On 15/01/2023 23:40, Jack Bohn wrote:
> grschm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 15/01/2023 17:44, Jack Bohn wrote:
>>> Mickmane wrote:
>>>> On 14.01.23, a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of Robert Silverberg's books has a Tour Company take tourists
>>>>> on guided trips back in time to live time see famous events.
>>>>> The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very popular tour.
>>>> I remember reading a short story like that in a collection with other
>>>> short stories. It was the time travellers who started shouting
>>>> "Barabas".
>
>>> isfdb.org tells me the story was called "Harrison Bergeron," and searching for collections where it and "Good Life" both appear give a 1980 book, _Constellations: Stories of the Future/_
>>>
>>> https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?7936
>>>
>>> To avoid spoilers, it also has a story by Philip K. Dick.
>>>
>>> Then there is the story with the suggestive title, "Let's Go to Golgotha!" by Gary Kilworth.
>>>
>> And that's the puppy!
>>
>> That's a bloody good collection, there:
>>
>> 7 • Introduction (Constellations) • essay by Malcolm Edwards
>> 11 • Light of Other Days • [Slow Glass] • (1966) • short story by
>> Bob Shaw
>> 21 • A Pail of Air • (1951) • short story by Fritz Leiber
>> 37 • Beyond Lies the Wub • (1952) • short story by Philip K. Dick
>> 46 • Let's Go to Golgotha! • (1974) • short story by Garry Kilworth
>> 59 • Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand • [Snake] • (1973) • novelette by
>> Vonda N. McIntyre
>> 83 • Harrison Bergeron • (1961) • short story by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
>> 90 • Rescue Operation • (1964) • short story by Harry Harrison
>> 107 • It's a Good Life • (1953) • short story by Jerome Bixby
>> 127 • Mister Da V. • (1962) • short story by Kit Reed
>> 140 • Billennium • (1961) • short story by J. G. Ballard
>> 158 • The Store of the Worlds • (1959) • short story by Robert Sheckley
>> 166 • The Wind from the Sun • (1964) • novelette by Arthur C. Clarke
>> 187 • About the Authors (Constellations) • essay by uncredited
>
> I've not read all the stories, (including the inciting incident) but I can't think of an organizing principle to this collection unless it's that each story should be unlike the others.
>
Perhaps it is simply that they are very good stories?

> (The cover is from "A Pail of Air." There are reprints from two other publishers that both use a painting from "The Wind from the Sun.")
>

Cheers,
Gary B-)

On 15.01.23, Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
> On 15/01/2023 17:44, Jack Bohn wrote:
>> Mickmane wrote:
>>> On 14.01.23, a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>> One of Robert Silverberg's books has a Tour Company take tourists
>>>> on guided trips back in time to live time see famous events.
>>>> The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very popular tour.
>>> I remember reading a short story like that in a collection with
>>> other short stories. It was the time travellers who started
>>> shouting "Barabas".
>> ...
>>> Other stories in that book were [...]

>> isfdb.org tells me the story was called "Harrison Bergeron," and
>> searching for collections where it and "Good Life" both appear give
>> a 1980 book, _Constellations: Stories of the Future/_
>>
>> https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?7936

> That's a bloody good collection, there:

They tend to be the first thing that comes to mind for 'short stories',
and why I don't like them.

Short, bad, gut punch, where I want long, good, leaving me happy and
excited.

> A Pail of Air ? (1951) ? short story by Fritz Leiber

Oh, is that the one with the black hole abducting Earth and people
living under the frozen former atmospheric gases, mining oxygen for
survival?

> Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand ? [Snake] ? (1973) novelette by Vonda N.
> McIntyre

I vaguely remember something like that, but maybe that's a story I
started, and the short story is something else. :)

Yes, I think the actual short story had some shaman woman and something
about a snakebite for healing?

(My story starts with a guy watching a treck of enemy refugees along a
road, wanting to help them. A familiar goddess (Death) gifts him a pouch
with endless bread and waterskins, which he has his snakes spread among
the refugees. Refugee woman with kids approaches him and they talk. (Her
side doesn't believe in the actually real gods.) I never got further
with that one. /me reads what's there... Even forgot what this Snakeman
was!)

> Rescue Operation ? (1964) ? short story by Harry Harrison
> Mister Da V. ? (1962) ? short story by Kit Reed
> Billennium ? (1961) ? short story by J. G. Ballard
> The Store of the Worlds ? (1959) ? short story by Robert Sheckley
> The Wind from the Sun ? (1964) ? novelette by Arthur C. Clarke

I don't remember those from just looking at the title.

Is any of them about someone coming back from somewhere in space/Mars/?
and running into an advertisement trap in an alley that makes him
addicted to something that in my memory sounds like coacoa. When he's
offered a drink during a job interview and he asks for that, he's
disqualified as addicted before he even knows what's wrong.

--

Mickmane

On 15.01.23, Jack Bohn <jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mickmane wrote:
>> On 14.01.23, a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> One of Robert Silverberg's books has a Tour Company take tourists
>>> on guided trips back in time to live time see famous events.
>>> The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very popular tour.
>> I remember reading a short story like that in a collection with
>> other short stories. It was the time travellers who started shouting
>> "Barabas".
> ...
>> Other stories in that book [...]

> isfdb.org tells me the story was called "Harrison Bergeron," and
> searching for collections where it and "Good Life" both appear give a
> 1980 book, _Constellations: Stories of the Future/_

"Constellations" sounds very correct. :)

> https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?7936

> Then there is the story with the suggestive title, "Let's Go to
> Golgotha!" by Gary Kilworth.

That should be the culprit.

Thanks.

--

Mickmane

Robert Carnegie wrote:

<snip>

> So:
> Your time travellers are from a world where David and
> Solomon are historical rulers, and the bible is merely
> the best and sufficient record of their era. But now
> it is all that exists of it. And only the time travellers
> possess it, of course.
>
> So, are they then constrained as (artificially?) in
> "A Sound of Thunder" to not undo their meddling,
> but now they have to create a fictional history of
> Israel, by altering time in other places, to restore
> the future world which treats the bible as history?
>
> Regardless, I think the story that you're proposing
> will offend a lot of people who are emotionally
> attached to the bible, whether or not they believe
> it all really happened.
>
> You can write that story if you like, but maybe
> you should not.

Thank God my attachment to the Bible is spiritual rather than emotional.
And far-fetched fantasy's funny, not offensive.

###

The title of the fourth Perry Rhodan Zyklus is _The Second Imperium_.
The second empire belongs to an alien race known as "Blues" on the
"Galactic Eastside." (The Galactic Westside story, so to speak, exposits
Perry Rhodan.)
Whenever you hear "Blues" think "unbridled capitalists." They
thoughtlessly trash entire planets to harvest indestructible Molkex
armor for their "Raumschiffen." Blue stormtroopers called Gatas perform
the trash task.
Only one avenue's available for a targeted planet to escape its
fate: it must possess an indigenous intelligent life form acceptive of
the Blue yoke. Christians, in other words, who turn the other cheek and
and love their enemy. The planet Pergal II in PR 171 "Four Powers Fight"
is such a place:

"Death is desirable for you?" Gogol didn't believe the
translator any more, surely not his own ears. "If you love death
so much, then why do you live?"
The Pergaler smiled knowingly.
"How can you find out about death, if you had not lived
previously?"
"And wars? Weapons? Don't you know them? If you love death
so, then why don't you fight?"
"Everything is fate and predetermined, stranger. It is
pointless to protest against it. If I should be killed by you,
I can do nothing against it - apart from the fact that it would
be, for me, the fulfillment of my life to die even now."
"If death is so beautiful, why don't you kill yourselves?"
The Pergaler made a refusing motion.
"Kill myself? To rob me the fruits of my own death? Don't
you know that only the suicide really dies?"
A type of religion, Gogol thought disappointed. Their odd
view of life - or death - arises from religious motives! There
you are! It really had nothing to do with the social structure
of this civilization.
"We knew that you would come one day - but it doesn't
frighten us. You will also go again, because you will find
nothing here that is valuable for you. Maybe you will still
kill some of us, but even that will be boring for you."
That is it, Gogol believed. They think we kill out of
pleasure. If they don't fight back, the satisfaction remains
in denying us satisfaction. A tactic, nothing more. Or...?
"We have come," Gogol said slowly and with emphasis, "to
wipe out your entire race. Nobody will remain alive on this
planet, because we require it without life."
The Pergaler nodded pleasantly.
"Death for us all? Excuse me, I must inform my friends
about that. They will be happy - at least some of them. Of
course there are still a few who never want to part from life;
this shadow existence, which we call life."
He walked hastily away from him.
Gogol watched him as he walked away.
He would do everything in order to protect this race from
ruin. Certainly, their preference for death was extraordinary
and unnatural. But their desire for peace was indisputable,
which even the officers and scientists couldn't deny. The
Pergalers would never be a danger for the Gatas. They should
keep their world for themselves.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 19:06:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:34:08 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I don't think that he stands in danger of being burned at the stake
>>for it. Or otherwise punished -- except, of course, by a lack of
>>sales.
>>
>>Now if he were dissing Islam, /then/ there might be serious
>>repercussions. /Their/ fanatics are a lot more physical than ours are.
>
>Which is fine when they keep it in their own countries and against
>other Muslims.
>
>When they start murdering Cops, French satirists and Danish
>cartoonists they've crossed massively over the line. I've been
>offended multiple times by anti-religious satirists but have never
>once felt the slightest compulsions to 'make them pay for their
>crimes' (e.g. blasphemy)
>
>Fact is, there is no law in this or any other civilized country (and
>yes I am aware my definition puts the Islamic Republic of Iran and
>other states in that general part of the world outside my definition
>of 'civilized') that exempts religions of any sort (be they the
>predominant religion in that country or a tiny sect) from satire or
>other mockery. That's a fundamental meme in our culture and one I
>don't want to see challenged. You DON'T have the right to resort to
>violence if you're offended.

IIRC, the France does.

If it happens to be the religion in power (secularism), that is.

This came up a few years ago when (IIRC) a far right wing person
attacked a secularist position.

As to satirists, those who poke a bear with a stick must expect a
reaction. And the bear can claim mitigation, in that it was
deliberately and knowingly provoked.

That said, publishing satirical cartoons of (say) Napoleon, DeGaulle,
and Madame La Guillotine (or other aspects of what passes for French
culture these days) would have been a better response.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Sunday, January 15, 2023 at 3:21:48 AM UTC+11, a425couple wrote:
> On 1/10/23 14:31, VSim wrote:
> > was erased by a trip to the past ? And the time travelers brought the bible with them, or some early source of it, to document it ?
> > ----
> > My own time travel model, which permits travel to the past and changing the past:
> > http://mhtt.50webs.com
> One of Robert Silverberg's books has a Tour Company take tourists
> on guided trips back in time to live time see famous events.
> The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very popular tour.
> They did some speculating on how it could be that they had
> taken many visitors, yet they had not found the place crowded.

In Robert Rankin's "Suburban Book of the Dead" Elvis Presley, aided by Barry the time travelling sprout, managed to get Jesus off with a caution. Unfortunately, this left the world open to an attack by the anti-Christ.

-Moriarty

On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 09:07:37 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 19:06:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:34:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think that he stands in danger of being burned at the stake
>>>for it. Or otherwise punished -- except, of course, by a lack of
>>>sales.
>>>
>>>Now if he were dissing Islam, /then/ there might be serious
>>>repercussions. /Their/ fanatics are a lot more physical than ours are.
>>
>>Which is fine when they keep it in their own countries and against
>>other Muslims.
>>
>>When they start murdering Cops, French satirists and Danish
>>cartoonists they've crossed massively over the line. I've been
>>offended multiple times by anti-religious satirists but have never
>>once felt the slightest compulsions to 'make them pay for their
>>crimes' (e.g. blasphemy)
>>
>>Fact is, there is no law in this or any other civilized country (and
>>yes I am aware my definition puts the Islamic Republic of Iran and
>>other states in that general part of the world outside my definition
>>of 'civilized') that exempts religions of any sort (be they the
>>predominant religion in that country or a tiny sect) from satire or
>>other mockery. That's a fundamental meme in our culture and one I
>>don't want to see challenged. You DON'T have the right to resort to
>>violence if you're offended.
>
>IIRC, the France does.
>
>If it happens to be the religion in power (secularism), that is.
>
>This came up a few years ago when (IIRC) a far right wing person
>attacked a secularist position.
>
>As to satirists, those who poke a bear with a stick must expect a
>reaction. And the bear can claim mitigation, in that it was
>deliberately and knowingly provoked.
>
>That said, publishing satirical cartoons of (say) Napoleon, DeGaulle,
>and Madame La Guillotine (or other aspects of what passes for French
>culture these days) would have been a better response.

So you accept violence in the name of religion? Perhaps you should go
somewhere where they actually accept that and see how that works out.
Most of western Europe and North America agrees with me that violence
in the name of religion is barbaric behaviour unfit for society.

Part of the social contract in North America and Europe says you DON'T
engage in violence in the name of religion - even Belfast figured out
that if they didn't want a standard of living 35% below the rest of
western Europe they had to eschew religous violence.

France doesn't accept violence in the name of religion and neither
does most of the rest of the EU. If you want to live in France or any
of these countries you need to put away your weapons and violence or
you need ot emigrate.

And while I don't live in France I do have a first cousin has does and
has lived there since she left the USAF some 25-30 years ago.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 23:02:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Jan 2023 09:07:37 -0800, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 19:06:42 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 09:34:08 -0800, Paul S Person
>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I don't think that he stands in danger of being burned at the stake
>>>>for it. Or otherwise punished -- except, of course, by a lack of
>>>>sales.
>>>>
>>>>Now if he were dissing Islam, /then/ there might be serious
>>>>repercussions. /Their/ fanatics are a lot more physical than ours are.
>>>
>>>Which is fine when they keep it in their own countries and against
>>>other Muslims.
>>>
>>>When they start murdering Cops, French satirists and Danish
>>>cartoonists they've crossed massively over the line. I've been
>>>offended multiple times by anti-religious satirists but have never
>>>once felt the slightest compulsions to 'make them pay for their
>>>crimes' (e.g. blasphemy)
>>>
>>>Fact is, there is no law in this or any other civilized country (and
>>>yes I am aware my definition puts the Islamic Republic of Iran and
>>>other states in that general part of the world outside my definition
>>>of 'civilized') that exempts religions of any sort (be they the
>>>predominant religion in that country or a tiny sect) from satire or
>>>other mockery. That's a fundamental meme in our culture and one I
>>>don't want to see challenged. You DON'T have the right to resort to
>>>violence if you're offended.
>>
>>IIRC, the France does.
>>
>>If it happens to be the religion in power (secularism), that is.
>>
>>This came up a few years ago when (IIRC) a far right wing person
>>attacked a secularist position.
>>
>>As to satirists, those who poke a bear with a stick must expect a
>>reaction. And the bear can claim mitigation, in that it was
>>deliberately and knowingly provoked.
>>
>>That said, publishing satirical cartoons of (say) Napoleon, DeGaulle,
>>and Madame La Guillotine (or other aspects of what passes for French
>>culture these days) would have been a better response.
>
>So you accept violence in the name of religion? Perhaps you should go
>somewhere where they actually accept that and see how that works out.
>Most of western Europe and North America agrees with me that violence
>in the name of religion is barbaric behaviour unfit for society.

I do not "accept" violence in the name of religion.

I /do/ accept that fact that /provocation/ can be used as mitigation.
In some cases, it can even be used as a defense, although I doubt that
that would be appropriate in this case.

In France, "freedom of speech" means "freedom to attack groups we
don't like, and nothing else".

>Part of the social contract in North America and Europe says you DON'T
>engage in violence in the name of religion - even Belfast figured out
>that if they didn't want a standard of living 35% below the rest of
>western Europe they had to eschew religous violence.

Actually, engaging in violence in the name of religion is all too
common and has been part of the "social contract" for centuries.
Fortunately, it has slowly become clearly illegal.

This is why anti-abortion groups took up disowning any members who
engaged in violence (bad publicity) and why many were shocked --
shocked! I tell you -- to find themselves arrested for violating the
laws/court orders governing protests.

As to Belfast, in that case both (all) sides decided they preferred
/peace/ to /victory/. The Israel/Palestine situation will be resolved
just as easily when /all/ sides decide they prefer peace to victory.
Right now they pretty much (there are always exceptions) all prefer
victory, so I wouldn't look for peace there any time soon.

>France doesn't accept violence in the name of religion and neither
>does most of the rest of the EU. If you want to live in France or any
>of these countries you need to put away your weapons and violence or
>you need ot emigrate.

It accepts it just fine if it targets "them" rather than "us".

>And while I don't live in France I do have a first cousin has does and
>has lived there since she left the USAF some 25-30 years ago.

Which says nothing about conditions in France, except imply that she
hasn't found them intolerable.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Mickmane wrote:
> On 15.01.23, Gary R. Schmidt <grsc...@acm.org> wrote:
> > On 15/01/2023 17:44, Jack Bohn wrote:

> >> a 1980 book, _Constellations: Stories of the Future/_
> >>
> >> https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?7936
> > That's a bloody good collection, there:
> They tend to be the first thing that comes to mind for 'short stories',
> and why I don't like them.
>
> Short, bad, gut punch, where I want long, good, leaving me happy and
> excited.

Well, "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand" did get expanded into the novel _Dreamsnake_. A happier ending, too.

--
-Jack

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 08:47:00 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>And while I don't live in France I do have a first cousin has does and
>>has lived there since she left the USAF some 25-30 years ago.
>
>Which says nothing about conditions in France, except imply that she
>hasn't found them intolerable.

True - and that she's an American (which I didn't mention previously
though I do have more US relatives than Canadians mostly due to the
fact that my US-born father came from a bigger family than my
Canadian-born mother) whose children speak better French than English
(her husband is Portugese - again, they met while serving at NATO
headquarters)

(She was also the second child born in WA state the year she was born)

In article <0758e357-5d78-427c-9934-2720c39aea29n@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 20:01:03 UTC, inte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 10:22:06 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-5,
>inte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:22:08 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
>> > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:40:52 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Of course, though, if the result was that there were fewer
>Jewish people in
>> > > > > the _present_, that would change our world greatly, because of
>the immense
>> > > > > contributions of hundreds of Jewish people to the arts and
>sciences. But while
>> > > > Surely erasing the kingdoms of David and Solomon would erase
>Christianity as
>> > > > well? An easily seen significant change to our world.
>> > > No, of course not. The kingdom in the reality we know never
>actually existed. But there is the biblical account that's so well
>written that one tends to think it's based on real events. So we're now
>in the second timeline, that was created by the jump. In the first one
>the kingdom existed more or less as it's described in the Bible, in the
>second one the time travelers steered the events such that it wasn't
>created any more. The reality that resulted is the one we're in now. In
>which we know from archaeology that the kingdom never existed.
>> > It is severely unclear to me whether you are being serious in
>asserting that "we know from archaeology that the kingdom [of David and
>Solomon] never existed" in any way.
>> > If you are speaking narratively for the purpose of planning a time
>travel novel, I have real problems believing that Christian history
>could exist if David and Solomon's kingdom never did.
>> > If you are speaking literally of actual Earth history, I would like
>to see the archaeological evidence that you claim proves David and
>Solomon's kingdom never existed, because I am aware of much evidence of
>10th century BCE buildings that are strongly associated with that
>unified kingdom.
>> OK, I admit I was under the impression that things are clearer than
>they actually are.
>>
>> That said, reading the relevant pages at Britannica and Wikipedia
>>
>> https://www.britannica.com/biography/David
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)
>>
>> it appears that specialists are very divided on the issue. What's
>clear is that a. there's no mention in external sources of either David
>or Solomon as kings, or of their great and powerful kingdom; b. also no
>direct mention in any contemporary source or archaeological find in
>Israel, just artifacts that are inconclusively dated and associated with
>them by some, while others dispute it. The main source for it remains
>the Bible which was compiled centuries afterwards. As Britannica states,
>"Material evidence for his reign, while a matter of intense debate among
>scholars, is scant." But indeed there is no consensus that their kingdom
>never existed, as I thought.
>>
>> This doesn't change things much, I don't want to make science but SF.
>I'll go with the assumption that indeed it didn't exist, which even if
>not a certainty is a strong possibility at this time. My hunch is that
>those who support the kingdom's existence are at least partly based on
>wishful thinking, and with time the non-existence hypothesis will gain
>ground. But of course it remains to be seen.
>> > I have real problems believing that Christian history could exist if
>David and Solomon's kingdom never did
>> Well, as you can see, the existence of their kingdom is very
>debatable, while Christianity is a certainty, isn't it ?
>> > I would like to see the archaeological evidence that you claim
>proves David and Solomon's kingdom never existed
>> I'm not gong to show you any evidence, I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a
>would-be SF writer and base myself on the opinion of the specialists in
>the field, which is as I said. And there's no "archaeological evidence
>that proves David and Solomon's kingdom never existed", and cannot be,
>rather there's severely insufficient evidence for them and their
>kingdom.
>>
>> I'm not sure I was clear enough. In my story, nothing changes in the
>timeline we're living in. Not the kingdom of David and Solomon which
>probably actually never existed, not christian history which definitely
>existed. The point is, there was a previous timeline in which the
>kingdom existed as described in the Bible, and it was erased by the time
>travelers who brought the early version of the Bible with them
>documenting its existence.
>> ----
>> My own time travel model, which permits travel to the past and
>changing the past:
>> http://mhtt.50webs.com
>
>I feel that what's missing here is actual story. If all
>that happens is that something which used to exist in
>the past, now never existed because a time traveller did
>something, that's... very familiar.
>
>The short version is "the grandfather paradox" - per
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox#Grandfather_paradox>
>if a time traveller meets the time traveller's grandfather
>who is a child, and the time traveller kills the grandfather,
>the the time traveller should never be born. Why would
>you do that anyway... maybe your grandfather was a
>terrible person.
>
>As sophisticated a telling as you need is
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder>
>in which precautions are described and shown for
>travelling back in time for leisure while minimising
>possible changes to the course of history.
>Spoiler -
>It happens anyway.
>
>And there's Douglas Adams' poet who arguably
>never actually composed his famous beautiful poems,
><https://alienencyclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Lallafa>
>and the ensuing "Campaign for Real Time".
>
>It's also mentioned in Harry Potter that meeting your
>time-travelled self is /dangerous/, specifically if
>your first self doesn't know about time travel
>(it appears to be new... at present) and assumes
>that it is their evil self from the mirror universe
>that they're meeting. So they mostly avoid doing
>that, but Hermione Granger is time hopping
>all year. She's dismayed to hear that she missed one
>school class which she was hoping to attend by
>time travel and now she can't, which implies either
>that you can't change the past, or it is against school
>rules. Or, you can't, after you know what "really" happened.
>
>There's a serious antique philosophical argument
>that amongst things that God can't or won't do -
>if that isn't the same thing - is to change the past.
>For instance if eating from that fruit tree is a
>problem, could not God retroactively prevent it?
>
>(I think the real point of the story is: why didn't a
>loving God set up humans to live happy lives in
>an eternal garden - or orchard? So let's say that
>he did, but we spoiled it.)
>
>There's an Alan Moore "Future Shocks" comics story
>where a scientist takes shots to change the past
>but sees nothing changing, whereas the reader sees
>a different version of the universe each time.
>That can't be good.
>
>So:
>Your time travellers are from a world where David and
>Solomon are historical rulers, and the bible is merely
>the best and sufficient record of their era. But now
>it is all that exists of it. And only the time travellers
>possess it, of course.
>
>So, are they then constrained as (artificially?) in
>"A Sound of Thunder" to not undo their meddling,
>but now they have to create a fictional history of
>Israel, by altering time in other places, to restore
>the future world which treats the bible as history?
>
>Regardless, I think the story that you're proposing
>will offend a lot of people who are emotionally
>attached to the bible, whether or not they believe
>it all really happened.
>
>You can write that story if you like, but maybe
>you should not.

(Hal Heydt)
Dorothy wrote a time travel story in which the protgonist keeps
being sent back until he takes an action that prevents changing
the past.

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:01:03 PM UTC-5, inte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 10:22:06 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:

> > I have real problems believing that Christian history could exist if David and Solomon's kingdom never did

> Well, as you can see, the existence of their kingdom is very debatable, while Christianity is a certainty, isn't it ?

I have thought about it some more. It is possible that Jewish and Christian history could unfold as it has in our
world, if the united monarchy never existed *BUT* everyone believed it did after a certain point in history, having
been convinced by the Bible as it existed in, say, 500 BCE, and by similar contemporary accounts which may have
been lost (Book of Enoch?) or may have been purely oral tradition.

I think that if you go with the premise that there was no united monarchy, you should spend some time discussing
this possible explanation -- it never existed but humanity was fooled into thinking it was. And the *reason for*
and *method of* fooling could be of considerable interest in the story. You'll need to explain what the Western
Wall was, for example. It's clearly a physical wall; what was it really walling?

On Monday, January 16, 2023 at 4:08:34 PM UTC-5, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> Dorothy wrote a time travel story in which the protgonist keeps being
> sent back until he takes an action that prevents changing the past.

Niven proposed a "law" in "The Theory and Practice of Time Travel"
(1973): If the universe of discourse permits the possibility of time
travel and of changing the past, then no time machine will be invented
in that universe.

(I can well believe that Mrs. Heydt knew of Niven coining this "law" when
she wrote her story. If she did not, then, well, it's a logical
conclusion she reached on her own.)

Because if there's a time machine, somebody WILL change the past. And
if that change didn't disable time travel, it'll get changed "again".
And "again". Until "finally" someone changes the past in a way that
erases the time machine invention. "After" that, no more changes.

Scare quotes around those words because they only make sense if there's
some kind of memory that outlasts changing the past, which has always
seemed impossible to me.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/39679824-the-theory-and-practice-of-time-travel

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 11:23:03 AM UTC-5, Ross Presser wrote:

> I think that if you go with the premise that there was no united monarchy, you should spend some time discussing
> this possible explanation -- it never existed but humanity was fooled into thinking it was. And the *reason for*

After reading more of the thread I see that this idea has already come up. Sorry for redundancy.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 6:23:03 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
> On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:01:03 PM UTC-5, inte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 10:22:06 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
>
> > > I have real problems believing that Christian history could exist if David and Solomon's kingdom never did
>
> > Well, as you can see, the existence of their kingdom is very debatable, while Christianity is a certainty, isn't it ?
> I have thought about it some more. It is possible that Jewish and Christian history could unfold as it has in our
> world, if the united monarchy never existed *BUT* everyone believed it did after a certain point in history, having
> been convinced by the Bible as it existed in, say, 500 BCE, and by similar contemporary accounts which may have
> been lost (Book of Enoch?) or may have been purely oral tradition.
>
Of course, that's the idea. As we all know, people in Jesus' time and afterwards were very convinced of the existence of the kingdom. I don't know if Jesus himself believed it, but the Gospels make him a descendant of David. (Well, at least Joseph. Who, as we all know, wasn't his biological father, at least according to the Gospels.) And as we see many, including specialists, are still convinced today. That's no proof by far that it actually existed.

> I think that if you go with the premise that there was no united monarchy, you should spend some time discussing
> this possible explanation -- it never existed but humanity was fooled into thinking it was. And the *reason for*
> and *method of* fooling could be of considerable interest in the story. You'll need to explain what the Western
> Wall was, for example. It's clearly a physical wall; what was it really walling?

Thanks for the advice but there's a small problem. I'm not a writer, I'm a programmer. And I believe a story like this requires a true writer to be well told. Maybe even a great one. Which I'll clearly never be. So I was hoping maybe I can find a partner here.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 6:30:28 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
>
> Because if there's a time machine, somebody WILL change the past. And
> if that change didn't disable time travel, it'll get changed "again".
> And "again". Until "finally" someone changes the past in a way that
> erases the time machine invention. "After" that, no more changes.

I'll discuss this based on my own model.
First, even after the time machine invention erasure, it can be reinvented.
Second, it probably won't happen. Every time somebody changes the past, they'll be very careful to take a lot of knowledge with them in the time machine, including how to build a time machine.

> Scare quotes around those words because they only make sense if there's
> some kind of memory that outlasts changing the past, which has always
> seemed impossible to me.

Not at all. The time travelers have their memory and all that's written or otherwise recorded with them in the time machine. And, if it's done seriously, as I said there will be necessarily *a lot* of knowledge there.

----
My own time travel model, which permits paradox-free travel to the past and changing the past:
http://mhtt.50webs.com

On 1/17/2023 4:35 PM, VSim wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 6:30:28 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
>>
>> Because if there's a time machine, somebody WILL change the past. And
>> if that change didn't disable time travel, it'll get changed "again".
>> And "again". Until "finally" someone changes the past in a way that
>> erases the time machine invention. "After" that, no more changes.
>
> I'll discuss this based on my own model.
> First, even after the time machine invention erasure, it can be reinvented.
> Second, it probably won't happen. Every time somebody changes the past, they'll be very careful to take a lot of knowledge with them in the time machine, including how to build a time machine.
>
>> Scare quotes around those words because they only make sense if there's
>> some kind of memory that outlasts changing the past, which has always
>> seemed impossible to me.
>
> Not at all. The time travelers have their memory and all that's written or otherwise recorded with them in the time machine. And, if it's done seriously, as I said there will be necessarily *a lot* of knowledge there.
>
BUT the change to the timeline would mean the those books, electronic
files, what have you's, would never have been created to be sent back in
time!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 9:37:33 AM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Friday, 13 January 2023 at 20:01:03 UTC, inte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 12, 2023 at 10:22:06 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-5, inte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 6:22:08 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, January 11, 2023 at 1:40:52 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Of course, though, if the result was that there were fewer Jewish people in
> > > > > > the _present_, that would change our world greatly, because of the immense
> > > > > > contributions of hundreds of Jewish people to the arts and sciences. But while
> > > > > Surely erasing the kingdoms of David and Solomon would erase Christianity as
> > > > > well? An easily seen significant change to our world.
> > > > No, of course not. The kingdom in the reality we know never actually existed. But there is the biblical account that's so well written that one tends to think it's based on real events. So we're now in the second timeline, that was created by the jump. In the first one the kingdom existed more or less as it's described in the Bible, in the second one the time travelers steered the events such that it wasn't created any more. The reality that resulted is the one we're in now. In which we know from archaeology that the kingdom never existed.
> > > It is severely unclear to me whether you are being serious in asserting that "we know from archaeology that the kingdom [of David and Solomon] never existed" in any way.
> > > If you are speaking narratively for the purpose of planning a time travel novel, I have real problems believing that Christian history could exist if David and Solomon's kingdom never did.
> > > If you are speaking literally of actual Earth history, I would like to see the archaeological evidence that you claim proves David and Solomon's kingdom never existed, because I am aware of much evidence of 10th century BCE buildings that are strongly associated with that unified kingdom.
> > OK, I admit I was under the impression that things are clearer than they actually are.
> >
> > That said, reading the relevant pages at Britannica and Wikipedia
> >
> > https://www.britannica.com/biography/David
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Israel_(united_monarchy)
> >
> > it appears that specialists are very divided on the issue. What's clear is that a. there's no mention in external sources of either David or Solomon as kings, or of their great and powerful kingdom; b. also no direct mention in any contemporary source or archaeological find in Israel, just artifacts that are inconclusively dated and associated with them by some, while others dispute it. The main source for it remains the Bible which was compiled centuries afterwards. As Britannica states, "Material evidence for his reign, while a matter of intense debate among scholars, is scant." But indeed there is no consensus that their kingdom never existed, as I thought.
> >
> > This doesn't change things much, I don't want to make science but SF. I'll go with the assumption that indeed it didn't exist, which even if not a certainty is a strong possibility at this time. My hunch is that those who support the kingdom's existence are at least partly based on wishful thinking, and with time the non-existence hypothesis will gain ground. But of course it remains to be seen.
> > > I have real problems believing that Christian history could exist if David and Solomon's kingdom never did
> > Well, as you can see, the existence of their kingdom is very debatable, while Christianity is a certainty, isn't it ?
> > > I would like to see the archaeological evidence that you claim proves David and Solomon's kingdom never existed
> > I'm not gong to show you any evidence, I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a would-be SF writer and base myself on the opinion of the specialists in the field, which is as I said. And there's no "archaeological evidence that proves David and Solomon's kingdom never existed", and cannot be, rather there's severely insufficient evidence for them and their kingdom.
> >
> > I'm not sure I was clear enough. In my story, nothing changes in the timeline we're living in. Not the kingdom of David and Solomon which probably actually never existed, not christian history which definitely existed. The point is, there was a previous timeline in which the kingdom existed as described in the Bible, and it was erased by the time travelers who brought the early version of the Bible with them documenting its existence.
> > ----
> > My own time travel model, which permits travel to the past and changing the past:
> > http://mhtt.50webs.com
> I feel that what's missing here is actual story. If all
> that happens is that something which used to exist in
> the past, now never existed because a time traveller did
> something, that's... very familiar.
>
> The short version is "the grandfather paradox" - per
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_paradox#Grandfather_paradox>
> if a time traveller meets the time traveller's grandfather
> who is a child, and the time traveller kills the grandfather,
> the the time traveller should never be born. Why would
> you do that anyway... maybe your grandfather was a
> terrible person.
>
> As sophisticated a telling as you need is
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder>
> in which precautions are described and shown for
> travelling back in time for leisure while minimising
> possible changes to the course of history.
> Spoiler -
> It happens anyway.
>
> And there's Douglas Adams' poet who arguably
> never actually composed his famous beautiful poems,
> <https://alienencyclopedia.fandom.com/wiki/Lallafa>
> and the ensuing "Campaign for Real Time".
>
> It's also mentioned in Harry Potter that meeting your
> time-travelled self is /dangerous/, specifically if
> your first self doesn't know about time travel
> (it appears to be new... at present) and assumes
> that it is their evil self from the mirror universe
> that they're meeting. So they mostly avoid doing
> that, but Hermione Granger is time hopping
> all year. She's dismayed to hear that she missed one
> school class which she was hoping to attend by
> time travel and now she can't, which implies either
> that you can't change the past, or it is against school
> rules. Or, you can't, after you know what "really" happened.
>
> There's a serious antique philosophical argument
> that amongst things that God can't or won't do -
> if that isn't the same thing - is to change the past.
> For instance if eating from that fruit tree is a
> problem, could not God retroactively prevent it?
>
> (I think the real point of the story is: why didn't a
> loving God set up humans to live happy lives in
> an eternal garden - or orchard? So let's say that
> he did, but we spoiled it.)
>
> There's an Alan Moore "Future Shocks" comics story
> where a scientist takes shots to change the past
> but sees nothing changing, whereas the reader sees
> a different version of the universe each time.
> That can't be good.

Sounds like RA Lafferty's 1967 "Thus we frustrate
Charlemagne."

Pt

On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 6:48:29 PM UTC-5, Mickmane wrote:
> On 14.01.23, a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > One of Robert Silverberg's books has a Tour Company take tourists
> > on guided trips back in time to live time see famous events.
> > The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very popular tour.
> I remember reading a short story like that in a collection with other
> short stories. It was the time travellers who started shouting
> "Barabas".

Behold the Man, Blish?

> > They did some speculating on how it could be that they had
> > taken many visitors, yet they had not found the place crowded.
>
> > Perhaps it was "Up the Line".
> Don't remember that, or the title.
>
> Other stories in that book were one about slow glass.

Light of Other Days, Bob Shaw

> One about a boy
> who 'thought' people into the field, so everyone was pretending all's
> good to keep him happy.

It's a Good Life, Bixby.

One story where human-looking primitive aliens
> on some planet were used as organ donors.

Possibly "The Crime and Glory of Commander Suzdal", Cordwainer Smith

> One where everyone was made equal; older couple, he smart and getting a
> piercing beep in his ear every so often to interrupt thought, she
> naturally not too bright, watch TV and (I think) their kids interrupting
> a dance (where the dancers were also partly impeded to be clumsy or
> equal to anyone disabled), doing a free, beautiful dance, and then I
> think getting arrested. Dad gets another beep and forgot it all?

Harrison Bergeron, Vonnegut.

> Maybe one story with something about a pig(?) consciousness from a meal
> on a spaceship moving to another person. (Very vague on this.)

Beyond lies the Wub, Dick.

> Probably others that don't come to mind right now. It's been a bazillion
> years (or maybe just 25 to 30 :) ).
>
> I don't like short stories. They tend to end badly, and end just when it
> could get interesting and grow into a proper story (where the bad end is
> fixed).
>
> --
>
> Mickmane

Among the things pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 6:48:29 PM UTC-5, Mickmane wrote:

> > I remember reading a short story like that in a collection with other
> > short stories. It was the time travellers who started shouting
> > "Barabas".
> Behold the Man, Blish?

No, some other, more New Wave writer.
I was about to write that I don't know of Blish writing any comment on religion, but suddenly remembered _A Case of Conscience,_ and the others in his After Such Knowledge triptych: _Black Easter_+_The Day After Judgement_ and _Dr. Mirabilis_. I'll take another stand, that he would not have used the easy vehicle of time-travel for one.

> One story where human-looking primitive aliens
> > on some planet were used as organ donors.
> Possibly "The Crime and Glory of Commander Suzdal", Cordwainer Smith

Oh, oh, "A Planet Named Shaol," Commander Suzdal appeared in it after his own story.
Another possibility would have been "Bordered in Black" by Niven, which I think had been in his Known Space, but was removed and our embarrassment over our ancestors moved back a couple of generations to being descended from Thrint food yeast.
As it is, it could be a Harrison or Sheckley, which I haven't read.

--
-Jack

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 9:09:17 AM UTC-5, jack....@gmail.com wrote:
> Among the things pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 6:48:29 PM UTC-5, Mickmane wrote:
>
> > > I remember reading a short story like that in a collection with other
> > > short stories. It was the time travellers who started shouting
> > > "Barabas".
> > Behold the Man, Blish?
> No, some other, more New Wave writer.
> I was about to write that I don't know of Blish writing any comment on religion, but suddenly remembered _A Case of Conscience,_ and the others in his After Such Knowledge triptych: _Black Easter_+_The Day After Judgement_ and _Dr. Mirabilis_. I'll take another stand, that he would not have used the easy vehicle of time-travel for one.
> > One story where human-looking primitive aliens
> > > on some planet were used as organ donors.
> > Possibly "The Crime and Glory of Commander Suzdal", Cordwainer Smith
> Oh, oh, "A Planet Named Shaol," Commander Suzdal appeared in it after his own story.
> Another possibility would have been "Bordered in Black" by Niven, which I think had been in his Known Space, but was removed and our embarrassment over our ancestors moved back a couple of generations to being descended from Thrint food yeast.
> As it is, it could be a Harrison or Sheckley, which I haven't read.

I seem to be batting about 500 :-)

pt

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 21:43:12 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 9:37:33 AM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:

<snip>

>> There's an Alan Moore "Future Shocks" comics story
>> where a scientist takes shots to change the past
>> but sees nothing changing, whereas the reader sees
>> a different version of the universe each time.
>> That can't be good.
>
>Sounds like RA Lafferty's 1967 "Thus we frustrate
>Charlemagne."
>
>Pt

2000AD was (and maybe still is) somewhat into recycling, in longform
series as well as shorts - "Blackhawk" and "Meltdown Man" used
elements of MZB's "Hunters of the Red Moon" and Cordwainer Smith's
Underpeople respectively.

--
Jerry Brown

A cat may look at a king
(but probably won't bother)

In article <60d1155d-d543-4bbf-9d9e-8988392697c7n@googlegroups.com>,
"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 6:48:29 PM UTC-5, Mickmane wrote:
> > On 14.01.23, a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > One of Robert Silverberg's books has a Tour Company take tourists
> > > on guided trips back in time to live time see famous events.
> > > The Crucifixion of Jesus was a very popular tour.
> > I remember reading a short story like that in a collection with other
> > short stories. It was the time travellers who started shouting
> > "Barabas".
>
> Behold the Man, Blish?
>

Michael Moorcock

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

On Wednesday, January 18, 2023 at 7:31:54 AM UTC+2, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 1/17/2023 4:35 PM, VSim wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 6:30:28 PM UTC+2, Ross Presser wrote:
> >>
> >> Because if there's a time machine, somebody WILL change the past. And
> >> if that change didn't disable time travel, it'll get changed "again".
> >> And "again". Until "finally" someone changes the past in a way that
> >> erases the time machine invention. "After" that, no more changes.
> >
> > I'll discuss this based on my own model.
> > First, even after the time machine invention erasure, it can be reinvented.
> > Second, it probably won't happen. Every time somebody changes the past, they'll be very careful to take a lot of knowledge with them in the time machine, including how to build a time machine.
> >
> >> Scare quotes around those words because they only make sense if there's
> >> some kind of memory that outlasts changing the past, which has always
> >> seemed impossible to me.
> >
> > Not at all. The time travelers have their memory and all that's written or otherwise recorded with them in the time machine. And, if it's done seriously, as I said there will be necessarily *a lot* of knowledge there.
> >
> BUT the change to the timeline would mean the those books, electronic
> files, what have you's, would never have been created to be sent back in
> time!

No it doesn't. Not in my model. They were created in the old timeline and sent to the new one with the time machine.

On Wednesday, 18 January 2023 at 17:02:54 UTC, Jerry Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 21:43:12 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
> <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 9:37:33 AM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> <snip>
> >> There's an Alan Moore "Future Shocks" comics story
> >> where a scientist takes shots to change the past
> >> but sees nothing changing, whereas the reader sees
> >> a different version of the universe each time.
> >> That can't be good.
> >
> >Sounds like RA Lafferty's 1967 "Thus we frustrate
> >Charlemagne."
> >
> >Pt
> 2000AD was (and maybe still is) somewhat into recycling, in longform
> series as well as shorts - "Blackhawk" and "Meltdown Man" used
> elements of MZB's "Hunters of the Red Moon" and Cordwainer Smith's
> Underpeople respectively.

It was the _2000 AD_ comic (sic) - I think - and
it's pretty difficult to write a story that's entirely unlike
other stories even if you're trying to, but this could
be just a parallel development. (Unless Charlemagne
is mentioned; I don't remember. That would be suspicious.)

I think the story's method of changing the past was
to teleport a big comedy anvil back in time to fall
on the head of someone significant and remove them
from participating in history from then on. So it's
comedy. Except for, you know.