Q4)9th October, 1964, saw the birth of director, Guillermo del Toro. Guillermo has dual citizenship. He’s a citizen of Mexico … and which other country?
* Well: I tend to default to Wikipedia, Olga^. But ever since the Batman issue (remember that?!), I do try and double check things! I have to admit, I’m having trouble finding that USA reference for del Toro’s citizenship! There’s always SOMETHING, isn’t there … ? As for the job … ? Well … them’s the breaks, sometimes. I’m just having to make sure I have a public and private CV: ones with and without the job. I’m just thinking, thought: given the adoption papers issue, should I have gone for it in the first place? I know one now former member of staff, there, who refused to work with the manager who screwed that up.
† Morning, again, Anne^. Did I mention I’ve got a copy of The Hellbound Heart on route?
‡ Thought you might, Debbi^! 😄 The artist that drew it, Carlos Ezquerra, co-created Judge Dredd: although I know both artist and character are comparatively unheard of in the US. Ezquerra died last year: it’s a hell of a loss. On a nicer note? Guess what’s been dispatched … ?
1967,109, weapons of mass destruction,1959,100 km Aw wow I bet your pleased that.Im not on twitter much just for few weeks, sorting few things out.But going to do quiz every day now keep mind active
Q1) 1967 Q2) 109 Q3) Weapons of mass destruction Q4) 1959 Q5) 100 km I know what you mean about Wikipedia. They tend to check the contents more now, but sometimes the sources don’t agree and it’s quite usual to copy the wrong information from one article to the next, so untangling it is difficult. I was away when you got this job, with no regular access to internet, and I don’t know what happened with the adoption papers, although I saw you mention it yesterday. Your idea for the two C.V.s sounds good anyway. Good luck with the job and with the hospital appointment. (I’ve never been to Glastonbury either, although I’m not sure it would be my scene anyway, but I’d love to see Diana Ross, for sure…)
I love it when someone comments. But, having had anonymous comments I feel may be libellous, actionable or just plain offensive, over the years?
I’d appreciate you* leaving your name — with a link to your website or social-media profile†, for preference — before you post a comment.
Should you choose to use a pseudonym/name, I’d appreciate it if that name were to be polite and inoffensive. I’d rather you kept it clean, and relatively grown up. Comments left with a pseudonym will be posted at my discretion: I really prefer a link.
Contentious, actionable or abusive posts left anonymously will not be posted. Nor will comments using offensive pseudonyms or language, or that are abusive of other commenters.
Thank you.
* I know many value their online privacy. I respect that. But hope you respect my wish to see who’s commenting on my blog: and my wish for you to introduce your self to me, and to your fellow commentors.
† Your Facebook, X/Twitter, Blogger, Instagram, TikTok or LinkedIn profile are acceptable. I also like seeing folks webpages.
1967,109, weapons of mass destruction,1959,100 km Aw wow I bet your pleased that.Im not on twitter much just for few weeks, sorting few things out.But going to do quiz every day now keep mind active
ReplyDeleteQ1) 1967
ReplyDeleteQ2) 109
Q3) Weapons of mass destruction
Q4) 1959
Q5) 100 km
I know what you mean about Wikipedia. They tend to check the contents more now, but sometimes the sources don’t agree and it’s quite usual to copy the wrong information from one article to the next, so untangling it is difficult. I was away when you got this job, with no regular access to internet, and I don’t know what happened with the adoption papers, although I saw you mention it yesterday. Your idea for the two C.V.s sounds good anyway.
Good luck with the job and with the hospital appointment. (I’ve never been to Glastonbury either, although I’m not sure it would be my scene anyway, but I’d love to see Diana Ross, for sure…)
Interesting. Funny how some people/shows/things don't cross the Atlantic. :)
ReplyDelete1. 1967
2. 109
3. weapons of mass destruction (strictly speaking, nuclear weapons)
4. 1959
5. 100 km