Wapsi Square Forum

Posted: **Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:22 pm**

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 12:49 am**

I would say that has a high degree of probability.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:25 am**

50 years of forest growth around anything will be drastically different.

For example: the two trees in this Street VIew photo were saplings 50 years ago. (I should know.)

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:10 am**

jwhouk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:25 am 50 years of forest growth around anything will be drastically different.

For example: the two trees in this Street VIew photo were saplings 50 years ago. (I should know.)

Oh, Joe, you can't fool us. Only one of those is a tree.

Google's automatic "anonymity and privacy" filter has blurred a small portion of the right-hand "tree". It's obviously concealing a face... and this means the "tree" is actually an ent.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:26 am**

It may also have been redone in a more modern manner

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 11:18 am**

oldmanmickey wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:26 am It may also have been redone in a more modern manner

Quoting a post by someone unimportant at the comic itself:

Dave
April 22, 2019, 12:01 am

Almost certainly it is different functionally, even if they kept the facade. By now, the north and south wings would have been sold off as condos, there would be at least one Starbucks in the entrance hall, the servants’ quarters would have been converted into a trendy restaurant, and the wine cellar would have been packed with servers and would be busily mining bitcoins.

.

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:05 pm**

Have to disagree with the Starbucks comment, since it's not in Seattle.

--FreeFlier

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:10 pm**

What could possibly go wrong?

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:39 pm**

FreeFlier wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:05 pm Have to disagree with the Starbucks comment, since it's not in Seattle.

Have to disagree with your disagreement. Seattle is irrelevant. You will be assimilated.

https://qz.com/208457/a-cartographic-gu ... omination/

Posted: **Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:43 pm**

FreeFlier wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:05 pm Have to disagree with the Starbucks comment, since it's not in Seattle.

--FreeFlier

As of the end of last year, Starbucks had 335 company stores plus 653 licensed (franchised?) stores in Great Britain.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 7:42 am**

TIL that my metro area is in the top twenty for most Starbucks in the world.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:48 am**

I think Barbara is trying to Cass that the place is a little run down.

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 9:49 am**

I like Barb's sleepy-eye look and her different manner of speaking, but I'll bet that mansion has one wing's roof caved in from previous highjinks...

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:08 pm**

...wait a minute.

Which "Sixties"?

Posted: **Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:30 pm**

jwhouk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:08 pm ...wait a minute.

Which "Sixties"?

Hmm. The daguerreotype process was developed in the 1830s, so that photo could possibly date back to the 1860s.

Not from the 2060s, unless somebody is doing something which will make the Causality Police rather nervous.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:22 am**

Dave wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:30 pm
jwhouk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:08 pm ...wait a minute.

Which "Sixties"?
Hmm. The daguerreotype process was developed in the 1830s, so that photo could possibly date back to the 1860s.

Not from the 2060s, unless somebody is doing something which will make the Causality Police rather nervous.

Dunno - the lens doesn't look right for that.

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:29 am**

AnotherFairportfan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:22 am
Dave wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:30 pm
jwhouk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:08 pm ...wait a minute.

Which "Sixties"?
Hmm. The daguerreotype process was developed in the 1830s, so that photo could possibly date back to the 1860s.

Not from the 2060s, unless somebody is doing something which will make the Causality Police rather nervous.
Dunno - the lens doesn't look right for that.

Converging verticals . . . that's either a fixed-body camera or an incompetent photographer. I'd guess the former.

Which means not 1860s . . . most cameras then were full-motion, and most of the exceptions were specialist cameras.

--FreeFlier

Posted: **Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:14 pm**

(man, paul's gotta stay on the top of his game around this crew...)

Posted: **Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:08 am**

TazManiac wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:14 pm (man, paul's gotta stay on the top of his game around this crew...)

Remember:. Paul is/was a professional photographer.

Posted: **Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:09 am**

But - he hand-drew that "photo." Just saying.

Wapsi Square Forum

From The Archive 2019-04-22

From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22

Re: From The Archive 2019-04-22