Mission

Ah, a techno-assist for a rabbit. I wonder why it has the back part? Maybe so it won't roll when the rabbit stops? (Or maybe because it's a little wagon with one axle removed and it just so happens to also serve the stopping function.)

A week or so ago, William Red Wake politely asked me to add a friend's Etsy site. I have said in the past that I don't put Etsy sites in the Vendor's Index Thread and I told him this. I've changed me mind. I've added his friends and Caribbean Rose's Etsy sites to the list. Etsy IS an on-line vendor site, after all. So if you want to add your pirate-oriented Etsy site to the list, provide me with a link and suggest which category you want it in. For reasons I am not entirely sure of, I am going to add the fact that these are Etsy sites. At least for now.

Snoopy - because he is a good character and Muttley is a bad 'un. (The good characters may take a shellacking in the short run, but they nearly always triumph in the long run in cartoons.)

Dude. I can't see how there is a way 1916 could have reminded you of all that without help from Wiki unless you majored in early 20th c. history. While we're speaking of WWI cartoon dogs in aviator goggles and biplanes, let's not forget Muttley.

'Cuz you can dig all those cool trenches and have impassioned dialog and people dying in horrible (but dramatic) fashion in them. Put a board over-top part of the trench to form and tunnel and...well! (Plus there's the odd helmets.)

For what?

My first thought upon seeing the thread title was, "Idle minds are the playthings of the devil." I look inside, and I am proven right. WWI in a vague, European bi-plane, funny-looking helmets and trenches sort of way...

I've seen photos of extant period crocodile-skin-wrapped surgeon's pocket instrument cases. John Yonge mentions one in his book, The Journal of James Yonge [1647-1721] Plymouth Surgeon: “[After capture by the Dutch, Yonge tried to retrieve some of his supplies.] I told Mr. Shepherd {who was helping Yonge] they had some of my books and my plaster box. The book, he told me, were taken away by the Lords, being journals and manuscripts, the box he would fetch me. My box was a plain thing and had but 3 silver instruments. He brought me a fine new Nisle skin [crocodile-skin] box, that he took from the chyrurgeon of the Swiftsure who died in the prison. I innocently said it was not mine, then he fetched the other, which I took, kissing his hand, bid him farewell. He often admired my honesty in refusing the better box, protesting he thought it had been mine.” (Yonge, p 99-100) As you can see, this agrees with what Korisios said; croc-skin-wrapped items were considered more luxurious than not. However, a pirate would necessarily be attracted to such things when stealing from prisoners, so if you can find the reference you're looking for, I think you could make a case for a pirate having it.

Happy Birthday to ya' Jill! (Well, ok, a few days late. I can never remember whether this is your birthday or if it was three weeks ago or...it's all rather puzzling.)

Done. I put your site under Miscellanea.

Happy birthday, Mary. It's been far too long since I've seen you guys.

Interesting hats. Not a tricorn amongst 'em. I wonder if that's because it was drawn in the Netherlands? (Or perhaps it's the era. I'm by no means a hat expert, but they all look a more like my hat than what most people choose.)

It's been years since I made it. Basically, as I recall it I cooked the mushrooms in butter until they released the brown liquid (if you've cooked mushrooms in this way, you know what I mean). Then I copied all the spices you put in with the meat in the normal recipe. I also used butter/mushroom juice to make the mushroom gravy from another recipe I have. These days, I'd probably just look on epicurious for a vegetarian Shepherd's Pie recipe that was rated 3 forks or better. (Epicurious is a great website and the rating system has been very helpful in the past.) As for tricking people who are m-and-p sorts, it only works until they find out. Many of these people seem have the most irrational thought process when it comes to their sacred cow (so to speak). Even if they liked it before, they won't like it after. Edit: And here you go! Vegetarian Shepherd's Pie, 4 forks. I don't have anything going for Easter this weekend, maybe I'll try it out for fun.

I make mine without meat at all. (When I make it.) The spices and gravy are the keys to the taste. (A mushroom gravy, in my case.)

Why, your bedroom can be that cool. (How much free cash ya' got?)

I was actually bringing it up because we occasionally have people looking for an instance of proof against some commonly held point or an instance of proof for their particular point. So I suggested three to separate the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps I should restate it as "...at least three..." As for finding enough proof - at least as regards period surgery - I find resources to be like looking in a magical bag of holding. One resource leads to another and that two others and on and on and one and pretty soon you have read twenty-some books (mostly covering the same procedures in slightly different ways) and you have another twenty books waiting in the wings. (As a result, you never start writing you own material, but manage to collect 952 pages of notes in Word (12pt), the material from two-and-a-half books waiting to entered and you're reading through another one. )

All of the Scott Pilgrim graphic novels. And I'm still on Chirurgia Curiousa by Matthias Gottfriend Purmann.

And that's referred to in the psych research as the 'framing effect.' (We're just covering a laundry list of the cognitive biases today. )

Good points. There is some fascinating research on conformity/social influence and 'anchoring' (Anchoring is starting with a reference point or 'anchor' and then estimating from there. The initial anchor dramatically affects the results. Experiments have shown that if an initial anchor is suggested to someone before they estimate (in this case, before they explain what happened), the anchor will completely change the results. (I am stretching anchoring quite a bit here, but it is related to what we're talking about.) So if Johnson was asking for detail, priming his subjects with other details he had come across, it could completely change the story he got to match what he already had. (And this supports your point about Johnson being a secondary source.) At the bottom of it, you can't really rely on anything you read, even primary sources (as you define them ), to be free from bias. This seems to be particularly true in regard to opinions and minor details, which is one of the main things we all scrabble for around here. ("Now that's what you call 'ironic.'")

Most surgical outfits were purchased from cutlery shops during period. As Duchess notes, that wheel is basically a big, dense stone. If you were going to take it around to events, you'd probably be wise to just mount it on a trailer and then cover the base of the trailer up once you got to your spot at the event. It would look like you were grinding from a platform, which could actually be advantageous for presenting to crowds. It would certainly give you a unique presentation, though.

That's a fair point. However, without Johnson, we have no recourse to some of the information he gathered. I think we are actually say the same thing here (although I would spell it 'endeavor'). Now, as for memory...well this is a topic of much interest to me, so you now get an earful. (Or an eyeful.) If you really want to delve into this, look into the psychological research on witness testimony. Current studies suggest the majority of people cannot recall what happened more than a day or two ago without 'filling in' details using things that have occurred to us within the past day. We do it so readily, we don't even realize it. We tend to remember the 'high' points (well...perhaps 'most salient' points or 'most noteworthy' points would be be a better way to state the thing) and then fill in all the rest. The further away the recollection is, the more filling in we do. Given that (and until research finds something different, which it could), nothing recited from memory that happened more than two days ago can be truly relied upon as being truly factual. Add to that our tendency to color (or 'colour') things in a way that favor (or 'favour') us or the point we're trying to make and you can pretty much say that most history is pretty iffy other than the large, agreed upon points. (And even then...) Yeah, me too. Where the hell is blackjohn? He could really get into this if he was in the right mood.

So, for example, by your definitions, Johnson's General History would be a primary source but not an independent one. I'm inclined to agree with you then that 'independent' implies 'primary', but not vice versa. Well...Johnson's kind of funny. He has a lot of primary sources many of which (as far I know) are not recorded elsewhere, so lacking the actual source, the interviews he got would have to qualify as a primary source the way I am thinking of it. However, he also gets a lot of info from court records. In those cases, he is a secondary source if we have the court records. (See how I'm thinking of it - it makes sourcing a complete and utter mess. ) Of course, another problem with Johnson is that you can say, "Well the General History says thus and so with regard to Blackbeard and then it says so and thus with regard to Thomas Tew." Is that two primary sources? If you're searching for to prove something that could be based on the author's opinion, I don't see how it could be. If it's more fact-based, then you might be able to argue it is a primary source if you cannot source his information back to another document like court docs. (If you can, you really have to go back and get the original IMO and then you have to throw out Johnson because he is not a primary source.) Of course the real trouble with Johnson is that he doesn't give you very good source notes - like some other authors I could name (*cough* Thrower *cough*). So if you want to use him as your proof and you're going to be strictly proper about sourcing, you have your work cut out for you. Naturally.

Here, here! To Jon, one of the Mercury cooks! (But not one of the mercury cooks.)

I do agree, there are caveats to everything. And I am not saying that if you don't have three examples, it never happened. I'm just saying if we're going to decide that a behavior/object/style were common, we should should have three independent period sources for it. (If, as I mentioned, there are three independent period sources extant. If there aren't, you can't be sure, as I mentioned in the initial post.) You could just as easily say that if you find three pieces of evidence that say the captain did have cabin furniture that use of both rules was common. Then the whole thing now becomes dependent on the specific case. (Following the speed limit is common. So is not following it. Almost anyone can find proof of both. Now you can either say both were possible or, if you want to nitpick, the behavior is dependent on a specific case - defining specific case in whatever way suits your point.) Still, if all but one example said the captain was not allowed cabin furniture, I think you'd agree that the one example did not prove that having cabin furniture was common. (Nor does it disprove it.) However, you've sort of made my point about using the word 'independent' when describing cases - all your example pirates were interelated and stemmed from the same source in a way. So, I would argue, they were not truly independent.

Yes, I have seen EEBO - in fact I've gotten some of my sources from them via colleges. I think I'll add it to my database list up there as I love consolidating info in one place for future reference. A primary source is one from period as I define it. An independent source is one that does not depend on other sources or stemming from the same source as I define that. (This actually highlights the problem of word meanings, which I hinted at above.) Thinking further on independent sources, a funny thought occurs to me - most of the medical literature refers back other literature, particularly back to Hippocrates. So none of the medical lit. is independent from a certain perspective. (This is also not strictly true because everyone adds their two cents when they write a new medical book, but it's still sort of funny to me.)