Discussion:
Forensic Comparison in the White House
Add Reply
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 05:37:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.

Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.

I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 11:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:37:22 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>
> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

The White House has "staffers" trained in literary criticism and philological
source criticism? Seems unlikely.

I like the hypothesis that it was a joint effort by several individuals
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 14:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 04:28:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:37:22 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
>> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
>> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
>> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>>
>> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
>> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
>> determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
>> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
>> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>>
>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
>The White House has "staffers" trained in literary criticism and philological
>source criticism? Seems unlikely.

What makes you think that there would be any consideration given to
the training and qualifications of anyone assigned to this project?
Trump is not known for appointing people to positions that they are
qualified to hold.

Look at the Cabinet. Start with Betsy DeVos.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Yates
2018-09-06 12:45:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 01:37:19 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
>for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
>an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
>to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>
>Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
>is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
>determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
>used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
>graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
>I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

One caution, though: Washington insiders say that it is a well-known
tactic of leakers to insert words that are favored by others to throw
off such investigations.

I think the writer will have to announce themself before long.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-06 13:53:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:

>
> [ ... ]

>
> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
sufficiently skilled
at analysing style?


--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-06 13:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 15:53:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> said:

> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
>
>>
>> [ ... ]
>
>>
>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> sufficiently skilled
> at analysing style?

PTD preplagiarized me, I see.


--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 15:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 9:55:20 AM UTC-4, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2018-09-06 15:53:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> said:
> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:

> >> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >
> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> > sufficiently skilled
> > at analysing style?
>
> PTD preplagiarized me, I see.

Think nothing of it: common knowledge (that philology is unknown to the
gen.pub., let alone politicians).
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 14:39:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:53:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
>
>>
>> [ ... ]
>
>>
>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
>You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>sufficiently skilled
>at analysing style?

I'm not assuming that the White House staffers are as dumb as Trump. I
think some of them are capable of reading an entire report, can follow
- with only minor difficulty - material written at the 7th grade
level, and know that Frederick Douglass is not still among the living.

And, Woodward's book claims that some members of the staff remove
documents from Trump's desk to prevent Trump from reacting in some
dangerous-to-the-country way. There is some form of intelligence
there.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-06 16:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 10:39:42 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:53:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>
>>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>>
>>You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>>sufficiently skilled
>>at analysing style?
>
>I'm not assuming that the White House staffers are as dumb as Trump. I
>think some of them are capable of reading an entire report, can follow
>- with only minor difficulty - material written at the 7th grade
>level, and know that Frederick Douglass is not still among the living.
>
>And, Woodward's book claims that some members of the staff remove
>documents from Trump's desk to prevent Trump from reacting in some
>dangerous-to-the-country way. There is some form of intelligence
>there.

Republicans don't care about the truth or the reality of the
revelations. They are too busy circling the wagons around charges of
"fake news" and "treason".

Anybody who has studied the events of the past two years realizes what
is happening in the White House. America elected a man who insulted
others better than anybody else, who displayed no integrity, and who
revealed very little knowledge about public policy and the workings of
government.

Possibly, they voted for "like mindedness".
Sam Plusnet
2018-09-06 18:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06-Sep-18 15:39, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:53:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>
>>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>>
>> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>> sufficiently skilled
>> at analysing style?
>
> I'm not assuming that the White House staffers are as dumb as Trump. I
> think some of them are capable of reading an entire report, can follow
> - with only minor difficulty - material written at the 7th grade
> level, and know that Frederick Douglass is not still among the living.
>
> And, Woodward's book claims that some members of the staff remove
> documents from Trump's desk to prevent Trump from reacting in some
> dangerous-to-the-country way. There is some form of intelligence
> there.
>
Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?

--
Sam Plusnet
Garrett Wollman
2018-09-06 20:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:

>Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
>Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?

There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order, and
civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
in the entire structure of the United States government who can
countermand the order, by design.

The people who came up with this idea understood that nuclear weapons
were fundamentally a political weapon, not a military one. However,
they were expecting the "button" to be in the hands of an Eisenhower
or a Kennedy or a Bush -- they never expected that the United States
would elect someone so manifestly incompetent and unreliable as Trump.

On the plus side, most of the nukes are currently targeted at Trump's
dear friend Putin, and retargeting them is something that would
require input from the military establishment. I think they'd be
somewhat hesitant to target Ottawa or Paris.

-GAWollman

--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-06 21:25:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 20:33:37 +0000 (UTC), ***@bimajority.org (Garrett
Wollman) wrote:

>In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
>Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
>>Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?
>
>There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
>aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order, and
>civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
>in the entire structure of the United States government who can
>countermand the order, by design.

I've just read an article which includes:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentary/commentary-can-congress-stop-a-president-waging-nuclear-war-idUSKBN1DU2HW

November 30, 2017
Commentary: Can Congress stop a president waging nuclear war?
John Mecklin
....
When the United States is not under (or at imminent threat of)
nuclear attack, the nuclear command and control system already
contains some restraints on presidential authority, including
military commanders trained to make sure that a nuclear launch order
is legal.
....
>
>The people who came up with this idea understood that nuclear weapons
>were fundamentally a political weapon, not a military one. However,
>they were expecting the "button" to be in the hands of an Eisenhower
>or a Kennedy or a Bush -- they never expected that the United States
>would elect someone so manifestly incompetent and unreliable as Trump.
>
>On the plus side, most of the nukes are currently targeted at Trump's
>dear friend Putin, and retargeting them is something that would
>require input from the military establishment. I think they'd be
>somewhat hesitant to target Ottawa or Paris.
>
>-GAWollman

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sam Plusnet
2018-09-06 21:56:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06-Sep-18 22:25, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 20:33:37 +0000 (UTC), ***@bimajority.org (Garrett
> Wollman) wrote:
>
>> In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
>> Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
>>> Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?
>>
>> There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
>> aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order, and
>> civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
>> in the entire structure of the United States government who can
>> countermand the order, by design.
>
> I've just read an article which includes:
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentary/commentary-can-congress-stop-a-president-waging-nuclear-war-idUSKBN1DU2HW
>
> November 30, 2017
> Commentary: Can Congress stop a president waging nuclear war?
> John Mecklin
> ....
> When the United States is not under (or at imminent threat of)
> nuclear attack, the nuclear command and control system already
> contains some restraints on presidential authority, including
> military commanders trained to make sure that a nuclear launch order
> is legal.
> ....

Ah. So Congress will act and prevent Trump doing anything dangerous.

Nothing to worry about then.


--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 00:47:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 22:25:42 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 20:33:37 +0000 (UTC), ***@bimajority.org (Garrett
>Wollman) wrote:
>
>>In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
>>Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
>>>Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?
>>
>>There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
>>aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order, and
>>civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
>>in the entire structure of the United States government who can
>>countermand the order, by design.
>
>I've just read an article which includes:
>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mecklin-nuclear-commentary/commentary-can-congress-stop-a-president-waging-nuclear-war-idUSKBN1DU2HW
>
> November 30, 2017
> Commentary: Can Congress stop a president waging nuclear war?
> John Mecklin
> ....
> When the United States is not under (or at imminent threat of)
> nuclear attack, the nuclear command and control system already
> contains some restraints on presidential authority, including
> military commanders trained to make sure that a nuclear launch order
> is legal.
> ....
>>
Trump is now aiming the missiles at 620 Eighth Avenue, New York, New
York 10018. They have been redirected from their previous target zone
at 1 CNN Center, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-06 21:26:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 20:33:37 +0000 (UTC), ***@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
>Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
>
>>Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
>>Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?
>
>There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
>aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order, and
>civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
>in the entire structure of the United States government who can
>countermand the order, by design.

Not quite. James Schlesinger, who served as Secretary of Defense
under President Nixon, instructed his generals that any orders
involving the mobilization of the military ordered by Nixon during his
final days in office had to be countersigned by him.

>The people who came up with this idea understood that nuclear weapons
>were fundamentally a political weapon, not a military one. However,
>they were expecting the "button" to be in the hands of an Eisenhower
>or a Kennedy or a Bush -- they never expected that the United States
>would elect someone so manifestly incompetent and unreliable as Trump.
>
>On the plus side, most of the nukes are currently targeted at Trump's
>dear friend Putin, and retargeting them is something that would
>require input from the military establishment. I think they'd be
>somewhat hesitant to target Ottawa or Paris.
>
>-GAWollman
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-06 22:23:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 2:33:40 PM UTC-6, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
> Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
> >Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?
>
> There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
> aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order,

Or says, "Sir, I think this needs more discussion. Let's get the
Vice President and the Cabinet in on this." Maybe with some significant
looks at people who might have some possibly indirect way to get in
touch with the VP and the Cabinet secretaries.

> and
> civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
> in the entire structure of the United States government who can
> countermand the order, by design.

But there are people who can disobey it.

> The people who came up with this idea understood that nuclear weapons
> were fundamentally a political weapon, not a military one. However,
> they were expecting the "button" to be in the hands of an Eisenhower
> or a Kennedy or a Bush -- they never expected that the United States
> would elect someone so manifestly incompetent and unreliable as Trump.

Can't argue with that.

> On the plus side, most of the nukes are currently targeted at Trump's
> dear friend Putin, and retargeting them is something that would
> require input from the military establishment. I think they'd be
> somewhat hesitant to target Ottawa or Paris.

Or that.

--
Jerry Friedman
LFS
2018-09-07 05:34:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 21:33, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
> Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
>
>> Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
>> Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?
>
> There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
> aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order, and
> civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
> in the entire structure of the United States government who can
> countermand the order, by design
>
> The people who came up with this idea understood that nuclear weapons
> were fundamentally a political weapon, not a military one. However,
> they were expecting the "button" to be in the hands of an Eisenhower
> or a Kennedy or a Bush -- they never expected that the United States
> would elect someone so manifestly incompetent and unreliable as Trump.
>
> On the plus side, most of the nukes are currently targeted at Trump's
> dear friend Putin, and retargeting them is something that would
> require input from the military establishment. I think they'd be
> somewhat hesitant to target Ottawa or Paris.
>

Has "To Kill the President" been published in the US yet? This scenario
is central to the plot. It's written by a leading UK journalist,
Jonathan Freedland, under his nom de plume Sam Bourne. (He's written
several thrillers under this name.) It appeared here last summer and I
sent a copy to my friend in Chicago. She found that if she read it in
public it lead to interesting conversations.


--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Mark Brader
2018-09-07 06:39:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Laura Spira:
> Has "To Kill the President" been published in the US yet? This scenario
> is central to the plot. It's written by a leading UK journalist,
> Jonathan Freedland, under his nom de plume Sam Bourne...

Don't know. When this was published in the New York Times it hadn't been:

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/books/donald-trump-thriller-fiction-or-nonfiction.html

I've read the book; its title in Canada is "The Plot Against the President".
--
Mark Brader "I can say nothing at this point."
Toronto "Well, you were wrong."
***@vex.net -- Monty Python's Flying Circus
RHDraney
2018-09-07 10:38:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/6/2018 10:34 PM, LFS wrote:
>
> Has "To Kill the President" been published in the US yet? This scenario
> is central to the plot. It's written by a leading UK journalist,
> Jonathan Freedland, under his nom de plume Sam Bourne. (He's written
> several thrillers under this name.) It appeared here last summer and I
> sent a copy to my friend in Chicago. She found that if she read it in
> public it lead to interesting conversations.

I'll have to pick up a copy to take with me the next time I'm called for
jury duty....r
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 14:11:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:34:12 AM UTC-4, LFS wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 21:33, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > In article <***@brightview.co.uk>,
> > Sam Plusnet <***@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?
> >> Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?
> >
> > There never were any guardrails. The president tells his military
> > aide to transmit the order, the aide transmits the order, and
> > civilization comes to an end seven minutes later. There is no person
> > in the entire structure of the United States government who can
> > countermand the order, by design
> >
> > The people who came up with this idea understood that nuclear weapons
> > were fundamentally a political weapon, not a military one. However,
> > they were expecting the "button" to be in the hands of an Eisenhower
> > or a Kennedy or a Bush -- they never expected that the United States
> > would elect someone so manifestly incompetent and unreliable as Trump.
> >
> > On the plus side, most of the nukes are currently targeted at Trump's
> > dear friend Putin, and retargeting them is something that would
> > require input from the military establishment. I think they'd be
> > somewhat hesitant to target Ottawa or Paris.
> >
>
> Has "To Kill the President" been published in the US yet? This scenario
> is central to the plot. It's written by a leading UK journalist,
> Jonathan Freedland, under his nom de plume Sam Bourne. (He's written
> several thrillers under this name.) It appeared here last summer and I
> sent a copy to my friend in Chicago. She found that if she read it in
> public it lead to interesting conversations.

*The President Is Missing* "by" Bill Clinton and James Patterson was
published this summer and went over like a lead balloon. It was discounted
50% the very week it appeared (so I went ahead and bought one), and the
first few little chapters aren't compelling. When they were on Colbert,
Patterson said just about nothing (Colbert basically ignored him), and
anyway we know that all those novels "by" Patterson are created in a
boiler-room sort of place, the way the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew used to
be. (Clinton's contribution was apparently to provide realistic detail
about White House life and security arrangements.)
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-06 22:19:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 12:06:27 PM UTC-6, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 06-Sep-18 15:39, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 15:53:41 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >>
> >> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> >> sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
> >
> > I'm not assuming that the White House staffers are as dumb as Trump. I
> > think some of them are capable of reading an entire report, can follow
> > - with only minor difficulty - material written at the 7th grade
> > level, and know that Frederick Douglass is not still among the living.
> >
> > And, Woodward's book claims that some members of the staff remove
> > documents from Trump's desk to prevent Trump from reacting in some
> > dangerous-to-the-country way. There is some form of intelligence
> > there.
> >
> Does Mr Woodward's book make their efforts more difficult now?

One might ask the same question about the NYT essay that's the subject
of this thread.

> Has he removed the guardrails from armageddon?

In the pushing-the-button sense of Armageddon, the rails are as
solid or flimsy as they ever were. In the needless-provocation
sense, maybe.

--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-08 11:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
>
> >
> > [ ... ]
>
> >
> > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> sufficiently skilled
> at analysing style?

There is software that can do it.
It measures the relative entropy of texts.

So way beyond any white house official,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 16:48:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:

> > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
>
> There is software that can do it.
> It measures the relative entropy of texts.

[written at 9:19 am]

"relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.

> So way beyond any white house official,

Yes,
Paul Wolff
2018-09-08 17:05:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
>
>> > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>> > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>> > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
>>
>> There is software that can do it.
>> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>
>[written at 9:19 am]
>
>"relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
>published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.

Even I know what this is about. Claude Shannon was a smart fellow who
set it going with his 1948 paper. (I didn't remember the date without
looking it up.)

--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 17:26:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:

> >> > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >> > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> >> > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
> >> There is software that can do it.
> >> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
> >[written at 9:19 am]
> >"relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
> >published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.
>
> Even I know what this is about. Claude Shannon was a smart fellow who
> set it going with his 1948 paper. (I didn't remember the date without
> looking it up.)

Sorry, but Shannon & Weaver didn't deal with texts, but with "information"
and "noise" (defined in a particular way), and that has nothing whatsoever
to do with authorship identification.
Paul Wolff
2018-09-08 22:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper
>> >> ><***@invalid.com> said:
>
>> >> > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>> >> > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>> >> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>> >> > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
>> >> There is software that can do it.
>> >> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>> >[written at 9:19 am]
>> >"relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
>> >published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.
>>
>> Even I know what this is about. Claude Shannon was a smart fellow who
>> set it going with his 1948 paper. (I didn't remember the date without
>> looking it up.)
>
>Sorry, but Shannon & Weaver didn't deal with texts, but with "information"
>and "noise" (defined in a particular way), and that has nothing whatsoever
>to do with authorship identification.

Who claimed that Shannon & Weaver dealt with identifying authorship?
Please try taking one step at a time.

Your express problem was with the phrase "relative entropy of texts",
which you quoted and questioned. You can't deny that texts are written
(recorded) information. Entropy, per Shannon, is a measure of redundancy
in the information. Do you not see how authorship is reflected in style,
which can be analysed for entropy? Look at the postings in this
newsgroup, and you should be able to discern differences in information
delivery between posters. That kind of analysis has the potential to
rank probable authors within a closed sample.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 04:26:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:26:08 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper
> >> >> ><***@invalid.com> said:
> >
> >> >> > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >> >> > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >> >> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> >> >> > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
> >> >> There is software that can do it.
> >> >> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
> >> >[written at 9:19 am]
> >> >"relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
> >> >published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.
> >>
> >> Even I know what this is about. Claude Shannon was a smart fellow who
> >> set it going with his 1948 paper. (I didn't remember the date without
> >> looking it up.)
> >
> >Sorry, but Shannon & Weaver didn't deal with texts, but with "information"
> >and "noise" (defined in a particular way), and that has nothing whatsoever
> >to do with authorship identification.
>
> Who claimed that Shannon & Weaver dealt with identifying authorship?
> Please try taking one step at a time.

JJ, of course. It was he who irrelevantly introduced the (in fact
meaningless) phrase "relative entropy of texts" as a "solution" to
the question of determining authorship of a text (aka an aspect of
forensic linguistics -- for instance, investigators use various
techniques to try to identify the writer of a kidnapper's ransom note).

> Your express problem was with the phrase "relative entropy of texts",
> which you quoted and questioned. You can't deny that texts are written
> (recorded) information. Entropy, per Shannon, is a measure of redundancy
> in the information. Do you not see how authorship is reflected in style,
> which can be analysed for entropy? Look at the postings in this
> newsgroup, and you should be able to discern differences in information
> delivery between posters. That kind of analysis has the potential to
> rank probable authors within a closed sample.

No, I don't see how individuals' style "can be analyzed for entropy" by
"software."
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 08:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:26:08 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> > >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> > >> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper
> > >> >> ><***@invalid.com> said:
> > >
> > >> >> > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > >> >> > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> > >> >> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> > >> >> > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
> > >> >> There is software that can do it.
> > >> >> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
> > >> >[written at 9:19 am]
> > >> >"relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
> > >> >published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.
> > >>
> > >> Even I know what this is about. Claude Shannon was a smart fellow who
> > >> set it going with his 1948 paper. (I didn't remember the date without
> > >> looking it up.)
> > >
> > >Sorry, but Shannon & Weaver didn't deal with texts, but with "information"
> > >and "noise" (defined in a particular way), and that has nothing whatsoever
> > >to do with authorship identification.
> >
> > Who claimed that Shannon & Weaver dealt with identifying authorship?
> > Please try taking one step at a time.
>
> JJ, of course. It was he who irrelevantly introduced the (in fact
> meaningless) phrase "relative entropy of texts" as a "solution" to
> the question of determining authorship of a text (aka an aspect of
> forensic linguistics -- for instance, investigators use various
> techniques to try to identify the writer of a kidnapper's ransom note).
>
> > Your express problem was with the phrase "relative entropy of texts",
> > which you quoted and questioned. You can't deny that texts are written
> > (recorded) information. Entropy, per Shannon, is a measure of redundancy
> > in the information. Do you not see how authorship is reflected in style,
> > which can be analysed for entropy? Look at the postings in this
> > newsgroup, and you should be able to discern differences in information
> > delivery between posters. That kind of analysis has the potential to
> > rank probable authors within a closed sample.
>
> No, I don't see how individuals' style "can be analyzed for entropy" by
> "software."

That's just your problem,

Jan
occam
2018-09-09 12:23:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/09/2018 06:26, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 6:26:08 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
>>>>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>> <***@invalid.com> said:
>>>
>>>>>>>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>>>>>>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>>>>>>> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>>>>>>> sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
>>>>>> There is software that can do it.
>>>>>> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>>>>> [written at 9:19 am]
>>>>> "relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
>>>>> published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.
>>>>
>>>> Even I know what this is about. Claude Shannon was a smart fellow who
>>>> set it going with his 1948 paper. (I didn't remember the date without
>>>> looking it up.)
>>>
>>> Sorry, but Shannon & Weaver didn't deal with texts, but with "information"
>>> and "noise" (defined in a particular way), and that has nothing whatsoever
>>> to do with authorship identification.
>>
>> Who claimed that Shannon & Weaver dealt with identifying authorship?
>> Please try taking one step at a time.
>
> JJ, of course. It was he who irrelevantly introduced the (in fact
> meaningless) phrase "relative entropy of texts" as a "solution" to
> the question of determining authorship of a text (aka an aspect of
> forensic linguistics -- for instance, investigators use various
> techniques to try to identify the writer of a kidnapper's ransom note).
>
>> Your express problem was with the phrase "relative entropy of texts",
>> which you quoted and questioned. You can't deny that texts are written
>> (recorded) information. Entropy, per Shannon, is a measure of redundancy
>> in the information. Do you not see how authorship is reflected in style,
>> which can be analysed for entropy? Look at the postings in this
>> newsgroup, and you should be able to discern differences in information
>> delivery between posters. That kind of analysis has the potential to
>> rank probable authors within a closed sample.
>
> No, I don't see how individuals' style "can be analyzed for entropy" by
> "software."
>

Daniels, it is clear you neither understand 'entropy' in an information
context (if at all), and nor do you understand the workings of software
in any real sense. How you can make that last statement is beyond your
competence, and beyond me.
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 08:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Paul Wolff <***@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 1:06:39 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
> >> On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> posted:
> >> >On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper
> >> >> ><***@invalid.com> said:
> >
> >> >> > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >> >> > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >> >> > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> >> >> > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
> >> >> There is software that can do it.
> >> >> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
> >> >[written at 9:19 am]
> >> >"relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
> >> >published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.
> >>
> >> Even I know what this is about. Claude Shannon was a smart fellow who
> >> set it going with his 1948 paper. (I didn't remember the date without
> >> looking it up.)
> >
> >Sorry, but Shannon & Weaver didn't deal with texts, but with "information"
> >and "noise" (defined in a particular way), and that has nothing whatsoever
> >to do with authorship identification.
>
> Who claimed that Shannon & Weaver dealt with identifying authorship?
> Please try taking one step at a time.
>
> Your express problem was with the phrase "relative entropy of texts",
> which you quoted and questioned. You can't deny that texts are written
> (recorded) information. Entropy, per Shannon, is a measure of redundancy
> in the information. Do you not see how authorship is reflected in style,
> which can be analysed for entropy? Look at the postings in this
> newsgroup, and you should be able to discern differences in information
> delivery between posters. That kind of analysis has the potential to
> rank probable authors within a closed sample.

Which was done in fact some years ago with a Dutch author.
A new a striking debut novel had appeared,
by a young female author, accordoing to the jacket text.
She never appeared in public however, and was completely unknown,
so there were suspicions about her being a pseudonym
of another already established author.
The puzzle hung for about a year,
then relative entropy testing pointed to a likely suspect.
Confromted with the evidence he admitted to being the author.
(male and much older)

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 08:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper:
>
> > > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> > > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> > > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
> >
> > There is software that can do it.
> > It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>
> [written at 9:19 am]
>
> "relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
> published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.

Not your best hour, it seems.
This is straightforward information theory,
in other words, hard objective numbers.

As you no doubt know, English text has lots of redundancy.
The entropy of a text (or minus the Shannon information)
measures how much information it really contains,
in the sense of information theory of course.
A good first aproximation can be obtained
by zipping a text file.
This will typically reduce its size by a factor of about three.
Some text files will zip better than others.

The relative entropy of a text,
with respect to another body of text,
measures how much -additional- information
you get from the second text if you already have the first.

At amateur level you can estimate it
by zipping both texts, and the combined text,
and by comparing the zipped file sizes.

The technique is quite powerful, and very hard to beat,
precisely because it doesn't rely on any 'information'
in the everyday sense of the word.

Of course it can only provide a suspicion,
but once you have that you can look for confirmation
by other means,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 13:26:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, September 9, 2018 at 4:54:02 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:14:52 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper:
> >
> > > > > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > > > > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> > > > You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> > > > sufficiently skilled at analysing style?
> > >
> > > There is software that can do it.
> > > It measures the relative entropy of texts.
> >
> > [written at 9:19 am]
> >
> > "relative entropy of texts"? The sort of gobbledygook that might get
> > published in a "linguistics" article in *Science* or *Nature* or *PNAS*.
>
> Not your best hour, it seems.
> This is straightforward information theory,
> in other words, hard objective numbers.
>
> As you no doubt know, English text has lots of redundancy.
> The entropy of a text (or minus the Shannon information)
> measures how much information it really contains,
> in the sense of information theory of course.
> A good first aproximation can be obtained
> by zipping a text file.
> This will typically reduce its size by a factor of about three.
> Some text files will zip better than others.
>
> The relative entropy of a text,
> with respect to another body of text,
> measures how much -additional- information
> you get from the second text if you already have the first.
>
> At amateur level you can estimate it
> by zipping both texts, and the combined text,
> and by comparing the zipped file sizes.
>
> The technique is quite powerful, and very hard to beat,
> precisely because it doesn't rely on any 'information'
> in the everyday sense of the word.

I.e., not the slightest hint of how it could possibly be relevant to
questions of authorship.

Nothing in "information entropy" tells you about the content of the
information communicated -- as Shannon & Weaver continually stressed
from 1949 on.

> Of course it can only provide a suspicion,
> but once you have that you can look for confirmation
> by other means,

Oh, you can, can you? Biblical scholars have been trying to do that for
about 250 years (and biblical criticism began when it applied techniques
that had already been applied to the Homeric canon), and Shakespearean
critics, too, have been scouring Elizabethan/Jacobean drama for passages
that they think might be by Shakespeare (the Neil Simon of his day --
NS was known as "the play doctor" for his ability to fix up plays that
weren't working). Consensus is rarely, if ever, achieved.
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-08 23:37:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/18 5:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>
>>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>>
>> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>> sufficiently skilled
>> at analysing style?
>
> There is software that can do it.

Or that can do it pretty reliably with sufficiently long texts and good
samples of the possible authors' writing.

> It measures the relative entropy of texts.

Many other techniques are used too. This article lists a number:

<http://users.uoa.gr/~gmikros/Pdf/Systematic%20stylometric%20differences%20in%20men%20and%20women%20authors.pdf>

> So way beyond any white house official,

But they know people who know people who can do it. I wonder whether
they're having it done.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 04:36:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:37:39 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 9/8/18 5:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >>
> >> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> >> sufficiently skilled
> >> at analysing style?
> >
> > There is software that can do it.
>
> Or that can do it pretty reliably with sufficiently long texts and good
> samples of the possible authors' writing.
>
> > It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>
> Many other techniques are used too. This article lists a number:
>
> <http://users.uoa.gr/~gmikros/Pdf/Systematic%20stylometric%20differences%20in%20men%20and%20women%20authors.pdf>

Just the title strikes me as suspicious. Neither graphologists nor
astrologers claim to be able to determine the sex of the writer bzw.
owner of the horoscope they're looking at.

At least the author points out the shortcomings of the corpora used.

> > So way beyond any white house official,
>
> But they know people who know people who can do it. I wonder whether
> they're having it done.
J. J. Lodder
2018-09-09 08:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/8/18 5:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >>
> >> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> >> sufficiently skilled
> >> at analysing style?
> >
> > There is software that can do it.
>
> Or that can do it pretty reliably with sufficiently long texts and good
> samples of the possible authors' writing.
>
> > It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>
> Many other techniques are used too. This article lists a number:
>
> <http://users.uoa.gr/~gmikros/Pdf/Systematic%20stylometric%20differences%20in%
20men%20and%20women%20authors.pdf>

Yes, of course, looking at content (so also style) may give clues.
The strong point of the relative entropy method
is precisely that it does not rely on content.
(it will for example also work for pseudo-random text,
like the output of a Kant generator)

This makes it very hard to beat.
To do so requires deliberately changing your vacabulary,
and the way you construct your sentences.

If I were that White House official
I would ask some outsider who I trust absolutely
to rewrite the piece in her own words,

Jan
Janet
2018-09-09 12:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pn1mg1$2gf$***@news.albasani.net>, ***@yahoo.com
says...
>
> On 9/8/18 5:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >>
> >> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
> >> sufficiently skilled
> >> at analysing style?
> >
> > There is software that can do it.
>
> Or that can do it pretty reliably with sufficiently long texts and good
> samples of the possible authors' writing.
>
> > It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>
> Many other techniques are used too. This article lists a number:
>
> <http://users.uoa.gr/~gmikros/Pdf/Systematic%20stylometric%20differences%20in%20men%20and%20women%20authors.pdf>
>
> > So way beyond any white house official,
>
> But they know people who know people who can do it. I wonder whether
> they're having it done.

I wonder how they can tell which author was purposely replicating the
style of another.

When I was at school, a common excercise in English class was re-writing
a given text "in the style of" Shakespeare, Hemingway, The BBC News etc.

Janet.
LFS
2018-09-09 12:35:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/09/2018 00:37, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 9/8/18 5:14 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-09-06 07:37:19 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can see how this might work.  Often, I can read a post in this
>>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>>>
>>> You and I can do that, but does the White House have people
>>> sufficiently skilled
>>> at analysing style?
>>
>> There is software that can do it.
>
> Or that can do it pretty reliably with sufficiently long texts and good
> samples of the possible authors' writing.
>
>> It measures the relative entropy of texts.
>
> Many other techniques are used too.  This article lists a number:
>
> <http://users.uoa.gr/~gmikros/Pdf/Systematic%20stylometric%20differences%20in%20men%20and%20women%20authors.pdf>
>
>
>> So way beyond any white house official,
>
> But they know people who know people who can do it.  I wonder whether
> they're having it done.
>

The techniques needed have been around for some time. I attended a
presentation some years ago by a UK academic who was working with a
multi-disciplinary team which was having some success with software
which analysed online text to identify paedophiles. I would expect the
software to be even more sophisticated by now.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
RHDraney
2018-09-06 14:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/5/2018 10:37 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.

This effort is doubtless hampered by the likelihood that the staffers
assigned to identify the author of the piece may themselves be part of
the "resistance within the White House"....r
Peter Moylan
2018-09-06 14:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/18 15:37, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington,
> but for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_
> ran an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was
> allowed to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>
> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece
> to determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the
> words used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

The writer probably has no past history of writing newspaper articles,
so there aren't enough data to work from.

Besides, those staffers could well be the people who are trying to stop
their boss from wrecking the country.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-06 15:26:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:37:22 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>
> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy

How can they tell?

(Sorry, Dorothy and everyone else.)

> trying to figure out who the official
> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> determine who might have written it.

Anyway, lots of other people are certainly trying.

> They are analyzing the words
> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.

As PTD said, this is often done with ancient texts, notably sacred
ones. In cases such as Trump's, where it's part of a current
investigation, the analysis can be called forensic linguistics.

> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

So can I, though others, including me, have imitated "drifting a
bit". Speaking of which, the author of that op-ed may have
disguised his or her style or imitated others.

--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 15:50:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:37:22 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
>> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
>> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
>> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>>
>> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy
>
>How can they tell?
>
>(Sorry, Dorothy and everyone else.)
>
>> trying to figure out who the official
>> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
>> determine who might have written it.
>
>Anyway, lots of other people are certainly trying.
>
>> They are analyzing the words
>> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
>> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
>As PTD said, this is often done with ancient texts, notably sacred
>ones. In cases such as Trump's, where it's part of a current
>investigation, the analysis can be called forensic linguistics.
>
>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
>So can I, though others, including me, have imitated "drifting a
>bit". Speaking of which, the author of that op-ed may have
>disguised his or her style or imitated others.

The current buzz is that Pence is the writer. This is based on the
appearance of the word "lodestar" in the essay, and that's a word that
Pence has used quite a bit in the past.

The flip side to this theory is that the word was used by someone else
to make people think it was written by Pence.

Pence, of course, has the most to win if Trump is ousted. What is
questionable is whether or we - the American public - would also win
if Pence assumes the office.

Trump, in the meantime, is trying to figure out what a "lodestar" is.
Aides have been sent to the Library of Congress to see if there are
any copies of a dictionary still around. Their search was delayed
because Trump initially sent them to the offices of a company that
makes pornographic movies thinking that a "load star" was an actor
known for impressive output.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bill van
2018-09-06 18:47:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 15:50:50 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:37:22 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
>>> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
>>> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
>>> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>>>
>>> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy
>>
>> How can they tell?
>>
>> (Sorry, Dorothy and everyone else.)
>>
>>> trying to figure out who the official
>>> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
>>> determine who might have written it.
>>
>> Anyway, lots of other people are certainly trying.
>>
>>> They are analyzing the words
>>> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
>>> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>>
>> As PTD said, this is often done with ancient texts, notably sacred
>> ones. In cases such as Trump's, where it's part of a current
>> investigation, the analysis can be called forensic linguistics.
>>
>>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>>
>> So can I, though others, including me, have imitated "drifting a
>> bit". Speaking of which, the author of that op-ed may have
>> disguised his or her style or imitated others.
>
> The current buzz is that Pence is the writer. This is based on the
> appearance of the word "lodestar" in the essay, and that's a word that
> Pence has used quite a bit in the past.
>
> The flip side to this theory is that the word was used by someone else
> to make people think it was written by Pence.
>
> Pence, of course, has the most to win if Trump is ousted. What is
> questionable is whether or we - the American public - would also win
> if Pence assumes the office.

The NYT had to know who wrote the piece, and if they knew it was Pence
they should have had enough integrity to reject an attempt to use the paper
in such a partisan way. I suppose it is possible that Pence manipulated
someone else into offering the article to the Times, but the paper should
have done enough checking to discover who was behind it.

On balance, I doubt that Pence was involved. If it turns out he was,
I will conclude that the NYT's judgment has gone soft.

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 19:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 2:47:28 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:

> The NYT had to know who wrote the piece, and if they knew it was Pence
> they should have had enough integrity to reject an attempt to use the paper
> in such a partisan way. I suppose it is possible that Pence manipulated
> someone else into offering the article to the Times, but the paper should
> have done enough checking to discover who was behind it.
>
> On balance, I doubt that Pence was involved. If it turns out he was,
> I will conclude that the NYT's judgment has gone soft.

There's a note accompanying it saying that they do know who wrote it.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 19:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:47:24 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-09-06 15:50:50 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
>
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
>> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:37:22 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
>>>> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
>>>> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
>>>> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>>>>
>>>> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy
>>>
>>> How can they tell?
>>>
>>> (Sorry, Dorothy and everyone else.)
>>>
>>>> trying to figure out who the official
>>>> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
>>>> determine who might have written it.
>>>
>>> Anyway, lots of other people are certainly trying.
>>>
>>>> They are analyzing the words
>>>> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
>>>> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>>>
>>> As PTD said, this is often done with ancient texts, notably sacred
>>> ones. In cases such as Trump's, where it's part of a current
>>> investigation, the analysis can be called forensic linguistics.
>>>
>>>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>>>
>>> So can I, though others, including me, have imitated "drifting a
>>> bit". Speaking of which, the author of that op-ed may have
>>> disguised his or her style or imitated others.
>>
>> The current buzz is that Pence is the writer. This is based on the
>> appearance of the word "lodestar" in the essay, and that's a word that
>> Pence has used quite a bit in the past.
>>
>> The flip side to this theory is that the word was used by someone else
>> to make people think it was written by Pence.
>>
>> Pence, of course, has the most to win if Trump is ousted. What is
>> questionable is whether or we - the American public - would also win
>> if Pence assumes the office.
>
>The NYT had to know who wrote the piece,

The NYT has stated that they know who the author is, and have made a
deliberate decision to allow him/her to remain anonymous to protect
his/her job status.

>and if they knew it was Pence
> they should have had enough integrity to reject an attempt to use the paper
>in such a partisan way.

Trump, in my opinion, is a clear and present danger to this country.
The more the public knows of the internal status of the White House,
the closer we are to seeing a change. I applaud their decision.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/media/new-york-times-resistance-oped-jim-dao/index.html


> I suppose it is possible that Pence manipulated
> someone else into offering the article to the Times, but the paper should
> have done enough checking to discover who was behind it.
>
>On balance, I doubt that Pence was involved. If it turns out he was,
>I will conclude that the NYT's judgment has gone soft.
>
>bill
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
John Varela
2018-09-08 00:12:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 19:53:34 UTC, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 11:47:24 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >On 2018-09-06 15:50:50 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
> >
> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:26:46 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
> >> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:37:22 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>>> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> >>>> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> >>>> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> >>>> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
> >>>>
> >>>> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy
> >>>
> >>> How can they tell?
> >>>
> >>> (Sorry, Dorothy and everyone else.)
> >>>
> >>>> trying to figure out who the official
> >>>> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> >>>> determine who might have written it.
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, lots of other people are certainly trying.
> >>>
> >>>> They are analyzing the words
> >>>> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> >>>> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
> >>>
> >>> As PTD said, this is often done with ancient texts, notably sacred
> >>> ones. In cases such as Trump's, where it's part of a current
> >>> investigation, the analysis can be called forensic linguistics.
> >>>
> >>>> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> >>>> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
> >>>
> >>> So can I, though others, including me, have imitated "drifting a
> >>> bit". Speaking of which, the author of that op-ed may have
> >>> disguised his or her style or imitated others.
> >>
> >> The current buzz is that Pence is the writer. This is based on the
> >> appearance of the word "lodestar" in the essay, and that's a word that
> >> Pence has used quite a bit in the past.
> >>
> >> The flip side to this theory is that the word was used by someone else
> >> to make people think it was written by Pence.
> >>
> >> Pence, of course, has the most to win if Trump is ousted. What is
> >> questionable is whether or we - the American public - would also win
> >> if Pence assumes the office.
> >
> >The NYT had to know who wrote the piece,
>
> The NYT has stated that they know who the author is, and have made a
> deliberate decision to allow him/her to remain anonymous to protect
> his/her job status.

The day this story broke I heard an interview with a NYT reporter
who said that only the people who edit the Op-Ed page know who
he/she is plus, of course, the higher-ups. She remarked that the
regular reporters would be in the odd position of trying to find out
something that their colleagues already know. Maybe by now they
have been told not to do that.


> >and if they knew it was Pence
> > they should have had enough integrity to reject an attempt to use the paper
> >in such a partisan way.
>
> Trump, in my opinion, is a clear and present danger to this country.
> The more the public knows of the internal status of the White House,
> the closer we are to seeing a change. I applaud their decision.
>
> https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/05/media/new-york-times-resistance-oped-jim-dao/index.html
>
>
> > I suppose it is possible that Pence manipulated
> > someone else into offering the article to the Times, but the paper should
> > have done enough checking to discover who was behind it.
> >
> >On balance, I doubt that Pence was involved. If it turns out he was,
> >I will conclude that the NYT's judgment has gone soft.
> >
> >bill


--
John Varela
Peter Moylan
2018-09-08 06:35:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/18 05:53, Tony Cooper wrote:

> The NYT has stated that they know who the author is, and have made a
> deliberate decision to allow him/her to remain anonymous to protect
> his/her job status.
>
>> and if they knew it was Pence they should have had enough integrity
>> to reject an attempt to use the paper in such a partisan way.

> Trump, in my opinion, is a clear and present danger to this country.
> The more the public knows of the internal status of the White House,
> the closer we are to seeing a change. I applaud their decision.

Still, we have the unfortunate fact that policy is, in effect, being
made by unelected people. In my opinion the "resistance" would have done
better to let Trump make his mistakes, so that his supporters can see
what he's really like. At present his supporters think that all those
"inside the White House" revelations are fake news.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
occam
2018-09-08 16:02:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 08/09/2018 08:35, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 07/09/18 05:53, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> The NYT has stated that they know who the author is, and have made a
>> deliberate decision to allow him/her to remain anonymous to protect
>> his/her job status.
>>
>>> and if they knew it was Pence they should have had enough integrity
>>> to reject an attempt to use the paper in such a partisan way.
>
>> Trump, in my opinion, is a clear and present danger to this country.
>> The more the public knows of the internal status of the White House,
>> the closer we are to seeing a change.  I applaud their decision.
>
> Still, we have the unfortunate fact that policy is, in effect, being
> made by unelected people. In my opinion the "resistance" would have done
> better to let Trump make his mistakes,


err... like what exactly? Launch a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea? (He
has his finger on the red button.) Or wrestle the FBI and CIA into
submission for pursuing the case of Russian interference in the US
election? (He has already fired Comey, and making noises about Muller.)

How far would you let him go with his mistakes? I rather see him
stopped, than prove a point to some rednecks that he is a lunatic.


so that his supporters can see
> what he's really like. At present his supporters think that all those
> "inside the White House" revelations are fake news.
>
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 15:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:26:50 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 11:37:22 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:

> > I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> > for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> > an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> > to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
> >
> > Trump has gone bat-shit crazy
>
> How can they tell?
>
> (Sorry, Dorothy and everyone else.)
>
> > trying to figure out who the official
> > is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> > determine who might have written it.
>
> Anyway, lots of other people are certainly trying.
>
> > They are analyzing the words
> > used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> > graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
> As PTD said, this is often done with ancient texts, notably sacred
> ones. In cases such as Trump's, where it's part of a current
> investigation, the analysis can be called forensic linguistics.
>
> > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
> So can I, though others, including me, have imitated "drifting a
> bit". Speaking of which, the author of that op-ed may have
> disguised his or her style or imitated others.

Now you mention it ... Forensic linguists claim they can detect and
discount attempts to conceal stylistic quirks, because they rely on
quirks that aren't consciously available to the writer.

(For several years, the ILA monthly meeting was held at John Jay College
of Criminal Justice, and the program chair scheduled a number of forensic
linguistic talks, including one by the guy who consulted on the TV series
*Cold Case* -- he said they did a linguistic plot once or twice a season,
but that didn't seem to be incentive enough to start watching it.)
Horace LaBadie
2018-09-06 15:34:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:

> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>
> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

"Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 15:53:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> > for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> > an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> > to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
> >
> > Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
> > is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> > determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
> > used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> > graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
> >
> > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.

He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?

Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
this very moment!

Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.

(That's me, not the caller or Brian.)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 19:39:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:

> >> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> >> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> >He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
> >Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
> >this very moment!
> >Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> >choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>
> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.

Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.

> >(That's me, not the caller or Brian.)
>
> Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) went through a process of
> elimination and came down to Coates.
>
> Major experience with the press, to be able to deal with the
> NY times this way; major concern with national security; no
> intentions of a future career (Coates is in his 70s).
>
> A couple more that I don't recall limmediately.

Larry O'Donnell has gotten into trouble every so often for saying things
about people that he couldn't back up -- maybe it was a sports story,
and he got banished to MSNBC? (I was shocked, the last time I had access
to a hotel TV, to see that Brian Williams is alive and well over there
after his NBC Nightly News scandal.)
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 20:22:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>
>> >> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>> >> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>> >He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>> >Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>> >this very moment!
>> >Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>> >choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>
>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>
>Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>

I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
cast, but had to look up the names)

It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 21:10:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:

> >> >> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> >> >> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> >> >He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
> >> >Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
> >> >this very moment!
> >> >Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> >> >choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
> >> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
> >he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
> >he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>
> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> cast, but had to look up the names)
>
> It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.

So if it had any connection at all with the book, it was only in its title?

Titles can't be copyrighted.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-06 21:27:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 14:10:29 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>
>> >> >> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>> >> >> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>> >> >He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>> >> >Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>> >> >this very moment!
>> >> >Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>> >> >choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>> >> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>> >Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>> >notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>> >along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>> >he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>> >he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>
>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>>
>> It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.
>
>So if it had any connection at all with the book, it was only in its title?
>
I know this is a radical suggestion, but it *is* possible to Google
the book title and discover it is a is a "comic novel by English
author Stella Gibbons, published in 1932. It parodies the
romanticised, sometimes doom-laden accounts of rural life popular at
the time, by writers such as Mary Webb."

It's amazing what you can learn by actually looking things up. You'd
relate to the bit in Wiki where it says "The speech of the Sussex
characters is a parody of rural dialects (in particular Sussex and
West Country accents – and a parody of novelists who use phonics to
portray accents and dialects) and is sprinkled with fake but
authentic-sounding local vocabulary such as mollocking (Seth's
favourite activity, undefined but invariably resulting in the
pregnancy of a local maid), sukebind (a weed whose flowering in the
Spring symbolises the quickening of sexual urges in man and beast; the
word is presumably formed by analogy to 'woodbine' (honeysuckle) and
(bindweed) and clettering (an impractical method used by Adam for
washing dishes, which involves scraping them with a dry twig or
clettering stick."

Of course, I will allow that what might have been considered to be
"smutty" in 1932 might not be considered to be worth mentioning in
later reviews of the book.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-06 21:31:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 5:27:33 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> It's amazing what you can learn by actually looking things up. You'd
> relate to the bit

How wrong you are.
bill van
2018-09-07 00:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>
>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>>>> this very moment!
>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>
>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>> cast, but had to look up the names)

Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.

What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
a fine cast.

The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.

bill
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 02:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>
>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>>>>> this very moment!
>>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>>
>>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>
>Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
>
>What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
>a fine cast.
>
>The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
>by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.

My mistake.

It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
three have had pretty good careers, too.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
LFS
2018-09-07 05:44:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/2018 03:22, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>>
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>>>>>> this very moment!
>>>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>>>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>>>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>>>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>>
>> Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
>>
>> What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
>> a fine cast.
>>
>> The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
>> by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
>
> My mistake.
>
> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>

She is starring in a play in the West End that we are going to see at
the end of this month.

A recent TV programme "Nothing like a dame" brought together four
theatrical dames - Judi Dench, Joan Plowright, Maggie Smith and Eileen
Atkins to talk about their lives. Very entertaining. there's a trailer
here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0gUjdK6Zjg


--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-07 11:29:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> >
> >> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> >>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> >>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
> >>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
> >>>>>> this very moment!
> >>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> >>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
> >>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
> >>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
> >>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
> >>>
> >>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> >>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> >>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> >>> cast, but had to look up the names)
> >
> >Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
> >
> >What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
> >a fine cast.
> >
> >The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
> >by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
>
> My mistake.
>
> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> three have had pretty good careers, too.

She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
charles
2018-09-07 12:33:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <8cc389f5-ee93-4c08-b886-***@googlegroups.com>,
Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> > >
> > >> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace
> > >>>>>> LaBadie wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts
> > >>>>>>> as diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> > >>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never
> > >>>>>> lie, would he? Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is
> > >>>>>> asking about "Lodestar" at this very moment! Since it's
> > >>>>>> apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> > >>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on
> > >>>>>> Pence.
> > >>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> > >>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a
> > >>>> novel notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably
> > >>>> in the 50s, along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or
> > >>>> *Peyton Place*. Hmm, he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may
> > >>>> not have been aware of what he wasn't supposed to be looking at
> > >>>> from that time.
> > >>>
> > >>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based
> > >>> on the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian
> > >>> McKellen, Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it
> > >>> was a good cast, but had to look up the names)
> > >
> > >Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
> > >
> > >What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie,
> > >with a fine cast.
> > >
> > >The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast
> > >headed by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
> >
> > My mistake.
> >
> > It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> > Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the Doc
> > Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other three
> > have had pretty good careers, too.

> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!

I know its 'only' radio but June Spencer is still acting in The Archers
aged 99. She was in episode one in 1951.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 14:22:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 7:29:49 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> > >
> > >> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > >>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> > >>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> > >>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
> > >>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
> > >>>>>> this very moment!
> > >>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> > >>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
> > >>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> > >>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> > >>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> > >>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
> > >>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
> > >>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
> > >>>
> > >>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> > >>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> > >>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> > >>> cast, but had to look up the names)
> > >
> > >Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
> > >
> > >What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
> > >a fine cast.
> > >
> > >The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
> > >by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
> >
> > My mistake.
> >
> > It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> > Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> > Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> > three have had pretty good careers, too.
>
> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!

I see there's a new season of *Hot in Philadelphia* coming up, but *TV
Guide*'s "Returning Favorites" isn't till the next issue (and they're
now doing them biweekly instead of weekly). Is Betty still there? A
biographic program (it may have been in the American Masters series)
showed that she is shepherded to the easy chair or couch she sits in,
and coached on her lines before each scene -- but doesn't flub them
on the first take. And she still answers her fan mail by hand.
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 15:14:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 04:29:42 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>> >
>> >> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> >>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> >>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>> >>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>> >>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>> >>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>> >>>>>> this very moment!
>> >>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>> >>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>> >>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>> >>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>> >>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>> >>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>> >>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>> >>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>> >>>
>> >>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>> >>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>> >>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>> >>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>> >
>> >Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
>> >
>> >What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
>> >a fine cast.
>> >
>> >The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
>> >by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
>>
>> My mistake.
>>
>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>
>She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!

Yeah, but Betty White has been playing the same character for 20
years. Just the name of the character and the name of the show
change.

Eileen Atkins plays different characters. Betty White is capable of
being entertaining, but Eileen Atkins is capable of acting.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-07 15:39:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 07 Sep 2018 11:14:41 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 04:29:42 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>>> >
>>> >> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> >>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> >>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> >>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>> >>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>> >>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>> >>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>> >>>>>> this very moment!
>>> >>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>> >>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>> >>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>> >>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>> >>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>> >>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>> >>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>> >>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>>> >>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>>> >>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>>> >>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>>> >
>>> >Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
>>> >
>>> >What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
>>> >a fine cast.
>>> >
>>> >The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
>>> >by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
>>>
>>> My mistake.
>>>
>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>>
>>She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
>
>Yeah, but Betty White has been playing the same character for 20
>years. Just the name of the character and the name of the show
>change.
>
>Eileen Atkins plays different characters. Betty White is capable of
>being entertaining, but Eileen Atkins is capable of acting.

Betty was one of the sexiest gals around when she was much younger.

She was bouncy and saucy.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 20:33:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 11:14:45 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 04:29:42 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> >> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> >> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> >> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> >She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
>
> Yeah, but Betty White has been playing the same character for 20
> years. Just the name of the character and the name of the show
> change.

You think Rose Nylund is the same as Sue-Anne Niven? Remind me not to
accept anything you say about actors henceforth.

Maybe you're confusing Miss White's characters with Miss McLanahan's characters.

Also, the bio reminded me of a TV movie she did some years ago, about a
widow the remains of whose husband, killed in (probably) Korea, were
finally returned to her. You would never know from that that she had
hitherto been one of the great comic actors of her time.
bill van
2018-09-07 17:43:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:

> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>>>
>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>>>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>>>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>>>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>>>>>>> this very moment!
>>>>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>>>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>>>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>>>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>>>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>>>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>>>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>>>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>>>>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>>>>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>>>>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>>>
>>> Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
>>>
>>> What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
>>> a fine cast.
>>>
>>> The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
>>> by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
>>
>> My mistake.
>>
>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>
> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!

Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
probably some stage work as well.

bill
charles
2018-09-07 17:52:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <pmudci$89a$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:

> > On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 17:06:04 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> >>>
> >>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace
> >>>>>>>> LaBadie wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts
> >>>>>>>>> as diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> >>>>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never
> >>>>>>>> lie, would he? Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is
> >>>>>>>> asking about "Lodestar" at this very moment! Since it's
> >>>>>>>> apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> >>>>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on
> >>>>>>>> Pence.
> >>>>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >>>>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a
> >>>>>> novel notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably
> >>>>>> in the 50s, along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or
> >>>>>> *Peyton Place*. Hmm, he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may
> >>>>>> not have been aware of what he wasn't supposed to be looking at
> >>>>>> from that time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based
> >>>>> on the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian
> >>>>> McKellen, Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it
> >>>>> was a good cast, but had to look up the names)
> >>>
> >>> Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
> >>>
> >>> What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie,
> >>> with a fine cast.
> >>>
> >>> The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast
> >>> headed by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
> >>
> >> My mistake.
> >>
> >> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> >> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> >> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> >> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> >
> > She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!

> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> probably some stage work as well.

appearing in Guildford, I think 2 years ago, he had a heart attack on stage.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Paul Wolff
2018-09-07 19:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, charles <***@candehope.me.uk> posted:
>In article <pmudci$89a$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
>> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
>> probably some stage work as well.
>
>appearing in Guildford, I think 2 years ago, he had a heart attack on stage.
>
Over-acting was always his style.

[I say you fellows, that was only a joke! Let go! Ow, yarroo!]
--
Paul
LFS
2018-09-09 12:25:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/09/2018 20:41, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018, charles <***@candehope.me.uk> posted:
>> In article <pmudci$89a$***@dont-email.me>, bill van <***@shaw.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
>>> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
>>> probably some stage work as well.
>>
>> appearing in Guildford, I think 2 years ago, he had a heart attack on
>> stage.
>>
> Over-acting was always his style.
>
> [I say you fellows, that was only a joke! Let go! Ow, yarroo!]

Son had to interview him for the BFI and spent several exhausting hours
in his company, reporting that, in Son's view, BB suffers from quite
severe mental health issues.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 19:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
> > On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> >> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> >> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> >> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> > She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
>
> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> probably some stage work as well.

What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-07 19:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 20:46:16 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
> > > On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > >> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> > >> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> > >> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> > >> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> > > She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
> >
> > Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> > White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> > probably some stage work as well.
>
> What about Christopher Plummer (88)!

What about him? To prevent this merely becoming a list of old
actors* I suggest future mentions will either have to be older than
Betty White or otherwise remarkable for something other than
their mere age such as a certified resurrection from the dead!

*Michael Caine 85, Maggie Smith 84, etc.
Rich Ulrich
2018-09-07 23:54:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:54:52 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 7 September 2018 20:46:16 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
>> > On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
>> > > On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>> > >> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
>> > >> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
>> > >> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
>> > >> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>> > > She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
>> >
>> > Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
>> > White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
>> > probably some stage work as well.
>>
>> What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
>
>What about him? To prevent this merely becoming a list of old
>actors* I suggest future mentions will either have to be older than
>Betty White or otherwise remarkable for something other than
>their mere age such as a certified resurrection from the dead!
>
>*Michael Caine 85, Maggie Smith 84, etc.

Clint Eastwood, 88, is still directing movies, with some success.
IMDb shows a gap in him having recent, sizeable roles as actor, but
he is in post-production as director and actor in The Mule, in which
he apparently has the title role (90 year-old drug smuggler).

Keeping at it as director would seem to require more energy
than what might serve as actor, though he is reported laid-back as
a director. Nobody yells "Action!" because that sort of noise would
have upset the horses on set in his early movie experiences.

Million Dollar Baby(2004) got him Oscar nominations for director
and actor. Invictus (2009) got a Golden Globe nomination.

--
Rich Ulrich
bill van
2018-09-08 07:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
>> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
>>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
>>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
>>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
>>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
>>
>> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
>> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
>> probably some stage work as well.
>
> What about Christopher Plummer (88)!

A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
performance, but a memorable one.

bill
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 13:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> >> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
> >>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:

> >>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> >>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> >>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> >>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> >>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
> >> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> >> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> >> probably some stage work as well.
> > What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
>
> A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
> projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
> Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
> get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
> Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
> performance, but a memorable one.

Whereas the gen.pub. already knew him from *The Sound of Music* -- which
he hated, and still does to this day; though the cast remains close. A
TV bio of Julie Andrews said that he helped her through her difficult
marriage during that months-long production, and presumably not succumbing
to the impulse to have an affair was part of it. (But then she hooked up
with Blake Edwards, who put her in lousy movie after lousy movie.)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-08 13:37:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 8 September 2018 14:16:23 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > >> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
> > >>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > >>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> > >>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> > >>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> > >>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> > >>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
> > >> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> > >> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> > >> probably some stage work as well.
> > > What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
> >
> > A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
> > projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
> > Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
> > get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
> > Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
> > performance, but a memorable one.
>
> Whereas the gen.pub. already knew him from *The Sound of Music* -- which
> he hated, and still does to this day; though the cast remains close. A
> TV bio of Julie Andrews said that he helped her through her difficult
> marriage during that months-long production, and presumably not succumbing
> to the impulse to have an affair was part of it. (But then she hooked up
> with Blake Edwards, who put her in lousy movie after lousy movie.)

Ah yes, lousy movies like Victor Victoria which had 7 Oscar Nominations
(1 win) and won Andrews the Best Actress Golden Globe.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 16:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:37:59 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 September 2018 14:16:23 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > > On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > > >> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
> > > >>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> > > >>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> > > >>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> > > >>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> > > >>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> > > >>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
> > > >> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> > > >> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> > > >> probably some stage work as well.
> > > > What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
> > >
> > > A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
> > > projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
> > > Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
> > > get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
> > > Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
> > > performance, but a memorable one.
> >
> > Whereas the gen.pub. already knew him from *The Sound of Music* -- which
> > he hated, and still does to this day; though the cast remains close. A
> > TV bio of Julie Andrews said that he helped her through her difficult
> > marriage during that months-long production, and presumably not succumbing
> > to the impulse to have an affair was part of it. (But then she hooked up
> > with Blake Edwards, who put her in lousy movie after lousy movie.)
>
> Ah yes, lousy movies like Victor Victoria which had 7 Oscar Nominations
> (1 win) and won Andrews the Best Actress Golden Globe.

I don't see that one great movie (it's one of the few movies I paid to see twice) discounts "lousy movie after lousy movie." Did you see *Star* or
*S.O.B.*? Or the one that was on TV some months ago where she's supposedly
a German agent within a British family during WWI?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-08 20:19:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 8 September 2018 17:56:14 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:37:59 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Saturday, 8 September 2018 14:16:23 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > > > On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> > > > > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > > > >> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
> > > > >>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > >
> > > > >>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> > > > >>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> > > > >>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> > > > >>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> > > > >>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
> > > > >> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> > > > >> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> > > > >> probably some stage work as well.
> > > > > What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
> > > >
> > > > A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
> > > > projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
> > > > Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
> > > > get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
> > > > Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
> > > > performance, but a memorable one.
> > >
> > > Whereas the gen.pub. already knew him from *The Sound of Music* -- which
> > > he hated, and still does to this day; though the cast remains close. A
> > > TV bio of Julie Andrews said that he helped her through her difficult
> > > marriage during that months-long production, and presumably not succumbing
> > > to the impulse to have an affair was part of it. (But then she hooked up
> > > with Blake Edwards, who put her in lousy movie after lousy movie.)
> >
> > Ah yes, lousy movies like Victor Victoria which had 7 Oscar Nominations
> > (1 win) and won Andrews the Best Actress Golden Globe.
>
> I don't see that one great movie (it's one of the few movies I paid to see twice) discounts "lousy movie after lousy movie." Did you see *Star* or
> *S.O.B.*? Or the one that was on TV some months ago where she's supposedly
> a German agent within a British family during WWI?

Star ... 7 Oscar nominations
SOB ... 1 Golden Globe nomination
Darling Lili? ... 3 Oscar nominations

The point I was trying to make is that "PTD didn't like it" is not synonymous
with "universally considered lousy" but I don't suppose that will ever get
through.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-08 21:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 4:19:42 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 September 2018 17:56:14 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 9:37:59 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > On Saturday, 8 September 2018 14:16:23 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> > > > > On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:

> > > > > > What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
> > > > > A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
> > > > > projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
> > > > > Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
> > > > > get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
> > > > > Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
> > > > > performance, but a memorable one.
> > > > Whereas the gen.pub. already knew him from *The Sound of Music* -- which
> > > > he hated, and still does to this day; though the cast remains close. A
> > > > TV bio of Julie Andrews said that he helped her through her difficult
> > > > marriage during that months-long production, and presumably not succumbing
> > > > to the impulse to have an affair was part of it. (But then she hooked up
> > > > with Blake Edwards, who put her in lousy movie after lousy movie.)
> > > Ah yes, lousy movies like Victor Victoria which had 7 Oscar Nominations
> > > (1 win) and won Andrews the Best Actress Golden Globe.
> > I don't see that one great movie (it's one of the few movies I paid to see twice) discounts "lousy movie after lousy movie." Did you see *Star* or
> > *S.O.B.*? Or the one that was on TV some months ago where she's supposedly
> > a German agent within a British family during WWI?
>
> Star ... 7 Oscar nominations
> SOB ... 1 Golden Globe nomination
> Darling Lili? ... 3 Oscar nominations

So what? Especially in those days, "Oscar" was synonymous with "big box
office." There was tremendous hype that you would get to see Julie
Andrews's boobs.

> The point I was trying to make is that "PTD didn't like it" is not synonymous
> with "universally considered lousy" but I don't suppose that will ever get
> through.

Have you seen *Breakfast at Tiffany's* recently? Pre-Andrews, but chock-
full of Edwards's worst habits. At the very least, he needed a competent
editor who would have removed at least half an hour from every one of
those movies. And Mickey Rooney from BaT entirely.
Tak To
2018-09-08 23:15:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/8/2018 9:37 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Saturday, 8 September 2018 14:16:23 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
>>>>>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
>>>>>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
>>>>>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
>>>>>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>>>>>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
>>>>> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
>>>>> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
>>>>> probably some stage work as well.
>>>> What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
>>>
>>> A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
>>> projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
>>> Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
>>> get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
>>> Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
>>> performance, but a memorable one.
>>
>> Whereas the gen.pub. already knew him from *The Sound of Music* -- which
>> he hated, and still does to this day; though the cast remains close. A
>> TV bio of Julie Andrews said that he helped her through her difficult
>> marriage during that months-long production, and presumably not succumbing
>> to the impulse to have an affair was part of it. (But then she hooked up
>> with Blake Edwards, who put her in lousy movie after lousy movie.)
>
> Ah yes, lousy movies like Victor Victoria which had 7 Oscar Nominations
> (1 win) and won Andrews the Best Actress Golden Globe.

To me, it was a lousy movie nonetheless. JA as a faux drag
queen was simply not believable.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-09 04:31:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 7:15:55 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/8/2018 9:37 AM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Saturday, 8 September 2018 14:16:23 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Saturday, September 8, 2018 at 3:00:30 AM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> >>> On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
> >>>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
> >>>>> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
> >>>>>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
> >>>>>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
> >>>>>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
> >>>>>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
> >>>>>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
> >>>>> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
> >>>>> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
> >>>>> probably some stage work as well.
> >>>> What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
> >>>
> >>> A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
> >>> projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
> >>> Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
> >>> get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
> >>> Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
> >>> performance, but a memorable one.
> >>
> >> Whereas the gen.pub. already knew him from *The Sound of Music* -- which
> >> he hated, and still does to this day; though the cast remains close. A
> >> TV bio of Julie Andrews said that he helped her through her difficult
> >> marriage during that months-long production, and presumably not succumbing
> >> to the impulse to have an affair was part of it. (But then she hooked up
> >> with Blake Edwards, who put her in lousy movie after lousy movie.)
> >
> > Ah yes, lousy movies like Victor Victoria which had 7 Oscar Nominations
> > (1 win) and won Andrews the Best Actress Golden Globe.
>
> To me, it was a lousy movie nonetheless. JA as a faux drag
> queen was simply not believable.

More to the point, Robert Preson was. Unfortunately, when the movie became
a Broadway show -- and I managed not to go to the tryouts in Chicago -- he
was no longer able to do a Broadway show. And then her "vocal accident"
and surgery, which she still will not talk about, cut short her Broadway
run, and she has never sung in public since.

Her "Le Jazz Hot" is an absolutely thrilling performance. Up there, in
movie musicals, with Judy Garland's "Get Happy" from *Summer Stock*.
(And don't go by the excerpt in one of the *That's Entertainment*s.
That's only a fraction of it.)

Incidentally, JA was far more "believable" than either Dustin Hoffman or
Robin Williams in their unaccountably celebrated travesty roles.
Mack A. Damia
2018-09-09 02:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:00:27 -0700, bill van <***@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On 2018-09-07 19:46:14 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>
>> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:43:51 PM UTC-4, bill van wrote:
>>> On 2018-09-07 11:29:42 +0000, Madrigal Gurneyhalt said:
>>>> On Friday, 7 September 2018 03:22:10 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>>>> It's impressive the way some actors just keep rolling along. Eileen
>>>>> Atkins (now Dame Eileen Atkins) mentioned above is a regular in the
>>>>> Doc Martin series as his aunt and a forensic psychiatrist. The other
>>>>> three have had pretty good careers, too.
>>>> She's only 84 ... years yet. Betty White's still working at 96!
>>>
>>> Brian Blessed, mentioned above, will turn 82 next month. He's no Betty
>>> White, but he's still appearing in three or four movies a year, and
>>> probably some stage work as well.
>>
>> What about Christopher Plummer (88)!
>
>A fine actor, and clearly a durable one. imdb credits him with two film
>projects so far this year. I first noticed him in The Royal Hunt of the
>Sun (1969), playing Atahualpa, the last Inca god-emperor, who had to
>get used to the notion that there were creatures -- led by Francisco
>Pizarro -- who did not believe in his divinity. It was an eccentric
>performance, but a memorable one.

Watching him this minute as Rudyard Kipling in "The Man Who Would Be
King", starring Sean Connery and Michael Caine.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-07 11:25:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 01:06:08 UTC+1, bill van wrote:
> On 2018-09-06 21:10:29 +0000, Peter T. Daniels said:
>
> > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> >>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> >>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
> >>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
> >>>>> this very moment!
> >>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> >>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
> >>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
> >>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
> >>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
> >>
> >> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> >> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> >> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> >> cast, but had to look up the names)
>
> Sorry to piggyback. I missed this first time around.
>
> What you've got there is not the TV series, but the 1995 TV movie, with
> a fine cast.
>
> The TV mini-series was a three-parter aired in 1968, with a cast headed
> by Alastair Sim and Brian Blessed.
>

Weird. I also would have sworn it was a mini-series but that's memory
for you ... dirty, stinking liar!!!
Tak To
2018-09-07 12:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/6/2018 5:10 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 4:22:34 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> [...]
>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>
>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>>
>> It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.
>
> So if it had any connection at all with the book, it was only in its title?
>
> Titles can't be copyrighted.

It was adopted from the book and was
"generally well received with critics. Janet Maslin in the
New York Times wrote that this screen version "gets it exactly
right"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Comfort_Farm#Adaptations

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-06 21:24:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 2:22:34 PM UTC-6, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:

[anonymous and fifth column]

> >> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >
> >Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
> >he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
> >he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
> >
>
> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> cast, but had to look up the names)
>
> It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.

Did it get sentimental at the end, like the book? I seem to recall
waning a little less about Elfine and a little more of the parodic
and somewhat sick humor.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-09-06 21:33:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 16:22:31 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
><***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> >On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>>
>>> >> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>> >> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>> >He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>> >Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>> >this very moment!
>>> >Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>> >choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>>
>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>
>>Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>
>
>I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>cast, but had to look up the names)
>
>It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.

The book was published in 1932:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_Comfort_Farm

The phrase is much older.
OED in the entry for "cold, adj.":

10.a. Felt as cold by the receiver, chilling, damping, the reverse
of encouraging; as in "cold comfort", "cold counsel", cold news,
"†cold rede".
c1386....
c1400 (??c1380) Patience l. 264 Lorde! colde watz his cumfort.
1571 A. Golding tr. J. Calvin Psalmes of Dauid with Comm. (x. 14)
We receive but cold comfort of whatsoever the Scripture speaketh.
....

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tak To
2018-09-07 12:51:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/6/2018 4:22 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> [...]
>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>
> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> cast, but had to look up the names)

It was a TV movie and not a series. And you don't remember
Kate Beckinsale?

> It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-07 13:10:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 13:51:47 UTC+1, Tak To wrote:
> On 9/6/2018 4:22 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> [...]
> >> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
> >> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
> >> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
> >
> > I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> > the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> > Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> > cast, but had to look up the names)
>
> It was a TV movie and not a series. And you don't remember
> Kate Beckinsale?
>

Kate Beckinsale was not *the* Kate Beckinsale in 1995. Some may
reasonably doubt that she has ever really become so in the following
years. She's no Joanna Lumley or Eileen Atkins!
Tony Cooper
2018-09-07 13:18:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:51:42 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

>On 9/6/2018 4:22 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> [...]
>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>
>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>
>It was a TV movie and not a series. And you don't remember
>Kate Beckinsale?

No. When I checked for the names, I saw her name and recognized her
as a known actor. But, she hasn't made any impression on me. I
wouldn't be able to pick her out in a crowd of two.

Looking at IMDb, I've not seen any of the pther movies listed there.

I regret missing "Republicans, Get in My Vagina", though. It's listed
as a 2012 video short.


>> It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-09-07 13:42:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 7 September 2018 14:18:50 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:51:42 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/6/2018 4:22 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>> [...]
> >>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
> >>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
> >>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
> >>
> >> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
> >> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
> >> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
> >> cast, but had to look up the names)
> >
> >It was a TV movie and not a series. And you don't remember
> >Kate Beckinsale?
>
> No. When I checked for the names, I saw her name and recognized her
> as a known actor. But, she hasn't made any impression on me. I
> wouldn't be able to pick her out in a crowd of two.
>
> Looking at IMDb, I've not seen any of the pther movies listed there.
>
> I regret missing "Republicans, Get in My Vagina", though. It's listed
> as a 2012 video short.
>

If the upcoming series, The Widow, takes off as anticipated that may
change. She's another in an ever longer line of established Hollywood
actors to essay a TV series for the first time.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-09-07 14:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 15:18:44 +0200, Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> said:

> On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 08:51:42 -0400, Tak To <***@alum.mit.eduxx>
> wrote:
>
>> On 9/6/2018 4:22 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 12:39:45 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> [...]
>>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*. Hmm,
>>>> he's 7 1/2 years younger than me, so he may not have been aware of what
>>>> he wasn't supposed to be looking at from that time.
>>>
>>> I didn't read the book, but I did watch the television series based on
>>> the book. Had some great cast members: Joanna Lumley, Ian McKellen,
>>> Eileen Atkins, and Stephen Fry. (I remembered that it was a good
>>> cast, but had to look up the names)
>>
>> It was a TV movie and not a series. And you don't remember
>> Kate Beckinsale?
>
> No. When I checked for the names, I saw her name and recognized her
> as a known actor. But, she hasn't made any impression on me.

Nor me. Her name is vaguely familiar.
> I
> wouldn't be able to pick her out in a crowd of two.
>
> Looking at IMDb, I've not seen any of the pther movies listed there.
>
> I regret missing "Republicans, Get in My Vagina", though. It's listed
> as a 2012 video short.

You don't need to miss it: YouTube has it.
>
>
>>> It was comedy/satire, and not at all salacious.


--
athel
LFS
2018-09-07 05:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/09/2018 20:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>
>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>> this very moment!
>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>
>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>
> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*.

My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong. CCF was published in the 1930s
and is a parody of the novels popular at that time, typically set in a
rural environment and very gloomy. It is very funny if you understand
the context. It is famous for introducing the notion of "something nasty
in the woodshed".



--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Cheryl
2018-09-07 09:24:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 3:11 AM, LFS wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 20:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie,
>>>> would he?
>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>>> this very moment!
>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an
>>>> obvious
>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>>
>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>
>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*.
>
> My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong. CCF was published in the 1930s
> and is a parody of the novels popular at that time, typically set in a
> rural environment and very gloomy. It is very funny if you understand
> the context. It is famous for introducing the notion of "something nasty
> in the woodshed".

It's absolutely hilarious and not smutty at all - although of course,
they are never specific about what happened in the woodshed.


--
Cheryl
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-07 14:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 9/7/18 3:24 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2018-09-07 3:11 AM, LFS wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 20:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:

[Op-ed]

>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>>
>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*.
>>
>> My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong. CCF was published in the
>> 1930s and is a parody of the novels popular at that time, typically
>> set in a rural environment and very gloomy. It is very funny if you
>> understand the context. It is famous for introducing the notion of
>> "something nasty in the woodshed".
>
> It's absolutely hilarious and not smutty at all - although of course,
> they are never specific about what happened in the woodshed.

And the bull's name is Big Business.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 14:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:36:21 AM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 9/7/18 3:24 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> > On 2018-09-07 3:11 AM, LFS wrote:
> >> On 06/09/2018 20:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> [Op-ed]
> >>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >>>
> >>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*.
> >> My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong. CCF was published in the
> >> 1930s and is a parody of the novels popular at that time, typically
> >> set in a rural environment and very gloomy. It is very funny if you
> >> understand the context. It is famous for introducing the notion of
> >> "something nasty in the woodshed".
> > It's absolutely hilarious and not smutty at all - although of course,
> > they are never specific about what happened in the woodshed.
>
> And the bull's name is Big Business.

That would seem to be enough to make it seen as Commie Propaganda!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 14:11:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:41:10 AM UTC-4, LFS wrote:
> On 06/09/2018 20:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> >
> >>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> >>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> >>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
> >>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
> >>> this very moment!
> >>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> >>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
> >>
> >> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >
> > Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> > notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> > along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*.
>
> My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong. CCF was published in the 1930s
> and is a parody of the novels popular at that time, typically set in a
> rural environment and very gloomy. It is very funny if you understand
> the context. It is famous for introducing the notion of "something nasty
> in the woodshed".

And that was presumably racy enough to offend the offendables in McCarthy-
era 1950s -- the time of Leave It to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet.
Cheryl
2018-09-07 14:19:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-09-07 11:41 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:41:10 AM UTC-4, LFS wrote:
>> On 06/09/2018 20:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
>>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
>>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
>>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
>>>>> this very moment!
>>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
>>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
>>>>
>>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
>>>
>>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
>>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
>>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*.
>>
>> My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong. CCF was published in the 1930s
>> and is a parody of the novels popular at that time, typically set in a
>> rural environment and very gloomy. It is very funny if you understand
>> the context. It is famous for introducing the notion of "something nasty
>> in the woodshed".
>
> And that was presumably racy enough to offend the offendables in McCarthy-
> era 1950s -- the time of Leave It to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet.
>

You should read it. I think it's still pretty readily available.

--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2018-09-07 14:25:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 10:19:50 AM UTC-4, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2018-09-07 11:41 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 1:41:10 AM UTC-4, LFS wrote:
> >> On 06/09/2018 20:39, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:49:12 PM UTC-4, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2018 08:53:01 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>> <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 11:33:59 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:

> >>>>>> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> >>>>>> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.
> >>>>> He's one of the ones who've denied being the author. He'd never lie, would he?
> >>>>> Hah! A caller-in to the Brian Lehrer Show is asking about "Lodestar" at
> >>>>> this very moment!
> >>>>> Since it's apparently a well-known feature of his speech, it's an obvious
> >>>>> choice for someone to throw in who wanted to cast suspicion on Pence.
> >>>> It also has "cold comfort" which is another Pence hallmark.
> >>> Really? I guess he doesn't know that *Cold Comfort Farm* was a novel
> >>> notorious for raciness or smuttiness or something, probably in the 50s,
> >>> along the lines of *Tobacco Road*, *The Group*, or *Peyton Place*.
> >>
> >> My goodness, you couldn't be more wrong. CCF was published in the 1930s
> >> and is a parody of the novels popular at that time, typically set in a
> >> rural environment and very gloomy. It is very funny if you understand
> >> the context. It is famous for introducing the notion of "something nasty
> >> in the woodshed".
> > And that was presumably racy enough to offend the offendables in McCarthy-
> > era 1950s -- the time of Leave It to Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet.
>
> You should read it. I think it's still pretty readily available.

I remember it being a paperback with a lurid cover. Now it's probably a
$14 Penguin Classic.
Jerry Friedman
2018-09-06 17:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 9:33:59 AM UTC-6, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <***@4ax.com>,
> Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> > for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> > an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> > to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
> >
> > Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
> > is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> > determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
> > used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> > graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
> >
> > I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> > newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
> "Lodestar" has attracted some attention from outside analysts as
> diagnostic. Pence, it seems, uses that word a lot.

More on "lodestar" at

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=39910

Less serious follow-up at

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=39921

--
Jerry Friedman
Rich Ulrich
2018-09-06 17:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 01:37:19 -0400, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

>I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
>for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
>an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
>to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.

One thing I like is that the NY Times published this
"anonymous" op-ed only a few days after Trump
went off on another rant about how everyone should
ignore reports that are based on anonymous sources.
Or did he say "disbelieve"?

Obviously, he is not "ignoring" this one.

And there is a lot of "belief". It does fit in with Woodword's
details of staff who work to sabotage Trump's acting on
his worst instincts.

>
>Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
>is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
>determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
>used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
>graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
>I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

--
Rich Ulrich
Sam Plusnet
2018-09-06 18:09:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06-Sep-18 6:37, Tony Cooper wrote:
> I don't blame anyone for not following the news out of Washington, but
> for those who don't have the stomach for it, _The New York Times_ ran
> an op-ed column by a White House official but the writer was allowed
> to remain anonymous. It was highly critical of Trump.
>
> Trump has gone bat-shit crazy trying to figure out who the official
> is. Word is that staffers have been assigned to analyze the piece to
> determine who might have written it. They are analyzing the words
> used, the sentence structure, and the style in the way that a
> graphologist analyzes handwriting to identify the writer.
>
> I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
> newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.
>
The author is John Barron - but he had the piece ghostwritten.

--
Sam Plusnet
Stefan Ram
2018-09-07 18:56:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Tony Cooper <***@invalid.com> writes:
>I can see how this might work. Often, I can read a post in this
>newsgroup and know who wrote without looking at the name.

Vell, I vonter just how you might do zis in my kase!
Loading...