Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Remote Control?

Started by George Herbert Walker · · Last activity · 34 posts · 1,581 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
8 October 2004
Last activity
4 November 2004
Original author
George Herbert Walker
Posts
34
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,581
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–34 of 34
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. This is a cycling newsgroup you mungbean.

    "George Herbert Walker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Was Bush Wired? Sure Looks Like It.
    http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/2004/11/10_407.html

    A NASA photo expert's analysis makes it clear: Bush is lying -- he
    wore some kind of device in each of the three debates. So why won't
    the media go near this story?

    By Dave Lindorff

    October 30, 2004

    A leading NASA scientist who normally spends his days analyzing and
    enhancing photo images sent across the depths of space by the Cassini
    and other space probes has turned his expertise to images of the
    president in his three debates. His conclusion: "George Bush is
    obviously wearing something -- probably a receiver of some kind --
    under his jacket for each debate."

    Robert M. Nelson, who has worked for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
    at the California Institute of Technology for some three decades,
    provided a dramatic photo of the bulge under the jacket at the first
    debate to Salon.com which posted it Oct. 29. Now -- working at home
    and using his own computers -- he's done the same analysis for
    MotherJones.com on images of Bush's back taken during the second two
    debates. Nelson, a top-ranked senior research scientist at JPL and
    past chair of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American
    Astronomical Society, says that by enhancing the contrast and the edge
    definition in digital photographs taken of video broadcasts of the
    three debates, the object under the jacket can be clearly delineated.

    Nelson told MotherJones.com, "In the first debate the bulges create
    the impression of a letter T with a small feature which appears
    similar to a wire under the jacket running upward from the right. In
    the second and third debates the jacket has a generally padded shape
    across a large part of the entire back which tapers inward toward the
    spine in a downward direction. This is consistent with the hypothesis
    that a pad was inserted to conceal the T-shaped device seen in the
    first debate."

    The new photos, together with the image from the first debate,
    strikingly refute the series of contradictory explanations that have
    come from the White House, from the Bush/Cheney campaign, and from the
    president himself -- explanations that only addressed the obvious
    bulge in his jacket that was noticed at the first debate. Bush and the
    White House have not acknowledged -- nor has the mainstream press even
    asked about -- the other two debates.

    The White House position on the issue of the bulge has shifted over
    time. When the bulge was first reported by this writer in Salon on
    Oct. 8, the White House claimed that it didn't exist -- suggesting
    that photos depicting a rectangular bulge had been doctored. When it
    was explained that in fact the photos had been taken directly off of
    broadcasts of the debate, and that the bulge could be clearly seen in
    stop-frames of the Fox News pool broadcast, the White House fell back
    on the claim that the bulge was a "pucker" in an ill-tailored suit --
    the explanation given to the New York Times, which ran one news report
    on the issue, on Oct. 9.

    While the mainstream media for the most part failed to press the
    matter further, Charles Gibson of ABC's Good Morning America show, in
    an interview with the president, did ask him for an explanation. Bush
    replied that the bulge had been the result of a "poorly tailored
    shirt." Gibson didn't press the matter, and didn't ask about the
    bulges that were evident during the subsequent debates.

    A call to the Bush campaign press office on Oct. 29 elicited the same
    response: it was a badly tailored shirt.

    The problem, of course, is that with photos showing that the bulge
    was apparent at all three debates, this would mean that the president
    either wore the same bad shirt on all three occasions (he changed
    jackets and ties), or that he has a whole wardrobe of similarly
    ill-fitting shirts.

    Besides, it would be hard to imagine any shirt, however outsized,
    making the prominent bulged-out shapes disclosed by Dr. Nelson's
    investigation of the photos.

    Nelson's work makes one thing abundantly clear: the White House, the
    Bush campaign, and the president himself -have been lying about the
    bulge in his suit.

    Nelson's photo analysis raises a number of questions, chief among
    which is this: What was the president wearing?

    Alex Darbut, technical and business development vice president at
    Resistance Technology, Inc. of Arden Hills, MN, a company that makes
    back-mounted transceivers that link to wireless earpieces hidden in
    the ear canal, says he is certain the president was wearing such a
    device. Darbut, whose company sells such a device to "the military and
    to professionals," including actors and people in communications,
    says, "There's no question about it. It's a pretty obvious one --
    larger than most because it probably has descrambling capability."

    If the president were wearing a wire, the second question would be:
    was he cheating and getting help with his answers? His behavior during
    all three debates left many viewers wondering. During the first
    debate, there were those two uncomfortably long pauses after questions
    were asked of him, when he just stared out at the camera with a blank
    expression, saying nothing and looking for all the world like he was
    waiting for an answer to be explained to him. There was also the
    peculiar moment when, midway through a 90-second answer period (during
    which no interruptions were allowed, and well before his warning light
    would have been flashing), the president interrupted himself, blurting
    out with an expression of annoyance, "Now let me finish!"

    In debate number two, there were also odd pauses, and several
    occasions when he would appear detached only to leap up and shout out
    something -- on one occasion even interrupting the moderator.

    In debate three, the president was much more reserved, but again
    there were the long pauses in his speech, before and even during
    answers.

    Bloggers have been pretty much alone in dogging this story, and some
    have suggested that the president may be hiding a medical device --
    the prevailing theory is an external atrial defibrillator. But at
    least one physician, Dr. Stephen Tarzynski of Pasadena, CA, says most
    such devices are worn on the front of the body, closer to the heart.
    Another suggestion is an electrical impulse machine that could be
    designed to relieve chronic pain. In either case, the public has a
    right to know the health condition of the man they are considering as
    a candidate for the next four years -- particularly as the vice
    president, [censored] Cheney, himself suffering from a serious heart
    condition, is far less popular among voters than the head of the
    Bush/Cheney ticket.

    (Remember, the U.S. media have been criticized in the past for
    covering up President Franklin Roosevelt's leg braces and President
    Kennedy's Addison's disease, as well as President Ronald Reagan's
    Alzheimer's in office.)

    A third big question is why the media -- and the Kerry campaign --
    have stayed away from this story, refusing to press the president for
    an explanation of the bulges in his three suit jackets. Several calls
    to the Kerry campaign press office for a response to this and earlier
    articles on the topic went unanswered.

    Nelson says that for several weeks he has tried to interest the major
    media outlets in photos he had worked on from the first debate, to no
    avail.

    He says he offered the photos at no charge to the Los Angeles Times,
    which "sat on them for four days" and never returned his phone call.
    He claims he also offered them to the New York Times, "and they
    promised a story which was ready to go last Thursday when it was
    yanked at the last minute by higher ups." Finally, he says he offered
    his photos of the first debate to the Washington Post. Assistant
    Managing Editor Bob Woodward, he says, called him personally. "He said
    it would take too long for him to clear these images with his editors
    and he encouraged me to go to Salon."

    "I'm just really ticked that editors are saying they have to know
    what it is before they'll ask the White House about it," says Nelson.
    "That's way too high a threshold for pursuing this story."

    Jeffrey Klein, a former Mother Jones editor, says, "The current fear
    factor among American political reporters is greater than anything
    I've ever witnessed. Having spoken with more than a dozen journalists,
    I've heard a variety of excuses for why they won't or can't pursue
    this story. The excuses range from 'Kerry isn't making an issue of
    this so how can I?' (Time magazine) to 'The paper has clamped down on
    anti-Bush stories. Nothing about the bulge is going to run here before
    the election.' (The Wall Street Journal).

    Klein adds, "Major media outlets are understandably reluctant to
    influence an election, but in this instance, they have a certified
    government expert willing to go on the record; there's absolutely no
    excuse for their silence. All any journalist needs to do is report
    this news."

    Meanwhile, it becomes another form of bias for the media not to do
    anything, once the evidence is put out there, as Nelson has done with
    these photos.

    It is no longer possible for the administration and the president
    himself to laugh off the bulge in his jacket at all three debates as
    bad tailoring, or as an Internet urban legend. Between Nelson's photos
    and the onslaught in such comedic venues as The Daily Show and Gary
    Trudeau's Doonesbury column, the question has to be asked: What was
    the president wearing and why does he wear it?

    What do you think?

    Dave Lindorff, a longtime contributor to Mother Jones, is a veteran
    investigative reporter. He is the author of "This Can't Be Happening!
    Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy." His work can be
    found at thiscantbehappening.net

    --
    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Please excuse the inconvenience allegedly caused by our son
    and his handlers. Send us the bill for all the damages, and we can
    settle this to your satisfaction, without any need for a public record
    of the incident.

    Most Sincerely, George and Bar

  2. Marty anonymous snipes:

    Quoted message said:

    This is a cycling newsgroup you mungbean.

    Don't be so provincial. This is world affairs and is under that
    thread title. There is more to life than spinning the RIGHT gear.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  3. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Marty anonymous snipes:

    Quoted message said:

    This is a cycling newsgroup you mungbean.

    Don't be so provincial. This is world affairs and is under that
    thread title. There is more to life than spinning the RIGHT gear.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

    You're right, there is more to life than spinning the right gear, but it IS
    a bicycle newsgroup and I'm sure there is no shortage of political
    newsgroups out there.
    It's also an international newsgroup and people like myself (Australia)
    don't need lectures on American politics.

    Besides that, I DO enjoy your articles on cycle travels.

    Marty Wallace

  4. On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 18:29:50 +0800, "Marty" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Marty anonymous snipes:

    Quoted message said:

    This is a cycling newsgroup you mungbean.

    Don't be so provincial. This is world affairs and is under that
    thread title. There is more to life than spinning the RIGHT gear.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

    You're right, there is more to life than spinning the right gear, but it IS
    a bicycle newsgroup and I'm sure there is no shortage of political
    newsgroups out there.
    It's also an international newsgroup and people like myself (Australia)
    don't need lectures on American politics.

    Besides that, I DO enjoy your articles on cycle travels.

    Marty Wallace

    Dear Marty,

    I enjoyed your Australian perspective. ("Mungbean" is a new
    one for me--"seppo" would have been my choice.)

    From your point of view, it must be amusing to be scolded
    for being a "provincial" foreign bicyclist not obsessed with
    another country's politics--logic that would demand that
    Yanks endure long political threads about China, Iceland,
    New Zealand, and Australia.

    Somehow, I doubt that we ever-so-non-provincial Yankees
    would put up with political discussions of provinces outside
    our borders as well as the non-U.S. posters.

    Thanks,

    Carl Fogel

  5. Carl Fogel said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > This is a cycling newsgroup you mungbean.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Don't be so provincial. This is world affairs and is under that
    thread title. There is more to life than spinning the RIGHT gear.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You're right, there is more to life than spinning the right gear,
    but it IS a bicycle newsgroup and I'm sure there is no shortage of
    political newsgroups out there. It's also an international
    newsgroup and people like myself (Australia) don't need lectures on
    American politics.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Besides that, I DO enjoy your articles on cycle travels.

    Quoted message said:

    I enjoyed your Australian perspective. ("Mungbean" is a new one for
    me--"seppo" would have been my choice.)

    Quoted message said:

    From your point of view, it must be amusing to be scolded for being
    a "provincial" foreign bicyclist not obsessed with another country's
    politics--logic that would demand that Yanks endure long political
    threads about China, Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia.

    Quoted message said:

    Somehow, I doubt that we ever-so-non-provincial Yankees would put up
    with political discussions of provinces outside our borders as well
    as the non-U.S. posters.

    So you think subjects like "Wha kind of society is Iraq?" are more
    interesting and fitting for rec.bicycles.misc that a bit of discussion
    of issues that affect all of us? Besides, what GWB has in mind for
    world order has more to do with (AUS) than you seem to believe. This
    is not a local issue although GWB seems to believe it is... his domain.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

  6. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Carl Fogel said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> This is a cycling newsgroup you mungbean.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Don't be so provincial. This is world affairs and is under that
    > thread title. There is more to life than spinning the RIGHT gear.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You're right, there is more to life than spinning the right gear,
    but it IS a bicycle newsgroup and I'm sure there is no shortage of
    political newsgroups out there. It's also an international
    newsgroup and people like myself (Australia) don't need lectures on
    American politics.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Besides that, I DO enjoy your articles on cycle travels.

    Quoted message said:

    I enjoyed your Australian perspective. ("Mungbean" is a new one for
    me--"seppo" would have been my choice.)

    Quoted message said:

    From your point of view, it must be amusing to be scolded for being
    a "provincial" foreign bicyclist not obsessed with another country's
    politics--logic that would demand that Yanks endure long political
    threads about China, Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia.

    Quoted message said:

    Somehow, I doubt that we ever-so-non-provincial Yankees would put up
    with political discussions of provinces outside our borders as well
    as the non-U.S. posters.

    So you think subjects like "Wha kind of society is Iraq?" are more
    interesting and fitting for rec.bicycles.misc that a bit of discussion
    of issues that affect all of us? Besides, what GWB has in mind for
    world order has more to do with (AUS) than you seem to believe. This
    is not a local issue although GWB seems to believe it is... his domain.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

    Sorry Jobst, you seem to have missed my point.
    I wasn't discussing the merits of one political thread versus an other, and
    I don't even have an opinion on Mr Bush.
    It's just that when I saw the thread topic I thought it might have been
    about remote control derailleuers (like Mavic had for a while).
    There was nothing in the topic heading to indicate it was a propaganda
    article.
    Secondly, I simply don't think this newsgroup was set up to discuss
    politics, hence the name rec.bicycles.tech.
    If one wanted to discuss poitics there are at least three hundred other
    newsgroups that are specially set up to discuss politics of one form or
    another.

    Regards

    Marty Wallace

  7. Quoted message said:
    Carl Fogel said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> This is a cycling newsgroup you mungbean.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Don't be so provincial. This is world affairs and is under that
    > thread title. There is more to life than spinning the RIGHT gear.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    You're right, there is more to life than spinning the right gear,
    but it IS a bicycle newsgroup and I'm sure there is no shortage of
    political newsgroups out there. It's also an international
    newsgroup and people like myself (Australia) don't need lectures on
    American politics.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Besides that, I DO enjoy your articles on cycle travels.

    Quoted message said:

    I enjoyed your Australian perspective. ("Mungbean" is a new one for
    me--"seppo" would have been my choice.)

    Quoted message said:

    From your point of view, it must be amusing to be scolded for being
    a "provincial" foreign bicyclist not obsessed with another country's
    politics--logic that would demand that Yanks endure long political
    threads about China, Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia.

    Quoted message said:

    Somehow, I doubt that we ever-so-non-provincial Yankees would put up
    with political discussions of provinces outside our borders as well
    as the non-U.S. posters.

    So you think subjects like "Wha kind of society is Iraq?" are more
    interesting and fitting for rec.bicycles.misc that a bit of discussion
    of issues that affect all of us? Besides, what GWB has in mind for
    world order has more to do with (AUS) than you seem to believe. This
    is not a local issue although GWB seems to believe it is... his domain.

    Jobst Brandt
    [email hidden]

    Dear Jobst,

    Actually, many people think that your political complaints
    are not a fit subject for rec.bicycles.anything and ignore
    them.

    Off-topic threads don't bother me--if you want to preach to
    your choir and sneer at the rest, it's mildly entertaining
    for a little while, but you'd probably have made a greater
    political difference by ranting on a street corner and
    alienating more people.

    But I'm always willing to browse anything that interests me
    and chatter about almost anything. Unlike some folks here on
    rec.bicycles.tech, I try (not always successfully) to avoid
    telling other people what they must say about which topics.

    For example, I'm amused by the efforts from various posters
    to explain why rec.bicycles.tech must address politics.
    (Thank heavens no one here is insisting on addressing
    abortion, gun control, religion, or any other topics that I
    remember from grading freshman English essays.)

    Of course, we all like to ride our hobby-horses. I suspect
    that many misguided souls here, who are otherwise
    well-informed about such matters as the physics of bicycles,
    will stubbornly believe that Shakespeare had a significant
    hand in "The Two Noble Kinsmen," no matter how hard I rub
    their ignorant noses in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"--the
    same guy didn't write the two different opening scenes using
    the wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta.

    But I'm reluctant to start a thread here in a bicycle group
    about how to open a play (much less about those dreadful
    non-Shakespearean unembedded soliloquies that litter "The
    Two Noble Kinsmen"😉.

    After all, in only a few days I'll be busy revealing the
    results of the Fury RoadMaster's thousand-mile test run.

    What do you think? Should I post the Fury thread here, or in
    alt.politics.election?

    Carl Fogel

  8. carlfogel said:

    Off-topic threads don't bother me ...
    I suspect
    that many misguided souls here, who are otherwise
    well-informed about such matters as the physics of bicycles,
    will stubbornly believe that Shakespeare had a significant
    hand in "The Two Noble Kinsmen," no matter how hard I rub
    their ignorant noses in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"--the
    same guy didn't write the two different opening scenes using
    the wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta.

    Well, there are some of us "misguided souls" who believe that in spite of
    the nay-saying of a small number of misguided pedants, that Shakespeare is
    entitled to a certain amount of repetition. Since he was apparently not
    the sole author of "The Two Noble Kinsmen" perhaps the explanation is a
    contribution to the title page only -- something in the spirit of adding a
    senior scientist's name to a research paper.

    In other words "I understand a fury [roadmaster] in your words, but not
    the words".

    I will repeat an earlier observation on the penchant to go OT in this
    newsgroup, when I was reprimanded for complaining:

    jobst.brandt said:

    This like other topics we might choose not to read is each reader's
    prerogative to skip or not. Off topic trouble arises when within a thread
    someone takes advantage of folks who are following the subject by
    introducing another agenda such as helmets under tire problems. That is
    not what is happening here.

    Interesting argument. So, if we take this to its logical conclusion, we
    only need one newsgroup in all of usenet - we can just skip the topics
    which don't interest us. Could make for some sizeable unread counts.

    I still feel that newsgroup names should be related to their content.

  9. Erik Freitag said:
    carlfogel said:

    Off-topic threads don't bother me ...
    I suspect
    that many misguided souls here, who are otherwise
    well-informed about such matters as the physics of bicycles,
    will stubbornly believe that Shakespeare had a significant
    hand in "The Two Noble Kinsmen," no matter how hard I rub
    their ignorant noses in "A Midsummer Night's Dream"--the
    same guy didn't write the two different opening scenes using
    the wedding of Theseus and Hippolyta.

    Well, there are some of us "misguided souls" who believe that in spite of
    the nay-saying of a small number of misguided pedants, that Shakespeare is
    entitled to a certain amount of repetition. Since he was apparently not
    the sole author of "The Two Noble Kinsmen" perhaps the explanation is a
    contribution to the title page only -- something in the spirit of adding a
    senior scientist's name to a research paper.

    In other words "I understand a fury [roadmaster] in your words, but not
    the words".

    I will repeat an earlier observation on the penchant to go OT in this
    newsgroup, when I was reprimanded for complaining:

    jobst.brandt said:

    This like other topics we might choose not to read is each reader's
    prerogative to skip or not. Off topic trouble arises when within a thread
    someone takes advantage of folks who are following the subject by
    introducing another agenda such as helmets under tire problems. That is
    not what is happening here.

    Interesting argument. So, if we take this to its logical conclusion, we
    only need one newsgroup in all of usenet - we can just skip the topics
    which don't interest us. Could make for some sizeable unread counts.

    I still feel that newsgroup names should be related to their content.

    Dear Erik,

    And I insist that putting Bill's name on 2NK is like a post
    about Shakespeare in a political "Remote Control" thread in
    a bicycle group!

    (It's not the repetition of the wedding of Theseus and
    Hippolyta that makes it unlikely that Shakespeare had much
    to do with 2NK. It's how dreadfully the same opening scene
    is handled in 2NK in terms of practical drama--Shakespeare
    didn't write opening scenes littered with dozens of nameless
    characters who don't explain what's going on, introduced by
    a pointless weddding song and masque. For crying out loud,
    neither Theseus nor Hippolyta is even named until line 76 by
    the three nameless widowed queens begging them for something
    unrelated to the plot. Without the text and notes, you'd
    have no idea what the hell you were watching, short of a big
    heart with "T+H 4EVER!" painted on the background.)

    (Compare that hard-to-stage, harder-to-follow, and
    expensively impractical mess with MND, where you learn who's
    who and what's going on in the first 45 lines. Billy S. was
    a professional actor and playwright. Whoever wrote 2NK I.i
    was the kind of klutz with no clue about basic drama who
    would later have characters repeatedly walk onto the stage,
    talk to themselves, and walk off. William S. was a theater
    pro who routinely embedded soliloquies in scenes to make
    them dramatic. Hamlet's famous to-be-or-not-to-be musing on
    suicide is not an isolated scene in which he walks out on
    stage, talks to himself and walks off. It's embedded in a
    huge dramatic scene in which his uncle and Ophelia's father
    are hiding behind a curtain to hear what he'll say when he
    walks in and sees Ophelia. He enters, talking to himself,
    interrupts himself when he sees her, throws an interesting
    fit, and stalks off, leaving her sobbing. After he leaves,
    the king and Polonius emerge from hiding and talk about what
    they've seen. It's a wonderful example of drama that--

    Soft you now, the fair jObstwheelia. Nymph, in thy orisons
    Be all my off-topic sins rememb'red.

    [Numerous lurking posters emerge and agree that Foglet,
    Prince of Pueblo, is a few bricks shy of a load.]

  10. carlfogel said:

    A learned treatise arguing that WS did not write
    The Two Noble Kinsmen

    If I've summarized your argument correctly, then if you'll agree
    that "to author" and "to write" are not the same action, I concur.

    Quoted message said:

    Soft you now, the fair jObstwheelia. Nymph, in thy orisons
    Be all my off-topic sins rememb'red.

    [Numerous lurking posters emerge and agree that Foglet,
    Prince of Pueblo, is a few bricks shy of a load.]

    We could learn from alt.folklore.urban, I think. The regulars
    there have developed a technique, "doe snot" that can deal with OT
    posts when properly applied. It does, however require a long
    apprenticeship, excellent group discipline, and a light touch,
    or it could turn into base namecalling and epithet. Perhaps not
    appropriate for a physical-action oriented group like rec.bicycles.*.

  11. Erik Freitag said:
    carlfogel said:

    A learned treatise arguing that WS did not write
    The Two Noble Kinsmen

    If I've summarized your argument correctly, then if you'll agree
    that "to author" and "to write" are not the same action, I concur.

    Quoted message said:

    Soft you now, the fair jObstwheelia. Nymph, in thy orisons
    Be all my off-topic sins rememb'red.

    [Numerous lurking posters emerge and agree that Foglet,
    Prince of Pueblo, is a few bricks shy of a load.]

    We could learn from alt.folklore.urban, I think. The regulars
    there have developed a technique, "doe snot" that can deal with OT
    posts when properly applied. It does, however require a long
    apprenticeship, excellent group discipline, and a light touch,
    or it could turn into base namecalling and epithet. Perhaps not
    appropriate for a physical-action oriented group like rec.bicycles.*.

    Dear Erik,

    Yes, in the sense that Hillary "authored" the books written
    by her acknowledged ghost-writers, I could go along with
    sticking Bill from Avon's name onto 2NK.

    (There! I dragged this sub-thread, kicking and screaming,
    back into politics!)

    Hope (Arkansas-style)that you enjoy "my" book, "Profiles in
    Courage"

    J.F. Kennedy

  12. carlfogel said:

    Dear Erik,

    Yes, in the sense that Hillary "authored" the books written by her
    acknowledged ghost-writers, I could go along with sticking Bill from
    Avon's name onto 2NK.

    (There! I dragged this sub-thread, kicking and screaming, back into
    politics!)

    Hope (Arkansas-style)that you enjoy "my" book, "Profiles in Courage"

    J.F. Kennedy

    Alas! We were doing so well. OK, if it you want politics, chew on this for
    a while:

    Roberts, Jeanne Addison. "Crises of Male Self-Definition in The Two Noble
    Kinsmen." In Shakespeare, Fletcher, and "The Two Noble Kinsmen," edited by
    Charles H. Frey, 133- 4. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989.
    Roberts explores the ways in which female characters in the play challenge
    conventional notions of patriarchal societies and male dominance. She
    calls attention to Hippolyta's and Emilia's status as Amazons, that is,
    female warriors who are independent of men and compete with them as
    equals. By thend of the play, Roberts observes, two threats to patriarchal
    order -- Emilia's steadfast commitment to virginity and the jailer's
    daughter's unbridled eroticism -- have been subdued by matrimony.

  13. Erik Freitag said:
    carlfogel said:

    Dear Erik,

    Yes, in the sense that Hillary "authored" the books written by her
    acknowledged ghost-writers, I could go along with sticking Bill from
    Avon's name onto 2NK.

    (There! I dragged this sub-thread, kicking and screaming, back into
    politics!)

    Hope (Arkansas-style)that you enjoy "my" book, "Profiles in Courage"

    J.F. Kennedy

    Alas! We were doing so well. OK, if it you want politics, chew on this for
    a while:

    Roberts, Jeanne Addison. "Crises of Male Self-Definition in The Two Noble
    Kinsmen." In Shakespeare, Fletcher, and "The Two Noble Kinsmen," edited by
    Charles H. Frey, 133- 4. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1989.
    Roberts explores the ways in which female characters in the play challenge
    conventional notions of patriarchal societies and male dominance. She
    calls attention to Hippolyta's and Emilia's status as Amazons, that is,
    female warriors who are independent of men and compete with them as
    equals. By thend of the play, Roberts observes, two threats to patriarchal
    order -- Emilia's steadfast commitment to virginity and the jailer's
    daughter's unbridled eroticism -- have been subdued by matrimony.

    Dear Erik,

    Another argument against Shakespeare even touching 2NK is
    that Chaucer's theme is utterly anti-Shakespearean. The
    whole plot depends upon the dull heroine, Emilia, being
    unable to decide whether she loves Palamon or Arcite.
    (Frankly, she's not interested, so neither is the audience
    whenever this play limps into production.)

    Love takes many forms in Shakespeare, but he doesn't show us
    characters dithering between two suitors, unable to decide
    which is the right one. We get the poet trapped by his love
    for the dark lady and the young nobleman, we see Petruchio
    taming Kate the shrew, we watch Othello and Antony turning
    into jealous monsters over Desdemona and Cleopatra, we
    listen to Romeo blowing Rosaline off the instant that he
    sets eyes on Juliet, and we endure all sorts of courtships
    like Beatrice and Benedick and King Harry wooing the
    Frenchwoman, but we never meet a Shakespearean character
    trying to decide whether he loves A or B.

    The closest that Shakespeare comes to romantic indecision is
    the apocalyptic ending of "King Lear," where the wicked
    Edmund wonders whether to take Goneril or Regan or both--the
    two sisters have fallen inexplicably and abruptly in love
    with the worthless [censored], but he makes no bones about
    loving either of them.

    For our readers blissfully unfamiliar with 2NK, Arcite helps
    Emilia make her mind up letting his horse roll over on him
    off stage and kill him in the last hundred lines of the
    play. "What the hell, Arcite's dead, I'll take Palamon" is
    not exactly a Shakespearean ending.

    As for the jailer's daughter, guess who keeps wandering on
    stage all alone, talking to herself, and then walking off?
    For Shakespeare, drama meant characters talking to each
    other. When he wrote soliloquies, he embedded them in scenes
    with other characters on stage, often using soliloquies to
    open or close the scene, but not just having characters walk
    out and talk to themselves and then walk off, all alone.
    Merely talking to yourself is scarcely dramatic.

    [memo: Need to punch this scene up, audience losing
    interest, too dull, not dramatic--maybe have Erik stick in
    rude comments while Fogel talks to himself? Or have Fury
    RoadMaster roll over on Carl on Friday, just as he reaches a
    thousand miles? Cameos by Woody Allen and Lance Armstrong?]

  14. "Male dictum interpretando facias acrius." - Syrus

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Off-topic threads don't bother me ...


    <snip>

    Quoted message said:

    Be all my off-topic sins rememb'red.

    [Numerous lurking posters emerge and agree that Foglet,
    Prince of Pueblo, is a few bricks shy of a load.]

    Those who would seek to inhibit any further drift from cycling topics
    might instead concur that Foglet is one ball short of a bearing.

    -------------------------------
    John Dacey
    Business Cycles, Miami, Florida
    http://www.businesscycles.com
    Since 1983
    Our catalog of track equipment: online since 1996
    -------------------------------

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.