Random Thread

[Raphael]

Why do so many mice who are cartoon or comics characters have fairly large ears compared to the size of their heads? That doesn't seem to be that common among real-life mice.

[keenir]

Why do so many mice who are cartoon or comics characters have fairly large ears compared to the size of their heads? That doesn't seem to be that common among real-life mice.

so the audience knows they're mice? *shrugs*
(no wings, so clearly not large-eared bats)

[Richard W]

So what are the creatures in the Tom and Jerry Youtube clip Vampire Mouse?

[zompist]

Why do so many mice who are cartoon or comics characters have fairly large ears compared to the size of their heads? That doesn't seem to be that common among real-life mice.

Well, this is not very scientific, but...



For cartoons, none of these are crazy. Mickey is about right; the Warner Bros. mice (lower right) if anything have small ears. Jerry (bottom left) is out of control.

keenir is right that animators, like other caricaturists, will emphasize easy-to-recognize features. They also way overemphasize heads, since that's what shows a lot of character. (And humanize animals— notice how only Mickey actually has a snout.)

They also tend to make features bigger over the decades. The above is Mickey's first appearance— his ears are like twice as large now.

[Raphael]

Fair enough.

[Raphael]

I've now posted more than 2500 posts on this board. Sigh.

[Raphael]

Do I get this right that the Word evolution game thread over in Conlangery

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1081

has been working on the same word for 24 pages? Or am I misunderstanding something? (I'm asking here rather than there to avoid interrupting things there.)

[bradrn]

Do I get this right that the Word evolution game thread over in Conlangery

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1081

has been working on the same word for 24 pages? Or am I misunderstanding something? (I'm asking here rather than there to avoid interrupting things there.)

Only four pages, I believe: https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=57124#p57124.

[Raphael]

Do I get this right that the Word evolution game thread over in Conlangery

https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1081

has been working on the same word for 24 pages? Or am I misunderstanding something? (I'm asking here rather than there to avoid interrupting things there.)

Only four pages, I believe: https://www.verduria.org/viewtopic.php?p=57124#p57124.

Ah, thank you.

[Raphael]

You can criticize the USA for many things, but their habit of having all kinds of holidays on the n-th Monday in Month X is a good idea.

[Man in Space]

Today is my last day in Norman. I leave tomorrow morning.

The festival was a success, mostly; health issues kind of put a damper on my Saturday. But my best friend and another really good friend live around here and I think I ended up having a better time with them on Saturday than I would have if I’d stuck around the event.

My college game group is currently running a Final Fantasy d20 campaign where I play Ratman, the would-be leader of the Mistrustice League (none of the compatriots—Stuporman, Blunder Woman, Awkward Man, Liborg [shamelessly stolen from Axe Cop because I couldn’t think of a good pun for “Cyborg”], and the Flush—joined Ratman in this), so instead Ratman is part of the Forgotten Chaos along with Alfred Absolute and Kathrine the OP mage who saves the both of us when we get into trouble. Well, given that Saturday kind of went down the tubes, our GM improvised a session where Stuporman dropped in and we had some friendly contests of strength. It was really fun!

[rotting bones]

I've decided to become a Vulcan. I can't afford to become depressed whenever I read the news. Emotions are for rich people. Dif-tor heh smusma.

(My wallet can no longer support me not being a Stoic, except being Vulcan is less serious and more fun: https://youtu.be/Tj7so5fpaMk IIRC fascination and curiosity are not emotions according to Vulcans.

And I'm in favor of whatever offends the supporters of this Vicar, who are spreading over the 21st century like the plague: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRujuE-GIY4 See the comments section.

Plus, I have a big problem with traditional Stoic positions like accepting your place in society. Marcus Aurelius also has what I thought were some shockingly anti-intellectual positions about reading books, and so on. I can't honestly say I'm a Buddhist either because I believe in physics and the Baconian project. I honestly prefer IDIC over any of these traditional doctrines.

Maybe I'll try learning the VLI's conlang: https://web.archive.org/web/20160726095 ... g/vlif.htm)

[rotting bones]

I recently watched some episodes about the fictional Bengali detective Byomkesh Bakshi.

Sherlock Holmes analyzes physical evidence. Poirot primarily focuses on psychology. Although all three detectives occasionally look at all three things, I don't know of any other detective who is as focused on unraveling verbal riddles as Byomkesh. Trapped people express themselves through language that Byomkesh deciphers through his knowledge of Bengali and Sanskrit idioms. Criminals unwittingly let their plans slip out through the words they use. In some of the lazier stories, solving why someone said a particular thing miraculously solves the whole mystery. Most illogical!

In fact, the whole narrative is like a mesh of riddles. Byomkesh doesn't like to be called a detective. As a curious man rather than a hunter, he prefers the moniker Satyanneshi, Truth-seeker. His wife's name is Satya, Truth. This one's pretty obvious. In Hinduism, goddesses symbolize the powers (shakti) of their husbands. Byomkesh means the one whose hair all space is entangled in, another name for Shiva, the god of blinding insight and sometimes learning generally.

The closest I've seen to this sort of thing is Chesterton's Father Brown. I find the Father Brown stories to be unrelentingly and unrealistically partisan in the cause of religion, Christianity and Catholicism. There's a recurring theme of atheists going insane and committing random crimes because atheism. I'm not sure that has happened even once in human history.

Political themes in Byomkesh, when they do occur, are invariably religion-neutral Indian nationalist. I wonder what Byomkesh would have made of Modi's new strategy of provoking religious unrest in front of mosques, and then demolishing buildings in those Muslim neighborhoods by citing zoning laws.

[zompist]

I recently watched some episodes about the fictional Bengali detective Byomkesh Bakshi.

Sherlock Holmes analyzes physical evidence. Poirot primarily focuses on psychology. Although all three detectives occasionally look at all three things, I don't know of any other detective who is as focused on unraveling verbal riddles as Byomkesh. Trapped people express themselves through language that Byomkesh deciphers through his knowledge of Bengali and Sanskrit idioms. Criminals unwittingly let their plans slip out through the words they use. In some of the lazier stories, solving why someone said a particular thing miraculously solves the whole mystery. Most illogical!

Sounds neat! And hard to translate. (Unless I missed something in the Wikipedia article, or they did, the stories haven't appeared in English.)

The detective story proper (Holmes, Poirot, etc) is already so artificial that it's hard to fault a writer for making it even more so.

The closest I've seen to this sort of thing is Chesterton's Father Brown. I find the Father Brown stories to be unrelentingly and unrealistically partisan in the cause of religion, Christianity and Catholicism. There's a recurring theme of atheists going insane and committing random crimes because atheism. I'm not sure that has happened even once in human history.

I haven't read those in years, and was much more in sympathy with them at the time. Chesterton is a lot of fun if you like watching someone use wit and irony for rather than against religion. It would merely be depressing to analyze his politics. He had a kind of retro-fantasy contrarianism that has nothing to do with the actual past and little to do with the present-- like Father Brown himself, he absolutely knew how unhip he was and made the most of it.

[keenir]

I've decided to become a Vulcan. I can't afford to become depressed whenever I read the news. Emotions are for rich people. Dif-tor heh smusma.

Vulcans do have emotions...they just don't develop physical or mental problems when they bottle everything up.

Plus, I have a big problem with traditional Stoic positions like accepting your place in society. Marcus Aurelius also has what I thought were some shockingly anti-intellectual positions about reading books,

so...you can't be a Stoic because a famous Stoic rubbed you the wrong way?

Surely you don't agree with the views espoused by every Vulcan. even post-Surak, some would be what I'd've thought you'd call bad people.

and so on. I can't honestly say I'm a Buddhist either because I believe in physics and the Baconian project.

last i heard, the Dalai(sp) Lama had no problem with physics - nor do the other major Buddhist denominations or the Catholic Church.

The closest I've seen to this sort of thing is Chesterton's Father Brown. I find the Father Brown stories to be unrelentingly and unrealistically partisan in the cause of religion, Christianity and Catholicism.

i always kept hearing that the current recent seasons of Father Brown are pretty true to the books...and yet, contrary to your statement, the show is pretty good to all faiths (atheism included, even druidism), with crimes being committed by individuals not beliefs.

Now granted, Father Brown himself doesn't have a drinking problem, covetting, or anything else that a lot of modern detectives have {not even the precision and exactingness that drives mad most people around Poirot}....but i don't see that as a bad thing.

There's a recurring theme of atheists going insane and committing random crimes because atheism. I'm not sure that has happened even once in human history.

Atheists have never gone insane and committed crimes? Okay, i grant they might not be random - but then, thats true whether atheist or not.

[Ares Land]

I recently watched some episodes about the fictional Bengali detective Byomkesh Bakshi.

Sherlock Holmes analyzes physical evidence. Poirot primarily focuses on psychology. Although all three detectives occasionally look at all three things, I don't know of any other detective who is as focused on unraveling verbal riddles as Byomkesh. Trapped people express themselves through language that Byomkesh deciphers through his knowledge of Bengali and Sanskrit idioms. Criminals unwittingly let their plans slip out through the words they use. In some of the lazier stories, solving why someone said a particular thing miraculously solves the whole mystery. Most illogical!

So kind of psychoanalysis/detective work?

Generally that sounds pretty cool!

[hwhatting]

The closest I've seen to this sort of thing is Chesterton's Father Brown. I find the Father Brown stories to be unrelentingly and unrealistically partisan in the cause of religion, Christianity and Catholicism.

i always kept hearing that the current recent seasons of Father Brown are pretty true to the books...and yet, contrary to your statement, the show is pretty good to all faiths (atheism included, even druidism), with crimes being committed by individuals not beliefs.

If that's so, the show isn't really true to the books, because the bias RB reports is there. It's never as simple as "Catholics are good, everyone else is bad", but Chesterton's perspective is clearly that a life outside the faith is one with less hope and less protection against going astray.

There's a recurring theme of atheists going insane and committing random crimes because atheism. I'm not sure that has happened even once in human history.

Atheists have never gone insane and committed crimes? Okay, i grant they might not be random - but then, thats true whether atheist or not.

Honestly, you seem to lose your ability to parse sentences when discussing RB's posts (I noticed that in other discussions you had with him on this board as well). What rubs him wrong is not "atheists going insane and committing random crimes" by itself, but that in the stories they're doing it "because atheism", which is a flippant way of saying what I said above - because they lack the hope and guidance provided by faith.
As for me, I like Chesterton, for the same reasons Mark does; he's a good writer, witty and never boring; even if I don't share his views.

[Raphael]

like Father Brown himself, he absolutely knew how unhip he was and made the most of it.

Was Chesterton really all that unhip by the standards of his time? From some stuff I've read in Orwell, as well as some stuff I've read elsewhere, I've got the impression that in the 19th and very early 20th centuries, before the far Left became the dominant paradigm in the British intelligentsia, there was quite a fad of converting to Catholicism among British intellectuals.

[zompist]

like Father Brown himself, he absolutely knew how unhip he was and made the most of it.

Was Chesterton really all that unhip by the standards of his time? From some stuff I've read in Orwell, as well as some stuff I've read elsewhere, I've got the impression that in the 19th and very early 20th centuries, before the far Left became the dominant paradigm in the British intelligentsia, there was quite a fad of converting to Catholicism among British intellectuals.

As you say, the prevailing winds were leftward, so he was increasingly out of touch-- and over his lifetime he moved steadily rightward, though he despised fascism. In his earlier years he was an Anglican and a Liberal*; he ended up as a Catholic (from 1922) and a Conservative. I think he was always a contrarian, and enjoyed sparring with the progressive intellectuals of his time. (He was a good friend of G.B. Shaw, though they disagreed on everything.)

* Meaning in this case the British party, then the age-old opposition to the Tories. Its near-replacement by Labour took place near the end of his life.

[Raphael]

(He was a good friend of G.B. Shaw, though they disagreed on everything.)

Didn't they agree on having at least some amount of hostility or at least skepticism towards the British upper class? And towards British jingoism?