| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1108.1 | .0 | SOFBAS::SHERMAN | | Fri Sep 25 1992 15:14 | 6 |
| Couldn't help but notice that your personal name is a bit of dialogue
from "The Bedford Incident." Good movie, but not sf ...
ken
|
| 1108.2 | | HOCUS::FERGUSON | | Fri Sep 25 1992 16:09 | 1 |
| Huh. I thought it was the computer industry's policy on layoffs.
|
| 1108.3 | | SWAM1::HERKELRAT_RA | If they fire one, we'll fire one. One fired, sir | Fri Sep 25 1992 17:17 | 8 |
| re: -2 You are the first person in the two years I've been
using this personal name to identify it. I guess
you're right. In today's parlance The Bedford Incident
would be considered a techno thriller. Question: What's
the difference between a techno thriller and near term
science fiction (eg. The Silver Tower).
re: -1 Yup. That's one of the reasons I've kept it so long :)
|
| 1108.4 | Richard Widmark | SOFBAS::SHERMAN | | Fri Sep 25 1992 18:59 | 11 |
| Well, "The Bedford Incident" still stands up as what you can do in
black and white on a small budget is you have first-rate writing and
acting. I believe I saw it in 1964. And yes, it certainly could be
called a techno-thriller. The line in question is, of course, at the
climax of the movie. There's probably a review of the film in the
MOVIES file.
(BTW, I'm a Naval Air type subhunter in the Reserves)
Ken
|
| 1108.5 | | MILKWY::ED_ECK | Rambo Among the Roses | Mon Sep 28 1992 09:58 | 4 |
|
Yeah--it's what Richard Widmark says to Sidney Potier
(how come Spellcheck doesn't have any _useful_ words in it?)
just before the climax of the movie.
|
| 1108.6 | | MIMS::WILBUR_D | | Thu Oct 15 1992 20:12 | 6 |
|
What is the definition of fine condition?
|
| 1108.7 | Accurate condition descriptions are an art form. | SWAM1::HERKELRAT_RA | If they fire one, we'll fire one. One fired, sir | Fri Oct 16 1992 12:18 | 35 |
| That's one of the harder questions to answer in a universally concise
manner. Ratings systems vary from dealer to dealer and sometimes from
book to book. For instance, I have never seen a copy of Dangerous
Visions that doesn't suffer from a band of discoloration along the
edge of the junction with the pastedown and the the front/back
endleaves. According to Ellison the problem is related to an acidity
problem in the glue used in the binding. He also says that unless the
book is rebound the cover will eventually fall off the book. So a
fine copy of Dangerous Visions has one helluva defect to start with.
In the case of the books I'm asking about, Glory Road and Protector,
I know of no builtin physical defects. So my definition is simple.
They should appear to be freshly printed books. Hard, sharply defined
corners, no bruising to any edges, no creasing and no seperation of
the boards. The page edges should be clean and free from denting.
No bookplates or writing in the book other than that placed there by
the author.
As for the dust jacket. It's very hard to find them in perfect
condition. Usually, they're described as <condition, defects>. A
fine dw is a bright, clean copy with no fading and few defects.
Allowable defects might include light (very light) rubbing to the
head and/or heel of spine and possibly a small, closed tear or a
very small amount of chipping to the spine (but not the front or
rear panels).
I know I'm picky, but _all_ the books in my collection (5000+) are
in that condition with very few exceptions. I've occasionally bought
a book in less than fine condition to fill a void but the title remains
on my 'acquire list' until replaced with a better copy. When the book
is replaced it either gets traded or converted to a 'reading copy'.
So, Dennis, do you know where to find either one?
Herk
|