#ramsay things

[esprei]

he is indeed an idiot sandwich

[viggos-mortensen]

In Bruges (2008) // The Banshees of Inisherin (2022)

[captaincanonly]

[willgrahamscock]

[venus-dawnstar]

I love seeing neurotypicals watch Gordon Ramsey and act shocked when he notices small details.

"Oh my god, he noticed the texture of the meat!" That's... Not what you do? You don't feel the textures in your food?

"He realized what he needed to add to the dish!" You can't tell when an ingredient is missing? You don't realize?

"He can tell what food is gonna taste good just by looking at it!" You don't know how to do that?

...

Weirdo

[itrhymeswith-freak]

i will never get over the eye widening thing Iwan Rheon does as Ramsay i think abt it daily it’s so good it shows so much emotion and I am feral abt it

[kingsmakers]

Some of you have just gotten wayyyy too comfortable with bullying other people in fandoms.

For a start: having to drag people's oc or fic if you personally don't like how it goes or who they're paired with. Back in the day we had this thing called "don't like, don't read" and I don't know if you kids still do that but it's basically this thing of knowing we don't like a certain character or pairing and as such, choosing not to read it. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Shutting the fuck up is free.

Another is this constant obsession with claiming people are "plagiarising". Plagiarism is obviously real and does exist, but I'm talking about when there are common concepts in fics and you're claiming they were "stolen" from you. Like idk I was one of the first people to write and popularise the "Baratheon daughter" concept, but that doesn't mean I own it, it doesn't give me the right to tell others what they should and shouldn't write to do with that. In fact, it gives me no right at all. The other time I cared was when people literally plagiarised my story, or else copied exactly edits that I'd made. Writing fanfic is realising that people sometimes have similar ideas to you. It doesn't mean they copied you, get over yourself. If you can't differentiate between common concepts and plagiarism, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know. It just sucks where we are in this place where others are deliberately making fandoms shitty for other people. People used to do "twin" edits if they shared a faceclaim, they used to be interested in seeing how others would play off a similar concept. But these days you kids are so fucking hostile and just want to attack everything you come across that you, personally, do not like.

[evil-maryland]

This is the perfect representation of out Hellsite

[reiverreturns]

'oh scottish twitter is so funny' yeah but do you even understand how i fucking cackled at this for ten minutes straight

[zhoudadudugongjin]

[the-spine-stealer]

Micheal distortion and Gordon Ramsay fighting. Take it (originally posted on my main)

[dinosaurwithablog]

A couple of weeks ago, I said that I was gonna try to make beef wellington. I made it today, and it came out great. I've never made this before. It's a rather difficult dish, but somehow, miraculously, I did it!!! It's sooooooo good. The pastry was light and crispy, the mushroom duxelle was rich with deep flavors, the Serrano ham that I used was delicious, and the beef was cooked to perfection. The red wine reduction was spectacular. I am very, very very, very, very proud of myself and very, very, very full. As you can see from the photo above, Petey was very excited about the wellington, too. Another dish from Hell's Kitchen that I nailed. I'm very thankful to Chef Gordon Ramsay and his show, Hell's Kitchen, for inspiring me to try to cook the food they cook on the show. I have expanded my horizons and my waistline. Hahaha 😆. I need a nap. That took a lot of work, but it was well worth it. In the words of Julia Child, bon Appétit!!! 😊😍😋😋😋

[nikola-waa]

my dad with my siblings and with me

[kingsmoot]

lately i've been obsessed w domeric as the secret Good Bolton™️ who had the chance to be more and better than his father so like of course he had to die. and of course specifically ramsay had to kill him. the machine grinds onwards.

[snacho-to-ur-nacho]

i like to imaginw that ramsay had a spider in his house which refused to leave

so he could have some semblance of stability

[my-deer-friend]

I’ve read something interesting about Martha Laurens (John’s sister) that once she had a really mean teacher throw away her doll by the window and she cried every time someone mentioned the teacher’s name, and her response being asked why she cried she would answer that because of Nelly's death.

I come across with this in the book “Memories of Martha Laurens Ramsay” by David Ramsay, but in one version, in the others I do not saw any record like this, can you help with advice how to use historical sources like this, because there are two versions and I do not know how to interpret this. 

this is the second edition^

this is the first one^

This is such a great question, and it really goes to the heart of what makes historical research both fun and frustrating.

When working with written historical sources, we must put aside the idea that we can ever find "the truth". Not only do people lie, but they also forget, misremember, have imperfect information, misunderstand, and so on. But that doesn't mean that the written sources are necessarily wrong. Here's how I'd go about thinking over this case.

1. Evaluate the quality of the source

By "quality" here I mean the historical accuracy or truthfulness, though there are other lenses you could use in different contexts. I first want to know how reliable and accurate in general the source is.

What? This text is a biography, published publicly, by the husband of the subject.

Who? David Ramsay was Martha's husband. That both means he had privileged access to her life story and documents and that he had reason to put a positive spin on her character and actions.

When? The book was published posthumously, but fairly soon after Martha's death. But that means there was no chance to fact-check the text with her, and even three years after someone's death is a lot of time for memories to get muddled and changed. So we can say the narrative is evidence of what Ramsay remembered (and decided to include) rather than what Martha actually experienced.

Why? The goal in publishing this work seems to be a heartfelt attempt to memorialise the life and religious views of a beloved spouse.

Overall, I think we can say the book is a reasonably factually accurate but highly selective source on Martha's life, highlighting her positive traits and leaving out large swaths of her story. For this part in particular, I can see no reason why Ramsay would have made it up himself; it's a trivial detail and doesn't add much to his agenda.

2. Cross-reference with other sources

The next thing we can do, having judged the source to be not-super-accurate, would be to find other (hopefully more sturdy) sources to cross reference. I highly doubt that anything like this still exists, but it's always great when you can find two completely unrelated people saying the same thing.

3. Interpret the reason for the change

The core of your question, if I can restate it, is "why is the story included in the first edition, and not the second?". This is different to asking whether the story is true (which is something we can never know). There are several reasons that occur to me off the top of my head for why the text would be edited between editions:

Ramsay realised the section was inaccurate and asked for it to be cut

Ramsay wanted the section removed for some personal reason (it was a painful memory, it was a private moment, he realised it was embarrassing or created a bad impression of his wife)

The publisher asked for that story specifically to be cut for some reason

The publisher reqested the text to be shortened and that's the part Ramsay decided to remove

Ramsay revised the book for the second edition and removed it for editorial reasons – maybe it broke the flow, or seemed too trivial, even if it was "true"

To find out what happened, you could look around to see if David Ramsay wrote any letters about this (e.g. to the publisher or to someone in Martha's family), or even just check the foreword to the second edition to see if there are clues about why parts were changed.

4. Decide how to use the information

Having done all that, we're left to decide how to proceed, which depends on what we need to do with this info. The first step is to define the assumptions we have made.

My assumptions (and yours could differ) are: it's quite possible the anecdote is based on something Ramsay remembers Martha saying, and therefore might be true, or at least true to the family mythos (as one of those stories passed on from one person to the next). There's no other evidence either way, and the story doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of Martha's life, except to show a possible character trait that I can probably get better corroboration on elsewhere.

If I was writing a biography of Martha, and I felt that I had to include this story, I would explain what Ramsay wrote int he context of the deliberations above (much more briefly) so that the reader could judge for themself.