Sexbots and the future of robotics

[J. Clarke]

Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.

Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

There's enough market there to support several companies (at least
several seem to exist), at least one of which is doing over a million
a year in sales (numbers and prices were mentioned in the article--300
sexbots at 3000+ each) and they seem to be competing on
features--right now there's one that talks with lip-synch and eye
movement, responds verbally to various kinds of touch, and has a 98.6
degree body temperature. There's one coming whose makers promise that
it will kiss back when you kiss it. Next feature, they're talking
about hip-thrusting and the like. So how long before it can get up
and romp around the apartment with you? And once it can do that, then
getting it to do things other than play is just a matter of continued
development.

I understand that right now an obstacle is weight--adding powered
features adds weight, which can cause problems--right now their weight
is in the ballpark for real people of their approximate size, so they
may have to get high-tech with materials which would run the price up,
possibly higher than a mass-market would pay.

Strange days

[Peter Trei]

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.
There's enough market there to support several companies (at least
several seem to exist), at least one of which is doing over a million
a year in sales (numbers and prices were mentioned in the article--300
sexbots at 3000+ each) and they seem to be competing on
features--right now there's one that talks with lip-synch and eye
movement, responds verbally to various kinds of touch, and has a 98.6
degree body temperature. There's one coming whose makers promise that
it will kiss back when you kiss it. Next feature, they're talking
about hip-thrusting and the like. So how long before it can get up
and romp around the apartment with you? And once it can do that, then
getting it to do things other than play is just a matter of continued
development.
I understand that right now an obstacle is weight--adding powered
features adds weight, which can cause problems--right now their weight
is in the ballpark for real people of their approximate size, so they
may have to get high-tech with materials which would run the price up,
possibly higher than a mass-market would pay.
Strange days

If they get to the point that they can do light housekeeping as well as warm beds, there are a lot of bachelors who would get one.

OTOH:

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <520f3da1-3683-474c-8995-***@googlegroups.com>,
Peter Trei <***@gmail.com> wrote:
[feminiform robots]

Post by Peter Trei
If they get to the point that they can do light housekeeping as well as
warm beds, there are a lot of bachelors who would get one.

Bachelors, hell, I would get one. And she needn't warm the bed
for me, I have an electric blanket.

[David Johnston]

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

Not necessarily the only reason:

https://www.gocomics.com/fminus/2019/11/20

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

[Kevrob]

\[snip]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston
Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

From time to time, the botched plastic surgery, and even some
that was successfully done to the patient's wishes, on people
who want to be successful actors and actresses goes over the
hill into that valley.

People have been caught using mannequins to drive in the
"car pool lane" on our highways. A robot that can seem to
be be engaging the driver in conversation, or performing
any other "humanlike" activities, such as adjusting clothing,
applying makeup, etc., would come in handy for such subterfuge.
If it could also carry one's briefcase or bag, all the better.

Has anyone done a story where a spouse sues the robot, or the
company that sells or leases it, for "alienation of affection?"
Jonathan Turley had a roundup, some years ago, of such legal
pitfall, courtesy of Mike Spindell:

https://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/14/robot-love/

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

Having spend some time looking at sites selling them, I can say the
same for non-robotic sex dolls.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston
Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

Having spend some time looking at sites selling them, I can say the
same for non-robotic sex dolls.

I'll take your word for it.

[Magewolf]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

Having spend some time looking at sites selling them, I can say the
same for non-robotic sex dolls.

I am not good with dolls at the best of time so I think I would never be
able to sleep in a house that I knew had one of those dolls in it.

Reminds me of my first girlfriend at collage. She was a junior and had
her own apartment off campus and she had used her freedom to decorate it
to cover every surface with some kind of doll. There was literally no
where you could look in there without seeing a doll except straight up
or down. I would not be surprised if she owned a few of those dolls just
to dress them up and have them standing around.

Actually she was the first example of the old saying"Don't stick your
**** in crazy" that I met. I should have caught on that there had to be
something wrong with her to be that good looking and be coming on to an
average looking freshman but I was young and she was very hot.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Magewolf

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

Having spend some time looking at sites selling them, I can say the
same for non-robotic sex dolls.

I am not good with dolls at the best of time so I think I would never be
able to sleep in a house that I knew had one of those dolls in it.
Reminds me of my first girlfriend at collage. She was a junior and had
her own apartment off campus and she had used her freedom to decorate it
to cover every surface with some kind of doll. There was literally no
where you could look in there without seeing a doll except straight up
or down. I would not be surprised if she owned a few of those dolls just
to dress them up and have them standing around.
Actually she was the first example of the old saying"Don't stick your
**** in crazy" that I met. I should have caught on that there had to be
something wrong with her to be that good looking and be coming on to an
average looking freshman but I was young and she was very hot.

Alas, I seem to have a thing for crazy ladies, which is why I've never
married--I generally come to my senses before it gets that far.

On the other hand, yours doesn't sound all that bad. Were the dolls
the only issue with her?

[Magewolf]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Magewolf

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

Having spend some time looking at sites selling them, I can say the
same for non-robotic sex dolls.

I am not good with dolls at the best of time so I think I would never be
able to sleep in a house that I knew had one of those dolls in it.
Reminds me of my first girlfriend at collage. She was a junior and had
her own apartment off campus and she had used her freedom to decorate it
to cover every surface with some kind of doll. There was literally no
where you could look in there without seeing a doll except straight up
or down. I would not be surprised if she owned a few of those dolls just
to dress them up and have them standing around.
Actually she was the first example of the old saying"Don't stick your
**** in crazy" that I met. I should have caught on that there had to be
something wrong with her to be that good looking and be coming on to an
average looking freshman but I was young and she was very hot.

Alas, I seem to have a thing for crazy ladies, which is why I've never
married--I generally come to my senses before it gets that far.
On the other hand, yours doesn't sound all that bad. Were the dolls
the only issue with her?

I could have handled the dolls, somehow, but I think she would be called
bipolar nowadays. Some days she would jump me telling me that she
wanted to have my babies other days if I touched her she would scream.
I think I was lucky enough to meet her just as her self-medication with
alcohol and coke completely broke down.

She was paranoid as well sometimes she would skip classes just to follow
me around to see if I was cheating on her. Also I was pretty sure as
things went along that she was sleeping with her friend(dealer).

To be fair I did not handle it well myself but I had never been cheated
on before and I was halfway scared of her. So I broke up with
her,called her some unkind names and told her she was going to end up
dead in a ditch.

She graduated the next semester and I have never seen her again.
However I have actually heard about her a fair bit since her family is
in the music industry, she lives in Nashville and she runs into my
cousin the want-to-be songwriter fairly often. Far as I can tell she has
never amounted to anything, which is a shame because she was brilliant
in many ways, but on the other hand she has not ended up dead in a ditch
either.

[J. Clarke]

Post by Magewolf

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Magewolf

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by David Johnston

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Not especially. I've noted before that all those television robots who
look exactly human so they can be played by actors with a mininum of
trouble have to be intended for sex as part of their duties because
there's no other reason to making them that lifelike.

And the humaniform robots that we actually have in RL tend to
fall into the uncanny valley.

Having spend some time looking at sites selling them, I can say the
same for non-robotic sex dolls.

I am not good with dolls at the best of time so I think I would never be
able to sleep in a house that I knew had one of those dolls in it.
Reminds me of my first girlfriend at collage. She was a junior and had
her own apartment off campus and she had used her freedom to decorate it
to cover every surface with some kind of doll. There was literally no
where you could look in there without seeing a doll except straight up
or down. I would not be surprised if she owned a few of those dolls just
to dress them up and have them standing around.
Actually she was the first example of the old saying"Don't stick your
**** in crazy" that I met. I should have caught on that there had to be
something wrong with her to be that good looking and be coming on to an
average looking freshman but I was young and she was very hot.

Alas, I seem to have a thing for crazy ladies, which is why I've never
married--I generally come to my senses before it gets that far.
On the other hand, yours doesn't sound all that bad. Were the dolls
the only issue with her?

I could have handled the dolls, somehow, but I think she would be called
bipolar nowadays. Some days she would jump me telling me that she
wanted to have my babies other days if I touched her she would scream.
I think I was lucky enough to meet her just as her self-medication with
alcohol and coke completely broke down.
She was paranoid as well sometimes she would skip classes just to follow
me around to see if I was cheating on her. Also I was pretty sure as
things went along that she was sleeping with her friend(dealer).
To be fair I did not handle it well myself but I had never been cheated
on before and I was halfway scared of her. So I broke up with
her,called her some unkind names and told her she was going to end up
dead in a ditch.
She graduated the next semester and I have never seen her again.
However I have actually heard about her a fair bit since her family is
in the music industry, she lives in Nashville and she runs into my
cousin the want-to-be songwriter fairly often. Far as I can tell she has
never amounted to anything, which is a shame because she was brilliant
in many ways, but on the other hand she has not ended up dead in a ditch
either.

Well, it's good that she has survived. And good that she didn't
become your problem.

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.

And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

[Kevrob]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"

"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.

Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Kevin R

[Peter Trei]

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about sexbots, and
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be banned. The
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.

Futurama's take:

pt

[m***@sky.com]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about sexbots, and
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be banned. The
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house for himself without descending into squalor.

ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses - and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the euphemistically named ones.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about sexbots, and
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be banned. The
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and
how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a
major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are
released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem
too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the
structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and
housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house
for himself without descending into squalor.
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses -
and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the
euphemistically named ones.

In his fiction, or in his RL? And do I want to know the answer
to that question?

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about sexbots, and
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be banned. The
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and
how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a
major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are
released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem
too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the
structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and
housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house
for himself without descending into squalor.
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses -
and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the
euphemistically named ones.

In his fiction, or in his RL? And do I want to know the answer
to that question?

Oh, good lord, fictional. We presume.

"A survey by the Guild of Merchants in the docks area
of Ankh-Morpork found 987 women who gave their profession
as "seamstress" – and two needles."
<https://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/Seamstresses%27_Guild>

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is

available for $30

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. Clarke
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was

around $12K.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. Clarke
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about

sexbots, and

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be

banned. The

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and
how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a
major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are
released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem
too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the
structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and
housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house
for himself without descending into squalor.
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses -
and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the
euphemistically named ones.

In his fiction, or in his RL? And do I want to know the answer
to that question?

Oh, good lord, fictional. We presume.

Thank you. I'm relieved.

I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.

And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."

The only Pratchett I own is _The Unadulterated Cat_, which I like
a lot.

And after having seen _Good Omens_, all six episodes of it, I may
look up the book.

[Moriarty]

On Friday, November 22, 2019 at 10:05:02 AM UTC+11, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

<snip>

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses -
and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the
euphemistically named ones.

In his fiction, or in his RL? And do I want to know the answer
to that question?

Oh, good lord, fictional. We presume.

Thank you. I'm relieved.
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"
This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."
The only Pratchett I own is _The Unadulterated Cat_, which I like
a lot.
And after having seen _Good Omens_, all six episodes of it, I may
look up the book.

The book is similar enough to the series that if you like one, you'll probably like the other. Maybe.

Then again, one of the things that made the series good was the cast, so maybe not. You won't know 'til you try.

-Moriarty

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is

available for $30

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. Clarke
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was

around $12K.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. Clarke
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about

sexbots, and

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be

banned. The

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and
how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a
major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are
released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem
too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the
structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and
housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house
for himself without descending into squalor.
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses -
and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the
euphemistically named ones.

In his fiction, or in his RL? And do I want to know the answer
to that question?

Oh, good lord, fictional. We presume.

Thank you. I'm relieved.
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"
This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."

No it's not.
Writers change and in Pratchett's case he changed what he was doing and, IMO, improved massively after the first couple of discworld books.

Is everything Heinlein wrote the same as "For Us the Living"?
Is everything Mozart composed like his arrangement of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star?

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The only Pratchett I own is _The Unadulterated Cat_, which I like
a lot.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is

available for $30

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. Clarke
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was

around $12K.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. Clarke
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about

sexbots, and

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be

banned. The

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and
how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a
major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are
released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem
too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the
structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and
housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house
for himself without descending into squalor.
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses -
and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the
euphemistically named ones.

In his fiction, or in his RL? And do I want to know the answer
to that question?

Oh, good lord, fictional. We presume.

Thank you. I'm relieved.
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."

To my mind, these people are the same as drug addicts or alcoholics.
They are just pushing something other than drugs or alcohol (except
the beer boosters you refer to, who clearly /are/ pushing alcohol).

Indeed, it is hard to distinguish them from religious/ideological
fanatics who simply will not leave you alone.

Fanaticism takes many forms. Some are actionable.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The only Pratchett I own is _The Unadulterated Cat_, which I like
a lot.
And after having seen _Good Omens_, all six episodes of it, I may
look up the book.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

Well, what people were saying that the Discworld books got better
*several volumes into the series.* (I just googled "Pratchett
Discworld" and got a list ... forty-one of them, if I didn't lose
count. *How far* would I have to read before it got to something
I could enjoy?)

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."

To my mind, these people are the same as drug addicts or alcoholics.
They are just pushing something other than drugs or alcohol (except
the beer boosters you refer to, who clearly /are/ pushing alcohol).

Well, here I disagree. I have met, once or twice, people who
were definitely pushing alcohol at me, with no good intent. But
they were doomed to failure, because I don't like the taste of
alcohol, it upsets my stomach, and I definitely do not want to
get (as one would-be pusher put it) "snokkered."

And beer is like coffee (which I don't drink either): they smell
nice, they taste awful.

But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

Well, what people were saying that the Discworld books got better
*several volumes into the series.* (I just googled "Pratchett
Discworld" and got a list ... forty-one of them, if I didn't lose
count. *How far* would I have to read before it got to something
I could enjoy?)

Well, it's a series but not a serial. Although some
characters have long careers...

_Equal Rites_ is an early number that isn't considered
as "for children" but struck me that way, mainly because
it chiefly involves a country child named Eskarina
who is accidentally bequeathed the masculine magic of
a dying wizard. This is dangerous, and a good witch
takes her on as apprentice to teach her feminine magic,
and self-control in general. Later they visit the city
where the wizard university is... and extra-dimensional
Things make an appearance, in the story anyway.

_Wyrd Sisters_ expands Granny Weatherwax's little setting
with two neighbouring witches, one being an earnest
young woman who is really keen on there being a coven.
Meanwhile, the local king is murdered (occupational hazard)
and the coven gets lumbered with protecting his infant son,
which involves a passing theatre company, and dealing
with the new regime.

They have further adventures, and so does the initially
quite hapless rump of the city "Night Watch" guards,
a vestigial police force where there are legal Guilds
of Thieves, Assassins, Seamstresses, and Clowns. And
a bossy Day Watch. And a dragon, but that's a bit
unexpected (it's on page one though). There are little
dragons but this one is Smaug.

Further down the series is _The Wee Free Men_, in which
another child witch encounters malicious fairies and
a stolen child and Celtic Smurfs. And Granny Weatherwax,
eventually.

Rincewind eventually settles down as assistant to the
university librarian, which is less dull than it sounds
due to the nature of the university, and the books, ...
and the librarian. Briefly, he still finds trouble.
Or vice versa, since that isn't his inclination.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Robert Carnegie
_Wyrd Sisters_ expands Granny Weatherwax's little setting
with two neighbouring witches, one being an earnest
young woman who is really keen on there being a coven.
Meanwhile, the local king is murdered (occupational hazard)
and the coven gets lumbered with protecting his infant son,
which involves a passing theatre company, and dealing
with the new regime.

....

Post by Robert Carnegie
Further down the series is _The Wee Free Men_, in which
another child witch encounters malicious fairies and
a stolen child and Celtic Smurfs. And Granny Weatherwax,
eventually.

My son likes the Discworld stories, and would occasionally read
me bits. He would go on about Granny and her sweet iddle
kitty-cat, whom everybody else considers a dangerous homicidal
lunatic fanged beast. And he'd quote lines from TWFM, and I do
not to this day know how a young man born and raised in the SF
Bay Area could master such a rich and convincing Braid Scots
accent.

[Kevrob]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I like bheer, feel pretty "meh"* about coffee, love some olives
and am a fan of certain codes of football.† I loathe onions,
however, love tea and am passionate about baseball, ice hockey
and my college basketball team. [I grew up a New York Knickerbockers
fan, and the current regime has strangled my "inner Knicks fan."]

There's no good reason people should like the treats I do, or disdain
what my palette rejects. The same for sports or other pastimes.

De gustibus...

* I will drink coffee, but I never make it for myself.
The place I drink "a cup of joe" is at roadside diners, and I add
cream or milk or artificial creamer to taste, the same for
whatever fake sugar they have on and. Getting drinkable tea there
is usually futile, anyway. I've never bought any coffee or coffee-
related beverages at a Starbucks or similar outfits.

† US Gridiron and Irish GAA styles are my favorites, and
the Gaelic game's "cousin," Aussie Rules, is mighty. Rugby is
decent. I've known about Association-style all my life. My dad
coached it at the local high school where he taught, along with
just about every other sport. It just never "sang" to me.

Kevin R

[J. Clarke]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I like bheer, feel pretty "meh"* about coffee, love some olives
and am a fan of certain codes of football.† I loathe onions,
however, love tea and am passionate about baseball, ice hockey
and my college basketball team. [I grew up a New York Knickerbockers
fan, and the current regime has strangled my "inner Knicks fan."]

I'll drink bheer if offered, but seldom buy it for myself. Coffee is
the stuff of life, although most of it is _awful_. If I find olives
on a salad bar I'm happy but I've had a jar of them untouched on the
shelf for over a decade. Tea I can take or leave--I drink it at
lunch, from a bottle, because that's the only thing I can find at work
that is (a) cold (b) caffeinated and (c) unsweetened. I have little
interest in any sport, although I got dragged to a baseball game a
while back and was surprised to find that it grabbed my attention--the
game itself was awful though--a blind man could have done as well as
the pitcher on one team, and the batters on the other.

Post by Kevrob
There's no good reason people should like the treats I do, or disdain
what my palette rejects. The same for sports or other pastimes.
De gustibus...
* I will drink coffee, but I never make it for myself.
The place I drink "a cup of joe" is at roadside diners, and I add
cream or milk or artificial creamer to taste, the same for
whatever fake sugar they have on and.

I'll give it a taste before adulterating. Restaurant coffee has
improved radically over the past 20 years or so. Some of it is
actually _good_ black.

Post by Kevrob
Getting drinkable tea there
is usually futile, anyway. I've never bought any coffee or coffee-
related beverages at a Starbucks or similar outfits.

A wise choice--Starbucks reputation is that they sell charcoal made
from what at one time had been very high quality coffee beans. But
they _are_ consistent.

Post by Kevrob
† US Gridiron and Irish GAA styles are my favorites, and
the Gaelic game's "cousin," Aussie Rules, is mighty. Rugby is
decent. I've known about Association-style all my life. My dad
coached it at the local high school where he taught, along with
just about every other sport. It just never "sang" to me.
Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I like bheer, feel pretty "meh"* about coffee, love some olives
and am a fan of certain codes of football.† I loathe onions,
however, love tea and am passionate about baseball, ice hockey
and my college basketball team. [I grew up a New York Knickerbockers
fan, and the current regime has strangled my "inner Knicks fan."]
There's no good reason people should like the treats I do, or disdain
what my palette rejects. The same for sports or other pastimes.
De gustibus...
* I will drink coffee, but I never make it for myself.
The place I drink "a cup of joe" is at roadside diners, and I add
cream or milk or artificial creamer to taste, the same for
whatever fake sugar they have on and. Getting drinkable tea there
is usually futile, anyway. I've never bought any coffee or coffee-
related beverages at a Starbucks or similar outfits.

I've already told at length, here or hereabouts, about a conversation
I had with my daughter's then-boyfriend, who went on a furious rant
about Starbucks, how evil its business practices, and I said, "But
is their *coffee* any good?" and he said, as if it didn't matter,
"Oh, it's lousy."

I, on the other hand, once had the experience of drinking a cup
of tea from Peet's, a chain based in Wichita, Kansas, but rumored
to have good coffee nonetheless. They offered me a cup of Earl
Grey, which as many here know, is black tea flavored with
bergamot.

Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Post by Kevrob
† US Gridiron and Irish GAA styles are my favorites, and
the Gaelic game's "cousin," Aussie Rules, is mighty. Rugby is
decent. I've known about Association-style all my life. My dad
coached it at the local high school where he taught, along with
just about every other sport. It just never "sang" to me.

Well, I'm glad you've found several sports you can enjoy.
Although I really didn't understand much of what you said. :)

Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.

...

found it:

https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u

Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

[Kevrob]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I like bheer, feel pretty "meh"* about coffee, love some olives
and am a fan of certain codes of football.† I loathe onions,
however, love tea and am passionate about baseball, ice hockey
and my college basketball team. [I grew up a New York Knickerbockers
fan, and the current regime has strangled my "inner Knicks fan."]
There's no good reason people should like the treats I do, or disdain
what my palette rejects. The same for sports or other pastimes.
De gustibus...
* I will drink coffee, but I never make it for myself.
The place I drink "a cup of joe" is at roadside diners, and I add
cream or milk or artificial creamer to taste, the same for
whatever fake sugar they have on and. Getting drinkable tea there
is usually futile, anyway. I've never bought any coffee or coffee-
related beverages at a Starbucks or similar outfits.

I've already told at length, here or hereabouts, about a conversation
I had with my daughter's then-boyfriend, who went on a furious rant
about Starbucks, how evil its business practices, and I said, "But
is their *coffee* any good?" and he said, as if it didn't matter,
"Oh, it's lousy."
I, on the other hand, once had the experience of drinking a cup
of tea from Peet's, a chain based in Wichita, Kansas, but rumored
to have good coffee nonetheless. They offered me a cup of Earl
Grey, which as many here know, is black tea flavored with
bergamot.
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
† US Gridiron...

The football field in "American football" is called "the gridiron,"
because the chalked/limed markings every 10 yards reminded folks of
a cooking gridiron. Using "Gridioron football" encompasses both
the subtly different US high school, college and NFL codes, and
can include Canada's version, played with one less "down" on a longer,
wider field, with an additional player.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
and Irish GAA styles are my favorites, and

Post by Kevrob
the Gaelic game's

The GAA is the Gaelic Athletic Association, (Cumann Luthchleas Gael,)
which governs Irish games such as football, hurling, and camogie.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
..."cousin," Aussie Rules, is mighty.

Australian Rules Football, aka "footy" has some similarities to the
Irish version, which isn't strange, as many Irish-descended folks play it.

There is even "International rules football"/(Peil na rialacha idirnaisiunta,)
where players from the Irish and Australian codes play against each other
in a hybrid style.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
Rugby is
decent. I've known about Association-style all my life. My dad
coached it at the local high school where he taught, along with
just about every other sport. It just never "sang" to me.

Well, I'm glad you've found several sports you can enjoy.
Although I really didn't understand much of what you said. :)

See translation above.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.

I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."

[quote]

"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."

...

As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.

[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth

Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.

Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

Kevin R

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I like bheer, feel pretty "meh"* about coffee, love some olives
and am a fan of certain codes of football.† I loathe onions,
however, love tea and am passionate about baseball, ice hockey
and my college basketball team. [I grew up a New York Knickerbockers
fan, and the current regime has strangled my "inner Knicks fan."]
There's no good reason people should like the treats I do, or disdain
what my palette rejects. The same for sports or other pastimes.
De gustibus...
* I will drink coffee, but I never make it for myself.
The place I drink "a cup of joe" is at roadside diners, and I add
cream or milk or artificial creamer to taste, the same for
whatever fake sugar they have on and. Getting drinkable tea there
is usually futile, anyway. I've never bought any coffee or coffee-
related beverages at a Starbucks or similar outfits.

I've already told at length, here or hereabouts, about a conversation
I had with my daughter's then-boyfriend, who went on a furious rant
about Starbucks, how evil its business practices, and I said, "But
is their *coffee* any good?" and he said, as if it didn't matter,
"Oh, it's lousy."
I, on the other hand, once had the experience of drinking a cup
of tea from Peet's, a chain based in Wichita, Kansas, but rumored
to have good coffee nonetheless. They offered me a cup of Earl
Grey, which as many here know, is black tea flavored with
bergamot.
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
† US Gridiron...

The football field in "American football" is called "the gridiron,"
because the chalked/limed markings every 10 yards reminded folks of
a cooking gridiron. Using "Gridioron football" encompasses both
the subtly different US high school, college and NFL codes, and
can include Canada's version, played with one less "down" on a longer,
wider field, with an additional player.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
and Irish GAA styles are my favorites, and

Post by Kevrob
the Gaelic game's

The GAA is the Gaelic Athletic Association, (Cumann Luthchleas Gael,)
which governs Irish games such as football, hurling, and camogie.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
..."cousin," Aussie Rules, is mighty.

Australian Rules Football, aka "footy" has some similarities to the
Irish version, which isn't strange, as many Irish-descended folks play it.
There is even "International rules football"/(Peil na rialacha idirnaisiunta,)
where players from the Irish and Australian codes play against each other
in a hybrid style.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
Rugby is
decent. I've known about Association-style all my life. My dad
coached it at the local high school where he taught, along with
just about every other sport. It just never "sang" to me.

Well, I'm glad you've found several sports you can enjoy.
Although I really didn't understand much of what you said. :)

See translation above.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.
I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."
[quote]
"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
...
As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.
[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth
Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.
Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

Or in the big leagues; can you imagine trying to get a pitch
into their strike zone?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[Kevrob]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I like bheer, feel pretty "meh"* about coffee, love some olives
and am a fan of certain codes of football.† I loathe onions,
however, love tea and am passionate about baseball, ice hockey
and my college basketball team. [I grew up a New York Knickerbockers
fan, and the current regime has strangled my "inner Knicks fan."]
There's no good reason people should like the treats I do, or disdain
what my palette rejects. The same for sports or other pastimes.
De gustibus...
* I will drink coffee, but I never make it for myself.
The place I drink "a cup of joe" is at roadside diners, and I add
cream or milk or artificial creamer to taste, the same for
whatever fake sugar they have on and. Getting drinkable tea there
is usually futile, anyway. I've never bought any coffee or coffee-
related beverages at a Starbucks or similar outfits.

I've already told at length, here or hereabouts, about a conversation
I had with my daughter's then-boyfriend, who went on a furious rant
about Starbucks, how evil its business practices, and I said, "But
is their *coffee* any good?" and he said, as if it didn't matter,
"Oh, it's lousy."
I, on the other hand, once had the experience of drinking a cup
of tea from Peet's, a chain based in Wichita, Kansas, but rumored
to have good coffee nonetheless. They offered me a cup of Earl
Grey, which as many here know, is black tea flavored with
bergamot.
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
† US Gridiron...

The football field in "American football" is called "the gridiron,"
because the chalked/limed markings every 10 yards reminded folks of
a cooking gridiron. Using "Gridioron football" encompasses both
the subtly different US high school, college and NFL codes, and
can include Canada's version, played with one less "down" on a longer,
wider field, with an additional player.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
and Irish GAA styles are my favorites, and

Post by Kevrob
the Gaelic game's

The GAA is the Gaelic Athletic Association, (Cumann Luthchleas Gael,)
which governs Irish games such as football, hurling, and camogie.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
..."cousin," Aussie Rules, is mighty.

Australian Rules Football, aka "footy" has some similarities to the
Irish version, which isn't strange, as many Irish-descended folks play it.
There is even "International rules football"/(Peil na rialacha idirnaisiunta,)
where players from the Irish and Australian codes play against each other
in a hybrid style.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
Rugby is
decent. I've known about Association-style all my life. My dad
coached it at the local high school where he taught, along with
just about every other sport. It just never "sang" to me.

Well, I'm glad you've found several sports you can enjoy.
Although I really didn't understand much of what you said. :)

See translation above.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.
I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."
[quote]
"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
...
As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.
[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth
Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.
Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

Or in the big leagues; can you imagine trying to get a pitch
into their strike zone?

That's not speculation, that's history!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gaedel

https://sabr.org/research/peculiar-professional-baseball-career-eddie-gaedel

The St Louis Browns that were, the franchise having moved
to Baltimore,and become the Orioles, were often called
"the Brownies." Brownies, hobbits - potato, tomato!

The Gaedel incident may have been inspired by a Thurber story.

http://storyoftheweek.loa.org/2010/09/you-could-look-it-up.html

Kevin R

[Peter Trei]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I like bheer, feel pretty "meh"* about coffee, love some olives
and am a fan of certain codes of football.† I loathe onions,
however, love tea and am passionate about baseball, ice hockey
and my college basketball team. [I grew up a New York Knickerbockers
fan, and the current regime has strangled my "inner Knicks fan."]
There's no good reason people should like the treats I do, or disdain
what my palette rejects. The same for sports or other pastimes.
De gustibus...
* I will drink coffee, but I never make it for myself.
The place I drink "a cup of joe" is at roadside diners, and I add
cream or milk or artificial creamer to taste, the same for
whatever fake sugar they have on and. Getting drinkable tea there
is usually futile, anyway. I've never bought any coffee or coffee-
related beverages at a Starbucks or similar outfits.

I've already told at length, here or hereabouts, about a conversation
I had with my daughter's then-boyfriend, who went on a furious rant
about Starbucks, how evil its business practices, and I said, "But
is their *coffee* any good?" and he said, as if it didn't matter,
"Oh, it's lousy."
I, on the other hand, once had the experience of drinking a cup
of tea from Peet's, a chain based in Wichita, Kansas, but rumored
to have good coffee nonetheless. They offered me a cup of Earl
Grey, which as many here know, is black tea flavored with
bergamot.
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
† US Gridiron...

The football field in "American football" is called "the gridiron,"
because the chalked/limed markings every 10 yards reminded folks of
a cooking gridiron. Using "Gridioron football" encompasses both
the subtly different US high school, college and NFL codes, and
can include Canada's version, played with one less "down" on a longer,
wider field, with an additional player.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
and Irish GAA styles are my favorites, and

Post by Kevrob
the Gaelic game's

The GAA is the Gaelic Athletic Association, (Cumann Luthchleas Gael,)
which governs Irish games such as football, hurling, and camogie.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
..."cousin," Aussie Rules, is mighty.

Australian Rules Football, aka "footy" has some similarities to the
Irish version, which isn't strange, as many Irish-descended folks play it.
There is even "International rules football"/(Peil na rialacha idirnaisiunta,)
where players from the Irish and Australian codes play against each other
in a hybrid style.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob
Rugby is
decent. I've known about Association-style all my life. My dad
coached it at the local high school where he taught, along with
just about every other sport. It just never "sang" to me.

Well, I'm glad you've found several sports you can enjoy.
Although I really didn't understand much of what you said. :)

See translation above.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.
I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."
[quote]
"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
...
As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.
[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth
Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.
Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

Or in the big leagues; can you imagine trying to get a pitch
into their strike zone?

Late response, but:

Thanks to Eddie Gaedel, you don't have to imagine.

https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2011/02/01/the-major-league-midget

pt

[Kevrob]

Post by Peter Trei

Post by p***@hotmail.com
Or in the big leagues; can you imagine trying to get a pitch
into their strike zone?

Thanks to Eddie Gaedel, you don't have to imagine.
https://birthmoviesdeath.com/2011/02/01/the-major-league-midget

See:

Message-ID: <35ff1fff-3635-4205-8063-***@googlegroups.com>

http://al.howardknight.net/?STYPE=msgid&MSGI=%3C35ff1fff-3635-4205-8063-8f129dce42c5%40googlegroups.com%3E

Kevin R

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

It was black tea with lavender. I asked.

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.
I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."
[quote]
"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
...
As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.
[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth

Interesting. And the posters left one sport out: hunting on
horseback. When Thorin and company are trying to make their way
through Mirkwood, they see a company of Elves hunting on
horseback, but when they try to hail them, the Elves vanish.
*This is a scene taken directly from the Middle-English poem "Sir
Orfeo,"* which Tolkien translated into Modern English.

Post by Kevrob
Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.
Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

And don't forget the heroic tale of Bandobras Took, called the
Bullroarer, who was four-foot-six and could ride a horse, and who
won the Battle of Greenfields by knocking off the head of the
goblin commander with a club, whereat it rolled into a gopher
hole "and thus the battle was won and the game of Golf invented
at the same time."

In LotRO [here I go] there's a quest in the Greenfields where you
find the gopher hole and find [I think] not the goblin's skull,
but a tooth. And there's a statue of the Bullroarer at the edge
of the field.

And there's a quest for the Lore-master class at level 30 that
involves solving riddles, left behind for a friend, by an Elf who
has gone over Sea. The second riddle reads,

"Fierce goblins are remembered, but better with a mighty swing!
No Man, he."

And the capital M clues you that the Elf was talking about the
species, not the gender. And the quest item is at the foot of
Bandobras's statue.

And do not get me started on the prophecy about the Witch-king,
"not by the hand of man shall he fall." As you'll recall, the WK
was ultimately taken down by Eowyn (not a man) and Meriadoc (not
a Man).

[Paul S Person]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

It was black tea with lavender. I asked.

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.
I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."
[quote]
"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
...
As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.
[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth

Interesting. And the posters left one sport out: hunting on
horseback. When Thorin and company are trying to make their way
through Mirkwood, they see a company of Elves hunting on
horseback, but when they try to hail them, the Elves vanish.
*This is a scene taken directly from the Middle-English poem "Sir
Orfeo,"* which Tolkien translated into Modern English.

Post by Kevrob
Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.
Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

And don't forget the heroic tale of Bandobras Took, called the
Bullroarer, who was four-foot-six and could ride a horse, and who
won the Battle of Greenfields by knocking off the head of the
goblin commander with a club, whereat it rolled into a gopher
hole "and thus the battle was won and the game of Golf invented
at the same time."
In LotRO [here I go] there's a quest in the Greenfields where you
find the gopher hole and find [I think] not the goblin's skull,
but a tooth. And there's a statue of the Bullroarer at the edge
of the field.
And there's a quest for the Lore-master class at level 30 that
involves solving riddles, left behind for a friend, by an Elf who
has gone over Sea. The second riddle reads,
"Fierce goblins are remembered, but better with a mighty swing!
No Man, he."
And the capital M clues you that the Elf was talking about the
species, not the gender. And the quest item is at the foot of
Bandobras's statue.
And do not get me started on the prophecy about the Witch-king,
"not by the hand of man shall he fall." As you'll recall, the WK
was ultimately taken down by Eowyn (not a man) and Meriadoc (not
a Man).

In the /book/, that was complete surprise (the first time I read it),
as her disguise was completely effective.

In the /movie/, of course, that was impossible, as the actress
selected could /never/ be disguised as a man. She did, however,
capture the character completely.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

It was black tea with lavender. I asked.

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.
I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."
[quote]
"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
...
As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.
[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth

Interesting. And the posters left one sport out: hunting on
horseback. When Thorin and company are trying to make their way
through Mirkwood, they see a company of Elves hunting on
horseback, but when they try to hail them, the Elves vanish.
*This is a scene taken directly from the Middle-English poem "Sir
Orfeo,"* which Tolkien translated into Modern English.

Post by Kevrob
Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.
Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

And don't forget the heroic tale of Bandobras Took, called the
Bullroarer, who was four-foot-six and could ride a horse, and who
won the Battle of Greenfields by knocking off the head of the
goblin commander with a club, whereat it rolled into a gopher
hole "and thus the battle was won and the game of Golf invented
at the same time."
In LotRO [here I go] there's a quest in the Greenfields where you
find the gopher hole and find [I think] not the goblin's skull,
but a tooth. And there's a statue of the Bullroarer at the edge
of the field.
And there's a quest for the Lore-master class at level 30 that
involves solving riddles, left behind for a friend, by an Elf who
has gone over Sea. The second riddle reads,
"Fierce goblins are remembered, but better with a mighty swing!
No Man, he."
And the capital M clues you that the Elf was talking about the
species, not the gender. And the quest item is at the foot of
Bandobras's statue.
And do not get me started on the prophecy about the Witch-king,
"not by the hand of man shall he fall." As you'll recall, the WK
was ultimately taken down by Eowyn (not a man) and Meriadoc (not
a Man).

In the /book/, that was complete surprise (the first time I read it),
as her disguise was completely effective.
In the /movie/, of course, that was impossible, as the actress
selected could /never/ be disguised as a man. She did, however,
capture the character completely.

Well, the movies. Feh again. I never even watched the third
one, having experienced maximum disgust at the second.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Only theirs was flavored with lavender. Feh. Tasted like soap.

Was it tea flavored with lavender, or some herbal infusion
that folks often call "herbal tea?" Perhaps they also sold
that, and the genius behind the counter grabbed the wrong
ingredients - or "tea" bag.

It was black tea with lavender. I asked.

Post by Kevrob

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Reminds me of the monologue by the guy who tells you all about
playing WoW, let me see if I can find it.
...
https://imgur.com/gallery/Mz08u
Of course, I could go on just as long about LotRO.

..which I don't mind at all.
I found these, mentioned in "The Hobbit."
[quote]
"This won't do at all!" said Thorin. "If we don't get blown
off or drowned, or struck by lightning, we shall be picked
up by some giant and kicked sky-high for a football."
...
As a boy [Bilbo] used to practise throwing stones at things, until rabbits
and squirrels, and even birds, got out of his way as quick as lightning if
they saw him stoop; and even grownup he had still spent a deal of his time at
quoits, dart-throwing, shooting at the wand, bowls, ninepins and other quiet
games of the aiming and throwing sort - indeed he could do lots of things,
besides blowing smoke-rings, asking riddles and cooking, that I haven't had
time to tell you about.
[/quote] - "Wad Cheber stands with Monica" from
https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/94489/is-there-reference-to-sport-in-middle-earth

Interesting. And the posters left one sport out: hunting on
horseback. When Thorin and company are trying to make their way
through Mirkwood, they see a company of Elves hunting on
horseback, but when they try to hail them, the Elves vanish.
*This is a scene taken directly from the Middle-English poem "Sir
Orfeo,"* which Tolkien translated into Modern English.

Post by Kevrob
Hobbits, being good at throwing stones, might be excellent
at bowling in cricket, or pitching and throwing in baseball.
Hmmmm... a team of "ringers," all hobbits, in the Little League
World Series? Teams have used overage players before.

And don't forget the heroic tale of Bandobras Took, called the
Bullroarer, who was four-foot-six and could ride a horse, and who
won the Battle of Greenfields by knocking off the head of the
goblin commander with a club, whereat it rolled into a gopher
hole "and thus the battle was won and the game of Golf invented
at the same time."
In LotRO [here I go] there's a quest in the Greenfields where you
find the gopher hole and find [I think] not the goblin's skull,
but a tooth. And there's a statue of the Bullroarer at the edge
of the field.
And there's a quest for the Lore-master class at level 30 that
involves solving riddles, left behind for a friend, by an Elf who
has gone over Sea. The second riddle reads,
"Fierce goblins are remembered, but better with a mighty swing!
No Man, he."
And the capital M clues you that the Elf was talking about the
species, not the gender. And the quest item is at the foot of
Bandobras's statue.
And do not get me started on the prophecy about the Witch-king,
"not by the hand of man shall he fall." As you'll recall, the WK
was ultimately taken down by Eowyn (not a man) and Meriadoc (not
a Man).

In the /book/, that was complete surprise (the first time I read it),
as her disguise was completely effective.
In the /movie/, of course, that was impossible, as the actress
selected could /never/ be disguised as a man. She did, however,
capture the character completely.

Well, the movies. Feh again. I never even watched the third
one, having experienced maximum disgust at the second.

I can't really blame you, although a lot of really good stuff was in
it. But there was an awful lot of not-so-good stuff as well. And it
was longer than either of the first two, with several false endings.

The first time I saw, I almost thought the audience was about to rush
the stage and destroy the screen after the second or third "restart".
It was pretty clear that they mostly just wanted it to /end/.

The second suffered from PJs insistance on ignoring JRRT's carefully
calibrated time-line, not to mention telling his own story. On the
whole, it was another botched job. And far too long.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
The second suffered from PJs insistance on ignoring JRRT's carefully
calibrated time-line, not to mention telling his own story. On the
whole, it was another botched job. And far too long.

The first movie in the trilogy, on the other hand, while it had a _few_ changes
from the novels, all those changes could be justified by the differences between
film and print as different mediums.

So in a single film trilogy, we have both an illustration of "how to do it" and
of "how not to do it".

John Savard

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The second suffered from PJs insistance on ignoring JRRT's carefully
calibrated time-line, not to mention telling his own story. On the
whole, it was another botched job. And far too long.

The first movie in the trilogy, on the other hand, while it had a _few_ changes
from the novels, all those changes could be justified by the differences between
film and print as different mediums.
So in a single film trilogy, we have both an illustration of "how to do it" and
of "how not to do it".

Or one of those, anyway.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:29:29 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The second suffered from PJs insistance on ignoring JRRT's carefully
calibrated time-line, not to mention telling his own story. On the
whole, it was another botched job. And far too long.

The first movie in the trilogy, on the other hand, while it had a _few_ changes
from the novels, all those changes could be justified by the differences between
film and print as different mediums.
So in a single film trilogy, we have both an illustration of "how to do it" and
of "how not to do it".

While I would agree that the first is the best of the lot, in no way
can "the difference between film and print" justify "all those
changes".

This is a mixed bag.

For example, showing Gandalf's stay at Orthanc instead of having
Gandalf report it as in the book (note that, in the film this could be
a narration over the very scenes used in the film as presented) can be
justified by allowing the swoop down the tower into the underground,
where we see things that Gandalf could not, the "Wizard's Duel"
/cannot/ be justified because it clearly shows that movie-Gandalf was
not as intelligent as book-Gandalf. Book-Gandalf did /not/ fight
Sauron because he was smart enough to know he could not win;
movie-Gandalf is dumb enough to think he might.

Having /Arwen/ lug Frodo across the Fords of the Isen and defy the
Black Riders completely destroys the point of the scene in the book,
where book-Frodo, despite the effects of his wound, is able to do
exactly the same thing. This is what Ebert criticized as the Hobbits
being picked up and carried too much.

OTOH, replacing /Glorfindel/ with an Elf that actually plays a major
role in the story is less of a problem. Choosing Arwen rather than
Legolas was part of the "Arwen, Elf-Warrior Princess" idea that PJ
had, possibly at studio insistence (gotta have an Important Female
Character in the film to bring in the girls).

Bakshi chose Legolas, which makes more sense if you can't afford
another Elf that speaks or don't want to confuse the audience too
much, since Legolas plays a major role in all three books/films.

If you want to explore a book/film combo that does every single thing
PJ did and they are all clearly justified by the difference between
film and print, I suggest /The Hunger Games/. The first book.

There is, of course, another factor: in the case of /The Hunger
Games/, the film tells the same story as the book. This results in a
less critical approach and the cutting of some slack. PJ's efforts,
OTOH, since they do not tell the same stoy, invite a much more
critical and detailed approach.

On another newsgroup, somebody pointed out that the current of the
Brandywine (Baranduine) River was flowing the wrong direction when
they excaped the Black Rider via the ferry. The only reason anyone
would even /notice/ that, never mind think it's a defect, is if the
film as a whole failed to satisfy.

[Moriarty]

On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 4:26:25 AM UTC+11, Paul S Person wrote:

<snip>

Post by Paul S Person
On another newsgroup, somebody pointed out that the current of the
Brandywine (Baranduine) River was flowing the wrong direction when
they excaped the Black Rider via the ferry. The only reason anyone
would even /notice/ that, never mind think it's a defect, is if the
film as a whole failed to satisfy.

I disagree, I don't think you understand the grognard mind. Any deviation will be noticed and analysed. Even if that person considered the movie otherwise perfect, he/she would still notice and loudly denounce the river flowing in the wrong direction.

I recall watching "A Bridge Too Far" with a bunch of wargamers. One of them got irate at the camouflage the Waffen SS were wearing. Apparently that particular print of camouflage wasn't used in that sector of the war or at that time. To him, this was a major flaw.

-Moriarty

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Moriarty
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person
On another newsgroup, somebody pointed out that the current of the
Brandywine (Baranduine) River was flowing the wrong direction when
they excaped the Black Rider via the ferry. The only reason anyone
would even /notice/ that, never mind think it's a defect, is if the
film as a whole failed to satisfy.

I disagree, I don't think you understand the grognard mind. Any
deviation will be noticed and analysed. Even if that person considered
the movie otherwise perfect, he/she would still notice and loudly
denounce the river flowing in the wrong direction.
I recall watching "A Bridge Too Far" with a bunch of wargamers. One of
them got irate at the camouflage the Waffen SS were wearing. Apparently
that particular print of camouflage wasn't used in that sector of the
war or at that time. To him, this was a major flaw.

Does this guy by any chance play with ACW re-enactors? They, I'm
told, won't let you attend a re-enactment of a battle fought in
1864 if your uniform displays buttons that weren't issued till
1865.

[Moriarty]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Moriarty
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person
On another newsgroup, somebody pointed out that the current of the
Brandywine (Baranduine) River was flowing the wrong direction when
they excaped the Black Rider via the ferry. The only reason anyone
would even /notice/ that, never mind think it's a defect, is if the
film as a whole failed to satisfy.

I disagree, I don't think you understand the grognard mind. Any
deviation will be noticed and analysed. Even if that person considered
the movie otherwise perfect, he/she would still notice and loudly
denounce the river flowing in the wrong direction.
I recall watching "A Bridge Too Far" with a bunch of wargamers. One of
them got irate at the camouflage the Waffen SS were wearing. Apparently
that particular print of camouflage wasn't used in that sector of the
war or at that time. To him, this was a major flaw.

Does this guy by any chance play with ACW re-enactors? They, I'm
told, won't let you attend a re-enactment of a battle fought in
1864 if your uniform displays buttons that weren't issued till
1865.

My guy was a WW2 geek so probably not, but the mentality is certainly the same!

So, there's probably a cottage industry in the US somewhere that produces "authentic" buttons to be sewn onto Civil War uniforms? Now I'm imagining the wife of an avid re-enactor, cursing as she exchanges the 1863 buttons he wore to last weekend's Battle of Gettysburg for the 1862 buttons required for Antietam this Saturday.

-Moriarty

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Moriarty

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Moriarty
<snip>

Post by Paul S Person
On another newsgroup, somebody pointed out that the current of the
Brandywine (Baranduine) River was flowing the wrong direction when
they excaped the Black Rider via the ferry. The only reason anyone
would even /notice/ that, never mind think it's a defect, is if the
film as a whole failed to satisfy.

I disagree, I don't think you understand the grognard mind. Any
deviation will be noticed and analysed. Even if that person considered
the movie otherwise perfect, he/she would still notice and loudly
denounce the river flowing in the wrong direction.
I recall watching "A Bridge Too Far" with a bunch of wargamers. One of
them got irate at the camouflage the Waffen SS were wearing. Apparently
that particular print of camouflage wasn't used in that sector of the
war or at that time. To him, this was a major flaw.

Does this guy by any chance play with ACW re-enactors? They, I'm
told, won't let you attend a re-enactment of a battle fought in
1864 if your uniform displays buttons that weren't issued till
1865.

My guy was a WW2 geek so probably not, but the mentality is certainly the same!
So, there's probably a cottage industry in the US somewhere that produces "authentic" buttons to be sewn onto Civil War uniforms? Now I'm imagining the wife of an avid re-enactor, cursing as she exchanges the 1863 buttons he wore to last weekend's Battle of Gettysburg for the 1862 buttons required for Antietam this Saturday.

She probably did all her cursing already making the entirely different
uniforms for each period of the war. :D

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Moriarty

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Does this guy by any chance play with ACW re-enactors? They, I'm
told, won't let you attend a re-enactment of a battle fought in
1864 if your uniform displays buttons that weren't issued till
1865.

My guy was a WW2 geek so probably not, but the mentality is certainly the same!
So, there's probably a cottage industry in the US somewhere that
produces "authentic" buttons to be sewn onto Civil War uniforms?

Absolutely.

Now I'm

Post by Moriarty
imagining the wife of an avid re-enactor, cursing as she exchanges the
1863 buttons he wore to last weekend's Battle of Gettysburg for the 1862
buttons required for Antietam this Saturday.

At least, with any kind of luck, he won't demand that she get
into a hoopskirt and join him (on the sidelines, of course).

Unless he wants her to bind down her bosom, cut her hair, and
join him in the battle. At which point some women, at least,
would start calling their lawyers.

[Kevrob]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Unless he wants her to bind down her bosom, cut her hair, and
join him in the battle. At which point some women, at least,
would start calling their lawyers.

....or bring some round lead balls or minie balls in addition to
paper cartidges, in order to "accidentally" shoot her hubby. :)

Kevin R

[f***@gmail.com]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Does this guy by any chance play with ACW re-enactors? They, I'm
told, won't let you attend a re-enactment of a battle fought in
1864 if your uniform displays buttons that weren't issued till
1865.

I have heard of some ACW re-enactors who will not even be seen dead with someone so rude or stupid as to pitch up with a piece of uniform dyed with modern dye.

It has to be the original indigo (I think that was it) or they won't let you pose with them for the authentic period Black and White photo.

There were also similar objections about the style of facial hair, the style of the combs used on said facial hair, and the specific model of weapon (especially sidearms).

Perhaps people have too much time (and money) on their hands. Do we hear of Trekkies arguing over the proper color of the TOS Red Shirts, or the exact orientation of the pointness of Spock's ears (which I seem to remember changed more than once during the first season of TOS).

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/

Regards
Frank

[Jack Bohn]

Perhaps people have too much time (and money) on their hands. Do we hear of >Trekkies arguing over the proper color of the TOS Red Shirts, or the exact >orientation of the pointness of Spock's ears (which I seem to remember changed more than once during the first season of TOS). 

Good gravy! If the computer graphics guys who gave the Gorn a blink go back and perk Spock's ears forward and back for a scene...!

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:29:29 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
The first movie in the trilogy, on the other hand, while it had a _few_ changes
from the novels, all those changes could be justified by the differences between
film and print as different mediums.

While I would agree that the first is the best of the lot, in no way
can "the difference between film and print" justify "all those
changes".

I suppose what I should have said was instead this:

It appeared to me that the differences between film and print as media justified
the major changes from the novels in the first movie that I happened to notice.

One of the big differences is that a movie is shorter than a book; if one filmed
a normal-sized novel exactly as written, the result would be much longer than a
typical two-hour feature film.

John Savard

[Juho Julkunen]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:29:29 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
The first movie in the trilogy, on the other hand, while it had a _few_ changes
from the novels, all those changes could be justified by the differences between
film and print as different mediums.

While I would agree that the first is the best of the lot, in no way
can "the difference between film and print" justify "all those
changes".

It appeared to me that the differences between film and print as media justified
the major changes from the novels in the first movie that I happened to notice.
One of the big differences is that a movie is shorter than a book; if one filmed
a normal-sized novel exactly as written, the result would be much longer than a
typical two-hour feature film.

The first movie was two minutes shy of three hours, the second much the
same, and the last one was three hours and twenty minutes. The extended
editions totaled over eleven hours.

Granted, that's still shorter than the novel, so some rearrangement and
compression was unavoidable. That just made all the new filler PJ and
his accomplices added all the more aggravating. Six movies for the six
books, and a better director would have been too much to ask, I
suppose.

In my expierience two hours hasn't been typical for blockbusters for
years. They tend towards too long and overstuffed. It's refreshing
these days to see a movie that lasts less than two hours, and tells one
coherent story.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
In the /book/, that was complete surprise (the first time I read it),
as her disguise was completely effective.
In the /movie/, of course, that was impossible, as the actress
selected could /never/ be disguised as a man. She did, however,
capture the character completely.

As this was the movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, the obvious stratagem
of simply using a man to play the character disguised as a man, and a woman to
play the character without the disguise, would not have been tolerated by the
audience.

John Savard

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
In the /book/, that was complete surprise (the first time I read it),
as her disguise was completely effective.
In the /movie/, of course, that was impossible, as the actress
selected could /never/ be disguised as a man. She did, however,
capture the character completely.

As this was the movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, the obvious stratagem
of simply using a man to play the character disguised as a man, and a woman to
play the character without the disguise, would not have been tolerated by the
audience.

As I said upthread somewhere, I never watched the third movie at
all. But *in the book,* it was the Dawnless Day, with Mordor's
heavy smoke/ash cover over everything, and people could not tell
a woman in a mail hauberk and a pot-helm with nasal from a man in
the same gear.

Also, a fair fraction of the Rohirrim knew who Dernhelm was, and
didn't let on, the same way they didn't let on that Dernhelm had
this small person riding in front of "him".

[Paul S Person]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
In the /book/, that was complete surprise (the first time I read it),
as her disguise was completely effective.
In the /movie/, of course, that was impossible, as the actress
selected could /never/ be disguised as a man. She did, however,
capture the character completely.

As this was the movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, the obvious stratagem
of simply using a man to play the character disguised as a man, and a woman to
play the character without the disguise, would not have been tolerated by the
audience.

As I said upthread somewhere, I never watched the third movie at
all. But *in the book,* it was the Dawnless Day, with Mordor's
heavy smoke/ash cover over everything, and people could not tell
a woman in a mail hauberk and a pot-helm with nasal from a man in
the same gear.
Also, a fair fraction of the Rohirrim knew who Dernhelm was, and
didn't let on, the same way they didn't let on that Dernhelm had
this small person riding in front of "him".

In the /book/, you don't /see/ her.

And the description of Dernhelm does /not/ suggest anything.

Or, rather, did not suggest anything to me, the first time I read it.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:58:26 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
In the /book/, that was complete surprise (the first time I read it),
as her disguise was completely effective.
In the /movie/, of course, that was impossible, as the actress
selected could /never/ be disguised as a man. She did, however,
capture the character completely.

As this was the movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, the obvious stratagem
of simply using a man to play the character disguised as a man, and a woman to
play the character without the disguise, would not have been tolerated by the
audience.

It would not have worked. Nothing would have worked, except to avoid
all frontal shots -- and, even then, her /voice/ was not low enough to
work.

The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

But, again, she really captured the part. In some ways, the /best/
part of the third film is when she takes off her helm and says "I am
no man". Although she was, of course, a Man.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been able to find
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an expensive
motion picture.

I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck Rogers TV show.
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been able to find
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an expensive
motion picture.
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck Rogers TV show.
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

Bear in mind that post-Avengers Dame Diana had her own US comedy
series and was the only Bond Girl to actually _catch_ the guy. And at
82 she's still working.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been able to find
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an expensive
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.

1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.

2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!

Indeed, I have a vague memory that Merry addresses her as "My Lady"
just before she scoops him up onto the horse. This, if correct, would
support the theory that PJ never intended the audience to wonder who
the character giving Merry a ride was.

If it were /not/ PJ doing this, it might still be understandable as it
greatly shortens the scene by avoiding any introductions. Of course,
it is rediculous to think of PJ, the man whose films drag on and on
showing every little detail, of wanting to shorten any scene.

Post by Quadibloc
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck Rogers TV show.
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

Comparison of book and film for /The Hunger Games/ should make it
clear that the actress is too well developed there as well: she is
playing a 16-year-old raised in an environment of near-starvation. I
suspect Katniss would look more like the 14-year-olds of the 60s than
a 16-year-old of the same era.

I would like to assure everyone that I do /not/ spend my time, when
watching movies, obsessing about women's chest sizes. In 99% of the
films I see, this has no relation to the plot and so is generally
ignored. Consciously, at least.

[Moriarty]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

(Eowyn in LOTR)

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been able to find
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an expensive
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.
1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.
2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!

I don't think JRRT intended Eowyn's disguise to be kept from the reader, rather the main targets of the disguise were Theoden and Eomer. Merry doesn't pick it up, but others do.

"Thank you indeed!" said Merry. "Thank you, sir, though I do not know your name."

"Do you not?" said the rider softly. "Then call me Dernhelm."

Clearly Eowyn is surprised that Merry doesn't recognise her. Later at camp, the Rohirrim pointedly ignore both Dernhelm and Merry as they know neither is supposed to be there.

-Moriarty

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been able to find
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an expensive
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.
1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.
2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!
Indeed, I have a vague memory that Merry addresses her as "My Lady"
just before she scoops him up onto the horse. This, if correct, would
support the theory that PJ never intended the audience to wonder who
the character giving Merry a ride was.
If it were /not/ PJ doing this, it might still be understandable as it
greatly shortens the scene by avoiding any introductions. Of course,
it is rediculous to think of PJ, the man whose films drag on and on
showing every little detail, of wanting to shorten any scene.

Post by Quadibloc
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck Rogers TV show.
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

Comparison of book and film for /The Hunger Games/ should make it
clear that the actress is too well developed there as well: she is
playing a 16-year-old raised in an environment of near-starvation. I
suspect Katniss would look more like the 14-year-olds of the 60s than
a 16-year-old of the same era.
I would like to assure everyone that I do /not/ spend my time, when
watching movies, obsessing about women's chest sizes. In 99% of the
films I see, this has no relation to the plot and so is generally
ignored. Consciously, at least.

I'm not an expert either but I gathered from other sources
that wearing something that compresses this female anatomy
is very successful. Although maybe not helpful in a
cavalry battle; is it harder to breathe?

Two sources agree
<http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dernhelm>
<https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Dernhelm>
that Merry in Peter Jackson's film recognises Dernhelm
without asking his name. I wondered if Eowyn had to
think of an alias in a hurry, which is what I was looking
for there: both pages say that "Dernhelm" is Old English
meaning "hidden protector", so possibly quick thinking,
and something else that she could consider wearing...
I think the conceit applies that "Old English",
specifically so called, is the language that
Professor Tolkien borrowed to stand in for the
actual Rohirric speech.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been

able to find

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an

expensive

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.
1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.
2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!
Indeed, I have a vague memory that Merry addresses her as "My Lady"
just before she scoops him up onto the horse. This, if correct, would
support the theory that PJ never intended the audience to wonder who
the character giving Merry a ride was.
If it were /not/ PJ doing this, it might still be understandable as it
greatly shortens the scene by avoiding any introductions. Of course,
it is rediculous to think of PJ, the man whose films drag on and on
showing every little detail, of wanting to shorten any scene.

Post by Quadibloc
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck

Rogers TV show.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

Comparison of book and film for /The Hunger Games/ should make it
clear that the actress is too well developed there as well: she is
playing a 16-year-old raised in an environment of near-starvation. I
suspect Katniss would look more like the 14-year-olds of the 60s than
a 16-year-old of the same era.
I would like to assure everyone that I do /not/ spend my time, when
watching movies, obsessing about women's chest sizes. In 99% of the
films I see, this has no relation to the plot and so is generally
ignored. Consciously, at least.

I'm not an expert either but I gathered from other sources
that wearing something that compresses this female anatomy
is very successful. Although maybe not helpful in a
cavalry battle; is it harder to breathe?
Two sources agree
<http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dernhelm>
<https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Dernhelm>
that Merry in Peter Jackson's film recognises Dernhelm
without asking his name. I wondered if Eowyn had to
think of an alias in a hurry, which is what I was looking
for there: both pages say that "Dernhelm" is Old English
meaning "hidden protector", so possibly quick thinking,
and something else that she could consider wearing...
I think the conceit applies that "Old English",
specifically so called, is the language that
Professor Tolkien borrowed to stand in for the
actual Rohirric speech.

Not merely that; it is specifically the Old Mercian dialect,
formerly spoken in what is now Oxfordshire. I remember reading
_LotR_ for the first time in graduate school, and noting that
the Rohirric vocabulary was recognizable, but not the same as the
Wessex dialect I was used to reading. Took me another couple of
decades to realize what it was.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been

able to find

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an

expensive

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.
1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.
2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!
Indeed, I have a vague memory that Merry addresses her as "My Lady"
just before she scoops him up onto the horse. This, if correct, would
support the theory that PJ never intended the audience to wonder who
the character giving Merry a ride was.
If it were /not/ PJ doing this, it might still be understandable as it
greatly shortens the scene by avoiding any introductions. Of course,
it is rediculous to think of PJ, the man whose films drag on and on
showing every little detail, of wanting to shorten any scene.

Post by Quadibloc
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck

Rogers TV show.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

Comparison of book and film for /The Hunger Games/ should make it
clear that the actress is too well developed there as well: she is
playing a 16-year-old raised in an environment of near-starvation. I
suspect Katniss would look more like the 14-year-olds of the 60s than
a 16-year-old of the same era.
I would like to assure everyone that I do /not/ spend my time, when
watching movies, obsessing about women's chest sizes. In 99% of the
films I see, this has no relation to the plot and so is generally
ignored. Consciously, at least.

I'm not an expert either but I gathered from other sources
that wearing something that compresses this female anatomy
is very successful. Although maybe not helpful in a
cavalry battle; is it harder to breathe?
Two sources agree
<http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dernhelm>
<https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Dernhelm>
that Merry in Peter Jackson's film recognises Dernhelm
without asking his name. I wondered if Eowyn had to
think of an alias in a hurry, which is what I was looking
for there: both pages say that "Dernhelm" is Old English
meaning "hidden protector", so possibly quick thinking,
and something else that she could consider wearing...
I think the conceit applies that "Old English",
specifically so called, is the language that
Professor Tolkien borrowed to stand in for the
actual Rohirric speech.

Not merely that; it is specifically the Old Mercian dialect,
formerly spoken in what is now Oxfordshire. I remember reading
_LotR_ for the first time in graduate school, and noting that
the Rohirric vocabulary was recognizable, but not the same as the
Wessex dialect I was used to reading. Took me another couple of
decades to realize what it was.

I think that would please him, but I could be misreading.

[William Hyde]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been

able to find

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an

expensive

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.
1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.
2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!
Indeed, I have a vague memory that Merry addresses her as "My Lady"
just before she scoops him up onto the horse. This, if correct, would
support the theory that PJ never intended the audience to wonder who
the character giving Merry a ride was.
If it were /not/ PJ doing this, it might still be understandable as it
greatly shortens the scene by avoiding any introductions. Of course,
it is rediculous to think of PJ, the man whose films drag on and on
showing every little detail, of wanting to shorten any scene.

Post by Quadibloc
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck

Rogers TV show.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

Comparison of book and film for /The Hunger Games/ should make it
clear that the actress is too well developed there as well: she is
playing a 16-year-old raised in an environment of near-starvation. I
suspect Katniss would look more like the 14-year-olds of the 60s than
a 16-year-old of the same era.
I would like to assure everyone that I do /not/ spend my time, when
watching movies, obsessing about women's chest sizes. In 99% of the
films I see, this has no relation to the plot and so is generally
ignored. Consciously, at least.

I'm not an expert either but I gathered from other sources
that wearing something that compresses this female anatomy
is very successful. Although maybe not helpful in a
cavalry battle; is it harder to breathe?
Two sources agree
<http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dernhelm>
<https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Dernhelm>
that Merry in Peter Jackson's film recognises Dernhelm
without asking his name. I wondered if Eowyn had to
think of an alias in a hurry, which is what I was looking
for there: both pages say that "Dernhelm" is Old English
meaning "hidden protector", so possibly quick thinking,
and something else that she could consider wearing...
I think the conceit applies that "Old English",
specifically so called, is the language that
Professor Tolkien borrowed to stand in for the
actual Rohirric speech.

Not merely that; it is specifically the Old Mercian dialect,
formerly spoken in what is now Oxfordshire.

Aside from the linguistic aspects, Mercia might have appealed to JRRT's sense of history and ancient lineage. Though the Wessex kingdom was old, as an entrant to the ranks of great powers in England it was a late arrival compared to Mercia.

Anyone betting on the candidate to unify England circa 800 would have bet on Mercia - until the viking invasions.

Penda, king of Mercia, regarded the Carolingians as newcomers, as his own royal ancestry went back to Denmark in the days when the western Roman empire was a power.

William Hyde

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been

able to find

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an

expensive

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.
1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.
2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!
Indeed, I have a vague memory that Merry addresses her as "My Lady"
just before she scoops him up onto the horse. This, if correct, would
support the theory that PJ never intended the audience to wonder who
the character giving Merry a ride was.
If it were /not/ PJ doing this, it might still be understandable as it
greatly shortens the scene by avoiding any introductions. Of course,
it is rediculous to think of PJ, the man whose films drag on and on
showing every little detail, of wanting to shorten any scene.

Post by Quadibloc
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category.

But only

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck

Rogers TV show.

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg

into this

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Quadibloc

Post by J. Clarke

Post by Quadibloc
category.)

Comparison of book and film for /The Hunger Games/ should make it
clear that the actress is too well developed there as well: she is
playing a 16-year-old raised in an environment of near-starvation. I
suspect Katniss would look more like the 14-year-olds of the 60s than
a 16-year-old of the same era.
I would like to assure everyone that I do /not/ spend my time, when
watching movies, obsessing about women's chest sizes. In 99% of the
films I see, this has no relation to the plot and so is generally
ignored. Consciously, at least.

I'm not an expert either but I gathered from other sources
that wearing something that compresses this female anatomy
is very successful. Although maybe not helpful in a
cavalry battle; is it harder to breathe?
Two sources agree
<http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dernhelm>
<https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Dernhelm>
that Merry in Peter Jackson's film recognises Dernhelm
without asking his name. I wondered if Eowyn had to
think of an alias in a hurry, which is what I was looking
for there: both pages say that "Dernhelm" is Old English
meaning "hidden protector", so possibly quick thinking,
and something else that she could consider wearing...
I think the conceit applies that "Old English",
specifically so called, is the language that
Professor Tolkien borrowed to stand in for the
actual Rohirric speech.

Not merely that; it is specifically the Old Mercian dialect,
formerly spoken in what is now Oxfordshire.

Aside from the linguistic aspects, Mercia might have appealed to JRRT's
sense of history and ancient lineage. Though the Wessex kingdom was
old, as an entrant to the ranks of great powers in England it was a late
arrival compared to Mercia.
Anyone betting on the candidate to unify England circa 800 would have
bet on Mercia - until the viking invasions.
Penda, king of Mercia, regarded the Carolingians as newcomers, as his
own royal ancestry went back to Denmark in the days when the western
Roman empire was a power.

Okay, now I have to quote myself. This is from "King Penda and
the Barrow-Wight."

"Penda am I, Pybba's son,
Creoda's son, Cynewold's son,
Cnebba's son, the same who was heir
to Icel the King who came over sea
to rule all Angles, Eomaer's son,
Angeltheow's son, Offa's son,
Waermund's son, Wihtlag's son,
Woden's son. Are you one of these?"

I got that genealogy out of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Note how
often father and son alliterate; I think this was deliberate.
How are you gonna get into the epics if the bards can't fit you
into an alliterative half-line? The _Beowulf_ poet had to make
do with

Beowulf mathelode, bearn Ecgtheowes,
"Beowulf spoke, child of Ecgtheow."

[Paul S Person]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:24:26 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:33:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
The problem is simple: the actress stuck out in front too much.

And of course, had that _not_ been the case, she wouldn't have been able to find
work in Hollywood, or at least be a bankable enough name for such an expensive
motion picture.

Further thought suggests that that is not entirely accurate anyway.
1. It is certainly possible that, had they tried, the Costume
Department could have produced a Rider of Rohan costume for her that
was padded everywhere else and looked firm enough to be convincing.
2. It is likely, given PJ's tendency to remove all of the tension,
mystery, or suspense that JRRT put into his story from the film, that
he never intended to try and fool the audience anyway. If it freed him
up to pick the best actress for the job, then this is a good thing,
because he certainly made a very good choice!
Indeed, I have a vague memory that Merry addresses her as "My Lady"
just before she scoops him up onto the horse. This, if correct, would
support the theory that PJ never intended the audience to wonder who
the character giving Merry a ride was.
If it were /not/ PJ doing this, it might still be understandable as it
greatly shortens the scene by avoiding any introductions. Of course,
it is rediculous to think of PJ, the man whose films drag on and on
showing every little detail, of wanting to shorten any scene.

Post by Quadibloc
I mean, if one researches hard enough, one _can_ find examples of female
actresses, even attractive female actresses, not in this category. But only
*one* comes to mind from recent years - Erin Gray, from the Buck Rogers TV show.
(Despite a British reviewer's opinion, I forbear to put Diana Rigg into this
category.)

Comparison of book and film for /The Hunger Games/ should make it
clear that the actress is too well developed there as well: she is
playing a 16-year-old raised in an environment of near-starvation. I
suspect Katniss would look more like the 14-year-olds of the 60s than
a 16-year-old of the same era.
I would like to assure everyone that I do /not/ spend my time, when
watching movies, obsessing about women's chest sizes. In 99% of the
films I see, this has no relation to the plot and so is generally
ignored. Consciously, at least.

I'm not an expert either but I gathered from other sources
that wearing something that compresses this female anatomy
is very successful. Although maybe not helpful in a
cavalry battle; is it harder to breathe?
Two sources agree
<http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dernhelm>
<https://lotr.fandom.com/wiki/Dernhelm>
that Merry in Peter Jackson's film recognises Dernhelm
without asking his name. I wondered if Eowyn had to
think of an alias in a hurry, which is what I was looking
for there: both pages say that "Dernhelm" is Old English
meaning "hidden protector", so possibly quick thinking,
and something else that she could consider wearing...
I think the conceit applies that "Old English",
specifically so called, is the language that
Professor Tolkien borrowed to stand in for the
actual Rohirric speech.

In the book, it is (IIRC) made clear that she has been riding on
patrol with that particular group of Riders for some time now. It was
not a spur-of-the-moment thing. And the name may not have been either.

[David Goldfarb]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
(I just googled "Pratchett
Discworld" and got a list ... forty-one of them, if I didn't lose
count. *How far* would I have to read before it got to something
I could enjoy?)

It isn't the sort of series where you have to take them all in order
or you're lost. You can pretty much dip in anywhere. I think you
would like _Wyrd Sisters_ or _Mort_ quite a bit.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

Well, what people were saying that the Discworld books got better
*several volumes into the series.* (I just googled "Pratchett
Discworld" and got a list ... forty-one of them, if I didn't lose
count. *How far* would I have to read before it got to something
I could enjoy?)

Sounds like getting a long-term disease: oh, it isn't that bad, once
you get used to it.

Imagine someone trying to convince you to /catch that disease/ with
that argument.

That's what those people were doing.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."

To my mind, these people are the same as drug addicts or alcoholics.
They are just pushing something other than drugs or alcohol (except
the beer boosters you refer to, who clearly /are/ pushing alcohol).

Well, here I disagree. I have met, once or twice, people who
were definitely pushing alcohol at me, with no good intent. But
they were doomed to failure, because I don't like the taste of
alcohol, it upsets my stomach, and I definitely do not want to
get (as one would-be pusher put it) "snokkered."
And beer is like coffee (which I don't drink either): they smell
nice, they taste awful.

I don't like the taste of alcohol or coffee either. When I was
stationed in Germany, I did find Weizen almost palatable, but I only
had one in the context of a platoon social function of some sort.

I found out a few years ago that I don't even like the /smell/ of
coffee. That dislike, however, I never act on, as it is clearly too
idiotic to pander to.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I'm sure any fervent religious fanatic were just as sure about their
beliefs -- that is, that if you tried them, you would love them too.

None of these people are trying to "corrupt" you, in their own mind.

But that doesn't make them any less fanatical.

My point is that fanaticism is annoying no matter what the fanatic is
going on about.

I will, however, grant you that, so far as we know, nobody ever
perpetrated a mass shooting because people didn't like, say, Modern
Opera as well as he or she thought they should.

But can be be sure that no olive-pusher ever stabbed a resisting
victim with a toothpick?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

Well, what people were saying that the Discworld books got better
*several volumes into the series.* (I just googled "Pratchett
Discworld" and got a list ... forty-one of them, if I didn't lose
count. *How far* would I have to read before it got to something
I could enjoy?)

Sounds like getting a long-term disease: oh, it isn't that bad, once
you get used to it.
Imagine someone trying to convince you to /catch that disease/ with
that argument.
That's what those people were doing.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."

To my mind, these people are the same as drug addicts or alcoholics.
They are just pushing something other than drugs or alcohol (except
the beer boosters you refer to, who clearly /are/ pushing alcohol).

Well, here I disagree. I have met, once or twice, people who
were definitely pushing alcohol at me, with no good intent. But
they were doomed to failure, because I don't like the taste of
alcohol, it upsets my stomach, and I definitely do not want to
get (as one would-be pusher put it) "snokkered."
And beer is like coffee (which I don't drink either): they smell
nice, they taste awful.

I don't like the taste of alcohol or coffee either. When I was
stationed in Germany, I did find Weizen almost palatable, but I only
had one in the context of a platoon social function of some sort.
I found out a few years ago that I don't even like the /smell/ of
coffee. That dislike, however, I never act on, as it is clearly too
idiotic to pander to.

Well, back in the lower Pleistocene, like about 1950, when very
occasionally we'd drive into San Francisco, as you approached the
City via the Bay Bridga, there was this Hills Brothers plant on
the waterfront and the smell of roasting coffee would scent the
air. It smelled lovely, a little like potting soil maybe.

And beer smells like incense; but it tastes like battery acid.

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
But people who push olives or football or even coffee are not
trying to corrupt me; they just can't understand why I don't like
something they love, and if I only tried the top-level version of
whateveritis, they're sure I would love it too.

I'm sure any fervent religious fanatic were just as sure about their
beliefs -- that is, that if you tried them, you would love them too.
None of these people are trying to "corrupt" you, in their own mind.
But that doesn't make them any less fanatical.
My point is that fanaticism is annoying no matter what the fanatic is
going on about.
I will, however, grant you that, so far as we know, nobody ever
perpetrated a mass shooting because people didn't like, say, Modern
Opera as well as he or she thought they should.

There was an assault the other day: an animal-rights fanatic
stabbed a total stranger who was wearing *fake*-fur boots.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50519899

Post by Paul S Person
But can be be sure that no olive-pusher ever stabbed a resisting
victim with a toothpick?

Oh, well....

https://theolivestuffer.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/olivador-or-olive-stuffer-flanders-swann-at-the-drop-of-another-hat/

[BCFD36]

[bunches of stuff deleted]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.

I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

[Kevrob]

Post by BCFD36
[bunches of stuff deleted]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.
I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

They were going to be on the test?

Kevin R

[BCFD36]

Post by Kevrob

Post by BCFD36
[bunches of stuff deleted]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.
I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

They were going to be on the test?
Kevin R

Yes, and we had to write a paper on both. I expressed how much I HATED
the snot nosed brat in Catcher In the Rye. Brother was not amused.

My Dad picked up my copy from school and read it. He threw it across the
room when he was done. He liked it less than I did. Brother was not
amused, again, even though I explained it wasn't me who damaged the
book, but my Dad.

I don't remember much about the Bridge at San Luis Rey except that I
didn't really care for it.

Now I have to dig out my yearbook and figure out what Brother's first
name was. I can see his face, but cant' attach a name to it. Stay tuned.

[Kevrob]

Post by BCFD36
Yes, and we had to write a paper on both. I expressed how much I HATED
the snot nosed brat in Catcher In the Rye. Brother was not amused.

A paper with the thesis, "Holden needs to grow up and stop whining,
already!" might have been fun to write. Meanwhile....

[quote]

The Bridge of San Luis Rey won the 1928 Pulitzer Prize for the Novel,
and remains widely acclaimed as Wilder's most famous work

[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_of_San_Luis_Rey

I can see how a teaching brother might have that on his syllabus.

Arguably, Wilder's play, "The Matchmaker/The Merchant of Yonkers",
adopted into the Broadway musical, "Hello, Dolly!" is more famous,
though Wilder didn't write the book for "Dolly."

Perhaps..."Our Town"?

Kevin R

[p***@hotmail.com]

Post by BCFD36
[bunches of stuff deleted]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.
I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

A Jeopardy question joke I read once:

Question: The speed of light, absolute zero, and page fifty of _Dhalgren_.

Answer: What are three points that no one will ever reach?

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist

[J. Clarke]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by BCFD36
[bunches of stuff deleted]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.
I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

Question: The speed of light, absolute zero, and page fifty of _Dhalgren_.
Answer: What are three points that no one will ever reach?

I forced myself through it hoping that it would reward the effort.
Same for Gravity's Rainbow. In each case it did not. Acid does not
appear to be the writer's friend. At least not _those_ writers.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:11:47 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by BCFD36
[bunches of stuff deleted]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.
I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

Question: The speed of light, absolute zero, and page fifty of _Dhalgren_.
Answer: What are three points that no one will ever reach?

I forced myself through it hoping that it would reward the effort.
Same for Gravity's Rainbow. In each case it did not. Acid does not
appear to be the writer's friend. At least not _those_ writers.

I /liked/ Gravity's Rainbow. Even when I had read it for the third
time.

In fact, I liked it so much I looked for other Pynchon works. After
finding that something called (IIRC) /The Crying of Vat 49/ was only
available in hardcopy, was quite thin, and also quite expensive, I
/did/ find /Vineland/, but that seemed ... ordinary.

I never even attempted /Catcher in the Rye/. I have an aversion to
things that people gush over, and there was a lot of gushing going on.
/Sound of Music/ is in the same category -- I still haven't decided
which possibility is worse: that the actual best movie of its year was
something not even considered -- or the /SoM/ /was/ the best movie of
its year (must have been a truly depressing year, in that case).

I remember the title of /The Bridge of San Luis Rey/ but I may be
remembering the movie rather than the book.

The ones I never finished were:

/Something Happened/, which was unutterably boring for as far as I got

/Killer Angels/, which was tolerable and which I though I would
finish, but, when I "accidentally" left it behind I neither searched
for nor bought another copy, but moved on to the next book in the
pile.

A science fiction novel based on an award-winning novella about space
aliens from infraspace (or whatever) who looked like insects and
landed in Germany in the Middle Ages. The novella, scattered
throughout the novel, I eventually read and I can see why it got the
award, but the historical sections were dull as dirt. They should have
had Eco (/The Name of the Rose/, /Umbertino/) write those, at least he
knows how.

I also read /Terra Nostra/ and enjoyed it, several times. But I don't
think I made any attempt to find other works by the same author.

[Peter Trei]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:11:47 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by BCFD36
[bunches of stuff deleted]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"

That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.
I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

Question: The speed of light, absolute zero, and page fifty of _Dhalgren_.
Answer: What are three points that no one will ever reach?

I forced myself through it hoping that it would reward the effort.
Same for Gravity's Rainbow. In each case it did not. Acid does not
appear to be the writer's friend. At least not _those_ writers.

I /liked/ Gravity's Rainbow. Even when I had read it for the third
time.
In fact, I liked it so much I looked for other Pynchon works. After
finding that something called (IIRC) /The Crying of Vat 49/ was only
available in hardcopy, was quite thin, and also quite expensive, I
/did/ find /Vineland/, but that seemed ... ordinary.

The Crying of Lot 49. Probably his most approachable novel, and as you note,
quite short.

It introduced me to the conspiracy/hidden history genre, and made quite an
impression on me as a teenager.

pt

[Chris Buckley]

Post by p***@hotmail.com

Post by BCFD36

Post by Paul S Person
That attitude is the reason I watch movies and read novels to the end
even if they don't look promising: so I /can't/ be told it gets
better, because I /know/ it doesn't. Note: that is not strictly true
with novels, but the exceptions are very very rare.

I didn't finish Dhalgren (or however it is spelled). Just couldn't.
I didn't WANT to finish Catcher In the Rye or The Bridge at San Luis
Rey, but Brother made me.

Question: The speed of light, absolute zero, and page fifty of _Dhalgren_.
Answer: What are three points that no one will ever reach?

Yes. I have never understood the attraction of _Dhalgren_, despite
slogging my way through it 2 or 3 times.

But apparently, there something attractive there. 45 years ago,
Frederick Pohl was a guest of my undergrad science fiction club, and
he just raved about an upcoming book, _Dhalgren_, that he was the
publisher editor for. He said it was the best thing out in years.
And indeed, it sold over a million copies.

I really like early Delany; _Babel 17_ and _Nova_ are in my
"favorites" bookcase. But _Dhalgren_ has no chance of making it there!

Chris

[Leif Roar Moldskred]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Thank you. I'm relieved.
I don't generally read Pratchett; somebody inSISted I start the
first Discworld book, and I got about a third of the way through
and gave up.
And then they said, "Oh, but it gets better, KEEP READING! There
are [N] volumes!"
This is a little bit like people who tell me, when I say I don't
like olives, or beer, or football, "Oh, but you just haven't had
any GOOD olives/beer/football."

I'm not a huge Pratchett fan -- I like his books quite a lot but there's
still several of them I haven't gotten around to read yet -- but even so
I feel I have to point out that "The Colour of Magic" isn't very
representative of Pratchett's works.

It's not that his later books get better (although they do,) but in "The
Colour of Magic" he still hasn't found his voice -- it's quite different
in style and tone from the rest of his Discworld books and the "Pratchett
quirkiness" hasn't bloomed yet.

I'd say read "Good Omens." If you enjoy that well enough, it might be
worthwhile to give his Discworld books a second chance. I'm not sure
about his second book, "The Light Fantastic," but at least by the third
book, "Equal Rites", he has settled into his distinctive style and his
books are unmistakably Pratchett.

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The only Pratchett I own is _The Unadulterated Cat_, which I like
a lot.

It's one of the ones I haven't gotten around to read yet, but "The Amazing
Maurice and His Educated Rodents" might be your cup of tea; it features
a sentient cat and a group of talking rats and is a taken on the Pied
Piper of Hamelin.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Post by Leif Roar Moldskred
I'd say read "Good Omens."

I plan to. I already have the script for the series (with
notations on what bits of the script got filmed but were left on
the metaphorical cutting-room floor, and which other bits didn't
get filmed at all).

Post by Leif Roar Moldskred

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
The only Pratchett I own is _The Unadulterated Cat_, which I like
a lot.

It's one of the ones I haven't gotten around to read yet, but "The Amazing
Maurice and His Educated Rodents" might be your cup of tea; it features
a sentient cat and a group of talking rats and is a take on the Pied
Piper of Hamelin.

So it might.

It all depends on how well DunDraCon does next year and whether I
have any book money to spend.

[f***@gmail.com]

Greetings all,

My advice to anyone who hasn't given Pratchett a second chance is to try his later books.

Personally the first couple of Pratchett's were a little weak, but as he took himself and his writing less seriously he definitely got into a stride. I only really started reading them at "Guards! Guards".

The one-offs (as books opposed to parts of series related to specific characters) are (IMHO) some of his best. Maurice and his Educated Rodents, Dodger and Nation are definitely worth a read.

The Long Earth series started good but I'm still debating with myself about the quality and direction of the later books. And of cause the Long Earth was co-authored.

I've never read the Truckers (is that what it was called? The series about the little gnomes that started out living and hiding in a department store). The Johnny series (Johnny and the Bomb, Johnny and the Dead, etc) was not his best, but it sure as hell is a lot better than some of the junk being turned into movies these days.

Anyway, YMMV,

REgards
Frank

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by f***@gmail.com
Greetings all,
My advice to anyone who hasn't given Pratchett a second chance is to try his later books.
Personally the first couple of Pratchett's were a little weak, but as he took himself and his writing less seriously he definitely got into a stride. I only really started reading them at "Guards! Guards".
The one-offs (as books opposed to parts of series related to specific characters) are (IMHO) some of his best. Maurice and his Educated Rodents, Dodger and Nation are definitely worth a read.
The Long Earth series started good but I'm still debating with myself about the quality and direction of the later books. And of cause the Long Earth was co-authored.
I've never read the Truckers (is that what it was called? The series about the little gnomes that started out living and hiding in a department store). The Johnny series (Johnny and the Bomb, Johnny and the Dead, etc) was not his best, but it sure as hell is a lot better than some of the junk being turned into movies these days.

With Truckers and with Johnny, the reader being British
is a plus point. Truckers also treats religion
unfavourably, inasmuch as all the beliefs of the
nomes in superior caring and prohibitive beings are
misinterpretations; this may bother some readers.

[James Nicoll]

Post by f***@gmail.com
The Long Earth series started good but I'm still debating with myself about the quality and
direction of the later books. And of cause the Long Earth was co-authored.

I'd call the Long Earth series Pratchett's only dismal works, for which I blame his co-writer,
Baxter.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by f***@gmail.com
The Long Earth series started good but I'm still debating with myself about the quality and
direction of the later books. And of cause the Long Earth was co-authored.

I'd call the Long Earth series Pratchett's only dismal works, for which I blame his co-writer,
Baxter.

You seem to blame Baxter for a lot of things.

Not that that blame is without some justification.

I have yet to slog my way into "The Long Earth" series and I plan to
keep it that way.

Lynn

[m***@sky.com]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by f***@gmail.com
The Long Earth series started good but I'm still debating with myself about the quality and
direction of the later books. And of cause the Long Earth was co-authored.

I'd call the Long Earth series Pratchett's only dismal works, for which I blame his co-writer,
Baxter.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

I read the first of the Long Earth series. I wouldn't say it was dismal, but I did find it disappointing, and I didn't investigate others. I think the idea of traveling to parallel Earths is less obviously implausible than FTL (since it doesn't immediately raise problems about relativity and causality), but I don't see it used that much.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by f***@gmail.com
I only really started reading them at "Guards! Guards".

My first Pratchett was "Guards! Guards", and it was a very good entry
point. I particularly liked the comment that cliche's get to be
cliche's because they are the best way to convey certain meanings. I
believe that the cliche under discussion was --- something similar to
"Help! Help! Help!"

Been a long time.

[Titus G]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by f***@gmail.com
I only really started reading them at "Guards! Guards".

My first Pratchett was "Guards! Guards", and it was a very good entry
point.

I read and enjoyed it after it was claimed here to be one of his best so
would recommend it too.

I particularly liked the comment that cliche's get to be

Post by Joy Beeson
cliche's because they are the best way to convey certain meanings. I
believe that the cliche under discussion was --- something similar to
"Help! Help! Help!"
Been a long time.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Dorothy J Heydt
In his fiction, or in his RL? And do I want to know the answer
to that question?

Fiction.

I've forgotten which book, but there was one on which a naive young
seamstress came into Ankh Morpork -- let us call her Nadine, because
I've forgotten her name -- and was taken in by a brothel. Later on
there was a scene in which a very embarrassed widower appeared at the
brothel; the doorkeeper eventually extracted from him that his
"certain needs" were a basket of socks with holes in them and yelled
"Nadine! This one's for you!"

[Jack Bohn]

Post by m***@sky.com
Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and
how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a
major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things
are released slowly and the effects of the first models studied
doesn't seem too unreasonable.

Every sexbot released will be required to have two observers. One to monitor the operation of the program and equipment, and one to take over for it if anything goes wrong.

[J. Clarke]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about sexbots, and
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be banned. The
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house for himself without descending into squalor.
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses - and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the euphemistically named ones.

That's actually plausible--the mainseamer in the Pioneer Parachute
factory in Columbia Mississippi made more than any of the company's
engineers in Hartford, CT.

[Paul S Person]

Post by m***@sky.com

Post by Peter Trei

Post by Kevrob

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Maybe if they are underage? "Contributing to the delinquency of
a minor?" "Recklessly causing harm to a child's health or welfare?"
"Providing a teenage horndog a harmless form of release" is probably
not going to fly as a defense, at least with the bluenoses.
Nobody gets pregnant. Nobody gets a dose of anything. I would have
been mortified if anyone suggested I use one, and so perhaps "homicide
by absolute embarrassment?" :)

Every now and then, I see some pundit or politician learn about sexbots, and
weigh in on the issue, usually to the effect that they should be banned. The
reasons why are never that clear, beyond 'that's icky'.
Futurama's take: http://youtu.be/wJ6knaienVE
pt

Depending on how realistic you think the sexbots are going to be, and how cynical you are about human relationships, this could amount to a major change to the structure of society. Ensuring that these things are released slowly and the effects of the first models studied doesn't seem too unreasonable. Of course you could argue that the real threat to the structure of society was sufficient labour saving in cooking and housekeeping that a single man could both hold down a job and keep house for himself without descending into squalor.

I haven't looked for one, but there appear to be maid services that
can prevent the descent into squalor. For a fee, of course.

Post by m***@sky.com
ObSF for alternate uses - Terry Pratchett had so-called seamstresses - and also a real seamstress who sometimes earned more than the euphemistically named ones.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Live or a robot ?

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:20:57 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Live or a robot ?

A sex toy is an inanimate object.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:20:57 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Live or a robot ?

A sex toy is an inanimate object.

Not in some of the books that I read.

Lynn

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:20:57 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:42:27 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 18:47:52 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
Saw a news article that mentioned, among a discussion of robot
brothels, that sexbots can cost up to $30,000. So I got to wondering
what a $30,000 sexbot was like. Turns out it's kind of like a $3000
sexbot except it tries to converse, has some animatronics to try to
sell that it is conversing (note, the app it uses is available for $30
a year--I might actually check that out and see if it is as boring as
I expect), and to get the price up to 30K it has some appearance
customization (by "customization" I mean various features adjusted to
match a photo or drawing, not just select from a menu). The most I
could run it up to without that kind of customization was around $12K.
Anway, it occurs to me that if we ever have functioning android
robots, they may come out of the sex industry, which struck me as a
rather unexpected direction.

Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.
And force the vice squad to focus on the pimps/brothel owners.

But is it a crime to rent somebody a sex toy?

Live or a robot ?

A sex toy is an inanimate object.

Not in some of the books that I read.

Tribbles aren't meant for... never mind.
(I run a successful mail-order brain bleach business. :-)

Otherwise... you can rent someone a hotel room...
with a bed... and what happens there is usually
no one else's concern. You can even put in a
television and sell sexy movies. (Or put in a
camera and make some. :-) Presumably, consumer
protection regulation would be involved at some
point if the resources provided get more specific.
And the fun police, too.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Paul S Person
Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.

It would be nice if it had that result. However, sexual slavery is most common in
third-world countries like Thailand and India, and such robots would be rather
expensive for that part of the world.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:09:52 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.

It would be nice if it had that result. However, sexual slavery is most common in
third-world countries like Thailand and India, and such robots would be rather
expensive for that part of the world.

Why would they be "rather expensive"? You're making a lot of
assumptions that may not be true.

[Peter Trei]

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 23:09:52 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Paul S Person
Well, I suppose that's one way to end the sex-slave trade.

It would be nice if it had that result. However, sexual slavery is most common in
third-world countries like Thailand and India, and such robots would be rather
expensive for that part of the world.

Why would they be "rather expensive"? You're making a lot of
assumptions that may not be true.

Googling around (for my friend J.C. :-) I find that the top of the line
'RealDoll' runs $4000-$6000, and it can't even vacuum the floor.

pt

[Quadibloc]

Post by Peter Trei
Googling around (for my friend J.C. :-) I find that the top of the line
'RealDoll' runs $4000-$6000, and it can't even vacuum the floor.

Of course, in the future, after the early adopters are taken care of, perhaps
prices will come down because they're made in China. Of course, there may be
problems; given concerns about Huawei in 5G networks, surely there are people in
Washington who remember Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:37:36 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Peter Trei
Googling around (for my friend J.C. :-) I find that the top of the line
'RealDoll' runs $4000-$6000, and it can't even vacuum the floor.

Of course, in the future, after the early adopters are taken care of, perhaps
prices will come down because they're made in China. Of course, there may be
problems; given concerns about Huawei in 5G networks, surely there are people in
Washington who remember Dr. Goldfoot and the Bikini Machine.

Judging from Amazon reviews of video convertors made in China, they
won't work very well. You get what you pay for.

And the sequel, /Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs/.

I really liked those films when they came out. Sometime in the 60s,
IIRC.

I caught part of one of them on TV back in the 80s or 90s and was I
ever disappointed. Tastes change, apparently.