• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About lipi

  • Rank
    Veteran Groover

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling
  • Location California

Recent Profile Visitors

1,533 profile views
  1. Computer help

    It didn't lock your files--it just prevents you from running MS Office apps. You can still open, edit, etc. your files using the alternatives we suggested Google Docs & Sheets, OpenOffice, LibreOffice. Or, for that matter, you can open all of them in the default Apple applications for this purpose: Pages for Word docs, Numbers for Excel docs, Keynote for PowerPoint docs.
  2. Computer help

    In all likelihood, no. The copy protection scheme checks what hardware it's running on. If the machine is too different from the one it was originally installed on, it does not allow the software to run. FWIW, Google Docs will import Microsoft Office files and let you work on them. If your documents aren't too crazy complicated, it'll work just fine.
  3. Now reading...

    (Agreed on the opening line, too, of course.) I don't think I quite read it like that. Agreed he blames himself for making a poor choice of wife. Agreed that he abdicated on raising the girls (and I claim that's one of his foolish failings). I do think his lack of concern about a match of any kind is foolish. Yes, his wife's (and Lydia's) ideas of what makes a good match are wrong from our (and his) point of view, but his ignoring the issue completely is also silly. I haven't read the book in a while, but I don't recall Mrs. Bennet being particularly anti-Lizzie before the latter turns down Mr Collins. Was she? Did she incorrectly blame Lizzie for alienating Jane and Mr. Bingley? You lot have made me want to re-read Austen for the Nth time. Thank you.
  4. Now reading...

    Part of the appeal (or not) of Mr Bennett is that he is also kind of foolish: he fails to look after his daughters and mocks his wife mercilessly for wanting good matches for them.
  5. Now reading...

    I had to read that in high school, and I found it excruciatingly boring. My teacher claimed there are two kinds of readers for this book: those who find it boring beyond belief, and those who are impressed by how the author manages to convey mind-numbing boredom so convincingly. I suspect most of his students fell into the former camp, though he claimed to fall into the latter.
  6. I think at least some of the series has also been released on DVD. (I am fairly certain I have a bunch of them on DVD at home, but I'll have to double check to make sure. Many of these releases have awfully similar names, so I might be confusing them with others.) A quick Amazon search just confuses matter, as it finds a DVD, but with a cover that doesn't match the title--sigh. At least some of them are from a jazz show on WGN-TV in Chicago in the mid-sixties. (See here, for example: Whether they were broadcast in colour or B&W I do not know. The transition to colour happened in the mid-sixties in the US, but it was spread out over several years, with some networks doing it earlier than others. Small local stations were likely the last to go colour.
  7. Edmond Hall Quartet, "Petite Fleur". This one:
  8. There's this Memphis Archive thing, which seems to be stuff from 1924 to the early thirties (?): And this thing on HEP: And this Jazz Oracle thing: And a smattering of others. Any advice on where to start? I only have a handful of tracks on compilations, and the 1935 and 1937 transcription tracks on that Centennial Album (on the amusing named label "Vipers Nest Gold").
  9. I think saying that she didn't speak out because of her career is jumping to conclusions. Like I and several others have said a bunch of time in this thread, IT IS BLOODY DIFFICULT TO SPEAK OUT. That should not be such a hard concept to grasp. Is it possible she was emotionally fine and only kept silent for her career's sake? Sure. Should we assume that's the case and vilify her? Absolutely not. Not only because of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, but also because that narrative is, basically, "she was a bad victim, she could have done better". The absolutely last thing you want to broadcast to other victims (past and future) is that there is such a thing as a "bad victim" and that there is some fault in their actions. I suspect it will sound to some like I'm splitting hairs. In general, not speaking specifically to Paltrow's case here, there is a misplaced backlash against sexual assault and rape victims not speaking out. Sentiments like "(s)he should report it to the police, or otherwise the rapist will simply find other victims, and (s)he will be to blame" shows a profound lack of empathy. It somehow makes the victim responsible for someone else's future crimes. (Warning, rhetorical hyperbole incoming.) By that rationale, should all parents of criminals be locked up? I'm sure that divorce and growing up in poverty didn't help little Jackie Bankrobber grow up to be an upstanding citizen--throw the mom and dad in jail for not working harder in school and getting better jobs so Jackie wouldn't have had to grow up in such a crime-ridden ghetto! Ugh. Fuck all the Weinsteins of the world. With cactuses. Up their delicate rear holes. Now I'm angry and sad again. Time to play some jazz. I think Isham Jones, maybe. (Speaking of which...anyone have recommendations on good Isham Jones collections?)
  10. I think you're missing a subtlety here: Paltrow was harassed by Weinstein. Had she been an onlooker and seen someone else harassed by him, I'd agree with your "[she] looked the other way" reading, but she was not an onlooker, she was a victim. And what we've been trying to say is that it is incredibly difficult for victims to speak up (and again, speaking to one close friend or acquaintance is a million times easier than speaking to the police, or the public at large). Would it have been better in the long run for everybody if she had spoken up? Yes, probably--I agree with you on that. Can I blame her for not speaking up? No, because I don't know how awful the situation felt for her--I think that's where we are (perhaps) disagreeing.
  11. Ah, so if I do have a clue what I'm talking about, am I allowed to talk nonsense? You certainly seem to give yourself that leeway. This post is so far off the alt-right edge of crazy that I have a really hard time replying politely. It reminds me of arguments we had in sixth grade. What on earth are these "blunt, unfounded allegations" I allegedly made? That you agree with Trump? That you probably like the AfD? Given everything you've written, you seem like you do. If you don't you could simply politely say "actually, I think Trump is scum, and the AfD severely misguided and apparently hopelessly unaware of Germany's political history". Meanwhile, the thread has drifted again. It seems to have become a Steve-vs-the-World sort of thing. Let's try to bring it back where it was.
  12. My dear Steve, I wouldn't lecture too much about Central Europe if I were you. When did Switzerland get universal suffrage again? 1971. And that's federal only. You know when the last canton allowed women to vote in local elections? 1991. Wow. So progressive! No wonder everyone gets along so well! If the women just do as they're told and shut up then there's no cause for strife or concern, right? As for your "influx of real recent years"...I'm sure the AfD is pleased to have such a staunch supporter as you. Have you considered moving to the US? The current president has ideas you'd really like.
  13. You ignored my two paragraphs explaining how there absolutely *is* a good reason not to go around calling random women "honey" or "sweetie". I disagree with your statements in this thread almost entirely, so the all-caps "thank you" is, at best, wildly misleading. See JSngry and Scott Dolan's posts lower down making my point far better and more concisely. Or this comic, which tries to make the same point:
  14. Assuming this was a serious question, I will try to explain. (Note that this has relatively little to do with the origins of this thread. Weinstein wasn't calling anyone honey--he did (or is accused of, if you prefer) quite a bit more and a lot worse than that.) The waitress did not force you into a sexual act against your wishes. Therefore, there is no case for sexual assault. The waitress is not in a position of power over you. She cannot fire you, she cannot refuse you a bank loan, etc. She can spit in your coffee--that's about it. Therefore, there is no case for sexual harassment. What's left is being offended at being talked to like a child or a love/lust interest. And *there* your equivalency does not hold. If you have lived in a culture where men rape, assault, and generally oppress women on a regular basis, then as a woman you are far more likely to feel fear when talked to in a denigrating fashion. Especially since in all likelihood in your own past you have had someone call you (or if not you, your friend) "little lady" right before they grabbed your butt or other more intimate parts. All that said: if you do feel uncomfortable with your waitress calling you honey (and you're absolutely entitled to!), then would you feel comfortable telling her so? Would you have that conversation? Would you have that conversation with two others at your table? Would you have that conversation if you were in a bar filled with women, all taller, heavier, stronger, and more aggressive than you? What if instead of calling you "honey" she said "I can't wait to tear up that pretty little ass of you, little boy"? Let's not pretend this thread is about people being called "honey".
  15. I disagree that telling a person who might be a personal friend is the same as "getting the word out". The original point still stands: it's hard to talk about sexual abuse in general, and there's tremendous pressure not to. The whole "well, look at all these women suddenly talking, why didn't they talk before?" question is naive and, frankly, offensive. Catesta replied to a post in which page, I believe, was trying to say just this: "it's hard to talk about being sexual abused, and many people choose not to". Responding with "but Paltrow told this one guy and he said something about it to the perpetrator" doesn't negate that point. It merely shows the profound lack of understanding and empathy surrounding the issue. Apologies if I come across as harsh in this thread. It truly is rather upsetting to me to see some of the arguments people are making here. (And for the record, I despise Paltrow. I think she's an idiot who endangers women's health with her silly workshops and "Goop" line of products and her jade eggs and whatever else. And I am not making an argument about whether she spoke up or not, or about whether she was abused or not. This is about the lack of empathy displayed here for victims, or potential victims, of sexual abuse and the trials and tribulations they face.) Rant over. On a different note: jazz is great. I'm listening to some right now and it makes life better. (Right now Ella, 1938 recordings with Webb's orchestra. Great stuff.)