OT: anyone watches OA on netflix?

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

I will not give away spoilers but does anyone watch OA? Have you seen
the new season yet? What were your opinions?

I thought it was a decant season, not the best, but ok.
--


"There are idiots among us, and they all believe in a god"
~Toidi Uoy

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 8:19:23 PM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>
> I will not give away spoilers but does anyone watch OA? Have you seen
> the new season yet? What were your opinions?
>
> I thought it was a decant season, not the best, but ok.
>

No, I don't watch Netflix, but what's OA?

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4635282/

Brit Marling plays the role of OA

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1779870/?ref_=tt_cl_t1

--

____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 7:53:00 AM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>
> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4635282/
>
> Brit Marling plays the role of OA
>
> https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1779870/?ref_=tt_cl_t1
>

Evidently you are the only person that watches it.

[notbob]

On 4/2/2019 3:21 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:

> Evidently you are the only person that watches it.

No, I watched the 1st episode.

It's dumb, as only a cable series can be. It's also not about cooking.

nb

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 8:37:45 AM UTC-5, notbob wrote:
>
> It's dumb, as only a cable series can be. It's also not about cooking.
>
> nb
>

You mean the 'OA' doesn't stand for:

Old Avocados?

Out of Artichokes?

Ordinary Asparagus?

Other Apples?

Obtuse Angus?

Ovaltine Again?

Shocked, I tell you, shocked!!!

[jmcquown]

On 4/2/2019 5:21 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 7:53:00 AM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>
>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4635282/
>>
>> Brit Marling plays the role of OA
>>

No idea who that is.

> Evidently you are the only person that watches it.
>

I don't subscribe to Netflix and I don't watch pseudo sci-fi stuff.
Previously blind and now deemed possibly dangerous? Not interested.

I watch a lot of PBS. 'Nature' is on tonight. :)

Jill

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 9:38:11 AM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>
> I watch a lot of PBS. 'Nature' is on tonight. :)
>
> Jill
>

There was a new series or maybe it's just a two-part show on Sunday night.
"Mrs. Wilson" I wasn't sure it would peak my interest but now I'm intrigued.
Of course I had to catch the newest season of "Call the Midwife."

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

It is actually Original angel

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 11:38:05 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On 4/2/2019 5:21 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 7:53:00 AM UTC-5, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4635282/
>>>
>>> Brit Marling plays the role of OA
>>>
>No idea who that is.
>

she is hot!

>> Evidently you are the only person that watches it.
>>
>I don't subscribe to Netflix and I don't watch pseudo sci-fi stuff.
>Previously blind and now deemed possibly dangerous? Not interested.
>
>I watch a lot of PBS. 'Nature' is on tonight. :)
>
>Jill

[notbob]

On 4/3/2019 9:12 AM, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:

> she is hot!

In yer book, perhaps.

In mine, she's a plain Jane.

Plus, I have not seen her cook anything. ;)

nb

[graham]

On 2019-04-03 8:43 a.m., itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 9:38:11 AM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> I watch a lot of PBS. 'Nature' is on tonight. :)
>>
>> Jill
>>
> There was a new series or maybe it's just a two-part show on Sunday night.
> "Mrs. Wilson" I wasn't sure it would peak my interest but now I'm intrigued.

As am I. Apparently, it's based on a true story.

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

You were not looking hard enough. She has a unique mouth. She is not
like the everyday model or pam anderson type actresses. That to me is
plain jane. They are a dime a dozen. The "pretty girl" is NOT always
the best looking woman in the room.

[jmcquown]

On 4/3/2019 10:43 AM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 9:38:11 AM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> I watch a lot of PBS. 'Nature' is on tonight. :)
>>
>> Jill
>>
> There was a new series or maybe it's just a two-part show on Sunday night.
> "Mrs. Wilson" I wasn't sure it would peak my interest but now I'm intrigued.

I watched that, too! Mrs. Wilson was played her own granddaughter.
Bigamy and intrigue in WWII. I'll definitely be watching the next episode!

On Monday I wached 'Antiques Roadshow'. Love it.

> Of course I had to catch the newest season of "Call the Midwife."
>

The second season of Jamestown' is coming up again, I think on April
6th. That's another fun series. No one really knows much about what
went on when Jamestown was first settled. Gotta love the costumes. :)

Jill

[jmcquown]

The actress is portraying her grandmother. She was apparently married
to a bigamist who had many sons by different women. And maybe a
daughter. He was a spy. Sex and Intrigue! LOL

Jill

[graham]

On 2019-04-03 11:19 a.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/3/2019 10:43 AM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 9:38:11 AM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> I watch a lot of PBS.  'Nature' is on tonight. :)
>>>
>>> Jill
>>>
>> There was a new series or maybe it's just a two-part show on Sunday
>> night.
>> "Mrs. Wilson"  I wasn't sure it would peak my interest but now I'm
>> intrigued.
>
> I watched that, too!  Mrs. Wilson was played her own granddaughter.
> Bigamy and intrigue in WWII.  I'll definitely be watching the next episode!
>
> On Monday I wached 'Antiques Roadshow'.  Love it.
>

In the UK, this is one of the most popular shows in prisons. You can
guess why:-)

[Bruce]

Because the inmates are hobbity old farts?

[notbob]

On 4/3/2019 9:11 AM, Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:

> It is actually Original angel

I was thinking something along the lines of "Obstinate Abomination". ;)

nb

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

Yeah, I saw that line on the screen "based on a true incident" or something like
that. We're gonna have to find out who was collecting spouses or whatever it is
they did.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 11:19:23 AM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>
> On 4/3/2019 10:43 AM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > There was a new series or maybe it's just a two-part show on Sunday night.
> > "Mrs. Wilson" I wasn't sure it would peak my interest but now I'm intrigued.
>
> I watched that, too! Mrs. Wilson was played her own granddaughter.
> Bigamy and intrigue in WWII. I'll definitely be watching the next episode!
>

I thought it was pretty good having Ruth Wilson playing the title role of "Mrs.
Wilson" but I didn't know it was her grandmother!

>
> On Monday I wached 'Antiques Roadshow'. Love it.
>

I haven't watched A.R. in ages. We get two back-to-back shows of it.

>
> > Of course I had to catch the newest season of "Call the Midwife."
> >
> The second season of Jamestown' is coming up again, I think on April
> 6th. That's another fun series. No one really knows much about what
> went on when Jamestown was first settled. Gotta love the costumes. :)
>
> Jill
>

I have not watched that show as I missed the first couple of airings and
didn't want to come in the middle and wonder who was who and what was
going on.

I'm wondering if we're going to get to see "Home Fires" again and "Crimson
Fields"?? They've just let me hanging, GRRRRRRRRRRR.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

Why?

[jmcquown]

Do pay attention! Mrs. Wilson (the second) discovered another Mrs.
Wilson (the first) after Mr. Wilson died. And then she found a woman
who thought she was the first Mrs. Wilson but turns out her marriage was
a sham and she wasn't really a Mrs. Wilson. Mr. Wilson had kids all
over the place. The plot thickens. LOL

Jill

[dsi1]

The people here like to find out the things you like just so they can shoot it down. That's rather childish if you ask me. It's also rather childish if you don't ask me.

[jmcquown]

Learning how to burgle better items/homes?

Jill

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 6:35:42 PM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>
> Do pay attention! Mrs. Wilson (the second) discovered another Mrs.
> Wilson (the first) after Mr. Wilson died. And then she found a woman
> who thought she was the first Mrs. Wilson but turns out her marriage was
> a sham and she wasn't really a Mrs. Wilson. Mr. Wilson had kids all
> over the place. The plot thickens. LOL
>
> Jill
>

Yeah, I got that but I'd like to know the 'real' story. Hopefully, I can find
something on the internet about this guy and his women. He sounds almost like
that scumbag Charles Lindbergh.

[Dave Smith]

There are lots of movies based on true stories that have little
resemblance to the the true story they are based on. One example is The
Bridge Over the River Kwai. The movie is almost entirely fiction. There
was no limp wristed British officer who willingly led his troops to
build the bridge as a morale booster for the troops. Conditions for the
troops were much worse than those in the movie. The American Commando
team that blew up the bridge were invented for the movie. The bridge was
used for two years before it was bombed from the air.

Another was The Great Escape.All those American characters in the movie
were made up. The camp was full of Commonwealth troops.Steve McQueen's
character.... fictional.

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

NNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

its NOT BOB, there is no way in hell it could be bob, or bobby, or
robert

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 16:37:39 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

Dude I am an open book, if you want to know just ask... I hide
nothing. If someone, anyone, thinks they can match wits with me then
let them try, oh yes let them try.

[Bruce]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 22:13:45 -0400, Dave Smith
<adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On 2019-04-03 7:14 p.m., itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 10:48:51 AM UTC-5, graham wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2019-04-03 8:43 a.m., itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There was a new series or maybe it's just a two-part show on Sunday night.
>>>> "Mrs. Wilson" I wasn't sure it would peak my interest but now I'm intrigued.
>>>
>>> As am I. Apparently, it's based on a true story.
>>>
>> Yeah, I saw that line on the screen "based on a true incident" or something like
>> that. We're gonna have to find out who was collecting spouses or whatever it is
>> they did.
>>
>
>There are lots of movies based on true stories that have little
>resemblance to the the true story they are based on.

Cool, another story by Uncle David. Where's the popcorn?

[graham]

Probably because it was US financed!

[Janet]

In article <3026d583-c904-4e57...@googlegroups.com>,
itsjoan...@webtv.net says...

It;s the true story of Alison Wilson and her husband, Alexander
?Alec? Wilson. Alison is played by her real life grand-daughter Ruth
Wilson.

some more about the background

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-04-01/what-is-the-real-life-
story-behind-ruth-wilsons-new-bbc-drama-mrs-wilson/

quote


"Although some of the facts around Alexander Wilson are a bit murky
thanks to MI6?s classified files and Alec?s own habit of telling lies
and keeping secrets, we do know that Ruth Wilson?s grandfather was born
in 1893 and died in 1963. He was a novelist, a spy and an MI6 agent, and
? most dramatically ? he was a serial bigamist with four wives.

So what was he playing at?

?We haven?t come to a conclusion,? Ruth Wilson told press at a screening
in London. ?MI5 still won?t release his records as to what he got up to
there, they?re ?case sensitive?, whatever that means, but after 70 years
they won?t release them so we don?t really know what he actually got up
to or what he was doing with MI5, or MI6.

?We don?t know if the marriages were partly ? were they for work? Were
they for love? We still don?t have clarity on that. So he?s a man of
mystery.?

MI5 and MI6 are British Govt Intelligence departments. Spies.

There's lots more in that link about his career, children and wives and
how it all came out.

Janet UK

[Janet]

In article <uLdpE.20997$cD4....@fx43.iad>, adavid...@sympatico.ca
says...

>
> On 2019-04-03 7:14 p.m., itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 10:48:51 AM UTC-5, graham wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2019-04-03 8:43 a.m., itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There was a new series or maybe it's just a two-part show on Sunday night.
> >>> "Mrs. Wilson" I wasn't sure it would peak my interest but now I'm intrigued.
> >>
> >> As am I. Apparently, it's based on a true story.
> >>
> > Yeah, I saw that line on the screen "based on a true incident" or something like
> > that. We're gonna have to find out who was collecting spouses or whatever it is
> > they did.
> >
>
> There are lots of movies based on true stories that have little
> resemblance to the the true story they are based on.

Most of Alec Wilson's children are till alive; he really was a spy and
bigamist and his descendants wanted the film to tell his true story (as
far as it's known). ISTR the TV dramatisation made some slight dramatic
leeeway on Alison tracing more wives than she ever found out about IRL,
but the underlying story is real.(4 wives and 7 children).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Wilson_(British_writer)

https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-04-01/what-is-the-real-life-
story-behind-ruth-wilsons-new-bbc-drama-mrs-wilson/

Janet UK

[Gary]

Janet wrote:
>
> MI5 and MI6 are British Govt Intelligence departments. Spies.

Just curious - what's the difference between the two?
Also, are there other (numbered) MI departments?
I'll look it up but you live there so perhaps you can
tell us. Always better to have a citizen's view.

Several variations here in the US.
- CIA
- NSA
- DSA
- FBI (for domestic)
- probably more too that we don't know about.

[Dave Smith]

True. They have to use some American movie stars to sell a movie since
so many movie goes are more interested in seeing their favourite actors
than a good store. Fact remains that movies based on real events are
often much different than the real events. Movies adapted from novels
also tend to be different from the books. One major exception there has
been the movie adaptions of Cormick McCarthy books.

A lot of people acquire a lot of their understanding of history from
historical novels, which tend to me more novel than historical.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 10:22:39 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2019-04-03 11:08 p.m., graham wrote:
> > On 2019-04-03 8:13 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >> Another was The Great Escape.All those American characters in the
> >> movie were made up. The camp was full of Commonwealth troops.Steve
> >> McQueen's character.... fictional.

He wasn't even the most interesting guy in the movie. Then again,
I've never been a big Steve McQueen fan.

I read The Great Escape in high school, but I barely remember it
nearly 50 years later.

> > Probably because it was US financed!
>
> True. They have to use some American movie stars to sell a movie since
> so many movie goes are more interested in seeing their favourite actors
> than a good store. Fact remains that movies based on real events are
> often much different than the real events. Movies adapted from novels
> also tend to be different from the books. One major exception there has
> been the movie adaptions of Cormick McCarthy books.
>
> A lot of people acquire a lot of their understanding of history from
> historical novels, which tend to me more novel than historical.

You mean Americans didn't take over a German sub, drive around
pretending to be Germans, and recover an Enigma machine?

I'm crushed.

A lot more people watch historical movies than read historical
novels.

Cindy Hamilton

[graham]

Then there's that disgraceful film about the rescue of the US "hostages"
from Iran.......

[Bruce]

Reagan kept them hostage much longer then needed.

[Janet]

In article <5CA5F3D3...@att.net>, g.ma...@att.net says...

>
> Janet wrote:
> >
> > MI5 and MI6 are British Govt Intelligence departments. Spies.
>
> Just curious - what's the difference between the two?

MI5 covers UK domestic security/intelligence, MI6 covers foreign
intelligence/security

Now I've told you that big secret I'll have to shoot you, sorry.

Janet UK

[dsi1]

On Wednesday, April 3, 2019 at 4:20:32 PM UTC-10,

>
> Dude I am an open book, if you want to know just ask... I hide
> nothing. If someone, anyone, thinks they can match wits with me then
> let them try, oh yes let them try.
>
> --
>
> ____/~~~sine qua non~~~\____

I wasn't referring to you - just to the general culture of sourpussness that runs through this newgroup. OTOH, I suppose you already know all about it.

[Dave Smith]

On 2019-04-04 11:02 a.m., Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 10:22:39 AM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2019-04-03 11:08 p.m., graham wrote:
>>> On 2019-04-03 8:13 p.m., Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>> Another was The Great Escape.All those American characters in the
>>>> movie were made up. The camp was full of Commonwealth troops.Steve
>>>> McQueen's character.... fictional.
>
> He wasn't even the most interesting guy in the movie. Then again,
> I've never been a big Steve McQueen fan.
>
> I read The Great Escape in high school, but I barely remember it
> nearly 50 years later.

I knew a guy who had been a POW in the camp. He was not part of the
escape. He was still recovering from the incident that landed him there.
He had bailed out of the plane and was struck by the rear stabilizer and
broke half the bones in his body.

>
>>> Probably because it was US financed!
>>
>> True. They have to use some American movie stars to sell a movie since
>> so many movie goes are more interested in seeing their favourite actors
>> than a good store. Fact remains that movies based on real events are
>> often much different than the real events. Movies adapted from novels
>> also tend to be different from the books. One major exception there has
>> been the movie adaptions of Cormick McCarthy books.
>>
>> A lot of people acquire a lot of their understanding of history from
>> historical novels, which tend to me more novel than historical.
>
> You mean Americans didn't take over a German sub, drive around
> pretending to be Germans, and recover an Enigma machine?

Not unless they were in the Royal Navy.


>
> I'm crushed.

;-)

>
> A lot more people watch historical movies than read historical
> novels.

That helps to explain a lot of the misconceptions about history.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 1:23:40 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:

> That helps to explain a lot of the misconceptions about history.

Next you're going to tell me that John Wayne didn't win WW II
single-handed.

Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce]

Careful or he will.

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2019 10:19:37 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

I knew what you meant as I took no offense, I was just saying ....

[jmcquown]

Fascinating!

Jill

[dsi1]

Ruth Wilson's eyes and mouth conspire to give her a sardonic look. It's both scary and enticing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AB_znetvII

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 4:45:56 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>
> https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-04-01/what-is-the-real-life-
> story-behind-ruth-wilsons-new-bbc-drama-mrs-wilson/
>
> Janet UK
>

That was really interesting!

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 4:50:52 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>
> Ruth Wilson's eyes and mouth conspire to give her a sardonic look. It's both scary and enticing.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AB_znetvII
>

She appears to have her dad's upper lip.

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:

>
> graham wrote:
> >Then there's that disgraceful film about the rescue of the US "hostages"
> >from Iran.......

I at least gave Carter credit for the attempt after doing nothing
for so long. Sad how it failed miserably.

> Reagan kept them hostage much longer then needed.

Bruce, you ignorant slut! ;)
Reagan? He had nothing to do with that situation other than to
scare the Iranians. Just minutes before or after Reagan took
office, those hostages were released. They didn't give a crap
about Jimmy Carter but were obviously scared of Reagan. He had no
power to do anything until he took office. Once he did, the
hostages were on their way home within minutes.

In my lifetime, 1953-present, Reagan was the best ever president.
He was 'da man' and he got many things done. Note: his time was
*before* the religious-right invaded the Republican party and
completely ruined it.

[Bruce]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 10:48:59 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> graham wrote:
>> >Then there's that disgraceful film about the rescue of the US "hostages"
>> >from Iran.......
>
>I at least gave Carter credit for the attempt after doing nothing
>for so long. Sad how it failed miserably.
>
>> Reagan kept them hostage much longer then needed.
>
>Bruce, you ignorant slut! ;)

Damn, how did you figure out I'm a slut?

>Reagan? He had nothing to do with that situation other than to
>scare the Iranians. Just minutes before or after Reagan took
>office, those hostages were released. They didn't give a crap
>about Jimmy Carter but were obviously scared of Reagan. He had no
>power to do anything until he took office. Once he did, the
>hostages were on their way home within minutes.

Reagan made a deal with the Iranians. He didn't want them to release
the hostages during the election campaign. He was afraid it would give
Carter extra votes. His election was more important to him than the
fate of the hostages. Strange how this is common knowledge outside of
the US, but you don't know it.

>In my lifetime, 1953-present, Reagan was the best ever president.
>He was 'da man' and he got many things done. Note: his time was
>*before* the religious-right invaded the Republican party and
>completely ruined it.

You're very right-wing.

[dsi1]

On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:38:23 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 10:48:59 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Bruce wrote:
> >>
> >> graham wrote:
> >> >Then there's that disgraceful film about the rescue of the US "hostages"
> >> >from Iran.......
> >
> >I at least gave Carter credit for the attempt after doing nothing
> >for so long. Sad how it failed miserably.
> >
> >> Reagan kept them hostage much longer then needed.
> >
> >Bruce, you ignorant slut! ;)
>
> Damn, how did you figure out I'm a slut?
>
> >Reagan? He had nothing to do with that situation other than to
> >scare the Iranians. Just minutes before or after Reagan took
> >office, those hostages were released. They didn't give a crap
> >about Jimmy Carter but were obviously scared of Reagan. He had no
> >power to do anything until he took office. Once he did, the
> >hostages were on their way home within minutes.
>
> Reagan made a deal with the Iranians. He didn't want them to release
> the hostages during the election campaign. He was afraid it would give
> Carter extra votes. His election was more important to him than the
> fate of the hostages. Strange how this is common knowledge outside of
> the US, but you don't know it.

If the Iranians were afraid of Reagan, why would they make a deal to help get him elected?

[Bruce]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:55:37 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 <dsi...@hawaiiantel.net>
wrote:

>On Friday, April 5, 2019 at 6:38:23 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 10:48:59 -0500, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Bruce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Reagan kept them hostage much longer then needed.
>> >
>> >Bruce, you ignorant slut! ;)
>>
>> Damn, how did you figure out I'm a slut?
>>
>> >Reagan? He had nothing to do with that situation other than to
>> >scare the Iranians. Just minutes before or after Reagan took
>> >office, those hostages were released. They didn't give a crap
>> >about Jimmy Carter but were obviously scared of Reagan. He had no
>> >power to do anything until he took office. Once he did, the
>> >hostages were on their way home within minutes.
>>
>> Reagan made a deal with the Iranians. He didn't want them to release
>> the hostages during the election campaign. He was afraid it would give
>> Carter extra votes. His election was more important to him than the
>> fate of the hostages. Strange how this is common knowledge outside of
>> the US, but you don't know it.
>
>If the Iranians were afraid of Reagan, why would they make a deal to help get him elected?

I don't think they were afraid of Reagan. Either way, he bribed them
with money and weapons. Reagan didn't give 2 shits about the
hostages.

[Cindy Hamilton]

In the U.S., Gary is actually slightly right of center.

Granted, the center is now a gaping void between the extremes
of left and right.

Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman ruined the country's attitude
toward government and business, respectively.

Cindy Hamilton

[graham]

I think, to the rest of the world, the Democrats are seen as RW. Christ
knows where that puts the Repuglicans.

[Bruce]

From my perspective, when you're a fan of Reagan and Trump, you're as
right-wing as they come. You're getting damn close to people with a
twitch in their right arm, because it keeps wanting to go up.

[Bruce]

Yes.

[Cindy Hamilton]

There are people on the right who think Trump is a squishy-soft liberal
who is not dismantling government nearly quickly enough. They are
not often reported by the mainsteam media, but you can find them on
Breitbart and similar sites.

Gary is a long way from there. He's left of GM, even.

Cindy Hamilton

[GM]

Actually, President Trump is doing a spot - on job of dismantling the squalid Obama "legacy"...

Following up to Gary's earlier comments on Reagan, I totally agree...he is one the great Presidents...

Trump is the best we've had since Reagan, he has much in common with Harry Truman - vilified at the time and after - but now recognized as one the "greats"...

Truman, Reagan and Trump are all three historical "disruptors" -- along with Thatcher, Gorbachev, Merkel and Pope John Paul II -- we are lucky to have had them...they "disrupted" for the good of mankind, the world is better off for them.

--
Best
Greg

[graham]

There's no hope for you!

[Bruce]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton

But GM's a mental patient. Yes, I saw a documentary about right
wingers who want to "starve the beast" (=no money to the government).
It was funny. The roads in communities where these people were in
control, were in total disrepair, like in a 3rd world country. They
had to drive really slowly to dodge the potholes. There was no money
for repairs.

[Bruce]

Wir schaffen das!

[GM]

Now graham, I forgot to add to my above list of "disruptors" Our Lord Jesus Christ...

:-)

--
Best
Greg

[Bruce]

If Jesus was walking through one of your right-wing hicksville towns,
the fundamentalist Christian police would arrest him for loitering and
looking like a hippie.

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2019 03:38:19 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Anyone that calls someone a right wing or a left wing or a democrat or
a republican or liberal or conservative or this or that WHAT THE FUCK
EVER has no god damn life other than to find labels for themselves and
others just to make themselves sleep better at night thinking their
label is better than the next persons. It is a horrible way to live
ones
life.

[Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 11:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
<angelica...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh yeah here we go what he is you mean is a extremist that is far far
to the right with a partial closet left inside oh him that is an ultra
conservative that is actually uber liberal on tuesday and is a full
fledged republican with democratic tendencies and is gluten free dairy
free soy free has a nut allergy on thursday and is vegan all year
except for may 29th.

Giving people labels is just freakin stupid, because it actually means
nothing at all

>
>Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman ruined the country's attitude
>toward government and business, respectively.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce]

I dunno. If I call you a nut, that's a very meaningful statement.

[Bruce]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2019 15:56:46 -0500,
Christ...@deathtochristianity.pl wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Apr 2019 03:38:19 +1100, Bruce <br...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>

>>Reagan made a deal with the Iranians. He didn't want them to release
>>the hostages during the election campaign. He was afraid it would give
>>Carter extra votes. His election was more important to him than the
>>fate of the hostages. Strange how this is common knowledge outside of
>>the US, but you don't know it.
>>
>>>In my lifetime, 1953-present, Reagan was the best ever president.
>>>He was 'da man' and he got many things done. Note: his time was
>>>*before* the religious-right invaded the Republican party and
>>>completely ruined it.
>>
>>You're very right-wing.
>
>Anyone that calls someone a right wing or a left wing or a democrat or
>a republican or liberal or conservative or this or that WHAT THE FUCK
>EVER has no god damn life other than to find labels for themselves and
>others just to make themselves sleep better at night thinking their
>label is better than the next persons. It is a horrible way to live
>ones life.

I'm doing alright, though. Thanks for caring.

[graham]

So you live in a fantasy world:-)

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
>
> If Jesus was walking through one of your right-wing hicksville towns,
> the fundamentalist Christian police would arrest him for loitering and
> looking like a hippie.

Like this?
http://comixjoint.com/6_site_graphics/*Covers/2_Underground/jesusarmed-1stb.jpg

note: I have this comic. Rather than dig it out of the closet and
scan the cover, I easily found the addy above. This was published
in 1970 when the draft for vietnam war was still going on. Jesus
was arrested as a hippy draft dodger. lol

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
>
> I don't think they were afraid of Reagan. Either way, he bribed them
> with money and weapons. Reagan didn't give 2 shits about the
> hostages.

lol! :-D

[Bruce]

Yup. That makes it so ironic when right-wingers go on about Jesus.
They couldn't be more different.

[Gary]

GM wrote:
>
> Actually, President Trump is doing a spot - on job of dismantling the squalid Obama "legacy"...
>
> Following up to Gary's earlier comments on Reagan, I totally agree...he is one the great Presidents...
>
> Trump is the best we've had since Reagan, he has much in common with Harry Truman - vilified at the time and after - but now recognized as one the "greats"...
>
> Truman, Reagan and Trump are all three historical "disruptors" -- along with Thatcher, Gorbachev, Merkel and Pope John Paul II -- we are lucky to have had them...they "disrupted" for the good of mankind, the world is better off for them.

This (above) is all true. Trump came in as a wild card. Not a
lawyer, not a career politician. He was elected in hopes that he
might eliminate the same ol same ol nonsense in DC. He's had to
learn the hard way since day one. Liberal Demo's (proven poor
losers) have tried ever since day one to prove he cheated to get
elected and anything else they can conjure up. A complete witch
hunt.

I've never liked bullies and the Dems have shown their dark side.
Main leader is Nancy, the true wicked witch of the west. lol.
Even democrats are starting to see this and that's why she has
backed off a bit.

Trump has certainly made mistakes. This first term is learning a
whole new thing. I suspect that unless the Democrats come up with
some super candidate for the 2020 presidential election, Trump
will again win. No help from the Russians either. LOL

No kidding, he speaks his mind and "Politically correct" be
damned.
That said, Fukkin Trump nailed it this past week when he said,
"Our country is full."
It really is and he spelled that right out.
Almost 100K people flooding into our country per month from the
Mexican border? That's insane and I'm glad he had the balls to
speak it. That has to stop.

Try to talk here though and all you get back is name calling.
That's what people do when they don't have any intelligent
response. That's when I just walk away and let them get the last
word. No longer worth my time.

[Cindy Hamilton]

On Monday, April 8, 2019 at 11:53:19 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> GM wrote:
> >
> > Actually, President Trump is doing a spot - on job of dismantling the squalid Obama "legacy"...
> >
> > Following up to Gary's earlier comments on Reagan, I totally agree...he is one the great Presidents...
> >
> > Trump is the best we've had since Reagan, he has much in common with Harry Truman - vilified at the time and after - but now recognized as one the "greats"...
> >
> > Truman, Reagan and Trump are all three historical "disruptors" -- along with Thatcher, Gorbachev, Merkel and Pope John Paul II -- we are lucky to have had them...they "disrupted" for the good of mankind, the world is better off for them.
>
> This (above) is all true. Trump came in as a wild card. Not a
> lawyer, not a career politician. He was elected in hopes that he
> might eliminate the same ol same ol nonsense in DC. He's had to
> learn the hard way since day one. Liberal Demo's (proven poor
> losers) have tried ever since day one to prove he cheated to get
> elected and anything else they can conjure up. A complete witch
> hunt.

At this point, I don't so much care whether Trump was cooperating
with the Russians on election interference or not. He's not taking
seriously the integrity of our elections.

> Trump has certainly made mistakes. This first term is learning a
> whole new thing. I suspect that unless the Democrats come up with
> some super candidate for the 2020 presidential election, Trump
> will again win. No help from the Russians either. LOL

He could easily benefit from Russian interference in our
elections without being complicit.

> No kidding, he speaks his mind and "Politically correct" be
> damned.

"Truth" be damned, too, as it happens. Can you tell us why he
lies about such mundane stuff when it's easily verified he's
just pulling things out of his butt?

> That said, Fukkin Trump nailed it this past week when he said,
> "Our country is full."
> It really is and he spelled that right out.

If our country were full, there would be no jobs available for
immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

> Almost 100K people flooding into our country per month from the
> Mexican border? That's insane and I'm glad he had the balls to
> speak it. That has to stop.

Yes, it has to stop (or at least slow down). But we don't need to
resort to methods that unmake us as a people. I've actually heard
right-wingers advocate shooting women and children as they come
across the border.

Cindy Hamilton

[Bruce]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2019 11:52:39 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>GM wrote:
>>
>> Actually, President Trump is doing a spot - on job of dismantling the squalid Obama "legacy"...
>>
>> Following up to Gary's earlier comments on Reagan, I totally agree...he is one the great Presidents...
>>
>> Trump is the best we've had since Reagan, he has much in common with Harry Truman - vilified at the time and after - but now recognized as one the "greats"...
>>
>> Truman, Reagan and Trump are all three historical "disruptors" -- along with Thatcher, Gorbachev, Merkel and Pope John Paul II -- we are lucky to have had them...they "disrupted" for the good of mankind, the world is better off for them.
>
>This (above) is all true. Trump came in as a wild card. Not a
>lawyer, not a career politician. He was elected in hopes that he
>might eliminate the same ol same ol nonsense in DC. He's had to
>learn the hard way since day one. Liberal Demo's (proven poor
>losers) have tried ever since day one to prove he cheated to get
>elected and anything else they can conjure up. A complete witch
>hunt.
>
>I've never liked bullies

But you like Donald Trump. This is the dreaded effect of the paint
fumes.

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
>
> But you like Donald Trump. This is the dreaded effect of the paint
> fumes.

You just made my earlier point of name calling when you have no
real argument. You are nothing by a shit-stirring troll. Go away,
Bruce. If you ever have an intelligent argument, I'll listen.

[Bruce]

I think even Trump's fans will agree that he's the bully type. So it's
strange to declare your love for Trump and in the same post say that
you don't like bullies.

Oh and I didn't call you anything, but you called me a shit-stirring
troll. So it's the right-wing who do the name calling. Thanks for
clarifying. Happy cheeseburgers!

[GM]

"Bruce" is *by far* the biggest garbage poster on rfc...he spends 24/7 responding *multiple* times to *every single post*...

--
Best
Greg

[Bruce]

GM's always going in circles because he refuses to turn left.

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
>
> Reagan made a deal with the Iranians. He didn't want them to release
> the hostages during the election campaign. He was afraid it would give
> Carter extra votes. His election was more important to him than the
> fate of the hostages. Strange how this is common knowledge outside of
> the US, but you don't know it.

Sorry Bruce. That's a common conspiracy theory with no guts. Just
bad-loser democrats crying foul, just as we are seeing today with
Trump. People like you got fooled though.

Fact is:
- in addition to Iranians afraid of what Reagan would do, they
might
have done that on their own seeing as how they HATED Carter.
The entire hostage thing was because he allowed the Shaw to
come here for cancer treatment. They wanted to hang him.

- Carter lost the election on his own.
Worthless president that only won because everyone voted
against Gerald Ford for pardoning Nixon.

- I remember that gas rationing that only happened in Carter's
day.

-Jimmy should have stuck with peanut farming, imo.
Since read that I've even his personal SS hated him and his
wife.

- Reagan won by a landslide twice. He was da man.

- Reagan brought back pride in our country. Reagan fuggin nailed
it. Best president ever in my lifetime. And all the very liberal
Californians now should remember that THEY elected him twice as
their Governor. lol right back at ya!

[Bruce]

The dumber the president, the more you like him. The smarter the
president, the more you dislike him. Funny. Huh huh.

[Gary]

Bruce wrote:
>
> The dumber the president, the more you like him. The smarter the
> president, the more you dislike him. Funny. Huh huh.

Yoose just puts down someone that disagrees with your opinion.
Typical thing when you have nothing worthwhile to say. Yoose
might be even smarter than Popeye and he knows everything. :)

[Bruce]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 15:28:15 -0400, Gary <g.ma...@att.net> wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> The dumber the president, the more you like him. The smarter the
>> president, the more you dislike him. Funny. Huh huh.
>
>Yoose just puts down someone that disagrees with your opinion.

Was that a put down? You always like the dumbasses. Maybe because
they're no threat to you? Huh huh.

[jmcquown]

On 4/4/2019 8:41 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> On Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 4:45:56 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>>
>> https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2019-04-01/what-is-the-real-life-
>> story-behind-ruth-wilsons-new-bbc-drama-mrs-wilson/
>>
>> Janet UK
>>
> That was really interesting!
>
Joan, did you watch the episode of 'Mrs. Wilson' on Sunday night? I
did. I found it entertaining. Apparently still much mystery around the
man, although all his children did finally have a reunion.

I love PBS. :) I watched a Masterpiece episode of 'Jamestown', I think
it was on Monday night after 'Antiques Roadshow'. It's still early in
the 2nd season and this is considered historical fiction. Still, very
interesting and entertaining!

Last night I watched an actual documentary on PBS. 'Reconstruction:
America After the Civil War', a special produced by and hosted by Dr.
Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (historian). Fascinating! I knew a little bit
about the era just after the [American] Civil War but not a heck of a lot.

Did I mention I love PBS? :)

Here's a fun thing. Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. visited Beaufort while
making this documentary. Doing research about a black man named Robert
Smalls. (I know about him.) I was flipping through some channels last
week and ran across 'The Beaufort County Channel". I've seen it before,
of course. It's where they televise boring city council meetings. In
this case, though, it gave me pause because I immediately recognized Dr.
Gates. He was sitting with a group of students on a stage, explaining
about Reconstruction and the part the city of Beaufort and freed slaves
in particular played in the history. He invited them to ask questions
and they did. How cool! I like the fact that he actually travelled
down here (rather than just send a film crew and resort to public
records). And that took he the time to sit down with kids from area
schools.

Jill

[Bruce]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 19:43:19 -0400, jmcquown <j_mc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

And don't forget people: Jill wants us all to stay on topic!

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>
> Joan, did you watch the episode of 'Mrs. Wilson' on Sunday night? I
> did. I found it entertaining. Apparently still much mystery around the
> man, although all his children did finally have a reunion.
>

I recorded it on the dvr and watched it yesterday. Evidently IRL she didn't
know about Dorothy or the last wife, Elizabeth. It was interesting to see
all the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren at the end.

>
> I love PBS. :) I watched a Masterpiece episode of 'Jamestown', I think
> it was on Monday night after 'Antiques Roadshow'. It's still early in
> the 2nd season and this is considered historical fiction. Still, very
> interesting and entertaining!
>

I haven't watched that series. But the new "Call the Midwife" series is on
again.

>
> Last night I watched an actual documentary on PBS. 'Reconstruction:
> America After the Civil War', a special produced by and hosted by Dr.
> Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (historian). Fascinating! I knew a little bit
> about the era just after the [American] Civil War but not a heck of a lot.
>

I saw just a few minutes and evidently something else caught my attention.

>
> Did I mention I love PBS? :)
>

I love it when they're not doing their 30 day fund raising torment every 90
days.

>
> Here's a fun thing. Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. visited Beaufort while
> making this documentary. Doing research about a black man named Robert
> Smalls. (I know about him.) I was flipping through some channels last
> week and ran across 'The Beaufort County Channel". I've seen it before,
> of course. It's where they televise boring city council meetings. In
> this case, though, it gave me pause because I immediately recognized Dr.
> Gates. He was sitting with a group of students on a stage, explaining
> about Reconstruction and the part the city of Beaufort and freed slaves
> in particular played in the history. He invited them to ask questions
> and they did. How cool! I like the fact that he actually travelled
> down here (rather than just send a film crew and resort to public
> records). And that took he the time to sit down with kids from area
> schools.
>
> Jill
>

Interesting! I haven't thought about it for a-g-e-s but they used to televise
the Tuesday night council meetings on the local PBS station. I don't have
a clue when they stopped doing this.

[jmcquown]

On 4/10/2019 10:09 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 5:43:24 PM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Joan, did you watch the episode of 'Mrs. Wilson' on Sunday night? I
>> did. I found it entertaining. Apparently still much mystery around the
>> man, although all his children did finally have a reunion.
>>
> I recorded it on the dvr and watched it yesterday. Evidently IRL she didn't
> know about Dorothy or the last wife, Elizabeth. It was interesting to see
> all the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren at the end.
>>

It was very interesting! What a strange family history.

>> I love PBS. :) I watched a Masterpiece episode of 'Jamestown', I think
>> it was on Monday night after 'Antiques Roadshow'. It's still early in
>> the 2nd season and this is considered historical fiction. Still, very
>> interesting and entertaining!
>>
> I haven't watched that series. But the new "Call the Midwife" series is on
> again.
>>

I can't seem to get into that series.

>> Last night I watched an actual documentary on PBS. 'Reconstruction:
>> America After the Civil War', a special produced by and hosted by Dr.
>> Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (historian). Fascinating! I knew a little bit
>> about the era just after the [American] Civil War but not a heck of a lot.
>>
> I saw just a few minutes and evidently something else caught my attention.
>>
>> Did I mention I love PBS? :)
>>
> I love it when they're not doing their 30 day fund raising torment every 90
> days.
>>

That's a drag, for sure. I have four different PBS channels, two out of
Georgia and two out of South Carolina. Sometimes they run the same
shows concurrently but not always. They don't all do the fundraiser
thing at the same time. SCETV "Create" airs a lot of cooking shows.
Cooks Country, America's Test Kitchen. Lately they've been running old
black & white Julia Child episodes.

>> Here's a fun thing. Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr. visited Beaufort while
>> making this documentary. Doing research about a black man named Robert
>> Smalls. (I know about him.) I was flipping through some channels last
>> week and ran across 'The Beaufort County Channel". I've seen it before,
>> of course. It's where they televise boring city council meetings. In
>> this case, though, it gave me pause because I immediately recognized Dr.
>> Gates. He was sitting with a group of students on a stage, explaining
>> about Reconstruction and the part the city of Beaufort and freed slaves
>> in particular played in the history. He invited them to ask questions
>> and they did. How cool! I like the fact that he actually travelled
>> down here (rather than just send a film crew and resort to public
>> records). And that took he the time to sit down with kids from area
>> schools.
>>
>> Jill
>>
> Interesting! I haven't thought about it for a-g-e-s but they used to televise
> the Tuesday night council meetings on the local PBS station. I don't have
> a clue when they stopped doing this.
>

Maybe they cut it out of the budget because no one was watching? It's
usually pretty dull stuff on that channel. LOL

I enjoyed seeing Dr. Gates talking to the middle school and high
schoolers) about Beaufort history.

He talked about Robert Smalls. Won't mean much to you. He was a slave,
born in a small cabin behind a mansion on Prince Street in downtown
Beaufort. In the second year of the Civil War, he commandeered a
Confederate cotton steamer owned by his "master" and for whom he'd
sailed for years. Apparently the crew was off getting drunk or
something. He took it out to sea, then made his way to Charleston. He
had a group of slaves including women and children with him. He took
the ship into Charleston harbor with a white flag of surrender and
turned it over to the Union Navy.

Six years after the war ended, he'd gone from being a slave to being
elected first to the SC legislature and was eventually elected to the US
Senate. And he wound up buying the mansion he was born behind! It's
still known as the Robert Smalls House:

https://discoversouthcarolina.com/products/3544

In the 'Reconstruction' documentary, Dr. Gates sat down with one of
Robert Smalls' descendents on the front porch of the mansion to talk
about the family history and the impact he had.

I find all of this fascinating. The history of this area dates back
much further than the Civil War. The American Revolution touched these
shores. There's a grave of an unknown "Loyalist" (British) soldier in a
church graveyard downtown. Well before that, the area including the
"sea islands" were alternately claimed by the Spanish, the British,
skirmishes back and forth. Well before any of that there were native
American peoples building, farming, hunting, fishing... living. :)

I find it very interesting to live in an area so steeped in history.
Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent.

Jill

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 9:47:03 AM UTC-5, jmcquown wrote:
> On 4/10/2019 10:09 PM, itsjoan...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > But the new "Call the Midwife" series is on again.
> >>
> I can't seem to get into that series.
>

It started in the early 50's and I caught the first episode and I've been
hooked ever since. Several character changes as the series progresses.
Vanessa Redgrave narrates the opening sequence for each episode and she's
speaking for the woman who wrote her memoirs for the series.

>
> >> Did I mention I love PBS? :)
> >>
> > I love it when they're not doing their 30 day fund raising torment every 90
> > days.
> >>
> That's a drag, for sure. I have four different PBS channels, two out of
> Georgia and two out of South Carolina. Sometimes they run the same
> shows concurrently but not always. They don't all do the fundraiser
> thing at the same time. SCETV "Create" airs a lot of cooking shows.
> Cooks Country, America's Test Kitchen. Lately they've been running old
> black & white Julia Child episodes.
>

I get the local PBS channel and also one from a town 100 miles east of me.
There's also another one on DirecTV but it's not available to me, grrrrrrrrr.
The cooking shows from both stations air on Saturday morning here and I
dvr them and watch on Sunday.

>
> > I haven't thought about it for a-g-e-s but they used to televise
> > the Tuesday night council meetings on the local PBS station. I don't have
> > a clue when they stopped doing this.
> >
> Maybe they cut it out of the budget because no one was watching? It's
> usually pretty dull stuff on that channel. LOL
>

Yes, it was dull as dish water and that might be the reason they no longer air
the council meetings. I certainly don't miss them.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

I thought I saw a new series of Call the Midwife on Netflix. I had my
younger daughter at home in 1960 and the midwife who attended me was
just like the midwives in the series, uniform, white apron and little
cap! The system was great and I wish they had home births more
available in NA, no nicer way to deliver.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 4:04:42 PM UTC-5, lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>
> I thought I saw a new series of Call the Midwife on Netflix. I had my
> younger daughter at home in 1960 and the midwife who attended me was
> just like the midwives in the series, uniform, white apron and little
> cap! The system was great and I wish they had home births more
> available in NA, no nicer way to deliver.
>

I can say for certain but I suspect a lot of doctors push hospital delivery for
the convenience. Of course there are LOTS of deliveries that should take place
in a hospital with all the necessary equipment if the mother or child are
known to be at risk.

[Gary]

lucreti...@fl.it wrote:
>
> I thought I saw a new series of Call the Midwife on Netflix. I had my
> younger daughter at home in 1960 and the midwife who attended me was
> just like the midwives in the series, uniform, white apron and little
> cap! The system was great and I wish they had home births more
> available in NA, no nicer way to deliver.

Very true as long as no complications. I delivered my daughter at
home late one Friday night back in 1979. That sure got the
adrenaline working. hehheh She turns 40 in May. No denying I'm
old now, I suppose.

[lucreti...@fl.it]

Kudos to how the system was set up in the UK then (don't know about
now) but even if there were complications they could always shift you
to hospital, but it was rarely necessary. My daughter was what they
call a 'facial presentation', speaks for itself, but the danger is
that the chin goes down on the chest and the baby gets stuck. When
the midwife realised this she explained it all to me and said all will
be well if you do exactly as I say, I did and it was.

In the 7th month you checked into a clinic and were assigned to a
midwife. She came to the house and checked it out, pointed out
anything she would need but also left behind a large cardboard box
that was not to be opened. It contained amongst other medical items a
cover for the mattress so nothing was ruined. The whole set up was
admirable.

[penm...@aol.com]

Even when not known to be at risk... shit happens.... a lot safer at a
medical facility.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 11:44:46 AM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
>
> Even when not known to be at risk... shit happens.... a lot safer at a
> medical facility.
>

Babies have been born at home for thousands of years before hospitals and
maternity wards were ever thought of. Babies and mothers die in hospital
even with the best equipment and best staff available.

[Janet]

In article <8ac2e925-8d3e-4124...@googlegroups.com>,
itsjoan...@webtv.net says...

>
> On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 11:44:46 AM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > Even when not known to be at risk... shit happens.... a lot safer at a
> > medical facility.
> >
> Babies have been born at home for thousands of years before hospitals and
> maternity wards were ever thought of.

True, and home-birth mortality rates for mother and child were far
higher.

Babies and mothers die in hospital
> even with the best equipment and best staff available.

Neonatal death rates are still higher in home births than hospital
births

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/smfm/62824

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27187582

Janet UK

[penm...@aol.com]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 10:02:03 -0700 (PDT), "itsjoan...@webtv.net"
<itsjoan...@webtv.net> wrote:

>On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 11:44:46 AM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> Even when not known to be at risk... shit happens.... a lot safer at a
>> medical facility.
>>
>Babies have been born at home for thousands of years before hospitals and
>maternity wards were ever thought of.

Um, tell me something I didn't already know.

>Babies and mothers die in hospital even with the best equipment and best staff available.

You're being silly... deaths occur in hospitals every day. often from
the simplest procedures. Tragedy results more often from child birth
at home, a lot more often.

[Ed Pawlowski]

But none of those babies born at home before hospitals are alive today.
Proves it is not a good idea.

[Bruce]

In the Netherlands, most babies are born at home. Statistics are the
same as in countries with mainly hospital deliveries.

[Gary]

But those same babies also ate carrots during their lives. Who
knows what's to blame?

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 12:26:31 PM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>
> In article <8ac2e925-8d3e-4124...@googlegroups.com>,
> itsjoan...@webtv.net says...
> >
> > On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 11:44:46 AM UTC-5, Sheldon wrote:
> > >
> > > Even when not known to be at risk... shit happens.... a lot safer at a
> > > medical facility.
> > >
> > Babies have been born at home for thousands of years before hospitals and
> > maternity wards were ever thought of.
>
> True, and home-birth mortality rates for mother and child were far
> higher.
>

That's for sure. I'm sure a lot of those women never saw a doctor or a nurse
the whole time they were pregnant. Makes one shudder to think about it.

>
> Babies and mothers die in hospital
> > even with the best equipment and best staff available.
>
> Neonatal death rates are still higher in home births than hospital
> births
>
> https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/smfm/62824
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27187582
>
> Janet UK
>

True.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

I'm not being silly, I'm stating a fact. A mother and baby can die no matter
what care she and the infant receive or how carefully they were monitored.

[itsjoan...@webtv.net]

On Friday, April 12, 2019 at 12:34:47 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> But none of those babies born at home before hospitals are alive today.
> Proves it is not a good idea.
>

You need to get out more. You'd be surprised at how many woman opt for home
birth.