Incest by Proxy (Ew! EW!)
John Dean
Officials study case of single mother aged 62
French judicial officials are looking into the case of a 62-year-old woman
who recently gave birth to see if the family environment is suitable.
The single woman, believed to be one of the world's oldest new mothers, says
she gave birth using her brother's sperm and a donor egg from an American
woman.
Identified in the media only as Jeanine, she says she was artificially
inseminated at a Los Angeles clinic and gave birth to a boy on May 14 in the
southern French town of Frejus.
Christian Girard, prosecutor in the nearby city of Draguignan, said
officials were studying the baby's family environment.
"We have heard about the case since the birth of the child in mid-May," Mr
Girard said.
The woman told Le Parisien newspaper her 52-year-old brother's sperm was
also used to conceive a second child with the same egg donor, who acted as a
surrogate. The girl was born in late May.
Now both babies live in Frejus with the French woman and her brother. The
woman's 80-year-old mother also lives in the home.
Jeanine, a retired school teacher, said she told the Los Angeles clinic her
brother was her husband so they would allow her to undergo in vitro
fertilization there.
"We are both healthy in mind and body," she told Le Parisien.
The prosecutor said officials were also considering the legal implications
of the pregnancy. It is illegal in France for women who are too old to
conceive naturally to undergo artificial insemination.
--
John Dean -- Oxford
I am anti-spammed -- defrag me to reply
ctc...@hotmail.com
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
Helge Moulding
> [quoted story snipped]
What about that "Ew! EW!"? It's not like she had sex with her brother.
It's not even like she was the egg donor. The only part of the whole
story that bothers me is that she's going to be 82 when her children
reach 20. It hardly seems fair to her kids.
Of course, if the French government ends up taking the kids away from
her, it won't seem much better. Shitty deal, really. What the hell
was she thinking? I have similar thoughts about folks who use fertility
drugs and end up with a zillion babies. Are those biological imperatives
that overpowering?
--
Helge Moulding
mailto:hmou...@excite.com Just another guy
http://hmoulding.cjb.net/ with a weird name
GrapeApe
>Of course, if the French government ends up taking the kids away from
>her, it won't seem much better. Shitty deal, really. What the hell
>was she thinking? I have similar thoughts about folks who use fertility
>drugs and end up with a zillion babies. Are those biological imperatives
>
>that overpowering?
>--
Does anyone have any idea bow may icebox clones might exist? Don't some in
vitro techniques involve twinning a zygote, and freezing the extras in case the
first doesn't take?
Boron Elgar
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>John Dean wrote,
>> [quoted story snipped]
>
>What about that "Ew! EW!"? It's not like she had sex with her brother.
>It's not even like she was the egg donor. The only part of the whole
>story that bothers me is that she's going to be 82 when her children
>reach 20. It hardly seems fair to her kids.
Take this a step further, then...is it fair to have a child if one has
a fatal (assume non-inheritable) disease that will yield you about 20
more years of life? Does this differ if there is both a mother &
father (or equivalent) present as opposed to a mother only?
>
>Of course, if the French government ends up taking the kids away from
>her, it won't seem much better. Shitty deal, really. What the hell
>was she thinking? I have similar thoughts about folks who use fertility
>drugs and end up with a zillion babies. Are those biological imperatives
>that overpowering?
The French law is absurd. I am interested in seeing how they enforce
something done in another country. Interesting bit of law, that.
I suppose what she was thinking was that she wanted a baby. And maybe
her brother did, too & maybe they realized that the regular options
were all closed to them. Last hurrah? I don't think that it is all
biological at that age...the hormone flow is a trickle, if anything. I
think there can also be a psychological imperative that comes into it,
too.
People who agree to the implantation & gestation of multitudes, I
feel, are either pawns in a medical game that is ill-refined at this
point, or reckless with the welfare of their future offspring in a
very direct way. Once you get to 4 or more, the chances of serious
complication increases. Get up into the 6's+ and it's damn near a crap
shoot. I think of this as a much more serious risk than a 62 yr old
woman having a baby.
Boron
Matt Ackeret
John Dean <john...@fragmsn.com> wrote:
>From Ananova http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_333065.html
>
>Officials study case of single mother aged 62
>
>French judicial officials are looking into the case of a 62-year-old woman
>who recently gave birth to see if the family environment is suitable.
>
>The single woman, believed to be one of the world's oldest new mothers, says
>she gave birth using her brother's sperm and a donor egg from an American
>woman.
Wasn't there a case in the US where a mother was a surrogate mother for her
daughter's child?
--
mat...@area.com
Just Me
>daughter's child?
Actually it was turned into a made for tv movie starring "Carol Seaver" from
Growing Pains and Jillian something or other.
Or it might have been Tyne Daly and the daughter from Life Goes On.
They've all done their share of made for tv, so I get confused.
Just Me
I'm my own person, don't confuse me with who you think I am.
Helge Moulding
> is it fair to have a child if one has a fatal (assume non-inheritable)
> disease that will yield you about 20 more years of life?
My own opinion is that knowingly and willfully creating circumstances
that would deprive your children of their parents at such an early age
is a shitty thing to do, whatever the specifics. Mostly it's shitty to
your kids: I know I'd have missed my parents if they had died twenty
years ago. And it's shitty to your community, especially if you end up
orphaning the kids much earlier.
Which is why I also don't think much of parents who smoke or otherwise
endanger their health unnecessarily.
ObAFCA: Before medical intervention made it possible to get a 62 y-o
crone preggies, what's the oldest woman to successfully complete a
pregnancy? (Let's leave Sara out of it for now.)
GrapeApe
>crone preggies, what's the oldest woman to successfully complete a
>pregnancy? (Let's leave Sara out of it for now.)
58 according to Guinness. That I read 30 years ago.
Perry Farmer
-> John Dean wrote,
-> > [quoted story snipped]
-> What about that "Ew! EW!"? It's not like she had sex with her brother.
-> It's not even like she was the egg donor. The only part of the whole
-> story that bothers me is that she's going to be 82 when her children
-> reach 20. It hardly seems fair to her kids.
-> Of course, if the French government ends up taking the kids away from
-> her, it won't seem much better. Shitty deal, really. What the hell
-> was she thinking? I have similar thoughts about folks who use fertility
-> drugs and end up with a zillion babies. Are those biological imperatives
-> that overpowering?
Why is it that big of a deal that she would be 82 when they are 20?
Many children are essentially raised by grandparents and do just fine.
-> --
-> Helge Moulding
Perry
Helge Moulding
> Why is it that big of a deal that she would be 82 when they are
> 20? Many children are essentially raised by grandparents and do
> just fine.
Kids raised by grandparents is usually an emergency measure, not
the prefered way of doing things. I bet most kids would like it
better if mom and dad were around.
I mean, what's the big deal? So you live in a cardboard box
instead of a house. Lots of people live in cardboard boxes.
John Dean
Helge Moulding <hmou...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9gs2jg$2ot4$1...@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> Perry Farmer wrote,
> > Why is it that big of a deal that she would be 82 when they are
> > 20? Many children are essentially raised by grandparents and do
> > just fine.
>
> Kids raised by grandparents is usually an emergency measure, not
> the prefered way of doing things. I bet most kids would like it
> better if mom and dad were around.
>
> I mean, what's the big deal? So you live in a cardboard box
> instead of a house. Lots of people live in cardboard boxes.
You had a cardboard box? Luxury
We lived in a septic tank and had to suck wet rats for sustenance.....
Michael Lorton
Boron Elgar
<hmou...@excite.com> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote,
>> is it fair to have a child if one has a fatal (assume non-inheritable)
>> disease that will yield you about 20 more years of life?
>
>My own opinion is that knowingly and willfully creating circumstances
>that would deprive your children of their parents at such an early age
>is a shitty thing to do, whatever the specifics. Mostly it's shitty to
>your kids: I know I'd have missed my parents if they had died twenty
>years ago. And it's shitty to your community, especially if you end up
>orphaning the kids much earlier.
Though logic tells me this makes sense, to me it is the ultimate
slippery slope. Longevity of parents is only one part of quality of
life for kids. Do we rule out poverty over wealth, active vs couch
potato, robust vs physically handicapped?
Oh, obviously, it's better for kids to have parents around. There is
no question about it, but It turns out that when a younger woman has a
child with an older man, all that happens is nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Yes, you could say that at least one parent is younger, but since it
is virtually unheard of where an older woman marries & has children
with an much younger man, to me this winds up being something that
woman wind up being criticized for in a way that men just aren't. That
part of it really bothers me.
We do not choose our parents. Neither we nor they can predict
longevity, general health, quality of life during our upbringing. I
cannot criticize this woman in France for having a child. Some of my
feelings in the matter may stem from my own efforts with trying to
have children. I am not sure about that, though I have tried to take
it into consideration. Still, I wish the woman, her brother & the
child "Bonne chance." Yes..I deliberately chose that phrase, as I
think it is appropriate for all of us who choose to be parents.
>Which is why I also don't think much of parents who smoke or otherwise
>endanger their health unnecessarily.
What about those who bungee jump or like to sky dive or climb Mt
Everest? There is no question about smoking, but do we condemn those
who take any risk? Some risk? A little risk?
>ObAFCA: Before medical intervention made it possible to get a 62 y-o
>crone preggies, what's the oldest woman to successfully complete a
>pregnancy? (Let's leave Sara out of it for now.)
My family it is 45...and there are a couple of those. We always called
late pregnancies "scraping the bottom of the gene pool," though.
Boron
Boron Elgar
Try sucking a dry rat then come back & talk to me about the high life.
Boron
ra...@westnet.poe.com
<snip>
> The single woman, believed to be one of the world's oldest new mothers, says
> she gave birth using her brother's sperm and a donor egg from an American
> woman.
WTF? IMO It's not even vaguely incest. Not from a genetic standpoint:
the kid produced has genes from different family groups. Not from a
sexual contact standpoint: There was no sexual contact between family
memebers.
Likely the lady had no way of getting good eggs to use for artificial
insemination, but wanted a child that was geneticly linked to her, so her
brothers sperm and a strangers egg fit the bill.
> The prosecutor said officials were also considering the legal implications
> of the pregnancy. It is illegal in France for women who are too old to
> conceive naturally to undergo artificial insemination.
Ah, the joys of France....
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>Though logic tells me this makes sense, to me it is the ultimate
>slippery slope.
Ooof.
(Ssst. There are no slippery slopes, unless you mean that phrase literally)
Dutch "well, or you're talking about Ylee" Courage
-"Ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
ain't gonna hang no picture, ain't gonna hang no picture frame
Well, I might look like Robert Ford, but I feel just like Jesse James"
Boron Elgar
Jingleheimerschmidt) wrote:
>Boron Elgar boron...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/21/2001 9:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
>
>>Though logic tells me this makes sense, to me it is the ultimate
>>slippery slope.
>
>Ooof.
>
>(Ssst. There are no slippery slopes, unless you mean that phrase literally)
Everything is slippery when you have a baby. Big mess from wet spot to
wedding day.
Boron
Opus the Penguin
>Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
>>(Ssst. There are no slippery slopes, unless you mean that phrase literally)
>
>Everything is slippery when you have a baby. Big mess from wet spot to
>wedding day.
Some of us can still remember back to a time when that order was generally
reversed.
N Jill Marsh
<opusthe...@nettaxi.com>wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>Everything is slippery when you have a baby. Big mess from wet spot to
>>wedding day.
>
>Some of us can still remember back to a time when that order was generally
>reversed.
You married your kids off before they were born? Eeewww, what kind of
penguin are you, exactly?
nj"some of can remember when it really was Wedding Day"m
"She was fighting the urge to pat me again.
I could hear her joints crying,
pleading to let her go."
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Well, or some of us are projecting our relative inability to hook up with
members of the opposite sex onto the rest of us, and pretending it makes us
better people, rather than worse.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>Everything is slippery when you have a baby. Big mess from wet spot to
>>>wedding day.
>>
>>Some of us can still remember back to a time when that order was generally
>>reversed.
>
> Well, or some of us are projecting our relative inability to hook up with
>members of the opposite sex onto the rest of us, and pretending it makes us
>better people, rather than worse.
Well, or some of us are just jealous that others of us get laid whenever we
want.
Boron Elgar
Ya mean your wife's feelings in the matter don't count? (wink wink.
nudge nudge)
Boron
Gary S. Callison
Witty riposte notwithstanding, I can say from personal experience that the
world is indeed a much brighter place with a regular weasel-waxing. The
magnitude of the change is staggering. I'd forgotten how nice this was.
--
Huey
ra...@westnet.poe.com
Hey, the man did say "we".
Opus the Penguin
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>>Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
>>>>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>>>>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>>>>>Everything is slippery when you have a baby. Big mess from wet spot to
>>>>>>wedding day.
>>>>>
>>>>>Some of us can still remember back to a time when that order was
>>>>>generally reversed.
>>>>
>>>> Well, or some of us are projecting our relative inability to hook up with
>>>>members of the opposite sex onto the rest of us, and pretending it makes
>>>>us better people, rather than worse.
>>>
>>>Well, or some of us are just jealous that others of us get laid whenever we
>>>want.
>
>>Ya mean your wife's feelings in the matter don't count? (wink wink.
>>nudge nudge)
>
>Hey, the man did say "we".
Thank you. When the little lady's not interested I try to talk her into it or
I wait for a better time. She does the same with me. And the bop don't happen
unless and until we're both interested. I would feel like a total pig
suggesting that she just lie back and think about England while I do my dirty
work.
Boron Elgar
It was, of course, a tease, & I would have truly assumed what you had
just written. Takes all the fun out of it if it isn't that way.
Boron
Big David
> Witty riposte notwithstanding, I can say from personal experience that
the
> world is indeed a much brighter place with a regular weasel-waxing. The
> magnitude of the change is staggering. I'd forgotten how nice this was.
I must admit to enjoying it when it when the weasel is waxed, but damn
them suckers is slippery afterwards.
--
Big David
To send email, take out "et" and "spam". Emails of replies appreciated.
"The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity."
Opus the Penguin
I knew it was a tease. (Even without the wink wink nudge nudge. Not that I'd
*want* to be without the wink wink nudge nudge, mind you. Wink wink. Nudge
nudge. Know what I mean? Say no MORE.)
For some reason I felt like pontificating about my sex life at that moment.
It's a rare occurrence and as such, like the return of the swallows to
Capistrano, an event to be anticipated and reveled in. (If you know what I
mean. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.... <Switch to Beavis and Butthead mode!> He said
... "swallows" ... huh huh. Huh huh huh huh huh.)
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>Takes all the fun out of it if it isn't that way.
>
>
Unless you're drunk.
John Dean
Opus the Penguin <opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:9h0mlf$bdd17$1...@ID-58324.news.dfncis.de...
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
> Thank you. When the little lady's not interested I try to talk her into it
or
> I wait for a better time. She does the same with me. And the bop don't
happen
> unless and until we're both interested. I would feel like a total pig
> suggesting that she just lie back and think about England while I do my
dirty
> work.
England? ENGLAND? Could Ya leave us out of this one, please?
Boron Elgar
All the more reason for me to use the wink wink. Offers you
encouragement to talk about all the "good" stuff!
Boron
>
Boron Elgar
Jingleheimerschmidt) wrote:
>Boron Elgar boron...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/22/2001 8:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
>>Takes all the fun out of it if it isn't that way.
>>
>>
>
>Unless you're drunk.
>
(After I wiped the Quaker Oatmeal Square residue off the monitor -
that was funny)
Speaking as an avid & enthusiastic scholar & of all things amorous, I
have never known a man for whom being drunk has improved performance
one whit, regardless of what he thinks at the moment or recalls the
next day.
Seriously, now, I'd like to hear opinions on this.
Boron
N Jill Marsh
<boron...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>Speaking as an avid & enthusiastic scholar & of all things amorous, I
>have never known a man for whom being drunk has improved performance
>one whit, regardless of what he thinks at the moment or recalls the
>next day.
>
>Seriously, now, I'd like to hear opinions on this.
I'm with you.
nj"what's the sample size now?"m
N Jill Marsh
>There's a time when a man ISN'T interested????? These are men from another
>planet!
Yes. Earth.
nj"stereotypes rn't us"m
Greg Goss
After my big doubletake, I concluded that she was talking about the
kid's wedding.
Gary S. Callison
: mutigho...@aol.comMMMS (Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt) wrote:
: >Boron Elgar boron...@hotmail.com sez:
: >>Takes all the fun out of it if it isn't that way.
: >Unless you're drunk.
: (After I wiped the Quaker Oatmeal Square residue off the monitor -
: that was funny)
: Speaking as an avid & enthusiastic scholar & of all things amorous, I
: have never known a man for whom being drunk has improved performance
: one whit, regardless of what he thinks at the moment or recalls the
: next day.
Define 'drunk'.
One or two drinks ('relaxed') is usually an improvement.
Three or four drinks ('silly' or 'tipsy') is sometimes an improvement.
Four or six drinks ('giddy' or 'stupid') is rarely an improvement, unless
both of you are that drunk and you're really into each other and enjoy
sloppy ham-handed playtime.
'I-talked-to-the-ex-and-slayed-a-bottle-of-Southern-in-a-rage' is almost
never an improvement. Unless your kink is 'grudge fuck', or your SO also
has an ex, a bottle of southern, and some rage.
I think two people who are well-matched can have good sex regardless of
circumstances. In the TMI department: when Ava and I went to Dana's
barbequeue a couple months ago, both of us were more than pretty drunk,
and yet neither of us had any complaints as to the other's performance,
although there were some questions the next day. "My God, where did THOSE
marks come from? What, did you go outside to piss and fall in the rose
bush?" It was apparently quite... ...enthusiastic.
Of course, your mileage may vary and, as always, 'make sure you give as
well as you get'.
--
Huey
tooloud10
news:gr69jtkojmf3h7tbi...@4ax.com...
Well, I think alcohol can improve performance in a few instances. There's a
fine line between being too drunk to fuck and being just drunk enough to
last all week, though generally, us men are incredibly poor at
differentiating between the two situations.YMMV.
> Boron
--
tooloud10
Remove nothing to reply
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I suppose I should have been clearer on this. Opinions based on
personal experience occurring while in an inebriated state do not
count, either from a male or female perspective. Let's hear from the
partners who have witnessed & been a part of it while under the legal
limit.
Gar, I guess this leaves out Ava, too. Our witnesses must be above
reproach.
And we all know the diff between having a glass or two of wine & being
shit faced. When I see the word "drunk", I think of the latter, not
the former.
Boron
Amy Austin
> Well, I think alcohol can improve performance in a few instances. There's a
> fine line between being too drunk to fuck and being just drunk enough to
> last all week, though generally, us men are incredibly poor at
> differentiating between the two situations.YMMV.
IANAG, but when I drink the sex gets REALLY interesting. Lack of
inhibitions, etc.
L & k,
Amy (I just bought a waterbed, it's filled up for me and you...)
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
No, probably not, but who cares? I know I'll accomplish what I set out to do,
drunk or sober.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Date: 6/23/2001 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:41:53 -0700, Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>>Thank you. When the little lady's not interested I try to talk her into it
>or
>>I wait for a better time. She does the same with me. And the bop don't
>happen
>
>There's a time when a man ISN'T interested?????
Yes. I've always regretted missing the 98 NBA all star game because my then-GF
wanted to have sex.
> These are men from another
>planet!
::puts check mark next to Kettir's name on list::
> (And don't tell me, "During the Superbowl or when they are playing
>with power tools" because as far as I can tell, many men's sweetest fantasy
>is to mix sports or power tools and nekkid women!)
Well, no. I mean, not your wife or your girlfriend or any other woman you've
had sex with in the last week or so. Now, sure, if suddenly Carol Alt
materialized next to you but some how her panties didn't catch the Zeta-ray
from the planet of supermodels who like beer bellies, well, then maybe the game
isn't so important, but in real life, could you wait until 7:30 or so? sheesh.
we can have sex any time, how many times are Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant
going to play in their last and first all star game, huh? sheesh.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
> No, probably not, but who cares? I know I'll accomplish what I set out to
>do,
>drunk or sober.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, "and that's really all that matters. What I want."
Dutch "it's all about me" Courage
Boron Elgar
Jingleheimerschmidt) wrote:
>Boron Elgar boron...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/23/2001 9:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
>>On 23 Jun 2001 07:46:09 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comMMMS (Dutch
>>Jingleheimerschmidt) wrote:
>>
>>>Boron Elgar boron...@hotmail.com
>>>Date: 6/22/2001 8:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>>>
>>>>Takes all the fun out of it if it isn't that way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Unless you're drunk.
>>>
>>(After I wiped the Quaker Oatmeal Square residue off the monitor -
>>that was funny)
>>
>>Speaking as an avid & enthusiastic scholar & of all things amorous, I
>>have never known a man for whom being drunk has improved performance
>>one whit, regardless of what he thinks at the moment or recalls the
>>next day.
>
> No, probably not, but who cares? I know I'll accomplish what I set out to do,
>drunk or sober.
Yes, I am sure you will. And I bet there is at least one blow-up doll
or dirty sock out there that thanks you for it.
Boron
John Dean
<ket...@seemysig.com> wrote in message
news:7j69jt0rt8kh9upbn...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:18:11 +0100, John Dean wrote:
>
> >
> >England? ENGLAND? Could Ya leave us out of this one, please?
>
> you in them?<G>
OK - perhaps the Mull of Kintyre (check it on an Atlas - what shape is it &
what does it look like?)
Boron Elgar
<john...@fragmsn.com> wrote:
>
><ket...@seemysig.com> wrote in message
>news:7j69jt0rt8kh9upbn...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:18:11 +0100, John Dean wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >England? ENGLAND? Could Ya leave us out of this one, please?
>>
>> All right already, how about if she thinks of the parts of England without
>> you in them?<G>
>
>OK - perhaps the Mull of Kintyre (check it on an Atlas - what shape is it &
>what does it look like?)
Uncirc'ed, too.
Boron
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
You know, despite how you feel, I bet sometimes your husb. would rather be down
at the bar with his fellas, watching TV. Something to keep in mind, Saran.
StarChaser_Tyger
Callison),
>Witty riposte notwithstanding, I can say from personal experience that the
>world is indeed a much brighter place with a regular weasel-waxing. The
>magnitude of the change is staggering. I'd forgotten how nice this was.
That reminds me. How went the condom tests? What'd you decide on?
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
Greg Goss
>>There's a time when a man ISN'T interested????? These are men from another
>>planet! (And don't tell me, "During the Superbowl or when they are playing
>>with power tools" because as far as I can tell, many men's sweetest fantasy
>>is to mix sports or power tools and nekkid women!)
>
>Nope...sometimes we just want to sit and snuggle.
Hush! They'll do that anyways. Don't undermine our negotiating.
Boron Elgar
Jingleheimerschmidt) wrote:
>Boron Elgar boron...@hotmail.com
>Date: 6/23/2001 7:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>
>>On 23 Jun 2001 22:29:47 GMT, mutigho...@aol.comMMMS (Dutch
>>Jingleheimerschmidt) wrote:
>
>>> No, probably not, but who cares? I know I'll accomplish what I set out to
>>do,
>>>drunk or sober.
>>
>>Yes, I am sure you will. And I bet there is at least one blow-up doll
>>or dirty sock out there that thanks you for it.
>
>You know, despite how you feel, I bet sometimes your husb. would rather be down
>at the bar with his fellas, watching TV. Something to keep in mind, Saran.
>
Oh , I am so glad I saw this. For one, it let me know that there was
still a computer that I hadn't shit piled you on yet & the other is to
remind you, sorry soul that you are, that you really are clueless
about the depth of relationship that can develop in a marriage. You
needn't try to take your own inadequacies & swilling preferences and
project them somewhere else.
Honest to God, George, someone should train you not to piss on the
kitchen floor. You need a good smack on the nose with a rolled up
newspaper.
Boron
Sean Houtman
>Likely the lady had no way of getting good eggs to use for artificial
>insemination, but wanted a child that was geneticly linked to her, so her
>brothers sperm and a strangers egg fit the bill.
The story I heard was that the lady wantd to carry on the family
name...basically doing it so her brother could have a kid.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 04-15-01 with 65 pictures of Carlsbad Caverns "Big Room".
GrapeApe
>>insemination, but wanted a child that was geneticly linked to her, so her
>
>>brothers sperm and a strangers egg fit the bill.
>
>The story I heard was that the lady wantd to carry on the family
>name...basically doing it so her brother could have a kid.
Women carry the surname in France? If "wanting to carry on the family name was
the deal, Brother would have just found himself a wife.
Does anyone think there may be some strange estate issues involved, Due to
someones last wishes, where family land would be promised to a grandchild, but
otherwise, might fall into the Governments hands?
I don't think that is at issue here, just someone wanting to bear a child, with
some blood relation.
N Jill Marsh
>Women carry the surname in France? If "wanting to carry on the family name was
>the deal, Brother would have just found himself a wife.
Why? She's not married, she's got a kid, whose surname is it going to
have? While conventions/legalities on naming differ widely from place
to place, I don't think France assigns surnames, rather it takes what
the parents submit (within reason).
nj" le jello d'orange"m
"I only stopped to swallow snot and
any food that got in my way."
GrapeApe
>name was
>>the deal, Brother would have just found himself a wife.
>
>Why? She's not married, she's got a kid, whose surname is it going to
>have?
Hmm. I may have been working on the assumption that the urge to 'carry on the
family name' is not considered as much by females as it is by males in a
patriarchal society where most women may both get married and change their last
name to their husbands before having a child, and that is not typically an
option they are placed to consider as important. That is the cliche of a child
as merely a "last chance for family name being carried on" is one more often
set upon males, and not as much of concern to the women bringing the child into
the world.
Are you assuming women WOULD have a child merely to carry on the family name,
given that they usually don't have that placed as high in the heiracrchy for
bringing a life into the world?
I've heard a lot of female biological clocks ticking, but not many of them were
going "Family name, Family name". Most were going "Baby, Baby".
StarChaser_Tyger
It's ok, I wrote that in Female-Invisible Ink. No women can see it, as
long as they've got 'IAmAChick=1' set in the registry...
Michael Lorton
> Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:25:21 -0700, "Opus the Penguin"
> > <opusthe...@nettaxi.com> wrote:
> >>Well, or some of us are just jealous that others of us get laid whenever we
> >>want.
>
> > Ya mean your wife's feelings in the matter don't count? (wink wink.
> > nudge nudge)
>
> Hey, the man did say "we".
"I got home and my wife was mad at me about something. She says,
'We're not having sex tonight!' I say, 'What do you mean, "we"?'"
M.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>Oh , I am so glad I saw this.
Settle down, beavis. Shawn isn't the only one who can be full of shit
sometimes, and what would I be if I let some people slide, huh?
>the other is to
>remind you, sorry soul that you are, that you really are clueless
>about the depth of relationship that can develop in a marriage.
I can't possibly imagine anyone doesn't want to be by themselves at least some
of the time, thinking their own thoughts and seeing where they may go.
>Honest to God, George, someone should train you not to piss on the
>kitchen floor.
Well, or not to piss off the relatively fragile. I never mastered that trick,
it's true.
> You need a good smack on the nose with a rolled up
>newspaper.
"You's a flea, N' I'm the big dog
I scratch you off my balls with my mothafuckin' paws
Y'alls, niggaz, better recognize
N' see where I'm comin' from is still east side
Till I die, why ask why
As the world keeps spinnin' to the D-O-Double-G-Y
Chorus:(The Dramatics and some girl)
It's a crazy mixed up world, it's a Doggy Dogg World
It's a Doggy Dogg World, it's a Doggy Dogg World
The Dogg's World"
Dutch "Ain't your average Huckleberry Hound" Courage
Gary S. Callison
: hu...@interaccess.com (Gary S. Callison),
: > Witty riposte notwithstanding, I can say from personal experience that
: > the world is indeed a much brighter place with a regular
: > weasel-waxing. The magnitude of the change is staggering. I'd
: > forgotten how nice this was.
: That reminds me. How went the condom tests? What'd you decide on?
The initial finding is that "Condoms still suck". Further research on
this topic has been indefinitely suspended.
--
Huey
However, there are exciting new developments in the field of 'leather
restraints'...
Nick Spalding
> Does anyone think there may be some strange estate issues involved, Due to
> someones last wishes, where family land would be promised to a grandchild, but
> otherwise, might fall into the Governments hands?
I have seen it suggested that something like this is the case. It is
said that the mother of this pair is still alive and the whole
enterprise is designed to prevent some other branch of the family
getting their hands on the money (which is considerable) when she
goes.
--
Nick Spalding
Nick Spalding
> On 26 Jun 2001 00:59:07 GMT, grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe)wrote:
>
> >Women carry the surname in France? If "wanting to carry on the family name was
> >the deal, Brother would have just found himself a wife.
>
> Why? She's not married, she's got a kid, whose surname is it going to
> have? While conventions/legalities on naming differ widely from place
> to place, I don't think France assigns surnames, rather it takes what
> the parents submit (within reason).
In this case the surname of sister and brother is presumably the same
so no difficulty in choosing which to use for the child should exist.
--
Nick Spalding
N Jill Marsh
>Hmm. I may have been working on the assumption that the urge to 'carry on the
>family name' is not considered as much by females as it is by males in a
>patriarchal society where most women may both get married and change their last
>name to their husbands before having a child, and that is not typically an
>option they are placed to consider as important. That is the cliche of a child
>as merely a "last chance for family name being carried on" is one more often
>set upon males, and not as much of concern to the women bringing the child into
>the world.
You've never known a guy who is the only boy with a lot of sisters?
Some women/families place a huge emphasis on the whole family
continuity thing. While it may be more prevalent in guys, it's still
very strong in lots of women. However, given the conventional set up
today, they tend to direct those feelings into applying pressure on
brother to get married and have a kid, rather than do it themselves.
That said, I know a couple of single moms who expressed their desire
to carry on a family name as one of the reasons they chose to have
their baby (these are planned pregnancies I'm referring to). It's not
the principle reason, but it was this bonus that came along with the
baby.
>Are you assuming women WOULD have a child merely to carry on the family name,
>given that they usually don't have that placed as high in the heiracrchy for
>bringing a life into the world?
No. Neither. I think it's a bonus to some. I also think that for
lots of women, it's important. Perhaps it wasn't as big a deal when
families were bigger, and women didn't really have to consider it, but
it's certainly very important to a lot of women I know.
>I've heard a lot of female biological clocks ticking, but not many of them were
>going "Family name, Family name". Most were going "Baby, Baby".
Which is how it should be. Though I'd have to say the same is true
for most men I know. The family name thing may be a bigger bonus than
for women, on average, but most guys I know want the kid, boy or girl,
rather than merely a name. And it doesn't matter at all to some men.
The Best Beloved's father didn't care a switch what I put down as a
surname on the birth registration, if anything, he was leaning towards
my family name, but his mother and sister sure did!
nj"what's in a name?"m
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin wrote
>>Thank you. When the little lady's not interested I try to talk her into it
>>or I wait for a better time. She does the same with me. And the bop don't
>>pig suggesting that she just lie back and think about England while I
>>do my dirty work.
>
> England? ENGLAND? Could Ya leave us out of this one, please?
<grin> What between this and my mis-characterizing your entire country in the
death penalty thread, you're taking a bit of a beating, aren't you?
Truth is, I love the British Isles in general and England in particular. Of my
polyglot origins, the 1/4 English (via a Liverpudlian grandfather) is the one
with which I identify most strongly. And the 1/4 Irish (via Grandma Kelly) is
the second.
You gave us Beowulf, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Jane Austen, William
Wordsworth, Thomas Hardy. (We gave you T. S. Eliot, but you nurtured him and
buried him in the Abbey. He's yours. Another great.) The list could go on and
on. My debt as a littérateur to England is incalculable.
My debt for my sense of humor to P. G. Wodehouse, Monty Python, and Douglas
Adams is also considerable.
In classical music, you don't offer much. (Neither do we.) But so what? Bach,
Mozart, and Beethoven are easy enough to understand without knowing German.
But a German translation of Shakespeare is going to pale next to the real
thing. English is the language to know and England made it worth knowing.
In painting, again, maybe the Eye-talians and the Frogs offer more. Big deal.
I got eyes. I can see. Let them try to get as much out of Milton in
translation as I did from the original. English wins again because of England.
As far as painting goes, the Pre-Raphaelites are incredible. And what did
they do in addition to paintings that anyone with eyes can enjoy? That's
right; they wrote. In English. See The Blessed Damozel and enjoy it. Read The
Blessed Damozel and enjoy both works of art more.[1]
I loved the place when I visited there, too. Didn't care for London (except to
visit) but Bath and the surrounding countryside stole my heart.
The "lie back and think of England" gag is just Queen Victoria's famous,
presumably apocryphal, advice to new brides about to go on honeymoon overseas.
But don't accept that explanation as an excuse. Accept, rather, the above
paean as the sincerest of apologies.
Yours etc.
Opus T. Penguin
[1] http://www.wwnorton.com/nael/nto/victorian/painterly/damozelfrm.htm
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>
>In painting, again, maybe the Eye-talians and the Frogs offer more.
Nah, there's only a couple three important French painters Well, six, seven.
Oh, wait, eight. Now, the Dutch and the Spanish, on the other hand...
>As far as painting goes, the Pre-Raphaelites are incredible.
well, they don't suck. They are sort of derivative. None of them can touch,
say, Raphael, you understand. Vermeer.
>And what did
>they do in addition to paintings that anyone with eyes can enjoy?
You know, if you knew very much about painting you'd probably like them a
little less. I'm not totally sure it isn't all an excuse to have pictures of
round bottomed naked drowned girls in your house.
> That's
>right; they wrote. In English. See The Blessed Damozel and enjoy it. Read The
>Blessed Damozel and enjoy both works of art more.[1]
Aw, you prolly like Vivaldi, too.
tooloud10
news:20010626004352...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
<snip>
> "You's a flea, N' I'm the big dog
> I scratch you off my balls with my mothafuckin' paws
> Y'alls, niggaz, better recognize
> N' see where I'm comin' from is still east side
> Till I die, why ask why
> As the world keeps spinnin' to the D-O-Double-G-Y
>
> Chorus:(The Dramatics and some girl)
> It's a crazy mixed up world, it's a Doggy Dogg World
> It's a Doggy Dogg World, it's a Doggy Dogg World
> The Dogg's World"
Been a while since I've heard that...
> Dutch "Ain't your average Huckleberry Hound" Courage
--
tooloud "probably the only other Doggystyle owner in this forum" 10
Remove nothing to reply
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>In painting, again, maybe the Eye-talians and the Frogs offer more.
>
>Nah, there's only a couple three important French painters Well, six, seven.
>Oh, wait, eight. Now, the Dutch and the Spanish, on the other hand...
Yeah, that's why it's hard to find good art in France.
>>As far as painting goes, the Pre-Raphaelites are incredible.
>
>well, they don't suck.
More importantly in the context of what I was saying, they're better than
anything the United States has produced.
>They are sort of derivative. None of them can touch,
>say, Raphael, you understand. Vermeer.
I prefer Van Eyck to Vermeer. Raphael doesn't do much for me. Nevertheless, I
am as always appropriately grateful for your guidance.
>You know, if you knew very much about painting you'd probably like them a
>little less. I'm not totally sure it isn't all an excuse to have pictures of
>round bottomed naked drowned girls in your house.
I'm not familiar with the painting to which you allude. Millais did a
well-known painting of Ophelia, but she was fully clothed.
>> That's
>>right; they wrote. In English. See The Blessed Damozel and enjoy it. Read
The
>>Blessed Damozel and enjoy both works of art more.[1]
>
>Aw, you prolly like Vivaldi, too.
Sure, he's pleasant enough. For Baroque, my tastes run more to Bach, though.
The opening to the St. Matthew Passion is a couple of centuries ahead of its
time in some ways. It's as though Stravinsky went neo-Baroque rather than
neo-Classical.
GrapeApe
>>
>>well, they don't suck.
>
>More importantly in the context of what I was saying, they're better than
>anything the United States has produced.
They were basically illustrators. If there is any thing that says "american
art' to me, its illustration,
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
>>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>>In painting, again, maybe the Eye-talians and the Frogs offer more.
>>
>>Nah, there's only a couple three important French painters Well, six, seven.
>>Oh, wait, eight. Now, the Dutch and the Spanish, on the other hand...
>
>Yeah, that's why it's hard to find good art in France.
Hey, want to play a game? I'll name Dutch and Spanish painters of merit and
influence, limiting myself to artist who did the bulk of their work before the
18th century, and you can name any french artists, ever. What do you think
Vegas would open the odds at for who can come up with the longer list?
>
>>>As far as painting goes, the Pre-Raphaelites are incredible.
>>
>>well, they don't suck.
>
>More importantly in the context of what I was saying, they're better than
>anything the United States has produced.
Well, except of course the Hudson River school, and the Ash Can school, mmmm.
In fact, our commercial art is equal to the output of the pre-raphaelites.
>
>>They are sort of derivative. None of them can touch,
>>say, Raphael, you understand. Vermeer.
>
>I prefer Van Eyck to Vermeer.
What you prefer is of very little concern to anyone but you.
>Raphael doesn't do much for me.
Please allow me to be the first one, apparently, to point out to you that
"does much for Opus" is not the determining factor in what gives art lasting
signifigance, although it is good to know I needn't bother asking you if he was
going for a Mark Tansey thing in School of Athens.
>Nevertheless, I
>am as always appropriately grateful for your guidance.
No, you're not. You're terribly snide, and I have no idea why. I assume,
though, you have ordinarily functioning eyes and so can see why something like
this:
http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Velazquez8.html
or this:
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/velazquez/innocent.jpg.html
Is vastly superior to crap like:
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti34.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti18.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti33.html
Rosetti struggles with textures, and he has to stylize away his lack of
understanding of anatomy. Compare especially Velazquez's hands to Rosettis.
hey, you know an American commercial illustrator who was a vastly more
talented draftsman than Rosetti? C. D. Gibson, yeah. An ace renderer, knew his
anatomy up and down, his stylizations reveal the work rather than attempt to
hide his shortcomings
I don't mind you not knowing about art, Bill. I mind you being proud of not
knowing and snide when certain things are pointed out to you.
>
>>You know, if you knew very much about painting you'd probably like them a
>>little less. I'm not totally sure it isn't all an excuse to have pictures of
>>round bottomed naked drowned girls in your house.
>
>I'm not familiar with the painting to which you allude.
Sorry, I'm lumping a couple of things that are really only similar to the
pre-raphaelites,Bouguereau, Moreau in with the actual original PR's proper.
> Millais did a
>well-known painting of Ophelia, but she was fully clothed.
I'm thinking of various, you have consumptive nude nerids who seek to pull an
armored knight or saint into the river with them, but I might be blurring the
distinction between the Pre-Raphaelites and contemporary fairy-fantasy
paintings more than is really warranted. But I think the point still stands,
that those aren't the best or most interesting paintings that exist, unless you
like naked fairy girls.
>
>>> That's
>>>right; they wrote. In English. See The Blessed Damozel and enjoy it.
Well, except for those poorly rendered faces at the bottom.
> Read
>The
>>>Blessed Damozel and enjoy both works of art more.[1]
you're defending the 19th century's Patrick Nagel, do you know that?
>>
>>Aw, you prolly like Vivaldi, too.
>
>Sure, he's pleasant enough.
So, you like cloying. Well, fine, but we have Thomas Eakins in America, and he
could really draw and paint.
> For Baroque, my tastes run more to Bach, though.
It's interesting to me how Baroque art is theatrical and stagy and narrative,
while Baroque music is unexpressive and decorative.
Anyway, don't go around saying America has never produced anything that equaled
the pre-raphaelites to anyone who knows more about art than Geno or Bokeno.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
>>>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>>>As far as painting goes, the Pre-Raphaelites are incredible.
>>>
>>>well, they don't suck.
>>
>>More importantly in the context of what I was saying, they're better than
>>anything the United States has produced.
>
>Well, except of course the Hudson River school, and the Ash Can school, mmmm.
>In fact, our commercial art is equal to the output of the pre-raphaelites.
"In fact."
>>>They are sort of derivative. None of them can touch,
>>>say, Raphael, you understand. Vermeer.
>>
>>I prefer Van Eyck to Vermeer.
>
> What you prefer is of very little concern to anyone but you.
I thought we were having a discussion about preferences in art. You should
have alerted me sooner that you felt we were discussing matters of fact. I'll
have to take your word for it that Vermeer is factually superior to Van Eyck
since I'm not quite sure how such measures are taken. (Maybe I should re-read
the front of that book in Dead Poet's Society.)
>>Raphael doesn't do much for me.
>
>Please allow me to be the first one, apparently, to point out to you that
>"does much for Opus" is not the determining factor in what gives art lasting
>signifigance,
I wasn't aware anyone claimed otherwise. I'd be flattered, sure. But I think
I'd still prefer to stick with the current system of determing what art has
lasting significance.
>>Nevertheless, I
>>am as always appropriately grateful for your guidance.
>
>No, you're not.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
>You're terribly snide, and I have no idea why.
I'm sorry that you're offended. You seemed to be coming on the way you do when
you're looking for a slugfest. I thought the rules specified that I was
allowed to slug back (or at least take a poke). I hope you can accept that in
good humor. I'm really not looking to make you *actually* angry.
>I assume, though, you have ordinarily functioning eyes and so can see
>why something like this:
>
> http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Velazquez8.html
I can see why that would appeal to some. It's certainly technically well done.
>or this:
>
>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/velazquez/innocent.jpg.html
The right hand's a little funny. But the face is extraordinary. I love that
ear.
>Is vastly superior to crap like:
>
>http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti34.html
I wouldn't call it crap. It's quite lovely. The colors are extraordinary. And
I love the El Greco look in the left background. The woman's face is not one
of Rossetti's better efforts, I'll allow.
>http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti18.html
This one's terrible. There's no excuse for it. Dogs Playing Poker is better,
let alone Velasquez.
>http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti33.html
Also not that great. I take it you were trying to find the worst examples
rather than the best? Even the Rossetti page you reference has much better
examples. Check out The Bower Meadow.
That site also offers a pretty good sampling of other Pre-Raphaelites such as
John Everett Millais
http://www.abcgallery.com/M/millais/millais.html
Edward Burne-Jones
http://www.abcgallery.com/B/burne-jones/burnejones.html
and William Holman Hunt
http://www.abcgallery.com/H/huntwh/huntwh.html
>>>Aw, you prolly like Vivaldi, too.
>>
>>Sure, he's pleasant enough.
>
>So, you like cloying.
Nope. As with Handel, I wonder if you have heard Vivaldi played at the proper
tempo on suitably acerbic period instruments. Vivaldi can indeed be cloying
when played by, say, the Berlin Philharmonic using modern instruments,
vibrato, and at least twice the size orchestra, all under the lugubrious baton
of Herbert von Karajan.
>Well, fine, but we have Thomas Eakins in America, and he
>could really draw and paint.
>
>>For Baroque, my tastes run more to Bach, though.
>
>It's interesting to me how Baroque art is theatrical and stagy and narrative,
>while Baroque music is unexpressive and decorative.
Yeah, probably the closest musical match to Baroque art would have been
Purcell's _Faerie Queen_.
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>Yeah, that's why it's hard to find good art in France.
>
>Hey, want to play a game? I'll name Dutch and Spanish painters of merit and
>influence, limiting myself to artist who did the bulk of their work before
>the 18th century, and you can name any french artists, ever. What do you
>think Vegas would open the odds at for who can come up with the longer list?
Ok, big guy. Let's go. Just a small warning, though. First time you name a
Flemish painter, yer out.
Here's my list. Match it up and add one and we'll go from there. (I'll name
the blockbusters first and proceed to the ones "of merit and influence" whose
names might *not* be instantly recognizable to everyone on this group. It'll
aso give us the fun of seeing if you can even match my A list):
A: (Most don't even need first names to be instantly recognizable)
Cezanne
Chagall
Degas
Delacroix
Duchamp
Gauguin
Ingres
Manet
Matisse
Monet
Pissarro
Renoir
Rodin
Rousseau (Henri)
Seurat
Toulouse-Lautrec
B:
Jean Arp
Pierre Bonnard
Francois Boucher
Constantin Brancusi
Georges Braque
Bernard Buffet
Jean Baptiste Simeon Chardin
Camille Claudel
Camille Cordot
Gustave Courbet
Honore Daumier
Jacques-Louis David
Nicolas De Stael
Andre Derain
Jean Philippe Arthur Dubuffet
Max Ernst
Jean Fouquet
Jean-Honore Fragonard
Juan Gris
Jean Antoine Houdon
Georges de La Tour
Charles Lebrun
Aristide Maillol
Nicolas Poussin
Pierre Paul Prud'hon
Medardo Rosso
Georges Henri Rouault
Edouard Vuillard
Jean-Antoine Watteau
Or, if you prefer. You can go to the following sites and stare at the lists.
(Careful with the first one. It takes a while to load.):
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/French.html
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/Spanish.html
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/Dutch.html
And, ah heck, let's throw in the Flemish as well. Everybody thinks they're
Dutch anyway.
http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/Flemish.html
Here are the totals --
Nationality <18th Cent. ALL
Spanish 66 119
Dutch 217 280
--- ---
Subtotal 283 399
Flemish 146 155
--- ---
Total 429 554
VERSUS
French 109 680
In artcyclopedia's lists anyway, the French artists not only outnumber the
Spanish, Dutch, (and Flemish) artists prior to the 18th century, the French
artists outnumber the combined total of the three proposed nations *period*.
kay w
<snip art discussion with Dutch and BPO>
I freely admit I know next to nothing about art or "Art". However, what's the
deal with the necks on the Rossetti pieces Dutch referenced? They're fat, and
long, and twisted and weird-looking. Is there some reason for that, or am I
looking at them funny?
kay w
Address munged. AOL isn't necessarily comatose, evidence to the contrary not
withstanding.
Opus the Penguin
><snip art discussion with Dutch and BPO>
Dutch is discussing art with the Berlin Philharmonic? Hey Dutch!, I have some
suggestions for them
>I freely admit I know next to nothing about art or "Art". However, what's
the
>deal with the necks on the Rossetti pieces Dutch referenced? They're fat,
and
>long, and twisted and weird-looking. Is there some reason for that, or am I
>looking at them funny?
Dutch picked two of the worst examples he could find, and one that was ok.
Done well, the neck can have an elegant, ethereal effect.
Try, for example, The Bower Meadow:
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti40.html
kay w
Me:>However, what's
>the
>>deal with the necks on the Rossetti pieces Dutch referenced?
BPO:
>Done well, the neck can have an elegant, ethereal effect.
>Try, for example, The Bower Meadow:
http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti40.html
Well, I dunno, Ope. They still look funny to me...I'm looking in a mirror, and
while it might be that *my* neck isn't quite right, on these gals it looks like
their necks are coming off the front of their shoulders, rather than kinda
straight up.
Think what their spines must look like.
And their thumbs are funny looking, too.
Don't get me wrong, I can't draw a straight line with a ruler, so shouldn't
complain, and maybe I'm supposed to be seeing the gaiety and pastoral joy of
these women dancing around in the meadow or something. Probably need to study
up on this but I think the Mona LIsa is goofy looking, too, so I'm obviously no
judge.
I like Gary Larson, and pictures of my dog. Ooh, ooh, and Maxfield Parrish.
Parrish Blue. I like that. And a book illustration he did for a collection of
Eugene Field poems where the flyleaf is a drawing of a guy getting eaten by a
giant lobster. Now *that's* art.
Rick Howard
Opus the Penguin wrote
> Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
> >Opus the Penguin writes:
> >>Yeah, that's why it's hard to find good art in France.
> >
> >Hey, want to play a game? I'll name Dutch and Spanish painters of merit
and
> >influence, limiting myself to artist who did the bulk of their work
before
> >the 18th century, and you can name any french artists, ever. What do you
> >think Vegas would open the odds at for who can come up with the longer
list?
>
> Ok, big guy. Let's go. Just a small warning, though. First time you name a
> Flemish painter, yer out.
>
> Here's my list. Match it up and add one and we'll go from there. (I'll
name
> the blockbusters first and proceed to the ones "of merit and influence"
whose
> names might *not* be instantly recognizable to everyone on this group.
It'll
> aso give us the fun of seeing if you can even match my A list):
>
> A: (Most don't even need first names to be instantly recognizable)
> Cezanne
> Chagall
Can smart alecks in the peanut gallery interfere
with your game? We can? Good.
I would challenge categorizing Chagall as a French
artist. He started life as a Russian, ended life as an
American, and only was in France en passente,
so to speak. I propose that Chagall should count
as no more than 1/3rd of a French artist.
Okay, I'm through being obnoxious for now.
You can return to your game. (I suddenly
am overcome by the desire to dress like a
peasant and sit on the roof.)
Rick (paint me blue) Howard
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
>>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>>Yeah, that's why it's hard to find good art in France.
>>
>>Hey, want to play a game? I'll name Dutch and Spanish painters of merit and
>>influence, limiting myself to artist who did the bulk of their work before
>>the 18th century, and you can name any french artists, ever. What do you
>>think Vegas would open the odds at for who can come up with the longer list?
>
>Ok, big guy. Let's go. Just a small warning, though. First time you name a
>Flemish painter, yer out.
That's fine talk from a guy who made Arp and Ernst French on his list. I'm
going to name Flemish painters, and a couple from what would only later be
called Germany.
>
>Here's my list. Match it up and add one and we'll go from there. (I'll name
>the blockbusters first and proceed to the ones "of merit and influence" whose
>names might *not* be instantly recognizable to everyone on this group.
Why is Chagall on the first list and David on the second?
> It'll
>aso give us the fun of seeing if you can even match my A list):
My, but you're bold.
>
>A: (Most don't even need first names to be instantly recognizable)
>Cezanne
>Chagall
>Degas
>Delacroix
>Duchamp
>Gauguin
>Ingres
>Manet
>Matisse
>Monet
>Pissarro
>Renoir
>Rodin
>Rousseau (Henri)
>Seurat
>Toulouse-Lautrec
Big Deal Dutch-Flemish and just over where the border into what would later be
Germany (and just consider yourself lucky I tought I'd keep it fair and exclude
Hispano-Flemish) painters who worked prior to the 18th c.
Melchior Broederlam
Robert Campin
Jan Van Eyck
Hubert Van Eyck
Rogier van der Weyden
Petrus Christus
Dirck Bouts
Hans Memling
Hugo van der Goes
Hieronymous Bosch
Peter Brueghel
Jan Breughel the Elder
Jan Breughel the Younger
Marinus van Reymerswaele
Matthias Gruenwald
Albrecht Durer
Peter Paul Rubans
Anthony Van Dyck
Franz Hals
Judith Leyster
Rembrandt van Rijn
Aelbert Cuyp
Jacob van Ruisdal
Meindert Hobbema
Gerard Ter Borch
Jan Vermeer
Emanuel de Witte
Willem Kalf
Anna Maria Sibylla Merian
Pieter de Hooch
Geertgen tot Sint Jans
Hans Baldung Grien
Jan Gossaert
Jachim Patinir
Jacob Jordaens
Frans Snyders
Hendrick Terbugghen
Jan Van Goyen
Pieter Saenredam
Willem Claesz
Jan De Heemas
Jan Steen
Looks like you need to go back to Sister Wendy before you go on about the
signifigance of various art movements.
What, no Triosan? Gros?
>Or, if you prefer. You can go to the following sites and stare at the lists.
>(Careful with the first one. It takes a while to load.):
>
>http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/French.html
>http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/Spanish.html
>http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/Dutch.html
>
>And, ah heck, let's throw in the Flemish as well. Everybody thinks they're
>Dutch anyway.
pretty specious distinction, in fact.
>
>http://www.artcyclopedia.com/nationalities/Flemish.html
>
>Here are the totals --
>
>Nationality <18th Cent. ALL
>Spanish 66 119
>Dutch 217 280
> --- ---
>Subtotal 283 399
>
>Flemish 146 155
> --- ---
>Total 429 554
>
> VERSUS
>
>French 109 680
>
>In artcyclopedia's lists anyway, the French artists not only outnumber the
>Spanish, Dutch, (and Flemish) artists prior to the 18th century,
Boy, good thing I didn't challenge the Artcyclopedia, huh?
> the French
>artists outnumber the combined total of the three proposed nations *period*.
Am I reading this wrong, or is 789 a larger number than 983?
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
Date: 6/27/2001 5:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>Previously:
>
>Me:>However, what's
>>the
>>>deal with the necks on the Rossetti pieces Dutch referenced?
Rosetti is trying to cop an international gothic style that's just ever so
slightly beyond his ability.
>
>BPO:
>>Done well, the neck can have an elegant, ethereal effect.
>>Try, for example, The Bower Meadow:
>http://www.abcgallery.com/R/rossetti/rossetti40.html
Sure, if you think a dowagers hump is elegant and ethereal.
>
>Well, I dunno, Ope. They still look funny to me...I'm looking in a mirror,
>and
>while it might be that *my* neck isn't quite right, on these gals it looks
>like
>their necks are coming off the front of their shoulders, rather than kinda
>straight up.
>Think what their spines must look like.
That kind of elongation works a little better here, say
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/I/ingres/ingres_grand_odalisque.jpg.html
(no, I didn't pick out the worst Rosettis I could find, either, I just selected
three or four at random that aren't very good. Most of his paintings aren't
that good, and the ones that are any good are only as good as something Gibson
would've come up with.)
Opus the Penguin
Keep going. You're not there yet.
>>Here are the totals --
>>
>>Nationality <18th Cent. ALL
>>Spanish 66 119
>>Dutch 217 280
>> --- ---
>>Subtotal 283 399
>>
>>Flemish 146 155
>> --- ---
>>Total 429 554
>>
>> VERSUS
>>
>>French 109 680
>>
>>In artcyclopedia's lists anyway, the French artists not only outnumber the
>>Spanish, Dutch, (and Flemish) artists prior to the 18th century,
>
> Boy, good thing I didn't challenge the Artcyclopedia, huh?
Ah, but you did. To save time, I'm submitting that list. You can use their
lists as your jumping off point and try to make up the 126 artist difference
out of your pocket.
>>the French
>>artists outnumber the combined total of the three proposed nations *period*.
>
>Am I reading this wrong, or is 789 a larger number than 983?
You're reading it wrong. The word "ALL," means "all" (only with the sort of
emphasis that all-caps can provide).
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>Keep going. You're not there yet.
>
Well, I think I did what I set out to do.
>> Boy, good thing I didn't challenge the Artcyclopedia, huh?
>
>Ah, but you did. To save time, I'm submitting that list.
Nope.
> You can use their
>lists as your jumping off point and try to make up the 126 artist difference
>out of your pocket.
I don't think that matters, though, since one Rubans or Rembrandt is worth five
or six Triosans, say.
>The word "ALL," means "all" (only with the sort of
>emphasis that all-caps can provide
Ah, okay. Note, however, that France did not become a leader in the art world
until, mmmm...I dunno, 1750 or so. 300 years later than what would later be
Italy, say.
And this is a relative side point, too, to your major premise(s), that America
has never created anything to equal the pre-raphaelites, or that anyone with
eyes can appreciate the pre-raphaelites, or that pre-raphaelism is a major art
movement.
Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt
>>Well, except of course the Hudson River school, and the Ash Can school,
>mmmm.
>>In fact, our commercial art is equal to the output of the pre-raphaelites.
>
>"In fact."
Yeah, in fact. I have here two standard issue college art history text books.
In Janson's "history of art," the pre-raphaelites have about half a page and
three examples. None of the artists are given a separate entry. By contrast,
the Barbizon school has a quarter pages, and its artists, Innes, Eakins, Homer
and Tanner have quater page entries and examples from each
In Stokstad's "art history, " we see the PR's are given about a page, and
three examples, including that Rosetti we agree isn't so good, la Pia de'
Tolomei.
Winslow Homer and Eakins are given two pages, and three examples.
I think you can also fairly objectively compare things like use of color, line,
stylization, composition, etc.
>I thought we were having a discussion about preferences in art.
Well, if we were, then I wonder why you say something about what everyone else,
"anyone with eyes" can appreciate, or comparing one movement or school to
another.
> You should
>have alerted me sooner that you felt we were discussing matters of fact.
Well, or relatively objective matters, sure.
> I'll
>have to take your word for it that Vermeer is factually superior to Van Eyck
>since I'm not quite sure how such measures are taken.
The things he paints look more like what they're supposed to be pictures of,
which you've announced is the only measure of a good painting, denying the
existence of context or subtext, etc.
>
>I wasn't aware anyone claimed otherwise.
I can't imagine why anyone would otherwise volunteer how they felt about
Raphael, say.
>I can see why that would appeal to some. It's certainly technically well
>done.
well, you step outside of "technically well done" and you have to like R.
Mutt's output.
>Also not that great. I take it you were trying to find the worst examples
>rather than the best?
Nah, just any old that I saw.
> Even the Rossetti page you reference has much better
>examples. Check out The Bower Meadow.
It all looks the same to me.
>
>That site also offers a pretty good sampling of other Pre-Raphaelites such as
>John Everett Millais
>
> http://www.abcgallery.com/M/millais/millais.html
yeah, he's much better. But better than Whistler and Sargent? I dunno.
>
>Edward Burne-Jones
>
> http://www.abcgallery.com/B/burne-jones/burnejones.html
>
>and William Holman Hunt
>
> http://www.abcgallery.com/H/huntwh/huntwh.html
Trash. I also wonder if it would burn his ass that something like "the
awakening conscience" would mostly be seen as an example of frivolous,
decorative art, when it was created as a reaction against it.
>Yeah, probably the closest musical match to Baroque art would have been
>Purcell's _Faerie Queen_.
I associate the apotheosis ceilings with ode to joy, and then I think of
Bernini as very much Wagner.
kay w
Dutch:
> That kind of elongation works a little better here, say
>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/I/ingres/ingres_grand_odalisque.jpg.html
>
>(no, I didn't pick out the worst Rosettis I could find, either, I just
>selected
>three or four at random that aren't very good.
You're right, that is better ( or at least not as deformed looking) but man, is
that girl longwaisted. Is this an intentional exaggeration of appearance to
conform with some standard, or were these people oddly shaped, or what? Wasn't
there someone whose name I should know who painted his wife's portrait with
sufficient realism that signs of the breast cancer (?) that killed her are
noticable?
I'm up for free education.
N Jill Marsh
<ri...@mindspring.com>wrote:
>Rick (paint me blue) Howard
Only if I can float you around in the air in a joyous and carefree
manner.
nj"like a fairy, but manly"m
"A stomach aching to be filled,
bare feet aching like an
old, old man's."
StarChaser_Tyger
Callison),
>StarChaser_Tyger (StarC...@mindless.com) wrote:
>: hu...@interaccess.com (Gary S. Callison),
>: > Witty riposte notwithstanding, I can say from personal experience that
>: > the world is indeed a much brighter place with a regular
>: > weasel-waxing. The magnitude of the change is staggering. I'd
>: > forgotten how nice this was.
>: That reminds me. How went the condom tests? What'd you decide on?
>
>The initial finding is that "Condoms still suck". Further research on
>this topic has been indefinitely suspended.
<laughs> Yeah, that's kind of my opinion too. Some suck less than
others, though...
--
Visit the Furry Artist InFURmation Page! Contact information, which artists
do and don't want their work posted. http://web.tampabay.rr.com/starchsr/
Address no longer munged for the inconvienence of spammers.
(Yes, this really is me.)
incandescent blue
>
> I suppose I should have been clearer on this. Opinions based on
> personal experience occurring while in an inebriated state do not
> count, either from a male or female perspective. Let's hear from the
> partners who have witnessed & been a part of it while under the legal
> limit.
>
> Gar, I guess this leaves out Ava, too. Our witnesses must be above
> reproach.
*melodramatic sigh*
Oh, fine, I won't say anything about tipping over the camper.
I suppose no one is going to buy me in the role of Caesar's wife, seeing
as y'all know I'm married to Huey...
(the boy doesn't even own a toga!)
--
Ava Callison <die-bla...@hyacinthine.net> Washington, DC
"I'm sorry," I say, "if I give you the impression that it's only my
mouth that's rough. I do my best to be rough all over."
Peter Hoeg, _Smilla's Sense of Snow_
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin writes:
>
>Well, if we were, then I wonder why you say something about what everyone
>else, "anyone with eyes" can appreciate, or comparing one movement or school
>to another.
You may be taking the "anyone with eyes" quote out of context. My point was
that one does not need to know the language of a painter to appreciate his
work.
>>I'll have to take your word for it that Vermeer is factually superior to Van
>>Eyck since I'm not quite sure how such measures are taken.
>
> The things he paints look more like what they're supposed to be pictures of,
>which you've announced is the only measure of a good painting, denying the
>existence of context or subtext, etc.
When did I announce this? I certainly don't believe it.
Opus the Penguin
>Previously:
>
>Dutch:
>> That kind of elongation works a little better here, say
>>http://www.artchive.com/artchive/I/ingres/ingres_grand_odalisque.jpg.html
>>
>>(no, I didn't pick out the worst Rosettis I could find, either, I just
>>selected three or four at random that aren't very good.
>
>You're right, that is better ( or at least not as deformed looking) but man,
>is that girl longwaisted. Is this an intentional exaggeration of appearance
>to conform with some standard, or were these people oddly shaped, or what?
I think Dutch was suggesting it as a better example of a physically impossible
elongation that serves the artistic ends of the painter. (Why does that sound
dirty?)
I believe this painting is the one where they say that people don't have
enough sections in their spinal column to bend like that.
Dutch Courage
>Dutch Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
>>Opus the Penguin writes:
>>>I thought we were having a discussion about preferences in art.
>>
>>Well, if we were, then I wonder why you say something about what everyone
>>else, "anyone with eyes" can appreciate, or comparing one movement or school
>>to another.
>
>You may be taking the "anyone with eyes" quote out of context.
It's entirely possible.
> My point was
>that one does not need to know the language of a painter to appreciate his
>work.
Well, huh. There are at least some artists you'd have to know about their times
and beliefs, you know, context, subtext, to appreciate, including the
Pre-Raphaelites. If you didn't know what Awakening of Conscience was about, you
might think it was a pleasant enough illustration of a cozy Victorian home, and
by no means a spectacular one at that. I don't know, therefore, a German or the
average slobbo off the street, whatever would appreciate it in quite the same
way someone who had read about the artist and what he was attempting to
accomplish would. Still, okay, you could read that in German and like it just
as well as someone who'd read about it in English. Okay, that's a good point.
I also feel some of your other statements, America never producing artists or
artwork that equal the PR's, are a little too sweeping, exclusive, and a little
too...factual, I guess, for me to take as "here are some paintings I like," or
I guess the idea was "well, there are some decent English painters too, even if
there aren't as many as there are continental types"
>
>>>I'll have to take your word for it that Vermeer is factually superior to
>Van
>>>Eyck since I'm not quite sure how such measures are taken.
>>
>> The things he paints look more like what they're supposed to be pictures
>of,
>>which you've announced is the only measure of a good painting, denying the
>>existence of context or subtext, etc.
>
>When did I announce this?
I kind of inferred it from the way you expressed skepticism about the artistic
merits of...well, apparently a lot of contemporary or modern art, and sure,
maybe a lot of it is bad, but I never hear "Keith Haring isn't that good," I
alway alway hear "them artists now are crazy!" Switching gears a little, you
maybe kind of do have to speak John Cage's language to appreciate his work.
> I certainly don't believe it.
have you ever seen William's Batman up close? It appears to be a textural
thing, and I wonder if the print in Janson does it any justice.
OBfuscation: Was Raphael going for a Mark Tansey thing in "School of Athens"?
Dana Carpender
incandescent blue wrote:
>
> In article <qbv9jt8avc7ce6epi...@4ax.com>, Boron Elgar wrote:
> >
> > I suppose I should have been clearer on this. Opinions based on
> > personal experience occurring while in an inebriated state do not
> > count, either from a male or female perspective. Let's hear from the
> > partners who have witnessed & been a part of it while under the legal
> > limit.
> >
> > Gar, I guess this leaves out Ava, too. Our witnesses must be above
> > reproach.
>
> *melodramatic sigh*
>
> Oh, fine, I won't say anything about tipping over the camper.
And we'd like to thank you again for not sueing us over that...
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Dana Carpender
Maybe not, but have you looked at the Victoria's Secret catalogue
recently? Those women have nearly impossibly long waists. It's not
just that they're skinny -- and they are -- it's that they have
unbelieveably long torsos. I could starve myself down to 89 pounds and
I wouldn't look like that.
N Jill Marsh
<dcar...@kiva.net>wrote:
>Maybe not, but have you looked at the Victoria's Secret catalogue
>recently? Those women have nearly impossibly long waists. It's not
>just that they're skinny -- and they are -- it's that they have
>unbelieveably long torsos. I could starve myself down to 89 pounds and
>I wouldn't look like that.
As I recall, you'd need an extra eight inches in height just to get
started, no?
One of my friends is built like those women (1), her torso looks just
like that in a low cut bikini. I think the present '70s influence in
undies exagerates that look as well.
nj"more than eight inches"m
(1) except her breasts are real, so she looks hot rather than
cartoonish and hot
Opus the Penguin
>Opus the Penguin writes:
>I also feel some of your other statements, America never producing artists or
>artwork that equal the PR's, are a little too sweeping, exclusive, and a
>little too...factual, I guess,
Sure, ok. I suspect I connect Pre-Raphaelite poetry with PR art and that makes
the art more evocative to me than it apparently is to most.
>>>>I'll have to take your word for it that Vermeer is factually superior to
>>>> Van Eyck since I'm not quite sure how such measures are taken.
> >>
>>>The things he paints look more like what they're supposed to be pictures
>>>of, hich you've announced is the only measure of a good painting, denying
>>>existence of context or subtext, etc.
>>
>>When did I announce this?
>
> I kind of inferred it from the way you expressed skepticism about the
>artistic merits of...well, apparently a lot of contemporary or modern art,
>and sure, maybe a lot of it is bad, but I never hear "Keith Haring isn't
>that good," I alway alway hear "them artists now are crazy!"
You may be confusing me with someone else. I don't recall saying anything
derogatory about modern art. There's a thread going that's debating that, but
I'm not participating in the debate. I don't know modern art well enough to
comment. That's less true if we're actually talking about *Modern* art, as
opposed to just contemporary art. But it's still true.
In general terms, I'd say sure, a lot of modern art is junk. But that's not
really different from saying a lot of art from any period is junk. Weeding out
the junk takes time.
>have you ever seen William's Batman up close? It appears to be a textural
>thing, and I wonder if the print in Janson does it any justice.
Where can one see the original?
>OBfuscation: Was Raphael going for a Mark Tansey thing in "School of Athens"?
I couldn't tell you.
Dana Carpender
N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:10:32 -0500, Dana Carpender
> <dcar...@kiva.net>wrote:
>
> >Maybe not, but have you looked at the Victoria's Secret catalogue
> >recently? Those women have nearly impossibly long waists. It's not
> >just that they're skinny -- and they are -- it's that they have
> >unbelieveably long torsos. I could starve myself down to 89 pounds and
> >I wouldn't look like that.
>
> As I recall, you'd need an extra eight inches in height just to get
> started, no?
Yabbut to look at these models, I'd need to gain all eight inches
between my pelvis and my rib cage.
GrapeApe
>between my pelvis and my rib cage.
Some folks are long trunks some are short trunks, their legs may or may not be
long or short, for aesthetic good, or ill.
Lea Thompson is a short trunk but has long legs. Doesn't make her less
attractive.
Gary S. Callison
: incandescent blue wrote:
: > Boron Elgar wrote:
: > > I suppose I should have been clearer on this. Opinions based on
: > > personal experience occurring while in an inebriated state do not
: > > count, either from a male or female perspective. Let's hear from the
: > > partners who have witnessed & been a part of it while under the legal
: > > limit.
: > > Gar, I guess this leaves out Ava, too. Our witnesses must be above
: > > reproach.
: > *melodramatic sigh*
: > Oh, fine, I won't say anything about tipping over the camper.
: And we'd like to thank you again for not sueing us over that...
Sueing you? SUEING YOU? Honestly, it didn't even cross our minds.
Actually, it was the funniest damn thing to happen to me that month...
Picture in your mind a camper, rocking in the moonlight. <CREAK-ah
CREAK-ah CREAK-ah CREAK-ah> <_BAM!_>
{pause}
<laughter>
--
Huey
(righted the camper, went back and completed the task at hand)
Greg Goss
>> The things he paints look more like what they're supposed to be pictures of,
>>which you've announced is the only measure of a good painting, denying the
>>existence of context or subtext, etc.
>
>When did I announce this? I certainly don't believe it.
Perhaps he has you confused with me?
(back when I was single, my wall art was K-Mart photoposters, sold
framed under glass for C$12 or so.
And they looked like what they were pictures of.
Michael Lorton
> One of my friends is built like those women (1), her torso looks just
> like that in a low cut bikini. I think the present '70s influence in
> undies exagerates that look as well.
>
> nj"more than eight inches"m
>
> (1) except her breasts are real, so she looks hot rather than
> cartoonish and hot
GI... ah, do I have to say it?
M.
Sean Houtman
>kay w wrote:
>><snip art discussion with Dutch and BPO>
>
>Dutch is discussing art with the Berlin Philharmonic? Hey Dutch!, I have some
>suggestions for them
I suspect that would be "Brother Penguin Opus".
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 04-15-01 with 65 pictures of Carlsbad Caverns "Big Room".
Dutch Courage
Date: 6/29/2001 10:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time writes:
>From: "Opus the Penguin" opusthe...@nettaxi.com
>
>>kay w wrote:
>>><snip art discussion with Dutch and BPO>
>>
>>Dutch is discussing art with the Berlin Philharmonic? Hey Dutch!, I have
>some
>>suggestions for them
>
>I suspect that would be "Brother Penguin Opus".
You sure it isn't "beloved poster Opus"?
Sean Houtman
>>I suspect that would be "Brother Penguin Opus".
>
> You sure it isn't "beloved poster Opus"?
>
No, but since I didn't say "I am positive beyond any possible doubt" I could be
wrong.