Images Thread 18

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Bob Schroeck]

Here's something I want a little help with.  My sister Nancy just texted me the image below, saying she got it on Facebook and it's a group of kids done up as the cast of M*A*S*H:

   

However, it only took me a few minutes' looking to realize that someone actually took an existing early publicity still for the show and digitally de-aged everyone in it:

   

(Except maybe Larry Linville -- his "kid face" isn't oriented quite the same way as his adult face is.)

The interesting thing is I can't find any copies of the the "kid version" on the Web, at least not with a quick Google Image search.  Apparently this is living solely on Facebook (which Google images doesn't catalog?  I just realized I don't remember ever seeing an image link to Facebook...).  I told my sister I'd try to find the source but I'm drawing a blank.  Anyone else see this before and maybe know who created it?

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[classicdrogn]

I thought the cardiologist was the one who lays out a tarot spread for a non-invasive diagnosis of how you were, are, and without intervention will become? Though talking about my love life is pretty invasive if you ask me!

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Bob Schroeck]

Did another dive for more info, and wow. This one has quite an odd and frankly weird backstory to it. No one knows who made this cartoon. Read more here.

[hazard]

Regarding this list.

Very noisy is not the same as deafening. 'Deafening' means it literally makes you less capable of hearing temporarily or permanently. Very noisy can just means there is enough noise, which needs not be loud, to make it hard to hear specific sounds.
Very often is not the same as frequently. Frequently means that something happens regularly. It is common that something that is described to happen frequently to happen very often, but something can happen very often without happening regularly.
Very old can mean ancient. Ancient can also mean 'much older than something you would describe as very old', or refer to things from specific times.
'Old-fashioned' and 'archaic' are, in the context you'd use 'old-fashioned' in, actually synonyms.
I'm sure that the transparent cloth spun across the doorway you can see right through means the doorway is very open, I mean, it's not as if you walk into it, right?
Okay, 'excruciating' is being used properly here.
While ashes and ash wood are usually very pale, they do not have to be. Not all combustion processes produce a pale ash, and ash wood can be dyed, lacquered or stained.
Something that is flawless is without flaw. This can be perfect. But it can also be exactly what you do not want, in which case it's not perfect. And as it also happens, if you are using 'flawless' to indicate 'perfect', the words are synonymous.
Destitute can indicate an extreme degree of poverty. But there's a difference between 'very poor' and 'destitute', even if the difference is not large. Someone who is very poor may be lacking many things, but 'destitute' would indicate a near enough complete lack of everything.
I'm sure a very powerful argument or a strong man swinging a hammer can be compelling, but something doesn't need to be powerful to be compelling.
'Beautiful' is in most contexts a valid replacement for 'very pretty'. But I'm not sure I would use 'beautiful' the same way I would use 'pretty' when describing pleasing quantities of, say, money.
Rapid is likewise being properly used.
Something that is 'very quiet' may have been made more quiet, but 'hushed' is very much 'having made or entreated something to be more quiet'.
While 'pouring' can mean 'very rainy', and I'm sure if I'm pouring a bucket of water out it can be mistaken as 'very rainy', a 'very rainy day' is not the same as 'it was pouring that day'. One can describe a day where rain of some kind was a distinct feature for most of the day, whereas the other can describe a relatively short shower.
While 'being wealthy' can mean 'being rich', and this may just being the Dutchman in me, there is a distinct difference between 'having lots of money and thus being rich' and 'being prosperous without necessarily having lots of money', which English does not seem to distinguish between.
Sorrowful is being properly used.
Aside the literal meaning of 'being turned to stone', 'petrified' can also mean 'being so afraid one cannot act'. One can still be very scared indeed without being unable to act. Admittedly, such levels of fear are often accurately identified as 'pants shitting'.
Unless you are talking temperature, chilling is being used properly.
Grave is being used properly.
Aside from 'keen' being a way to describe enthusiasm, it's also synonymous with 'sharp', so...
In the contexts you'd use 'gleaming' to describe things that are shiny, they'd be synonymous.
If we are talking spans of time, instructions or letters brief is being used here. Less so if we are talking physical objects that are not short messages.
To be lacking in confidence, determination, boldness or courage is not the same as avoiding things. One is often at the root of the other, but not the same.
Aside the whole chemistry definition of basic, that which is fundamental is not the same as that which is simple.


Words, they mean things. And somebody who follows that list without thinking uses those words very badly.

[classicdrogn]

Oh, but haven't you heard? Words literally mean whatever the person saying them thinks they mean. All the best dictionaries agree!

[robkelk]

'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.'

[Norgarth]

[hazard]

Sounds like an excellent example of a bard casting a spell on undead/does bardic magic to me.

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[Norgarth]

[hazard]

As had the Dutch, 2 centuries before them, as had the Romans, 2 millennia before the Dutch, and at the same time as the Greeks of Athens.

And that's just off the top off my head, and presuming we are talking about 'the king is stupid, we can do it better ourselves'. Really, even the British had told the kings of England multiple times they were stupid, to at least at one point offing the then reigning monarch and replacing him with a government focusing less power in the fellow on top.

[Norgarth]