment list exists in every administration, and that is well known as a fact to everyone with adult faculties. She was on the list long before the election.

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001

Paul:

I'm responding to your actual words. If they aren't what you mean, then that's not my problem.

You say a story was put out that Harris "would not seek a job". Notice the word "seek". This is your word. Notice you did not use the word "accept", you used the word "seek". Got that?

Now, you notice that Harris was offered a job, and accepted it. If someone had put out the word that she would not accept a job, then that would have been a lie. "Accept" and "seek" have different meanings.

Instead, you claim it was a LIE (your caps) that she wasn't seeking a job, because she accepted one. When I wrote that you or I would accept a job we weren't seeking, you said I missed the point. Care to think again?

In any case, what's there to get so upset about? Everyone is willing to accept a better job. So what? Why even raise this nonissue in the first place, unless you are trying to use a verbal bait-and-switch to smear someone for doing something proper that you didn't like?

No, I don't know who said she wasn't seeking a job. I wasn't even aware that anyone had said that. But that's standard political procedure. Nobody wants to support the assertion their opponents always make, that they might be misusing their office for personal gain, so they always deny that they are in the market for another job. And it's basically true, because they really ARE NOT behaving any differently than they would if no new job were in the offing. And they really don't know if they'll be offered one or not, or if they'll want the job they're offered if they ARE offered one.

What difference does it make? Any new president offers very large numbers of jobs to large numbers of people (thousands) who helped them get elected in some way. So what? Had Gore won, I'd fully expect him to nominate one of the FSC judges to the USSC.

But this is completely normal. This is the way politics works. What's your problem? Nobody is lying, nobody is selling out, nobody is abusing the system in any way. Why are you upset?

-- Anonymous, January 09, 2001