[A] Moving Pictures
Goevikes
the screen as a way to get it stuck in peoples heads. This has been annotated
as an attempt at subliminal advertising in the file. What isnt mentioned is
that this is a reference to the "psychomachia" gimmick tried once to make
movies scarier. In a movie every 100th frame or so would be a picture of a
snake, a skull and the word "blood". It was thought that this would
subconsciously scare the movie patrons, thus enhancing the effect of the movie
as a whole. Unfortunately all it did was give movie-goers headaches.
AC/AHi d- s+: a16 U R+++ h P- OS: D C++++ M pp L+ I W+ B++ Cn
CC PT++ 5+ X- MT+ e+ r+
The Entity formerly (and sometimes still) known as Shadow.
> snake, a skull and the word "blood". It was thought that this would
> subconsciously scare the movie patrons, thus enhancing the effect of the movie
> as a whole. Unfortunately all it did was give movie-goers headaches.
I think I prefered Tyler's version of this in Fight Club - adding a
single frame of porno into the movie...anyone else notice that it's
actually done in the film Fight Club itself near the begining? :)
--
shaodw, hikari-chan, lucy, chris, whatever...i'm just an entity.
http://www.shad0w.org.uk/
http://www.hikari.org.uk/
Beth Winter
>
> Goevikes wrote:
>
> > snake, a skull and the word "blood". It was thought that this would
> > subconsciously scare the movie patrons, thus enhancing the effect of the movie
> > as a whole. Unfortunately all it did was give movie-goers headaches.
>
> I think I prefered Tyler's version of this in Fight Club - adding a
> single frame of porno into the movie...anyone else notice that it's
> actually done in the film Fight Club itself near the begining? :)
IIRC it was also done somewhere near the end. Rumour has it, Brad Pitt
posed for the photo in question
--
Beth Winter
The Discworld Compendium <http://go.to/thediscworldcompendium>
"To absent friends, lost loves, old gods and the season of mists."
-- Neil Gaiman
MP
>In Moving pictures Dibbler tries to flash an ad for Harga's House of Ribs on
>the screen as a way to get it stuck in peoples heads. This has been annotated
>as an attempt at subliminal advertising in the file. What isnt mentioned is
>that this is a reference to the "psychomachia" gimmick tried once to make
>movies scarier.
<snip>
It's also just a reference to the fact that film-makers found out
about the subliminal effects by accident, and then experimented to try
and work out what and why this effect occured.
This sounds like a rehash of the reference rather than a new one to me
- additional information rather than (probably) an intended specific
reference.
MP
Andrew Gray
MP wrote in message <3c8904c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>
>It's also just a reference to the fact that film-makers found out
>about the subliminal effects by accident, and then experimented to try
>and work out what and why this effect occured.
Um.
Unless I'm much and repeatedly mistaken, subliminal advertising /doesn't
work/. Someone had the idea, realised that this could revolutionise
adversiting, and managed to sell it to a few companies - and make a massive
amount of public noise about it - on the basis of a few sketchy bits of
research. AFAIK - certainly in everything I've read about it - no-one else
has managed to show in any way that it really works...
-Andrew.
(...and come to Durham!)
The Entity formerly (and sometimes still) known as Shadow.
> IIRC it was also done somewhere near the end. Rumour has it, Brad Pitt
> posed for the photo in question
I can't remember where it was...I seem to remember it being in a scene
outside the support group meeting place as he's walking inside....it
could have been near the end I guess....I'm not great at placing things,
time is something which happens to other people (probably why I find it
so easy to cope with things which jump around in timescale a lot).
David Chapman
news:3C88DEF4...@astercity.net...
> "The Entity formerly (and sometimes still) known as Shadow." wrote:
> >
> > Goevikes wrote:
> >
> > > snake, a skull and the word "blood". It was thought that this would
> > > subconsciously scare the movie patrons, thus enhancing the effect of
the movie
> > > as a whole. Unfortunately all it did was give movie-goers headaches.
> >
> > I think I prefered Tyler's version of this in Fight Club -
adding a
> > single frame of porno into the movie...anyone else notice that it's
> > actually done in the film Fight Club itself near the begining? :)
>
> IIRC it was also done somewhere near the end.
Actually, it was *only* done right at the end. Of this I am quite
sure, as the commentary on the DVD mentions every other little
fiddly trick and doesn't mention that one. Anyone who wishes
to contradict with a precise-to-the-second count for the
purported frame's insertion is welcome.
--
"Do you just keep your newbies locked up in cages all alone?"
"Of course! That's what pets are for!"
The Entity formerly (and sometimes still) known as Shadow.
> fiddly trick and doesn't mention that one. Anyone who wishes
> to contradict with a precise-to-the-second count for the
> purported frame's insertion is welcome.
It's the kind of sad thing I'd do if I had the DVD (it ranks along side
reversing the audio from Backwards to find out what the club owner was
saying...which I also did armed with a VCR and a Stereo Master sampler
cartridge for my ST).
MP
<andre...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Unless I'm much and repeatedly mistaken, subliminal advertising /doesn't
>work/. Someone had the idea, realised that this could revolutionise
>adversiting, and managed to sell it to a few companies - and make a massive
>amount of public noise about it - on the basis of a few sketchy bits of
>research. AFAIK - certainly in everything I've read about it - no-one else
>has managed to show in any way that it really works...
It (seems to) works if people don't know about it, and if the image is
shown fast enough, and is repeated over a period of time. ISTR that a
French election candidate put some pictures of himself in his party
political broadcasts (or equivalent), but some bright spark managed to
pause just on that image, and told everyone. Who promptly called him a
rotten sleazebag and voted him for president [1]. Everyon else was
just wondering why they had an image of this candidate in a bra and
knickers [2]...
Tomorrows World did an experiment a few years back, and proved bugger
all, but you can have fun seeing how many websites try flashing an
image for one timeslice - you'd be surprised!
>-Andrew.
> (...and come to Durham!)
I mean to! Not this term (there's only a week left), but towards the
start of next might be possible?
MP
[1] I may have misremembered the last bit - that would be a more UKish
thing really... :-}
[2] Again, IMHMTB...
Goevikes
>>work/. Someone had the idea, realised that this could revolutionise
>>adversiting, and managed to sell it to a few companies - and make a massive
>>amount of public noise about it - on the basis of a few sketchy bits of
>>research.
Actually, studies have shown that, under specific circumstances it can work.
However, such circumstances almost always involve the subject knowing what is
going on so that he subconciously becomes receptive to the message. Also, in
case it matters to anyone, I messed up when writing the origional message. The
process was called "Psychorama", not "Psychomachia" (which is the name of a
movie). The film the process was used for was called "My Word Dies Screaming:
Terror In The Haunted House" and was entirely un-noteworthy other than for this
gimmick.
Mary Messall
> Actually, studies have shown that, under specific circumstances it can work.
> However, such circumstances almost always involve the subject knowing what is
> going on so that he subconciously becomes receptive to the message.
Whereas I recall reading about a study in which the participants were
told that there would be a subliminal message, but not what it would
be. Nearly all of them reported strange urges to do something--go to
the bathroom, Drink Coke, buy popcorn, various things--and none (or
almost none) reported urges to do what was actually subliminally
suggested, which was something like "stay seated".
I'm making up both the message and the actual urges reported, but not
the experiment. Tell people that they're supposed to feel urges, and
they will, but I think there's no evidence that these urges have
anything to do with something they've seen on the screen for 1/30th of
a second.
-Mary (democRATS anyone?)
--
{I drank at every vine. / The last was like the first. / I came upon
no wine / So wonderful as thirst.} {"Heaven bless the babe!" they said
"What queer books she must have read!"} -two by Edna St Vincent Millay
http://indagabo.orcon.net.nz/ -> my soapbox and grandstand and gallery
gra...@affordable-leather.co.ukdeletethis
On Sat, 09 Mar 2002 02:48:22 +0000, "The Entity formerly (and
sometimes still) known as Shadow." <ent...@shad0w.org.uk> wrote:
>it ranks along side reversing the audio from Backwards to find out what
>the club owner was saying
A friend of mine did that too by taping it and then running the tape
backwards (and was both embarassed and amused!)
Cheers,
Graham.
Matias Rantanen
>>> I think I prefered Tyler's version of this in Fight Club - adding a
>>>single frame of porno into the movie...anyone else notice that it's
>>>actually done in the film Fight Club itself near the begining? :)
>>>
>>IIRC it was also done somewhere near the end.
>>
>
> Actually, it was *only* done right at the end. Of this I am quite
> sure, as the commentary on the DVD mentions every other little
> fiddly trick and doesn't mention that one. Anyone who wishes
> to contradict with a precise-to-the-second count for the
> purported frame's insertion is welcome.
In addition to the porno frame, there are also flashes of Tyler Durden
when Edward Norton's character suffers from insomnia. Tyler can be seen
next to the copy machine and in one of the support group meetings. There
may be more, but I can't be bothered to check the DVD right now.
Beth Winter
>
<snip Fight Club easter eggs>
> In addition to the porno frame, there are also flashes of Tyler Durden
> when Edward Norton's character suffers from insomnia. Tyler can be seen
> next to the copy machine and in one of the support group meetings. There
> may be more, but I can't be bothered to check the DVD right now.
There's one more, as Edward Norton's character leaves the doctor's
office. Scary thing is, I still remember it and haven't watched the DVD
in six months or more...
Jens Ayton
>
> I'm making up both the message and the actual urges reported, but not
> the experiment. Tell people that they're supposed to feel urges, and
> they will, but I think there's no evidence that these urges have
> anything to do with something they've seen on the screen for 1/30th of
> a second.
I think you'll find the frame rates involved are rather higher (another
reason it hasn't cought on -- you need to modify the projector). 1/30th
of a second is certainly enough time to see that there's an image there,
and even to get a rough idea of what it represents. (Consider the fact
that you can see dirt on the individual frames of a film.)
Trust me, I'm a graphics programmer. <sef>
--
\\\\ Jens "not Jen" Ayton Fratello di Vetinari
\\\\\__, Bringing sarcastic one-liners to the common hedgehog since 1999
\\\\\`/ PGP key: http://home4.swipnet.se/~w-49116/stuff/jens_ayton.pgp
Lee Ann Rucker
wrote:
> Tomorrows World did an experiment a few years back, and proved bugger
> all, but you can have fun seeing how many websites try flashing an
> image for one timeslice - you'd be surprised!
Cites? I know plenty of people who are on computers which are slow
enough that this wouldn't work. In fact, I'm on a dialup, so I'd
probably see the image arrive - unless they're *very* clever and
download it well before it should be displayed.
MP
wrote:
Look for animated gifs. When I was looking at various ones in
inspiration, I was loading them in Ulead's animator program, and there
were quite a few with totally bizarre layouts - you can set the time
each image displays, but there would appear to be no reason to put the
completed logo in the middle of a build-up sequence for 1/100th of a
second, but some quite big companies appeared to be doing so.
Geocities was one (before Yahoo took over though) and I remember it
wasn't alone.
MP
Brian Howlett
> Mary Messall:
>>
>> I'm making up both the message and the actual urges reported, but not
>> the experiment. Tell people that they're supposed to feel urges, and
>> they will, but I think there's no evidence that these urges have
>> anything to do with something they've seen on the screen for 1/30th
>> of a second.
>
> I think you'll find the frame rates involved are rather higher
> (another reason it hasn't cought on -- you need to modify the
> projector). 1/30th of a second is certainly enough time to see that
> there's an image there, and even to get a rough idea of what it
> represents. (Consider the fact that you can see dirt on the
> individual frames of a film.)
Film is projected at 24 frames/sec. so a single frame is displayed for
1/24th of a second.
>
> Trust me, I'm a graphics programmer. <sef>
>
Trust _me_ - I'm a projectionist... ;-)
--
Brian Howlett
-----------------------------------
"You ought to be bloody well hung!"
"What do you mean, 'ought to be'?"
Jens Ayton
> Jens Ayton:
>> Mary Messall:
>>>
>>> I'm making up both the message and the actual urges reported, but not
>>> the experiment. Tell people that they're supposed to feel urges, and
>>> they will, but I think there's no evidence that these urges have
>>> anything to do with something they've seen on the screen for 1/30th
>>> of a second.
>>
>> I think you'll find the frame rates involved are rather higher
>> (another reason it hasn't cought on -- you need to modify the
>> projector). 1/30th of a second is certainly enough time to see that
>> there's an image there, and even to get a rough idea of what it
>> represents. (Consider the fact that you can see dirt on the
>> individual frames of a film.)
>
> Film is projected at 24 frames/sec. so a single frame is displayed for
> 1/24th of a second.
Yes, and NTSC at just under 30 FPS/60 FiPS, and PAL at 25/50. CRT
monitors at anything from 60 to a couple of hundred. I decided not to
pedant the point since it was irrelevant. I must be unwell. ;-)
Brian Howlett
> Brian Howlett:
[snip]
>>
>> Film is projected at 24 frames/sec. so a single frame is displayed
>> for 1/24th of a second.
>
> Yes, and NTSC at just under 30 FPS/60 FiPS, and PAL at 25/50. CRT
> monitors at anything from 60 to a couple of hundred. I decided not to
> pedant the point since it was irrelevant. I must be unwell. ;-)
>
I thought the thread was specifically about film rather than other
media, which is why I mentioned it.
--
Brian Howlett
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you the Prime Minister?" "No, but I've often been mistaken."
"What, for the Prime Minister?" "No. I've just often been mistaken..."
MikeXXXX
>
> On 10 Mar, Jens Ayton exclaimed:
>
> > Brian Howlett:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> Film is projected at 24 frames/sec. so a single frame is displayed
> >> for 1/24th of a second.
> >
> > Yes, and NTSC at just under 30 FPS/60 FiPS, and PAL at 25/50. CRT
> > monitors at anything from 60 to a couple of hundred. I decided not to
> > pedant the point since it was irrelevant. I must be unwell. ;-)
> >
> I thought the thread was specifically about film rather than other
> media, which is why I mentioned it.
Isn't it true that there is black for more time than there is picture? [1]
ie: a picture is displayed each 24th of a second for a 72nd of a second.
(it's that little shutter thing that pops down and blacks things out while the
next frame is rolled in ...)
regards
Mike
[1] I recall the story of the budgerigar taken to the movies and thought
it was a slide show.
Paul Wilkins
> Isn't it true that there is black for more time than there is picture? [1]
>
> ie: a picture is displayed each 24th of a second for a 72nd of a second.
>
> (it's that little shutter thing that pops down and blacks things out while the
> next frame is rolled in ...)
That's right, but what's the frame-rate of the human eye? I know that it's
a fairly reliable figure, because those old-style record turntables have a
series of marks along the edge to let you know when it's turning at the
correct speed.
--
Paul Wilkins
| /\ Inform yourself | Paul Wilkins | When you ask a computer person to
| /__\ Project Mayhem | Christchurch | fix your machine, they will first
| http://tetrica.com/ | (03) 3433097 | spend hours downloading upgrades.
Mary Messall
> On 10 Mar, Jens Ayton exclaimed:
> > Brian Howlett:
> [snip]
> >> Film is projected at 24 frames/sec. so a single frame is displayed
> >> for 1/24th of a second.
> > Yes, and NTSC at just under 30 FPS/60 FiPS, and PAL at 25/50. CRT
> > monitors at anything from 60 to a couple of hundred. I decided not to
> > pedant the point since it was irrelevant. I must be unwell. ;-)
> I thought the thread was specifically about film rather than other
> media, which is why I mentioned it.
Well, people generally complain about subliminal advertising on
television, where it's easier to sneak in anyway. NTSC TV is 30 frames
per second (apparently connected to the fact that the power supply is
60Hz in the US, whereas the UK has a 50Hz power supply and 25fps tv
signal...) and 24 is about 30 anyway.
-Mary
Peter Ellis
>
>Well, people generally complain about subliminal advertising on
>television, where it's easier to sneak in anyway. NTSC TV is 30 frames
>per second (apparently connected to the fact that the power supply is
>60Hz in the US, whereas the UK has a 50Hz power supply and 25fps tv
>signal...) and 24 is about 30 anyway.
Yup - and it's double that frequency interlaced... so if you made up a
custom frame with only the alternate scan lines of your original frame
replaced with an advertising image, you'd get your advert being
displayed for 1/60 of a second. Somewhat mangled.
Peter
Paul Wilkins
di...@paradise.net.nz says...
> In article <3C8C3844...@suespammers.org>, mi...@suespammers.org says...
> > Isn't it true that there is black for more time than there is picture? [1]
> >
> > ie: a picture is displayed each 24th of a second for a 72nd of a second.
> >
> > (it's that little shutter thing that pops down and blacks things out while the
> > next frame is rolled in ...)
>
> That's right, but what's the frame-rate of the human eye? I know that it's
> a fairly reliable figure, because those old-style record turntables have a
> series of marks along the edge to let you know when it's turning at the
> correct speed.
Well after a little bot of googling I'm back with an answer.
A Human's Eye View: Motion Blur and Frameless Rendering
http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds3-4/ellen.html
Visual information is accumulated over an interval of approximately 125 ms
[2]. The retinal image, an integration of this information, is blurred or
smeared. The newest information has the greatest photoreceptor response.
[2] David Burr. Visual processing of motion. In Trends in Neuro Sciences,
volume 9, No. 7, July 1986.
Ingvar Mattsson
> On 10 Mar, Jens Ayton exclaimed:
>
> > Mary Messall:
> >>
> >> I'm making up both the message and the actual urges reported, but not
> >> the experiment. Tell people that they're supposed to feel urges, and
> >> they will, but I think there's no evidence that these urges have
> >> anything to do with something they've seen on the screen for 1/30th
> >> of a second.
> >
> > I think you'll find the frame rates involved are rather higher
> > (another reason it hasn't cought on -- you need to modify the
> > projector). 1/30th of a second is certainly enough time to see that
> > there's an image there, and even to get a rough idea of what it
> > represents. (Consider the fact that you can see dirt on the
> > individual frames of a film.)
>
> Film is projected at 24 frames/sec. so a single frame is displayed for
> 1/24th of a second.
I think you'll find it's actually show twice, with 24 frames show 48
times per second, with equal black intervals between each frame. Based
on the "anchor" (the rotating shutter thing) and my memory of actual
looks on it, I'd estimate about twice as much "light" as "black".
Well, at least on a Bauer U3, I haven't looked closer on other
projectors, since the uni filmsoc only had two studly U3s.
> > Trust me, I'm a graphics programmer. <sef>
> >
> Trust _me_ - I'm a projectionist... ;-)
trust me too, I used to be a projectionist. And there are (US-made,
IIRC) projectors doing "triple flash" for each frame.
//Ingvar
--
Coffee: Nectar of gods / Aesir-mead of sysadmins / Elixir of life
Ben Hutchings
Paul Wilkins <di...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>In article <3C8C3844...@suespammers.org>, mi...@suespammers.org says...
>> Isn't it true that there is black for more time than there is picture? [1]
>>
>> ie: a picture is displayed each 24th of a second for a 72nd of a second.
>>
>> (it's that little shutter thing that pops down and blacks things out while the
>> next frame is rolled in ...)
>
>That's right, but what's the frame-rate of the human eye? I know that it's
>a fairly reliable figure, because those old-style record turntables have a
>series of marks along the edge to let you know when it's turning at the
>correct speed.
Was that meant to be a joke? Organic systems don't tend to be that
consistent! On decks that have such marks around the edge of the
turntable, there's also a small strobe light, and you're supposed to
check the rotation speed by looking at the part of the turntable
illuminated by that. (There are often multiple lines of marks
calibrated for different speeds, and a control with which to adjust
the rotation speed. This is useful to DJs who want to adjust the
speed of a track to match the previous one.)
--
Ben Hutchings | personal web site: http://womble.decadentplace.org.uk/
We're so decadent, we snort cocoa powder and inject chocolate syrup into
our veins. - Nattie Mayer, just some girl I met
Martyn Clapham
>In article <3C8C3844...@suespammers.org>, mi...@suespammers.org says...
>> Isn't it true that there is black for more time than there is picture? [1]
>>
>> ie: a picture is displayed each 24th of a second for a 72nd of a second.
>>
>> (it's that little shutter thing that pops down and blacks things out while the
>> next frame is rolled in ...)
>
>That's right, but what's the frame-rate of the human eye? I know that it's
>a fairly reliable figure, because those old-style record turntables have a
>series of marks along the edge to let you know when it's turning at the
>correct speed.
These actually rely on the stroboscopic effect[1] produced by a light-
bulb running on AC. The variation in brightness isn't much, which is why
the marks are usually silver on black to get good contrast.
One question has just sprung to mind. If you take a turntable from the
UK to the US ( and it uses a non-synchronous motor ) wont the marks
appear to move? ( I assume a synchronous motor drive will mean that the
marks appear to be correct, but that the speed is 20% fast. )
Mart.
[1] A 50Hz flicker in the UK, 60 in the US.
--
Almost everything you want to know about afp is at http://www.lspace.org/
My own site is at http://www.mclapham.demon.co.uk/index.htm
Afpengaged to Mary Messall, being afpadulterous with Spooky and
afpchauffeur to Hippo. Having fun on afp from 1996
Geoff Field
> Goevikes wrote:
>
> > snake, a skull and the word "blood". It was thought that this would
> > subconsciously scare the movie patrons, thus enhancing the effect of the movie
> > as a whole. Unfortunately all it did was give movie-goers headaches.
>
> single frame of porno into the movie...anyone else notice that it's
> actually done in the film Fight Club itself near the begining? :)
Many years ago, there was a show on ABC [1] here in .au called "The Big
Gig". One of the regular groups was the Doug Anthony All-Stars (DAAS).
Their act as broadcast used to regularly include almost-subliminal porn
scenes. When I say "almost", I mean that, too - they were quite
deliberately long enough to notice. No psychology involved other than
just being funny.
Geoff
[1] That's "Australian Broadcasting Commission" - a feral government
body - as opposed to the Merkin variant.
Andrew Gray
>[1] That's "Australian Broadcasting Commission" - a feral government
>body - as opposed to the Merkin variant.
Feral government. Now there's a tyop with promise. <g>
-Andrew.
Cathy Young
> -Andrew.
I know I shouldn't pedant, but...
Cathy
Mary Messall
>
> "Andrew Gray" <andre...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<a6l9ub$5vd$5...@sirius.dur.ac.uk>...
> > Geoff Field wrote in message ...
> > >[1] That's "Australian Broadcasting Commission" - a feral government
> > >body - as opposed to the Merkin variant.
> > Feral government. Now there's a tyop with promise. <g>
> ^^^^
<pedant> Yes you should. </pendant>
Orjan Westin
news:3C8F2139...@durham.ac.uk...
> Cathy Young wrote:
> >
> > I know I shouldn't pedant, but...
>
> <pedant> Yes you should. </pendant>
After going "aha!" I realised it was completely correct, as it's hanging of
the end.
Sorry I couldn't contribute.
Orjan
Stig M. Valstad
>
>These actually rely on the stroboscopic effect[1] produced by a light-
>bulb running on AC. The variation in brightness isn't much, which is why
>the marks are usually silver on black to get good contrast.
>
>One question has just sprung to mind. If you take a turntable from the
>UK to the US ( and it uses a non-synchronous motor ) wont the marks
>appear to move? ( I assume a synchronous motor drive will mean that the
>marks appear to be correct, but that the speed is 20% fast. )
I used to have such a turntable[2]. It had four lines of dashes
along the edge of the platter, thusly:
50Hz 45RPM
50Hz 33RPM
60Hz 45RPM
60Hz 33RPM
So it was just a matter of looking at the correct line.
>[1] A 50Hz flicker in the UK, 60 in the US.
[2] Until the selfish bastard who owns it wanted it back last
summer so I had to buy myself a new one.
--
Stig M. Valstad
DEBAUCHEE, n. One who has so earnestly pursued pleasure that he has
had the misfortune to overtake it. -- Ambrose Bierce
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
wrote:
Whouldn't that be "I know I shouldn't padent, but..."
<G>
FiX
Aquarion
"Wouldn't"
Yours in total sincerity
Aquarion
--
Aquarionic Industries. Doing bad things to good people since 1996
"I wouldn't like Marmite dressed in a golden lid, and I wouldn't like
it if it had secondary sexual characteristics you could see from space"
- Aquarion, http://www.aquarionics.com, 2002-03-12
François-Xavier de Montgolfier
wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, François-Xavier de Montgolfier <François-Xavier> put forth:
>> On 13 Mar 2002 01:26:12 -0800, cyou...@hotmail.com (Cathy Young)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Andrew Gray" <andre...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<a6l9ub$5vd$5...@sirius.dur.ac.uk>...
>>>> Geoff Field wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> >[1] That's "Australian Broadcasting Commission" - a feral government
>>>> >body - as opposed to the Merkin variant.
>>>>
>>>> Feral government. Now there's a tyop with promise. <g>
>>> ^^^^
>>>> -Andrew.
>>>
>>>I know I shouldn't pedant, but...
>>
>> Whouldn't that be "I know I shouldn't padent, but..."
>
>"Wouldn't"
You know, I'm trying to reconstruct how my fingers could manage to
type an 'h' between the 'w' and the 'o', and keep on failing
miserably...
OTOH, on a French keyboard, typing a 'w' instead of an 's' is easy!
FiX <G>
Meg Thornton
Sez who it's a tyop? Have you *seen* the .au government at the
moment? Definitely feral...
Meg
--
\\\ Meg Thornton (mag...@megabitch.org.uk)
\\\\_o Attempting midget hedgehogs since 18 Feb 2001
\\\\`/ Harrison's Postulate: For every action, there is an
equal and opposing criticism.
Geoff Field
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:42:25 -0000, "Andrew Gray"
> <andre...@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Geoff Field wrote in message ...
> >
> >>[1] That's "Australian Broadcasting Commission" - a feral government
> >>body - as opposed to the Merkin variant.
> >
> >Feral government. Now there's a tyop with promise. <g>
> >
> Sez who it's a tyop? Have you *seen* the .au government at the
> moment? Definitely feral...
;-) I *knew* I could count on *someone* to spot the reference.
If I'd meant "Federal" I would have capitalised the 'F' and
probably the 'G' (in "Government") as well.
A bigger bunch of ferals I've yet to spot - outside a logging
protest camp, that is...
Geoff
--
Geoff Field, Professional geek, amateur stage-levelling gauge.
Spamtraps: geoff...@hotmail.com, gcf...@bigmailbox.net, or
geoff...@great-atuin.co.uk; Real Email: gcfield at optusnet dot com dot au
My band's web page: http://www.geocities.com/southernarea/