Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed

"Sabremeister Brian" <bpwakeling.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5tlgb8F1crjl0U1@mid.individual.net...
> In a speech called 47758604$1_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com,
> Reader in Invisible Writings <markfoweraker.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> said:
>> Dave Adalian wrote:
>>> "Reader in Invisible Writings" <markfoweraker.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:47758124$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>>> Dave Adalian wrote:
>>>>> <jdewitt50.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:788d50df-e789-44aa-a0ea-a6612b8896fb@x29g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Speculation warning space
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>> Pterry made it clear he's not reading the posts here, so speculate
>>>>> to your heart's content. In fact, this is what he said about
>>>>> speculating about coming events in DW:
>>>>>
>>>>> "It would be ridiculous to expect a fan group not to speculate
>>>>> about future events on DW -- it's a fundamental part of fanac. So
>>>>> I am, as of now (as of this post, in fact) ceasing to subscribe to
>>>>> alt. fan.pratchett."
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit later he did the same thing here. So, no worries.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Dave
>>>>>
>>>>> Read my latest astronomy column!
>>>>> http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
>>>> Just curious about the date of that because I have had one comment
>>>> regarding a post I made which must have been after Nov 2005 as I
>>>> know it was when using this PC rather than my older equipment.
>>>> (Google concurs it would appear)
>>>
>>> One comment by whom regarding what? Do you mean Pterry posting to
>>> the group? Do you mean a comment by another reader telling you not
>>> to speculate on future plot lines after Pterry had said it was OK to
>>> do so? "The AFP Timelines: Terry Pratchett 'leaves' AFP" page that
>>> explains when Pterry left AFP (3 Feb. 1999 -- the date of the quote
>>> I posted above) and ABP (10 March 1999) and why is here:
>>>
>>> http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/timelines/leaving.html
>>>
>>> -- Dave
>>>
>>> Read my latest astronomy column!
>>> http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>> Sorry, I had one comment (something on the lines of 'nicely put') in
>> response to a post I had made and the signature made it appear to be
>> from TP (or someone posing as him). As this was post 1999 I would
>> have presumed that he (unless there is an occasional phantom TP) had
>> come back at that time. Whether he is still reading I don't know,
>> but would prefer to err on the side of caution.
>
> A quick Google Groups for PTerry's name sorted by date of posting shows
> that his last post to the alt.*.pratchett groups was 20/7/07. He's made a
> few posts to other groups since then (alt.games.elder-scrolls and
> alt.fan.harry-potter), but he's certainly been present in the fan groups
> dedicated to him since that post in 1999. He's come back. And until we see
> another post from him saying he's leaving (for whatever reason), please
> keep the speculation to an absolute minimum, and if possible, hidden
> completely from these groups.
>
HA! I knew Pterry had good gaming taste!

I've been playing Elder Scrolls since '95 and had no idea there was a
newsgroup.
I know the urls for some cheater help though.

signed,
Only when I'm really stuck...
Aggie
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

"Len Oil" <lenoil DeleteThis @lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fl425t$aqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>> Please yourself. I can certainly understand why you would want to keep
>> the alt.X.pratchett groups "pure," but I'll go with Pterry as the last
>> word on the subject. So, until he says it is something we should worry
>> about, I'm not going to worry about it. Besides, who's got time to spend
>> on things like that?
>
> I don't know where you get the idea that (to quote your reply to Reader)
> "Pterry had said it was OK to do so"...
>
> He may have said that it's not unexpected that we do, but you seem to have
> missed a full two paragraphs of Reasons To Not Do It:
>
> "Of course, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to suggest that a
> couple may have kids. But, despite everything, RSN someone is going to
> plonk down some theme or situation which is right in the *heart* of a
> story that I'm planning. I do not want to end up faced with a public
> accusation of plagiarism or theft; the fact that it might well have no
> legal foundation is beside the point. You don't have to be hugely
> imaginative to see that this could be damaging in other ways."
>
> "I've tried to take the view that if people post ideas to afp then it's
> *their* problem, but reality suggests that this attitude wouldn't prevent
> trouble. [...] A meaty suggestion that I'd nicked an idea from afp would
> rumble on for months and turn up in other places, and life is too damn
> short."
>
>
> (And while I'm not going to bother with the more topical reason to
> consider those last few words /particularly/ poignant, because that would
> be morbid, it's enough to consider that it's the best part of a decade
> later and thus the best part of a decade has slipped away from his
> pre-fated lifespan in the meantime /regardless/ of our hopes or fears
> based upon current knowledge...)
>
>
> But please, don't spend time worrying about it, if you are also prone not
> to worry about making a cursory check for traffic when crossing the road,
> that your parachute is on your back before you jump from the aeroplane or
> that you have ignited the gas fire properly next time you turn it on. Was
> that hyperbole? Possibly, but a measured amount of consideration is
> always useful, and caution in the area of speculation is hardly an
> inconvenience to anyone.

Clearly, this is something you've spent a prodigious amount of time
considering. Where I got that Pterry said it was OK was when he said, "It
would be ridiculous to expect a fan group not to speculate about future
events on DW -- it's a fundamental part of fanac." I take him at his word
and no further.

Has he since said anything to contradict himself?

-- Dave

Read my latest astronomy column!
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

Dave Adalian wrote:

> Clearly, this is something you've spent a prodigious amount of time
> considering. Where I got that Pterry said it was OK was when he
> said, "It would be ridiculous to expect a fan group not to
> speculate about future events on DW -- it's a fundamental part of
> fanac." I take him at his word and no further.

It's ridiculous not to expect a whole host of undesirable things.

Every hunting season, a few guys shoot some other guy, under the impression
the he's (to quote Tom Lehrer) "a deer in a red hat."

Just because you know that something is likely to happen doesn't translate
directly to "It's fine with me, go ahead!"

It's a public space, of course, and no one can stop you. You have every
right to speculate as much as you please--whether it affects other people or
not. You are under no obligation, contracted or implied, to abide by the
unwritten guidelines of the group.
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

Dave Adalian wrote:
> Where I got that Pterry said it was OK was when he said, "It
> would be ridiculous to expect a fan group not to speculate about future
> events on DW -- it's a fundamental part of fanac." I take him at his word
> and no further.
>
> Has he since said anything to contradict himself?

There's been quite a few years since then, in which time he's started
posting to alt.*.pratchett again. And stopped, and started again, etc,
and the subject of speculation has popped up and been debated several times.

The general understanding for as long as I can remember has been that we
can speculate all we like, but we'll be doing it in a group in which
pterry will not be able to participate, or we can agree not to do it and
have pterry occasionally drop by to give that most precious of all
gifts, which is irony.
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

Kieran Sanders wrote:
> Dave Adalian wrote:
>> Where I got that Pterry said it was OK was when he said, "It
>> would be ridiculous to expect a fan group not to speculate about
>> future events on DW -- it's a fundamental part of fanac." I take
>> him at his word and no further.
>>
>> Has he since said anything to contradict himself?
>
> There's been quite a few years since then, in which time he's
> started posting to alt.*.pratchett again. And stopped, and started
> again, etc, and the subject of speculation has popped up and been debated
> several times.
> The general understanding for as long as I can remember has been
> that we can speculate all we like, but we'll be doing it in a group
> in which pterry will not be able to participate, or we can agree not to do
> it and have pterry occasionally drop by to give that most precious
> of all gifts, which is irony.

The subject of afp and abp came up at the last DWCon. I mentioned it, and he
said he'd been away for a while, but perhaps it was time to check in again,
since which time he has posted.

He may have checked out again, I don't know.
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

Dave Adalian wrote:
> "Len Oil" <lenoil.DeleteThis@lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fl425t$aqb$1$830fa795@news.demon.co.uk...
>> Dave Adalian wrote:
>>> Please yourself. I can certainly understand why you would want to keep
>>> the alt.X.pratchett groups "pure," but I'll go with Pterry as the last
>>> word on the subject. So, until he says it is something we should worry
>>> about, I'm not going to worry about it. Besides, who's got time to spend
>>> on things like that?
>> I don't know where you get the idea that (to quote your reply to Reader)
>> "Pterry had said it was OK to do so"...
>>
>> He may have said that it's not unexpected that we do, but you seem to have
>> missed a full two paragraphs of Reasons To Not Do It:
>>
>> "Of course, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to suggest that a
>> couple may have kids. But, despite everything, RSN someone is going to
>> plonk down some theme or situation which is right in the *heart* of a
>> story that I'm planning. I do not want to end up faced with a public
>> accusation of plagiarism or theft; the fact that it might well have no
>> legal foundation is beside the point. You don't have to be hugely
>> imaginative to see that this could be damaging in other ways."
>>
>> "I've tried to take the view that if people post ideas to afp then it's
>> *their* problem, but reality suggests that this attitude wouldn't prevent
>> trouble. [...] A meaty suggestion that I'd nicked an idea from afp would
>> rumble on for months and turn up in other places, and life is too damn
>> short."
>>
>>
>> (And while I'm not going to bother with the more topical reason to
>> consider those last few words /particularly/ poignant, because that would
>> be morbid, it's enough to consider that it's the best part of a decade
>> later and thus the best part of a decade has slipped away from his
>> pre-fated lifespan in the meantime /regardless/ of our hopes or fears
>> based upon current knowledge...)
>>
>>
>> But please, don't spend time worrying about it, if you are also prone not
>> to worry about making a cursory check for traffic when crossing the road,
>> that your parachute is on your back before you jump from the aeroplane or
>> that you have ignited the gas fire properly next time you turn it on. Was
>> that hyperbole? Possibly, but a measured amount of consideration is
>> always useful, and caution in the area of speculation is hardly an
>> inconvenience to anyone.
>
> Clearly, this is something you've spent a prodigious amount of time
> considering.

No, I just read past the first sentence.

> [....] Where I got that Pterry said it was OK was when he said, "It
> would be ridiculous to expect a fan group not to speculate about future
> events on DW -- it's a fundamental part of fanac."

"...I do not want to end up with..." "...that [...] it might have no
legal foundation is beside the point..." "...this could be damaging in
other ways." "I've tried [...] but reality suggests that this attitude
wouldn't prevent trouble..." "...would rumble on for months and turn up
in other places..."

And above all: "..._life is to damn short_." My emphasis, with all due
apologies.


I have another advantage, in that while I wasn't here in '99 (this
incarnation arrived a couple of years later) I've seen this discussed
since, though never quite with the same result, as the explanations then
were obviously far better than my attempt, getting an "Ooops, sorry!"
response rather than a protracted discussion under an uncomfortably
titled Subject that's sure to scare PTerry back out of the group (or at
least prevent him from coming to this thread and setting us /all/
straight on our misconceptions) should he decide to pop in and see it.
(I haven't bothered to try to change the subject more than once, you'll
notice.)

What I /really/ wanted to give to the group, as soon as this discussion
was broached, was the link to the "I would have enjoyed writing /that/
story" post that followed up on someone's indiscretion in suggesting a
link between Susan Sto Helit and a certain other fictional character
that would have made a decent (and, at least at the premise level,
/fairly obvious/) parody which it sounds like the man himself had in
mind but hadn't solidified yet. It will now (almost 100% certainly)
never happen.

But in the absence of that, I tried to explain it from first principles,
yet the 1999 post (I must say that I never thought of looking for that)
should have been no more than possibly ambiguous. Certainly not taken
as the complete opposite of what it says.

> [...] I take him at his
> word and no further.

In The Beginning Was The Word. And The Word Was "Cantaloupe". But,
seriously, reading further would have helped. I don't mean the above in
a berating manner (on re-reading it looks a bit like it) but more
imploringly...

(I'm taking a break from the discussion, but mainly because I'm shortly
off into the wilderness. This might have cooled down by the time I come
back, so it will effectively be me shutting up about it if that's the
case...)
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

Aggie Angst <aggieangst.RemoveThis@myinvalidway.com> wrote:

> "jester" <usenet.RemoveThis@jester.nu> wrote in message
> news:slrnfnb1oc.q8n.usenet@angel.jester.nu...
> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:17:00 -0800, Dave Adalian
> > <dave.adalian.RemoveThis@PLZNOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>"The AFP Timelines: Terry Pratchett 'leaves' AFP" page that explains when
> >>Pterry left AFP (3 Feb. 1999 -- the date of the quote I posted above) and
> >>ABP (10 March 1999) and why is here:
> >>
> >>http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/timelines/leaving.html
> >
> > And like at least 90% of all web pages, that's out of date. Terry's been
> > back, left, come back and left again, and come back, give or take work and
> > health several times since March 1999.
> >
> > Put me down as another "please don't speculate here" vote.
> >
> I agree. I would much rather occasionally hear from TP than read fandom
> speculation posts. No affront meant to anyone, but I've always found this
> type of post pretty pointless. I guess I'm not much for 'what ifs?'.
>

Yes, me too. PTerry responded to one of my posts here once (to tell me
I was wrong about something, but oh well!). It was really cool.
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

"Aggie Angst" <aggieangst DeleteThis @myinvalidway.com> wrote in message
news:fl4fp5$1g6s$1@mud.stack.nl...
>
> "jester" <usenet DeleteThis @jester.nu> wrote in message
> news:slrnfnb1oc.q8n.usenet@angel.jester.nu...
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:17:00 -0800, Dave Adalian
>> <dave.adalian DeleteThis @PLZNOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>"The AFP Timelines: Terry Pratchett 'leaves' AFP" page that explains
>>>when
>>>Pterry left AFP (3 Feb. 1999 -- the date of the quote I posted above) and
>>>ABP (10 March 1999) and why is here:
>>>
>>>http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/timelines/leaving.html
>>
>> And like at least 90% of all web pages, that's out of date. Terry's been
>> back, left, come back and left again, and come back, give or take work
>> and
>> health several times since March 1999.
>>
>> Put me down as another "please don't speculate here" vote.
>>
> I agree. I would much rather occasionally hear from TP than read fandom
> speculation posts. No affront meant to anyone, but I've always found this
> type of post pretty pointless. I guess I'm not much for 'what ifs?'.
>

Me, too, as I don't enjoy speculating about others' work, but at the moment
it looks like we're getting both. Joy.

-- Dave

Read my latest astronomy column!
http://starry-starry-nights.blogspot.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

on 29/12/2007 04:45 Dave Adalian said the following:
> "Len Oil" <lenoil.TakeThisOut@lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<snip>
>> Possibly, but a measured amount of consideration is
>> always useful, and caution in the area of speculation is hardly an
>> inconvenience to anyone.

> Clearly, this is something you've spent a prodigious amount of time
> considering.

Actually, I think it would be fairer to say that this is a topic that
has raised its head from time to time so "old timers" are well versed in
dealing with the issue and the arguments that tend to be raised.

> Where I got that Pterry said it was OK was when he said, "It
> would be ridiculous to expect a fan group not to speculate about future
> events on DW -- it's a fundamental part of fanac." I take him at his word
> and no further.
> Has he since said anything to contradict himself?

I think it would be reasonable to assume that his views on speculation
run along similar lines to his views on fan fiction:

<quote>
I don't actually object to fan fiction, which by its very nature uses
copyrighted and trademarked material, provided that it's put somewhere
where I don't trip over it (so not to a.f.p. or a.b.p, please)
</quote> [1]

Following his posts announcing that he would be 'leaving' the
alt*pratchett groups later that same year, he has since returned on a
number of occasions to both groups - most notably to ask for assistance
on some minor background research point or other [2]. On this basis, I
think it would be wiser to view his 'leaving' announcement as notice
that he would longer be participating in either group as regularly as he
did some years previously and *not* that he wouldn't pop his head in
every so often.

Given that such visits will be relatively rare, it would be a shame if
they, too, were to cease simply because someone decided to ignore The
Ponder Stibbons Rule [3]

esmi

[1] Terry Pratchett, alt.books.pratchett, 23 Jan 1999
[2] The most recent being a question about runes posted to afp.
[3] See Alt.books.pratchett Posting Guide -
http://www.lspace.org/faqs/abp-guide.g.html

--
2008 Discworld Convention
22nd to 25th August 2008
Hilton Metropole Hotel, Birmingham, UK
http://www.dwcon.org/
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

"Emma Anne" <emma_anne RemoveThis @mac.com> wrote in message
news:1i9w5md.1ur133ejbo0psN%emma_anne@mac.com...
> Aggie Angst <aggieangst RemoveThis @myinvalidway.com> wrote:
>
>> "jester" <usenet RemoveThis @jester.nu> wrote in message
>> news:slrnfnb1oc.q8n.usenet@angel.jester.nu...
>> > On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:17:00 -0800, Dave Adalian
>> > <dave.adalian RemoveThis @PLZNOSPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> >>"The AFP Timelines: Terry Pratchett 'leaves' AFP" page that explains
>> >>when
>> >>Pterry left AFP (3 Feb. 1999 -- the date of the quote I posted above)
>> >>and
>> >>ABP (10 March 1999) and why is here:
>> >>
>> >>http://www.lspace.org/fandom/afp/timelines/leaving.html
>> >
>> > And like at least 90% of all web pages, that's out of date. Terry's
>> > been
>> > back, left, come back and left again, and come back, give or take work
>> > and
>> > health several times since March 1999.
>> >
>> > Put me down as another "please don't speculate here" vote.
>> >
>> I agree. I would much rather occasionally hear from TP than read fandom
>> speculation posts. No affront meant to anyone, but I've always found
>> this
>> type of post pretty pointless. I guess I'm not much for 'what ifs?'.
>>
>
> Yes, me too. PTerry responded to one of my posts here once (to tell me
> I was wrong about something, but oh well!). It was really cool.

I participated in a Barnes & Noble forum for a couple of weeks when Going
Postal came out that Terry co-hosted and he is funny and interesting just
like his books. It was the best forum experience I've ever had. Yes he is
worth talking to when possible. I know from my gushiness here, you
won't believe that I'm not a particularly starstruck individual. There are
only a small handful of artists to whom I would kowtow. TP is one.

Aggie
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed 

On Dec 28, 2:48 pm, Len Oil <len....DeleteThis@lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Adalian wrote:
> > Please yourself.  I can certainly understand why you would want to keep the
> > alt.X.pratchett groups "pure," but I'll go with Pterry as the last word on
> > the subject.  So, until he says it is something we should worry about, I'm
> > not going to worry about it.  Besides, who's got time to spend on things
> > like that?
>
> I don't know where you get the idea that (to quote your reply to Reader)
> "Pterry had said it was OK to do so"...
>
> He may have said that it's not unexpected that we do, but you seem to
> have missed a full two paragraphs of Reasons To Not Do It:
>
>         "Of course, it doesn't take a huge leap of imagination to suggest that
> a couple may have kids. But, despite everything, RSN someone is going to
> plonk down some theme or situation which is right in the *heart* of a
> story that I'm planning. I do not want to end up faced with a public
> accusation of plagiarism or theft; the fact that it might well have no
> legal foundation is beside the point. You don't have to be hugely
> imaginative to see that this could be damaging in other ways."
>
>         "I've tried to take the view that if people post ideas to afp then it's
> *their* problem, but reality suggests that this attitude wouldn't
> prevent trouble. [...]  A meaty suggestion that I'd nicked an idea from
> afp would rumble on for months and turn up in other places, and life is
> too damn short."
>
> (And while I'm not going to bother with the more topical reason to
> consider those last few words /particularly/ poignant, because that
> would be morbid, it's enough to consider that it's the best part of a
> decade later and thus the best part of a decade has slipped away from
> his pre-fated lifespan in the meantime /regardless/ of our hopes or
> fears based upon current knowledge...)
>
> But please, don't spend time worrying about it, if you are also prone
> not to worry about making a cursory check for traffic when crossing the
> road, that your parachute is on your back before you jump from the
> aeroplane or that you have ignited the gas fire properly next time you
> turn it on.  Was that hyperbole?  Possibly, but a measured amount of
> consideration is always useful, and caution in the area of speculation
> is hardly an inconvenience to anyone.

Well, let's see. I said speculation in the title. I placed speculation
space at the top. And I included a fairly lawyerly (I am a lawyer)
disclaimer as well. And as speculation goes, it was pretty mild. And
folks are still climbing on me. Sigh. I think you are giving Pterry a
lot less credit than he is due.

-Quinn
 >> Stay informed about: Speculation Warning - Minor Spoliers - 71 Hour Ahmed