Transcribe
Translate
Timebinder, v. 1, issue 4, 1945
Page 22
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
have taken pains to make it clear in that issue of TTB wherein I used both of her letters. I used the two names as I did because it seems to be an accepted practice by editors that one person's name cannot be used in a single issue on more than one story, even if that author had written everything in the magazine. That seems to be the reason for so many pen-names among authors. Why, then, are you so bitter about her views on the C.O. ideology, and so complacent, sympathetic and understanding on her other ideas and views? You, yourself, bring up a startling new concept to me, at least, for I have never before heard that atheism could find any possible excuse also to believe in pacifism or conscientious objection. Further, I know that in your work, you are constantly looking for new ideas, new concepts of science, new facts about life. When you find one, do you feel that you and any others who think as you do must rush off to Alaska or some other out-of-the-way place, and found a colony where you can experiment with it before introducing it to the world? As to the place of C.O.'s after the war, a study of conditions since World War I will soon show that those working hardest and more effectively for peace are those who were C. O.'s during that war. For after all, everyone except a few war-mongers sincerely desires peace and brotherhood, only some work in different ways than others to try to obtain it. -- EEE. CPL. ART WIDNER, U. S. ARMY I've been meaning to write ever since #1 of THE TIME-BINDER appeared, & here #3 has arrove, so I deem it just & proper that I should hold off no longer. My good deed for the day will be to dummy this as I go along, thus saving you a lot of typing...((Gee, thanx, Kid.)) As one who has been personally confronted with the problem, & given it a l;ot of thot, I feel qualified to stick my oar in on this matter of the conscientious objector. When it became clear that we were going to war, I began to consider seriously whether I should take the stand of a C.O. or not and if I was prepared the take such a stand. Although well equipped for it, I have always found force and violence a very distasteful way of doing things. I liked wrestling, "buck-buck" football, & all the violent boyish sports -- but that was because they were games, and according to the rules the object wasn't to try to hurt the other fellow. Hunting, trapping, fishing, etc. were something else & I always got myself pegged as a little bit "queer" with each "gang", by occasionally launching into a harangue on the evils of shooting birds, cats, etc., with BB guns, killing snakes & toads for no good reason, or causing suffering to some hapless rabbit or muskrat caught in a trap. 22
Saving...
prev
next
have taken pains to make it clear in that issue of TTB wherein I used both of her letters. I used the two names as I did because it seems to be an accepted practice by editors that one person's name cannot be used in a single issue on more than one story, even if that author had written everything in the magazine. That seems to be the reason for so many pen-names among authors. Why, then, are you so bitter about her views on the C.O. ideology, and so complacent, sympathetic and understanding on her other ideas and views? You, yourself, bring up a startling new concept to me, at least, for I have never before heard that atheism could find any possible excuse also to believe in pacifism or conscientious objection. Further, I know that in your work, you are constantly looking for new ideas, new concepts of science, new facts about life. When you find one, do you feel that you and any others who think as you do must rush off to Alaska or some other out-of-the-way place, and found a colony where you can experiment with it before introducing it to the world? As to the place of C.O.'s after the war, a study of conditions since World War I will soon show that those working hardest and more effectively for peace are those who were C. O.'s during that war. For after all, everyone except a few war-mongers sincerely desires peace and brotherhood, only some work in different ways than others to try to obtain it. -- EEE. CPL. ART WIDNER, U. S. ARMY I've been meaning to write ever since #1 of THE TIME-BINDER appeared, & here #3 has arrove, so I deem it just & proper that I should hold off no longer. My good deed for the day will be to dummy this as I go along, thus saving you a lot of typing...((Gee, thanx, Kid.)) As one who has been personally confronted with the problem, & given it a l;ot of thot, I feel qualified to stick my oar in on this matter of the conscientious objector. When it became clear that we were going to war, I began to consider seriously whether I should take the stand of a C.O. or not and if I was prepared the take such a stand. Although well equipped for it, I have always found force and violence a very distasteful way of doing things. I liked wrestling, "buck-buck" football, & all the violent boyish sports -- but that was because they were games, and according to the rules the object wasn't to try to hurt the other fellow. Hunting, trapping, fishing, etc. were something else & I always got myself pegged as a little bit "queer" with each "gang", by occasionally launching into a harangue on the evils of shooting birds, cats, etc., with BB guns, killing snakes & toads for no good reason, or causing suffering to some hapless rabbit or muskrat caught in a trap. 22
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
