Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: knoodelhed on May 18, 2009, 12:21:31 am

Title: May 18
Post by: knoodelhed on May 18, 2009, 12:21:31 am
Dead, as I would expect. But, it didn't go through him? ???
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: quadibloc on May 18, 2009, 12:56:56 am
Nice touch with the... coloring.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: KBCraig on May 18, 2009, 07:07:21 am
Dead, as I would expect. But, it didn't go through him? ???

Proper expansion.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 18, 2009, 08:48:21 am
Speaking of shading, note that the gunner, aside from being visibly agitated, has lost continence.  Yep, I might pee myself in the situation too, though I hope I'd never find myself in a similar fix (I hope I would find it within myself to somehow stand up to the officer giving me an immoral order, and then be able to avoid immediate death at his hands).  I would claim that I am too brave and macho to let this happen, but you know, sometimes the nervous system just takes over and you don't have a hell of a lot of choice.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 18, 2009, 09:27:01 am
Speaking of shading, note that the gunner, aside from being visibly agitated, has lost continence. 

GOOD pickup! Nice eye for detail. Yes, he peed himself.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 18, 2009, 10:33:47 am
Dead, as I would expect. But, it didn't go through him? ???

I posted this on another thread in response to a conversation there, it really seems to apply here too to try and answer knoodlehed's noting the apparent absence of an exit wound:

I am sure there was some damage to the lungs though the shot seems to have been dead center, possibly passing between them.  I am not an expert on anatomy by any means - does it look to you like the heart could also have suffered at least a peripheral injury?  My opinion would be that it looks likely, though as I said, I ain't no sawbones.  The heavy bleeding through the chest wall and the stream of blood out the mouth seem to support that theory.  He already appears unconscious, seems to be at least in deep shock (associated with severe trauma/blood loss) if not already gone.

My combat lifesaver course taught that on many lung injuries the victim will be fully conscious though possibly in great pain.  Even when there is an entry and exit wound, many times the best position for the soldier (once the wound is sealed and pneumothorax is prevented or treated), is seated against a tree or other support, whatever is most comfortable for breathing.  That assumes the soldier is at least somewhat conscious and coherent.  Harris def. appears to be out in the last frame.

The wound also looks dead-center enough the shot could have impacted the spinal column.  That would also have caused the already mushroomed bullet to fragment and cause even more damage, also possibly preventing a full exit wound.

*edit* and of course it went through the sternum on the way in, which made the  deforming of the bullet extreme even before it hit the spinal column.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: quadibloc on May 18, 2009, 11:16:53 am
GOOD pickup! Nice eye for detail.

Dang. That's what you get for being... less than explicit about the unmentionable.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: Rocketman on May 18, 2009, 12:22:41 pm
How fast he dies depends on lots of things.  Generally speaking she got a solid hit right in the center of the chest.  Considering that she was at close range and had him hog tied and assuming that the "Colt" was at least a .38 super probably within a minute of two.  There is at least on record of a .22 short fired at close range bringing down a circus elephant.  (Melrose Tappen "Survival Guns") on the other hand there is a case where an angry ex-husband broke into the parent in laws home and killed his ex-wife and their kids and then walked 2 and a half miles to a hospital where he ultimately died and this was after the wife had emptied 19 rounds of .22lr into him.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 18, 2009, 09:27:17 pm
Speaking of shading, note that the gunner, aside from being visibly agitated, has lost continence. 

GOOD pickup! Nice eye for detail. Yes, he peed himself.

Speaking of which, it seems like it would be unreasonable not to give him a few minutes to compose himself before giving some defense.  It cannot be certain to the Cereans (OK, Cerereans) that his is not innocent, and to perhaps fail to discover this because the Gunner cannot express a clear defense would not be just.  I think a 10-15 minute recess is in order.  Folks watching the recording on Youtube (http://You-Tube.ceres.sov  ;))  can fast-forward.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: terry_freeman on May 19, 2009, 12:30:50 am
I can't be certain, but I thought that was a Colt 1911 model, .45 acp
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 19, 2009, 07:32:03 am
Speaking of which, it seems like it would be unreasonable not to give him a few minutes to compose himself before giving some defense.  It cannot be certain to the Cereans (OK, Cerereans) that his is not innocent, and to perhaps fail to discover this because the Gunner cannot express a clear defense would not be just.  I think a 10-15 minute recess is in order.  Folks watching the recording on Youtube (http://You-Tube.ceres.sov  ;))  can fast-forward.

I just read Sandy's post (going back thru older stuff) where he states, "Cerereans" is the most gramatically correct (I believe that's what was stated, please forgive me if I misquote) way to structure the name.  I know this ain't (hee) no (hee hee) English class, but I have to admit I don't know the rules behind that and am curious, if Sandy would be so kind as to hep' me out. 

Have to agree with you, NeitherRule.  I hope Weapons Officer Young is given a few moments to compose himself and answer further.  So far his answer is not satisfying the audience, and Emily is bringing up Sov. Guzman's weapon again.  The clock is ticking and time appears to be short.  I have my thoughts on what he should say if his heart is in the right place, but I'll shut up to see what happens.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 19, 2009, 09:33:42 am
I can't be certain, but I thought that was a Colt 1911 model, .45 acp

That was the intent.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 19, 2009, 09:39:46 am
I just read Sandy's post (going back thru older stuff) where he states, "Cerereans" is the most gramatically correct (I believe that's what was stated, please forgive me if I misquote) way to structure the name.  I know this ain't (hee) no (hee hee) English class, but I have to admit I don't know the rules behind that and am curious, if Sandy would be so kind as to hep' me out. 

See "Name" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_ceres
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: cyberbard on May 19, 2009, 10:40:21 am
I hope Weapons Officer Young is given a few moments to compose himself and answer further.  So far his answer is not satisfying the audience, and Emily is bringing up Sov. Guzman's weapon again.  The clock is ticking and time appears to be short.  I have my thoughts on what he should say if his heart is in the right place, but I'll shut up to see what happens.

I suspect he's going to keep blubbering until Rose feeds him a lead sandwich.  And I think the reason is a "fourth wall" one.  The writers need to demonstrate that "following orders" is no excuse when the order itself is illegal/immoral/inhuman, whatever.  As far as the locals are concerned, Young should have said "I refuse to obey!," and accept whatever fate Harris had in mind.

I wanted to see Yeoman Young redeem himself, but I don't think he will. 
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 19, 2009, 01:28:29 pm
See "Name" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_ceres

Thank you Sov. Sandfort.  Lays it right out, much appreciated.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 19, 2009, 01:51:55 pm
See "Name" at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_ceres

Thank you Sov. Sandfort.  Lays it right out, much appreciated.

You are more than welcome.

Permit me to tweak this "sov" thing a bit. Where you would write, "Mr. Jones is a plumber," I see Belters writing "Sv Jones is a plumber." Where there is dialog, such as, "Hey mister, you forgot your change," Belters would write, "Hey sov, you forgot your change." (But I'm happy to be called either.) I haven't decided yet whether it is "Sv." or just "Sv" (without the period). I sort of lean toward "Sv" like the neologism, "Ms" which the 2nd Wave feminist think they invented (they didn't). What do you readers think?

Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 19, 2009, 03:49:56 pm
I don't really have a preference anymore.  It was edumacated out of me (okay, I allowed it to be). 

I used to be a bit old fashioned when it came to abbreviations.  For example, I liked to put a period after them, and with noted exceptions where capitalization is NOT accepted as correct (lb.) I STILL like to capitalize.

I had to adjust when the post office decided it was best to leave the periods off abbreviations in addresses so as to avoid confusing the machines.  I now can finally write

"1526 4th St N" without cringing or crying out audibly.

So I really don't care.

Title: Re: May 18
Post by: cyberbard on May 20, 2009, 07:52:12 am
Yeoman Young took a slug in the forehead.  I called it.  :)

The poor, pathetic fool...
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 20, 2009, 08:45:05 am
Yeoman Young took a slug in the forehead.  I called it.  :)

The poor, pathetic fool...

Just between you, me and the lamp post, the reason he got a head shot was just to end him without undo suffering. On the other hand, Emily wanted Harris to suffer for his hubris as well as his acts of wanton murder. She did not take the moral high ground in doing this, but it was understandable and excusable under the extremity of the circumstances.

P.S. A trained and motivated person, pumped up on adrenalin,  can continue to function for some time after receiving a fatal gunshot to the heart. In the legendary FBI Miami shoot out, one of the perps returned fire for a minute or so after being shot directly in the heart. I suspect Harris would lose consciousness in a few seconds, but still long enough to contemplate it.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: Antistrange on May 20, 2009, 11:50:49 pm
Hi, new guy.

Have a problem with this strip, actually. The "I was following orders" line is a weak one, admittedly. Not that I think I could come up with a better defense, given the circumstances. However, it occurs to me that Ceres just let some large portion of the very same crew who had equal culpability in the murder integrate in the colony. If Yeoung is guilty of murder, then each of those crew men needed to take a shot as well. The Engineers could have sabotaged the weapons array, the navigator could have drifted starboard, even the cook could have poisoned Harris or something. Heck, Kruger should have led a mutiny the second Harris tossed a weak-cheese 'Shock and  Awe' attack on Emily's family in the first place.

What the weapons officer got was a lose lose situation. He woke up that morning and was given a war time order. He could have refused the order, of course, but given the nature of Harris would probably have expected to take a bullet then and there. Or at least a nice vacation to the brig until they got back into port, then transfer to some pleasant UW prison cell or whatever they have then. If he is held equally accountable for the act against Emily as Harris, then the rest of the crew still on Ceres must be judged as well. It's not like they left UW for some sort of principle; they were looking down the barrel of a gun. It's sort of like getting to pull the trigger on Osama bin Laden and his driver, but deciding to let bygones be bygones with the rest of Al Queda.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 21, 2009, 09:03:22 am
Welcome Antistrange -

Interesting points.  Yes, there is definitely a generous helping of "Young was in the wrong place at the wrong time" on our plates.  It could have been anybody who was given that order, and you are right, the beam that fried the Roses would not have been working had any of the support services taken action.  I think the crux of the argument will come down to the act that Young did take, which was to push the button.  A gun just sits on the table until someone picks it up, points it at something (or someone) and pulls the trigger.  Young targeted the weapon and pulled the trigger.

That does not mean I am in agreement with what happened to Young. 
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: Rocketman on May 21, 2009, 09:16:51 am
Maybe not.  But seeing it on the video you have to admit that it makes a damn effective deterrent to anyone else that is given an illegal order.

I also noted that Harris appearently forgot (or was never told) when he said "unloaded gun" was Jeff Cooper's (RIP Jeff) Rule number one for safe gun handling "All guns are always loaded at all times (unless you have personally inspected them and found them not to be)  Harris was an idiot right up to the end.  ;D
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 21, 2009, 11:03:37 am
Harris was an idiot right up to the end.  ;D

And an obstinate butcher and killer of innocent people.  Harris got exactly what he deserved.  Young, not so much (at least not without a little further qualification and examination).
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 01:00:44 pm
Have a problem with this strip, actually. The "I was following orders" line is a weak one, admittedly. Not that I think I could come up with a better defense, given the circumstances. However, it occurs to me that Ceres just let some large portion of the very same crew who had equal culpability in the murder integrate in the colony. If Yeoung is guilty of murder, then each of those crew men needed to take a shot as well. The Engineers could have sabotaged the weapons array, the navigator could have drifted starboard, even the cook could have poisoned Harris or something. Heck, Kruger should have led a mutiny the second Harris tossed a weak-cheese 'Shock and  Awe' attack on Emily's family in the first place.

Good point, but this comes up pretty often in law. The principle is called, "proximate cause." The quick and dirty explanation is that everyone recognizes to some extent, that guilt attenuates the further it gets from the actual crime. By your logic, every UW taxpayer on Terra deserves a noodle (shot to the head). The more realistic view is that Harris and Young were the proximate cause (most direct) of all the deaths. The extent to which the cook "enabled" those murders by serving Harris and Young hot oatmeal in the morning was de minimus (inconsequential).
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 01:19:14 pm
Harris got exactly what he deserved.  Young, not so much (at least not without a little further qualification and examination).

To tell the truth, I felt bad about killing Young. I think it needed to be done, but it was a lot closer call than was the case with Harris.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 21, 2009, 02:13:20 pm
To tell the truth, I felt bad about killing Young.


I am the first to agree with the man who says it is bad to base decisions solely on feelings.  However, feelings generally happen for a reason.  I trust my wife's gut feelings about just about anything.  I give them weight in making decisions because her gut has proven over a very long period of time to be VERY accurate.  I always augment with good, solid evidence and reasoning, but when she has a feeling about someone or something, I listen.  If there is no time, I make rapid decisions on the best evidence, experience, and principles I can draw on.  The gut comes last, but when there is time, I do give it careful consideration.

Examine your feeling bad about killing Young.  Why do you think that is?  Give it a good going over in your mind and heart and do the best job you can to figure out where those feelings really came from.  It could be you will be surprised. 

You strike me as a person who has thought out his position and principles carefully over a good period of time.  You also seem like a person who is open to re-examining those principles - a "gut check" if you will.  That way you don't base your life on, "that's the way I've always done it."

I think it needed to be done, but it was a lot closer call than was the case with Harris.


This will help me: explain your views on why "it was a lot closer."  In your words, what is the difference between the cases of Harris and Young?
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 04:25:52 pm
To tell the truth, I felt bad about killing Young.


Examine your feeling bad about killing Young.  Why do you think that is?  Give it a good going over in your mind and heart and do the best job you can to figure out where those feelings really came from.  It could be you will be surprised. 


No surprise. I am a big helper-bee and an easy touch. It is more in my nature to forgive and forget (and it is easier). The older I get, the more I realize that insulating people from experiencing the consequences of their actions is not good for them nor for me. Why that is, I do not know. (Maybe my mother should have breast fed me longer.)

This will help me: explain your views on why "it was a lot closer."  In your words, what is the difference between the cases of Harris and Young?

Harris was an evil sociopath. Young was not inherently evil, simply lazy. He took the line of least resistance rather than follow a moral compass. Killing de Leon and the Roses was simply easier that refusing to do what he knew was wrong.

You know almost every child molester was molested as a child. However, only a small fraction of people who were molested as children become molesters. No everyone who is given an illegal order follows it. Everyone always has a choice. Some take the "easy" way out, then find themselves tied to a chair and shot in the head. Others just say "no." Had Young said no, he might have been shot and he almost certainly would have ended up in the brig, but he would not have been a murder. Read how a man with courage and principles stopped the My Lai massacre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

We have a choice and we can expect to be judged by the choices we make.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: quadibloc on May 21, 2009, 07:42:14 pm
The quick and dirty explanation is that everyone recognizes to some extent, that guilt attenuates the further it gets from the actual crime. By your logic, every UW taxpayer on Terra deserves a noodle (shot to the head). The more realistic view is that Harris and Young were the proximate cause (most direct) of all the deaths.

Young could have refused to get his hands dirty, but he and every other member of the bridge crew had about an equal opportunity to take the actions that would have been required to actually prevent the Rose family from being killed; at least, that's the way it seems to me. This is the part of the question I am focused on; he is responsible for his actions, but what were those actions, and of what was he guilty? Yes, he lacked contrition, but that affects the question of mercy, not justice.

However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and ignorance of right and wrong isn't one either. Because Ceres is a frontier society without a government, it is operating on a different theory of crime and punishment than that with which I am familiar, the one that exists in the state societies we are all immersed in. Thus, any critique I might make might be off-base for that reason.

He was granted a quicker death than Harris', of course.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: Antistrange on May 21, 2009, 08:32:03 pm
Quote
Good point, but this comes up pretty often in law. The principle is called, "proximate cause." The quick and dirty explanation is that everyone recognizes to some extent, that guilt attenuates the further it gets from the actual crime. By your logic, every UW taxpayer on Terra deserves a noodle (shot to the head). The more realistic view is that Harris and Young were the proximate cause (most direct) of all the deaths. The extent to which the cook "enabled" those murders by serving Harris and Young hot oatmeal in the morning was de minimus (inconsequential).

Still doesn't explain why the defecting crew is being given big sloppy kisses on the promenade. Even if they aren't said to be 'as guilty', (and the rest of the command staff had to have known what was coming. Bet it was logged and everything. THERE'S a trial, right there - "What did you know, and when did you know it?") they still share some blame. Even if Emily were to decide that they weren't directly at fault, I doubt she'll be hanging around the station anytime soon.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: Antistrange on May 21, 2009, 08:39:34 pm
I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I'm somewhat unsatisfied with that particular aspect of the strip. Emily got to choose, and Ceres 'law' sorta kinda lets her make the call. Two guys are brought to her and told they fried her family. She's handed a gun. I shouldn't have been surprised. But, If they accept the rest of the crew, I'd want someone to watch her to make sure she isn't about to 'take the initiative', as it were.

It's a webcomic - I should really get over it already.  :'(
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 08:47:39 pm
Young could have refused to get his hands dirty, but he and every other member of the bridge crew had about an equal opportunity to take the actions that would have been required to actually prevent the Rose family from being killed;

The distinction that can be drawn here is between active and passive steps. The step Young would have taken would be to do nothing. He could have refrained from pulling the trigger. Instead, he took positive action to kill the Rose family. The other bridge crew members, on the other hand would have had to have take positive steps to stop the murders. Under Anglo-American jurisprudence and most other legal systems, there is legal NO duty to take positive action to save another. For example, let imagine that you are standing by a lake, with a twenty-foot rope with a life preserver tied to one end. A fisherman who cannot swim overturns his boat and is drowning ten feet away. If you just stand there and watch him drown, without lifting a finger to toss him the life preserver and pull out, have you violated any law? Does the law impose any duty to save the drowning man? What if you laugh and tell him you are going to stand there and watch him die? The answer is you have not broken any law and the government cannot touch you. If a relative of the drowned man sued you for not attempting to save the man, their case would be thrown out of court.

There are some issues that muddy the water a bit in the case of the bridge crew, but they are under no obligation to save the Roses. They are only obliged to refrain from killing them, themselves. So the navigator is off the hook, but the gunnery officer who shoots isn't.

However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and ignorance of right and wrong isn't one either. Because Ceres is a frontier society without a government, it is operating on a different theory of crime and punishment than that with which I am familiar, the one that exists in the state societies we are all immersed in. Thus, any critique I might make might be off-base for that reason.

Actually, Ceres (and the Belt) society operate on a myriad of theories of crime and punishment. But there are large areas of consensus about dispute resolution for practical reasons. Could the case of Harris and Young have been handled in another way? Sure, but it wasn't and it went they way it did because there was no one to say no.

He was granted a quicker death than Harris', of course.

Intentionally so.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 21, 2009, 09:02:41 pm
Still doesn't explain why the defecting crew is being given big sloppy kisses on the promenade.

Because they gave up everything and became UW deserters. They voted for freedom with their feet. They could have gone back to Terra and stayed in the military. It is not easy leaving your home and becoming a fugitive.

To say that they were "not as guilty" as Harris/Young is to pervert the idea of proximate cause. For all practical purposes, they had zero guilt in the Roses' death. The Cerereans understood the strength it took for them to turn their backs on Terra and embrace Belter society. For chaos sake, they were siding with Emily for all intents and purposes.

We can go 'round and 'round about this, but I don't think I will change your mind on this, and I know you won't change mine. I have examined it too deeply to see anything but de minimus guilt in the defecting crew members. My Emily and my Belters don't sweat the petty stuff (but most of them do pet the sweaty stuff).  (o:3
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: quadibloc on May 22, 2009, 07:19:00 am
Actually, Ceres (and the Belt) society operate on a myriad of theories of crime and punishment.

Yes, apparently as many as there are individuals. But your point from the other thread about how this was an execution and not a trial basically does address my feeling that I wasn't quite understanding what was going on. It certainly does make sense that the trial has to precede being placed at the mercy of your victim or accuser.

With the current page... I'm surprised that the UW has given Ceres 150 days to think that it's given up. I suspect that going after the "last" of the tax havens is a feint, and we haven't seen the last of attacks on Ceres. Of course, as you've said there are more story arcs coming, that's no brilliant deduction on my part. I wonder, though, if the next attack won't be with warships.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: corwinargentus on May 22, 2009, 10:03:09 am
Quote
I wonder, though, if the next attack won't be with warships.

I believe the UW already sent the "flagship" of its war fleet.  It seems doubtful that there are many of that class of ship in the Terran fleet, probably more of the smaller ships that were sent to support the Gamma Conqueror (once the "pride" of the UW space navy), but not too many more "Conqueror Class" vessels (if any).

I am doubtful that the economy of the UW will really support the construction of a pile more warships at this time, either.  But as we have seen, a failing economy didn't stop spending in the Soviet Union for any possible military advantage.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 22, 2009, 10:48:54 am
Actually, Ceres (and the Belt) society operate on a myriad of theories of crime and punishment.

Yes, apparently as many as there are individuals. But your point from the other thread about how this was an execution and not a trial basically does address my feeling that I wasn't quite understanding what was going on. It certainly does make sense that the trial has to precede being placed at the mercy of your victim or accuser.

"Has to precede"? Why? Trials, in the modern sense of the word, have existed for the last couple of hundred years, at most. Any sort of "trial" has only existed for a couplathree thousand years. I doubt there was much of anything you could reasonably call a trial in the hundred thousand years of human history before that. Even today, it is the rare family that holds "trials" for its misbehaved children. Summary spankings or other punishments are meted out without any serious attempt to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" who broke the cookie jar.

With the current page... I'm surprised that the UW has given Ceres 150 days to think that it's given up. I suspect that going after the "last" of the tax havens is a feint, and we haven't seen the last of attacks on Ceres. Of course, as you've said there are more story arcs coming, that's no brilliant deduction on my part. I wonder, though, if the next attack won't be with warships.

Okay, here's a clue: "Softly, softly, catchee monkey."
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: wdg3rd on May 22, 2009, 08:54:40 pm

Permit me to tweak this "sov" thing a bit. Where you would write, "Mr. Jones is a plumber," I see Belters writing "Sv Jones is a plumber." Where there is dialog, such as, "Hey mister, you forgot your change," Belters would write, "Hey sov, you forgot your change." (But I'm happy to be called either.) I haven't decided yet whether it is "Sv." or just "Sv" (without the period). I sort of lean toward "Sv" like the neologism, "Ms" which the 2nd Wave feminist think they invented (they didn't). What do you readers think?

When the term "Ms" developed in the late 60s, that was at least the fourth wave (on this continent).  Both the abolitionist and prohibition movements were at least as much feminist as "christian".  There seem to have been a couple movements that didn't get written down much, since "Freedom of the Press" only happened if you had a Y-chromosome (even when chromosomes were unknown).  There were a couple of earlier European movements.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: wdg3rd on May 22, 2009, 10:17:16 pm

Just between you, me and the lamp post,


Sandy, at what point in your life were you associated with a police department?  That's purely a cop phrase, at least in the early 70s when I did a summer program attached to the Laconia NH PD (ten high school students increased manpower by 30%).  But it was not rare to hear "this is just between me, you, the lamppost and the kaydet".  (Hey, I was a Heinlein and Rand fan but not actually a libertarian yet -- and it was $75/wk that I didn't yet realise was from stolen money, but I wanted to go to college).

Funny thing is that I was forbidden to carry a weapon in police cadet uniform.  In civs I could carry anything I f ucking wanted to (and could have since my 16th birthday).  So I just carried a length of chain (the kind of thing you'd use to restrain a rabid mastiff by the throat) and (I never told her, or the others in the cop shop) Gramma's best bread knife concealed about my person.

Never had to use them.  Wanted to a couple of times.  (Cops have a weird sense of humor, and when you're a teenage "cadet" handcuffing you to something it would take earth-moving gear [or the key] to free you from is the height of hilarity for the veteran pigs).

And after the money ran out, I wound up in the USAF.  I'm a slow learner.

But I got sort of even in the USAF, but that's another show.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: wdg3rd on May 22, 2009, 10:25:30 pm

That does not mean I am in agreement with what happened to Young. 


You don't have to agree.  You weren't there.  Neither was I.  Emily Rose was.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 22, 2009, 11:15:11 pm
[When the term "Ms" developed in the late 60s, that was at least the fourth wave (on this continent).  Both the abolitionist and prohibition movements were at least as much feminist as "christian".  There seem to have been a couple movements that didn't get written down much, since "Freedom of the Press" only happened if you had a Y-chromosome (even when chromosomes were unknown).  There were a couple of earlier European movements.

I'm sure you are correct about that, but I was writing what is current usage. "First Wave" were the suffragettes, "Second Wave" were the bra-burning, screeching harpies, and today we have the much milder "Third Wave" that benefited from the first two waves, but are more comfortable with female prerogatives. At least that's what I have seen.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: Rocketman on May 22, 2009, 11:16:40 pm
I'm 56 and I've heard the expression "Just between you, me and the lamppost" numerous times in situations that didn't involve the police.  Some expressions just like TV show lines "Ward, don't you think your being too hard on the beaver?"  "Little buddy, you've done it again!"  and "Alf, go hide in the kitchen" always last for a while and then disappear only to pop up now and again when you least expect it.  My late best friend when I was growing up when he was upset used to say "Son of a Siberian Sap Sucking Centipede!".  His mom and dad always wanted him not to curse.   ;D
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 22, 2009, 11:22:50 pm

Just between you, me and the lamp post,

Sandy, at what point in your life were you associated with a police department?  That's purely a cop phrase, at least in the early 70s when I did a summer program attached to the Laconia NH PD...

Sort of never. I did go through the SFPD limited police officer course. (I had ulterior motives), but that phrase dates back to my youth in Missouri, when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: wdg3rd on May 23, 2009, 12:09:44 am
I'm 56 and I've heard the expression "Just between you, me and the lamppost" numerous times in situations that didn't involve the police.  Some expressions just like TV show lines "Ward, don't you think your being too hard on the beaver?"  "Little buddy, you've done it again!"  and "Alf, go hide in the kitchen" always last for a while and then disappear only to pop up now and again when you least expect it.  My late best friend when I was growing up when he was upset used to say "Son of a Siberian Sap Sucking Centipede!".  His mom and dad always wanted him not to curse.   ;D

I'll be turning 54 this Tuesday (5/26/09) and I had to put up with a lot of "Ward, you've been too hard on the beaver" jokes as a kid because that's what the "w" in wdg3rd stands for.  The d stands for Donald, and I was called by various diminutives of that while growing up half a dozen miles from Disneyland.

If you Google around, you'll find another Ward Griffiths on this continent.  A former champion bike racer and the first American to fly a human-powered helicopter.  Currently drummer for a folk band in Oregon.  But I'd wager she has issues about the name her parents gave her.  (We have never been in contact, Though Angeleno born and raised, the next time I hit the west coast is if somebody violates my Will and dumps my ashes in the wrong ocean -- if you want want to know which ocean is proper, ask Greg Benford).  (Actually, once I'm dead I don't much care -- properly, I'd like to star in a chili contest, as the main ingredient, since I wouldn't have a problem being part of the world's most perfect food.)
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: deadasdisco on May 24, 2009, 12:27:07 pm
Okay, totally unrelated, but...

"UWRS Chief Quesada-Didio"?  ROFLMFAO!!!

OK, see, I work in a comic shop and... all moral relativism aside, yeah, lets get that sun-on-the-beach!
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: deadasdisco on May 24, 2009, 12:28:43 pm
Oh, and "Hieronymous Zappa"?

You, Sandy, are a right tease, you are...

Damn, now I really wanna see mars...
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: Scott on May 24, 2009, 04:13:31 pm
In the original short story, most of the information was given as simple exposition. For the strip, I transformed it into a TV "News From Mars" segment, adding in everything you see in the screen-bottom "crawl" text, and inventing Heironymus Zappa. The outfit he's wearing is copied from the Colin Baker version of Doctor Who (my second least-favorite Doctor, btw, but that's another story). ::)
 
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: wdg3rd on May 25, 2009, 03:31:11 am
In the original short story, most of the information was given as simple exposition. For the strip, I transformed it into a TV "News From Mars" segment, adding in everything you see in the screen-bottom "crawl" text, and inventing Heironymus Zappa. The outfit he's wearing is copied from the Colin Baker version of Doctor Who (my second least-favorite Doctor, btw, but that's another story). ::)
 

Colin Baker was my absolutely least favorite incarnation.  The best of course was the late Jon Pertwee, the only version of the Doctor who did all his own stunts (he'd started his career as a stunt man).   Most Americans think of Tom Baker first, as he was the usual suspect when they first caught the show on PBS in the 80s.

That show is what turned me on to cooking, as on Saturday morning the cartoons were over an hour before (Los Angeles) channel 28 ran the show, so I'd just change channels and wait (while reading a book).  But I got hooked on "The Frugal Gourmet" and thought that "that don't look that hard, and it might taste good".  As a result, I'm the best cook either side of my family generated born after 1900 (Gramma [born 1897] was the best, but she was absolutely gifted, and I'm glad to have a few of her chromosomes and a bit of her bad attitude -- she was a great old bitch and I use that term proudly).  My sisters can burn hot dogs simmering in a saucepan and I'd rather not discuss Mom's culinary "skills".  Ask El Neill (or his beautiful wife and daughter) whether my chili is worth initiation of force.  And I've gotten better at it in the past ten years.  Ask any sober member (yes, I know that's a trick question) of the Free State Project (the real one, not Ken Royce's substitute).
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on May 26, 2009, 06:32:57 pm
I've been in Florida for a few days. I finally got around to answering e-mails and posting to the forum. Since I'm a linear kind of guy, I'm just reading and answering in order, so maybe this has already been addressed.

Oh, and "Hieronymous Zappa"?

You, Sandy, are a right tease, you are...

Damn, now I really wanna see mars...

Thanks, but I cannot take the credit. The news report is 100% Scott Bieser.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: deadasdisco on May 27, 2009, 08:19:41 pm
Don't worry, Scott can stand up for his own creations... and does, a few posts back.

Sv. Bieser's Mars, though, looks like a wacky place, and does nothing to curb my enthusiasm for the oddball center of the System... 

(BTW, Scott, Second least favorite?  Someone was BELOW Colin Baker?   McGann maybe?)
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: quadibloc on June 25, 2009, 03:53:07 am
Another pop culture reference, this time to a cartoon feature that originally appeared on the Captain Kangaroo TV show.
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: SandySandfort on June 25, 2009, 10:25:09 am
Another pop culture reference, this time to a cartoon feature that originally appeared on the Captain Kangaroo TV show.

Good pick up! You must be as old as I am. The cartoon show was Ruff & Ready:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ruff_&_Reddy_Show

It was the first television show produced by Hanna-Barbera. I don't have any evidence that it was ever show on Captain Kangaroo, but I guess it could have been.

Now for a real treat. Here is the first episode which featured Muni-Mula:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvtr-zj-Uyk
Title: Re: May 18
Post by: quadibloc on June 26, 2009, 08:35:00 pm
My memory, though, must have been playing tricks on me. I was sure it was a Tom Terrific episode. It could be that I saw the Ruff and Reddy cartoon on some other show, not Captain Kangaroo, which also showed the Tom Terrific cartoons - even though they were from different studios. It could well have been a local station's childrens show which syndicated both cartoons.