Mission

I'll be happy to take over the treatment when he gets to PiP. (He doesn't actually need his arm, does he?)

Not to get OT (per usual), but I am currently reading Roger Moore's account of the filming of Live and Let Die and he tells a story on this topic I thought was pretty funny. "He [stuntman Jerry Comeaux] came back with me to my home-on-wheels where I had some Jack Daniels waiting for him and a nurse to examine the base of his spine which was hurting. As somebody helped him off with his wet suit the trousers he was wearing underneath came down exposing his rear end. He let out a scared shout. The tough guy was embarassed about the nurse seeing his winkle. I told him what John Barrymore once said to Anthony Quinn: 'How can I be proud of that in which every chimpanzee is my equal and every jackass my superior?'" (Moore, p. 17)

I'll drink to that. That people support personal restrictions in the name of protection continues to amaze me. To quote another of our fine founding fathers, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Benjamin Franklin

I guess it depends on what they had on that server of theirs. Was it all just spam and porn? (Somehow I doubt that.) I tend to lean towards Patrick's argument...spam is annoying, but unless you're terminally ill-informed, you know better than to respond to it. (Child porn and alleged "criminal activity" on their server is another matter though - in that respect, I'd say they did themselves in. ) When I started reading this, my thought was that someone else was out there that would just pick up the slack. Then I got to the part where they said as much in the article. That's the trouble with the internet - it's so (relatively) inexpensive and easy to become part of that when it comes to fighting such things it's a hydra. (Of course, the freedom and ease of involvement is also the benefit of it - the flip side of your greatest weakness is your greatest strength.)

So what are the subjects of your umpteen papers? (I was just telling my prof. that I prefer to write on consciousness or the subconscious when asked to write papers. It gives me a reason to read more books on those topics.)

I read about the re-selling of second (and third and fourth) hand common clothes in that book Hubbub: Filth, Noise, and Stench in England, 1600-1770 by Emily Cockayne. If she got it right, it sounds to me like you'll want to hold those clothes at arms length. You'll also be bringing some very small stowaways in those clothes... (It reminds me of Jurassic Park - what if insects from the 18th century are different than insects today? You could start an epidemic!)

This is designed to be a sort of current movie thread since we occasionally talk about such things in here. I just saw the new Bond flick Quantum of Solace. Note that I will not put any spoilers in here per se, although this movie telegraphs its story with precious little subtlety, so there aren't many surprises that I could reveal that are likely to ruin your viewing experience. If you decide to see it, watch Casino Royale first. This film refers back to that one constantly. This film's biggest role is to set up a new secret world organization. I understand they can't use SPECTRE any more because of the lawsuits with Kevin McClosky, so I guess this is designed to create a new threat, supposedly suited to modern sensibilities, although the explanation given by Mr. White in the beginning of the film parallels Dr. No's explanation of SPECTRE in the 1962 Bond film. Speaking of Mr. White, the villain here (and I'm not really giving anything away) is Mr. Greene. (I do so hope that if they stick with this premise long enough to get to Mr. Pink that he says something about wanting to change his name.) Mr. Greene runs a eco-friendly firm, which I find sort of hilarious given that this is a European film. There's also a deposed dictator and some corrupt officials. Unfortunately, none of these villains is particularly interesting or noteworthy. And I've seen the same schemes in other films and TV shows, so there's nothing new here. What I thought was odd was that they didn't really use much of the Bond mythos. You expect certain things in a Bond movie -for better or for worse- and they aren't here for the most part. So this is just another slam-bang action film along the lines of many that you've seen recently - Bourne, Transporter, etc. The Bond films often borrow from whatever is popular at the time which this time includes head-ache inducing car car chases, somewhat hard-to-follow fights and in-your-face camera angles. Q and his gadgets are missing. Moneypenny is nowhere to be seen. The set-up is a brief, tech-happy series of touch screen computer scenes (why is every dollar the Brits are tracking shown as an individual movable object? Are MI6s programmers really that bored?). The girl is fairly irrelevant IMO, except as a device to move the action along. She is on a parallel course to Bond. While Bond's underlying motive has little to do with the main story, hers is better integrated. They did have a nice role for Felix Leiter and they used the same actor in consecutive films so the audience who is not immersed in Bond lore could follow the character better. They also brought several other things back from the first film, which is why you should probably refresh your memory if you decide to see this one. The saving grace here is that at the end, they imply by the final scene that "James Bond will return" to his standard characterization in the future. I wonder how Craig will do when he's really saddled with all the mythos? Craig is pretty good, although he doesn't have much to say. There is none of the delightful character development of the first film for him, so he goes around looking fit and grim. He makes a very Connery-esque Bond, though. I think the next film will really be telling for him - either he can pull it off or they may switch to a new actor. M shines in her role. Once again they have decided to give her a more active role, which doesn't really fit Fleming's characterization of the service at all, but it fits the recent action film mold. I look forward to the next film. This one was pretty irrelevant to the series IMO. It's a decent action flick though.

For myself, I think I would go buy my bonesaw, a toothkey and any other surgical instruments that might catch my eye. I'd try to get a copy of The Surgeon's Mate although that would be mostly for reasons of vanity as I already have a perfectly serviceable reprint. Since it'd be about 50 years out of print at that point and not (as far as I know) publicly available, my heart wouldn't be broken if I couldn't get one. What I'd really want to get, or at least see, is a proper sea surgeon's chest. Then I'd sketch it and write down its contents because there is no accurate depiction of one available today. (When I got back, I'd never be able to prove mine was accurate, of course. But at least I'd know.)

Ah! That's quite interesting. Thanks for clearing that up.

I am looking for a large bone saw. Preferably one that looks like this: Bring one of those and I'll buy it off you.

My but Wiseman doth wax eloquent. Ladies and gentlemen, the skeleton: "The whole Sceleton considered joyntly, may be looked upon as performing that office to the Little world, that Atlas hath been fabulously reported to do to the Great one; it bears the whole bulk of it, and sustains it in all its motions; none of which could be performed, if either the Bones were not, or not so articulated and joynted as upon desection they appear to be. Nam st ossa abessent, non flecteremus manus, non nervos & fibras. Nay, if the least Bone be but a little maimed, the use of the part is hindred. But they are not only Fulcimenta, as Galen says, De Usu partium, sed etiam Defensio, but also a Defence. The Cranium, veluti Galea, as a Helmet defends the Brain from external injuries. So Pectus Ossibus clauditur; the Heart, Lungs, and great Vessels of the Thorax, are guarded by a Wall of Ribs. The Spina is a Balwark to the Marrow included in it: and such a defence is the Os Pubis and the Os coxæ and Ileon to the Womb and Bladder. Others otherwise serve the uses of Nature. As the three little Bones in meatu Auditorio, but firming the Tympanum, are a great help to the Hearing: the Os hyoïdes asssisteth the swallowing, by managing the Root of the tongue and the Epiglottis: the Rotula serves the motions of the Knee: and the Teeth prepare the Meat by Mastication. Not a Bone but hath its particular end set out. There was a reason of the Temper, of the Magnitude, of the Number, of the Substance, of the Situation, or the Connexion of them; the wise Creatour as much shunning superfluity as deficiency. Indeed the whole Fabrick is so full of Excellency, that it would take up much time to express it." (p. 463, Richard Wiseman, Severall Chirurgical Treatises) *Sniff* It's like poetry.

Wow. You've really thought about this, haven't you? Read the book and find out. (It's a pretty good book. They also made a terrible movie from it, which I would avoid.)

I just saw this and it was such a curious film that I wrote a review on Netflix which I thought I'd repost here. If I had to explain this movie in a simple sentence (which is not easy - this is far from being a simple pirate movie), I'd say: This movie is about a young girl confronting death. Death of what is open to interpretation - physical death? Death of her youth and innocence? Mortal death is a repeated theme from the start; although the more grisly details are downplayed. I suspect this is for rating reasons - pirates are often considered kid's movies after all. But this movie is in no way fodder for youth. Its underpinnings are darkly serious. This brings us to the more esoteric death of playful youthfulness and innocence, which are under constant scrutiny. Still, you begin to sense as the movie progresses that it is holding back on some of the details that were portrayed in the book that would have made for a more satisfying story overall. (I have not read the book, but I suspect it would be interesting to compare it to the movie. I'd be curious to see what the author did with the older girl, if only from the POV from the young girl. There are broad hints, but nothing is explained definitively.) You can't help but wish they would have gone all out in one direction or the other: either make a Disney-esque pirate/kids outing or explore the darker themes fully. The ending is enigmatic, but not satisfying. I would probably have given it another star (On NF, I have it 3 out of 5.) if they had paid off their explorations. But the movie is victim to the choice of the filmmakers not to fully play out the "death of innocence" theme, leaving us to wonder where the young girl was mentally after everything had happened. We're left with the vague impression that children are inherently mysterious and may be wiser than we think, possibly with cruel overtones.

I was reading a description of a dry good store in the late 19th C. this morning and it occurred to me to wonder what I might buy if I were transported there somehow. Then I started wondering about a early 18th C. London market. So, expanding on the premise a bit, I settled on the absurd quantum method Crichton (God rest 'im) came up with in Timeline for transporting people through time. So, by kitbashing these concepts I came up with a thread idea... Some conditions for those playing along: 1. You can only stay for a day. (No, you can't stay there forever. Sorry about that.) 2. You can only bring what you can carry with you and get out only what you can (reasonably) carry back. (No wagons or 'barrows or magical bags of holding. What you can reasonably carry.) 3. Crichton's time travel rules prohibit carrying modern technology in because of the paradox. (So no cameras. ) 4. You will be given enough period money to purchase whatever you decide to get - we'll not quibble over the value of period money in today's terms and other such factors - it is a thought experiment after all. 5. You'll be given a babbelfish to comprehend 18th C. London dialect. (Oh, wait, that's another passed author's idea, isn't it?) Communication on your part will be your problem. So the question, given the above conditions: If you could travel back to a early 18th Century London marketplace, what would you purchase?

That's a really interesting observation.

Oho! I have figured out what this means. If a name at the bottom of the post is in italics, it means that person is currently posting to the thread. (I don't know if only the mods can see this or everyone can see it, however.) This also means you will never see your own user ID in italics at the bottom of a post - unless perhaps you open two windows...let me check...nope...doesn't work.

As a Detroit area native with several relatives who work in the industry, I fear that won't be the case if they don't put specific limitations on it. The American Autos have a boom or bust spending mentality that has saddled the industry for as long as I can remember. (I say the autos made their bed, let them lie in it. Sorry relatives!) I don't think that alternative vehicles have enough economic viability yet or some small or foreign manufacturer would be making a killing on mass producing them. In its present form, this appears to me to be an infrastructure and cost (of the vehicle) problem. I used to work for an NG supplier and they were pushing NG cars, but there weren't enough fueling sites to make it appealing. (NG is not an optimal solution anyhow. Neither is ethanol as far as I understand it. Nor electric. All these things are short-sighted and trade one problem for another.) From the field of options we have I really think solar is the way to go, but the energy efficiency isn't there yet. I also believe strongly in the possibility of an as yet unknown or undiscovered near-future option or even a game-changing new spin on personal transportation.

Why? I wasn't surprised when the Republican oil baron was the front runner and oil dropped in the weeks following the election, the rose right after. But does Obama have any ties to big oil? (He says, knowing full well the answer is all these guys have ties to big oil, and other big business.) Ours is not to question why. If my prediction comes true, I have doubts that who gets elected is relevant to the fact that it will go up. Kinda' like my expectation that the stock market will settle down measurably within the weeks following the election. (It actually has more to do with uncertainty than anything.) Still sliding... (knock wood) I appear to be wrong; this may be a reflection of the world economy. It is still dropping here as well. (I still think it'll be back up near $3 a gallon by, say, May or June...but I could be wrong about that too.)

He is right about naval and privateer ships and, to a lesser extent, merchant ships. It might be true on pirate ships, if only due to tradition. Although my impression of salmagundi is that it was primarily a shore-based recipe. You need fresh foods to make it, so it would probably be limited to short voyages or the beginning of voyages if it were prepared on board.

I can only respond to what I see on the forum - this started with a post about death from bad food as I recall. I posted a bunch of quotes predicated on an idea that was called iffy. I can't resist that, now can I? I actually thought the more general question of coffins was interesting as I have a specific section in my notes on death as it relates to the ship's surgeon. (Plus the whole haunted house thing is always swimming in my head.) I think it's sort of fun to pull out those quotes and put an historic slant on the proceedings, but everyone should feel free to ignore them. They certainly aren't intended to irritate.

Yes. (But I'd PM Harry and ask him if he wants it before I committed to it if I were you guys.) Everything around here benefits from an historical discussion. (Otherwise it's no fun.)

I didn't think you were arguing either. I just didn't realize I had initially brought up a point that asked for further discussion. Your post suggested that something I said was '"ify" at best'. To me this suggests that I should show that I had seen evidence suggesting otherwise. Now doesn't it just? So I did thusly without rancor.

Huh. I haven't come across that particularly, nor did I mean to bring it up as a point of dissension. However, I did cite a period example. Burials at sea seemed to have more to do with necessity than anything. If I remember it rightly, Dampier and Barlow both give examples of it. Someone (Dampier? Teonge? Rogers?) talks somewhat appreciatively about a location where the landsman provide the English privateer in question with a small, unused island to bury their dead during an illness on the ship, so there was clearly a desire for land burial. I think Teonge talks mentions being buried in holy ground as desirable as well. Whatever the case, I can see your point given the storyline. Perhaps the fort can use the coffin at their Halloween event next year.

Pirate, minister, Tusken Raider and now Austrian dwarf! Too bad you aren't going to be out at PiP Perkeo.