User talk:Geogre

Talk archive 1, Talk archive 2, Talk archive 3, Archive 4: Oct 10 - Nov 9, Archive 5: Nov 10 - Dec 4, Archive 6: Dec 5 2004 - Apr 5 2005, Archive 7: Apr 6 2005 - May 8 2005, Archive 8: May 9 2005 - July 12 2005, Archive 9: July 12, 2005 - Sept. 20, 2005, Archive 10: Sept. 20 - Oct. 7, 2005, Archive 11: Oct. 7 - Dec. 5, 2005, Archive 12: Dec 5, 2005 - Jan 5, 2006, Archive 13: Jan 5 - Feb 7, 2006

Archive 14: Feb 8 - May 1, 2006

List of things with gaps

New Messages

How can I vandalise a protected userpage? No fair.

There was a Pelagian called Geogre, The trolls thought he was an ogre. I tried to devise A poem to eulogise, but the rhyme it just wouldn't go. Grr.

That's great! I'll put it on the user page forthwith, with the heading. Besides, I'm a semi-Pelagian. I haven't gotten my Pelagius merit badge yet. Geogre 13:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How about the other Tups article?

I've saved my version of Anders Uppström in a text editor for now, I can't manage that level of complexity of edit conflicts. But I assume you're done with it now? Do you have plans for Olaus Johannis Gutho also, shall I wait? Bishonen | talk 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

I had a spare :05, so I did what I could, and that's all the time I spent on it. I didn't plan to spend more or to do the other article. It shouldn't have been any conflict at all, nor queue jumping. I was just bored. Geogre 19:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please take a quick look at Guto now if you have any more minutes, Geogre, I'm done with it. Hey, you should get Zocky's picture popups, I have them, it's neato! I can look at an embiggened pic right in its article now, rather than have to go to the image page. Think for instance the Andrée map: you need that kind of thing with the text, not separately. If you ask Zocky on IRC, I'm sure he'd love to install them for you. Bishonen | talk 19:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC).

"Legitimate Drama"

"Legitimate" = legal, not just "good." The legitimate theater is theater that won't get you busted and thrown in Newgate. There were always productions being done at irregular sites and plays that shouldn't be performed, and there were some longstanding cases of salutory neglect. For example, the various fairs had plays put on, but these were not, strictly speaking, legal. The authorities tended to ignore them. (Imagine trying an arrest of players in the middle of Bartholomew Fair, and you'll see why.) You could throw up some planks and lay down a cloth and act, but you could be prosecuted for it. The patent theaters were the ones that had permission to put on plays. A consequence of this legitimacy is that the illegitimate theaters put on lower quality plays with slapdash values, and thus "legitimate theater" began to mean "good theater." Geogre 03:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the original intention of the patent was to forbid all theatre of any sort -- comedies and opera included -- outside of the patent companies? I haven't seen a source that makes such a claim. Then again, most of them just ignore the issue, mentioning "legitimate" drama in scare-quotes and moving on. If that's what you are saying, how long was it before that broke down, a matter or months or years? Because rather soon indeed it seems like the monopoly on "legitimate drama" meant what we tend to think of today: "important" (or even "State" or "English") drama. The Cambridge Guide mentions that "the legitimate drame over which the patenteees squabbled is now largely confined to the bookshelves of collectors of the voluminous anthologies of British plays - Cumberland's, Inchbald's, Lacy's, Dick's, and eventually French's." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC) PS you hate to see the words "Inchbald" and "Dick" in such close proximity.

Watson & Baker's Sheridan to Robertson: A Study of the Nineteenth Century London Stage has some more focused discussion of this (It credits The Struggle for a free stage, 1908, for much of the info but that work is so... diffuse.) Here's a google books link to the first few pages of chapter II of Watson & Baker. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No, rather, I'm saying that the default position, outside of the patents, was that all theater was illegal to start with. The patent system said, essentially, "Oh, alright. You can put on plays, but plays are too dangerous to just float around. I trust this nobleman and that nobleman." That's also why the "King's" and the "Duke's" playhouses. Essentially, they're saying that the Duke of York and the King are vouching for these two houses. There is no need, incidentally, to "make" plays illegal, as they were illegal to start with. Remember that in 1660 all theatrical entertainments were against the law, so Charles II licensed two places to put on plays. During the interregnum and previously plays were put on on an ad hoc basis and at fairs, and the crown and parliament considered them all to be public nuisances. There are a lot of books on the anti-actor and anti-theater statutes. Geogre 10:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, good perspective. Althought the status of all theatre being illegal during the interregnum is, as with all things here, a grey cloudy area, right? For instance, I believe I read that Davenant was putting on operas in a fairly non-underground manner during the time, in a way pre-establishing the exception that opera wasn't legitimate theatre. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is practically an industry of New Historicists talking about the "anti-strolling" laws and their prosecutions during Shakespeare's day. You hit that word, "strolling," over and over in Shakespeare and Marlowe. As an actor, you did not want to be accused of strolling. Geogre 10:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, I think Bish would back me up on this, but D'Avenant's productions during the interregnum were at private homes. Thus, they had Royalist audiences who wouldn't have anyone arrested, and they were often masques. The Puritans would have none of it, officially, but their own John Milton had written The Masque at Ludlow (better known as Comus). The point is that the unofficial productions done by D'Avenant were not unofficially official but rather a sign of political alliance with the future court. Interestingly, Thomas Killigrew was a spy for the royalists during the interregnum, and there is reason to suspect that D'Avenant was also passing intelligence. Thus, both men were rewarded for their loyalty upon the Restoration. Anyway, the point is that the private home productions were secrets. Geogre 16:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to a very revealing article I was glancing through recently, the performances at Rutland House were public theatre in all but name, as Davenant charged 5 shillings for admission. This argument from ticket charges to not-private is made by Hume. For me the lavish sets Davenant provided also shout "business venture". I don't think Davenant was a rich man, or had any notion of entertaining mere guests in such a professional-looking venue. Even in those days, it would surely have looked a little over the top, not to say vulgarly ostentatious, dontcha know, old boy. Bishonen | talk 11:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Come now, that argument isn't very strong. First, he actually was a wealthy man, but that's not a refutation. The refutation would be simply that charging doesn't equal a box office. It can be a subscription. The main question, though, is whether or not you mean to suggest that the theater wasn't shut down, that producing plays wasn't illegal, that actors and producers weren't prosecuted. (There are raves going on in London where people take ecstacy and where they are charged; these have elaborate light and laser shows. Does that mean they're legal?) By the time of Richard Cromwell everything has changed, so no arguments from his days. Richard was weak in terms of personality and power, and he tended to agree to his advisors. If Hume wishes to rewrite history and suggest that all that happened in the interregnum was that the plays were in homes, then he'll need more than two productions by D'Avenant. As the years went on, Ollie's control over the remaining nobles got weaker and weaker, and he started adopting a more and more "don't ask, don't tell" policy toward what they did, so long as what they did didn't invite Charles Stuart back. I'm not saying that no one put on a play, but I am saying that it wasn't a wink and a nod to the Puritans that there were anti-drama laws. Geogre 11:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for deleting Roy. I wish I could be an admin... *dreams*--Keycard ^(talk) 17:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it happens to everyone, eventually -- both being deleted by the grim reaper, and becoming an admin. :-) Geogre 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Occupation

Having followed some of your comments on the Ref Desk and elsewhere, you've got me interested if you're still in teaching, and at what level. I would've asked by email, but you don't have it enabled for your account. Mind indulging me? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 20:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, lots of people's e-mails are disabled now without them being aware of it, because there was some update a month or so ago, whereby you had to go to your prefs and re-affirm that you wanted e-mail. The information about it wasn't exactly high-profile, it was easy to miss, and it looks like many have. Bishonen | talk 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Good. I'll turn it back on and then duck the confession here on my page. I want to be a bit invisible...at least that much invisible. TB: E-mail re-enabled. Geogre 01:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Have time to look over something? I could use a second opinion. I've been trying to do some copyedits to Criticism of Mormonism, an article that has some POV content from both sides of the issue. I worked through about half of the article before calling it a night, thinking that I made some pretty good progress toward NPOV, but another editor disagreed and reverted my changes. I've asked for some input from other members of the LDS WikiProject; however, I'd appreciate any insight you may have into what worked well and what didn't. Take a look if you get a minute. Thanks. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 03:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sam Spade/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 00:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

;-)

I adore the semicolon. I only wish they looked different; they are so easily confused with a colon or a bit of something smudged on the screen. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the good old semicolon; when you want to change thoughts and are weary of conjunctions, the semicolon is your only friend. Sometimes, you have a list that is so conditioned, so implausibly filled with words, some adjectives; numbers, some modified; and objects, some compounded, that the semicolon can be your only rescue. Mr. Vonnegut can despise them, if he chooses, but the rest of us can have thoughts sufficiently independent and yet insufficiently distinct to require its services. Geogre 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I like semi-colons too; perfect for continuing the same train of thought, but almost like starting again as well: on the other hand, I like colons too - and dashes. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I find that I cannot function with any regularity without a colon. Further, without the colon, there would be no academic papers delivered at conferences. Indeed, the difficulty is in coming up with a paper or thesis or dissertation title that does not use a colon. The dash can seem rude, as if one wishes to impart one's breathlessness to the paper itself; Laurence Sterne used it in exactly that manner, along with other August(an) novelists. Weep for the semicolon, though; so few know that it requires a full independent clause on either side that it is rarely done at all and almost never done well. Geogre 02:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are hoist by your own petard. Is "numbers, some modified" a full independent clause? No! J'accuse! (Oh, you mean when not using it as a heavy-duty list separator? OK then.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The semicolon separates complex items (that already have comma delimiters) in a list, acting as a sort of square bracket to the comma's parenthesis or as an inverted comma to the comma's quotation mark. Otherwise, yes.... (From zombified memory of over-repetition) "a comma precedes a coordinating conjunction when joining independent clauses; alternatively, a semicolon can be used, usually without a coordinating conjunction. Conjunctive adverbs, such as "thus, however," and "therefore," require a semicolon, as they are not coordinating conjunctions." (I've given some version of that speech every day of my professional life, it seems like. It never makes any difference, though. I wonder if branding would work?) Geogre 02:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It never makes any difference because in practice the only way to write well is to read a great number of well-written things and absorb the techniques. Your students have grown up reading IM windows, or, at best, livejournal blogs. The good news is that the language evolves, and soon enough "ZOMG!11!" will be considered adequate English. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)