From: Neil Faulkner <N.Faulkner@tesco.net>
>Andrew=20 wrote
>> <moan mode on It just means that you need to = take=20 your time before you post something new. And I know I am taking my time = on=20 preparing the case for why the Federation was NOT evil, ...... <moan = mode=20 off>
Neil Replied

>The idea that the Federation is not evil is hardly new - I = first=20 encountered it about ten years ago, when I first entered fandom, and I = doubt if=20 it was all that novel then. It's probably getting harder and harder to = think of=20 something that is genuinely fresh, that has never been covered before, = and=20 probably harder still in terms of Big Concepts.

Neil put some good points forward in a very constructive fashion. = But what=20 IS new is my opinion on the subject of the evil Federation. I am = enjoying the=20 exercise of putting something together, that is what really counts, and = when I=20 have finished, I would like to discuss it with friends. And if it turns = out that=20 I eventually come out with the answer that was obtained by even Neil's=20 predecessors (some of whom are still around), then who has lost = out=20 ?

On the other hand, if we are only willing to talk about something = that is=20 genuinely fresh, or even a Big Concept then really what is the point. I = hope=20 people with Neil's view don't get bored at Redemption (or any other = gathering of=20 fans), with all that pawing over old ground, I intend to have a jolly = good=20 time.

Just a thought, people still study Shakespeare after all these = years. And I=20 don't mean at school, or University. I mean people really study = Shakespeare, for=20 fun, for enlightenment, for personal enrichment. Some of them even write = books=20 and set up web sites. Can't be much new stuff though, not after all this = time.

Neil said in a second post

> repeating the same old timeworn guff *is* bad form. If it's = committed=20 in ignorance fuelled by enthusiasm, then it can be put down
to=20 inexperience. If it's a conscious imitation of what has already = been done=20 to death a thousand times over, it's a pointless waste of my time and = the=20 author's.

I could not disagree more. Enough has been said on the value to = SOME people=20 of examining old issues, so I won't repeat it here ! Here is a friendly=20 challenge just to Neil. How many of your last, say 20, posts actually=20 contributed a genuinely new concept, or was even "fresh". = Remember to=20 check back over 22 years of paper, electronic and verbal contributions = to=20 fandom.

Ebony actually managed to voice some of my vague perceptions up to=20 now.

> Any idiot has a 'right' to string .... words together, = surely? =20 You don't have to read them if you don't want to.

>Fan lore (IMHO) is contributed to by fans of all backgrounds = and all=20 levels of intelligence, a patchwork of ideas and theories woven = together, some=20 original and interesting and some fairly boring, that seems to have = evolved in a=20 very haphazard, illogical way over the years.

>Call me a dormouse or whatever, but new talent is often stunted = by such=20 very high expectations.

and I'd just like to echo that here, just like Alison, who went on = to=20 say...

>' 90% of anything is shit'. But you have to allow the 90% to = get the=20 10%.

Now good old Theodore didn't know about the internet, and today, he = would=20 probably say more like 98%. But I do return to the point that this is = not a=20 scientific endeavour we are embarking on. There is no big = "right"=20 answer out there, so actually, a reasonable portion of the 98% is = actually=20 stimulating and useful.

> So, all in all, I'd like to put in a good word for kindness to = newcomers. And continuing kindness to oldsters. {Alison}

Or people with lots of time to do web sites, or even people short = of time=20 who sometimes rush their posts.

Neil also insightfully said

> This .... assumes that any new input is automatically 'fresh' = and=20 genuinely insightful, which is not necessarily the case. Though of = course=20 it can be and sometimes is.

Exactly. And if it takes a mortal man a lot of hard work to get = there, who=20 are we to stifle that. And sometimes a more up to date presentation is = of=20 significant value, even if there are no new concepts. What you are doing = there=20 is reaching a new audience.

And reaching a new audience is exactly what the BBC are doing right = now. I=20 mean there are no new concepts, and nothing is fresh in repeats, but I = know=20 several people who are watching it, and are talking about it for the = first time=20 in 18 (?) years. Excellent stuff. Well done the BBC if you are reading = this. We=20 even have people contributing to "first impressions" on this = list, and=20 I would like to encourage that in a very friendly and open manner.

But going all the way back to the beginning of all of this. I agree = with=20 Julia that Michael did kind of create the wrong first impression. So I = guess at=20 the finish of it all, its not whether your idea's are new and fresh, or = old and=20 stale, its how you present them that counts.