Jump to content

A Thread for Random Musings


Old Man

Recommended Posts

I had a middle-school aged kid call me a "dirty Jew" at the pharmacy this week -- totally out of the blue.

 

I suspect it was the kippa and tzitzit that gave me away.

 

Anyhow, his aunt - who looked absolutely mortified - tore into him in a rapid-fire, napalm-hot Spanish.

 

I told him, "Young man, if you want to play the dozens you're going to have to up your game."

 

He had no idea what the dozens were.

 

I did not say, "your mother mistook you for afterbirth and left you for the strays."

 

When the aunt apologized to me I bows and said, "Madame, you appear to have things well in hand."

 

Which she did. Literally. Ear cartilage really bends between the fingers.

 

When she made him apologize, I told him: "Being a minority does not render you immune to bigotry and racist hatred."

 

He looked shocked.

 

In truth, when he said it, I almost laughed. And, I almost felt for the little bastard -- it was clear he'd get worse at home.

 

I am proud to be a Jew, and like most committed Jews I have a Jesuitical obsession with cleanliness.

 

Or, should I say Mosaic?

 

Well, there's one for the books -- welcome to the inner city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Marketing Idiots at College Textbook Rip-Off Conglomerate,

 

Sending me spam with the subject "Why haven't you subscribed to [our marketing spam textbook sales-cheerleading flyer]" is powerful evidence confirming my beliefs that (1) you are, in fact, idiots, (2) deleting-without-reading the spam I got from you initially announcing said marketing spam flyer was, in fact, the correct action, and (3) I really ought to get around to reading up on how the spam filter at my institution is supposed to work so that I might be able to set it so I wouldn't see quite so much crap from you.

 

Oh, and (4), I really ought to apply evolutionary pressures on marketing idiots, which in my case would be structuring my classes so that those who admit they aspire to join your ranks as another microcephalic parasite by having a declared major in marketing get mown down like the first four German battalions at the Battle of Mons, a reference you are certain to be unable to understand, which is part of the point.

 

Cheers,

Cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every so often I get that fanciful question: "If you could live in any time period, which would it be?"

 

There seems to be some romantic notion that things were somehow better before.

 

I have, as I've grown older, started to think such people are mad.

 

We may like the fashions of a particular time, but really - living in the past?

 

I like hot-cold running water, electrical do-dads, modern medicine, instant communication, internet shopping....

 

And dozens of restaurants and movie theaters and shopping malls and global shipping.

 

Without modern medicine alone, I would already be dead. At 41. No ands, ifs, or buts about it.

 

My mother would have been dead years ago.

 

Indeed, I am typing this post via the free wireless on the rapid ride on my commute home.

 

No, thank you, I do not desire to live in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Wikipedia Talk Page for Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure:

 

hat the English king at whose court Bill and Ted meet the princesses is Henry VII is not OR, but supported by the two Bill & Ted movies. In Excellent Adventure, the monarch is named as 'King Henry'. In Bogus Journey, the princesses celebrate their 521st birthday. As they are physically in their early 20s, they have therefore travelled forward 500 years. The date of Excellent Adventure is given in the movie as 1988. Therefore the monarch can only have been Henry VII (1485-1509). Henry VI's brief readeption in 1470-71 is too far back for it to be him. Jess Cully 19:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That this was one of the King Henry's is supported by the movies and is not original research. However, doing the even the simple and obvious calculations that you have done does seem to be original research. I certainly won't have a problem with you putting this type of information in the article because I like this type of information, but there are many others who will remove it. When you put it in, be very careful in how you word it so that you give the factual information and let the readers draw their own conclusions, which should be obvious from the information that you've given above. Good luck. — Val42 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC) I also like this information, but since it wasn't explicitly stated in the movie, I believe the way you arrived at the conclusion is a form of synthesis described in the original research policy. I'm not going to remove your edit, but I think having it backed up by a citation is important. --GargoyleMT 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Can't find a citation, so I'll reword. Jess Cully 19:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC) Excellent analysis. But unless my research is lacking, there is a problem: Henry VII was born in 1457, and none of his 8 children and one illegitimate child were named either Joanna or Elizabeth. Who knows if he had more illegitimate children? But the fact that he was born in 1457 makes it impossible for both girls to have been born around 1469-70. He would have been a father at 12 or 13! Could Henry VII have fathered illegitimate children at this young an age? It's a possibility, but I doubt it. His only known illegitimate child on record (according to Wiki) was a son in 1474, while he was 16 or 17. That leaves only one probable explanation for the existence of these two girls, and it can be explained by the hostile disposition of the fictional Henry VII, and his insistence upon forcing those two girls into marriage to two older men: Most likely, they were either stepchildren or the equivalent of adopted children. That may explain why he was so anxious to marry these 2 girls off. If he did father these 2 girls at 13, that would perhaps make a bigger case. It is only by these scenarios that the fictional tale can be applied. But then again, if both girls were 17 or 18 in that scene when Bill and Ted arrived, then Henry VII had to be 31. The actor who played Henry VII in this movie (John Karlsen) looked to be in his late-50s or early-60s. Henry VI died at 49, and Henry VII died at 52. That brings me to another problem, which actually makes it easier for the inclusion of these fictional princesses: John Karlsen is actually listed in the credits as the "Evil Duke". My knowledge of the English monarchy isn't that sharp, but what's a duke doing with a crown? If this duke was actually a brother or cousin, or even an uncle, of Henry VII, that would certainly make sense for him to have 2 daughters he's trying to get off his hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added byCookyMonzta (talk • contribs) Or they could be daughters of Edward IV. Henry VII liked to boost his dynasty's claim to royal blood by emphasising the royal descent of his wife - a daughter of Edward IV. So he'd have been happy to have her sisters at his court and acknowledge them as princesses. Jess Cully (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Henry VII mention from the article, because it had no citation. Honestly, I really doubt the filmmakers had a particular ruler in mind (although I wish they had). Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was but a youth, I decided to become a cultured and sophisticated gentleman. I found I had a genuine appreciation for classical music and fine art. I studied hard and learned many of the classics. I abstained from alcohol for many years, as drinking and smoking were against my principles. I still don't smoke, but I've learned to appreciate good wine. 

 

Then I realized what I've become. Good God, I'm Frasier Crane! :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define kickass irony. My wife and I watch Mythbusters and CSI (MB on Netflix and CSI on DVD). We just watched the episode of MB where Adam and Jamie did the pepper-spray and taser myth from the CSI episode "Theory of Everything" (which is the one Adam and Jamie did a cameo on) and that was the next episode of CSI we were set to watch.

 

So of course we had to put CSI in and watch that episode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...