Zombie

how to have an argument while avoiding abuse and being hit on the head...

can’t remember if this has been posted before, but even if it has it’s still worth enjoying again Dudley Moore (comedian, Hollywood star, organ scholar, composer, pianist and overall underrated musician) had real insight into Beethoven with this brilliant and hilarious parody

I do hope you’ve carefully studied this information resource, which is intended to provide essential awareness in a purely factual and non-sensational way because, yes, you’re right - “some of them really seem to be quite evil” but they’re not the dangerous ones... and you can’t tell which is which until it’s too late...

stay in the pics ...and stay in your mind

well, over here "pants" means THIS

London musician Karim Kamar is a bit more than just a street pianist He’s currently signed to independent label Ostereo, but a well-produced YouTube “street” video (especially if you look like he does ) is a smart way to promote yourself, and maybe get noticed. It’s a win win for everyone - good luck to him

Has America lost its senses??? THIS from today’s Independent: Restaurants use mannequins and blow-up dolls to help with social distancing As lockdown restrictions are eased in some states, restaurants are coming up with unique ways in which to enforce social distancing while maintaining the impression of being busy. Some are turning to artificial patrons in what may be one new aspect of dining out in the 2020s that no one saw coming. Described as being both “whimsical” and “creepy”, these are not the hosts from Westworld. The Inn at Little Washington in Virginia has decided to seat well-dressed mannequins at tables they are unable to use in order to comply with new state regulations. The mannequins will be seated alongside human diners https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-lockdown-mannequins-dolls-restaurant-a9514806.html For those of you who missed it, let me repeat what was just said: The mannequins will be seated alongside human diners For god’s sake, has no-one in America seen what these mannequins can do?!?!

.

By all means laugh at the video but animal welfare isn’t a laughing matter - animal cruelty whether intentional or not (and in this matter it will surely not be intentional) is still cruelty

To be clear, the video was just meant to raise a laugh - face masks for pets is not a good idea, especially dogs: “I do not recommend the use of pet masks,” says Dr. Bayley. “There is not enough circulation nor room in these masks for proper ventilation and panting to occur, which dogs need to be able to do. They also can’t access water. This is especially not good with flat-faced dogs, as it could be very dangerous to restrict airflow to these dogs.” Plus, if we consulted the millions of people around the world now wearing face masks, we’d likely hear complaints about how cumbersome, hot, and poorly ventilated they are. A dog would tell you the same thing... Dr. Bayley adds. “This makes it difficult for them to know how to respond, and it also suffocates the number one sensory organ they use to navigate this world.” https://www.rd.com/advice/pets/should-your-dog-be-wearing-a-pet-mask/ As every dog owner will should know, dogs regulate their body temperature mainly by panting. If you restrict their ability to pant normally then they will be at higher risk of overheating. If a dog overheats and is not given immediate cooling treatment it will die.

Don’t forget the pets...

Not sure what your point is. The English legal system - on which most of the US legal system is based - has evolved over nearly 900 years. It seems somewhat unreasonable to chastise a historic process of evolution and development of a legal system over the centuries that, with a few trips along the way, has more or less been kept up to date with political and societal changes over that time. I’m not aware of any legal system that sprang into being in the 12th century, fully formed and ready for the 21st century. Even the US Constitution has needed several amendments during the course of a mere 250 years... Sorry to correct you, but the US still uses the English common law system. Edit to add Just noticed you asked for the name of the 1689 Act so you can “look it up”. Well I did give it, but I’ll repeat it - it’s the Bill of Rights. Your founding fathers couldn’t think up a better name so they copied it and used it as the model for the US version https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentaryauthority/revolution/collections1/collections-glorious-revolution/billofrights/ If you want to pursue this interesting discussion I again suggest it should be moved to The Pit. This is not the right forum

Ah yes, the joys of using 18th century law to regulate 21st century technology. Well good luck with that - it must make US lawyers very happy. Here in musty fusty old UK - which apparently has never had a Bill of Rights despite inconvenient documentary evidence to the contrary - we prefer to update our laws to keep up to date with the times. Now of course this is all very interesting, but maybe we should pay more attention to GA rules and move potentially contentious discussions like this to The Pit?

No, I meant Japan as in your original sentence. Offense is an emotion. It is usually taken not given. The post you took offence over had no malicious intent. You chose to take offence. Children generally can’t control their emotions, but adults generally can. The whole issue of offence is an important subject that should perhaps be discussed in a dedicated thread, not here. Sadly, it will probably have to be in The Pit

Yes, you do have a point. Another example is Henry Purcell - I believe the US has a special day set aside in his honour, while in his home country most citizens probably think Purcell is a washing powder...

The United States, being a relatively new nation, adopted and adapted much of its legal framework from the legal framework that had already been developed in England over centuries of internal strife and civil wars - why try to invent the wheel from scratch? So England already had its Bill of Rights, a key constitutional document safeguarding individual freedoms and passed into law in 1689 a century before the United States. And before that, the Habeas Corpus Act, 1679, setting out legal protections for the individual against the State. And before that, the Petition of Right, in 1628, which set out various other protections for the individual against the State. And before, that Magna Carta... blah blah And ALL of these English laws protecting individual freedoms were of significant influence to the framers of the United States Constitution. So please don’t misrepresent the United States as the fount of individual freedoms. It isn’t.

Of course you have every right to be offended by anything you choose to be offended by. The question, here, is what are you choosing to take offence about? Some American musical theatre’s interpretation of another country’s 150 year old out-of-date musical comedy? Or why America has any interest in British cultural entertainment like G&S when, unlike Shakespeare which has universal themes, Gilbert’s writing has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to anything American? And I’m puzzled why you struck out your own word “ancient”.

Ah, an American outsider’s offensively stereotypical view of an ancient culture. Maybe. The Mikado was never written, performed or intended for an American audience, let alone to be performed in America through the cultural lens of contemporary American society and the myriad of multicultural issues currently in play in the US. No, it was written, performed and intended to be performed as a comic satire on Britain, British politics and British institutions. It is a nineteenth century piece of frothy light comedy entertainment written for an English Victorian audience. There has been a long established English satirical tradition of oblique self-mocking by setting characters in a different time and/or place at least since Shakespeare, when to do otherwise could have severely impacted on life expectancy... G&S were less concerned about losing their heads than selling lots of tickets to audiences all over the country and getting them to enjoy the satire regardless of individual politics - which would have been difficult, perhaps impossible, had the setting been in Victorian England.

Sorry, I was confused by “restrictive” v “relaxed”. The “go for pomp” choice was really made by Queen Victoria, and this is the model that’s been developed ever since: be seen to be believed. And that’s also what the significant numbers of tourists (pre-plague) have expected to see and spend their money on seeing... Otherwise, as you rightly say, the whole thing is pointless. As for silly, that’s an entirely legitimate point of view in the UK - and mandatory, I would have thought, for a rebellious ex-colony...

The fact is they all have choices, just like the rest of us. Anne chose duty ahead of pleasure (unlike the Queen’s sister, Margaret, or her Great Uncle Edward...). The younger one - just call me “Eddie” - wanted both the royal position and a career. That didn’t end well either... Also, Anne eschewed the royal trappings - she wanted to do the work and have her children be just plain Mr and Mrs. Contrast that with MM who seems to have wanted everything including perpetual ennoblement for her offspring. Don’t understand your point about “British royal duties” being more “restrictive” than Scandinavian models. Seems each member of “the firm” is pretty much free to choose their own causes across all of society - from AIDS to land mines. It all begs the question - didn’t MM do ANY research around exactly what she was marrying into...?

Hi Ian, and welcome You’ve got to the heart of it: - the only ones that really matter and “everyone else is a supporting actor”, and - let H + M get on with their lives and not get hung up on what they do and where they do it Because a support act is there to do just that - support the main act, the Crown. Just like Princess Anne has done. She is the exemplar of how to do this through a real sense of public service, duty to the Crown and consistent bloody hard work which the press have mostly ignored - good works never made good copy. So MM had a choice. Use her new position (she was never going to be a wallflower) to make a personal and lifetime commitment to use her undoubted charismatic skills in support of the Crown through duty and public service, or by trading on her new uplifted status to “do it my way”. We can see that her plan has not exactly... gone to plan

ironic n’est-ce pas? Curiously MM’s citizenship is unchanged - she’s still a US citizen, which probably suits her just fine... As to MM’s current and possible future positions under US law, this website digs deeper into the Emoluments Clause ( @Brayon you were referring to this?) and other exciting stuff... https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c4dec628-db01-474e-ab68-8bb0519e51fa

I’ve tried to avoid reading / listening to / watching stuff about MM but it’s getting everywhere. Today, on the BBC news website, there is a link to something about “letters”. I had nothing better to do... ...so I clicked on it. Apparently MM is suing The Daily Mail for publishing a letter. But it didn’t say what was in it. So I googled “MM letter”, then Images. And bugger me there wasn’t just one letter there’s LOTS! All in scrawly handwriting (and probably written in green ink on lined paper). It didn’t look good. Then I saw a link to Vanity Fair, which just seemed an appropriately named title for tittle tattle. So I clicked on that (link below) Strewth! I didn’t get to the end, stopping at this point: ”Meanwhile, the royal family’s personal wealth, which encompasses castles and endless swaths of British countryside and crown jewels, including a 530-carat cut diamond, the world’s largest, to squabble over, has been estimated at $85 billion. ” I mean, come on, that’s just total crap - albeit oft said and apparently widely believed. So, it’s not looking good for Vanity Fair’s fact checking ability. But... for me there’s always been a feeling that something’s “not quite right” about the story spinning around MM (formerly known as HRH). Just too good to be true. And someone who was in “Suits” is a “star”? Really?? Of course the UK gutter press have had a field day - so I understand, I don’t read them. So what’s the take in the US? More importantly, why hasn’t US TV relaunched Soap using the Windsor / Markle craptastic plotline? I’d watch it! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_(TV_series) https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/12/inside-the-meghan-markle-family-breakdown-thomas-samantha-markle

It’s like when you get suckered into downloading an Apple app that promises to be useful only then to find out the useful bits are premium