The oldest question answered by the SDMB?

[samclem]

@Little_Nemo

I recall the first question I posted in 1999 was never answered. So there’s still an opportunity for anyone who wants to go for the record.

@davidm

Give us a link.

@Little_Nemo

I’m going from old memories here. I had just read an article by a woman which said that there used to be laws against transvestism that supposedly defined how many articles of men’s clothing a woman could legally wear. Supposedly a woman could wear some articles of men’s clothing and it was just considered to be fashion; but too many and she was illegally cross-dressing. As I recall, she claimed the number that broke the law was six.

I wasn’t disputing that there may have been laws against transvestism in the past but I had never heard of anything that set such a specific limit. But the woman seemed to imply this was a common law. So I asked if anyone else could confirm such laws existed.
I looked but couldn’t find the thread.

No longer in the database. You changed your name in late 1999 and all your previous posts disappeared in the changeover to vBulletin.

Had just under 1000 posts you lost.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

My first question on the board was whimsical. I’d read about a woman who claimed to have channeled Twain’s ghost and literally ghost-written a novel, which she’d published. My question was whether Twain’s estate could come after her for royalties. I don’t remember the answer :).

[aldiboronti]

I seem to remember the first question I asked here, back in 2002, was how come silent comedies and many old movies in general were shown at such a high speed? Did contemporary audiences really watch them at these ludicrous speeds?

I don’t remember the answer now so I may well have ask it again!

[Little_Nemo]

@samclem

Had just under 1000 posts you lost.

I remember back then. Reaching a thousand posts seemed like a major milestone.

[Fleetwood]

@Little_Nemo

I remember back then. Reaching a thousand posts seemed like a major milestone.

Still is. To some of us.

[heartsplayer]

I know that there are threads on here dating back to 1999, and while browsing as a guest (before I signed up here), I did actually see a couple of threads from 1999/2000 get bumped up. Don’t know if there are any earlier threads than 1999 though.

Haven’t seen any actual questions from ages ago answered recently, though.

[Colibri]

@heartsplayer

I know that there are threads on here dating back to 1999, and while browsing as a guest (before I signed up here), I did actually see a couple of threads from 1999/2000 get bumped up. Don’t know if there are any earlier threads than 1999 though.

This message board started in March 1999. There was a previous incarnation on AOL.

[Leo_Bloom]

Not OP, but is My Voodoo on moths today the oldest (known) zombie? 19 years.

This one is just a wee tyke at two.

Couldn’t find a corpse OP on that topic just now, so this is another mis-response but part of the dominant drift of the thread.

[Leo_Bloom]

ETA: Missed window to delete in and put in new OP.

[AHunter3]

@aldiboronti

I seem to remember the first question I asked here, back in 2002, was how come silent comedies and many old movies in general were shown at such a high speed? Did contemporary audiences really watch them at these ludicrous speeds?

I don’t remember the answer now so I may well have ask it again!

Assuming you’re serious, the number of frames per second that movies were shown at back then was a different standard than the modern standard. Off the top of my head, I think it was 6 frames per second THEN versus 8 frames per second in the modern era.

Your logical next question ought to be “Why the fuck do people play old Charlie Chaplin, etc, movies at the 8 frames per second then, and leave us watching people jerk around awkwardly? It makes it difficult if not impossible to appreciate those old movies, it makes them look silly and ridiculous”. I don’t have a ready answer for that one, aside from laziness. I guess (especially in the pre-digital era) it was not exactly simple to splice in a piece of 6-frames-per-second footage in the midst of a reel of 8-frames-per-second film, so they just didn’t bother correcting for it. There’s really NO excuse for doing it in the digital era. It’s not how people watched those movied back then.

[beowulff]

This 19-year-old thread had useful information posted recently.

[Chronos]

6 or 8 frames per second would either one look extremely jerky and unnatural. The standard nowadays is usually 24, and sometimes as high as 60.

[AHunter3]

@Chronos

6 or 8 frames per second would either one look extremely jerky and unnatural. The standard nowadays is usually 24, and sometimes as high as 60.

Thanks… I don’t know where I misremembered those wrong numbers from.

The general sense of the post, though, is correct I think: they changed the standard so as to have more frames per second, and the jerky-superfast motion of old movies is due to them being run at a faster speed (in frames per second) than they were filmed at.