#article 12

[blutonews]

https://www.blutonews.org/article/12

bluto waited his turn

APRIL 30, 2024

bluto waoted his turn today when he was waiting in line and popeye was in front of him. he usually doesnt like pooeye but today he was really polite and touched his fingers together and smiled

[sunshineandlyrics]

*the only explanation for it, 12 April 2024

(Mink music?? Collab with DJ Snake and Liam Payne?? His birth name? 2 fan question and 1 was about Grease etc)

[seagull-scribbles]

50201600!

Easter? Sorry I don’t Noah….

Available on Redbubble here

[tau1tvec]

Someone posted an article about The Sims 3 traits on reddit written by one of the designers for the system, and boy is it a fascinating read.

Though I think this could’ve been the best part of it for me.

Read the whole article by Ray Mazza here.

I’ll add the link to the reddit post in the source, as it links some other really gr8 The Sims 3 development articles as well.

Thanks u/bvo710!

[pinkprettycure]

wikipedia is dumb dumb w their policies ive seen plenty of creators whos notability seems questionable at best, plenty of ppls random ass math professors getting articles for being in like a small town newspaper for hosting a charity 20 yrs ago lol.

and as all mods tend to get power trippy, it ends up with a lot of nonsense fighting and popularity contests for what can get an article. like BFDI doesnt have one because its never been reported on by a verified unbiased news source, okay fine, fair. but Michael and Cary Huang are also banned from having articles bc the mods have beef with the BFDI fandom. the Huang brothers absolutely qualify for an article for THEMSELVES though. because they made the Scale of the Universe as teens and that tool was on national news and made it into classrooms lol.

[beebeetheclown]

Oh wow.

I am now going to speak in my secret language and let’s see if you can figure it out: I bet you can’t😉

🧊 - 🍉🍎💅🏻🐯 - 🐶🐇. -

⭐️🐯🍊🐱🥋🫠🍎💅🏻💅🏻 - 🐯🍊 - 🧚🏻‍♀️⬆️🐱🥋 -

🫠🍆 - ⬆️💅🏻🐯🧊🦁 - 🧊 - 🐱🍎💅🏻’🐯 -

🍉🍎🦁🥋.

[spoonietimelordy]

can't find the post asking but "if you could ask the doctor to bring you whenever and wherever you want, where would you go?"

Right now, I'll ask 12 to help me kill Freud

[thoughtportal]

undefined

Some Alternatives to AA

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-behavioral-therapy

smart recovery - https://www.smartrecovery.org/

EMDR Therapy - https://psychcentral.com/health/emdr-therapy

Existential Therapy - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/therapy-types/existential-therapy

[wonder-worker]

Queen Margaret (of Anjou) had written to the Common Council in November when the news of the Duke of York's coup was proclaimed. The letter from the queen was published in modernised English by M.A.E. Wood in 1846, and she dated it to February 1461 because of its opening sentence: ‘And whereas the late Duke of N [York]...." However the rest of the letter, and that of the prince, is in the present tense and clearly indicates that the Duke of York is still alive. The reference to the ‘late duke’ is not to his demise but to the attainder of 1459 when he was stripped of his titles as well as of his lands. If the queen’s letter dates to November 1460, and not February 1461, it make perfect sense. Margaret declared the Duke of York had ‘upon an untrue pretense, feigned a title to my lord’s crown’ and in so doing had broken his oath of fealty. She thanked the Londoners for their loyalty in rejecting his claim. She knew of the rumours, that we and my lords sayd sone and owrs shuld newly drawe toward yow with an vnsome [uncounted] powere of strangars, disposed to robbe and to dispoyle yow of yowr goods and havours, we will that ye knowe for certeyne that . . . . [y]e, nor none of yow, shalbe robbed, dispoyled nor wronged by any parson that at that tyme we or owr sayd sone shalbe accompanied with She entrusted the king's person to the care of the citizens ‘so that thrwghe malice of his sayde enemye he be no more trowbled vexed ne jeoparded.’ In other words the queen was well informed in November 1460 of the propaganda in London concerning the threat posed by a Lancastrian military challenge to the illegal Yorkist proceedings. Margaret assured the Common Council that no harm would come to the citizenry or to their property. Because the letter was initially misdated, it has been assumed that the queen wrote it after she realised the harm her marauding troops were doing to her cause, and to lull London into a false sense of security. This is not the case, and it is a typical example of historians accepting without question Margaret’s character as depicted in Yorkist propaganda. Margaret’s letter was a true statement of her intentions but it made no impact at the time and has made none since. How many people heard of it? The Yorkist council under the Earl of Warwick, in collusion with the Common Council of the city, was in an ideal position to suppress any wide dissemination of the letter, or of its content.

... When Margaret joined the Lancastrian lords it is unlikely that she had Scottish troops with her. It is possible that Jasper Tudor, Earl of Pembroke, sent men from Wales but there was no compelling reason why he should, he needed all the forces at his disposal to face Edward Earl of March, now Duke of York following his father’s death at Wakefield, who, in fact, defeated Pembroke at Mortimer’s Cross on 2 February just as the Lancastrian army was marching south. The oft repeated statement that the Lancastrian army was composed of a motley array of Scots, Welsh, other foreigners (French by implication, for it had not been forgotten that René of Anjou, Queen Margaret’s father, had served with the French forces in Nomandy when the English were expelled from the duchy, nor that King Charles VII was her uncle) as well as northern men is based on a single chronicle, the Brief Notes written mainly in Latin in the monastery of Ely, and ending in 1470. It is a compilation of gossip and rumour, some of it wildly inaccurate, but including information not found in any other contemporary source, which accounts for the credence accorded to it. The Dukes of Somerset and Exeter and the Earl of Devon brought men from the south and west. The Earl of Northumberland was not solely reliant on his northern estates; as Lord Poynings he had extensive holdings in the south. The northerners were tenants and retainers of Northumberland, Clifford, Dacre, the Westmorland Nevilles, and Fitzhugh, and accustomed to the discipline of border defence. The continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, probably our best witness, is emphatic that the second battle of St Albans was won by the ‘howseholde men and feyd men.” Camp followers and auxiliaries of undesirables there undoubtedly were, as there are on the fringes of any army, but the motley rabble the queen is supposed to have loosed on peaceful England owes more to the imagination of Yorkist propagandists than to the actual composition of the Lancastrian army.

... Two differing accounts of the Lancastrian march on London are generally accepted. One is that a large army, moving down the Great North Road, was made up of such disparate and unruly elements that the queen and her commanders were powerless to control it.” Alternatively, Queen Margaret did not wish to curb her army, but encouraged it to ravage all lands south of the Trent, either from sheet spite or because it was the only way she could pay her troops.” Many epithets have been applied to the queen, few of them complimentary, but no one has as yet called her stupid. It would have been an act of crass stupidity wilfully to encourage her forces to loot the very land she was trying to restore to an acceptance of Lancastrian rule, with her son as heir to the throne. On reaching St Albans, so the story goes, the Lancastrian army suddenly became a disciplined force which, by a series of complicated manoeuvres, including a night march and a flank attack, won the second battle of St Albans, even though the Yorkists were commanded by the redoubtable Earl of Warwick. The explanation offered is that the rabble element, loaded down with plunder, had descended before the battle and only the household men remained. Then the rabble reappeared, and London was threatened. To avert a sack of the city the queen decided to withdraw the army, either on her own initiative or urged by the peace-loving King Henry; as it departed it pillaged the Abbey of St Albans, with the king and queen in residence, and retired north, plundering as it went. Nevertheless, it was sufficiently intact a month later to meet and nearly defeat the Yorkist forces at Towton, the bloodiest and hardest fought battle of the civil war thus far. The ‘facts’ as stated make little sense, because they are seen through the distorting glass of Yorkist propaganda.

The ravages allegedly committed by the Lancastrian army are extensively documented in the chronicles, written after the event and under a Yorkist king. They are strong on rhetoric but short on detail. The two accounts most often quoted are by the Croyland Chronicle and Abbott Whethamstede. There is no doubting the note of genuine hysterical fear in both. The inhabitants of the abbey of Crowland were thoroughly frightened by what they believed would happen as the Lancastrians swept south. ‘What do you suppose must have been our fears . . . [w]hen every day rumours of this sad nature were reaching our ears.’ Especially alarming was the threat to church property. The northern men ‘irreverently rushed, in their unbridled and frantic rage into churches . . . [a]nd most nefariously plundered them.’ If anyone resisted ‘they cruelly slaughtered them in the very churches or churchyards.’ People sought shelter for themselves and their goods in the abbey,“ but there is not a single report of refugees seeking succour in the wake of the passage of the army after their homes had been burned and their possessions stolen. The Lancastrians were looting, according to the Crowland Chronicle, on a front thirty miles wide ‘like so many locusts.“ Why, then, did they come within six miles but bypass Crowland? The account as a whole makes it obvious that it was written considerably later than the events it so graphically describes.

The claim that Stamford was subject to a sack from which it did not recover is based on the Tudor antiquary John Leland. His attribution of the damage is speculation; by the time he wrote stories of Lancastrian ravages were well established, but outside living memory. His statement was embellished by the romantic historian Francis Peck in the early eighteenth century. Peck gives a spirited account of Wakefield and the Lancastrian march, influenced by Tudor as well as Yorkist historiography. … As late as 12 February when Warwick moved his troops to St Albans it is claimed that he did not know the whereabouts of the Lancastrians, an odd lack of military intelligence about an army that was supposed to be leaving havoc in its wake. The Lancastrians apparently swerved to the west after passing Royston which has puzzled military historians because they accept that it came down the Great North Road, but on the evidence we have it is impossible to affirm this. If it came from York via Grantham, Leicester, Market Harborough, Northampton and Stony Stratford to Dunstable, where the first engagement took place, there was no necessity to make an inexplicable swerve westwards because its line of march brought it to Dunstable and then to St Albans. The Lancastrians defeated Warwick’s army on 17 February 1461 and Warwick fled the field. In an echo of Wakefield there is a suggestion of treachery. An English Chronicle tells the story of one Thomas Lovelace, a captain of Kent in the Yorkist ranks, who also appears in Waurin. Lovelace, it is claimed, was captured at Wakefield and promised Queen Margaret that he would join Warwick and then betray and desert him, in return for his freedom.

Lt. Colonel Bume, in a rare spirit of chivalry, credits Margaret with the tactical plan that won the victory, although only because it was so unorthodox that it must have been devised by a woman. But there is no evidence that Margaret had any military flair, let alone experience. A more likely candidate is the veteran captain Andrew Trolloppe who served with Warwick when the latter was Captain of Calais, but he refused to fight under the Yorkist banner against his king at Ludford in 1459 when Warwick brought over a contingent of Calais men to defy King Henry in the field. It was Trolloppe’s ‘desertion’ at Ludford, it is claimed, that forced the Yorkists to flee. The most objective and detailed account of the battle of St Albans is by the unknown continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle. The chronicle ends in 1469 and by that time it was safe to criticise Warwick, who was then out of favour. The continuator was a London citizen who may have fought in the Yorkist ranks. He had an interest in military matters and recorded the gathering of the Lancastrian army at Hull, before Wakefield, and the detail that the troops wore the Prince of Wales’ colours and ostrich feathers on their livery together with the insignia of their lords. He had heard the rumours of a large ill-disciplined army, but because he saw only the household men he concluded that the northerners ran away before the battle. Abbot Whethamstede wrote a longer though far less circumstantial account, in which he carefully made no mention of the Earl of Warwick. … Margaret of Anjou had won the battle but she proceeded to lose the war. London lay open to her and she made a fatal political blunder in retreating from St Albans instead of taking possession of the capital.' Although mistaken, her reasons for doing so were cogent. The focus of contemporary accounts is the threat to London from the Lancastrian army. This is repeated in all the standard histories, and even those who credit Margaret with deliberately turning away from London do so for the wrong reasons.

... The uncertainties and delays, as well as the hostility of some citizens, served to reinforce Margaret’s belief that entry to London could be dangerous. It was not what London had to fear from her but what she had to fear from London that made her hesitate. Had she made a show of riding in state into the city with her husband and son in a colourful procession she might have accomplished a Lancastrian restoration, but Margaret had never courted popularity with the Londoners, as Warwick had, and she had kept the court away from the capital for several years in the late 1450s, a move that was naturally resented. Warwick’s propaganda had tarnished her image, associating her irrevocably with the dreaded northern men. There was also the danger that if Warwick and Edward of March reached London with a substantial force she could be trapped inside a hostile city, and she cannot have doubted that once she and Prince Edward were taken prisoner the Lancastrian dynasty would come to an end. Understandably, at the critical moment, Margaret lost her nerve. ... Queen Margaret did not march south in 1461 in order to take possession of London, but to recover the person of the king. She underestimated the importance of the capital to her cause." Although she had attempted to establish the court away from London, the Yorkist lords did not oppose her for taking the government out of the capital, but for excluding them from participation in it. Nevertheless London became the natural and lucrative base for the Yorkists, of which they took full advantage. The author of the Annales was in no doubt that it was Margaret’s failure to enter London that ensured the doom of the Lancastrian dynasty. A view shared, of course, by the continuator of Gregory’s Chronicle, a devoted Londoner:

He that had Londyn for sake Wolde no more to hem take The king, queen and prince had been in residence at the Abbey of St Albans since the Lancastrian victory. Abbot Whethamstede, at his most obscure, conveys a strong impression that St Albans was devastated because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, encouraged plundering south of the Trent in lieu of wages. There must have been some pillaging by an army which had been kept in a state of uncertainty for a week, but whether it was as widespread or as devastating as the good abbot, and later chroniclers, assert is by no means certain. Whethamstede is so admirably obtuse that his rhetoric confuses both the chronology and the facts. So convoluted and uncircumstantial is his account that the eighteenth century historian of the abbey, the Reverend Peter Newcome, was trapped into saying: ‘These followers of the Earl of March were looked on as monsters in barbarity.’ He is echoed by Antonia Gransden who has ‘the conflict between the southemers of Henry’s army and the nonherners of Edward’s. The abbey was not pillaged, but Whethamstede blackened Queen Margaret’s reputation by a vague accusation that she appropriated one of the abbey’s valuable possessions before leaving for the north. This is quite likely, not in a spirit of plunder or avarice, but as a contribution to the Lancastrian war effort, just as she had extorted, or so he later claimed, a loan from the prior of Durham earlier in the year. The majority of the chroniclers content themselves with the laconic statement that the queen and her army withdrew to the north, they are more concerned to record in rapturous detail the reception of Edward IV by ‘his’ people. An English Chronicle, hostile to the last, reports that the Lancastrian army plundered its way north as remorselessly as it had on its journey south. One can only assume that it took a different route. The Lancastrian march ended where it began, in the city of York. Edward of March had himself proclaimed King Edward IV in the capital the queen had abandoned, and advanced north to win the battle of Towton on 29 March. The bid to unseat the government of the Yorkist lords had failed, and that failure brought a new dynasty into being. The Duke of York was dead, but his son was King of England whilst King Henry, Queen Margaret and Prince Edward sought shelter at the Scottish court. The Lancastrian march on London had vindicated its stated purpose, to recover the person of the king so that the crown would not continue to be a pawn in the hands of rebels and traitors, but ultimately it had failed because the Lancastrian leaders, including Queen Margaret, simply did not envisage that Edward of March would have the courage or the capacity to declare himself king. Edward IV had all the attributes that King Henry (and Queen Margaret) lacked: he was young, ruthless, charming, and the best general of his day; and in the end he out-thought as well as out-manoeuvred them.

It cannot be argued that no damage was done by the Lancastrian army. It was mid-winter, when supplies of any kind would have been short, so pillaging, petty theft, and unpaid foraging were inevitable. It kept the field for over a month and, and, as it stayed longest at Dunstable and in the environs of St Albans, both towns suffered from its presence. But the army did not indulge in systematic devastation of the countryside, either on its own account or at the behest of the queen. Nor did it contain contingents of England’s enemies, the Scots and the French, as claimed by Yorkist propaganda. Other armies were on the march that winter: a large Yorkist force moved from London to Towton and back again. There are no records of damage done by it, but equally, it cannot be claimed that there was none.

-B.M Cron, "Margaret of Anjou and the Lancastrian March on London, 1461"

[crimeronan]

spent my morning exhaustedly realizing that my phone charger had broken inside the charging port & having a panic spiral because i gotta take the car to the shop today and 1) need a phone to call when it's done 2) need easy access to public transit schedules. did some frantic googling and found a forum explaining how to use a safety pin to dig the metal pieces out. so i spent some time finding a thumb tack & then followed the instructions. it only took about 10 minutes.

then i put my phone on a different charger. and it wouldn't charge.

cue SECOND immediate and debilitating anxiety spiral about "OH GOD i just yanked out a bunch of actual electrical components and destroyed my whole phone and i'm gonna have to pay for a replacement and transfer my number and try to recover all of my data and and and,"

pulled the charger out. blew in the port. flipped the charger around. prayed really hard. plugged it back in.

anyway.

my phone is fine now.

[giantkillerjack]

My first time watching Glass Onion it was obvious that Miles' speeches were bullshit, but I still searched for any hidden meaning there might be.

The second time is a different experience though because every time my brain starts to search for meaning, I feel like Benoit Blanc discovering that no, there is absolutely no hidden meaning.

It's bullshit it's all nothing nothing nothing! It is just how you end up talking when everyone reacts to your self-aggrandizing word vomit like it is actually wisdom.

Also, legit, when Miles gave his stupid bullshit speech about what the word 'disruptor' means to him, I shit you not I was like holy shit am I back in business school right now?!

Miles must have given speeches like that at 100 business school graduations, goddamn.

Like, the motherfuckers really do sound like this. We didn't have any billionaires come, but we had a lot of millionaire guest speakers in my classes, and they fucking talk like that.

They all think they're rugged capitalists, but they're just glass onions!

[hunnter]

You’ve heard of Suella Braverman getting sacked then rehired a week later after leaking sensitive information while home secretary, now get ready for Liz Truss having her phone hacked by Russia while she was Foreign Secretary but getting the whole story covered up by Boris Johnson so that her leadership bid wasn’t hurt by it

[cuteniaarts]

@katkastrofa: *writes a single throwaway line in one chapter of Lost and Found that is never referenced again*

Me, completely randomly and with no prompting: Alright, bet–

[dnptheinfinity]

fjdjdje loved your analysis of the sims's language!!! dag dag is what i hear them say the most so i went with it lmao

(also do they have their own letters or is it all just spoken words? 👀)

i'm glad you enjoyed 😂

but it makes sense that you'd hear that most often! dag dag and sul sul are probably the most well known phrases, since they are both just greetings (tho i think dag dag became more of a thing only in the sims 4? might be wrong tho)

Simlish is so fascinating to me because it's a mix of several different languages while still being basically untranslatable, like, there are some words or phrases that have been consistent throughout the games (like nooboo meaning baby) and i'm just now finding out that it has a wikipedia page with some info about its phonology and stuff, but it was purposefully made to not be understood so that everyone playing is equally confused about what the sims are saying <3

and also with the real songs being translated to Simlish, they want the words in Simlish to have a similar vibe to the original more than they want it to be consistent across songs, i won't find it now but i watched a video on youtube at one point where someone wanted to make a song fully in Simlish based on the already translated songs and it was just not possible to find the exact equivalents, like with 'dance' in my tags, it was 'desh' or whatever in that one song i found, but i bet there are others where it's something not even slightly related to that, they just pick and choose which word to change completely and which to keep kind of similar

(also side note but i just love thinking about actual artists recording their song for the sims, they just get a page of gibberish lyrics that fits the rhythm of the song and are asked to go for it like?? incredible. i watched a video about this too and can you imagine for example Gerard Way of mcr fame doing it? or Janelle Monáe? not to mention Katy Perry (she had a whole stuff pack for herself in the sims 3)? and yet it all happened! there's even a Car Seat Headrest song in ts4, wild.)

also yes, they do have letters! everything in the environment of the game is written in Simlish, you can see it for example on signs or the computer or books i think too? i was under the impression that it was, again, not really readable or translatable, but apparently the letters do have equivalents?

not sure how official this is tho, i just found it on google when i was looking for some examples of the writing

well. i kind of went off about all this, hope it was at least a bit interesting 😅

[8millionscorpions]

also thinking abt the immigrant workers they hire as part of like. company deal for them visiting america cuz of the motel chains (extremely extremely common in this city) and at the last motel we were at there was a dude who happened to have had the same exact name as a really really popular celebrity n he was visiting from brazil, so he could transfer USD to BRL for the currency rate so he could send home his family money back home. he was sooo sweet. one time some weirdo guy was following me and Ace. so we told him all freaked out cuz he was in the lobby. and he went LOOKING AROUND the property for him after we gave him a description of the guy with our other homeless friends. like damn i felt so looked out for that day

[uygfiug]

I’m keeping your ask until I have the energy to answer properly but thank you for asking!!! I love infodumping about my ocs!!!!

Do you have any ocs?

i dont know? i dont think so, i have characters from jokes with my little brother & they come back occasionally but i wouldnt call them ocs? if that makes sense. i had a bunch when i was younger though :) jesse de pinguin will always have a special spot in my heart <333