Forum: Author Hangout

Most likely explanation - he thought he knew what he was talking about and didn't need to check.

I guess that's right but it's an important part of the story and would take 10 seconds to check.

I had the police outline a dead body in a story. That's what Hollywood does so I thought it was the way it was done. It wasn't until someone emailed me to tell me it's not done that I researched it.

Hollywood didn't invent that out of whole cloth. While it's not SOP, a few big PDs have done it in a few high profile cases for various reasons.

The best known case and probably the one that drives the Hollywood body outline meme was from NYC in the 1920 or 1930s. High profile shooting on a public sidewalk. Press wanted photos of the scene showing where the bodies were, so the NYPD set up body outlines after the fact using police crime scene photos so the press could take pictures that indicated where the bodies were.

The best known case and probably the one that drives the Hollywood body outline meme was from NYC in the 1920 or 1930s. High profile shooting on a public sidewalk.

Is the name of the victim a secret?

Is the name of the victim a secret?

It's been a while since I read the story I found on-line about it. I don't remember the names (there were several victims).

The story I recall reading was a historical piece focused on the use of the body outlines.

It may not have even mentioned the victim's names. IIRC, it was a gangster area drive by shooting.

The best known case and probably the one that drives the Hollywood body outline meme was from NYC in the 1920 or 1930s. High profile shooting on a public sidewalk. Press wanted photos of the scene showing where the bodies were, so the NYPD set up body outlines after the fact using police crime scene photos so the press could take pictures that indicated where the bodies were.

"Technology Org logo
Technology OrgScience and technology news
Why dead bodies used to be outlined with chalk by police? Do they still do that?
Share
Posted January 11, 2019
In some older movies or vintage photographs you might have seen chalk outlines marking the place of the victim in various crime scenes. This motif was integrated in many Hollywood movies, including the hilarious Naked Gun with Leslie Nielsen. But why crime scene investigators used to do that? Is chalk still being used in crime scene today?

Nowadays only children are playing with chalk outlines. Image credit: Bob Embleton via Wikimedia (CC BY-SA 2.0)

It is not just a fantasy of Hollywood movie makers – US police actually used to outline dead bodies just before they were taken away to the coroner's office. It was not as simple as you might think – you had to know what you're doing. First of all, you never drew around the body too soon. At first, the crime scene (or an accident site) has to be investigated by CSI officers. All possible clues and evidence must be collected before someone steps in with a piece of chalk. You want to disturb the scene as little as possible and to take pictures of everything before you do too much. In fact, if you start drawing too early, your colleagues are going to call you a "chalk fairy", which is not a nice nickname to have.

Outlines used to be made just before taking the body away. They were never as precise as shown in movies – they were done trying not to touch the body and skipping such details as finger placement or draping clothing. Usually, a yellow or white chalk was used, but in some cases a white tape had to substitute, because chalk was not available or simply didn't work on a particular surface. Interestingly, although these chalk outlines were done by police officers or crime scene investigators, they were not really useful for the investigation. In fact, they were mostly done for the media.

Of course, the media was always interested in such shocking crimes as a murder. Journalists were seeking crime scene pictures to illustrate their articles or even for shock value. However, a lot of these situations were just too gruesome to be published. Furthermore, police officers didn't want journalists to interfere with the investigation so they tried keeping them out of the crime scene in order to prevent possible contamination. In order to maintain good relations with the media and to provide information for the public, police officers would mark the outline of the body, take it away and then allow media to take some pictures to provide some visual information to go with their articles.

Nowadays it is not done anymore. With improved crime scene investigation techniques and technologies, the risk of contaminating the scene is a bit too big. Also, media is not allowed to crime scenes anymore as well. Instead, some markers (flags or little signs) are used to mark various evidences. And, of course, investigators themselves take a lot of pictures with the body in place. But movie creators are still sometimes using this interesting trope – you don't even need actors to play dead people."

. It wasn't until someone emailed me to tell me

I looked to email him or comment with the correct information but he has no email link and comments are disabled.

Thankfully, no.

As others have said, you have to know what you don't know before you do research.
I'm willing to do research; I've read more books on background for my Post Gettysburg universe than I've written stories. Still, 've gotten some things wrong. Some items, people have told me about; some, I've learned in later research.

For my Old West novel "The Breeder" I researched clothing and underclothing for the time period. I studied many pictures of women's dresses and used what I saw.

What I saw wasn't what it was. I happened to bump into someone whose passion was costumes or dressmaking or something. She told me the dresses in those days were not what we consider dresses today. They were two pieces — a skirt and a jacket. From the pictures, it didn't look like that until I knew what to look for.

I was a background actor on a TV western back in the 90's for 2 seasons and boy the wardrobe people were strict on what we wore, how we wore it and how we removed it.

For the timeframe we were in most hats were shaped like a bowl on top and we were only supposed to take them off by the brim and to never pinch the top. All shirts were long sleeves and to never roll them up except foe me as I played the blacksmith most of the time and only when I was working the anvil. Almost all clothing was made of wool and very little cotton.

As for the women it was the upper and lower as you mentioned but also at least 3-4 layers thick and where we filmed was in Sagus CA. just on the edge of the desert and we would film winter scenes in the summer (100 degrees +) and summer scenes in the winter (in the 50's). Not to mention standing next to puddle of horse piss (one crew members job was picking up the horse shit) or in front of V8 powered wind machines. All for min. wage and a good meal.

In this case typing in "blood type inheritance" gives thousands of results with easy to read charts.

Although it may well not apply in this case, it's not uncommon for authors to do their research then write something that's incorrect for the sake of a good story. Police procedurals are a good example - most police work is extremely boring and done pretty much by rote, but if you wrote a story like that, almost nobody would read it.

When I first read it, I thought that the author might have been setting it up for a different story where it turned out the wrong child was given to at the hospital. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Although it may well not apply in this case, it's not uncommon for authors to do their research then write something that's incorrect for the sake of a good story. Police procedurals are a good example - most police work is extremely boring and done pretty much by rote, but if you wrote a story like that, almost nobody would read it.

Also the more CSI focused stories and shows have the cast compression as well.

It's not just multiple people working on something. In real world CSI, there is a lot of specialization.

The actual crime scene techs who collect the forensic evidence don't process any of it.

The techs who process DNA, don't do chemical trace analysis or ballistics.

The reality is you'd have dozens or hundreds of people who each touch a small piece of one case.

The other big issue for more traditional police procedurals or for CSI focused stories/shows is time compression.

DNA analysis for example, even once one piece of evidence gets to the head of the line in the lab (which itself can take weeks) processing that one tiny DNA sample can take days.

DNA analysis for example, even once one piece of evidence gets to the head of the line in the lab (which itself can take weeks) processing that one tiny DNA sample can take days.

Some processes are now down to under an hour. Although there likely are additional steps before and after which may need to be done as well.

Absolutely. The samples don't come to the lab as raw DNA read for sequencing.

What they get is a blood or tissue sample that they then have to extract DNA from and if the sample is small they may not get enough DNA for the sequencing process so they have to get the DNA to replicate in a test tube so they have enough to process.

Many authors are unable to grasp the location of the hymen...!!!

Assume a group of 100 authors who are:

1. Male
2. Happily married
3. Have an active sex life.
4. None of them are gynecologists.

How many of them have ever had the opportunity to actually see a hymen?

How many have seen more than one hymen?

How many of them have ever had the opportunity to actually see a hymen?

How many have seen more than one hymen?

How many of them cannot access any search engine or online resource? Not that difficult given that they are posting their stories online...!!

Then again, a better question might be how many care enough to find out??

As for the topic itself, there has to be a trade-off between research, and actually writing the story. I typically do a fair amount of research. But there also comes a point where you just have to stop doing it and write the damned story.

Agreed.

Though if an author is going to describe sex involving a virgin with an intact hymen, it isn't "in depth" research.

Hell, at that time I was still selling new ones. Some just love to complain about any little thing.

Nit pickers pick nits, it's what they do. If they can't find nit's to pick, they will invent them.

Some just love to complain about any little thing.

Are they really complaining, or just pointing out something they think you might want to correct?

I think you are expecting a little too much. Many authors are unable to grasp the location of the hymen...!!!

I thought everyone knew that it was located somewhere around 8 inches deep in the vagina.

I thought everyone knew that it was located somewhere around 8 inches deep in the vagina.

I was going to make a flippant reply but then someone might actually take your statement as fact.

I was going to make a flippant reply but then someone might actually take your statement as fact.

I do hope you know that I was relying on the anatomy described on here.

I do hope you know that I was relying on the anatomy described on here.

I would use this one

https://storiesonline.net/doc/The_Hymen

It appears that many if not most people (including authors here) are under the impression that the hymen is located within the vagina and that to break it, one must insert the penis to a certain depth into the vagina in order to reach it. That is incorrect; the hymen is, as the photograph reveals, part of the vulva, external genital organs.

@DBActive

I thought everyone knew that it was located somewhere around 8 inches deep in the vagina.

I'm sure I've read at least one story in which that was presented as fact. A third of the male protagonist's manhood was still outside when he encountered the hymen.

If my calculations are correct that would mean he had a 24 inch dick. Seems a 'little' too much :D

Why do your forum posts sometimes disappear into the ether for several minutes? The forum heading showed you as having posted at 22:28:51. However your post still wasn't available to read at 22:35.

So I'm not the only one who sees that happening. It's not just Keet, but he's one of the ones it happens with most frequently.

Why do your forum posts sometimes disappear into the ether for several minutes? The forum heading showed you as having posted at 22:28:51. However your post still wasn't available to read at 22:35.

The routers also have to argue over whether they are rout-ers or root-ers. This can introduce considerable delay.

They also need to remember what they were routing or rooting for.

The routers also have to argue over whether they are rout-ers or root-ers.

A British news agency that used pigeons?

Why do your forum posts sometimes disappear into the ether for several minutes? The forum heading showed you as having posted at 22:28:51. However your post still wasn't available to read at 22:35.

Might have to do with my or my ISP's time settings. I see it myself too. Sometimes I answer an email before I received it according to the timestamps :D
The time difference you mention though is around 7 minutes where I see mostly differences in the 2-3 minute range. I'll do some digging here but I have a company server running which controls the time setting for everything to avoid differences on the internal network so I might not be able to rectify it.

I thought everyone knew that it was located somewhere around 8 inches deep in the vagina.
R

Not everyone, only sex writers.

The say that the victors write the history, but the truth is that the survivors of the losers also write their version.

It is unfortunate, but history rarely happens with unbiased observers present.

Only when they live through the aftermath of the conflict.

If they didn't live through the aftermath, they wouldn't be survivors.

You forget that sometimes a few of the winners don't like what happened and report the truth.

No, I haven't forgotten anything.

1. Dissenters among the winner's side writing a story different from the official version from the winner is not relevant to surviving losers writing their own version of what happened.

2. You can't take anyone's version as objective truth when it comes to history. There are no objective, unbiased observers.

Objective truth in history if it happens at all will come from the archeologists digging up physical evidence of what really happened, not from anyone's written accounts.

I'm surprised no one has asked about this famous battle, or does everyone now know what the victors call it?

Well if you want an answer all I will say is he got what he deserved.

But if you demand an answer then I will give you this

41°55′05″N 83°23′48″W

He also was a lieutenant colonel at the time of his death as he reverted back to colonel from brigadier general at the end of the Civil War.

You'd be surprised how many people don't.

Nope not really as I live and grew up in Monroe County his supposed home only because this is where his wife was from and lived. Books, TV, and Movies not to mention the Government and newspapers at the time he lived paints a pretty big picture of untruthes. Of course I wasn't very popular with my 8th grade history teacher when in my oral report I compared him to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party as they both committed GENOCIDE.

You should've included President Andrew Jackson in there as well to make it a trio.

You are going to spoil my appreciation of a $20 bill. All I can say is at this point who cares? Washington and some other presidents were slave owners. Jefferson used at least one of his slaves for sex. Do I care Washington state and the District of Columbia are named for George? If it happened more than a hundred years ago, it isn't important now. None of World War 1 atrocities matter now. We are "friends" with the Japanese, never mind Pearl Harbor. And that was nearly 80 years ago. Some Presidents had mistresses and were not faithful husbands. If it doesn't get mentioned in your high school history class, it didn't happen.

the cause of all of the later Indian Wars.

I thought the slaughter of the buffalo caused a few? Not sure if it was the Comanche that fought to keep the buffalo from being wiped out...

ly hate to say it but your probably correct in that statement.

The Trail of Tears story is much, much more complicated than simple "Indian Removal" from the southeast. Some were sold out by their tribal governments. Some, the wealthier, were happy to relocate with their slaves and take the money. Most emigrated semi-voluntarily under heavy pressure from the US and tribal governments. Relatively few were forced to relocate at gunpoint. Thousands died but tens of thousands survived a brutal trek.
This is not a defense to what happened, but accuracy counts.

The Trail of Tears

Just want to add to what you quoted for others to get a better idea.

The Trail of Tears refers to the forced relocation in 1838, of the Cherokee Native American tribe to Indian Territory in what would be the state of Oklahoma, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 4,000 of the 15,000 Cherokees affected. This was caused by the Indian Removal Act of 1830. The Trail of Tears is over 5,043 miles long and covers nine states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma and Tennessee which is just under 1 death for every mile they where forced to walk in their relocation. The numbers don't include how many died before the relocation or the number that died after they where relocated.

There was multiple different tribes relocated from multiple different locations and not all tribes had short routes.

The Cherokee Native American Tribe started in Tennessee and then moved North threw Kentucky and into Indiana, from Indiana they moved West across Illinois crossing the Mississippi River into Missouri, from there they moved South into Arkansas and then again West into Oklahoma.

Another different Tribe the Seminole Trails of Tears was from South Central Florida North then West threw the Pan Handle of Florida, West threw Alabama and Mississippi into Louisiana, North threw Louisiana and Arkansas finally turning West again threw Arkansas and on into Oklahoma.

This is just two different tribes of many that where forced relocated and yes not every tribe moved had such great distances they where forced to travel and not everything back then as is today moving from point A to point B the biggest hurdle is the Mississippi River and this is how the miles added up for some Tribes that where forced to relocate. I remember when in the mid 90's I was travelling West and had to travel an extra 350 miles to find a bridge over the Mississippi River that wasn't closed due to flooding first and only time I seen a river that breached its banks 3-5 miles inland from the river where I'm from 1/4 maybe a 1/2 mile if your in a ditch a river flooding is severe.

The same with the Shoshone, because for the most part they had largely peaceful relations with those that came in.

The Shoshone(Fort Hall Indian Reservation) were forced into increasingly smaller patches of reservation land as settlers and railroads started to want the land the Shosone had. And most of those land cessations had nothing to do with their violating any treaty. It was the United States deciding to arbitrarily change the terms of the agreement on them.

Although you would be correct that they still retain a portion of their original ancestral lands.

The Trail of Tears story is much, much

I'm not sugarcoating anything.
The fact is that the legal authority of the individual tribes accepted the terms of the treaties. As I said most moved voluntarily under extreme pressure.

You are just talking about post Civil War. There were very few buffalo east of the Mississippi river There were Indian Wars in the 1700's.

Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia stated that the Cherokee did not have standing before the court because the was not a 'foreign nation' in the sense intended by the Construction. In treaties signed by the Cherokee included the phrase that all the Cherokee are under the protection of the US. 9Theaty of Hopewell with the Cherokee Nov, 28, 1785 article III.

If unscrupulous men could get some Indians, that are NOT authorized to sign a treaty, to sign land over the Indians have to leave. (Check the prehistory of the Black Hawk War)

You are just talking about post Civil War. There were very few buffalo east of the Mississippi river There were Indian Wars in the 1700's.

And how many of those would you think Ernest was including in "the later Indian Wars"?

And how many of those would you think Ernest was including in "the later Indian Wars"?

That depends, how far back are we going for the early Indian wars? 1492? Viking incursions into Vinland?

Pre-Columbian tribes were already warlike, that was nothing Europeans introduced. The Aztecs were raiding for slaves and sacrifices long before the Europeans arrived.

Should we get into the ancient conspiracy theorist types who believe that Atlantis was supposedly not far from Detroit? (I remember one claim that there were massive copper veins extracted from somewhere in Michigan, which matched up to some description of the amount of copper used in Atlantis... which would make the Mississippian tribes the Atlanteans, who were supposedly visited by ancient Egyptian explorers... and no doubt there'd have been some sort of war then...)

Myself, I never really cared about what the feeble-minded Conspiracy types thought.

Hey, they serve a real purpose. After all, we all need someone to laugh at, right?

I never heard of Atlantis being near Detroit. As for the veins of copper that where mined they are pretty much located in the Upper Peninsula if Michigan the Modern quarries where placed at sites that local indians where all ready mining or in the indians case harvesting the copper that was found on the ground in the area. Almost all the copper mines in Michigan in the Upper Peninsula save for Kent County which is near Grand Rapids and on the West side of the state where Detroit is on the East side of the state. If your mining anything in Detroit it will be salt. The estimates of salt deposits in Michigan are astronomical. In the Detroit area alone, it is believed that there are over 71 trillion tons of unmined salt. Geological studies estimate that 55 counties of the Lower Peninsula cover 30,000 trillion tons of salt. The only conspiracy theorist item thing I have ever heard of is the Michigan Triangle over Lake Michigan (think Bermuda Triangle) or the Lake Erie waterspouts (think tornadoes on water) or the Lake Erie seiche (also called meteotsunamis) {sudden tall wave of water see the movie The Poseidon Adventure} that happen even on clear beautiful days. Never seen a seiche myself but it isn't uncommon to not see a waterspout at least once every year pretty cool to watch from shore but when your on the water and they appear not so nice.

There were Indian Wars in the 1700's.

Biden, with his new Treasury Secretary, is taking Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill. It will be Harriet Tubman's picture.

If anything they should put Tubman on the $10 or the $100. Those two aren't currently former presidents. If they are going to add a non-President, replace one of the current non-Presidents.

If anything they should put Tubman on

the $2 bill would be about right.

the $2 bill would be about right.

The $2 bill is still an ex President. I stand by my justification of picking one of the two denominations that is not currently an ex president.

If anything they should put Tubman on the $10 or the $100. Those two aren't currently former presidents. If they are going to add a non-President, replace one of the current non-Presidents.

With the exception of Washington, I have never thought it was appropriate to have any president or any other identifiable person on currency or coins. I would prefer we go back to allegorical characters.

I would prefer we go back to allegorical characters.

We can't go back to something we have never had.

US paper currency has always had portraits of ex Presidents and other historical figures, going back to the first creation of standardized government issued paper currency. Bank notes (printed and issued by individual banks not the government) are a different story.

Is there any country that doesn't use portraits of real historical people on their currency?

Is there any country that doesn't use portraits of real historical people on their currency?

Currently: the EU (Wikipedia).
The Netherlands before the Euro had (famous) artists like poets, composers, painters. The last run before we switched to the Euro had birds instead of people.

The Netherlands before the Euro had (famous) artists like poets, composers, painters.

Which would be real historical people.

Which would be real historical people.

Not sure artists qualify as 'real people'...

We had a bird who was a person. The First Lady, "Lady Bird" Johnson (LBJ's wife).

Former NBA star Larry Bird.

Former US Senator Robert Byrd.

We can't go back to something we have never had.

You're right. Paper money has always been real people. Coins were not until the 20th century. I guess my post shows the problem with not doing any research before posting.

Anyway, I don't believe in having real people on the currency.

I don't believe in having real people on the currency.

So what would you suggest to replace the existing portraits on US $1, $2, $5, $10, $10 and $100 bills?

Why worry, by the time Biden and his cronies get finished with the USA you'll have Charles Fourier, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Marx, Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi.

I understand Pelosi has been having the Marine Band practice the theme from The Godfather.

To replace "Hail to the Chief" as soon as she gets within striking distance of the office.

Of course, that might just be a rumor.

She more deserves the Sex Pistol's version of God Save the Queen.

True, it may be rumour, but it does match her attitudes and behaviour. Although, I personally think she's more likely to go with something like "Here comes the Queen."

Isn't that reserved for the Secretary of Transportation, Peter Paul Montgomery Buttigieg
(what a name).

In hopefully un-related news:

The Peter Paul Candy Manufacturing Company is a candy-making division within the Hershey Company.

Actually, I was hoping he would be on the ballot. He doesn't appear to be evil incarnate, like most of the others.

Actually, I was hoping he would be on the ballot. He doesn't appear to be evil incarnate

I actually have the Cthulu 2020 #NoLivesMatter mask. Because let's face it, if people were planning to vote for someone evil, why not go all out?

Because let's face it, if people were planning to vote for someone evil, why not go all out?

In other words, if people were planning to vote...

What non-evil option did we have to vote for?

So what would you suggest to replace the existing portraits on US $1, $2, $5, $10, $10 and $100 bills?

I guess Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 is safe.

I guess Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 is safe.

Everybody wants a grant. College students particularly, but almost everyone wants financial assistance.

So what would you suggest to replace the existing portraits on US $1, $2, $5, $10, $10 and $100 bills?

Anything else than identifiable human figures. It could be dogs and cats for all I care.

Anyway, I don't believe in having real people on the currency.

What fictional characters would be best for currency? James Bond? Maybe he should be on savings bonds, not currency. Who do they use on Monopoly money? The money doesn't have him, but several cards include Graphics with the Mr. Monopoly character (formerly known as "Rich Uncle Pennybags").

Why have any human figures on the bills?

Oh c'mon... the queen's too old to really refer to as a bird anymore...

Because putting things like a bird on a $1 coin would be loonie?

Canadians are probably sorry for that.

Is there any country that doesn't use portraits of real historical people on their currency?

If anything they should put Tubman on the $10 or the $100. Those two aren't currently former presidents. If they are going to add a non-President, replace one of the current non-Presidents.

Hamilton (on the $10) may not have been a President, but as first Treasury Secretary and father of the First Bank of the United States, he's a much more appropriate figure to be on our money than Jackson, who vetoed the Second Bank.

Hamilton (on the $10) may not have been a President, but as first Treasury Secretary and father of the First Bank of the United States, he's a much more appropriate figure to be on our money than Jackson, who vetoed the Second Bank.

If one of the current set of dead Presidents on our currency is unworthy, he should be replaced with a different dead President, not a non-President.

Franklin is probably the best candidate to be replaced.

If one of the current set of dead Presidents on our currency is unworthy, he should be replaced with a different dead President, not a non-President.

Why? What makes Presidents more especially appropriate to put on our money?

If we're going to replace somebody, why not replace the guy who would hate there even being a federally-issued $20 bill for his face to be on?

Why? What makes Presidents more especially appropriate to put on our money?

Because Dead Presidents are traditional for the US, the majority of our currency notes have always been dead Presidents. Dead Presidents has even become a slang term for money.

Which leaves only 5 bills to work with.

$1
$2
$5
$10
$20
$50
$100

Hmm... seems like more than 5.

And before the Federal Reserve, use had states and banks that made their own, and would put on damned near whoever they wanted to.

And those notes were not actually legal tender US currency. They were called bank notes for a reason.

n. Which leaves only 5 bills to work with. 2 are Presidents, 3 are not.

Actually, there are seven denominations BK69 lists them.

George Washington on the $1 bill
Thomas Jefferson on the $2 bill
Abraham Lincoln on the $5 bill
Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill
Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill
Ulysses S. Grant on the $50 bill
Benjamin Franklin on the $100 bill

And only two of them, Hamilton and Franklin were not Presidents.

Because Dead Presidents are traditional for the US, the majority of our currency notes have always been dead Presidents.

That's really not the case. The current batch has more Presidents than not, but that hasn't traditionally been true.

The $20 alone has featured:
* The goddess Liberty
* an eagle
* Pocahontas and John Rolfe
* 1st Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton (currently on the $10) and the goddess Victory
* Commodore Stephen Decatur
* President James Garfield
* Treasury Secretary Daniel Manning
* Chief Justice John Marshall
* Treasury Secretary Hugh McCulloch
* 1st President George Washington (currently on the $1)
* President Grover Cleveland
* President Andrew Jackson (current)

So Presidents haven't been the majority, and barely even beat Secretaries of the Treasury for the plurality.

Jackson may be the least appropriate person we have ever put on our money, not just because he was a well-known all-around asshole, but because he spoke out against paper money and actively worked to destroy the national bank. The only possible justification for having him on our most popular paper money is as a "fuck you" to Jackson himself, and given that he's been dead for 175 years, that seems kind of a waste of time and space that we could use for actually honoring somebody who deserves it.

The only possible justification for having him on our most popular paper money is

a over-developed sense of irony?

The only possible justification for having him on our most popular paper money

Well, it could be his name, Jacks on.

People at the Treasury who make that kind of decision may not want to be known as the people responsible for a Jacks off.

"jacks off

English
Verb
jacks off

Third-person singular simple present indicative form of jack off."

You should've included President Andrew Jackson in there as well to make it a trio.

Damn your right I never even thought about it though I did know of the Trail of Tears. Now I'm wondering how that would have increased my teachers hatred of my report.

many people in the US east coast venerated Jackson

I would bet most people today would be challenged in telling you anything about Jackson other than he was a president (but not when he served) and is on the $20.

I would bet most people today would be challenged in telling you anything about Jackson other than he was a president

Hell, I'd bet a large number would say he was a country singer.

Wrong genre of music. Was referring to Alan Jackson, not Mike and his parasitic sibs.

Weren't there five of him? ;-)

No, Lincoln is on the $5, Jackson is on the $20.

Weren't there five of him? ;-)

No, Lincoln is on the $5, Jackson is on the $20.

If their was five of them then it would be Benjamin Franklin he is on the $100

Hell, I'd bet a large number would say he was a country singer.

I truly hate to say it but your probably correct in that statement.

I would bet most people today would be challenged in telling you anything about Jackson other than he was a president (but not when he served) and is on the $20.

He was the first Democrat to have his election to the Presidency stolen from him. ;)

He was the first Democrat to have his election to the Presidency stolen from him. ;)

He never even ran for President as a Democrat. He was elected VP under Lincoln in 1864 on the National Union ticket.

In 1868, the Democrat presidential nominee was Horatio Seymour.

He never even ran for President as a Democrat. He was elected VP under Lincoln in 1864 on the National Union ticket.

Maybe you are confusing Andrew Jackson (March 15, 1767 – June 8, 1845) with Andrew Johnson (December 29, 1808 – July 31, 1875) who assumed the presidency as he was vice president at the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

He never even ran for President as a Democrat. He was elected VP under Lincoln in 1864 on the National Union ticket.

Uh... We were talking about Andrew Jackson, the guy on the $20 bill..

Uh... We were talking about Andrew Jackson, the guy on the $20 bill..

Yeah, I keep confusing Jackson and Johnson.

Jackson and Johnson.

One is the son of a Jack (Jack or jackass, a male donkey).
The other is the son of a John. Two possible meanings.
"john
/jän/

noun INFORMAL
1.
NORTH AMERICAN
a toilet.
2.
a prostitute's client."
Kind of difficult to decide which to have as a father.

I agree, that's what you get for attacking non-combatants.

From what I've read on it, the regiment that attacked the non-combatants was actually acting against Custer's orders.

Three regiments each with their own Colonel and the other two colonels were unhappy about Custer being in over-all command.

Part of the reason Custer's regiment got slaughtered is that the regiment that attacked the non-combatants wasn't where it was supposed to be and couldn't/didn't reinforce Custer's regiment.

does everyone now know what the victors call it?

I'm not sure about everyone, but probably most of the reasonably well informed... which makes up many of the regulars here.

There's was a thread a while back on "write what you know." One (or more famous authors, I don't recall) said to write what you don't know so that you can learn something new doing the research.

Not "write what you know", but "know what you write".

Now if only we can get that concept to be applied by the law makers!

But you have to pass the giant bill longer than the sum total of all human fiction before you can know what's in it.

/sarc

But you have to pass the giant bill longer than the sum total of all human fiction before you can know what's in it.

Before they could 'pass' it, they'd first have to eat it... Now that might be a solution, any bill to large and they choke on it.

:)

Isn't the Hershey Highway supposed to be one way?

Depends on which team you play for...