nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

I bet you didn't know that this thread would have a part 2

IamMetaldave

BaZmO* wrote: »

This post is the 10,000th post

Pipped.

Mod: Continuation from the old thread, which is here.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Realt Dearg Sec

Candie wrote: »

Gosh, it's less and less an admirable rags to riches story of a poor immigrant who became a household name, and more of an intimidation and strong arm situation.

How very disappointing.

In that sense, it is a quintessentially American story.

[Deleted User]

Absolutely. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Deleted User]

Candie wrote: »

Absolutely. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

J'aime la fromage.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

J'aime la fromage.

I read that in Del Boys voice.

Mais oui, Rodders!

And Goodnight Vienna!

Capt'n Midnight

Some of you may have seen where lipstick was banned

-A law against obtaining husbands under false pretences, passed by the English Parliament in 1770, enacts
--‘"That all women, of whatever age rank, profession or degree, who shall after this act, impose upon, seduce, and betray into matrimony any of his Majesty's subjects, by virtue of scents, paints, cosmetic washes, artificial teeth, false hair, iron stays, bolstered hips, or high-heeled shoes, shall incur the penalty of the law now in force against witchcraft and like misdemeanors and the marriage, under such disbursement upon conviction of the offending parties, shall be null and void:"’
The Daily Dispatch: August 27, 1861.

It's not true of course. But the myth persists.

New Home

Capt'n, it would be so interesting to take a peep inside your head (not meant in a serial killer/mad scientist kind of way)...

sbsquarepants

Standards of beauty vary from culture to culture and from time to time. Case in point Princess Qajar of Persia a woman so beautiful that 13 men committed suicide after she rejected their advances. She was actually well ahead of her time, in an time and an area completely dominated by men, she was a well known intellectual and done a lot for the advancement of womens rights. But she is mostly remembered for her outstanding natural beauty.

Ladies and gentlemen, may i present Princess Qajar.....

https://themindcircle.com/tadj-es-saltaneh-persian-princess/

Gloomtastic!

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Standards of beauty vary from culture to culture and from time to time. Case in point Princess Qajar of Persia a woman so beautiful that 13 men committed suicide after she rejected their advances. She was actually well ahead of her time, in an time and an area completely dominated by men, she was a well known intellectual and done a lot for the advancement of womens rights. But she is mostly remembered for her outstanding natural beauty.

Ladies and gentlemen, may i present Princess Qajar.....

https://themindcircle.com/tadj-es-saltaneh-persian-princess/

Had to check the month that we weren't back in April!

Among her lovers was there a Persian poet, Aref Qazvini, who wrote a poem about her named “Ey Taj”.

An anagram surely - eyjat - anyone?

gerrybbadd

Seen a good one the other day

There was a three-week period when Kirk Douglas and Rasputin were both alive at the same time.

RiderOnTheStorm

Kirk Douglas is 102 .... and still going.

Ipso

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Standards of beauty vary from culture to culture and from time to time. Case in point Princess Qajar of Persia a woman so beautiful that 13 men committed suicide after she rejected their advances. She was actually well ahead of her time, in an time and an area completely dominated by men, she was a well known intellectual and done a lot for the advancement of womens rights. But she is mostly remembered for her outstanding natural beauty.

Ladies and gentlemen, may i present Princess Qajar.....

https://themindcircle.com/tadj-es-saltaneh-persian-princess/

And the way she'd look at you

Ipso

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

Kirk Douglas is 102 .... and still going.

The actor Michael Keaton was born Michael Douglas but changed his name as it was already taken in Hollywood, by the son of Kirk. Of course Kirk's real name is Issur Danielovitch.

[Deleted User]

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Standards of beauty vary from culture to culture and from time to time. Case in point Princess Qajar of Persia a woman so beautiful that 13 men committed suicide after she rejected their advances. She was actually well ahead of her time, in an time and an area completely dominated by men, she was a well known intellectual and done a lot for the advancement of womens rights. But she is mostly remembered for her outstanding natural beauty.

Ladies and gentlemen, may i present Princess Qajar.....

https://themindcircle.com/tadj-es-saltaneh-persian-princess/

Power eyebrow(s) totes on fleek.

I've been in Iran, a more good looking people would be hard to find. I've never felt more inadequate in my life.

quickbeam

Ipso wrote: »

The actor Michael Keaton was born Michael Douglas but changed his name as it was already taken in Hollywood, by the son of Kirk. Of course Kirk's real name is Issur Danielovitch.

Michael Douglas (son of Kirk, not he who became Michael Keaton), won his first Oscar as a Producer on One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

sbsquarepants

Courtesy of the ever lovely Susie Dent -

A well known phrase with a surprisingly literal etymology is the phrase "to steal someones thunder".

It originates from the world of theatre, from a specific incident in Drury Lane theatre in 1704 in fact. When someone actually stole the gizmo that made the thunder noise:D

BaZmO*

The expression "To be in the limelight" is to be at the center of public attention, or someone who's in the limelight is constantly being talked about, interviewed, and photographed.

In the early 1800's, theatre stages were lit by heating a cylinder of the mineral called lime — the result was an intensely bright white light.

secondrowgal

I saw this on another thread, but apparently goldfish were never meant to be kept in bowls! They would have been transferred to bowls for the duration of a dinner or an event, as a decoration, and to show them off, but then returned to their pond/larger aquarium afterwards. Keeping goldfish in bowls is cruel as they have stunted growth and reduced lifespan.

They need about 300 litres of water for a single fish and an additional 50 litres for each extra fish. To correctly house a single goldfish in an aquarium, you'd be looking at a 3ft x 2ft x 2ft tank!

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058003700&page=2

reap-a-rat

secondrowgal wrote: »

I saw this on another thread, but apparently goldfish were never meant to be kept in bowls! They would have been transferred to bowls for the duration of a dinner or an event, as a decoration, and to show them off, but then returned to their pond/larger aquarium afterwards. Keeping goldfish in bowls is cruel as they have stunted growth and reduced lifespan.

They need about 300 litres of water for a single fish and an additional 50 litres for each extra fish. To correctly house a single goldfish in an aquarium, you'd be looking at a 3ft x 2ft x 2ft tank!

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058003700&page=2

That's mad! I remember I had goldfish when I was younger. The cat managed to get one and we got a replacement. We caught the cat just before she got them again (knocked the bowl to the floor and broke it) so we said enough is enough, the cat will always find a way and the fish don't stand a chance. A friend of my mother's had a pond so we gave them to her and the transformation was unbelievable! They went from being the size of a match box to the size of a 500ml bottle in a few months. They were thriving. So it actually all fits together now!

New Home

Same things for birds in cages, really (even if they were bred in captivity and don't know any different) - if you think about what their natural habitat should be, and how much they'd normally move around, it gives you an idea.

sbsquarepants

New Home wrote: »

Same things for birds in cages, really (even if they were bred in captivity and don't know any different) - if you think about what their natural habitat should be, and how much they'd normally move around, it gives you an idea.

I'm undecided on this one - years back a mate gave me a baby budgie in a cage (Pope Benedict XVI, aka Benny R.I.P) he was breeding them at the time. I lived alone and so i decided to let him have the free run of the apartment - he spent 99.9% of his time in the cage anyway.

BaZmO*

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm undecided on this one - years back a mate gave me a baby budgie in a cage (Pope Benedict XVI, aka Benny R.I.P) he was breeding them at the time. I lived alone and so i decided to let him have the free run of the apartment - he spent 99.9% of his time in the cage anyway.

Is an apartment not just a bigger cage though? Big difference from being free to fly around in the outdoors.

sbsquarepants

It is i suppose. But if you had the choice of a big cage or a small one, would you choose the small one?

New Home

Fear? You go and hide in a small place when you're afraid.

Professor Moriarty

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It is i suppose. But if you had the choice of a big cage or a small one, would you choose the small one?

If your budgie spent 99.9% of its time in its cage then it chose the small one.

sbsquarepants

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If your budgie spent 99.9% of its time in its cage then it chose the small one.

That's my point. The small cage can't be all that terrible if it's the one he freely chose.

BaZmO*

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's my point. The small cage can't be all that terrible if it's the one he freely chose.

As per New Home's point above. Animals don't hide in open spaces when they are fearful.

ohnonotgmail

I was reading something yesterday on twitter about scientists growing trees indoors. Even though the trees were given the perfect growing conditions they all fell over before they reached maturity. What they discovered is that trees need wind to grow properly. buffeting by the wind actually makes the tree stronger. without the action of the wind the tree grows up weak.

sbsquarepants

BaZmO* wrote: »

As per New Home's point above. Animals don't hide in open spaces when they are fearful.

No, he wasn't fearful. If i called him he'd come, if i was eating he'd come and mooch some, he wasn't hiding, it's just where he preferred to be.

I personally think we ascribe too many human notions to animals, we see wildebeast majestically roaming the african plains, or whales gracefully traversing the oceans and think it's amazing (it is amazing!) but they aren't having the time of their lives on some dream safari - they are forced into it in an effort to avoid starvation. Given any actual choice they'd probably just opt to stay put!

Professor Moriarty

sbsquarepants wrote: »

No, he wasn't fearful. If i called him he'd come, if i was eating he'd come and mooch some, he wasn't hiding, it's just where he preferred to be.

I personally think we ascribe too many human notions to animals, we see wildebeast majestically roaming the african plains, or whales gracefully traversing the oceans and think it's amazing (it is amazing!) but they aren't having the time of their lives on some dream safari - they are forced into it in an effort to avoid starvation. Given any actual choice they'd probably just opt to stay put!

There's a word for that: Anthropomorphism.

New Home

I remember reading years ago about big cats that had been captured as cubs for zoos and kept in cages, they spent most of their time pacing up and down restlessly in front of the bars of their cages. Once released again (I can't remember if it was in their original habitat or in a natural park, most likely the latter), they'd spend their time pacing up and down in front of trees, just like they did when they were captive. Was that a symptom of being healthy and happy? Would they have behaved in the same way had they been left in their natural habitat in the first place? Or am I anthropomorphising them again?