> Harry wrote:
> >> On 22 and 23 September there will be the annual Stripdagen (comic
> >> convention) in Den Bosch.
> >> Anyone else having plans?
Angela and I are planning to go there too.
Ivo is right about the commercial selling circus. Even normal merchants do
ask high prices for comics these days. Almost as high (or even higher!) as
in some comic shops. This doesn't make it more attracting to go there :-(
Luckily some dutch "ebay" sites are becoming a good subsitute for me at
least...
Best to all,
-- Roy
http://mars.spaceports.com/~ddossier
Author
Topic: 200108
(256 messages)
Kooijman, R.
Den Bosch, the Dutch San Diego
Message 181 -
2001-08-24 at 15:03:26
Kriton Kyrimis
Daisy's family
Message 182 -
2001-08-24 at 16:24:23
STEVEN:
> Wow, really?
> Not in the USA. this would be two unrelated by blood people marrying, and
> would be considered perfectly acceptable, and indeed some would consider it
> cute and even praiseworthy. No one would be offended or find it at all
> shocking.
My guess is that many Greeks are not even aware of this restriction. I
certainly wasn't until a few month's ago, when I overheard an aunt
saying to someone that siblings cannot marry siblings unless they do
it at the same time. At that time, I thought that this was some kind
of superstition, until I happened to read an article on relationship by
marriage in the encyclopedia, where I discovered that the law makes no
distinction whatsoever between blood relationship and relationship by
marriage, including the prohibition for someone to marry the sibling
of their sibling's spouse, as it is equivalent to marrying their
own sibling. [All those who are confused by this politically correct,
gender-neutral terminology, raise your hands...] My aunt's comments were
probably a loophole in the law!
One of the things the priest says in the Greek Orthodox marriage ceremony
is that the two [the people who are getting married] will become one
flesh. I thought that this was a euphimism for sex, but apparently the
law takes it literally!
Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis)
-----
"I do not anticipate that the laws of physics will change
to suit my present needs."
-----
> Wow, really?
> Not in the USA. this would be two unrelated by blood people marrying, and
> would be considered perfectly acceptable, and indeed some would consider it
> cute and even praiseworthy. No one would be offended or find it at all
> shocking.
My guess is that many Greeks are not even aware of this restriction. I
certainly wasn't until a few month's ago, when I overheard an aunt
saying to someone that siblings cannot marry siblings unless they do
it at the same time. At that time, I thought that this was some kind
of superstition, until I happened to read an article on relationship by
marriage in the encyclopedia, where I discovered that the law makes no
distinction whatsoever between blood relationship and relationship by
marriage, including the prohibition for someone to marry the sibling
of their sibling's spouse, as it is equivalent to marrying their
own sibling. [All those who are confused by this politically correct,
gender-neutral terminology, raise your hands...] My aunt's comments were
probably a loophole in the law!
One of the things the priest says in the Greek Orthodox marriage ceremony
is that the two [the people who are getting married] will become one
flesh. I thought that this was a euphimism for sex, but apparently the
law takes it literally!
Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis)
-----
"I do not anticipate that the laws of physics will change
to suit my present needs."
-----
Dan Shane
Kentucky etc.
Message 183 -
2001-08-24 at 16:24:49
SHELLEY WROTE:
> Question for Don Rosa: if a couple gets divorced in Kentucky, are they
still
> brother and sister?
AND I REPLY:
As a fellow Kentuckian, I'll let Don answer the question you directed to
him, but I'll expand on Kentucky divorce a bit.
If a woman divorces a man and remarries, the former husband might call the
new one his "husband-in-law". We gotta keep everyone in the family somehow,
you know.
And on the subject of the type of brother-sister marriage that seems to be
outlawed in Greece, I have an example of it in my family. I have 2 brothers
(Shane family), who married 2 sisters (Lewis family). And not at the same
time, though I hardly see how that changes matters. However, when the
sisters had a disagreement, the brothers had to have one, too.
I went to Indiana to find my wonderful wife. Kentucky matrimony is too much
work.
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
> Question for Don Rosa: if a couple gets divorced in Kentucky, are they
still
> brother and sister?
AND I REPLY:
As a fellow Kentuckian, I'll let Don answer the question you directed to
him, but I'll expand on Kentucky divorce a bit.
If a woman divorces a man and remarries, the former husband might call the
new one his "husband-in-law". We gotta keep everyone in the family somehow,
you know.
And on the subject of the type of brother-sister marriage that seems to be
outlawed in Greece, I have an example of it in my family. I have 2 brothers
(Shane family), who married 2 sisters (Lewis family). And not at the same
time, though I hardly see how that changes matters. However, when the
sisters had a disagreement, the brothers had to have one, too.
I went to Indiana to find my wonderful wife. Kentucky matrimony is too much
work.
Dan Shane
(danshane at bellsouth.net)
Don Rosa
DCML digest #643
Message 184 -
2001-08-24 at 16:32:50
From: Kriton Kyrimis <kyrimis at cti.gr>
>>>in Greece,
a marriage between Donald and Daisy under these circumstances would
be considered incestuous and would not be permitted. The only way two
siblings would be allowed to marry two other siblings in Greece, would
be if they got married at the same time.
That's wild! I can't imagine why it would not be allowed. If it's okay for
the first two to get married, what could be wrong with the second two? Or
why would it make a difference if they were married at the same time?
"In-laws" do not suddenly become blood-relations at the instant of their
siblings' marriage. But... this is off topic, eh?
From: Shelley Hanson/KlezmerAllThatJazz
<klezmerallthatjazz at earthlink.net>
>>>I personally find the idea of Donald and Daisy being anything other than
completely unrelated to be very unsettling and kind of disgusting,
Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
Europeans! If Daisy's brother married Donald's sister, there would *still*
be no relation between Daisy and Donald, much less a "disgusting" one.
>>>Question for Don Rosa: if a couple gets divorced in Kentucky, are they
still
brother and sister?
Oh, sure, they'd still be brother and sister, only the divorced brother
would get the trailer, the sister would get the junked car in the front
yard, and still neither of them would know where Sweden is or what a
"Denmark" was. (My nearest neighbor across the valley here in Kentucky
thinks "Denmark" is a town in Germany.)
From: WL Lilly <liljerryandtheyadayadakiddz at yahoo.com>
(referring to Steve Geppi, our only hope for a publisher of Disney comics
in America):
>>>>But , I believe , has never actually PUBLISHED
comics...or anything else...with regularity , anyway !
Ah, he certainly has! Numerous successful books and magazine and comic
series... though admittedly only for the comic-shops (collector's) market,
but that's the only market for such things that we have here.
>>>>Also , actually , I really don't think comics
shops-only Disney comics would be what Disney would
want - Or really be likely to make sufficient $ to
turn a profit . Revived U.S. Disney comics would have
to have some newsstand ( meaning - " non-comics shop "
, anyway ) distribution , I think . Would Geppi
propose to do that ?
A nice hope, but probably not. There're no buyers for Disney comic books on
the newsstands, and precious few for them in the comic stores. If you want
to ever again see Disney comics in the English language, you might have to
bite the bullet and recognize there will never again be a mass market for
these things with the American public (not as long as there is reading
required), so if you want them at all, you'll probably have to settle for
fairly (or rahthuh!) expensive collector's versions, as with the final
years of the Gladstones. I still frequently hear jaded fans claim that
those expensive Gladstone issues were a method to try to greedily maximize
profits... in truth, those expensive issues were a method to keep
English-language Disney comics in existence, period.
>>>>Actually mass market/mewsstand
distribution of " regular " magazines in the U.S. -
meaning TIME , VANITY FAIR , COSMO , READER'S DIGEST ,
Well, the last three you mention have always been fluff, but yes, TIME and
NEWSWEEK and even the formerly classy U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT are
recognizing that they must pander to the viewers of "Oprah" rather than
people seeking news commentary, and these magazines now usually
cover-feature sensationalistic stories about movie stars or about
"relationships" and life-styles, a' la COSMO. If this is the case with the
*best* magazine titles in America, can you wonder what problems there are
trying to get these people's children to buy decent entertainment in
comics, or to buy comics at all? If the people at TIME magazine are worried
about the possibility of a day when there is no longer any TIME magazine,
the same situation obviously would occur to comic books in general and
Disney comics in particular sooner than that... and I fear we have already
passed that point. I will be very (though pleasantly) surprised if I ever
again see my own work in a language I can read. So let's not quibble about
how Di$ney comics might be revived by Steve Geppi. Let's just hope he can
do it in any way he can!
>>>in Greece,
a marriage between Donald and Daisy under these circumstances would
be considered incestuous and would not be permitted. The only way two
siblings would be allowed to marry two other siblings in Greece, would
be if they got married at the same time.
That's wild! I can't imagine why it would not be allowed. If it's okay for
the first two to get married, what could be wrong with the second two? Or
why would it make a difference if they were married at the same time?
"In-laws" do not suddenly become blood-relations at the instant of their
siblings' marriage. But... this is off topic, eh?
From: Shelley Hanson/KlezmerAllThatJazz
<klezmerallthatjazz at earthlink.net>
>>>I personally find the idea of Donald and Daisy being anything other than
completely unrelated to be very unsettling and kind of disgusting,
Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
Europeans! If Daisy's brother married Donald's sister, there would *still*
be no relation between Daisy and Donald, much less a "disgusting" one.
>>>Question for Don Rosa: if a couple gets divorced in Kentucky, are they
still
brother and sister?
Oh, sure, they'd still be brother and sister, only the divorced brother
would get the trailer, the sister would get the junked car in the front
yard, and still neither of them would know where Sweden is or what a
"Denmark" was. (My nearest neighbor across the valley here in Kentucky
thinks "Denmark" is a town in Germany.)
From: WL Lilly <liljerryandtheyadayadakiddz at yahoo.com>
(referring to Steve Geppi, our only hope for a publisher of Disney comics
in America):
>>>>But , I believe , has never actually PUBLISHED
comics...or anything else...with regularity , anyway !
Ah, he certainly has! Numerous successful books and magazine and comic
series... though admittedly only for the comic-shops (collector's) market,
but that's the only market for such things that we have here.
>>>>Also , actually , I really don't think comics
shops-only Disney comics would be what Disney would
want - Or really be likely to make sufficient $ to
turn a profit . Revived U.S. Disney comics would have
to have some newsstand ( meaning - " non-comics shop "
, anyway ) distribution , I think . Would Geppi
propose to do that ?
A nice hope, but probably not. There're no buyers for Disney comic books on
the newsstands, and precious few for them in the comic stores. If you want
to ever again see Disney comics in the English language, you might have to
bite the bullet and recognize there will never again be a mass market for
these things with the American public (not as long as there is reading
required), so if you want them at all, you'll probably have to settle for
fairly (or rahthuh!) expensive collector's versions, as with the final
years of the Gladstones. I still frequently hear jaded fans claim that
those expensive Gladstone issues were a method to try to greedily maximize
profits... in truth, those expensive issues were a method to keep
English-language Disney comics in existence, period.
>>>>Actually mass market/mewsstand
distribution of " regular " magazines in the U.S. -
meaning TIME , VANITY FAIR , COSMO , READER'S DIGEST ,
Well, the last three you mention have always been fluff, but yes, TIME and
NEWSWEEK and even the formerly classy U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT are
recognizing that they must pander to the viewers of "Oprah" rather than
people seeking news commentary, and these magazines now usually
cover-feature sensationalistic stories about movie stars or about
"relationships" and life-styles, a' la COSMO. If this is the case with the
*best* magazine titles in America, can you wonder what problems there are
trying to get these people's children to buy decent entertainment in
comics, or to buy comics at all? If the people at TIME magazine are worried
about the possibility of a day when there is no longer any TIME magazine,
the same situation obviously would occur to comic books in general and
Disney comics in particular sooner than that... and I fear we have already
passed that point. I will be very (though pleasantly) surprised if I ever
again see my own work in a language I can read. So let's not quibble about
how Di$ney comics might be revived by Steve Geppi. Let's just hope he can
do it in any way he can!
Goofy313g
Durham cow
Message 185 -
2001-08-24 at 20:13:38
hi! thank u everybody!
now, I just miss a picture of dorothy, and another from Saraballe Cow ( I will draw that one myself, as she appears in the cartoon "This is your life Donald Duck")
I also need a scan of Durham cow, clarabelle's grandpa, please
thank u
gilles maurice
http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/index.html
now, I just miss a picture of dorothy, and another from Saraballe Cow ( I will draw that one myself, as she appears in the cartoon "This is your life Donald Duck")
I also need a scan of Durham cow, clarabelle's grandpa, please
thank u
gilles maurice
http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/index.html
Goofy313g
Clarabelle's uncles
Message 186 -
2001-08-24 at 20:15:39
As they original names seem to be Arcibaldo and Teodbaldo, I will call them Archibald and Theobald...
It was just for u to know!!!
Gilles
It was just for u to know!!!
Gilles
Goofy313g
Mickey's Donald and Goofy's adress, Jiminy's nephew[for Rich], Daisy and Donald's relationship (it is worst than you think...)
Message 187 -
2001-08-25 at 02:04:54
Hi!
Still in holydays in the US, i watched yesterday night at about 1:30 in the morning, the tvshow VaultDisney, with Walt Disney presents, and it was a retransmission of On Vacation with Mickey Mouse and friends
sorry to speak about cartoons here, but I kept 2 iterresting details:
The cartoon "Goofy and Wilbur" was shown, and, to introduce it, Jiminy Cricket asked where Goofy was, and he was answered "He is in holidays, fishin with your nephew Wilbur"
strange, ain't it?
Jiminy is supposed to be an anthropomised cricket, so he is a kind of human being, wereas Wilbur is a "pet" grasshopper...
so, Disney's universe doesn't have any law...
I though this could interrest Rich for his hoozoolist
When Jiminy, Goofy , Mickey and Donald are all in the studios, they get a postcard from Minnie, and the adress is "The gang, disney studios, burbank, calif"
so their towns must be near burbank...
Then, about Daisy:
We see her parents in the cartoon "Donald's diary", and her father is not Moby Duck. mOREOVER, IN SOME STORIES, SHE CALLS HIM mOBY dUCK, NOT dAD
We also see that she has three brother, in this cartoon.
Then, she is said to have a sister in a Barks' story, and, in Amj's first appearance, it is said that they are Daisy's sister's daughters. The two sisters can be the same, and, although he doesn't believe in he cartoons, Don Rosa told to Sigvald that it would be a good idea for the sister to be Donna Duck from "Don Donald". She could also be the unnamed female duck in a barks'tory taking place at the beach, with sharks...
Then, in Mark Worden's Duck Family Tree, (http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/trees/wordentree.html )
We see Huey, Dewey and Louie's father
(I think he is one of the three ducklings in Donald's Diary)
So, if Don Rosa is true, Daisy Duck has at least one sister and one brother, and at most 2 sisters and four brothers...
I think she has a sister and three brothers.
So, they are both fiances, brother and sister in law, married (in some stories), but also cousins!!!
yesm they are!
That is also why she calls Scrooge uncle (he is not her real uncle, but he is from the family..)
I took this information from a french little book from 1966 (Donald cherche fortune), a little biography of Donald.
Bye,
Gilles
Still in holydays in the US, i watched yesterday night at about 1:30 in the morning, the tvshow VaultDisney, with Walt Disney presents, and it was a retransmission of On Vacation with Mickey Mouse and friends
sorry to speak about cartoons here, but I kept 2 iterresting details:
The cartoon "Goofy and Wilbur" was shown, and, to introduce it, Jiminy Cricket asked where Goofy was, and he was answered "He is in holidays, fishin with your nephew Wilbur"
strange, ain't it?
Jiminy is supposed to be an anthropomised cricket, so he is a kind of human being, wereas Wilbur is a "pet" grasshopper...
so, Disney's universe doesn't have any law...
I though this could interrest Rich for his hoozoolist
When Jiminy, Goofy , Mickey and Donald are all in the studios, they get a postcard from Minnie, and the adress is "The gang, disney studios, burbank, calif"
so their towns must be near burbank...
Then, about Daisy:
We see her parents in the cartoon "Donald's diary", and her father is not Moby Duck. mOREOVER, IN SOME STORIES, SHE CALLS HIM mOBY dUCK, NOT dAD
We also see that she has three brother, in this cartoon.
Then, she is said to have a sister in a Barks' story, and, in Amj's first appearance, it is said that they are Daisy's sister's daughters. The two sisters can be the same, and, although he doesn't believe in he cartoons, Don Rosa told to Sigvald that it would be a good idea for the sister to be Donna Duck from "Don Donald". She could also be the unnamed female duck in a barks'tory taking place at the beach, with sharks...
Then, in Mark Worden's Duck Family Tree, (http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/trees/wordentree.html )
We see Huey, Dewey and Louie's father
(I think he is one of the three ducklings in Donald's Diary)
So, if Don Rosa is true, Daisy Duck has at least one sister and one brother, and at most 2 sisters and four brothers...
I think she has a sister and three brothers.
So, they are both fiances, brother and sister in law, married (in some stories), but also cousins!!!
yesm they are!
That is also why she calls Scrooge uncle (he is not her real uncle, but he is from the family..)
I took this information from a french little book from 1966 (Donald cherche fortune), a little biography of Donald.
Bye,
Gilles
Goofy313g
Mickey's Donald and Goofy's adress, Jiminy's nephew[for Rich], Daisy and Donald's relationship (it is worst than you think...)
Message 188 -
2001-08-25 at 02:04:59
Hi!
Still in holydays in the US, i watched yesterday night at about 1:30 in the morning, the tvshow VaultDisney, with Walt Disney presents, and it was a retransmission of On Vacation with Mickey Mouse and friends
sorry to speak about cartoons here, but I kept 2 iterresting details:
The cartoon "Goofy and Wilbur" was shown, and, to introduce it, Jiminy Cricket asked where Goofy was, and he was answered "He is in holidays, fishin with your nephew Wilbur"
strange, ain't it?
Jiminy is supposed to be an anthropomised cricket, so he is a kind of human being, wereas Wilbur is a "pet" grasshopper...
so, Disney's universe doesn't have any law...
I though this could interrest Rich for his hoozoolist
When Jiminy, Goofy , Mickey and Donald are all in the studios, they get a postcard from Minnie, and the adress is "The gang, disney studios, burbank, calif"
so their towns must be near burbank...
Then, about Daisy:
We see her parents in the cartoon "Donald's diary", and her father is not Moby Duck. mOREOVER, IN SOME STORIES, SHE CALLS HIM mOBY dUCK, NOT dAD
We also see that she has three brother, in this cartoon.
Then, she is said to have a sister in a Barks' story, and, in Amj's first appearance, it is said that they are Daisy's sister's daughters. The two sisters can be the same, and, although he doesn't believe in he cartoons, Don Rosa told to Sigvald that it would be a good idea for the sister to be Donna Duck from "Don Donald". She could also be the unnamed female duck in a barks'tory taking place at the beach, with sharks...
Then, in Mark Worden's Duck Family Tree, (http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/trees/wordentree.html )
We see Huey, Dewey and Louie's father
(I think he is one of the three ducklings in Donald's Diary)
So, if Don Rosa is true, Daisy Duck has at least one sister and one brother, and at most 2 sisters and four brothers...
I think she has a sister and three brothers.
So, they are both fiances, brother and sister in law, married (in some stories), but also cousins!!!
yesm they are!
That is also why she calls Scrooge uncle (he is not her real uncle, but he is from the family..)
I took this information from a french little book from 1966 (Donald cherche fortune), a little biography of Donald.
Bye,
Gilles
Still in holydays in the US, i watched yesterday night at about 1:30 in the morning, the tvshow VaultDisney, with Walt Disney presents, and it was a retransmission of On Vacation with Mickey Mouse and friends
sorry to speak about cartoons here, but I kept 2 iterresting details:
The cartoon "Goofy and Wilbur" was shown, and, to introduce it, Jiminy Cricket asked where Goofy was, and he was answered "He is in holidays, fishin with your nephew Wilbur"
strange, ain't it?
Jiminy is supposed to be an anthropomised cricket, so he is a kind of human being, wereas Wilbur is a "pet" grasshopper...
so, Disney's universe doesn't have any law...
I though this could interrest Rich for his hoozoolist
When Jiminy, Goofy , Mickey and Donald are all in the studios, they get a postcard from Minnie, and the adress is "The gang, disney studios, burbank, calif"
so their towns must be near burbank...
Then, about Daisy:
We see her parents in the cartoon "Donald's diary", and her father is not Moby Duck. mOREOVER, IN SOME STORIES, SHE CALLS HIM mOBY dUCK, NOT dAD
We also see that she has three brother, in this cartoon.
Then, she is said to have a sister in a Barks' story, and, in Amj's first appearance, it is said that they are Daisy's sister's daughters. The two sisters can be the same, and, although he doesn't believe in he cartoons, Don Rosa told to Sigvald that it would be a good idea for the sister to be Donna Duck from "Don Donald". She could also be the unnamed female duck in a barks'tory taking place at the beach, with sharks...
Then, in Mark Worden's Duck Family Tree, (http://goofy313g.free.fr/calisota_online/trees/wordentree.html )
We see Huey, Dewey and Louie's father
(I think he is one of the three ducklings in Donald's Diary)
So, if Don Rosa is true, Daisy Duck has at least one sister and one brother, and at most 2 sisters and four brothers...
I think she has a sister and three brothers.
So, they are both fiances, brother and sister in law, married (in some stories), but also cousins!!!
yesm they are!
That is also why she calls Scrooge uncle (he is not her real uncle, but he is from the family..)
I took this information from a french little book from 1966 (Donald cherche fortune), a little biography of Donald.
Bye,
Gilles
Fabio Blanco
Teddy Roosevelt...
Message 189 -
2001-08-25 at 12:19:56
I can't manage the english wanted for discuss the item about I am thinking.
But I just read the episode 10 bis, and I am wonder about the opinion of
people of America and the world about T.R. You know, I love him like
character, but I dont'know if I could love him like president.
(hey, I live here in third world, is always hard love an american president)
Anyway, I like see the weak and the best of TR in the Don Rosa way...
FABIO BLANCO...
(from the only world)
*******************
longtom at oeste.com.ar
But I just read the episode 10 bis, and I am wonder about the opinion of
people of America and the world about T.R. You know, I love him like
character, but I dont'know if I could love him like president.
(hey, I live here in third world, is always hard love an american president)
Anyway, I like see the weak and the best of TR in the Don Rosa way...
FABIO BLANCO...
(from the only world)
*******************
longtom at oeste.com.ar
Kriton Kyrimis
Daisy's family
Message 190 -
2001-08-25 at 14:28:57
DON:
> That's wild! I can't imagine why it would not be allowed.
My previous posting should probably have explained things in a bit more
detail.
> If it's okay for
> the first two to get married, what could be wrong with the second two? Or
> why would it make a difference if they were married at the same time?
> "In-laws" do not suddenly become blood-relations at the instant of their
> siblings' marriage.
No, but they do become related by marriage, which in the eyes of the law
is the same as being related by blood, so they can't get married. If
both couples get married at the same time, the two are not related at
the time of the ceremony, so it's OK.
It may sound weird, but this ensures that by applying both the priviliges
and the obligations of blood relationship to relationship by marriage,
the two types of relationship are completely equivalent. It's like talking
about equality of the sexes when men can't bear children. Until they do,
they can be nothing but second-class citizens.
> Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
> Europeans! If Daisy's brother married Donald's sister, there would *still*
> be no relation between Daisy and Donald, much less a "disgusting" one.
I can't answer for Shelley, but if one has been accustomed to considering
one's in-laws as one's relatives, period, then any suggestion of any kind
of impropriety among in-laws would be unsettling, to say the least. This
is probably a cultural thing, so I would suggest scrapping the idea. If
you turn out using it, I'd feel awkward, Shelley would be disgusted,
and a few countries your neighbors have never heard of would put a price
on your head. ;-)
>>>> Question for Don Rosa: if a couple gets divorced in Kentucky, are they
> still
> brother and sister?
I've been following these "Kentucky" jokes with puzzlement for some
time now. Is this a variation of "how many [insert your favorite ethnic
group] are required to screw in a lightbulb", or are incestuous marriages
really common (or even the norm) in Kentucky?
ANDERS CHRISTIAN:
> Doesn't siblings mean brother and sister
Exactly.
> Donald and Daisy aren't brother and sister...
No, but the discussion resulted from talking about the possibility of
Daisy's brother being married to Donald's sister, which would make Daisy
Donald's sister-in-law.
Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis)
-----
"My dear chap, I don't need a computer!"
-----
> That's wild! I can't imagine why it would not be allowed.
My previous posting should probably have explained things in a bit more
detail.
> If it's okay for
> the first two to get married, what could be wrong with the second two? Or
> why would it make a difference if they were married at the same time?
> "In-laws" do not suddenly become blood-relations at the instant of their
> siblings' marriage.
No, but they do become related by marriage, which in the eyes of the law
is the same as being related by blood, so they can't get married. If
both couples get married at the same time, the two are not related at
the time of the ceremony, so it's OK.
It may sound weird, but this ensures that by applying both the priviliges
and the obligations of blood relationship to relationship by marriage,
the two types of relationship are completely equivalent. It's like talking
about equality of the sexes when men can't bear children. Until they do,
they can be nothing but second-class citizens.
> Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
> Europeans! If Daisy's brother married Donald's sister, there would *still*
> be no relation between Daisy and Donald, much less a "disgusting" one.
I can't answer for Shelley, but if one has been accustomed to considering
one's in-laws as one's relatives, period, then any suggestion of any kind
of impropriety among in-laws would be unsettling, to say the least. This
is probably a cultural thing, so I would suggest scrapping the idea. If
you turn out using it, I'd feel awkward, Shelley would be disgusted,
and a few countries your neighbors have never heard of would put a price
on your head. ;-)
>>>> Question for Don Rosa: if a couple gets divorced in Kentucky, are they
> still
> brother and sister?
I've been following these "Kentucky" jokes with puzzlement for some
time now. Is this a variation of "how many [insert your favorite ethnic
group] are required to screw in a lightbulb", or are incestuous marriages
really common (or even the norm) in Kentucky?
ANDERS CHRISTIAN:
> Doesn't siblings mean brother and sister
Exactly.
> Donald and Daisy aren't brother and sister...
No, but the discussion resulted from talking about the possibility of
Daisy's brother being married to Donald's sister, which would make Daisy
Donald's sister-in-law.
Kriton (e-mail: kyrimis at cti.gr)
(WWW: http://dias.cti.gr/~kyrimis)
-----
"My dear chap, I don't need a computer!"
-----
Mike Pohjola
Shotgun weddings
Message 191 -
2001-08-25 at 14:31:57
DON:
> Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
> Europeans!
Hardly for all Europeans :) (Especially the Southern Ostro-Bothnia, which
seems like the Kentucky of Finland...)
I guess it would be unsettling in the same way as it would be to marry a
non blood related sibling you've lived your entire life with. Say your
parents were divorced soon after your birth, and the one that you were
left with soon remarried. Remarried to someone with a small child. That
way you would have a sibling, although you two wouldn't technically be
related. Still, for all practical purposes, that would be a sister or a
brother. Would it be unsettling or disgusting for you to marry that
person?
> If Daisy's brother married Donald's sister, there would *still* be no
> relation between Daisy and Donald, much less a "disgusting" one.
Would it be disgusting to marry your sibling if you didn't intend to get
any children? Why?
> (My nearest neighbor across the valley here in Kentucky thinks
> "Denmark" is a town in Germany.)
Hehee! But you don't live in the hills, do you? Do yah?
(I thought Dan Shane was your nearest neighbor, but hopefully I'm
mistaken...)
--
Mike Pohjola
mikep at iki.fi +358-50-5238399 http://www.iki.fi/mikep
> Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
> Europeans!
Hardly for all Europeans :) (Especially the Southern Ostro-Bothnia, which
seems like the Kentucky of Finland...)
I guess it would be unsettling in the same way as it would be to marry a
non blood related sibling you've lived your entire life with. Say your
parents were divorced soon after your birth, and the one that you were
left with soon remarried. Remarried to someone with a small child. That
way you would have a sibling, although you two wouldn't technically be
related. Still, for all practical purposes, that would be a sister or a
brother. Would it be unsettling or disgusting for you to marry that
person?
> If Daisy's brother married Donald's sister, there would *still* be no
> relation between Daisy and Donald, much less a "disgusting" one.
Would it be disgusting to marry your sibling if you didn't intend to get
any children? Why?
> (My nearest neighbor across the valley here in Kentucky thinks
> "Denmark" is a town in Germany.)
Hehee! But you don't live in the hills, do you? Do yah?
(I thought Dan Shane was your nearest neighbor, but hopefully I'm
mistaken...)
--
Mike Pohjola
mikep at iki.fi +358-50-5238399 http://www.iki.fi/mikep
Stephan Packard
A rather ot-note about incest laws
Message 192 -
2001-08-25 at 15:25:06
Hi all,
I've hardly got the time to follow this list as closely as I'd like,
but since I've just got an hour on my hands that came out of
nowhere, I'd like to comment on the Daisy problem:
> From: "Don Rosa" <donrosa at iglou.com>
> [Kriton:] >>>in Greece,
> a marriage between Donald and Daisy under these circumstances would
> be considered incestuous and would not be permitted. The only way two
> siblings would be allowed to marry two other siblings in Greece, would
> be if they got married at the same time.
>
> That's wild! I can't imagine why it would not be allowed. If it's okay for
> the first two to get married, what could be wrong with the second two?
Well, some anthropologists say that the traditional rules on
incest serve not only to guard us against reinforcement of
hereditary illnesses, but to make sure families pread and grow
as far as they can: In a society in which work power, social
security and even political influence is connected to the amount
of individuals that are part of your extended family, marrying
both siblings to the same family would mean adding one family
to yours when you could add two.
> Or why would it make a difference if they were married at the same time?
This would probably be a problem of modern "fair" law: You
can't decide who would be allowed to ga ahead.
> [Shelley:]>>>I personally find the idea of Donald and Daisy being anything other than
> completely unrelated to be very unsettling and kind of disgusting,
> Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
> Europeans!
Well, Hellas is in Europe, of course. With most rules they have
and we Northeners don't, it is a good guess to think not that they
made them up, but that we have forgotten them.
best regards,
Stephan
I've hardly got the time to follow this list as closely as I'd like,
but since I've just got an hour on my hands that came out of
nowhere, I'd like to comment on the Daisy problem:
> From: "Don Rosa" <donrosa at iglou.com>
> [Kriton:] >>>in Greece,
> a marriage between Donald and Daisy under these circumstances would
> be considered incestuous and would not be permitted. The only way two
> siblings would be allowed to marry two other siblings in Greece, would
> be if they got married at the same time.
>
> That's wild! I can't imagine why it would not be allowed. If it's okay for
> the first two to get married, what could be wrong with the second two?
Well, some anthropologists say that the traditional rules on
incest serve not only to guard us against reinforcement of
hereditary illnesses, but to make sure families pread and grow
as far as they can: In a society in which work power, social
security and even political influence is connected to the amount
of individuals that are part of your extended family, marrying
both siblings to the same family would mean adding one family
to yours when you could add two.
> Or why would it make a difference if they were married at the same time?
This would probably be a problem of modern "fair" law: You
can't decide who would be allowed to ga ahead.
> [Shelley:]>>>I personally find the idea of Donald and Daisy being anything other than
> completely unrelated to be very unsettling and kind of disgusting,
> Still off-topic, but I'm just curious as to why this is unsettling for
> Europeans!
Well, Hellas is in Europe, of course. With most rules they have
and we Northeners don't, it is a good guess to think not that they
made them up, but that we have forgotten them.
best regards,
Stephan
Don Rosa
Teddy Roosevelt
Message 193 -
2001-08-25 at 16:25:55
From: "Fabio Blanco" <longtom at oeste.com.ar>
>>>I can't manage the english wanted for discuss the item about I am
thinking.
But I just read the episode 10 bis, and I am wonder about the opinion of
people of America and the world about T.R. You know, I love him like
character, but I dont'know if I could love him like president.
Off topic and full steam ahead!
What do the people of America think of Teddy Roosevelt? You'd need to get
such an opinion from a historian. The average American would only have an
"opinion" (if you call it that) of the current president, or another one of
about the past 10 years. He'd have only a vague idea of who Teddy Roosevelt
was. We have an increasingly nil sense of or interest in history.
Most of what I know of T.R. came from my own readings, not from the mere
dates and facts we get in school, and my great opinion of him has only
increased as I have read deeper into his own writings while researching
Duck stories. I was at first worried what Europeans would think of my use
of such a character in stories I'm doing primarily for Europe... to Old
World tastes, Teddy was a maniacal imperialist! But at the turn of the
century ... I guess I must nowadays say the turn of the previous
century...he was the man we needed for the job. North and South America
were not like Europe, and N&S Americans were not like Europeans. At that
time, the world was realizing that the United States was inexplicably
becoming the most powerful country on the planet, and there were suddenly
new efforts to gain a foothold in land and politics in North and Central
America, and TR's navy held them back with his method of "speak softly and
carry a BIG STICK". Meanwhile, he did his *own* power-grabbing for the good
of the New World, which is where he displayed his imperialism and "manifest
destiny" of the rights of the nations of this hemisphere. The untold
subtext of my story (which I knew I could never get into a "Disney comic")
was that it was TR's people who masterminded the breaking apart of Panama
from Colombia because that's where we wanted to build the canal for the use
of the world and Colombia didn't want to cooperate. I whitewashing the
whole affair surely, but it did result in the Canal, and the Canal now
belongs lock, stock and barrel to Panama, which was TR's plan.
But aside from that, the reason I think he's a hero was his unbelievable
insight into the future -- he was the guy who began to preserve the quickly
disappearing American wilderness areas from loggers and miners by
establishing the National Park system and rescuing about a bajillion square
miles of just the places where I spend my vacations. He also feared and
fought Big Business which he saw was quickly crushing the small business
people on whose backs America was founded (and this was obviously something
he failed to prevent since we have now sadly become a country where
mega-corporations control our lives and even our opinions).
But his story goes far beyond that and I can't even begin to cover him
adequately in a few paragraphs. He was by all accounts tenaciously honest
and a super-scholar and historian (an HONEST and SMART president... we
actually used to have 'em!), a guy from a modestly wealthy family who chose
to forsake that life at one point and move to a remote ranch in the
badlands of Dakota to make his own way, a sickly kid who made himself
healthy through exercise and discipline, an brave defender of justice (he
once hunted down frontier desperados on his own in the Badlands), an
apparently fearless volunteer warrior as when he lead the charge up a hill
(not really San Juan) in the Spanish-American war, and a near super-hero
when, as police commissioner of New York City, he prowled the streets at
night *himself* wearing a long black cloak seeking police corruption and
miscreants. Admittedly a portion of these fantastic endeavors were done for
theatrical purposes because he was a great overly-dramatic show-off and
purposely (but sincerely) made himself bigger-than-life, which is one of
the reasons I love the guy! He was a great family man who had, at one
point, suffered the loss of his wife to a sickness (that's when he gave up
everything and became a cowboy) but later remarried and raised a huge
family of kids which he never ignored. And he supported himself after he
lost the presidency by writing a vast number of history books and magazine
articles about nature. He lead the first National Geographic sponsored (I'd
have to check that detail) trek, spending about 9 months traveling across
the wilds of Africa on safari, and bringing back a VAST number of botanical
and animal specimens which formed the basis for the Smithsonian Institute
collection and can still be seen on display today.
He was self-made, physically, intellectually and financially. He was honest
and fearless. He valued the wilderness. He thought that the only important
things in your life are what you can accomplish personally by your own wits
and hard work (be sharper than the sharpies, tougher than the toughies, as
long as you make it "square", eh?). He was America's original
bigger-than-life character. He embodied everything I also like about (my
perception of) $crooge McDuck!
And just look at the dumb, richboy, environment-raping, big-business-toady
nut who is the "leader of the world" now!
I'm spouting this off the top of my head about 5 minutes after waking up.
Please don't quibble if I have a fact misstated -- I'm not giving a history
lesson, just answering the question of what I think of Teddy Roosevelt.
And I've already taken up too much of this ML with my rave on this guy. I'd
love have TR teamed up with U$ in every "Lo$" story I do... but that seems
unlikely...
>>>I can't manage the english wanted for discuss the item about I am
thinking.
But I just read the episode 10 bis, and I am wonder about the opinion of
people of America and the world about T.R. You know, I love him like
character, but I dont'know if I could love him like president.
Off topic and full steam ahead!
What do the people of America think of Teddy Roosevelt? You'd need to get
such an opinion from a historian. The average American would only have an
"opinion" (if you call it that) of the current president, or another one of
about the past 10 years. He'd have only a vague idea of who Teddy Roosevelt
was. We have an increasingly nil sense of or interest in history.
Most of what I know of T.R. came from my own readings, not from the mere
dates and facts we get in school, and my great opinion of him has only
increased as I have read deeper into his own writings while researching
Duck stories. I was at first worried what Europeans would think of my use
of such a character in stories I'm doing primarily for Europe... to Old
World tastes, Teddy was a maniacal imperialist! But at the turn of the
century ... I guess I must nowadays say the turn of the previous
century...he was the man we needed for the job. North and South America
were not like Europe, and N&S Americans were not like Europeans. At that
time, the world was realizing that the United States was inexplicably
becoming the most powerful country on the planet, and there were suddenly
new efforts to gain a foothold in land and politics in North and Central
America, and TR's navy held them back with his method of "speak softly and
carry a BIG STICK". Meanwhile, he did his *own* power-grabbing for the good
of the New World, which is where he displayed his imperialism and "manifest
destiny" of the rights of the nations of this hemisphere. The untold
subtext of my story (which I knew I could never get into a "Disney comic")
was that it was TR's people who masterminded the breaking apart of Panama
from Colombia because that's where we wanted to build the canal for the use
of the world and Colombia didn't want to cooperate. I whitewashing the
whole affair surely, but it did result in the Canal, and the Canal now
belongs lock, stock and barrel to Panama, which was TR's plan.
But aside from that, the reason I think he's a hero was his unbelievable
insight into the future -- he was the guy who began to preserve the quickly
disappearing American wilderness areas from loggers and miners by
establishing the National Park system and rescuing about a bajillion square
miles of just the places where I spend my vacations. He also feared and
fought Big Business which he saw was quickly crushing the small business
people on whose backs America was founded (and this was obviously something
he failed to prevent since we have now sadly become a country where
mega-corporations control our lives and even our opinions).
But his story goes far beyond that and I can't even begin to cover him
adequately in a few paragraphs. He was by all accounts tenaciously honest
and a super-scholar and historian (an HONEST and SMART president... we
actually used to have 'em!), a guy from a modestly wealthy family who chose
to forsake that life at one point and move to a remote ranch in the
badlands of Dakota to make his own way, a sickly kid who made himself
healthy through exercise and discipline, an brave defender of justice (he
once hunted down frontier desperados on his own in the Badlands), an
apparently fearless volunteer warrior as when he lead the charge up a hill
(not really San Juan) in the Spanish-American war, and a near super-hero
when, as police commissioner of New York City, he prowled the streets at
night *himself* wearing a long black cloak seeking police corruption and
miscreants. Admittedly a portion of these fantastic endeavors were done for
theatrical purposes because he was a great overly-dramatic show-off and
purposely (but sincerely) made himself bigger-than-life, which is one of
the reasons I love the guy! He was a great family man who had, at one
point, suffered the loss of his wife to a sickness (that's when he gave up
everything and became a cowboy) but later remarried and raised a huge
family of kids which he never ignored. And he supported himself after he
lost the presidency by writing a vast number of history books and magazine
articles about nature. He lead the first National Geographic sponsored (I'd
have to check that detail) trek, spending about 9 months traveling across
the wilds of Africa on safari, and bringing back a VAST number of botanical
and animal specimens which formed the basis for the Smithsonian Institute
collection and can still be seen on display today.
He was self-made, physically, intellectually and financially. He was honest
and fearless. He valued the wilderness. He thought that the only important
things in your life are what you can accomplish personally by your own wits
and hard work (be sharper than the sharpies, tougher than the toughies, as
long as you make it "square", eh?). He was America's original
bigger-than-life character. He embodied everything I also like about (my
perception of) $crooge McDuck!
And just look at the dumb, richboy, environment-raping, big-business-toady
nut who is the "leader of the world" now!
I'm spouting this off the top of my head about 5 minutes after waking up.
Please don't quibble if I have a fact misstated -- I'm not giving a history
lesson, just answering the question of what I think of Teddy Roosevelt.
And I've already taken up too much of this ML with my rave on this guy. I'd
love have TR teamed up with U$ in every "Lo$" story I do... but that seems
unlikely...
Rodney W Bowcock Jr.
Impending US Deal
Message 194 -
2001-08-25 at 17:24:59
I believe Gary's remarks stated that a new "Fine Art...." book has been
okayed by Disney, with negotiations coming to a close for reviving the
comics.
Rodney Bowcock
Self Help 20" Promotions
BMX-Bar-B-Q 2001 September 22nd
Lebanon, Ohio
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
okayed by Disney, with negotiations coming to a close for reviving the
comics.
Rodney Bowcock
Self Help 20" Promotions
BMX-Bar-B-Q 2001 September 22nd
Lebanon, Ohio
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
Geir J. Netland
#643 Kriton, Norway
Message 195 -
2001-08-25 at 20:10:34
AC
>About the Norwegian Index -
>Geir J. Netland and Erik H?rthe are involved too, as far as I know.
>I don't know if Barks Friends exists, but the index I saw at Sigvald,
>was newer than the one from 1984, wasn't it, Geir?
The H?rthe/Svendsen/Netland index was published in 1995.
'The Barks Friends index' was one of our most important sources.
Vennlig hilsen/Greetings from
Geir J. Netland
http://www.geir.netland.as
>About the Norwegian Index -
>Geir J. Netland and Erik H?rthe are involved too, as far as I know.
>I don't know if Barks Friends exists, but the index I saw at Sigvald,
>was newer than the one from 1984, wasn't it, Geir?
The H?rthe/Svendsen/Netland index was published in 1995.
'The Barks Friends index' was one of our most important sources.
Vennlig hilsen/Greetings from
Geir J. Netland
http://www.geir.netland.as