Keskustelujen arkisto

Theresa Wiegert <theresaw at oso.chalmers.se> wrote:

> Is there perchance a pine-guru here on the
> list who might be able to give some tips on
> how to make pine (mailprogram for linux/unix)
> filter incoming mails?

I guess computer-geniouses as Thomas Lauritsen, Ari Seppi and Soren Krarup
Olesen can help you.

Sigvald :-)

GREAT solution, Michiel! I'm talking about your f) here.

Sigvald:
>
> What wings? Donald and the other Ducks in Duckburg don't have any wings.
>

True, but seeing this through the eyes of a Dutch six-year-old, I have no
problems realizing that of course he MUST have wings, as he is a duck, but
that they perhaps are hidden under that sailor suit of his, or perhaps those
"hands" are really wings... that doesn't really matter, he's a duck, so he
should have wings and be able to fly anyway. Why doesn't he fly to work?

Sigvald, do you _really_ think that children have the same ways of logic as
a man with your age and education? In that age, Disney comics aren't a
historical masterpiece - they are FUN. Donald IS a Duck, so of course he can
fly.

> This is *not* entirely correct. A mammal birth given by Grandma Duck to
> Gladstones Mother is indicated in Don Rosa's "The Sign of the Triple
> Distelfink".
>

I don't remember the exact reference, can you please remind me? It was a pun
on "the water broke" or something, wasn't it? What I _do_ remember, is that
we never *saw* a mammal birth here. We've seen Donald be hatched *several*
times.

> This is *not* entirely correct. WW2 is indeed mentioned as "The big war"
in
> Don Rosa's "Return to Plain Awful".
"CARAMBA! There was ANOTHER one?" :-)

Rich:
> The one piece of evidence he claims to
> have is a supposed "mammal-birth" by Grandma Duck. I admit that I do not
> have my copy of the story available, but if memory serves, I believe that
> story only depicted Grandma Duck as "pregnant" and did not show her
> actually "giving live birth" to a Duckling.

No, GD was not shown pregnant in this story. She was inside the house (we
didn't even SEE her), Humperdink were outside talking to a painter, and she
screamed to him that her water had broke or something. After a short pun he
ran in, and that was all we saw of that.

But like you I don't have my copy of the story available, so for all that I
know your memory could be better than mine.

Olaf the Blue

DCML's own Stefan Dios is also very adamant regarding getting things RIGHT,
when translating stories for Swedish Kalle Anka.

Regarding the "Calisota Ducks'" place in nature:

Remember Barks' comments in WDC 190, which had Huey, Dewey and Louie showing
their webbed feet to Donald, explaining that they are "built for swimming,-NOT
for playing the piano!" It is clear that they have evolved from a water-
dominated environment. Although they don't have wings, they DO have legs and
feet that are similar to those of birds.

The fact is, that the Universe "described" by the comic story creators is NOT
the same one WE HUMANS live in. Its physical laws are NOT THE SAME, its
history is NOT THE SAME. it is a parallel universe, that has many
characteristics that are the same, but many that ARE NOT! Therefore, how can
one conclude that the sentient beings are earthlike MAMMALS? We can ONLY go by
what information we have been given (in the stories, and supporting
information, such as films, toys, games and books, and other, related media
outlets). As we have seen Donald (that Universe's most omnipresent character)
portrayed as having been born in and from an egg, and NO EVIDENCE showing or
telling that he, OR ANY of his species, or genus, or even class, was born live;
logic dictates that the Ducks are born from eggs (and thus, NOT EARTHLIKE
MAMMALS). Are they EARTHLIKE BIRDS? NO!!!! They are members of highly-evolved
sentient beings-on their "Earthlike" planet, in their parallel existence (to
Earth). Based on their physical portrayal, they share the top echelon on that
planet with other equivalent higher (dog-like, mice-like, pig-like, etc.)
beings, who have experienced different paths of evoloution. They are NOT
HUMANS!!! THEY ARE NOT ON EARTH!!!! THEY ARE NOT IN OUR UNIVERSE!!! ACCEPT
WHAT THE STORY CREATORS PORTRAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF ITS OWN RULES!!! THE
LOGIC OF THAT UNIVERSE FALLS APART WHEN YOU TRY TO APPLY IT TO THAT OF OUR
UNIVERSE!!!

I am a devout Barksist. I do NOT see any attempt by him to imply that the
characters in his stories were HUMANS. He said "I THOUGHT of them as humans. He
was referring to their characters and ways of behaving. He DID NOT intend for
the reader to ignore what they see, to imagine them as humans. He was paid to
write and draw entertaining stories for children, using the Donald Duck (World
or universe). He thought of his characters as having human characteristics only
to make the emotions and motivations of his characters more realistic and
understandable to his readers. He TOLD ME THAT. He did not hope that his
readers would close their eyes and change in their minds his pictures
into "films" of humans living in a three- dimensional world. He DID intend
readers to see his "Duck" characters behaving in ways that are understandable
to us (humans). The Disney World, is a magical place, that loses its "magic"
when an attempt is made to make it perfectly realistic. As a creator, that is
my biggest problem. I tend to try to make everything in my stories realistic.
I cut down on exaggeration to make things "realistic". That tends to take a
lot of the excitement, energy and humour out of that magical world. I think
The Disney Universes are much better as parodies of our human existence. I
think it is better NOT to try to be 100% realistic and try to twist it to
become that way. I like to take it for what it is. It is a two-dimensional
art-form that provides entertainment and allows the creators to express
themselves. Trying to make it REAL LIFE is futile!

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using the LA Free-Net - LA's best kept secret.
http://www.lafn.org/

Rob Klein wrote:

> THEY ARE NOT ON EARTH!!!!

I would like to meet the Duck family. Do you know which planet I should
take my spaceship to? ;-)

Stefan

One week ago, I posted a "Barks quote quiz" made by Per Starb?ck
in the beginning of this mailing list.
In case anyone read it between all the egg/birth mails 8-), here
is an excerpt from Per's mail with the answers.
(Sat, 22 Aug 92 14:17:38 +0200).

--Harry.

To make it easier to
find the stories I've added info on any Gladstone reprints of the
stories. Of course I should have mentioned where Disney has reprinted
them even later as well, but I simply don't know that.
[This was in pre-Inducks-days! 8-) --Harry]

1. "Calling all cars! Calling all cars! Angry duck wrecking
dining car at sixth and `D' streets! That is all!"

That is the ending of the story with the square eggs aka "Lost in the
Andes" aka DDOS 223. The angry duck was our friend Donald of course.
(Reprinted in Gladstone's DDA 3)

2. "Down with H'America!"

This is a suspicious-looking spy talking with another spy. The story
is WDC 114, reprinted in DD 253 as "Ski Samaritan".

3. "I demand that you give a *billion dollars* to the L.T.A.B.!"

"The L.T.A.B.? What's that?" --- "The League To Abolish Billionaires!
*Down with the rich!*" This is from the beginning of US 6 (Tralla
La). Reprinted in US Digest 3.

4. "Life won't be worth *living* without my starfish!"

Donald's dried star fish is gone, because a pack rat exchanged it for
an old civil war button. WDC 52.

5. "Notice the powerful action of the ejector! Yet see how
gently it places decorations on the frosting!"

A cake froster salesman in WDC 83. He is demonstrating his product on
Donald's face. Reprinted in M&D 7 as "Sales Resistance". Nobody got
this.

6. "Now I'll grind up the *rabbit*!"

Donald Duck performs magic tricks with a live rabbit and a grinder.
Pretty scary scene from WDC 82, reprinted in M&D 8.

7. "Plinky plinky --- feep week --- womp bomp --- squeek squeek"

Jens thought this was the sound of Donald's car, which I think was a
good guess, but actually it's what Huey, Dewey, and Louie are supposed
to learn to play with their string trio in WDC 85, reprinted in M&D 12
as "The Masters of Melody".

8. "Regional artifacts of the early rhubarbian era contain the
most interesting worm holes --- blah --- blah!"

This is from a very interesting speech at the museum club banquet that
Donald is forced to go to with Daisy in "Big-Top Bedlam". DDOS 300
reprinted in DD 261.

9. "Tantalium! Youguessium! Nosuchium!"

Youguessium right. That was Uncle Scrooge looking at minerals in "Land
of the Pygmy Indians", US 18. Reprinted in USA 10.

10. "That's it! Jump in the ocean and swim back to Japan!"

An old WDC again. Seems like a lot of them showed up in this quiz.
This is WDC 56 from May 1945, where Donald is walking in his sleep.
When the boys try to wake him up he thinks that they are a "Jap
ambush", and throws them out the window. This was the second one that
nobody got.

11. "Two hundred cawrs, ninety kerwawks, four thousand tweets,
eight tillion twitters, and sixty chuk chuks south by
southeast!"

Magica's raven reporting where Scrooge is to Magica in "The Many Faces
of Magica de Spell" (US 48). He is hiding in the valley of the
faceless people. Reprinted in Giant Album 6.

12. "Waitah, what's the swankiest dish your cook can sling
together?"

Donald is tired of hot dogs, and takes his nephews "to a fancy joint
for a change". The waiter's response is "*Frogs' legs*, sir!", but
they are *three dollars* a serving, so the ducks end up chasing frogs
on their own. And then... Nah, that would be telling. :-) WDC 108.

13. "You'd be a pip on my radar --- A wow on the video! ---
We could sing bebop in a helicop' --- on our way to a movie show!"

A song that Rolando the Vaquero learned from the ducks and then sang
to sweet Panchita back in 1848. Her comment: "The words don't make
sense, Rolando! --- But *sing some more*!" The story is "Old
California", DDOS 328. Reprinted in DD 244.

-- "
Per Starback, Uppsala, Sweden.
"Life is but a gamble! Let flipism chart your ramble!"

> Vladek who? I guess that character is not well known in Norway.

I'd be surprised. Vladek Spiegelman is the father of Art
Spiegelman, who wrote and drew 'Maus, a survivor's tale', about his
father's experiences during WWII, trying to hide from the nazi's in
Poland en eventually ending up in, and surviving, Auschwitz.

In this 'graphic novel', the Jews are depicted as mice, the Germans
as cats and the Americans as dogs. Somewhere in the second
part, Art Spiegelman goes to visit his psychiatrist (a 'mouse'),
whose house is full of pet cats and dogs. "How can I mention this
without completely lousing up my metaphor?", mutters the author.

This line set me to thinking about this 'Ducks-as-charicaturized-
human-beings'-thing, but for now I'm at a loss what my point would
be and how and why I would want to put it forward.

'Maus' has won worldwide acclaim and can be considered a well-
known graphic novel. I'm sure there must be a Norse translation.

I'm glad to include a link to Don Markstein's Toonopedia page
for 'Maus', for I'm really very pleased with the existence of
this beautiful, useful and resourceful website.

>>> http://www.toonopedia.com/maus.htm

Michiel Prior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Waarschuwing: als je probeert te replyen naar m.j.prior at let.rug.nl
gaat dat waarschijnlijk mis. Gebruik liever m.j.prior at student.rug.nl

On Tue, 13 May 2003, Donald D. Markstein wrote:

> > On my own homepage I
> > don't write out the @-sign (I make it "at" instead or _at_ or somethng
> > similar, and in the link I add a REMOVE_THIS after the address.
>
> Theresa, how does that "REMOVE_THIS" code work? Does it tell the robots not
> to harvest that address, or simply obfuscate the address they do harvest? If
> the latter, how does the link still work? I can certainly see how altering
> the address that appears on the screen works without interfering with the
> operation, but would very much like to know how to keep them from getting
> the address inside the tag.

It works by relying on human intelligence. Any human who tries to send a
mail to that link will instantly realise that they should indeed
REMOVE_THIS, while the automated tools the spammers use might not.
Although... lately they have been including this kind of logic in the
harvesters, so you might want to look into other ways of invalidating
your email that isn't so common. (I've seen someone use
"remove_underpants" :)

Another important point is that when you obfuscate like this, you should
never use a valid domain. If some unfortunate person had bought the
REMOVE_THIS.com domain, he would get a fair amount of mail sent to him
that he neither deserves nor wants. Usually people are encouraged to
obfuscate their address and add .invalid on the end. That marks it as an
invalid address to any email software that should choose to look for it
(opening the possibility of the email software alerting the user that
they need to check the address) and also makes sure spammers don't spam
some unsuspecting domain.

--
Morten
Left To Themselves, Things Tend To Go From Bad To Worse. -- Murphys Law
?5