Hétéroclite

a little bit of everything

810 notes

ellenkushner:

amadansmound:

via bookporn:

Threats and Warnings on Bookplates
It was traditional, particularly before the invention of the printing press when books were all hand written manuscripts, to letter a curse into the book to prevent theft. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have worked very well, as the books also had to be chained into place. Even chains had limited effect. Witness the many ancient libraries where there are still chains in place… but no books.
Here are a few examples:
Thys boke is one
And God’s curse another;
They that take the one
God geve them the other.
He who steals this book
may he die the death
may he be frizzled in a pan…
This present book legible in scripture
Here in this place thus tacched with a cheyn
Purposed of entent for to endure
And here perpetuelli stylle to remeyne
Fro eyre to eyre wherfore appone peyn
Of cryst is curs of faders and of moderes
Non of hem hens atempt it to dereyne
Whille ani leef may goodeli hange with oder.
Steal not this Book my honest Friend
For fear the Galows should be your hend,
And when you die the Lord will say
And wares the Book you stole away?
A variation on the same theme:
Steal not this book, my worthy friend
For fear the gallows will be your end;
Up the ladder, and down the rope,
There you’ll hang until you choke;
Then I’ll come along and say -
"Where’s that book you stole away?"
From the Monastery of San Pedro, Barcelona, a blanket curse for the entire library…(I really wish this one existed, but unfortunately, it appears that it is apocryphal — there is no monastery in San Pedro. It’s so nasty though that I include it anyway.)
For him that Stealeth a Book from this Library,
Let it change into a Serpent in his hand & rend him.
Let him be struck with Palsy, & all his Members blasted.
Let him languish in Pain crying aloud for Mercy,
Let there be no Surcease to his Agony till he sink to Dissolution.
Let Bookworms gnaw his Entrails in token of the Worm that dieth not,
When at last he goeth to his final Punishment,
Let the flames of hell consume him for ever & aye.”

(source: Littera Scripta).

Lew Jaffe, from Confessions of a Bookplate Junkie, shared his collection of bookplate threats and warnings done by different artists.

1. Lloyd Douglas. 2. Marion Nutt. 3.  Stanley Dressler Lovegrove. 4. Malcolm M. Ferguson. 5. Philip Reed. 6. Artist unknown.

"I should warn you, however, that I have several volumes devoted to curses for people who don’t return books.” “I’d like to borrow those, too.” ― Steven Brust (Morrolan e’Drien, Vlad Taltos; Dragon)

Mmmm hmmmm

(via valeriane)

535 notes

http://potootagath.tumblr.com/post/92717770732/grandsairs-yamibree-pissyeti

grandsairs:

yamibree:

pissyeti:

smallercomfort:

zawehzaweh:

image
Here is our best guess at who you are:
1. You are female.
2. You are currently in your twenties, you are single, dating at nights and balancing a promising career during the day.
3. You are…

Here is our best guess at who you are:
1. You are male.
2. You are still a teenager, but won’t be one for very much longer.
3. You’re in college and are already worried about finding the perfect job that will be both fulfilling and will pay well. Your future worries you more than you’d like to admit.
4. You have beautiful, silky brown hair and big eyes.
5. You know that if you’d only believe in yourself more, things would be much easier for you. Yet you still doubt your instincts more than you should, instead of trusting them every time.

LOL XDDD

2,695 notes

the-eccentric-scientist:

engrprof:

divineirony:

Science “journalism” is why we can’t have nice things.

I highly recommend clicking through any science reporting to the actual article, but it will make you a cynic!

I recently had a conversation with my mother about “scientific” articles, and using skepticism. It was stemmed from her telling me about an advertisement that she saw for a talk on “natural” treatment for disease. 
I looked at the article. Surrounding the text were pictures of attractive, smiling people doing yoga, and tranquil pools of water.The headline was “Goodbye Diabetes, Heart Disease, & Cancer Risk: Preventing and Reversing Disease the Natural Way”.  This immediately set off my mental bullshit warning. For starters, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are all very different diseases. To suggest that they can all be treated with similar tactics is ludicrous. 
It only got worse from there, as the rest of the ad read: “More than 40% of people age 20 years or older, and 72% over 65 years old, are prediabetic or have diabetes. The health implications are catastrophic. Come and learn natural strategies that address the underlying causes of disease and place us on the path of health and healing.” There are some very common advertising gimmicks used here. First, is the use of arbitrary statistics. The fact that 40% of people 20+ years old and 72% of 65+ year-olds have a diabetes-related disease is irrelevant, unless followed by some other statistic regarding the treatment of these people. The use of these statistics is used merely for show, to give an appearance of credibility. 
Next, the use of the word “catastrophic”, without any more specific details as to the pathological effects of diabetes. “Catastrophic” is not a very descriptive term, but it has an emotional impact. It sounds very negative and very extreme, thus making the reader want to avoid whatever it is that is described so negatively. 
Finally, the use of the terms “natural strategies” and “path of health and healing”. This also appeals to emotions without actually describing anything at all. Using the term “natural” makes things sound more appealing, due to social stigma against anything man-made or artificial. Words like “health” and “healing” sound pleasant-it doesn’t matter that without context, these words are meaningless, because they evoke a positive response. 
After looking at all these uses of advertising, I was pretty much convinced this was a scam, but what put the final nail in the coffin was the mention of a book signing for the lecturer’s book, something entitled  Goodbye Diabetes: Preventing and Reversing Diabetes the Natural Way. It was obvious: this whole lecture was just a ploy to garner publicity-and sales-for the lecturer’s book. 
I tried telling my mother that it would maybe be a good idea to approach this lecture with a healthy dose of skepticism, and that things that touted “natural” or “miracle” “cures” without solid evidence should be analyzed critically. She did not take my advise very well. She said that the lecturer had a doctorate, isn’t that enough credibility? I responded that no degree makes you automatically reliable; Dr. Oz had a doctorate, and he’s still a manipulative snake-oil salesman. She replied that she just wanted to look into all the options, that she liked the idea of natural treatments instead of just medicating for everything. I told her that’s fine, as long as you look at your options critically and with skepticism. She then said that she didn’t like the word skepticism-it had a very negative connotation. 
The conversation went on, but that really ended it for me. It made me realize that for most people, they don’t care if their information comes from a well-sourced, peer reviewed scientific paper or if it comes from a quack looking to make money. They’ll just take whatever is easiest to swallow. And it makes me sad to think that people are like this. It makes me sad that I couldn’t convince my mother to look at things with skepticism. Because it’s not a negative word. It just means searching for the truth, and not stopping for the easy answers along the way. It means being able to think for yourself, and not simply gobbling up whatever someone with a title tells you to think. I think that “skepticism” is a positive word. And I think that if we all head a little more of it, we could see some positive change. But don’t just take my word for it. Think about it yourself. 

the-eccentric-scientist:

engrprof:

divineirony:

Science “journalism” is why we can’t have nice things.

I highly recommend clicking through any science reporting to the actual article, but it will make you a cynic!

I recently had a conversation with my mother about “scientific” articles, and using skepticism. It was stemmed from her telling me about an advertisement that she saw for a talk on “natural” treatment for disease. 

I looked at the article. Surrounding the text were pictures of attractive, smiling people doing yoga, and tranquil pools of water.The headline was “Goodbye Diabetes, Heart Disease, & Cancer Risk: Preventing and Reversing Disease the Natural Way”.  This immediately set off my mental bullshit warning. For starters, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer are all very different diseases. To suggest that they can all be treated with similar tactics is ludicrous.

It only got worse from there, as the rest of the ad read: “More than 40% of people age 20 years or older, and 72% over 65 years old, are prediabetic or have diabetes. The health implications are catastrophic. Come and learn natural strategies that address the underlying causes of disease and place us on the path of health and healing.” There are some very common advertising gimmicks used here. First, is the use of arbitrary statistics. The fact that 40% of people 20+ years old and 72% of 65+ year-olds have a diabetes-related disease is irrelevant, unless followed by some other statistic regarding the treatment of these people. The use of these statistics is used merely for show, to give an appearance of credibility.

Next, the use of the word “catastrophic”, without any more specific details as to the pathological effects of diabetes. “Catastrophic” is not a very descriptive term, but it has an emotional impact. It sounds very negative and very extreme, thus making the reader want to avoid whatever it is that is described so negatively.

Finally, the use of the terms “natural strategies” and “path of health and healing”. This also appeals to emotions without actually describing anything at all. Using the term “natural” makes things sound more appealing, due to social stigma against anything man-made or artificial. Words like “health” and “healing” sound pleasant-it doesn’t matter that without context, these words are meaningless, because they evoke a positive response.

After looking at all these uses of advertising, I was pretty much convinced this was a scam, but what put the final nail in the coffin was the mention of a book signing for the lecturer’s book, something entitled  Goodbye Diabetes: Preventing and Reversing Diabetes the Natural Way. It was obvious: this whole lecture was just a ploy to garner publicity-and sales-for the lecturer’s book.

I tried telling my mother that it would maybe be a good idea to approach this lecture with a healthy dose of skepticism, and that things that touted “natural” or “miracle” “cures” without solid evidence should be analyzed critically. She did not take my advise very well. She said that the lecturer had a doctorate, isn’t that enough credibility? I responded that no degree makes you automatically reliable; Dr. Oz had a doctorate, and he’s still a manipulative snake-oil salesman. She replied that she just wanted to look into all the options, that she liked the idea of natural treatments instead of just medicating for everything. I told her that’s fine, as long as you look at your options critically and with skepticism. She then said that she didn’t like the word skepticism-it had a very negative connotation.

The conversation went on, but that really ended it for me. It made me realize that for most people, they don’t care if their information comes from a well-sourced, peer reviewed scientific paper or if it comes from a quack looking to make money. They’ll just take whatever is easiest to swallow. And it makes me sad to think that people are like this. It makes me sad that I couldn’t convince my mother to look at things with skepticism. Because it’s not a negative word. It just means searching for the truth, and not stopping for the easy answers along the way. It means being able to think for yourself, and not simply gobbling up whatever someone with a title tells you to think. I think that “skepticism” is a positive word. And I think that if we all head a little more of it, we could see some positive change. But don’t just take my word for it. Think about it yourself. 

(via oxidoreductase)