The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Lenora Rose:

Lily: If it helps, your first missive didn't look like shilling for Wal-Mart to me: it read more like caffeine's screeds.

However, that being said, (And I may be stepping into moderator territory where when I am not a moderator, or even a terribly frequent poster lately, though I continue to lurk) your new message, 104, might have been better without the line about "you don't want to hear anything different from a reflection of your own opinions". Because with that, you did fall into insulting everyone here.

The culture on this board is such that disagreeing is acceptable; Insulting people you don't know yet, not so much. Sometimes longer-term poster can get away with getting heated. But newcomers? We don't know you well enough yet to give you a pass, and the internet is full of drive-by insulters. Make us *want* to get to know you.

Such as this: "The quality of a cheap frying pan at Bed, Bath, and Beyond is not any better than the quality of one anywhere else. So why would I drive many extra miles (or use public transportation) for the same thin pan made in China, priced higher at BBB (unless I had a coupon)? " which was an excellent point I hadn't seen brought up before.

One of the books I looked through obsessively when I was just learning to read was a book my mom had called A Child is Born. I was utterly fascinated by the pictures - the spiral patterns of hair follicles, the tiny floating fetus that scarcely looks like anything that could become a human, translucent and glowing...

The effect this had was... odd. Because I understood at the ages of four and five that a man's sperm joined an egg to produce a baby, I assumed I knew that there was to know about sex - and thus evinced NO great curiosity about the act itself, and no desire to experiment too young with something that could get me pregnant.

I learned about the other technical details in science class at fifteen, and went, "Oh, that's how the sperm gets there", and again, put it aside as something I was NOT ready for (In spite of the fact that my hormones had woken up, and I did start to get an idea what the fuss was about on that side.)

The worst mom ever did with a book I wanted t read was suggest she thought it might be too old for me. Sometimes, she was right, which meant I didn't dismiss the comment, but I almost always tried at least the first chapter anyhow, and I finished at least one trilogy where all the sex and politics - mostly politics - went right over my head.

Not denying the occasionally excessive run of Agatha ending up in her underwear (especially early on, but to be fair, Girl Genius does something few other comics do; which is to occasionally deliberately turn the men into gratuitous beefcake (And yes, this *is* different from merely showing men in spandex on a regular basis. Someone did a beautiful example of what male cover art for Batman, Superman et al would look like if it were sexualized like the female ones are, to demonstrate).

I suspect that part of the reason we get less beefcake that the male leads get significantly less screen time than Agatha. Only part, alas; I could use more shots of Gil without his shirt.

Serge: Robin of Sherwood (Which is, of curse, never called that anywhere on the actual program, just int he things to distinguish it from every other robin hood) remains my favourite of all; althugh i haven't seen Robin and Marian. On the one hand, i was young enough that Michael praed had a great influence on my adolescent mind - on the other, i still like it, and I'm not so easily swayed by pretty faces (Besides, if i were, i'd actually like the Jason connery episodes more, and, alas, many of them are weaker, and even at 14, I noticed.)

(Apologies for inconsistent capitalization. I'm on a computer with a less than responsive shift key, and don't feel like correcting every single instance.)

Marilee @ #654:

Old comment, old thread, but I'm wondering (Based on current painkiller preferences and not totally infrequent need):

I was always told that acetaminophen was the nasty one for liver damage, and ibuprofen was much safer. Am I misinformed?

Elliot@ 21: I think that reference is in Reaper Man; the fact that they're the only ones doing morris right is mentioned at the start of the book, what they do differently from others is mentioned at the end. More normal Morris dancers also help a fair bit in Lords and Ladies. (The other morris dancers reappear in Wintersmith)

But my favourite Morris reference is Stan (and Garnet) Rogers on Home in Halifax, introducing a song. it's a bit unkind, but I do love the tone of it.:

Stan: "At any rate, they get together at folk festivals, and they gather around in their little clot, or mob, and they do their little dances. And there's nothing really alarming about this, except for the fact that, every once in a while, they will arm themselves with cudgels or bludgeons or some kind of blunt instrument like that, and to the accompaniment of accordion and violin, they will rhythmically and ritually hit each other again - and Again - and AGAIN. And this is considered to be entertainment or some kind of British fertility ritual or something."

Garnet: "It works, too. We've played this song and impregnated whole audiences."

Rikibeth, Late to the party, but even watching that without sound, there was a difference to the tone of the coverage.

Carrie S: Am I the only one who finds that a very odd word-form? It makes me think, "Chiropractic what?" every time I perceive it.

I believe the original world was Chiropracty, back before it gained popularity (At least, I've seen it used at least two places, one of which was Terry Pratchett). My theory is that people read signs saying "Chiropractic Centre" and assumed. But it irks me, too; it just reads wrong.

I suppose there are medics, where the -ic really is the ending, But they're expanded to "Medical practitioner", and chiropractor in long form is "Chiropractic practitioner."

Ursula L.: I meant a literal put on trial. Your rhetoric is correct in the moral sphere, but here, on the ground: Who SHOULD go to trial, and what can/should the others do to ensure that it happens?

Are you really, earnestly, equating a taxpayer who had no idea this was happening until the news broke with someone who followed orders knowing it meant people would get tortured?

Are you really earnestly suggesting that trying to get those directly involved to trial is somehow ignoring the portion of blame that goes to your "Third group"? And what has trying to get them to trial to do with "making excuses" for ANYONE? Or are you saying putting a direct torturer or their commender on trial is wrong because somehow the taxpayer taken unawares by the fact that hir absent-minded assumption that "We don't do that" was proven wrong is equivalent?

Can we not accept our portion of blame and *still* say that the ones who attached the wires and loosed the dogs deserve jail time, and even undergo that process? If not, how does any justice ever happen, in this world view?

URsula L @ 19:

Your comment came to the question "Who is to go on trial and go to jail for this? Will the torturers?" And while the initial answer of "They'll be paid off and told to keep quiet.", if cynical, is both germane and possibly correct (And something we should prevent), I'm not really sure how your further point about the much wider blame actually connects.

Does the entire wider world need to also be put on trial? That seems impractical. Do they/we need to accept our shares of the blame? Yes, but how does that relate to the chances of - and need to - get the torturers, their superior officers, and their superior commanders, before a judge? The only way our blame seems likely to lead to their trial is via scapegoating. And yet, I would say those whose portion of the blame is greatest need to go to trial, not for the expiation of our shame, but for the principle of justice. More, to do so for the former increases rather than lessens the shame, while the latter may indeed cleanse some small part of it.

I think the problem with the reportage is not that there shouldn't be some emphasis that throwing a shoe has a different insulting context in a different culture (I suspect the majority here are vociferously agreeing on this), but that "throwing shoes at someone is a sign of contempt" doesn't actually note the cultural differences and context AT ALL. It's a vaguish nod towards it, but it's beyond hamhanded and well into useless as cultural translation goes, because, as Patrick notes, it's a sign of contempt almost anywhere (Apparantly outside some weddings).

The surname finder doesn't work terribly well for my birth name, since it doesn't include Finland at all, so Sweden comes out on top. Although the locations, and densities, in Canada are about what I might have guessed.

The fun one was looking at my maternal grandfather's two names. His original surname doesn't show much, either, as it's mostly Poland and eastward, and eastward vanishes off the recorded map. However, the name he changed it to in order to sound more vaguely British is a really good way to pinpoint where my maternal relatives live. There are about three *people* who show up in the world in places my kin have not gone.

The other lines of my geneology all have pretty much the expected results; the English one everywhere that was part of the British empire to some degree (Plus Denmark), the Ukrainian one with a reasonable immigration spread. And all too numerous to identify.


(No point in searching for my married name, as it's unrelated to either my or my husband's actual genealogy)

Carrie S.@ 177 and Chris W@#166:

I LOVE my in-laws' biggest coincidence story (They have several):

My father-in-law (and m-i-l, and their then-teenaged son who is now my husband) were in a game park in Zimbabwe. They saw one other car, and stopped by to see who was there.

It turns out to be someone my father-in-law went to elementary school with. In a one-room schoolhouse in rural Manitoba.

23: Unless, as it happens, you are of a persuasion where it is dependant on the hotness of the male actors....

... or both.

Daniel Klein:what surprises me is that there was no strong oral history of these things.

I think in this case, it was too hard to talk about. You (generic) tell your children stories to teach them good and bad - but you don't, unless you are extraordinary, slice open your own chest and show them the scars across your heart.

So many people had died; friends, allies, rivals, enemies, in front of the eyes, in such grotesque way. The trauma of that could and would stop words from almsot anyone, however determined that had been, once, to explain why they said "No more!"

Augh. I was last on Making Light on Friday, but so busy refreshing Hurricane Ike (Brother in Houston) that my foray into Remembrances and Anniversaries only made it to roughly comment 100.

Get well, Teresa. May your friends closer at hand bring you sufficient of computers, music, art, and books to ease the bad part of the boredom, and may the doctors get bored at your easy recovery and improved health.

JOann @ 233:

Lisa Goldstein, The Dream Years. You could theoretically blame the French names and places, but I've read no end of books with those that do not want to be in French, before and since.

Serge: I love the Fifth Element! The plot and story are excrement, but the rest of it is worth it (Visuals, dialogue, insane set pieces... plus "Multipass." OH, and aliens singing Opera.)

I admit, 90% of the time, a bad plot/story ruins a movie for me, no matter how pretty, but that one pulled everything else off. Or did it with the kind of Dreadful that has Style, and is therefore worth watching.

Caroline @ 225:

Books in another language which you remember in your native tongue.

Books in your native tongue which, as you are reading them, you find yourself mentally translating out of your native tongue and into another language, with exactly the feel one gets reading a foreign language and mentally translating back into one's native tongue.

(This was a truly disturbing experience, although rather enjoyable; I've never before been so utterly convinced a book should have been written in French, though the text was plain English, not written by someone French or Quebecois, and not distinctly different in prose style from the author's other works. I'm a litle afraid to reread the book because A) I'm afraid the experience won't happen again, and I'll be disappointed for the wrong reasons, and B) my French has deteriorated too far to do a running translation.)

Darin @ 74:

The last time a politician was asked that question in my presence (Canadian provincial Liberal), she said she took snail-mail more seriously than e-mail, because e-mails are so much easier to send. She also strongly preferred letters clearly from an individual, or at least added to by an individual, over obvious templates or mass mailings. She said nothing about handwriting versus typed, but I suspect typewritten is preferable unless you have particularly legible handwriting. She also gave the impression phoning would go over well.

Comment statistics for Lenora Rose on the Making Light blog

Total: 56 comments. View all these comments on a single page.