Discussion:
Garfield July 8
(too old to reply)
p***@hotmail.com
2018-07-11 04:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I am reminded of Christopher Anvil's _The Gentle Earth_:

https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08


Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-11 05:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
_Iceworld._
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Kevrob
2018-07-11 11:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
_Iceworld._
The "welcome to my website" word balloon ought to credit
"Zippy The Pinhead's" Bil Griffith.

[quote]

Even if you’ve never seen a Zippy strip — it appears in almost 200
newspapers — you probably have heard or even repeated his best-
known contribution to the English language:

“Are we having fun yet?”

That’s right — Zippy said it first, way back in 1979. Look it up in
Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. Now it’s on bumper sticker, in headlines,
on T-shirts . . . all without enriching Griffith by one dime.

"The only time it annoys me," he says, "is when it’s another cartoon
character saying it. Like I saw it on a Garfield mug. Then I saw Dennis
the Menace saying it. And the worst of all was a Ziggy T-shirt. That rankled
for a few minutes."

[/quote]

https://mrmedia.com/2007/07/bill-griffith-zippy-the-pinhead-cartoonist-mr-media-interview-classic-1997/

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2018-07-11 20:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
_Iceworld._
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-11 20:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
_Iceworld._
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Robert Carnegie
2018-07-11 21:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by p***@hotmail.com
https://garfield.com/comic/2018/07/08
Hal noticed that too, and called it a reverse of Clement's
_Iceworld._
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
That's what it said - but - ?

The other day I noticed in the terms of Dictionary.com
that you (now) have to be 16 to use it. Hmm.

The COPPA law some years ago made it so difficult to handle
user accounts of children under 13 legally, that most sites
just set 13 as the lower age limit.

Basically Dictionary.com just tells you what words mean.
Maybe that' what is dangerous.

They also produce examples apparently by an automatic
search of web pages, which is amusing if a term's common
application is not its dictionary meaning - like Apple.
Quadibloc
2018-07-15 13:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Basically Dictionary.com just tells you what words mean.
Maybe that' what is dangerous.
Well, maybe they even tell you what naughty words mean!

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-15 14:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
Basically Dictionary.com just tells you what words mean.
Maybe that' what is dangerous.
Well, maybe they even tell you what naughty words mean!
Traditional dictionaries don't even mention them.

There was a huge hoorah back in the sixties?? when a dictionary
came out that included words such as "ain't", even though it
marked them "not preferred" or something. This led to a long
discussion of whether dictionaries should be prescriptive
(listing how people *ought* to speak) or descriptive (showing how
they actually do). This was long enough ago that I can't
remember the name of the descriptive English dictionary that made
all the ruckus, but if you look up _Dictionaries and THAT
Dictionary_, you'll find some interesting discussion.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-07-15 13:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in response
to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about
you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were at least
13 years old.

I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their privacy
or something.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-15 14:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in response
to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about
you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were at least
13 years old.
I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their privacy
or something.
Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
anything naughty. I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
in _Garfield_, and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
either a dog or an underage human. Does the filter (did anyone
try?) actually bounce you if you say you are an underage human?
And what's to prevent you from lying to it?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
J. Clarke
2018-07-15 14:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in response
to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about
you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were at least
13 years old.
I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their privacy
or something.
Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
anything naughty. I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
in _Garfield_, and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
either a dog or an underage human. Does the filter (did anyone
try?) actually bounce you if you say you are an underage human?
And what's to prevent you from lying to it?
I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
ever lies about their age.
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-15 15:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in
response
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about
you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were
at least
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
13 years old.
I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their
privacy
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
or something.
Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
anything naughty. I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
in _Garfield_, and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
either a dog or an underage human. Does the filter (did anyone
try?) actually bounce you if you say you are an underage human?
And what's to prevent you from lying to it?
I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
ever lies about their age.
I suppose it's so the site owner can say, "Hey, we *asked* them
if they were of age. How could we tell if they were lying?"

Maybe a better gate process would to be to ask a question that
no one under age would know the answer to? I don't know what
such a question could be. Ask questions about Y2K? No, I'm not
serious. Ask questions about 2000-era rock music? *I* couldn't
answer those, and I'll never see eighteen again.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Juho Julkunen
2018-07-15 20:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
ever lies about their age.
I suppose it's so the site owner can say, "Hey, we *asked* them
if they were of age. How could we tell if they were lying?"
Maybe a better gate process would to be to ask a question that
no one under age would know the answer to? I don't know what
such a question could be. Ask questions about Y2K? No, I'm not
serious. Ask questions about 2000-era rock music? *I* couldn't
answer those, and I'll never see eighteen again.
I think one of the early Leisure Suit Larry games did that. Of course,
it also doubled as an "are you American" test.
--
Juho Julkunen
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-15 20:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by J. Clarke
I see that with a lot of sites--"enter your birth date" as if nobody
ever lies about their age.
I suppose it's so the site owner can say, "Hey, we *asked* them
if they were of age. How could we tell if they were lying?"
Maybe a better gate process would to be to ask a question that
no one under age would know the answer to? I don't know what
such a question could be. Ask questions about Y2K? No, I'm not
serious. Ask questions about 2000-era rock music? *I* couldn't
answer those, and I'll never see eighteen again.
I think one of the early Leisure Suit Larry games did that. Of course,
it also doubled as an "are you American" test.
I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
popular back then but no one had even heard of later. And in
mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
whodunit is considered cheating. No, I don't know the name
either of the radio program or the story.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-07-15 20:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
popular back then but no one had even heard of later. And in
mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
whodunit is considered cheating. No, I don't know the name
either of the radio program or the story.
Interesting. And a challenge to my Google-fu.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-15 23:14:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
popular back then but no one had even heard of later. And in
mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
whodunit is considered cheating. No, I don't know the name
either of the radio program or the story.
Interesting. And a challenge to my Google-fu.
Let me know if you can identify it!
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-07-15 21:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
popular back then but no one had even heard of later. And in
mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
whodunit is considered cheating. No, I don't know the name
either of the radio program or the story.
Millie's Millions and Murder Can Be Fun?

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-15 23:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
I seem to remember reading *about* a Fredric Brown mystery story
from the 1940s that someone thought of reprinting decades
later... but it turned out that the solution to the mystery
required detailed knowledge about a radio program that was
popular back then but no one had even heard of later. And in
mystery-land, not giving the reader a fair chance at guessing
whodunit is considered cheating. No, I don't know the name
either of the radio program or the story.
Millie's Millions and Murder Can Be Fun?
You're right!

https://books.google.com/books?id=G7Z-t_tfPOkC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=Millie's+Millions+radio&source=bl&ots=Mg2X7aNgaD&sig=eY7w5Cvg2lwSOZIJNgNC_K8Yhco&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU2sannqLcAhULI3wKHRXPBA4Q6AEIUTAL#v=onepage&q=Millie's%20Millions%20radio&f=false

And it's a novel, not a short story.

https://www.amazon.com/Murder-Can-Fun-Fredric-Brown/dp/1596541164

And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.

I shall have to get a copy.

Thanks!
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Kevrob
2018-07-16 00:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And it's a novel, not a short story.
https://www.amazon.com/Murder-Can-Fun-Fredric-Brown/dp/1596541164
And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.
I shall have to get a copy.
Thanks!
I Love A Mystery!

Kevin R

(exposed to OTR over the air in the 1970s on
what was then WPAC-FM, now WBLI.)
Quadibloc
2018-07-16 03:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.
You're welcome. Possibly, though, I could be mistaken. The novel was based on a
short story - The Santa Claus Murders - and perhaps the short story, unlike the
novel, did refer to a real radio show.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-16 17:27:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.
You're welcome. Possibly, though, I could be mistaken. The novel was based on a
short story - The Santa Claus Murders - and perhaps the short story, unlike the
novel, did refer to a real radio show.
That's a thought! Can your google-fu find a summary of the
story, with the original radio show named?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Quadibloc
2018-07-16 18:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.
You're welcome. Possibly, though, I could be mistaken. The novel was based on a
short story - The Santa Claus Murders - and perhaps the short story, unlike the
novel, did refer to a real radio show.
That's a thought! Can your google-fu find a summary of the
story, with the original radio show named?
Unfortunately, I had been looking. Indeed, it's possible the story you
remembered was a completely different one.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-07-16 19:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
And apparently it's a *fictional* radio show.
You're welcome. Possibly, though, I could be mistaken. The novel was
based on a
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
short story - The Santa Claus Murders - and perhaps the short story,
unlike the
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
novel, did refer to a real radio show.
That's a thought! Can your google-fu find a summary of the
story, with the original radio show named?
Unfortunately, I had been looking. Indeed, it's possible the story you
remembered was a completely different one.
Well, I never read it, only read about it, and the gist was (a)
mystery, (b) by Fredric Brown, and (c) the only way the reader
could guess whodunit was by knowing about a real-world 1940s
radio show.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Greg Goss
2018-07-15 23:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Maybe a better gate process would to be to ask a question that
no one under age would know the answer to? I don't know what
such a question could be. Ask questions about Y2K? No, I'm not
serious. Ask questions about 2000-era rock music? *I* couldn't
answer those, and I'll never see eighteen again.
I remember a website from the very early days of the web that asked
you a dozen questions or so and decided whether you were old enoughto
enter. I have no memory of what the questions were or what their
heuristics were.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Wolffan
2018-07-15 14:53:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
I had to click on an alarmingly peremptory "SUBMIT!"
button. I wonder what I just submitted to.
Acknowledging that you are not a dog, IIRC.
As the previous reply noted, the peremptory SUBMIT button was there in response
to COPPA. Thus, in order to authorize them to save advertising cookies about
you, you first had to declare, under penalty of perjury, that you were at least
13 years old.
I guess it's better to throw 12-year-olds in jail than to invade their privacy
or something.
Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
anything naughty. I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
in _Garfield_,
That depends on your definitions. _Something_ happened to Lyman. Did Jon feed
him, screaming, into a meat grinder to make mince for Garfield’s lasagna?
Did Nermal and Pooky drag him down to the basement for ‘games’? (Davis
himself says that no-one should check inside the basement...) We don’t see.
But we _do_ see Garfield try to murder Odie, over and over and over again.
Perhaps attempted canicide by kicking off a tabletop isn’t naughty enough.
(It does, however, raise the question of who lets a beagle loose on a
tabletop, anyway? Jon’s not only guilty, guilty, GUILTY of feeding Lyman to
Garfield, he’s also a few short of a case. Poking fun at the mentally
challenged is naughty in of itself, though I have been guilty of _that_
myself. (Hi, Keith!)
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
either a dog or an underage human. Does the filter (did anyone
try?) actually bounce you if you say you are an underage human?
And what's to prevent you from lying to it?
Garfield and Nermal will hunt you down if you try. Pookie will reveal his
True Nature as a drop bear. A fascist with a dead muskrat on his head will
roam the corridors of the White House. (Hmm. That’s already happening.
Scratch that.)
Quadibloc
2018-07-15 20:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Well, it's not for the children's benefit, as you know very well;
it's to reassure parents that their little darlings won't read
anything naughty. I can't remember ever seeing anything naughty
in _Garfield_, and I did not attempt to tell the filter I was
either a dog or an underage human.
It's not about naughty content in the case of Garfield.

To protect children from being tracked by those with sinister motives, the
United States enacted a law strictly regulating the information that web sites
can retain about children under the age of 13.

So, sinde the site uses cookies to make more money on its advertising, it has to
turn that off if you're under 13. You may still be able to read the comic
anyways if they're feeling generous.

John Savard
Loading...