From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #16338 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, July 8 2025 Volume 14 : Number 16338 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Why Cavemen Never Had High Blood Pressure ["Pressure Fix" ] This works in seconds ["Nerve blocker" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 14:22:02 +0200 From: "Pressure Fix" Subject: Why Cavemen Never Had High Blood Pressure Why Cavemen Never Had High Blood Pressure http://hosecopper.click/_GJLhw4Ij7Ewh2kEdhcr3nqW2QM4gIz-UIFj0YygzM4Wmm5qTw http://hosecopper.click/iYjdCv-vO6yrTg764Cn1S5N6NliiMyFwR8stZYDtC81NwkyvQA rced with plywood by H. Stevenson in 1915. This was replaced in 1940 by Hannah Mee Horner, who glued the painting to a plywood backing. Within two decades, this backing began to warp and threatened to tear the painting in half. In 1961, at the request of Jefferson Medical College, the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA) undertook another restoration, under conservator Theodor Siegl. Mark Tucker, a later PMA conservator, described the work as "a rescue mission... They were saving the painting from tearing itself in half. These were the nail heads that were starting to work forward into the canvas and show as bumps on the front... Yeah. It was just hair-raising." Siegl used a power plane to remove the plywood down to the last, thin ply. The rest of the wood and the tenacious glue were painstakingly removed by hand. Siegl and his colleagues also restored, to some extent, the faces in the upper right of the canvas. In 2009, in response to long term concerns regarding inconsistencies in the painting's disposition of darkness and light, conservators at the Philadelphia Museum of Art undertook restoration of The Gross Clinic from July 2009 to July 2010, during which time the painting was not publicly visible. The restoration sought to revert changes that had been made by the Jefferson Medical College during the 1917 restoration. Definition of parts, including Eakins' self-portrayal, was restored, using as reference an ink wash copy of the painting made by the artist, as well as a photograph taken by the Metropolitan Museum of Art previous to the Medical College's chan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 12:19:22 +0200 From: "BREZ Social Tonic" Subject: Meet your new favorite buzz Meet your new favorite buzz http://abhishek.ru.com/FUuE6u6zNlvaxWO2iyx5yL7TeIvTMROsb1JHYZZTrdcF3enLPA http://abhishek.ru.com/9EEv3sYAYFi5Z-9L5wbgxl06FEPU1UAvZ25oCjHIFCIBZbh4SQ vivid a result is obtained without sacrificing the light and color in the other parts of the picture; and the effect, while no less intense, is, therefore, less startling and loud. These assessments were not universal. The critic for Philadelphia's The Evening Telegraph, who may have been aware of the personal politics involved in the advisory group of artists who rejected it, wrote: There is nothing so fine in the American section of the Art Department of the Exhibition, and it is a great pity that the squeamishness of the Selecting Committee compelled the artist to find a place for it in the United States Hospital building. It is rumored that the blood on Dr. Gross' fingers made some of the members of the committee sick, but, judging from the quality of the work exhibited by them we fear that it was not the blood alone that made them sick. Artists have before now been known to sicken at the sight of pictures by younger men which they in their souls were compelled to acknowledge were beyond their emulation. Controversy about the painting has centered on its violence, and on the melodramatic presence of the woman. Modern scholars have suggested that the painting may be read in terms of castration anxiety and fantasies of mastery over the body (e.g. Michael Fried), and that it documents Eakins's ambivalence about representing sex difference (e.g. Jennifer Doyle). The painting has also been understood to be drawing an analogy between painting and surgery and as identifying the work of the artist with the emergence of surgery as a respected profession. In 2002, Michael Kimmelman of The New York Times called it "hands down, the finest 19th-century American painting." In 2006, in response to the impending sale of this painting, The New York Times published a "close reading" which sketches some of the different critical perspectives on this wo ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 04:52:04 -0500 From: "Disaster Prep" Subject: Your Guide to Off-Grid Living Awaits Your Guide to Off-Grid Living Awaits http://mylostgenerator.ru.com/pSafBeG5YWIuiFWxT_Jf2JoQJEQAn7q2EPbod0MZHLNEVLBw http://mylostgenerator.ru.com/vdsNFeRJ8Rghx_eNa8IIlaR6yJMCRoljzAlQT7nnm-9aH6hm e artist's widow, wrote a letter of complaint regarding the "fancy red light" that had falsified the painting's intended tones. The painting's backing was reinforced with plywood by H. Stevenson in 1915. This was replaced in 1940 by Hannah Mee Horner, who glued the painting to a plywood backing. Within two decades, this backing began to warp and threatened to tear the painting in half. In 1961, at the request of Jefferson Medical College, the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA) undertook another restoration, under conservator Theodor Siegl. Mark Tucker, a later PMA conservator, described the work as "a rescue mission... They were saving the painting from tearing itself in half. These were the nail heads that were starting to work forward into the canvas and show as bumps on the front... Yeah. It was just hair-raising." Siegl used a power plane to remove the plywood down to the last, thin ply. The rest of the wood and the tenacious glue were painstakingly removed by hand. Siegl and his colleagues also restored, to some extent, the faces in the upper right of the canvas. In 2009, in response to long term concerns regarding inconsistencies in the painting's disposition of darkness and light, conservators at the Philadelphia Museum of Art undertook restoration of The Gross Clinic from July 2009 to July 2010, during which time the painting was not publicly visible. The restoration sought to revert changes that had been made by the Jefferson Medical College during the 1917 restoration. Definition of parts, including Eakins' self-portrayal, was restored, using as reference an ink wash copy of the painting made by the artist, as well as a photograph taken by the Metropolitan Museum of Art previous to the Medical Colle ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 15:49:58 +0200 From: "CVS Pharmacy" Subject: Enjoy Your New Oral-B 9 from CVS Enjoy Your New Oral-B 9 from CVS http://hosecopper.click/NzgzNR44CwwVqJItoxek0kFua-KTLSEV-9nEDFU6fokYSV09lg http://hosecopper.click/1b5j7w_tbrFDQoXcliY6oxxKBhGuTNDKCDR3fc7bHVrCqI6H8A servator Theodor Siegl. Mark Tucker, a later PMA conservator, described the work as "a rescue mission... They were saving the painting from tearing itself in half. These were the nail heads that were starting to work forward into the canvas and show as bumps on the front... Yeah. It was just hair-raising." Siegl used a power plane to remove the plywood down to the last, thi ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2025 10:17:52 +0200 From: "Hester" Subject: 3 words that make her your F-buddy 3 words that make her your F-buddy http://abhishek.ru.com/R0BQivmls3zqrP6qqadYbHbmHJL_l2ge3_MipngIPc39_NSMkA http://abhishek.ru.com/5zeef7ofg1OQv2hj2xmuJSSJV0wOylGZrpIYCdwLEIo-zHN1VA e artist's widow, wrote a letter of complaint regarding the "fancy red light" that had falsified the painting's intended tones. The painting's backing was reinforced with plywood by H. Stevenson in 1915. This was replaced in 1940 by Hannah Mee Horner, who glued the painting to a plywood backing. Within two decades, this backing began to warp and threatened to tear the painting in half. In 1961, at the request of Jefferson Medical College, the Philadelphia Museum of Art (PMA) undertook another restoration, under conservator Theodor Siegl. Mark Tucker, a later PMA conservator, described the work as "a rescue mission... They were saving the painting from tearing itself in half. These were the nail heads that were starting to work forward into the canvas and show as bumps on the front... Yeah. It was just hair-raising." Siegl used a power plane to remove the plywood down to the last, thin ply. The rest of the wood and the tenacious glue were painstakingly removed by hand. Siegl and his colleagues also restored, to some extent, the faces in the upper right of the canvas. In 2009, in response to long term concerns regarding inconsistencies in the painting's disposition of darkness and light, conservators at the Philadelphia Museum of Art undertook restoration of The Gross Clinic from July 2009 to July 2010, during which time the painting was not publicly visible. The restoration sought to revert changes that had been made by the Jefferson Medical College during the 1917 restoration. Definition of parts, including Eakins' self-portrayal, was restored, using as reference an ink wash copy of the painting made by the artist, as well as a photograph taken by the Metropolitan Museum of Art previous to the Medical Colle ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 20:23:13 +0200 From: "Nerve blocker" Subject: This works in seconds This works in seconds http://perkssecrets.sa.com/GnibISPP-OiLJNOXmHWRGTJh1kxehoWneOLlAU0m2mhGmThqug http://perkssecrets.sa.com/UgyrxX8GEmh5rlQL2zaruvVlsUlBiDIdNn-TSGZuwZfi7q4sUg mson retreated from a radical departure and declared "the whole theory of the motive power of heat is founded on ... two ... propositions, due respectively to Joule, and to Carnot and Clausius." Thomson went on to state a form of the second law: It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects. In the paper, Thomson supports the theory that heat was a form of motion but admits that he had been influenced only by the thought of Sir Humphry Davy and the experiments of Joule and Julius Robert von Mayer, maintaining that experimental demonstration of the conversion of heat into work was still outstanding. As soon as Joule read the paper he wrote to Thomson with his comments and questions. Thus began a fruitful, though largely epistolary, collaboration between the two men, Joule conducting experiments, Thomson analysing the results and suggesting further experiments. The collaboration lasted from 1852 to 1856, its discoveries including the JoulebThomson effect, sometimes called the KelvinbJoule effect, and the published results did much to bring about general acceptance of Joule's work and the kinetic theory. Thomson published more than 650 scientific papers and applied for 70 patents (not all were issued). Regarding science, Thomson wrote the follo ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #16338 ***********************************************