In this issue:
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Today in History - April 13
CHAT: "You make my heart beat faster!"
Re: CHAT: "You make my heart beat faster!"
CHAT: using STUMPERS-L for obscure information
Fw: Fw: WWI specialists out there?
CHAT: Frenchman's Creek
Re: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek
Re: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek
Titanic in the NYTimes
Re: Fw: WWI specialists out there?
Re: OT: WWI specialists out there?
RE: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek
Today in History - April 16
-----------------------------THE POSTS-----------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 23:25:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Rogers <jetan(at)ionet.net>
Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
At 11:50 PM 4/12/99 -0800,Bob Raven wrote:
>
>I should read all my messages before replying. In the U.S., an author's
>date of death has nothing to do with copyright term.
This is - excuse me, please - not correct, Bob. You are reciting the
U.S. law which was in effect until 1978. After 1978 (copyright act of '76),
the term was determined by life of the author plus 50 years (except in cases
of work composed for hire). As of the new, revised act, the term is life
plus 70. Stephen knows this stuff well, as he is often occupied with the
thankless task of reconciling....or failing to reconcile....U.S. stautes
with the Canadian and European terms. In order to determine copyright terms
in the U.S., one often has to examine three seperate statutes in ordeer to
determine which is applicable.
James
James Michael Rogers
jetan(at)ionet.net
Mundus Vult Decipi
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:26:28 -0800 From: Robert Raven <rraven(at)alaska.net> Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister James, Hmmmm . . . there is a significant confusion here. I quote below from the On-Line Books page, URL at bottom, pertaining to the lawsuit challenging the copyright extension law: "If the courts rule in favor of the plaintiffs, all works from 1923, will enter the public domain in the United States, and the public domain would continue to grow further every year. This will make many more books available for free on-line (and off-line) use." http://www.cs.cmu.edu/People/spok/booknews.html#cchallenge There are a substantial number of works available through Gutenberg and other sources of public domain material which, prior to the 1998 extension, do not meet the "death plus 50 years" criterion, but which became available on the basis of "publication plus 75 years". Perhaps someone can provide a clarification of this. The changes in the law, regardless of this confusion, were not made retroactive; therefore no material already in public domain was removed from it. RR
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 02:58:11 -0800 From: Robert Raven <rraven(at)alaska.net> Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister James, I did a little surfing the net, and came up with the following URL: http://www.bmb.com/ip/PubDomain.html This appears to antedate the recent 20-year extension of U.S. copyright protection, but aside from that, I believe the major provisions to be the same. The major point of clarification here seems to be that the "Life+50 years" provision applies to works CREATED after January 1, 1978. According to this information, anything published more than 75 years ago is in public domain. That date (January 1, 1923) has now been frozen for 20 years by the new law to extend the protection to 95 years, but not retroactively (it's a principle of public domain information that once something has entered public domain, it is there forever and cannot be re-copyrighted). So, as I read it, in the U.S., the "Life+50 years" provision is only 21 years old and therefore has never come into play. Bob Raven
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:29:05 +0300 From: cbishop(at)interlog.com (Carroll Bishop) Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister I hope the copyright-watch will keep us informed of what happens in the higher courts. It's not the kind of thing that hits page one in the newspapers. Carroll
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 07:31:56 -0700
From: Robert Birchard <bbirchard(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
Robert Raven wrote:
> (it's a principle of public domain
> information that once something has entered public domain, it is there
> forever and cannot be re-copyrighted).
Except, of course, under the latest copyright estension law through
which a number of foreign works (especailly films) that were either never
registererd for copyright, published with improper notice, or never renewed
under the old law have been allowed to be re-copyrighted.
There are also loopholes. "It's a Wonderful Life," the beloved Frank
Capra film was a flop on initial release and only became well-known in later
years because its big-director/big-star public domain status made it a
popular title among PD distributors.
The original negative was acquired by Republic Pictures (NTA) and
Republic even licensed the film as being in the public domain to several PD
dealers.
However the growing popularity of the film made it desirable to
recapture the copyright, so Republic went around the back door and made a
claim based on the music for the picture--their argument being that the
picture may be PD but the music is not , and therefore the picture must be
licensed--effectively eliminating it's PD status.
Never mind that the use of the music in the film is probably covered by
a synch rights license that extends in perpetuity (a common practice),
nobody wants to risk a lawsuit to test the principal.
The new law, and the futurew extensions that are sure to come as the 95
year ticks closer--are playing a mockery with the Constitutional concept of
public domain--and will in all probability keep marginally lucrative works
out of circulation in the future.
- --
Bob Birchard
bbirchard(at)earthlink.net
http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:10:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Rogers <jetan(at)ionet.net>
Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
At 02:58 AM 4/13/99 -0800, you wrote:
>James,
>
>I did a little surfing the net, and came up with the following URL:
>
>http://www.bmb.com/ip/PubDomain.html
>
>This appears to antedate the recent 20-year extension of U.S.
>copyright protection, but aside from that, I believe the major
>provisions to be the same. The major point of clarification here seems
>to be that the "Life+50 years" provision applies to works CREATED after
>January 1, 1978. According to this information, anything published more
>than 75 years ago is in public domain. That date (January 1, 1923) has
>now been frozen for 20 years by the new law to extend the protection to
>95 years, but not retroactively (it's a principle of public domain
>information that once something has entered public domain, it is there
>forever and cannot be re-copyrighted). So, as I read it, in the U.S.,
>the "Life+50 years" provision is only 21 years old and therefore has
>never come into play.
>
>Bob Raven
>
>
All this is essentially correct. Moreover, if the Congress continues to
tack on 20 year extentions (as they said they would not do at the time of
the 1976 extention) every time that Mickey Mouse looks threatened, it never
will come "into play".
Unfortunately, due to the fact that Gaslight is more or less an
international entity, with our most reponsible party having to conform to
Berne Convention standards, I believe that in terms of what we do and don't
get to distribute and read we have to have some cognizance of the author's
death date.
James
James Michael Rogers
jetan(at)ionet.net
Mundus Vult Decipi
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:18:33 +0300 From: cbishop(at)interlog.com (Carroll Bishop) Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister > The new law, and the futurew extensions that are sure to come as the 95 >year ticks closer--are playing a mockery with the Constitutional concept of >public domain--and will in all probability keep marginally lucrative works >out of circulation in the future. > >-- >Bob Birchard >bbirchard(at)earthlink.net >http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm Just what is the Constitutional concept of public domain? Sorry, that's undoubtedly a dumb question. I suppose the Internet would like to be able to publish everything (and often does with or without permission), but what about the rights of the writer, artist, whatever? Carroll Bishop
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 11:26:10 -0800 From: Robert Raven <rraven(at)alaska.net> Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister Robert Birchard wrote: > > Robert Raven wrote: > > > (it's a principle of public domain > > information that once something has entered public domain, it is there > > forever and cannot be re-copyrighted). > > Except, of course, under the latest copyright estension law through > which a number of foreign works (especailly films) that were either never > registererd for copyright, published with improper notice, or never renewed > under the old law have been allowed to be re-copyrighted. > > There are also loopholes. "It's a Wonderful Life," the beloved Frank > Capra film was a flop on initial release and only became well-known in later > years because its big-director/big-star public domain status made it a > popular title among PD distributors. > > The original negative was acquired by Republic Pictures (NTA) and > Republic even licensed the film as being in the public domain to several PD > dealers. > > However the growing popularity of the film made it desirable to > recapture the copyright, so Republic went around the back door and made a > claim based on the music for the picture--their argument being that the > picture may be PD but the music is not , and therefore the picture must be > licensed--effectively eliminating it's PD status. > > Never mind that the use of the music in the film is probably covered by > a synch rights license that extends in perpetuity (a common practice), > nobody wants to risk a lawsuit to test the principal. > > The new law, and the futurew extensions that are sure to come as the 95 > year ticks closer--are playing a mockery with the Constitutional concept of > public domain--and will in all probability keep marginally lucrative works > out of circulation in the future. > > -- > Bob Birchard > bbirchard(at)earthlink.net > http://www.mdle.com/ClassicFilms/Guest/birchard.htm Bob, Correct, of course. I was addressing literary works specifically; I should therefore have specified. And music is an entirely different animal. The real deleterious effect of this law seems to me to be in preventing the release to the public of a lot of work that will never be considered commercially viable in today's publishing market, and therefore will remain close to unobtainable. A substantial body of work exists out there in this condition, and even though it might not sell by the gazillions at the airport newsstands, there are a lot of people who would enjoy having it become available. Such work would get new life if released into the public domain. If the current law stands, virtually no literary work will be released into the public domain for the next two decades. Smaller publishers could benefit a lot from having work lapse into public domain in a reasonable way (a small publisher is challenging the law in court), but of course the politics of the thing are dominated by the big publishing conglomerates (it's fun sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom). To me, this copyright extension has implications on freedom of the press and freedom of information, and while the public in this country gets pretty fevered about freedom of guns, the freedom of speech and press issues seem to elicit a yawn. Bob Raven
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:35:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Rogers <jetan(at)ionet.net>
Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister
At 11:18 AM 4/13/99 +0300, Carrol Bishop wrote:
>
>
>
>Just what is the Constitutional concept of public domain? Sorry, that's
>undoubtedly a dumb question. I suppose the Internet would like to be
>able to publish everything (and often does with or without permission),
>but what about the rights of the writer, artist, whatever?
>
>
>Carroll Bishop
>
Not a dumb question. The Congress is authorized to secure the rights
of authors by establishing copyright protection "for limited times" thus
implying a public domain that lies outside that authorization. The
Constitution is silent on *how* limited.
James
James Michael Rogers
jetan(at)ionet.net
Mundus Vult Decipi
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 09:13:51 -0700 From: Patricia Teter <PTeter(at)getty.edu> Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister <laughing> I told you this was a dazed and confused mess! Bob Birchard wrote: <<Except, of course, under the latest copyright estension law through which a number of foreign works (especailly films) that were either never registererd for copyright, published with improper notice, or never renewed under the old law have been allowed to be re-copyrighted.>> Thanks to Bob Raven, Bob Birchard and James R. for elucidating on this mess. Well done! Since Sabatini did not die until ca. 1950, I had assumed he fell under the earlier law, which determined copyright according to date of death rather than publication, however, I see that is not the case...... I think. <g> My other comments applied to foreign works, as Bob Birchard states above. best regards, Patricia (I'm beginning to feel like we are all participants in a "Who's on first" routine!)
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 13:01:28 +0300 From: cbishop(at)interlog.com (Carroll Bishop) Subject: Re: Etext avail: five old etexts resurrected and Wister Thanks to all of you. I have been looking at all this through blinkered eyes since my parents wrote a children's book which was published in 1938 and goes from strength to strength. The copyright has been well protected, thank the gods and a superb copyright lawyer whom I met at a critical time. On the other hand, it occurs to me I or someone could now publish on the Internet my father's first children's book, which is certainly in the public domain by any standard. How do you do that if it's not in the Gaslight period? Carroll
===0===
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:58:46 -0600
From: Jerry Carlson <gmc(at)libra.pvh.org>
Subject: Today in History - April 13
1861
After 34 hours of bombardment, Union-held Fort Sumter
surrenders to Confederates.
1865
Union forces occupy Raleigh, N.C.
1902
J.C. Penny opens his first store in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
1919
British forces kill hundreds of Indian nationalists in the
Amritsar Massacre.
Born on April 13
1743
Thomas Jefferson, third American president and drafter of the
Declaration of
Independence
1852
Frank W. Woolworth, American retailer who owned a chain of
five-and-ten-cent
stores.
1866
Butch Cassidy [Robert LeRoy Parker], American western outlaw
and leader of the
Wild Bunch.
1899
Alfred Butts, inventor of the board game Scrabble
1906
Samuel Beckett, French playwright, Nobel Prize winner in
1969, for Waiting for
Godot
===0===
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:44:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Champ <rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu>
Subject: CHAT: "You make my heart beat faster!"
Hizzoner, ex-New York mayor Ed Koch, is sick
now and has even given up the gavel on his tv show,
"The People's Court," which he took over a few
years ago from the much-loved Judge Wapner (now
settling disputes involving animals).
Before he was stricken, however, Mayor Koch
managed to write a review (for the _Times_ of London)
of a recently published book on his favorite city:
_Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898_ by
Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace (_not_ the television
commentator).
Below you will find the essence of that of that review,
information I thought would interest Gaslighters.
Bob C.
1
Gotham was the name bestowed on Manhattan by Washington
Irving,who in an essay, called it the "antient city of
Gotham." Gotham means "Goats' Town in Anglo-Saxon.
[Bob Note: The English town of York, I have read, took
its name from "Eboracum," which means "boar's crossing."]
There is a village in Nottinghamshire by that name.
Gotham was also known as "a place of fable, its
inhabitants proverbial for their folly".
2.
Less than 50 per cent of New Yorkers living in the
city were born there.
3
New York consists of five separate jurisdictions -
Manhattan, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens and the
Bronx - that were joined to form New York City in
1898.
4.
During the American Revolutionary War, New York
City was a hotbed of Toryism.
More than half the population fled as the battle
for New York City was shaping up during the years
1774 to 1776, when it was captured by British General
Howe.
The city, because of its support for the English
monarchy, was called the "Gibraltar of North America".
In 1785 the city's population was roughly 24,000.
It is now seven and a half million.
5.
British General Clinton in 1779 issued a proclamation
promising "every Negro who shall desert the Rebell
Standdard full security to follow within these lines
any Occupation which he shall think Proper". They came
and formed the Royal African Regiment, the Ethiopian
Regiment and the Black Brigade in support of the English.
When Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington,
40,000 Tories went into exile, overwhelmingly to Canada,
as did 4,000 freed slaves.
George Washington commanded that those Negroes remaining
in New York City be returned to their former owners
and slavery.
6.
At the turn of the century (from eighteenth to nineteenth),
New York could claim that it had more banks than any other
city in America.
7.
There was a period when the capital of the United States
as well as the capital of the State of New York.
In 1789, the state moved its capital to Albany and in
1790 the federal capital was moved to Philadelphia.
8.
New York City's new City Hall, started in 1803 and
finished in 1812, was at the northern edge of the city -
then at Chambers Street. Since the city was not expected
to grow further, the front of the building was built of
marble and to save money the rear, which no one was expected
to observe, was surfaced with brick. It cost $500,000
when built, twice the original estimate.
9.
Another great story in Gotham is how Manhattan came to
be the centre of the current city with its five boroughs.
It is told in broad strokes but with sufficient detail
to make it an engrossing read.
Many residents, particularly in Brooklyn which was then
a city on its own, did not want to be drawn into
Manhattan's corrupt politics: there were several charter
consolidations approved by voters and disapproved by
the state legislature at the request of Brooklyn. But reason
prevailed: Brooklyn couldn't expand in population because
it had no additional water supplies; Manhattan had enough
water "to support four million people, or a million more
than the combined population of both Brooklyn and New York".
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Robert L. Champ
rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu
Editor, teacher, anglophile, human curiosity
Whatever things are pure, whatever things are
lovely, whatever things are of good report, if
there is any virtue and if there is anything
praiseworthy, meditate on these things
Philippians 4:8
rchamp7927(at)aol.com robertchamp(at)netscape.net
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
===0===
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 01:34:39 -0400 From: "J.M. Jamieson" <jjamieson(at)odyssey.on.ca> Subject: Re: CHAT: "You make my heart beat faster!" At 12:44 AM 14/04/1999 -0400, you wrote: > >Hizzoner, ex-New York mayor Ed Koch, is sick >now and has even given up the gavel on his tv show, >"The People's Court," which he took over a few >years ago from the much-loved Judge Wapner (now >settling disputes involving animals). Sick he may or may not be but the skinny on this was that Judge Judy's ratings beat Hizzoner's to a pulp. The replacement for Koch on "The People's Court" is none other than Judge Judy's husband. Both he and Judy got their start in the Courts as appointees of Hizzoner himself in his glory days. And so it goes.... >New York City's new City Hall, started in 1803 and >finished in 1812, was at the northern edge of the city - >then at Chambers Street. Since the city was not expected >to grow further, the front of the building was built of >marble and to save money the rear, which no one was expected >to observe, was surfaced with brick. It cost $500,000 >when built, twice the original estimate. My New York loft is on Warren Street which runs east and west off West Broadway and is 1 block south of Chambers which in itself was built on an old cemetary. I don't get back to the old neigbourhood as much as I would like but I lived there full-time when Ed was mayor. City Hall is at the end of Warren Street which is really just 3 blocks long. Delighful times. If I remember correctly Hizzoner was living in a rent controlled apartment in the West Village costing around $400.00 a month (as the rumours went) when he wasn't living it up in Gracie Mansion. The architect of the above mention half a million dollar City Hall was French, his name was Joseph F. Mangin, and he won the competition for it's design and a prize of $350.00 dollars. It was restored in 1956 at a cost of $2 million dollars. It was New York's 3rd City Hall. The first, established by the Dutch in 1653, was in a former tavern on Pearl Street. Altogether a fine tradition. Mac ?1999
===0===
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:28:06 -0600 From: sdavies(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA Subject: CHAT: using STUMPERS-L for obscure information Thanks to Linda A. for pointing out this DorothyL post and to Dan Goodman for permission to repost: >Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 01:00:07 -0500 >From: Dan Goodman <dsgood(at)VISI.COM> >Subject: Help With a Quote request >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII > >If there's a good public library near you (and you can wait till >Monday), go there and ask for help finding the quote. > >If that doesn't work, try asking on the Stumpers list: >Stumpers-L(at)crf.cuis.edu. Stumpers is a list primarily for library >personnel who've been faced with questions they can't answer with >their own resources. But non-librarians are allowed. (I'm a member, >and I don't even play a librarian on television.) You don't have to >join to ask a question; but you'll need to ask that answers be emailed >to you rather than just to the list. > >My website has a link to the Stumpers archives. Information available >there includes citations for a number of quotes; where to find prices >of various goods in the past; and other useful stuff. It also >includes sources of clothing and patterns for plaster geese, among >other questions which I find odd. > >Dan Goodman >dsgood(at)visi.com >http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html >
===0===
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 18:25:54 -0400 From: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> Subject: Fw: Fw: WWI specialists out there? - -----Original Message----- From: isquires(at)mindspring.com <isquires(at)mindspring.com> To: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Fw: WWI specialists out there? > For Hellfire try: http://www.fylde.demon.co.uk. > > For Great War Society try: http://www.mcs.com/~mikei/tgw/ >-----Original Message----- >From: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> >To: Buck Squires <ISquires(at)mindspring.com> >Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 11:05 AM >Subject: Fw: Fw: WWI specialists out there? > > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Chris Carlisle <CarlislC(at)psychiatry.wustl.edu> >>To: lsquires(at)mindspring.com <lsquires(at)mindspring.com> >>Cc: jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> >>Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 10:13 AM >>Subject: Re: Fw: WWI specialists out there? >> >> >>Friends, neither of these URLs worked for me. Could there be >>typos lurking therein? >> >>Kiwi >> >>>>> JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> 04/12/99 07:56PM >>> >>Kiwi, >> RE: your highlander question, my brother suggested the following. >>Best, >>John Squires >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: isquires(at)mindspring.com <isquires(at)mindspring.com> >>To: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> >>Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 6:45 PM >>Subject: Re: WWI specialists out there? >> >> >>>Have her try the Great War Society >>>www.mcs.com/~mikeiltggws/ >>>or >>>Hellfire corner >>>www.fyde.demon.co.uk/welcome.htm#contents >>> >>>Each has chat rooms that should help out. >>> >>> Bucko >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> >>>To: Buck Squires <ISquires(at)mindspring.com> >>>Cc: Misty D Squires <SquiresM(at)meredith.edu>; Jett, Pat >>><Pat.Jett(at)experian.com> >>>Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 10:13 AM >>>Subject: Fw: WWI specialists out there? >>> >>> >>>>Buck, >>>> Gaslight is a literary discussion group I subscribe to. Know what >>>>she's talking about? >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Chris Carlisle <CarlislC(at)psychiatry1.wustl.edu> >>>>To: Gaslight(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA <Gaslight(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA> >>>>Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 10:01 AM >>>>Subject: OT: WWI specialists out there? >>>> >>>> >>>>>Can any of you folks who know a lot about WWI or 20th Century >>>>>military history direct me to someone who'd know about the Scots >>>>>troops in WWI? I'm trying to find the source and a complete >>>>>version of a supposedly offensive quotation about the Jocks >>>>>"skiting too much". >>>>> >>>>>Kiwi Carlisle >>>>>carlislc(at)psychiatry.wustl.edu >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > >
===0===
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 09:32:34 -0700 From: Patricia Teter <PTeter(at)getty.edu> Subject: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek I saw an ad last night for Frenchman's Creek which will be televised in the US in May, I believe. Is this Quiller- Couch's Frenchman's Creek, or something else? best regards, Patricia
===0===
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:08:00 +0300 From: cbishop(at)interlog.com (Carroll Bishop) Subject: Re: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek >I saw an ad last night for Frenchman's Creek which will >be televised in the US in May, I believe. Is this Quiller- >Couch's Frenchman's Creek, or something else? > >best regards, >Patricia Likely Daphne DuMaurier's. Carroll
===0===
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:14:02 -0700 From: Patricia Teter <PTeter(at)getty.edu> Subject: Re: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek Caroll wrote: <<Likely Daphne DuMaurier's.>> Ah, yes, makes more sense.... for television that is. Thanks. Patricia
===0===
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Champ <rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu>
Subject: Titanic in the NYTimes
The New York Times website has a regular feature dedicated to past events
as written and photographs by Times journalists. The feature is very much
along the lines of the "100 years ago today" sections you sometimes see in
the columns of smaller papers, except that the Times, at least on the web,
is much more lavish. Today's feature (April 16) shows the blaring headlines
in the newspaper as it announced the sinking of the Titanic. There is
also a photo of Captain Smith. A readable text of the lead article is
also enclosed (though how fully I don't know). If you'd like to take a
look, the URL is
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/990415onthisday_big.ht
Bob C.
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Robert L. Champ
rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu
Editor, teacher, anglophile, human curiosity
Whatever things are pure, whatever things are
lovely, whatever things are of good report, if
there is any virtue and if there is anything
praiseworthy, meditate on these things
Philippians 4:8
rchamp7927(at)aol.com robertchamp(at)netscape.net
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
===0===
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 23:30:59 -0700 (PDT) From: charles king <lit57(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Fw: WWI specialists out there? Yes, A reply from lurkdom. Just breezing through the messages, and had a thought, okay maybe it's a "der" thought, but it's a thought nonetheless. Have you searched through the Clans themselves, on the web or locally where you are. The Scot's are ripe on keeping track of things, especially things dealing with war, and whom shot who. (who/who?) Good hunting. cking ps: If it ain't Scottish, it's crap. >From: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> >Reply-To: gaslight(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA >To: Gaslight <Gaslight(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA> >Subject: Fw: WWI specialists out there? >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 20:56:45 -0400 > >Kiwi, > RE: your highlander question, my brother suggested the following. >Best, >John Squires > >-----Original Message----- >From: isquires(at)mindspring.com <isquires(at)mindspring.com> >To: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> >Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 6:45 PM >Subject: Re: WWI specialists out there? > > >>Have her try the Great War Society >>www.mcs.com/~mikeiltggws/ >>or >>Hellfire corner >>www.fyde.demon.co.uk/welcome.htm#contents1 >> >>Each has chat rooms that should help out. >> >> Bucko >>-----Original Message----- >>From: JDS Books <jdsbooks(at)ameritech.net> >>To: Buck Squires <ISquires(at)mindspring.com> >>Cc: Misty D Squires <SquiresM(at)meredith.edu>; Jett, Pat >><Pat.Jett(at)experian.com> >>Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 10:13 AM >>Subject: Fw: WWI specialists out there? >> >> >>>Buck, >>> Gaslight is a literary discussion group I subscribe to. Know what >>>she's talking about? >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Chris Carlisle <CarlislC(at)psychiatry1.wustl.edu> >>>To: Gaslight(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA <Gaslight(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA> >>>Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 10:01 AM >>>Subject: OT: WWI specialists out there? >>> >>> >>>>Can any of you folks who know a lot about WWI or 20th Century >>>>military history direct me to someone who'd know about the Scots >>>>troops in WWI? I'm trying to find the source and a complete >>>>version of a supposedly offensive quotation about the Jocks >>>>"skiting too much". >>>> >>>>Kiwi Carlisle >>>>carlislc(at)psychiatry.wustl.edu >>>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
===0===
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:22:20 -0500 From: Chris Carlisle <CarlislC(at)psychiatry1.wustl.edu> Subject: Re: OT: WWI specialists out there? Just an update to let interested parties know how this inquiry is progressing. It is and it isn't. Nothing about this appears in any regimental history (though they DO tend to omit the bad stuff, I found a book on the Black Watch which does not). So far, the best suggestion is a conjecture that the full quote is "they skite too much and fight too little", which makes much sense. I'll TRY the Gathering of the Clans web site, but the folks on the History page there tend to be more inclined to chat about their personal lives than to discuss history. :-( Kiwi Carlisle (of the Border family Carlisle, a sept of Bruce) >>> charles king <lit57(at)hotmail.com> 04/16/99 01:30AM >>> Yes, A reply from lurkdom. Just breezing through the messages, and had a thought, okay maybe it's a "der" thought, but it's a thought nonetheless. Have you searched through the Clans themselves, on the web or locally where you are. The Scot's are ripe on keeping track of things, especially things dealing with war, and whom shot who. (who/who?) Good hunting. cking ps: If it ain't Scottish, it's crap.
===0===
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:33:44 -0400 From: "Marcella, Michelle E" <MMARCELLA(at)PARTNERS.ORG> Subject: RE: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek it is DuMaurier's. Her son just recently completed a production of it for, I think, British TV. > -----Original Message----- > From: Patricia Teter [SMTP:PTeter(at)getty.edu] > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 1999 3:14 PM > To: gaslight(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA > Subject: Re: CHAT: Frenchman's Creek > > Caroll wrote: <<Likely Daphne DuMaurier's.>> > > Ah, yes, makes more sense.... for television > that is. Thanks. > > Patricia
===0===
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 12:46:13 -0600
From: Jerry Carlson <gmc(at)libra.pvh.org>
Subject: Today in History - April 16
1818
U.S. Senate ratifies Rush-Bagot amendment to form an unarmed
U.S.-Canada border.
1854
San Salvador is destroyed by an earthquake.
1862
Confederate President Jefferson Davis approves conscription
act for white males
between 18 and 35.
1862
Slavery is abolished in the District of Columbia.
1917
Vladimir Lenin returns to Russia to start Bolshevik
Revolution.
Born on April 16
1864
Flora Batson, soprano baritone singer
1867
Wilbur Wright, designer, builder and flyer of first airplane
1871
John Millington Synge, dramatist and poet Playboy of the
Western World
1889
Charlie Chaplin, silent movie actor best remembered for his
character *Little Tramp.*
------------------------------
End of Gaslight Digest V1 #63
*****************************