“I don’t like it,” Norman-Two answered.
“We’re messing with the primary time streams,” Norman-One observed. “There are, theoretically, millions – billions of alternate possibilities, and…”
“…we don’t really understand what…”
“…happened in the prime chronal stream…”
“…that is, our time stream…”
“…to cause the duplications.”
“Maybe you should think this over some,” I cautioned Norman-Prime, but caution has never been Norman’s strong point.
“It can’t miss,” he said. Before I could move to stop him, Norman-Prime turned the machine’s dial, flipped the toggle to “Back,” and pressed the button.
And nothing happened.
Norman-Prime stood there as before, a befuddled look on his face; his eyes were focused on something behind me.
“Damn it.”
I closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, and turned. Another Norman stood behind me. He was holding another time machine.
“Hold still,” I told him, and marked a ‘3’ on his forehead. “All right,” I said, “what’s your story?”
“I’ve never seen anything like it, George. It was like watching the whole thing on television – I saw myself come in, saw myself push the button, but I couldn’t do anything about it. I even saw the other two pop in, but I couldn’t move, couldn’t talk, couldn’t do anything until I – well, Prime – pushed the button that last time.”
“So we’ve learned one thing,” I said, “namely that, bad science-fiction notwithstanding, you can’t change anything that’s happened in the past.”
“Agreed,” all four Normans chimed in. “Unless…”
“…the chronal vertices are somehow…”
“…realigned during the Phanse pulse insertion…”
“…of the physical representation of…”
“…quantum states at the level of…”
“…the zenojargonastic wavelength of…”
“…osawaddoteppic material transfer.”
“So,” I went to the fridge and pulled out another beer – I didn’t even remember finishing the first one – “what do we do now?”
All four Normans started talking at once. “Stop!” I shouted.
I pointed at Norman-Prime. “You. Talk. Everyone else, shut up.”
“Well,” Norman-Prime began, “You know, I haven’t moved at all since I pushed the button to go backwards. Now, remember, when I pushed the button the first time, I was standing there;” he pointed at the spot where Norman-One had appeared, “And then I pushed it the second time, I was standing at the window there.” He pointed at Norman-Two, where he stood by the window. “And Norman-One and –Two appeared right where I’d been where I pushed the button. Makes sense, right?”
The other Normans and I agreed.
“So, when I pushed the button to go back – why did Norman-Three appear over there, instead of where I’m standing?”
“Well,” a Norman began,
“…it’s not possible under classical physics for two…”
“…masses to occupy the same…”
“…portion of space-time without…”
“…causing a major quantum flux event that would annihilate…”
“…all of the normal matter in both masses…”
“…and destroy pretty much everything else…”
“…for a pretty wide radius, and so…”
“…it’s likely that the mass conflict started…”
“…a rearrangement of the space-time matrices around…”
“…the previously existing masses in the…”
“…time frame of the moment where the…”
“…duplicate reappeared, so that he…”
“…materialized in an area where there wasn’t any conflict…”
“…and that’s interesting, because it indicates…”
“…that there is some adjustment of the time stream in…”
“…each instance where we’ve used…”
“…the device, proving an unknown…”
“…effect on causality that we can’t…”
“…understand or predict…”
“…without a lot more experimentation…”
“STOP!” I shouted.
I heard the door at the top of the basement stairs open, and my wife’s voice barked down the stairs. “What’s going on down there?”
“Nothing, dear,” I called. “Just looking at Norman’s new invention.”
I heard Belinda’s hard, sensible shoes thumping down the wooden stairs; in a cold panic, I managed to shove Normans One through Three into the little storage closet at the end of the workshop before my wife stalked into the room, scowling (as usual.)
“What are you doing?” Behind her, Norman-Prime smiled feebly.
“Nothing, dear.”
She sniffed at the air, and frowned at the beer I still held in my hand. “You better not be smoking down here.”
“We’re not.”
Belinda walked over to the workbench. “What a mess,” she snarled. “What is this thing you’re fooling around with now, anyway?”
“It’s a…” Norman began.
I grabbed his arm. “It’s just a way to improve TV reception, dear. No big deal. I’m helping Norman with the electronics, that’s all.”
“So you’re working on something useful for a change? That’s a new one for you, Norman,” Belinda said. Norman blinked, but said nothing. He knew better.
“All right, then. Don’t make a mess. Not any more mess than you’ve already made, anyway.” With a final glare, Belinda turned and stalked out of the workshop. As soon as I heard the door at the top of the stairs close, I let the three duplicate Normans out.
“All right,” I said, “we have to figure a way out of this mess, and fast. And what ever else happens, none of you push any buttons.”
“Well,” a Norman began,
“We have three devices now instead…”
“…of one, so that means we can parallel the hooplaster derivators, and…”
“…daisy-chain the tiplimiter diodes into the…”
“…chronfrannistatic gillister pads…”
“…with the vodulatic voltimeters in reverse…”
“…and the cases grounded to the parallel ports…”
“…of the power supplies, and then…”
“…reverse the inductor polarity…”
“…that, and the removing the chronological verifier circuit…”
“…and tripling the power input…”
“…while boosting the resolution of the wave-form regulator…”
“…of all three devices hooked up in parallel…”
“…might undo everything we’ve done…”
“…if we can program it right.”
“George, can we borrow some tools and your laptop?”
I got them a screwdriver, a soldering iron, and my old laptop computer. Then I sat, sipped beer, resisted the urge for a smoke, and watched. The four Normans took the time machines apart, extracted the circuit boards and wired, soldered, programmed and just generally fiddled with it all for a good half-hour.
“All right,” Norman-Prime said at last. “I think we’re ready.”
“Yes,” the other three Normans chimed in.
“What did you do?” I asked.
“Well, it’s kind of hard to explain. We reprogrammed the left-hand cycling on the setacetical chronoprogession and reversed the frannistatic wave-phase inhibitor gronification pathways. That should retrace the ophetic chronal alternative pathways and shut off the dimensional shunts that are allowing more than one of me – of us – to be in one β-axis time stream at one moment.”
“No,” I said, “I didn’t get any of that.”
“We fixed it up to undo everything we’ve done,” Norman-Two said.
“OK. That I understood.”
“All of you – me – gather around, the field won’t go far.” The four Normans crowded around, Norman-Prime in the middle surrounded by doppelgangers.
“See you in a minute, buddy!” Norman-Prime assured me again, and hit the red button. The four Normans shimmered briefly, and vanished in a flash of light.
A fraction of a second later, there was a second flash of bright white light. It blinded me for a moment; I rubbed my eyes, squinted, fidgeted and in a moment was finally able to see clearly again.
Eight Normans stood there, blinking at me. I felt my jaw drop. Two Norman-Primes, with no mark on the forehead. Two Norman-Ones. Two Norman-Twos. Two Norman-Threes. Two combined, cobbled together time machines.
“It repeated the whole process,” one of the Norman-Primes said.
“But it should…”
“…have unraveled the dimensional…”
“…time stream disruptions…”
“…caused by the repeated influx…”
“…of chrononavigational particles…”
“…unless we forgot to reverse the leptotransmogrifier pathways…”
“…and timed the Moss-Steinfeld pulses to negative wave-form…”
“…which would have initiated a quantum wave pulse…”
“…that could conceivably have completely…”
“…disrupted the fabric of space time and…”
“…eliminated all baryonic matter within a ten or twelve light-year radius…”
“…or just as likely, generated a killer strangelet…”
“…particle that would suck the entire solar system…”
“…down into a miniature black hole…”
“…which would be a bad thing,”
“Very bad,” I interrupted. “Listen, Norm – Norms – this is rapidly going from bad to worse, and it’s getting crowded in here. Can you figure out what’s wrong and fix it without destroying the Earth, or do I have to explain your mysterious identical octuplets to Belinda?”
“We can figure it out,” one of the Norman-Primes assured me. “We’ve got twice as many minds working on it now.”
“One mind,” I corrected him, “duplicated eight times.”
“Only technically,” a Norman-Two answered. “Since we were inserted into the time stream some moments ago, we’ve been having somewhat differing experiential streams…”
“…which leads to the establishment…”
“…of differing quantum states in each…”
“…of our material forms, which now that I think of it…”
“…may require another adjustment of…”
“…the Tergaster field-strength level and…”
“…the polonium plasma particle rectifiers…”
“…polarity, which may serve to…”
“…rewind the chain of alterations to the main time frame.”
One Norman-Three looked at me, his face reposed in supreme confidence. “ We just need to do some reprogramming.”
“That’s right,” three or for more Normans agreed, while the others stood there nodding.
“Well, get to it. I don’t have enough beer for all of you.”
That is confusing. What isn’t confusing is how awesome my Firsts are.
Nice story.
I really don’t like Belinda.
yeah, screw Belinda.
Ok, I really don’t care all that much about Belinda. I’m just trying to be supportive.
Not a bad idea…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2RHTiXvELNg
Yum.
x5
I’m picturing her as Nurse Ratched.
I’m thinking there’s gonna be 64 or 128 Belindas when this is over.
Can you imagine?
I imagined this.
Random quotes from various star trek episodes, strung together to form an almost-narrative?
LOL – yeah, that made-up sciencey-sounding jargon also reminded me of the Star Trek “solutions” to various problems and crises.
“If I talk enough gibberigh, the universe will get confused and let me have my way.”
Belinda is a cunte. And a perfect candidate for CreosoteAs School for Adjusting Feminine Attitudes.
And this is amusing, classic SF meets wacky comedy.
CreosoteAs School for Adjusting Feminine Attitudes.
I cheaped out and bought a shock collar from the local pet store.
That is part of the starter kit for the at home version. So good instincts.
Reminds me of Octomom, for some reason.
Because of the unstated but implied overuse of cosmetic surgery?
Reminding me more of Time Freak
I’m picturing Norman as Prof. Frink.
I see him as Crispin Glover in BTTF.
As Sheldon said last week, these fucking time travelers get what they deserve.
Thanks, Animal!
If Norman had a wife, she could have a church-sanctioned gang bang.
“screw Belinda”… “these fucking time travelers”… “church-sanctioned gang bang”
Really detecting a theme in the commentariat today.
Today?
I suppose the site is overall friendly to making families. Not having Nikki (the worst) around must do that.
I LOVE all the made-up technical words. I couldn’t make that shit up in a gazillion years.
Sounds like Belinda needs a Norman train.
Anybody notice the Wheeler/Deblasio/Durkan bitchslap! Greatest timeline ever! Please, please, please get Garcetti next!
Yep. Already, the apologists for the criminals and Democrats are explaining it away.
link?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-identifies-new-york-city-portland-and-seattle-jurisdictions-permitting
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2020/09/trump-administration-ids-portland-seattle-nyc-as-permitting-anarchy-and-violence.html
Don’t believe your lying eyes. Trump is overstating the destruction and besides, it was a long time ago.
“Keep journalists asking the hard questions. Subscribe to Oregonlive.”
Uh huh, then a steaming pile of bullshit about how Trump is a big meanie exaggerating mostly peaceful protests against systemic racism.
Of course, no one put their name on it.
The local media was poopooing deplorable rural hicks and their looting concerns. Now reporting about arrests of looters yet no apologies for those previous stories.
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/09/fear-of-looters-amid-wildfire-evacuations-drives-clackamas-county-residents-to-post-signs-threatening-to-shoot-kill-intruders.html
https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2020/09/police-dispel-rumors-of-widespread-looting-amid-oregon-wildfires.html
One county alone:
https://katu.com/news/local/more-arrests-made-in-clackamas-co-evacuation-zones-deputies-say
This will get tossed out of multiple courtrooms but in the meantime it’s at least amusing.
I am not sure. Specifically, what are you referring to?
From the morning links…
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082382/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 is the movie I mentioned, “First Monday in October”. It was released August 21, 1981. O’Connor was formally nominated by Reagan on August 19, 1981, making the plot of the movie moot.
I’m seeing one circulating all over the Derpbook that says some crap like:
“Women, if you have a credit card in your own name and blah blah blah you can thank RBG”
Is that even true? I remember the 90s pretty well and don’t remember women not having credit cards in their own names.
I think that is probably due to her legal work back in the 1970s. Still seems inaccurate, but it has nothing to do with her time on SCOTUS.
Women having their own credit cards and whatever other property goes back way more than hundreds of years before RGB. My grandmother bought her house in ’73, with cash from her divorce settlement. There was no prohibition, or even discouragement of women having credit cards in the 1970s, or for centuries before that.
Women aren’t given enough credit (or have been erased from history) for the positions of power and influence they have held throughout time.
For instance, in European medieval times, if a noble went off to fight, his lady took over all his duties. She ran the household, did the bookkeeping, purchased and sold, commanded what little army her lord left behind to protect the estate, and generally was, in effect, the lord of the manor. It wasn’t uncommon for her to do all that even if the lord was in residence if he wasn’t interested or couldn’t do it. If the lady was a widow, she was still expected to provide knights to the king for service and if that meant she had to suit up, too, that’s what that meant.
Marriage was easy. Divorce wasn’t much harder and often favored the woman.
Much of a woman’s freedom was a result of an equitable division of labor needed to survive. Women could hold property and assets, albeit mostly absent a male in her life (father, brother, uncle, cousin, husband). And yes, women were married off by their menfolks’ decree seeking money and power and political alliances, but the bridegroom wasn’t much freer with his ability to refuse the match.
Anyway, there have been plenty of powerful women throughout history and plenty of women with freedom to do what they wanted, own property, get married and divorced mostly as they wanted to. There seem to be periods where this was not the case and then the pendulum swung back.
There was discouragement of women getting credit cards in the 1970s. It was an issue for my mother and she had her own, full time job. I’m glad it didn’t affect your grandmother, but there were problems.
The equal credit opportunity act was passed in 1974.
They are fabulists. It doesn’t matter what they say, don’t believe it. If they tell you the sky is blue then you better check for yourself.
Equality for RBG was all 9 seats on the Supreme Court occupied by women.
Some may call that sort of “equality” vindictive.
I’ll push back on this. The Supreme court was, for a very long time, 9 men. And people thought that was just fine, no one blinked. Even now, people on this board, seem to have a problem with appointing women or minorities. It’s assumed they are only appointed because of that status. Well, I say women will have achieved equality when the 9 Supreme Court justices are all women and nobody even blinks.
And people thought that was just fine, no one blinked.
Because gender equality was not only not a priority, but would have rubbed most people the wrong way.
Comparing the results of a culture where gender equality was rejected to a culture where gender equality is presumed is very much an apples to oranges comparison, and RBG’s “when there are 9” statement reeked of “the future is female, it’s her turn” type gender based discrimination, not of a genuine hope for a gender blind society.
I disagree. Gender equality is not presumed if it bothers you if all the justices are women. Saying well the culture was different is a cop out. The point is changing the culture to one of equality. If no one cares that they are all women, then we’re there.
We’re not there now.
Gender equality is not presumed if it bothers you if all the justices are women.
Those words that you’re shoving in my mouth don’t taste very good.
Do you not see a difference between having a problem with 9 women in the court and having a problem with the test for achieving equality being 9 women on the court? I don’t care about the former. The latter is a fucked up definition of equality and I maintain my assertion that RBG said it out of feminist vindictiveness.
Saying well the culture was different is a cop out.
No, it’s not. 9 dudes on the court when gender equality wasn’t a consideration is a non-sequitur when talking about what equality looks like. Yet it always seems to pop up. Again, because of feminist vindictiveness against the oppressive patriarchal past.
If no one cares that they are all women, then we’re there.
And when it doesn’t get to 9, but nobody cares that there are 7 women are on the court? What about then? RBG said we’re not equal yet. Equality is when we get 9 women on the court and not one moment earlier.
Assuming true equality, the sex of a justice would be random. So the odds of 9 women justices would be 1 in 512. Considering the rate of justice turnover, that would be unlikely to occur in the next 1000 years. So, yes, if it happens, I would blink. Same if it ended up as 9 men again.
But you’re assuming 50/50 interest in the law. I don’t think it’s evenly distributed like that. Unless prsidents wise up and start appointing non-lawyers, we’d need to factor in the distribution of people who choose to study law and become federal judges, as that is the ‘talent’ pool most selected from.
Yes, the math is different if there are different innate interests.
Sure, and more women go to law school than men.
More women go to college than men, too, these days because colleges have become extremely hostile places for men while there are multiple programs and policies in place to favor women throughout their academic careers from kindergarten through grad school. So yeah, gender equality is definitely not here, but not in the way most women believe.
I push back on your push back. If all nine women are appointed because they are the best qualified, then yes. But if they’re appointed mainly because they are women first, then no. Affirmative action and similar characteristic based discrimination will never lead to a colorblind or sexblind society where people are judged by the content of their character.
I would point to similar bias against Catholics. Now there are 5.5 Catholics, perhaps 6.5 Catholics, on the bench. Other than as a trivia question, no one is blinking but nor does it take 9 Catholic Supremes to rectify past injustices.
I blinked at it in the morning thread.
Although with Barrett, getting a non-Ivy outweighs the additional Catholic.
The Ivy domination, and judge (particular Appeals Court judge) domination to a lesser degree, of SCOTUS is a far bigger problem.
So, women achieve equality, only after we experience an inverse history, where the centuries of oppression they endured are now endured by men? Injustice is not the answer to injustice. I have no problem with women doing anything that men do. I have a problem with the idea that past oppression ought to beget inverse current repression. Evil is evil, in anybodies name.
The obvious implication is that if they intend to rectify past injustice with more injustice, I have no reason to want to comply with any of their demands. In fact, it is in my best interest to actively oppose them.
And where exactly did I make the statement that they should be appointed only because they are women?
You didn’t. That’s a fair criticism of my statement.
However, I would point out that 9 women on the SCOTUS would be indicative of a legal profession that was overwhelmingly female, the inverse of the way it used to be overwhelmingly male. That should raise a few red flags at least. I do think that the legal profession is one area in which diversity has some value since the law has such a disproportionate impact on everyone.
Of course, the best solution is a legal system which is indifferent to immutable characteristics, but we are far, far from that right now, particularly in those fresh out of law school.
You assume you’re going to endure oppression? You’re also arguing with some person in your head, not me, and not with what I actually said.
If the lack of women previously is determined to be discrimination, and the only fix is to now remove all the men, what are we supposed to call that?
Where did I say we should remove all men? I didn’t. I said that women will have achieved equality if all 9 justices are women and nobody blinks. No where did I call for removing or blocking men.
I think the issue is the phrasing. Worded like that it sounds like you’re setting it out as a prerequisite when it’s merely an indicator.
This is counfounded by people not on this board who treat such a composition as a prerequisite
You assume you’re going to endure oppression?
Some would argue that colleges’ attempts to deny men due process and the Obama administration trying to mandate it courtesy of the “Dear Colleague” letter, is a pretty clear form of oppression.
I don’t think that is what Tulip is saying. I think she is saying no one would blink at a 9 woman court because it doesnt matter that they are women. I don’t think she is making the argument that men should be denied or women seated on the basis of their gender to usher in true equality.
I agree with that and toss in race as well.
All of this ^^ is very different from answering the question of “when will we achieve equality on the court?” with “when there are 9”
That is also how I read it.
However, people would blink at a 9-woman court no matter what because the odds aren’t there. 5, sure, that’s believable. 9? No. A 9-woman court would always have the taint of “Because they’re women.”
And in my comment I said: “well I say…”
I don’t mean to be disagreeable. She said there are two elements to equality. One, that there are nine women on the court and two, that nobody blinks at it. I take issue with the first. Equality has nothing to do with outcome. It’s irrelevant how many women or men are on the court. The important part is, do they stand an equal chance at being appointed. I’m sorry if I failed to make that clear, earlier.
It’s not an assumption when someone’s identity group is explicitly listed as a qualification or a reason an appointee should be accepted.
Yeah, this is exactly where “identity politics” has led us.
Even now it isn’t the only qualification. It wasn’t Clarence Thomas’s only qualification, but it was one of his qualifications. But I think it gets talked about as if it is the only qualification.
Imma push back on this.
Technically since they didn’t randomly select a member of identity group X it wasn’t the only qualification. But. If you are making I.G. X membership the screening requirement (i.e. you are picking the most qualified member of I.G. X.) it is the most important qualification.
Any non-negotiable qualification >> negotiable ones.
How is it a qualification at all? I can’t think of a sex (or race) determined characteristic that I would agree is relevant to the job in any way. If you find 9 white men who honestly strive to implement the constitution as written I say appoint them all. Likewise if you find 9 inuit women who honestly strive to implement the constitution as written. Or any other sex and race mix. So far we have not had a single woman, and only a handful of men who fit my criteria, but I don’t assume from that that women are less likely to do so.
I disagree about the Inuit women. They all live in places like Canada and therefore probably shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
No mention of citizenship qualification, or age. In contrast to articles 1 and 2
In this case we should definitely start appointing Canadians. The way they say “eh” all the time is cute.
If they honestly strive to implement the constitution as written, I’ll support Canadians. I literally have one qualification lol.
honestly strive to implement the constitution as written
honestly strive to implement the constitution as written
honestly strive to implement the constitution as written
honestly strive to implement the constitution as written
honestly strive to implement the constitution as written
It’s a political qualification and everyone of the justices has a political qualifications.
“Even now, people on this board, seem to have a problem with appointing women or minorities.”
They do?
Personally I could not care less about any of that. The only thing I ask is ‘Are they originalists or would they serve society better by immigrating to North Korea?’
I think Uncivil’s idea would do more in the service of liberty than anything else we could do: Bar lawyers from the SC. Man, woman, squirrel or golf club, if you have been to law school you cannot sit on a federal bench.
Why not 9 Indian women? Why not 9 black women? Why not 9 lesbians? Or transwomen?
The only thing that matters is their jurisprudence.
I have a recurring dream about 9 lesbians on the Supreme Court. It’s a great one.
When nine women are on the court and they are on there because of legal acumen, NOT because they posses ovaries, then we will have obtained equality.
Yes, because nobody blinks
Wouldn’t that cause mass chronic dry-eye?
That’s what I disagree with. We will have achieved equality when there’s not a barrier to women being appointed based solely on them being women. That’s what equality means. Nine women is a meaningless metric. It matters not one whit how many there are. Did they get there fairly? Is it because they are women or regardless of the fact. The very idea that there must be 9 women is antithetical to equality. If women have an equal chance of being appointed, we have achieved equality, no matter how many get appointed.
I don’t really care about achieving equality so whatevs.
I don’t care who is on the fucking thing. It’s a grotesque institution that hasn’t done anything to slow the spread of unconstitutional empire-building shitheads throughout government.
It’s quite literally choosing the form of our destructor.
It’s quite literally choosing the form of our destructor.
Sadly, that does seem the bottom line.
I, personally, will not be happy until Diana Ross is on the Supreme Court.
Salma Hayek, but yeah.
I’m rooting for Gloria Gaynor to run FEMA then.
Since we are on writing, we are on words, right? So I am not off topic to refer back to a recent conversation we had here regarding people’s favorite words. I offered up ‘serendipity’ which one of our mythical libertarian women agreed with but I had forgotten this fossil word –
Antoine Leeuwenhoek invented a microscope and was one of the first microscopists. (Mid-1600s?) When he first looked into it he was blown away that the world is full of things we cannot see with the naked eye, but more blown away that many of those things were alive. Since no one had seen them before there was no word for them. Leeuwenhoek had the honor of inventing a word for them.
We already had the concept and word ‘molecules’ to describe very tiny, unseeable things but since these were alive he chose to invent the word ‘Animacules’.
Sadly the word never took and is not in use today.
Favorite word: toss up. Serendipity? Animacules? I like both words and both concepts. Where are our resident linguists when we need them?
Very amusing read Animal. It actually brightened my day a bit. I had to lay off earlier because after looking over the links I was pissed. We live in a country full of spineless idiots. I got a chuckle out of your writing and remembered that most people are not spineless idiots or control freaks it is just the loud minority that gets the attention. Thanks for that. I am not so pissed now.
“spatchcock”
It’s going to have to be a stupendous word to displace “spatchcock” as my favorite. Not even “supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”.
I may have to defer to your judgement. This is more your area than mine or a linguists. I have to say ‘spatchcock’ is an awesome word.
That is indeed a great word. In fact, I spatchcocked a pair of chickens a few weeks ago.
I’ll never cook a turkey any other way ever again.
Now I suddely want to make you roast a non-flat turket.
Slaver
I actually quarter them now so I can pull the white meat off earlier.
Try it. It’s superior to the spatchcock
Ever since I started spatchcockinh chickens, it opened my eyes to how easy it was to process a whole chicken for whatever cuts I needed rather than just buying those individually. Whatever isn’t used gets frozen or boiled for stock.
Besides cooking faster, I also realized you get like 30% more crispy skin because the entire outside is facing up.
Favorite word? Don’t think I have one. If you could most used, then we’re probably looking at something like “the” or “a”
Strategery…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGgtDSgsrIo
Misunderestimated
That one certainly is a classic. I can never hear it without laughing.
Artless.
One of my favorite words is, ironically, ‘portmanteau’.
‘Bifurcated’ is another good one.
Woodchipper
Ethereal
Squanch
Onomatopoeia
Japanese seems to use about 3x the number of onomatopoeia that English does. And it’s regularly used in normal conversation.
Drives me crazy…
As for an English I’d go with “perspicacity”.
I believe I was the MLW who expressed my affection for “serendipity” – the word and the concept. I’m also fond of “peripatetic.” The sound of the word reminds me of popcorn popping.
cooked in coconut oil and dosed with flavacol?
Ooh! I’ve never had it that way! Now I want to try it! Is coconut oil superior to peanut oil? (Vague recollections of my mother using peanut oil.)
I believe it’s the current theater blend (since peanut oil has higher allergy issues these days for some odd reason)
Pumpernickel
“Defenestration”
Strategery…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGgtDSgsrIo
Covfefe
https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/2020/09/readers-respond-racists-coming-out-of-the-woodwork.html
‘I see racists everywhere and in everything. It’s all Trump’s fault.’
I don’t think you do.
Wow.
“If you don’t agree with my politics I want the government to crush you.”
And you’re a racist.
They have warped the meaning of the word so much that it is a badge of honor to be called that these days.
Which implies, “The government will always agree with me.”
“Why is it permissible” for people to say what they want to say? Only I can say what I want. Well, you too as long as it’s the same thing I’d say.
More on words….
Carpepetuation – the act of going over and over that last piece of string with a vacuum cleaner but it just wont come up.
Hozone – The place where lost socks go.
Remember this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL0KgNSeBlc
Without even (yet) clicking: Musquirt! Cinemuck!
Doork!
I know drugs/ass but, How did I miss this?1?!
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/17/us/princeton-racism-federal-investigation.html
The Trump administration opened a civil rights investigation into the {Princeton] university after its president acknowledged the role of systemic racism at the school.
I want this expedited. Depositions need to happen before the election.
This is the greatest troll this administration has pulled yet.
Agreed. Start taking them at their word. This one makes me point at them and do a little Nelson laugh.
I remember a Kansas state AG that tried this over abortion. The pro-choice groups were insisting that some restriction (i think parental notification) was going to force young girls to carry to term pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. So he tried to get them to report so the crimes could be prosecuted. Went nowhere.
I think the bingo here is that Princeton has been submitting affirmations for years as a requirement for receiving funds that they are NOT engaging in discriminatory behavior.
So the spox is making public comments contrary to their legal declarations. I wonder if the whistleblower bounty that you get for turning in a tax cheat is applicable here. If you could get a cut of federal funds for showing that Princeton is racist, exactly how many grad students in the hypenated-studies departments would jump at that chance?
Yes, I can’t remember if that happened before or after health care providers became mandatory reporters. If after, you’d think he would have had a legal stick.
Subject of NR’s Editors podcast on Fri (#255). Can Schadenfreude be my fave word?
Are you asking our permission? If you are, then no, it can’t be.
If it’s a rhetorical and you’re saying that it is, then okay.
Not English; wasn’t sure of the rules.
It might already count as english as an incorporated loanword.
All English words are incorporated loan words.
The question is when the date of incorporation into english was.
That is what makes English superior to other languages. It was cobbled together from a hundred different languages by design to unite the people of Britain and that infused the culture with the idea that it is ok to borrow words. I don’t have any idea what date would be appropriate but the English speaking world has never hesitated to borrow words and does it constantly. Other languages are far more rigid.
Inventing Esperanto was foolish. It never took because we already had it, we just called it ‘English’.
Are Romance languages too close to the original Latin? i.e. so not loans to keep the analogy they’d be grants.
Schadenfreude Pie
https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/09/21/you-dont-have-enough-ammo-for-the-post-ginsburg-2020-apocalypse-n946532
I do, but I almost caved last night (after drinking) and would have bought some overpriced M885. It was a good thing I couldn’t remember my account password.
Christ, I hope we never come close to finding out.
We are close to finding out right now. The anger, hatred and frustration are building….as someone said this morning ‘first it is gradual and then it becomes sudden’.
I don’t think very many people understand what they are playing with.
The dynamic at play here has been simmering for almost a decade. This conflict is inevitable, and my only hope is that the violence is minimized.
I think it likely will be. When they find out what it is really like they will get a belly full quickly.
Meh. My home isn’t really defensible for any length of time beyond an isolated home invasion. Having more ammo than I can transport along with a few rifles is kind of useless. Not that I’m at that limit yet, but still.
As with everything else, the goal is to make yourself into a worse target than the next guy. Convince the mob to move on.
Mine too. Far too open. Still trying to figure out what to do other than digging tank ditches and stringing concertina our.
Punji pits.
*hides assault roombas*
Would the roomba+claymore combination actually do much? Or would it be like firing a shotgun shell out in the open — without the chamber to direct the gas expansion, it’s mostly noise.
claymore? I’ve equipped them with some standard issue armaments from Mr. Lizard.
Bad idea. The Roomba isn’t hardened against the EMF that those put out.
I only use semi-automatic assault Roombas. Because no one really needs fully automatic assault Roombas.
My brain read that as semi-automatic sexual assault Roombas.
Now I’m picturing one of those stupid cat videos where it’s riding the Roomba, except instead of a cat it’s a giant purple dildo.
Damn you Sugarfree.
*inarticulate angry noises*
I have to describe not one but two more palatial structures that are relevant to the remaining plot. I’ve had so many so far in this damn book that I’m having trouble not repeating myself
Why do you feel the need for so many palatial structures, and wouldn’t it just be easier not to be a nerd?
Pick a palace somewhere and use it as your base then elaborate from there
“It was a palatial structure of the sort Dug had seen a hundred times before on his journey; as such, its appearance registered in no way on Dug’s mind.”
It occurs to me that there’s not all that much point in them restoring the timeline. He may not have made a very good time machine, but he’s invented an excellent person duplicator.
Sports teams, sheiks, and movie studios would pay vast sums to use it.
So would I on grass cutting day.
Speaking of yard work, I have only made a sizable dent in my downed trees from Laura. I just got a notification on my phone that Beauregard parish is being evacuated and Beta is likely to cause a lot of flooding and worsen the damage from Laura.
Fuck…give it a rest already.
Yes, I’d like 500 copies of Samara Weaving, please.
Yeah, I was thinking this could be solved by killing the 8 duplicates, and burying them somewhere in Wyoming, if not for the cost in entropy to universe being a few thousand exploding nebulae.
The problem is that people duplicators have unintended consequences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjT-ugtVBpA
Multiplicity is an under appreciated movie.
The prestige sucks.
Which one of the two identical movies that came out that year was that one? The one with or without mass murder?
With mass murder. Huge Jack-Man keeps murdering himself.
I LOL at this. Thankfully I was on mute for this substance abuse training Zoom call I am on.
I can’t believe it took this long to hit me… this story is obviously about a Norman invasion.
One Schwarzkopf invasion was enough.
*narrows gaze*
You know, the fact that Norman hasn’t been carrying pocketfulls of gold and/or diamonds is just further proof that he’s short sighted.
You could follow the movie Primer example and drug them and put them in the attic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primer_(film)
Ad of the Week: When Pontiac Pushed a Pair of ‘Economic’ Supercar Wannabes
I knew you could get the Fiero with the “Iron Duke”, but no idea you could the Firebird with one too. That big pig with the 2.5L must have really been the definition of “excitement”.
I’ve always wanted the last year Fiero where they finally put real suspension on the car with the V6 and a 5sp. In typical GM fashion they finally got it right and cancelled the car.
I had the Toyota equivalent, an ‘87 MR2. Fun but squirly in the wet with the mid engine and low weight over the front wheels.
I test drove a used 4 speed manual firebird with that engine in 87… When I opened the hood it was 50% plastic shroud to get the air from the radiator to the fan on the engine. My father had the 1984 V8 firebird, so I knew what it really should have looked like under there. In the end I found a 1983 V8 TransAM with a QuadraJet and the 5 speed manual. The manual transmission clutch linkage had a problem in 82 and 83 and eventually failed multiple times on my car. This was the first unibody F platform, and it wasn’t strong enough to take the clutch forces via the Zbar. It would repetedy flex and finally break the body where the Zbar connected near the wheel well. . GM switched to a hydraulic actuator in 84-85 that solved this, but we had to try and re-enforce the body… after a couple of attempts I gave the car away as I needed a daily driver, not a project.
I recently bought a Saturn Sky Redline. It’s a little roadster with a 2.0 turbo. 260 HP stock and just over 300 with a minor tuning download. Of course, I already downloaded the tune. Thing is fun as all hell. Not quite the usual muscle car feel I gravitate towards, but, lots of power and it handles like a go-kart. As a bonus, it gets 24 MPG after my TBSS only got 10. I drive 52 miles a day to and fro work.
It will be a free car after two years of gasoline savings, put it that way.
I never understood the logic of GM producing that and the Pontiac version.
But they look quite fun. Kind of fits between a Miata and a Vette.
Still no draws in the EPL this season. Weird.
With almost all matches on peacock, I can safely ignore all the kneeling and BLM propaganda.