HFQ Official Snippet #13

DrakBibliophile wrote:Something to think about.

In the random snippets that David Weber has given us (as opposed to regular in-order snippets), has David Weber ever actually shown us the death of a prominent character?

I don't remember him doing so therefore I'm thinking that this "death" is similar to the superhero comics where a character appears to be dead on the last page of an issue only for the character to be alive in the comic issue.

It occurs to me that the good earl is a whole lot more popular in death (if that is what it really is) here on the forums than he was in life, given some of the stretches and contortions we seem to be willing to do around here to keep him alive!

Don

I think it was in Time Enough for Love that Robert Heinlein said "One of the best ways to lie is to tell just enough of the truth and shut up".

I submit that RFC is an excellent student of this practice.

fallsfromtrees wrote:I think it was in Time Enough for Love that Robert Heinlein said "One of the best ways to lie is to tell just enough of the truth and shut up".

I submit that RFC is an excellent student of this practice.

"To lie is one thing;
But the con is everything."
Anonymous

fallsfromtrees wrote:I think it was in Time Enough for Love that Robert Heinlein said "One of the best ways to lie is to tell just enough of the truth and shut up".

I submit that RFC is an excellent student of this practice.

While I bow to no one in my respect to RAH, another 'best way to lie' is to just not say a thing. It is, however, difficult to portray in books and non-visual media. Visually, responding to a query with a quiet faint smile that allows the questioner's assumptions free range is such an excellent strategy that I am certain that it is in Sun Tzu's book, though I cannot do the research at this moment.

But to the second, I do believe that RFC would love to 'shoot the bull' with RAH and most certainly will in the hereafter! As to his Snippeting, there RFC is the MASTER! Add his scurrilous and evil use of misleading phrases (Mortal Wound) and ellipses that may be placeholders and he would probably have the admiration of RAH who never had the opportunity to so torment his readers.

On the side, I wonder what RAH's output would have been if he had the same technology as our current authors have? I remember several of Jerry Pournelle's columns on his computerization from the late great BYTE Magazine and the effect on his ability to write. Of course his later medical problems made some of that dream a mirage. Imagine writing "Stranger" and "Time Enough" on a typewriter and reams of paper and ink ribbons! *** OK, close excursion!

Poor Sandaria. She is going to have a very difficult time in absorbing the truth . I think Aivah will be able to accept though she is bound to have lots of questions. Merlin and Nimue have their work cut out for them

Charybdis wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:I think it was in Time Enough for Love that Robert Heinlein said "One of the best ways to lie is to tell just enough of the truth and shut up".

I submit that RFC is an excellent student of this practice.

While I bow to no one in my respect to RAH, another 'best way to lie' is to just not say a thing. It is, however, difficult to portray in books and non-visual media. Visually, responding to a query with a quiet faint smile that allows the questioner's assumptions free range is such an excellent strategy that I am certain that it is in Sun Tzu's book, though I cannot do the research at this moment.

But to the second, I do believe that RFC would love to 'shoot the bull' with RAH and most certainly will in the hereafter! As to his Snippeting, there RFC is the MASTER! Add his scurrilous and evil use of misleading phrases (Mortal Wound) and ellipses that may be placeholders and he would probably have the admiration of RAH who never had the opportunity to so torment his readers.

On the side, I wonder what RAH's output would have been if he had the same technology as our current authors have? I remember several of Jerry Pournelle's columns on his computerization from the late great BYTE Magazine and the effect on his ability to write. Of course his later medical problems made some of that dream a mirage. Imagine writing "Stranger" and "Time Enough" on a typewriter and reams of paper and ink ribbons! *** OK, close excursion!

There is a considerable difference between lying and telling the truth in a manner calculated to mislead. Most if not all of the press and politicians, and many lawyers, are experts at it. Selective editing is probably the easiest, but there are others.

Peter2 wrote:

fallsfromtrees wrote:I think it was in Time Enough for Love that Robert Heinlein said "One of the best ways to lie is to tell just enough of the truth and shut up".

I submit that RFC is an excellent student of this practice.

Charybdis wrote:While I bow to no one in my respect to RAH, another 'best way to lie' is to just not say a thing. It is, however, difficult to portray in books and non-visual media. Visually, responding to a query with a quiet faint smile that allows the questioner's assumptions free range is such an excellent strategy that I am certain that it is in Sun Tzu's book, though I cannot do the research at this moment.

But to the second, I do believe that RFC would love to 'shoot the bull' with RAH and most certainly will in the hereafter! As to his Snippeting, there RFC is the MASTER! Add his scurrilous and evil use of misleading phrases (Mortal Wound) and ellipses that may be placeholders and he would probably have the admiration of RAH who never had the opportunity to so torment his readers.

On the side, I wonder what RAH's output would have been if he had the same technology as our current authors have? I remember several of Jerry Pournelle's columns on his computerization from the late great BYTE Magazine and the effect on his ability to write. Of course his later medical problems made some of that dream a mirage. Imagine writing "Stranger" and "Time Enough" on a typewriter and reams of paper and ink ribbons! *** OK, close excursion!

There is a considerable difference between lying and telling the truth in a manner calculated to mislead. Most if not all of the press and politicians, and many lawyers, are experts at it. Selective editing is probably the easiest, but there are others.

In the late 1930s, the Japanese withdrew from the naval arms limits treaties which had been negotiated beginning in Washington in 1921. They did so by giving the requisite notice that they no longer intended to be bound by the treaty's voluntary limitations on worship tonnages.

The treaties had limited battleships to a displacement of no more than 35,000 tons and main batteries no heavier than 14", and the Japanese withdrawal immediately prompted speculation that they were going to build 45,000-ton battleships with 16" guns.

The Japanese indignantly — and truthfully — denied that they were doing anything of the sort. The bit of the truth they omitted from their official statements was that they were building 70,000-ton battleships with 18" guns.

Always been one of my favorite examples of how to lie blatantly while telling the exact truth.-

I, of course, would never do anything of the sort! [he added virtuously]

Charybdis wrote:he would probably have the admiration of RAH who never had the opportunity to so torment his readers.

I take it you're not old enough to have read any of RAH's serials. Many of of his early works were serialized in magazines, like Astounding, and instead of a mere 10 days between tidbits, he mastered the "30 days between cliffhangers" method of tantalizing readers.

runsforcelery wrote:In the late 1930s, the Japanese withdrew from the naval arms limits treaties which had been negotiated beginning in Washington in 1921. They did so by giving the requisite notice that they no longer intended to be bound by the treaty's voluntary limitations on worship tonnages.

Did this lead to publicly posted weight limits for pews?

James

JRM wrote:runsforcelery wrote:In the late 1930s, the Japanese withdrew from the naval arms limits treaties which had been negotiated beginning in Washington in 1921. They did so by giving the requisite notice that they no longer intended to be bound by the treaty's voluntary limitations on worship tonnages

Also priest's were required to publicly post their weight as well, and the length of proposed sermons.

ROFL