On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:22:35 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
<johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 8:58:57 AM UTC-6, WolfFan wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2023, David Johnston wrote
>> (in article <tptiuo$12id$2...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>> > On 2023-01-13 10:35 p.m., WolfFan wrote:
>> > > On Jan 13, 2023, Joe Pfeiffer wrote
>> > > (in article <1b8ri5p...@pfeifferfamily.net>):
>> > >
>> > > > David Johnston<davidjo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> > > >
>> > > > > There's a guy who has gone into business buying used Harry Potter
>> > > > > books, and rebinding them with new covers that leave off the author's
>> > > > > name. He resells the fancied up books (it isn't just the removal of
>> > > > > the author's name, the binding is nice-looking leather) for 170 bucks.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yeah, I read about that. Apparently his market is Harry Potter fans who
>> > > > are offended by the author's "transphobic" remarks, who apparently will
>> > > > feel safer if her name is removed from the books.
>> > >
>> > > In other words, idiots.
>> > > > To which I can only
>> > > > say, "seriously?"
>> > >
>> > > If I were Rowling, I’d laugh... as long as the guy who’s doing this pays
>> > > full price for the books
>> >
>> > As I said, he's only buying used books to do it to.
>> As long as someone paid full freight, I don’t think that Rowling would
>> care.
>>
>> Personally, I never got beyond the first few chapters of the first Harry
>> Potter. And I fail to see what the fuss is about... on either side. So
>> Rowling is creeped out by transwhatevers? Hoo-rah. Her business, not mine. So
>> someone wants to be a transwhatever? Hoo-rah. Their business, not mine. Now,
>> if someone tried to make it my business, by, for example, saying that I
>> shouldn’t buy Rowlings’ books because she’s ’transphobic’, well at
>> that point I might just purchase the whole damn series.
>
>Better get out your credit card, because 'don't buy them because she's transphobic' is _exactly_ what the anti-Rowling activists are saying. They are indeed demanding that you acknowledge their gender identity as fact, and that you avoid anyone who does not.
>
>This goes way past individual choices, this is competing factions trying to shape the entire society in certain directions, or away from certain directions. They pretty much inherently have to demand obeisance to get what they want. There are certainly people who are prepared to live as the other sex quietly and not demand anything from anyone else, but the core activists expect the society to actively cooperate with their 'identity'...or else.
>
>It's the same logic that leads some of them to insist that a lesbian who refuses to date or have sex with a 'trans woman' is n ot truly lesbian.

As I have noted, wing-nuts exist on /all/ sides.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:ckldshd7hvlpv6cbhecbrl1uo9dfj510i2@4ax.com:

> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:22:35 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
> <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 8:58:57 AM UTC-6, WolfFan
>>wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 2023, David Johnston wrote
>>> (in article <tptiuo$12id$2...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>>> > On 2023-01-13 10:35 p.m., WolfFan wrote:
>>> > > On Jan 13, 2023, Joe Pfeiffer wrote
>>> > > (in article <1b8ri5p...@pfeifferfamily.net>):
>>> > >
>>> > > > David Johnston<davidjo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > There's a guy who has gone into business buying used
>>> > > > > Harry Potter books, and rebinding them with new covers
>>> > > > > that leave off the author's name. He resells the
>>> > > > > fancied up books (it isn't just the removal of
>>> > > > > the author's name, the binding is nice-looking
>>> > > > > leather) for 170 bucks.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Yeah, I read about that. Apparently his market is Harry
>>> > > > Potter fans who are offended by the author's
>>> > > > "transphobic" remarks, who apparently will feel safer if
>>> > > > her name is removed from the books.
>>> > >
>>> > > In other words, idiots.
>>> > > > To which I can only
>>> > > > say, "seriously?"
>>> > >
>>> > > If I were Rowling, I�d laugh... as long as the guy who�s
>>> > > doing this pays full price for the books
>>> >
>>> > As I said, he's only buying used books to do it to.
>>> As long as someone paid full freight, I don�t think that
>>> Rowling would care.
>>>
>>> Personally, I never got beyond the first few chapters of the
>>> first Harry Potter. And I fail to see what the fuss is
>>> about... on either side. So Rowling is creeped out by
>>> transwhatevers? Hoo-rah. Her business, not mine. So someone
>>> wants to be a transwhatever? Hoo-rah. Their business, not
>>> mine. Now, if someone tried to make it my business, by, for
>>> example, saying that I shouldn�t buy Rowlings� books because
>>> she�s �transphobic�, well at that point I might just purchase
>>> the whole damn series.
>>
>>Better get out your credit card, because 'don't buy them because
>>she's transphobic' is _exactly_ what the anti-Rowling activists
>>are saying. They are indeed demanding that you acknowledge
>>their gender identity as fact, and that you avoid anyone who
>>does not.
>>
>>This goes way past individual choices, this is competing
>>factions trying to shape the entire society in certain
>>directions, or away from certain directions. They pretty much
>>inherently have to demand obeisance to get what they want.
>>There are certainly people who are prepared to live as the other
>>sex quietly and not demand anything from anyone else, but the
>>core activists expect the society to actively cooperate with
>>their 'identity'...or else.
>>
>>It's the same logic that leads some of them to insist that a
>>lesbian who refuses to date or have sex with a 'trans woman' is
>>n ot truly lesbian.
>
> As I have noted, wing-nuts exist on /all/ sides.

Strictly speaking, wingnuts are from the right wing. The proper
term for lefties is moonbat.

Words matter, dammit. If for no other reason than using the proper
lables is the only way to tell them apart.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:10:06 PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:42:23 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn
> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >
> >> British books used to say something like, from here
> >> <https://sellercentral-europe.amazon.com/forums/t/used-book-intellectual-property-violation/187615/15>
> >> "This book is sold subject to the condition that is shall not,
> >> by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or
> >> otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent
> >> in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is
> >> published and without a similar condition including these
> >> words being imposed on a subsequent purchaser."
> >>
> >> But I think the first of my Harry Potters doesn't have that.
> >> And I don't know what it's to stop - maybe to prevent outright
> >> bootlegs from being passed off as "book re-covered".
> >
> >> Or, there was the thing where a seller would get credit on
> >> unsold books, if they returned, not the whole book, expensive,
> >> but just the cover.
> >
> >From a mass market paperback: "NOTE: If you have purchased this book without a cover you should be aware that this book is stolen property. It was reported as 'unsold and destroyed' to the publisher, and neither the author nor the publisher has received any payment for this 'striped book.'"
> I suspect that a closer inspection would show "stripped" instead of
> "striped".
>
> Unless, of course, the notice has a typo ...

I'll take the blame for the typo.
One odd thing: it is on the copyright page of the book, the inside of the first title page. Should it be on the page before that, (blank in hardcovers, additional advertising in paperbacks) and also facing OUT?

--
-Jack

On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:25:22 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
> There's a guy who has gone into business buying used Harry Potter books,
> and rebinding them with new covers that leave off the author's name.

Incidentally, England has a human rights law guaranteeing that women
have the right not to have men barging into their locker rooms - which I
highly approve of - but they're using it as an excuse to overrule a proposed
Scottish law recognizing the gender identity of trans people along what
are considered current modern standards.

So apparently J. K. Rowlings' transphobia is *shared by the government of
the country she lives in*... but I haven't (yet) heard any calls to boycott
England for this.

John Savard

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 11:17:20 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn
<jack.bohn64@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, January 17, 2023 at 12:10:06 PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:42:23 -0800 (PST), Jack Bohn
>> <jack....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >
>> >> British books used to say something like, from here
>> >> <https://sellercentral-europe.amazon.com/forums/t/used-book-intellectual-property-violation/187615/15>
>> >> "This book is sold subject to the condition that is shall not,
>> >> by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or
>> >> otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent
>> >> in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is
>> >> published and without a similar condition including these
>> >> words being imposed on a subsequent purchaser."
>> >>
>> >> But I think the first of my Harry Potters doesn't have that.
>> >> And I don't know what it's to stop - maybe to prevent outright
>> >> bootlegs from being passed off as "book re-covered".
>> >
>> >> Or, there was the thing where a seller would get credit on
>> >> unsold books, if they returned, not the whole book, expensive,
>> >> but just the cover.
>> >
>> >From a mass market paperback: "NOTE: If you have purchased this book without a cover you should be aware that this book is stolen property. It was reported as 'unsold and destroyed' to the publisher, and neither the author nor the publisher has received any payment for this 'striped book.'"
>> I suspect that a closer inspection would show "stripped" instead of
>> "striped".
>>
>> Unless, of course, the notice has a typo ...
>
>I'll take the blame for the typo.
>One odd thing: it is on the copyright page of the book, the inside of the first title page. Should it be on the page before that, (blank in hardcovers, additional advertising in paperbacks) and also facing OUT?

It's placed to make it easier to hide from the evil booksellers (only
those that sell stripped books are meant by "evil", BTW).
--
"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 Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:58:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:ckldshd7hvlpv6cbhecbrl1uo9dfj510i2@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:22:35 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
>> <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 8:58:57 AM UTC-6, WolfFan
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Jan 14, 2023, David Johnston wrote
>>>> (in article <tptiuo$12id$2...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>>>> > On 2023-01-13 10:35 p.m., WolfFan wrote:
>>>> > > On Jan 13, 2023, Joe Pfeiffer wrote
>>>> > > (in article <1b8ri5p...@pfeifferfamily.net>):
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > David Johnston<davidjo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > There's a guy who has gone into business buying used
>>>> > > > > Harry Potter books, and rebinding them with new covers
>>>> > > > > that leave off the author's name. He resells the
>>>> > > > > fancied up books (it isn't just the removal of
>>>> > > > > the author's name, the binding is nice-looking
>>>> > > > > leather) for 170 bucks.
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Yeah, I read about that. Apparently his market is Harry
>>>> > > > Potter fans who are offended by the author's
>>>> > > > "transphobic" remarks, who apparently will feel safer if
>>>> > > > her name is removed from the books.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > In other words, idiots.
>>>> > > > To which I can only
>>>> > > > say, "seriously?"
>>>> > >
>>>> > > If I were Rowling, I’d laugh... as long as the guy who’s
>>>> > > doing this pays full price for the books
>>>> >
>>>> > As I said, he's only buying used books to do it to.
>>>> As long as someone paid full freight, I don’t think that
>>>> Rowling would care.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I never got beyond the first few chapters of the
>>>> first Harry Potter. And I fail to see what the fuss is
>>>> about... on either side. So Rowling is creeped out by
>>>> transwhatevers? Hoo-rah. Her business, not mine. So someone
>>>> wants to be a transwhatever? Hoo-rah. Their business, not
>>>> mine. Now, if someone tried to make it my business, by, for
>>>> example, saying that I shouldn’t buy Rowlings’ books because
>>>> she’s ’transphobic’, well at that point I might just purchase
>>>> the whole damn series.
>>>
>>>Better get out your credit card, because 'don't buy them because
>>>she's transphobic' is _exactly_ what the anti-Rowling activists
>>>are saying. They are indeed demanding that you acknowledge
>>>their gender identity as fact, and that you avoid anyone who
>>>does not.
>>>
>>>This goes way past individual choices, this is competing
>>>factions trying to shape the entire society in certain
>>>directions, or away from certain directions. They pretty much
>>>inherently have to demand obeisance to get what they want.
>>>There are certainly people who are prepared to live as the other
>>>sex quietly and not demand anything from anyone else, but the
>>>core activists expect the society to actively cooperate with
>>>their 'identity'...or else.
>>>
>>>It's the same logic that leads some of them to insist that a
>>>lesbian who refuses to date or have sex with a 'trans woman' is
>>>n ot truly lesbian.
>>
>> As I have noted, wing-nuts exist on /all/ sides.
>
>Strictly speaking, wingnuts are from the right wing. The proper
>term for lefties is moonbat.

I prefer my apolitical definitions of the two.

For one thing, wingnuts are active while moonbats are dreamy.

Both, to be sure, are irritating. But only the former poses a risk of
violence to anything other than flowers.

>Words matter, dammit. If for no other reason than using the proper
>lables is the only way to tell them apart.

But that isn't the only way to tell them apart. They are very easily
distinguished by their speech and behavior.

And it isn't just left/right. There are various religious wings as
well. And how many forms of Socialism/Communism were there? Each and
every one of them producing wingnuts bent on attacking the others?
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:m6bgsh1q4gv69lt7cimk7ijufl1h5934p1@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:58:04 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:ckldshd7hvlpv6cbhecbrl1uo9dfj510i2@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 21:22:35 -0800 (PST), Johnny1A
>>> <johnny1a.again@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 8:58:57 AM UTC-6, WolfFan
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 14, 2023, David Johnston wrote
>>>>> (in article <tptiuo$12id$2...@gioia.aioe.org>):
>>>>> > On 2023-01-13 10:35 p.m., WolfFan wrote:
>>>>> > > On Jan 13, 2023, Joe Pfeiffer wrote
>>>>> > > (in article <1b8ri5p...@pfeifferfamily.net>):
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > David Johnston<davidjo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > There's a guy who has gone into business buying used
>>>>> > > > > Harry Potter books, and rebinding them with new
>>>>> > > > > covers that leave off the author's name. He resells
>>>>> > > > > the fancied up books (it isn't just the removal of
>>>>> > > > > the author's name, the binding is nice-looking
>>>>> > > > > leather) for 170 bucks.
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Yeah, I read about that. Apparently his market is
>>>>> > > > Harry Potter fans who are offended by the author's
>>>>> > > > "transphobic" remarks, who apparently will feel safer
>>>>> > > > if her name is removed from the books.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > In other words, idiots.
>>>>> > > > To which I can only
>>>>> > > > say, "seriously?"
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > If I were Rowling, I�d laugh... as long as the guy who�s
>>>>> > > doing this pays full price for the books
>>>>> >
>>>>> > As I said, he's only buying used books to do it to.
>>>>> As long as someone paid full freight, I don�t think that
>>>>> Rowling would care.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally, I never got beyond the first few chapters of the
>>>>> first Harry Potter. And I fail to see what the fuss is
>>>>> about... on either side. So Rowling is creeped out by
>>>>> transwhatevers? Hoo-rah. Her business, not mine. So someone
>>>>> wants to be a transwhatever? Hoo-rah. Their business, not
>>>>> mine. Now, if someone tried to make it my business, by, for
>>>>> example, saying that I shouldn�t buy Rowlings� books because
>>>>> she�s �transphobic�, well at that point I might just
>>>>> purchase the whole damn series.
>>>>
>>>>Better get out your credit card, because 'don't buy them
>>>>because she's transphobic' is _exactly_ what the anti-Rowling
>>>>activists are saying. They are indeed demanding that you
>>>>acknowledge their gender identity as fact, and that you avoid
>>>>anyone who does not.
>>>>
>>>>This goes way past individual choices, this is competing
>>>>factions trying to shape the entire society in certain
>>>>directions, or away from certain directions. They pretty much
>>>>inherently have to demand obeisance to get what they want.
>>>>There are certainly people who are prepared to live as the
>>>>other sex quietly and not demand anything from anyone else,
>>>>but the core activists expect the society to actively
>>>>cooperate with their 'identity'...or else.
>>>>
>>>>It's the same logic that leads some of them to insist that a
>>>>lesbian who refuses to date or have sex with a 'trans woman'
>>>>is n ot truly lesbian.
>>>
>>> As I have noted, wing-nuts exist on /all/ sides.
>>
>>Strictly speaking, wingnuts are from the right wing. The proper
>>term for lefties is moonbat.
>
> I prefer my apolitical definitions of the two.
>
> For one thing, wingnuts are active while moonbats are dreamy.
>
> Both, to be sure, are irritating. But only the former poses a
> risk of violence to anything other than flowers.

It is typical of the fascist left to insist on redefining words, so
as to cause confusion as to what they're saying. Because if people
actually understood what they're saying, they'd all end up in
mental hospitals. Orwell called Newspeak, and the left are using
1984 as an instructional manual.
>
>>Words matter, dammit. If for no other reason than using the
>>proper lables is the only way to tell them apart.
>
> But that isn't the only way to tell them apart. They are very
> easily distinguished by their speech and behavior.

Only in your delusions.
>
> And it isn't just left/right. There are various religious wings
> as well. And how many forms of Socialism/Communism were there?
> Each and every one of them producing wingnuts bent on attacking
> the others?

They're all the same. It isn't about ideology, it's about control.
Specifically, controlling gullible sheep like you.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 15:06:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, January 13, 2023 at 3:25:22 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:
>> There's a guy who has gone into business buying used Harry Potter books,
>> and rebinding them with new covers that leave off the author's name.
>
>Incidentally, England has a human rights law guaranteeing that women
>have the right not to have men barging into their locker rooms - which I
>highly approve of - but they're using it as an excuse to overrule a proposed
>Scottish law recognizing the gender identity of trans people along what
>are considered current modern standards.

If it only applies to women, then it is a sexist right.

And, in any case, reporters of the "wrong" gender must find it very
.... impeding ... when they are doing their jobs.

And perhaps the idea that have groups of unrelated adults take their
clothes off together is somehow an acceptable needs to be
reconsidered. The solution is obvious, if perhaps a bit expensive.

>So apparently J. K. Rowlings' transphobia is *shared by the government of
>the country she lives in*... but I haven't (yet) heard any calls to boycott
>England for this.

Just give it time.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."