From: petertrei@gmail.com   
      
   Paul Dormer  wrote:   
   > In article , evelynchimelisleeper@gmail.com   
   > (Evelyn C. Leeper) wrote:   
   >   
   >> Incidentally, a follow-up   
   >   
   > And another follow-up, just seen a plot description of a film on TV today   
   > in which a person is descried as a "latter-day Mary Whitehouse".   
   >   
   > For those that don't know, Mary Whitehouse was a teacher in the sixties   
   > and later who campaigned against the permissive society, but she didn't   
   > come to prominence until the mid-sixties, so latter-day is wrong.   
   >   
   > (Incidentally, the BBC did a biopic of her a few years ago, after her   
   > death.  In one scene, she decides to start an organisation called Clean   
   > Up National Television.  Her husband takes her aside to point out the   
   > unfortunate acronym.)   
   >   
      
   The sixties were 60 years ago. How long ago does something have to be   
   to be able to say 'latter-day' for a new incarnation?   
      
   Mary was sincere, and iirc fought cleanly, but she was on the wrong   
   side of history.   
      
   Most amusingly, her presence led to the launching of a British skin   
   magazine titles 'Whitehouse'.   
      
   Pt   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)