A cascading cornucopia of cool comics, crazy cartoons, & classic collectables - plus other completely captivating & occasionally controversial contents. With nostalgic notions, sentimental sighings, wistful wonderings, remorseful ruminations, melancholy musings, rueful reflections, poignant ponderings, & yearnings for yesteryear. (And a few profound perplexities, puzzling paradoxes, & a bevy of big, beautiful, bedazzling, buxom Babes to round it all off.)
Tuesday, 21 April 2015
SEAN CONNERY ON WHAT'S MY LINE...
WHAT'S MY LINE? Surely the answer to that is "My name's Bond... James Bond!"? Take a look at this clip - it's pretty obvious that the panel knew who it was all along, as there's nothing 'Big Tam' says that gives his identity away in the slightest.
34 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I suspect the show was always rigged, at least in the segments with the mystery/celebrity guests. Arlene Francis always guessed the person's identity, with absolutely no hints or clues whatever.
I watched a bit of the British version once, and it was clear from the 'guesses' that Ernie Wise (a well-known comedian over here) was coming out with, that he knew who the 'mystery' guest was all along. Manufactured entertainment, eh?
Who do you two think you're kidding? next you'll be claiming that, Wrestling with Ken Walton was fixed and that Kendo Nagasaki wasn't the finest exponent of Japanese martial arts ever.
What a fascinating clip, Kid - yes, I agree there's no way in a million years they could have guessed it was Sean Connery. Barry Norman was obviously a big fan of Connery - he called him "Britain's only movie star" and said that Connery was the only film star he'd ever met who was as imposing in real life as he appeared on screen !
Apparently Sean Connery also once said he would hit a woman "if she deserved it" - I saw a clip of him being interviewed recently on American TV where he's asked if he regrets saying that and he replies "no". Nobody can accuse him of trying to be politically correct !
So would I, CJ - if she deserved it. I'm not talking about her burning the toast, but if I was attacked by a woman intent on doing me harm and I had to administer a slap (or a punch) to defend myself, I would. There's that many 'ladettes' these days who are perfectly capable of inflicting damage on a person, that a man is perfectly entitled to protect himself, even if it involves physical action. Women can't claim equality only when it suits them, I feel. If some battleaxe tried to crack a bottle over my head, she'd get put on her @rse.
I wouldn't have any qualms about defending myself either, Kid. I suspect a lot of women do want equality when it suits them - they still expect a man to give up his seat and would expect to be first in the lifeboat on a sinking ship. I've heard feminist types say that women's issues are ignored but look at how much media coverage breast cancer gets to how little coverage testicle or prostate cancer gets for example.
Some feminists are always bleating on about women's issues being ignored, CJ. That's because they think everything should revolve around them. Same as certain other groups who won't be happy until their concerns, wants, desires and demands are at the top of the list and dominate society's attention.
Sometimes you will hear statistics to "prove" discrimination. For example, "Women are over 50% of the population, but only 25% of medical research goes to women's health issues, like breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and pregnancy complications." Well, yes, but males are over 40% of the population, and only about 15% of medical research goes for male-specific problems, like prostate cancer. About 60% goes for problems that can affect both males and females, e.g., lung cancer, AIDS, and diabetes.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Politicians and activists know how to make the truth lie for them.
TC, I once read a book called 'How to lie with Statistics' and it was very interesting. For example, say someone was to claim that a smaller percentage of couples are having children today than in 1960. (I don't know if anyone's actually claiming that, I'm just using it as an example.) The suggestion being that there are less children around today than back then. However, a smaller percentage of today's population far exceeds a larger percentage of the population in 1960, so the truth is used to claim a lie. Something that politicians in particular are extremely good at.
Believe it or not, I was half-listening to a programme on BBC's Radio 4 a couple of days ago and my ears perked up when I heard someone claim that, according to some recent study or other, gay parents are better than traditional ones. Quite apart from the fact that those who make such claims are usually pursuing an agenda and tend to see what they want to, that heavily prejudicial conclusion was no doubt arrived at with the help of 'statistics'. Quite ignoring the fact, of course, that, statistically, gay parents are yet in a minority so it was hardly an equivalent comparison.
If you want a starter on statistical manipulation, you might want to look up Simpson's Paradox. The effect that causes that paradox is routinely exploited by politicians and others with pressing agendas and no scruples. I'm not sure I could emulate Sean though, that slap could get you into real deep trouble. I wouldn't be cool enough to dispense physical admonishment in the judicial manner he described either.
That study sounds like it started out with the goal of proving that gays are better parents, and then cherry-picked findings to support the conclusion.
Heterosexual intercourse can result in pregnancy, intentionally or unintentionally. Homosexual intercourse cannot. Gay parents, therefore, intentionally chose to have children, one way or another (adoption, artificial insemination).
If you lump all "straight" parents into one group, it will include unwanted, accidental pregnancies along with the planned ones. Therefore, it might be possible to cook up statistics, e.g., "15% of heterosexual parents abuse or neglect their children, but only 5% of gay parents do." But if you compare the gay couples only to straight couples who chose to have children (planned pregnancies, adoption), the percentages might be about the same.
And, as you point out, the number of gay parents is, at present, too small for an adequate database.
Another case of, "These are the conclusions upon which I base my facts."
If you are interested google panelist Dorothy Kilgallen for an interesting read. Her journalism was linked to Kennedy assassination cover up and her suspicious death.
DSE, I think Connery was a bit cavalier in his reasons for slapping a woman - I wouldn't agree with him there. However, it must be remembered that he was talking in a time when it was considered okay for women to slap men, which is surely just as bad. For my own part, I'm talking about a situation where a woman is attacking me in the same way that a guy would and there's no other alternative to defending myself.
******
And, of course, TC, 15% of heterosexual parents is a far greater number than the same percentage of gay parents, so it's not a balanced comparison. Statistics, eh?
I'm sure that when Sean said he would hit a woman, he was referring to, if she was getting hysterical, he would put her over his lap and give her bottom a damn good slapping! I mean, that's the only way to deal with them, right? ( and you know something? - they actually LIKE it!! )
Actually, he was mainly referring to when a woman just wouldn't let an argument go, even when she'd already had the last word, then he considered a slap acceptable. Of course, he was likely meaning when she was being vicious and 'in your face', finger jabbing and perhaps even taking slaps at the man, but like I said, this was in an age when some women routinely resorted to slapping their men during an argument, so it his remarks should be seen in context.
Well, I've seen big John Wayne tame many a fiery-tempered woman by putting them over his knee and giving their cute botties a damn good smacking and they always quietened down, so I believe it's the only way to deal with women! Are you with me on that?
In our native culture, women are not charged with the same expectations of restraint as males. As a consequence it's not unusual to encounter behaviour from adult women, that would put you or I beyond the pale. I don't think I've ever seen, from men the sort of casual recourse to extreme behaviour, including physical assault, that I've witnessed from women without them incurring some kind of social sanction. It's not uniform, either across cultures or within this one, there are a great many mature adult women but they don't cause the trouble do they? Personally, if a scary women starts up trouble, I'm outa there, quicker than you can say, sexual equality, because it wont be her up before the beak trying to explain away the bruises, it'll be you, even if you just grabbed her wrists to stop her breaking your face.
I think we have come a long way from when it was lawful for a husband to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb, three times on the body but not the head! Thankfully the old Bill take domestic abuse a bit more seriously now.
Re what Colin said about breast cancer getting more publicity and funding for research / treatment. Unfortunately this is partly due some men being still too embarrassed to discuss any issues they are having around the old cod piece. Thankfully the likes of prostrate and testicular cancer are now getting more money put to finding a cure and improving self screening programmes etc. John Hartson, the football pundit said he looked at two lumps on his testicles for years before illness finally pushed him towards getting treatment. The guy nearly died because of the macho big boys don' t cry mindset that still prevails amongst some young men in society. Before my uncle died from testicular cancer he told me to get checks done. I have done so taking advantage of the NHS screening at my local GPs. Take my advice and take five minutes every 2 years to do a blood test. That is the end of my public service announcement!
Women, eh? Can't live with them - can't shoot them! Do you know why husbands die before wives? Because they WANT to.
******
There is a double standard in operation 'though. Women's Hour? No Men's Hour. Joking aside, men aren't allowed to have men only workout classes at my local sports centre, women are. Typical women's approach - "We should be allowed to be in there with the men because we're as good as they are!" But when they don't want men around, they're whims are indulged. This equality lark doesn't seem equal to me.
I think it's probably fair enough if women are uncomfortable with the prospect of exercising in mixed company that they should be afforded the opportunity to do so in exclusive sessions. I would expect some reciprocal accommodation for considerations exclusive to male clients too though, I'm just not sure what they would be.
Mmmm, I'm not sure, the problem is that we're not equal, we're different aren't we? There's a broad tendency to asses individuals according to whatever category is convenient to assign them to, in a particular context. It's like that guy recently who said women are bad at chess, it's true but it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to beat every woman at chess and it would be no excuse to deny the talents of any women who happened to be good at it. Incidentally I'm really bad at chess but occasionally, when I'm in form, I can put up a decent contest.
Sure if there is a genuine need to be considered, reasonable people will accommodate it. Women might feel self conscious in the presence of males while exercising. If men feel the same way, they should be extended the same courtesy, I'm just not sure that is realistic. What I see as an issue of contention is that considerations exclusive to men are routinely deprecated, for instance: the new Wembley Stadium has equal accommodation for male and female toilet facilities, despite the fact that 98% of the spectators are male. Such aberrations are borne from the pedantic application of ideology, something that is anathema to the practical considerations of reality.
A great deal of truth in what you say, DSE, but it's the principle of equality I'm addressing. The notion of women who aren't comfortable exercising in front of men stems from the idea that all men are perverts and potential rapists who will be eyeing up these women as they work out. You can't say that segregation of the sexes in a public sports centre (toilets and changing rooms apart, that is) is a 'bad' thing then make exceptions to it in order to cater to a mad bunch of feminists who want to have their cake and eat it.
Perhaps the best thing to do is just have all women classes and all men classes - then everyone IS being treated the same. That's equality, isn't it?
You highlight a point there about the assumption that leads all males to be treated as sexual offenders. That's a tricky issue, made trickier by the dishonest, manipulation practised by those promoting agendas. Agendas either grounded in personal malice or rationalised as part of an ideology in conflict with reality. Enduring sexual assault is no fun, no fun at all and it's reasonable for those who wish to avoid that experience to take steps to protect themselves, that includes the assumption of the threat posed by males as a group. What that's not an excuse for is -consistently- treating all males, in every context, as if they were rapists. This is where those dishonest people promoting their agendas make their entrance and unfortunately they've been largely successful. That's bad news for all of us because if we can't draw that distinction, the one between individuals who employ threats and violence and those who don't then not only that create an injustice, it gives licence to those who do offend to continue offending. Do you recall those per capita punishments that used to be so popular at School, Jimmy Watkins threw chalk at the teacher, so the whole class would have to stay behind, didn't stop Jimmy causing mayhem did it?
Indeed not, DSE. I was once in such a situation - as was the whole class. Someone threw a rubber (eraser) at the board and the teacher kept the whole class in at dinner time. I eventually protested because my mother would've had my dinner on and it would've been wasted if I didn't turn up. That Jimmy Watkins was a real pain, eh?
34 comments:
I suspect the show was always rigged, at least in the segments with the mystery/celebrity guests. Arlene Francis always guessed the person's identity, with absolutely no hints or clues whatever.
-TC
I watched a bit of the British version once, and it was clear from the 'guesses' that Ernie Wise (a well-known comedian over here) was coming out with, that he knew who the 'mystery' guest was all along. Manufactured entertainment, eh?
Who do you two think you're kidding? next you'll be claiming that, Wrestling with Ken Walton was fixed and that Kendo Nagasaki wasn't the finest exponent of Japanese martial arts ever.
You mean the wrestling was fixed? Well, I never!
Well there is a rumour that when Kendo used to pull his hypnosis move, that they were just acting, but I don't believe it myself.
Nah, someone's pulling your leg (wrestling joke). They were all vicious hardmen who were serious about their craft.
What a fascinating clip, Kid - yes, I agree there's no way in a million years they could have guessed it was Sean Connery. Barry Norman was obviously a big fan of Connery - he called him "Britain's only movie star" and said that Connery was the only film star he'd ever met who was as imposing in real life as he appeared on screen !
No mean feat for a man with such sparse hair, CJ.
Apparently Sean Connery also once said he would hit a woman "if she deserved it" - I saw a clip of him being interviewed recently on American TV where he's asked if he regrets saying that and he replies "no". Nobody can accuse him of trying to be politically correct !
So would I, CJ - if she deserved it. I'm not talking about her burning the toast, but if I was attacked by a woman intent on doing me harm and I had to administer a slap (or a punch) to defend myself, I would. There's that many 'ladettes' these days who are perfectly capable of inflicting damage on a person, that a man is perfectly entitled to protect himself, even if it involves physical action. Women can't claim equality only when it suits them, I feel. If some battleaxe tried to crack a bottle over my head, she'd get put on her @rse.
I wouldn't have any qualms about defending myself either, Kid. I suspect a lot of women do want equality when it suits them - they still expect a man to give up his seat and would expect to be first in the lifeboat on a sinking ship. I've heard feminist types say that women's issues are ignored but look at how much media coverage breast cancer gets to how little coverage testicle or prostate cancer gets for example.
Some feminists are always bleating on about women's issues being ignored, CJ. That's because they think everything should revolve around them. Same as certain other groups who won't be happy until their concerns, wants, desires and demands are at the top of the list and dominate society's attention.
Sometimes you will hear statistics to "prove" discrimination. For example, "Women are over 50% of the population, but only 25% of medical research goes to women's health issues, like breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and pregnancy complications." Well, yes, but males are over 40% of the population, and only about 15% of medical research goes for male-specific problems, like prostate cancer. About 60% goes for problems that can affect both males and females, e.g., lung cancer, AIDS, and diabetes.
Figures don't lie, but liars figure. Politicians and activists know how to make the truth lie for them.
TC, I once read a book called 'How to lie with Statistics' and it was very interesting. For example, say someone was to claim that a smaller percentage of couples are having children today than in 1960. (I don't know if anyone's actually claiming that, I'm just using it as an example.) The suggestion being that there are less children around today than back then. However, a smaller percentage of today's population far exceeds a larger percentage of the population in 1960, so the truth is used to claim a lie. Something that politicians in particular are extremely good at.
Believe it or not, I was half-listening to a programme on BBC's Radio 4 a couple of days ago and my ears perked up when I heard someone claim that, according to some recent study or other, gay parents are better than traditional ones. Quite apart from the fact that those who make such claims are usually pursuing an agenda and tend to see what they want to, that heavily prejudicial conclusion was no doubt arrived at with the help of 'statistics'. Quite ignoring the fact, of course, that, statistically, gay parents are yet in a minority so it was hardly an equivalent comparison.
If you want a starter on statistical manipulation, you might want to look up Simpson's Paradox. The effect that causes that paradox is routinely exploited by politicians and others with pressing agendas and no scruples. I'm not sure I could emulate Sean though, that slap could get you into real deep trouble. I wouldn't be cool enough to dispense physical admonishment in the judicial manner he described either.
That study sounds like it started out with the goal of proving that gays are better parents, and then cherry-picked findings to support the conclusion.
Heterosexual intercourse can result in pregnancy, intentionally or unintentionally. Homosexual intercourse cannot. Gay parents, therefore, intentionally chose to have children, one way or another (adoption, artificial insemination).
If you lump all "straight" parents into one group, it will include unwanted, accidental pregnancies along with the planned ones. Therefore, it might be possible to cook up statistics, e.g., "15% of heterosexual parents abuse or neglect their children, but only 5% of gay parents do." But if you compare the gay couples only to straight couples who chose to have children (planned pregnancies, adoption), the percentages might be about the same.
And, as you point out, the number of gay parents is, at present, too small for an adequate database.
Another case of, "These are the conclusions upon which I base my facts."
If you are interested google panelist Dorothy Kilgallen for an interesting read. Her journalism was linked to Kennedy assassination cover up and her suspicious death.
Ken.
DSE, I think Connery was a bit cavalier in his reasons for slapping a woman - I wouldn't agree with him there. However, it must be remembered that he was talking in a time when it was considered okay for women to slap men, which is surely just as bad. For my own part,
I'm talking about a situation where a woman is attacking me in the same way that a guy would and there's no other alternative to defending myself.
******
And, of course, TC, 15% of heterosexual parents is a far greater number than the same percentage of gay parents, so it's not a balanced comparison. Statistics, eh?
******
Thanks, Ken, I'll search that one out.
I'm sure that when Sean said he would hit a woman, he was referring to, if she was getting hysterical, he would put her over his lap and give her bottom a damn good slapping! I mean, that's the only way to deal with them, right?
( and you know something? - they actually LIKE it!! )
Actually, he was mainly referring to when a woman just wouldn't let an argument go, even when she'd already had the last word, then he considered a slap acceptable. Of course, he was likely meaning when she was being vicious and 'in your face', finger jabbing and perhaps even taking slaps at the man, but like I said, this was in an age when some women routinely resorted to slapping their men during an argument, so it his remarks should be seen in context.
Well, I've seen big John Wayne tame many a fiery-tempered woman by putting them over his knee and giving their cute botties a damn good smacking and they always quietened down, so I believe it's the only way to deal with women! Are you with me on that?
I'm up for it if the woman is. Unfortunately, I'm no John Wayne.
In our native culture, women are not charged with the same expectations of restraint as males. As a consequence it's not unusual to encounter behaviour from adult women, that would put you or I beyond the pale. I don't think I've ever seen, from men the sort of casual recourse to extreme behaviour, including physical assault, that I've witnessed from women without them incurring some kind of social sanction. It's not uniform, either across cultures or within this one, there are a great many mature adult women but they don't cause the trouble do they? Personally, if a scary women starts up trouble, I'm outa there, quicker than you can say, sexual equality, because it wont be her up before the beak trying to explain away the bruises, it'll be you, even if you just grabbed her wrists to stop her breaking your face.
I think we have come a long way from when it was lawful for a husband to beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb, three times on the body but not the head!
Thankfully the old Bill take domestic abuse a bit more seriously now.
Ken.
Re what Colin said about breast cancer getting more publicity and funding for research / treatment. Unfortunately this is partly due some men being still too embarrassed to discuss any issues they are having around the old cod piece. Thankfully the likes of prostrate and testicular cancer are now getting more money put to finding a cure and improving self screening programmes etc. John Hartson, the football pundit said he looked at two lumps on his testicles for years before illness finally pushed him towards getting treatment. The guy nearly died because of the macho big boys don' t cry mindset that still prevails amongst some young men in society. Before my uncle died from testicular cancer he told me to get checks done. I have done so taking advantage of the NHS screening at my local GPs. Take my advice and take five minutes every 2 years to do a blood test. That is the end of my public service announcement!
Ken.
Women, eh? Can't live with them - can't shoot them! Do you know why husbands die before wives? Because they WANT to.
******
There is a double standard in operation 'though. Women's Hour? No Men's Hour. Joking aside, men aren't allowed to have men only workout classes at my local sports centre, women are. Typical women's approach - "We should be allowed to be in there with the men because we're as good as they are!" But when they don't want men around, they're whims are indulged. This equality lark doesn't seem equal to me.
Perhaps some ladies do want men to know that they sweat and fart when exercising. Heavens above!
Ken.
They do? Nobody told me that, Ken. I think I've gone off them, the smelly things.
I think it's probably fair enough if women are uncomfortable with the prospect of exercising in mixed company that they should be afforded the opportunity to do so in exclusive sessions. I would expect some reciprocal accommodation for considerations exclusive to male clients too though, I'm just not sure what they would be.
And what about men who might feel uncomfortable working out in front of women, DSE? It should cut both ways - that's what equality is.
Mmmm, I'm not sure, the problem is that we're not equal, we're different aren't we? There's a broad tendency to asses individuals according to whatever category is convenient to assign them to, in a particular context. It's like that guy recently who said women are bad at chess, it's true but it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to beat every woman at chess and it would be no excuse to deny the talents of any women who happened to be good at it. Incidentally I'm really bad at chess but occasionally, when I'm in form, I can put up a decent contest.
Sure if there is a genuine need to be considered, reasonable people will accommodate it. Women might feel self conscious in the presence of males while exercising. If men feel the same way, they should be extended the same courtesy, I'm just not sure that is realistic. What I see as an issue of contention is that considerations exclusive to men are routinely deprecated, for instance: the new Wembley Stadium has equal accommodation for male and female toilet facilities, despite the fact that 98% of the spectators are male. Such aberrations are borne from the pedantic application of ideology, something that is anathema to the practical considerations of reality.
A great deal of truth in what you say, DSE, but it's the principle of equality I'm addressing. The notion of women who aren't comfortable exercising in front of men stems from the idea that all men are perverts and potential rapists who will be eyeing up these women as they work out. You can't say that segregation of the sexes in a public sports centre (toilets and changing rooms apart, that is) is a 'bad' thing then make exceptions to it in order to cater to a mad bunch of feminists who want to have their cake and eat it.
Perhaps the best thing to do is just have all women classes and all men classes - then everyone IS being treated the same. That's equality, isn't it?
You highlight a point there about the assumption that leads all males to be treated as sexual offenders. That's a tricky issue, made trickier by the dishonest, manipulation practised by those promoting agendas. Agendas either grounded in personal malice or rationalised as part of an ideology in conflict with reality. Enduring sexual assault is no fun, no fun at all and it's reasonable for those who wish to avoid that experience to take steps to protect themselves, that includes the assumption of the threat posed by males as a group. What that's not an excuse for is -consistently- treating all males, in every context, as if they were rapists. This is where those dishonest people promoting their agendas make their entrance and unfortunately they've been largely successful. That's bad news for all of us because if we can't draw that distinction, the one between individuals who employ threats and violence and those who don't then not only that create an injustice, it gives licence to those who do offend to continue offending. Do you recall those per capita punishments that used to be so popular at School, Jimmy Watkins threw chalk at the teacher, so the whole class would have to stay behind, didn't stop Jimmy causing mayhem did it?
Indeed not, DSE. I was once in such a situation - as was the whole class. Someone threw a rubber (eraser) at the board and the teacher kept the whole class in at dinner time. I eventually protested because my mother would've had my dinner on and it would've been wasted if I didn't turn up. That Jimmy Watkins was a real pain, eh?
Post a Comment