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

Groups > rec.arts.sf.written > #494693 > unrolled thread

Garfield July 8

Back to article view | Back to rec.arts.sf.written

Contents

  Garfield July 8 peterwezeman@hotmail.com - 2018-07-10 21:36 -0700
    Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-11 05:05 +0000
      Re: Garfield July 8 Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-07-11 04:30 -0700
      Re: Garfield July 8 Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-07-11 13:12 -0700
        Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-11 20:18 +0000
          Re: Garfield July 8 Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@excite.com> - 2018-07-11 14:00 -0700
            Re: Garfield July 8 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-07-15 06:50 -0700
              Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-15 14:00 +0000
          Re: Garfield July 8 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-07-15 06:53 -0700
            Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-15 14:04 +0000
              Re: Garfield July 8 J. Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 10:20 -0400
                Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-15 15:23 +0000
                  Re: Garfield July 8 Juho Julkunen <giaotanj@hotmail.com> - 2018-07-15 23:26 +0300
                    Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-15 20:41 +0000
                      Re: Garfield July 8 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-07-15 13:59 -0700
                        Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-15 23:14 +0000
                      Re: Garfield July 8 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-07-15 14:07 -0700
                        Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-15 23:26 +0000
                          Re: Garfield July 8 Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> - 2018-07-15 17:20 -0700
                          Re: Garfield July 8 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-07-15 20:37 -0700
                            Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-16 17:27 +0000
                              Re: Garfield July 8 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-07-16 11:29 -0700
                                Re: Garfield July 8 djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2018-07-16 19:48 +0000
                  Re: Garfield July 8 Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-07-15 17:57 -0600
              Re: Garfield July 8 Wolffan <akwolffan@gmail.com> - 2018-07-15 10:53 -0400
              Re: Garfield July 8 Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2018-07-15 13:58 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#494693 — Garfield July 8

I am reminded of Christopher Anvil's _The Gentle Earth_:

https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08


Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#494698

In article <b7000c6c-11ac-473b-be21-69e40a49b21d@googlegroups.com>,
 <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am reminded of Christopher Anvil's _The Gentle Earth_:
>
>https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
>
Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
_Iceworld._

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494708

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:30:04 AM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <b7000c6c-11ac-473b-be21-69e40a49b21d@googlegroups.com>,
>  <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I am reminded of Christopher Anvil's _The Gentle Earth_:
> >
> >https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
> >
> Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
> _Iceworld._
> 

The "welcome to my website" word balloon ought to credit
"Zippy The Pinhead's" Bil Griffith.

[quote]

Even if you’ve never seen a Zippy strip — it appears in almost 200 
newspapers — you probably have heard or even repeated his best-
known contribution to the English language:

“Are we having fun yet?”

That’s right — Zippy said it first, way back in 1979. Look it up in 
Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Now it’s on bumper sticker, in headlines, 
on T-shirts . . . all without enriching Griffith by one dime.

"The only time it annoys me," he says, "is when it’s another cartoon 
character saying it. Like I saw it on a Garfield mug. Then I saw Dennis 
the Menace saying it. And the worst of all was a Ziggy T-shirt. That rankled 
for a few minutes."

[/quote]

https://mrmedia.com/2007/07/bill-griffith-zippy-the-pinhead-cartoonist-mr-media-interview-classic-1997/

Kevin R

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

#494736

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 06:30:04 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt  wrote:
> In article <b7000c6c-11ac-473b-be21-69e40a49b21d@googlegroups.com>,
>  <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I am reminded of Christopher Anvil's _The Gentle Earth_:
> >
> >https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
> >
> Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
> _Iceworld._
> 
> -- 
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Vallejo, California
> djheydt at gmail dot com

I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button.  I wonder what I just submitted to.

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

#494740

In article <378faf04-194b-4b41-a3a7-f15a2cec4eeb@googlegroups.com>,
Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 06:30:04 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt  wrote:
>> In article <b7000c6c-11ac-473b-be21-69e40a49b21d@googlegroups.com>,
>>  <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >I am reminded of Christopher Anvil's _The Gentle Earth_:
>> >
>> >https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
>> >
>> Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
>> _Iceworld._
>> 
>I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
>button.  I wonder what I just submitted to.

Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494741

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:45:03 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt  wrote:
> In article <378faf04-194b-4b41-a3a7-f15a2cec4eeb@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
> >On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 06:30:04 UTC+1, Dorothy J Heydt  wrote:
> >> In article <b7000c6c-11ac-473b-be21-69e40a49b21d@googlegroups.com>,
> >>  <peterwezeman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >I am reminded of Christopher Anvil's _The Gentle Earth_:
> >> >
> >> >https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
> >> >
> >> Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
> >> _Iceworld._
> >> 
> >I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
> >button.  I wonder what I just submitted to.
> 
> Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.

That's what it said - but - ?

The other day I noticed in the terms of Dictionary.com 
that you (now) have to be 16 to use it.  Hmm.

The COPPA law some years ago made it so difficult to handle 
user accounts of children under 13 legally, that most sites
just set 13 as the lower age limit.

Basically Dictionary.com just tells you what words mean.
Maybe that' what is dangerous.

They also produce examples apparently by an automatic
search of web pages, which is amusing if a term's common
application is not its dictionary meaning - like Apple.

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

#494859

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 3:00:14 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> Basically Dictionary.com just tells you what words mean.
> Maybe that' what is dangerous.

Well, maybe they even tell you what naughty words mean!

John Savard

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

#494862

In article <7f58c063-4c99-4630-bf05-55d3ec036842@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 3:00:14 PM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>
>> Basically Dictionary.com just tells you what words mean.
>> Maybe that' what is dangerous.
>
>Well, maybe they even tell you what naughty words mean!

Traditional dictionaries don't even mention them.

There was a huge hoorah back in the sixties?? when a dictionary
came out that included words such as "ain't", even though it
marked them "not preferred" or something.  This led to a long
discussion of whether dictionaries should be prescriptive
(listing how people *ought* to speak) or descriptive (showing how
they actually do).  This was long enough ago that I can't
remember the name of the descriptive English dictionary that made
all the ruckus, but if you look up _Dictionaries and THAT
Dictionary_, you'll find some interesting discussion.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494861

On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <378faf04-194b-4b41-a3a7-f15a2cec4eeb@googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

> >I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
> >button.  I wonder what I just submitted to.

> Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.

As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in response 
to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about 
you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were at least 
13 years old.

I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their privacy 
or something.

John Savard

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

#494863

In article <492d34d2-25a7-4dea-bb7a-49dfb7757478@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <378faf04-194b-4b41-a3a7-f15a2cec4eeb@googlegroups.com>,
>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>> >I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
>> >button.  I wonder what I just submitted to.
>
>> Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
>
>As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in response 
>to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about 
>you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were at least 
>13 years old.
>
>I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their privacy 
>or something.

Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
anything naughty.  I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
in _Garfield_, and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
either a dog or an underage human.  Does the filter (did anyone
try?) actually bounce you if you say you are an underage human?
And what's to prevent you from lying to it?

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494864

On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 14:04:17 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <492d34d2-25a7-4dea-bb7a-49dfb7757478@googlegroups.com>,
>Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <378faf04-194b-4b41-a3a7-f15a2cec4eeb@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
>>> >button.  I wonder what I just submitted to.
>>
>>> Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
>>
>>As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in response 
>>to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about 
>>you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were at least 
>>13 years old.
>>
>>I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their privacy 
>>or something.
>
>Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
>it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
>anything naughty.  I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
>in _Garfield_, and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
>either a dog or an underage human.  Does the filter (did anyone
>try?) actually bounce you if you say you are an underage human?
>And what's to prevent you from lying to it?

I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
ever lies about their age.

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

#494866

In article <ttlmkddol4r55clv86r6mr6j0u69n0vt9d@4ax.com>,
J. Clarke  <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 14:04:17 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
>Heydt) wrote:
>
>>In article <492d34d2-25a7-4dea-bb7a-49dfb7757478@googlegroups.com>,
>>Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 2:45:03 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>>> In article <378faf04-194b-4b41-a3a7-f15a2cec4eeb@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Robert Carnegie  <rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
>>>> >button.  I wonder what I just submitted to.
>>>
>>>> Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
>>>
>>>As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in
>response 
>>>to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about 
>>>you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were
>at least 
>>>13 years old.
>>>
>>>I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their
>privacy 
>>>or something.
>>
>>Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
>>it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
>>anything naughty.  I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
>>in _Garfield_, and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
>>either a dog or an underage human.  Does the filter (did anyone
>>try?) actually bounce you if you say you are an underage human?
>>And what's to prevent you from lying to it?
>
>I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
>ever lies about their age.

I suppose it's so the site owner can say, "Hey, we *asked* them
if they were of age.  How could we tell if they were lying?"

Maybe a better gate process would to be to ask a question that
no one under age would know the answer to?  I don't know what
such a question could be.  Ask questions about Y2K?  No, I'm not
serious.  Ask questions about 2000-era rock music?  *I* couldn't
answer those, and I'll never see eighteen again.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494878

In article <pBwyrw.nrM@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says...
> 
> In article <ttlmkddol4r55clv86r6mr6j0u69n0vt9d@4ax.com>,
> J. Clarke  <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> >I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
> >ever lies about their age.
> 
> I suppose it's so the site owner can say, "Hey, we *asked* them
> if they were of age.  How could we tell if they were lying?"
> 
> Maybe a better gate process would to be to ask a question that
> no one under age would know the answer to?  I don't know what
> such a question could be.  Ask questions about Y2K?  No, I'm not
> serious.  Ask questions about 2000-era rock music?  *I* couldn't
> answer those, and I'll never see eighteen again.

I think one of the early Leisure Suit Larry games did that. Of course, 
it also doubled as an "are you American" test.

-- 
Juho Julkunen

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

#494881

In article <MPG.35b5da58fa0841db989b1e@news.kolumbus.fi>,
Juho Julkunen  <giaotanj@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <pBwyrw.nrM@kithrup.com>, djheydt@kithrup.com says...
>> 
>> In article <ttlmkddol4r55clv86r6mr6j0u69n0vt9d@4ax.com>,
>> J. Clarke  <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
>> >ever lies about their age.
>> 
>> I suppose it's so the site owner can say, "Hey, we *asked* them
>> if they were of age.  How could we tell if they were lying?"
>> 
>> Maybe a better gate process would to be to ask a question that
>> no one under age would know the answer to?  I don't know what
>> such a question could be.  Ask questions about Y2K?  No, I'm not
>> serious.  Ask questions about 2000-era rock music?  *I* couldn't
>> answer those, and I'll never see eighteen again.
>
>I think one of the early Leisure Suit Larry games did that. Of course, 
>it also doubled as an "are you American" test.

I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
popular back then but no one had even heard of later.  And in
mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
whodunit is considered cheating.  No, I don't know the name
either of the radio program or the story.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494884

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 2:45:20 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
> from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
> later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
> required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
> popular back then but no one had even heard of later.  And in
> mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
> whodunit is considered cheating.  No, I don't know the name
> either of the radio program or the story.

Interesting. And a challenge to my Google-fu.

John Savard

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

#494892

In article <d217c35b-5f6b-4018-9178-9bf93e40ee8d@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 2:45:20 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
>> from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
>> later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
>> required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
>> popular back then but no one had even heard of later.  And in
>> mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
>> whodunit is considered cheating.  No, I don't know the name
>> either of the radio program or the story.
>
>Interesting. And a challenge to my Google-fu.

Let me know if you can identify it!

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494885

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 2:45:20 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
> from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
> later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
> required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
> popular back then but no one had even heard of later.  And in
> mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
> whodunit is considered cheating.  No, I don't know the name
> either of the radio program or the story.

Millie's Millions and Murder Can Be Fun?

John Savard

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

#494894

In article <7a5c8fad-4654-4036-ab93-40d3538ad01c@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 2:45:20 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
>> I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
>> from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
>> later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
>> required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
>> popular back then but no one had even heard of later.  And in
>> mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
>> whodunit is considered cheating.  No, I don't know the name
>> either of the radio program or the story.
>
>Millie's Millions and Murder Can Be Fun?

You're right!

https://books.google.com/books?id=G7Z-t_tfPOkC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=Millie's+Millions+radio&source=bl&ots=Mg2X7aNgaD&sig=eY7w5Cvg2lwSOZIJNgNC_K8Yhco&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU2sannqLcAhULI3wKHRXPBA4Q6AEIUTAL#v=onepage&q=Millie's%20Millions%20radio&f=false

And it's a novel, not a short story.

https://www.amazon.com/Murder-Can-Fun-Fredric-Brown/dp/1596541164

And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.

I shall have to get a copy.

Thanks!

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#494900

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 7:30:05 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> And it's a novel, not a short story.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Murder-Can-Fun-Fredric-Brown/dp/1596541164
> 
> And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.
> 
> I shall have to get a copy.
> 
> Thanks!
> 

I Love A Mystery!

Kevin R

(exposed to OTR over the air in the 1970s on
 what was then WPAC-FM, now WBLI.)

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

#494908

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 5:30:05 PM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.

You're welcome. Possibly, though, I could be mistaken. The novel was based on a 
short story - The Santa Claus Murders - and perhaps the short story, unlike the 
novel, did refer to a real radio show.

John Savard

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | rec.arts.sf.written

csiph-web