Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.usage.english > #1146614 > unrolled thread

Tapestry or embroidery ?

Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english

Contents

  Tapestry or embroidery ? occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-07-10 08:59 +0200
    Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-07-10 13:14 +0200
      Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-07-11 09:16 +0200
        Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-11 08:59 +0100
          Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-07-11 11:13 +0200
            Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-07-12 18:22 +0100
              Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.com> - 2026-07-12 15:47 -0400
        Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-07-12 23:09 +0200
          Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-07-13 00:29 +0100
    Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-07-10 21:10 +0100
      Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-07-10 23:32 +0200
      Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> - 2026-07-11 09:41 +1000
        Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2026-07-11 02:06 +0100
          Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2026-07-12 18:24 +0100
    Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-11 08:48 +0100
      Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2026-07-11 11:27 +0200
      Re: Tapestry or embroidery ? Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> - 2026-07-11 17:41 +0100

#1146614 — Tapestry or embroidery ?

Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
(according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
on loan from France.

One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)

Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
regarding the penis count.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146632

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
> on loan from France.
> 
> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
> 
> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
> regarding the penis count.

Accuracy? That was never the idea.
It is a shameless piece of Norman propaganda,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146694

On 10/07/2026 13:14, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> 
>> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
>> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
>> on loan from France.
>>
>> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
>> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
>>
>> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
>> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
>> regarding the penis count.
> 
> Accuracy? That was never the idea.
> It is a shameless piece of Norman propaganda,
> 

So what? It was the tabloid of its day, with fake news.

As for historical accuracy:

"Oxford academic Prof George Garnett counted 93 penises in 2018 – with
88 belonging to horses and another five to men."

I'd like to know which  department funds Prof Garnett's research. There
are plenty of clever dicks at the University of Oxford.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146698

Le 11/07/2026 à 08:16, occam a écrit :
> 
> As for historical accuracy:
> 
> "Oxford academic Prof George Garnett counted 93 penises in 2018 – with
> 88 belonging to horses and another five to men."
> 
> I'd like to know which  department funds Prof Garnett's research. There
> are plenty of clever dicks at the University of Oxford.


It may just have been a linguistic problem. I expect the Normans had 
French accents, of a sort, and were pleased with their conquest - and a 
French accent makes it difficult to hear the difference between 
"'appiness" and "a penis".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146699

On 11/07/2026 09:59, Hibou wrote:
> Le 11/07/2026 à 08:16, occam a écrit :
>>
>> As for historical accuracy:
>>
>> "Oxford academic Prof George Garnett counted 93 penises in 2018 – with
>> 88 belonging to horses and another five to men."
>>
>> I'd like to know which  department funds Prof Garnett's research. There
>> are plenty of clever dicks at the University of Oxford.
> 
> 
> It may just have been a linguistic problem. I expect the Normans had
> French accents, of a sort, and were pleased with their conquest - and a
> French accent makes it difficult to hear the difference between
> "'appiness" and "a penis".
> 

<smile> Yes, I hadn't thought of that. It's worthy of a
'Not-the-Nine-O'Clock News' sketch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146760

On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 11:13:02 +0200
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 11/07/2026 09:59, Hibou wrote:
> > Le 11/07/2026 à 08:16, occam a écrit :
> >>
> >> As for historical accuracy:
> >>
> >> "Oxford academic Prof George Garnett counted 93 penises in 2018 – with
> >> 88 belonging to horses and another five to men."
> >>
> >> I'd like to know which  department funds Prof Garnett's research. There
> >> are plenty of clever dicks at the University of Oxford.
> > 
> > 
> > It may just have been a linguistic problem. I expect the Normans had
> > French accents, of a sort, and were pleased with their conquest - and a
> > French accent makes it difficult to hear the difference between
> > "'appiness" and "a penis".
> > 
> 
> <smile> Yes, I hadn't thought of that. It's worthy of a
> 'Not-the-Nine-O'Clock News' sketch.

Ken Dodd (a no longer living British Comic) and singer had a hit with a
song about 'appiness. ('The greatest gift that I possess').
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_(Bill_Anderson_song)

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146767

Verily, in article <20260712182246.eb53de3556db41918444f8bf@127.0.0.1>, 
did admin@127.0.0.1 deliver unto us this message:
> 
> Ken Dodd (a no longer living British Comic) and singer had a hit with a
> song about 'appiness. ('The greatest gift that I possess').
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_(Bill_Anderson_song)

I just looked that up on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50TDntDgGLc

It sure sounds to me like he's pronouncing the 'H.'

-- 
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146774

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 10/07/2026 13:14, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> > 
> >> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
> >> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
> >> on loan from France.
> >>
> >> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
> >> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
> >>
> >> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
> >> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
> >> regarding the penis count.
> > 
> > Accuracy? That was never the idea.
> > It is a shameless piece of Norman propaganda,
> > 
> 
> So what? It was the tabloid of its day, with fake news.

In those long ago and backward times people came to see the tabloid,
instead of having tabloids delivered to them,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146783

On 12/07/2026 22:09, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/07/2026 13:14, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
>>>> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
>>>> on loan from France.
>>>>
>>>> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
>>>> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
>>>>
>>>> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
>>>> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
>>>> regarding the penis count.
>>>
>>> Accuracy? That was never the idea.
>>> It is a shameless piece of Norman propaganda,
>>>
>>
>> So what? It was the tabloid of its day, with fake news.
> 
> In those long ago and backward times people came to see the tabloid,
> instead of having tabloids delivered to them,

But how many people would have the opportunity to see the 'tapestry' - 
fake news or not?

Certainly none of the common folk - but they didn't count for anything.


-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146661

On 10/07/2026 07:59, occam wrote:
> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
> on loan from France.
> 
> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
> 
> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
> regarding the penis count.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo
> 
> 
I know a Viscount ranks just below a Count, but have no idea where a 
Penis Count fits in the scheme of things.

-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146669

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 10/07/2026 07:59, occam wrote:
> > Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
> > (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
> > on loan from France.
> > 
> > One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
> > and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
> > 
> > Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
> > accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
> > regarding the penis count.
> > 
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo
> > 
> > 
> I know a Viscount ranks just below a Count, but have no idea where a 
> Penis Count fits in the scheme of things.

A Madame takes care of that,
in her scheme of things,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146681

On 11/07/26 06:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 10/07/2026 07:59, occam wrote:
>> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
>> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
>> on loan from France.
>>
>> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
>> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
>>
>> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
>> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
>> regarding the penis count.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo
>>
>>
> I know a Viscount ranks just below a Count, but have no idea where a
> Penis Count fits in the scheme of things.

Somewhere between a Discount and a Miscount.

-- 
Peter Moylan       peter@pmoylan.org    http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146685

On 11/07/2026 00:41, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 11/07/26 06:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 10/07/2026 07:59, occam wrote:
>>> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
>>> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
>>> on loan from France.
>>>
>>> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
>>> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
>>>
>>> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
>>> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
>>> regarding the penis count.
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo
>>>
>>>
>> I know a Viscount ranks just below a Count, but have no idea where a
>> Penis Count fits in the scheme of things.
> 
> Somewhere between a Discount and a Miscount.

I demand a Recount!

-- 
Sam Plusnet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146761

On Sat, 11 Jul 2026 02:06:50 +0100
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 11/07/2026 00:41, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 11/07/26 06:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2026 07:59, occam wrote:
> >>> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
> >>> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
> >>> on loan from France.
> >>>
> >>> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
> >>> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
> >>>
> >>> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
> >>> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
> >>> regarding the penis count.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo
> >>>
> >>>
> >> I know a Viscount ranks just below a Count, but have no idea where a
> >> Penis Count fits in the scheme of things.
> > 
[> > Somewhere between a Discount and a Miscount.]
> 
> I demand a Recount!
> 

It's *still* only one.


-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146696

occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
> on loan from France.
> 
> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
> 
> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
> regarding the penis count.
> 
> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo

The historians who have suggested social reasons for the apparently
oversized representation of the genitalia (of horses, as well as men)
have ignored the practicality of representing them in stitch-work.
There has to be an integer number of 'pixels' (stitches) in each
representation, so reducing the width of the item by one stitch (and
proportionally in length) would make it look ridiculously small.

This makes the case for 'reconstructive' historical investigations - try
doing it yourself and you will find explanations for many of the
so-called mysteries.


-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146700

On 11/07/2026 09:48, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> 
>> Apparently there is great excitement at the British Museum today
>> (according to the BBC). They are taking delivery of the Bayeux tapestry
>> on loan from France.
>>
>> One or two people have pointed out that technically it is an embroidery
>> and not a tapestry. (We are all agreed that it is no a cross-stitch.)
>>
>> Its claim to fame is age - nearly a 1000 years old - and not historical
>> accuracy. The most interesting controversy (for me) is the dispute
>> regarding the penis count.
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn05wyld45wo
> 
> The historians who have suggested social reasons for the apparently
> oversized representation of the genitalia (of horses, as well as men)
> have ignored the practicality of representing them in stitch-work.
> There has to be an integer number of 'pixels' (stitches) in each
> representation, so reducing the width of the item by one stitch (and
> proportionally in length) would make it look ridiculously small.

<Warning! Politically incorrect stuff ahead> Did the historians also
suggest the possibility that the makers of the embroidery - being mainly
women -  were subconsciously projecting their fantasies onto the brave
soldiers?

> 
> This makes the case for 'reconstructive' historical investigations - try
> doing it yourself and you will find explanations for many of the
> so-called mysteries.
> 

In my opinion, this casts a big doubt on the usefulness of 'historians'
and their role in interpreting the past.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1146719

Le 11/07/2026 à 08:48, Liz Tuddenham a écrit :
> 
> The historians who have suggested social reasons for the apparently
> oversized representation of the genitalia (of horses, as well as men)
> have ignored the practicality of representing them in stitch-work.
> There has to be an integer number of 'pixels' (stitches) in each
> representation, so reducing the width of the item by one stitch (and
> proportionally in length) would make it look ridiculously small. [...]


Fair enough. I expect this was BPAA, Before Penile Anti-Aliasing, when 
stitched penises suffered from the jaggies.

<https://docs.unity3d.com/540/Documentation/uploads/Main/AAComparison.png>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english

csiph-web