Re: MT VOID, 05/17/24 -- Vol. 42, No. 46, Whole Number 2328

Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:

In article <v2cvjg$3ddkr$1@dont-email.me>, 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