wow - what happened
Moira
up. don't bother responding anymore as the name calling and lack of
people reading an entire post before responding became really bad..
Saw the nasty fight with Mike and others and the usual flamethrowing
and meanness.. but at that time things seemed normal.. bar is open
etc,,
what is going on????.. pedophiles are rampant, the normal group are
not discussing anything.. (I always felt the opposition would
eventually been screamed away and then the group would be left to
itself.. but it appears you are invaded by weird)
Oh well.. it was a nice bar with a wonderful fire and perhaps someday
it will be again...
Moira
see ya all in many many months...
Desideria
The normal folks are still here. And what we have an influx of is
TROLLS, I doubt personally we have pedophiles rampant, as there've
been too many trolls slinging the 'p' word around all too freely here.
And the trolls crosspost, and the rather...odd folks in some other
groups crosspost, and so on.
But under all the noise and the mess we're still here.
Please check in again. I think if you don't use Google Groups and use
a news reader with a filter, you'll find it a lot more comfortable to
be here.
Desideria
Tim Merrigan
<moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote:
Most of us have the trolls, many of whom are pedos and anti pedos
flaming each other, killfiled. So we don't respond to them because we
don't see them.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Tom the Alien Cat
(The two meter tiger looks up from Fnordy's Hello thread and the CEPT
thread and the ones talking about health care, and waves at Gary and
Desi, and Moira.)
Hi, Moira! Hope you'll stop in for a BOYC soon!
Desi, Gary, I do read this with Google Groups, and you are right in
that it gets cramped with all the stuff flying around. It's like that
bar scene in The Trouble With Tribbles where there is a huge fistfight
going on, and only one or two people are trying to enjoy a drink in
the middle of it.
But I am just getting more and more used to skipping the "other"
threads. You know, it's Usenet, and Usenet always had stuff I had to
skip.
tom tac
"Gilgongo? Not yet!"
Wes Struebing
That - and real life(tm) seems to be intruding on a number of us
herein gathered.
I have noticed that the posts are picking up again, but I DO miss some
of the once and future regulars...
--
Wes Struebing
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Homepage: www.carpedementem.org
linkedin profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/wesstruebing
Kay Shapero
says...
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:09:53 -0800 (PST), Moira
> <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote:
>
> >Have not been here for many months.. do stop and peruse to see what's
> >up. don't bother responding anymore as the name calling and lack of
> >people reading an entire post before responding became really bad..
> >Saw the nasty fight with Mike and others and the usual flamethrowing
> >and meanness.. but at that time things seemed normal.. bar is open
> >etc,,
> >
> >what is going on????.. pedophiles are rampant, the normal group are
> >not discussing anything.. (I always felt the opposition would
> >eventually been screamed away and then the group would be left to
> >itself.. but it appears you are invaded by weird)
> >
> >Oh well.. it was a nice bar with a wonderful fire and perhaps someday
> >it will be again...
> >
> >Moira
> >see ya all in many many months...
>
> Most of us have the trolls, many of whom are pedos and anti pedos
> flaming each other, killfiled. So we don't respond to them because we
> don't see them.
>
like Gravity's killfiles still work just fine.
--
Kay Shapero
address munged, email kay at following domain
http://www.kayshapero.net
Desideria
Did you ever try that filter that kitten found for us?
Desideria
rincewind
> In article <s1dhf517iqb7epc49kma21rj54k4uag...@4ax.com>, t...@ca.rr.com
> says...
>
> > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 10:09:53 -0800 (PST), Moira
> > <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote:
>
> > >Have not been here for many months.. do stop and peruse to see what's
> > >up. don't bother responding anymore as the name calling and lack of
> > >people reading an entire post before responding became really bad..
> > >Saw the nasty fight with Mike and others and the usual flamethrowing
> > >and meanness.. but at that time things seemed normal.. bar is open
> > >etc,,
>
> > >what is going on????.. pedophiles are rampant, the normal group are
> > >not discussing anything.. (I always felt the opposition would
> > >eventually been screamed away and then the group would be left to
> > >itself.. but it appears you are invaded by weird)
>
> > >Oh well.. it was a nice bar with a wonderful fire and perhaps someday
> > >it will be again...
>
> > >Moira
> > >see ya all in many many months...
>
> > Most of us have the trolls, many of whom are pedos and anti pedos
> > flaming each other, killfiled. So we don't respond to them because we
> > don't see them.
>
> I can second that - I didn't even know they were still around - looks
> like Gravity's killfiles still work just fine.
Sadly, google doesn't allow killfiles and I don't think a regular
newsgroup reader will work with this system. (I don't think Verizon is
subscribing to newsgroups, so a reader couldn't find anything)
And I'm not involved enough to actually pay money for a program to
read newsgroups.
kath8562
Oh, yes it does-- here's kitten's post with the filters-
http://tinyurl.com/googlekillfile
Just made about 10 spam posts go bye-bye just now.
Kath
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Sean Cleary
Ok, I just got another re-install of Linux. (did not keep track and
can not count how often that happens)
and as usual I get to see the trolls.
There is a killfile solution that I am going to employ, but each time
it needs to be educated up.
I wish i knew where it stored the killfile list, maybe I can research
that, but if any one can quickly help, thanks.
Moria, the killfile system is that you install stuff into your
browser, for isntance greasemonkey for firefox,
install a script, and then when you do not what to see a persons posts
ever again, click and indicate that.
pdate that works for IE and another browser.
http://groups.google.com/group/googlegroupskillfile/browse_thread/thr...
As to the kiddy porn spammers, well they are here because Frank was
here.
Frank was a well behaved member of Callahans. We liked Frank, and
defended him.
Frank was a bit eccentric, which made him fit right in.
Frank like to push others buttons. He would post verbal kiddy porn and
any other kind of description on several other newsgroups, not here.
Those news groups are the ones that you see if you ever reply to the
spammers.
And you should look into the section that shows what groups your reply
is going to, posting to more than one group is crossposting, and is
looked down on.
So we have learned to live with them, as have similar groups
elsewhere.
Ditto the salespeople who infest these groups.
WE like weird. Just not the porn spammer, nor the salesperson, nor
other such.
O, by the way, posting to a porn spammer will break through our kill
files,
Please don't.
Sean
Sean Cleary
Google does allow killfiles, I am using google and on my other machine
and soon on this one will be using a kill file.
See url above in reply to Moira.
Sean
Bean Counter
Sean, you might have a look at a newsreader called PAN. I've been pretty
happy with it for some while. It uses slrn-style filtering, so it's not
too hard to manage a well-pruned killfile.
--
When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
- Scott Adams, "Dilbert" Sept 22,'09
Clothahump
Hopefully, it won't be that long. And you are welcome to check out The
Room In Back, which was created specifically to address the problems you
listed: http://forums.delphiforums.com/CallahansBar/?
Morgan
> On Nov 9, 11:39 pm, rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 10:19 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Sadly, google doesn't allow killfiles and I don't think a regular
>> newsgroup reader will work with this system. (I don't think Verizon is
>> subscribing to newsgroups, so a reader couldn't find anything)
>>
>> And I'm not involved enough to actually pay money for a program to
>> read newsgroups.
>
> Oh, yes it does-- here's kitten's post with the filters-
> http://tinyurl.com/googlekillfile
Caveat: It works IF you're using the right browser.
OTOH, if you use Opera, you can just use eternal-september.org (formerly
mozzarella.org) and the built-in reader, and set up filters. I can't say
which other browsers that might work on, but IIRC there are some decent
freeware readers out there. I leave it to others to point them out and
discuss their relative merits ;-).
Morgan /|\
alt.Callahanian since 1995, Opera user since IIRC v.5
The TheatrElf
news:op.u26xfneq6isimy@phoenix:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:15:23 -0800, kath8562
> <kat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 9, 11:39 pm, rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 9, 10:19 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> Sadly, google doesn't allow killfiles and I don't think a
>>> regular newsgroup reader will work with this system. (I
>>> don't think Verizon is subscribing to newsgroups, so a
>>> reader couldn't find anything)
>>>
>>> And I'm not involved enough to actually pay money for a
>>> program to read newsgroups.
>>
>> Oh, yes it does-- here's kitten's post with the filters-
>> http://tinyurl.com/googlekillfile
>
> Caveat: It works IF you're using the right browser.
>
> OTOH, if you use Opera, you can just use eternal-september.org
> (formerly mozzarella.org) and the built-in reader, and set up
> filters. I can't say which other browsers that might work on,
None, and it technically doesn't work in Opera's web browser,
either. It DOES work with Opera's bundled mail/news client.
But you CAN use ANY newsreader to access eternal-september.org
--
}:-) Christopher Jahn
{:-( http://soflatheatre.blogspot.com/
I salivate at the sight of mittens.
Kay Shapero
@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, edrh...@hotmail.com says...
> > I can second that - I didn't even know they were still around - looks
> > like Gravity's killfiles still work just fine.
>
> Sadly, google doesn't allow killfiles and I don't think a regular
> newsgroup reader will work with this system. (I don't think Verizon is
> subscribing to newsgroups, so a reader couldn't find anything)
>
> And I'm not involved enough to actually pay money for a program to
> read newsgroups.
>
All you have to do is subscribe to a newsgroup feed - it doesn't have to
be part of whatever Verizon is giving you any more than their
limitations keep you off Google. Eternalseptember.org is free and works
pretty well. And if you look about the net (google on "usenet
newsreader") you can find a number of decent newsreaders, many free.
Susan Davis
>
> Sadly, google doesn't allow killfiles and I don't think a regular
> newsgroup reader will work with this system. (I don't think Verizon is
> subscribing to newsgroups, so a reader couldn't find anything)
>
> And I'm not involved enough to actually pay money for a program to read
> newsgroups.
eternal-september.org is your friend. I'm using PAN with their newsfeed,
both of which are free.
--
Susan Davis <s...@sue.net>
Desideria
I know that kitten found a way to filter in Google groups and that
it's been posted here a few times, though sadly I don't remember it.
Desideria
Tom the Alien Cat
No, I haven't yet. Still job searching, and as I said I just skip all
the chaff. But on the 10th, a day after we said the above, kath8562
did post a tinyurl pointing at kitten's solution.
Tell you what, I have an interview tomorrow, and afterward I will
celebrate by taking a look at her solution. But perhaps this
september.org thing is more portable to other browsers.
tom tac
rincewind
take a look.
Joseph Greene
> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
> unlikely in the extreme.
In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
may be quite right.
Regards,
Seosaidh
David
<robsp...@fastmail.fm> typed:
Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
"p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
--
David
No email replies please.
You will always get the greatest recognition for the job you least like.
Hanging Jester
news:amgkf5prni9fmefab...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
> <robsp...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>
>>John wrote:
>>> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>>> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>>> unlikely in the extreme.
>>
>>In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>>terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
>>may be quite right.
>>
> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
> "p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
Going off the way that the field of psycology usually makes it's words, it
should be "p�dophilliac".
phile = a normal affinity for,
philliac = an abnormal obsession/fetish.
~ Jester
Chris Zakes
I'll second the recommendation for Eternal September/Motzarella.
I switched to Teranews when Time Warner started dropping newsgroups,
but was quickly disappointed with their "service"--after a couple of
instances of not getting *anything* for a couple of days, complaining,
and having it "fixed" by receiving *every* message from the past three
months (99% of which I'd already read, of course) as "new" messages, I
decided they weren't worth it. Since Teranews only costs a one-time
fee, I have to wonder if their business model is primarily based on
getting that fee, not on actually delivering what's promised.
Eternal September, on the other paw, has been quite reliable.
-Chris Zakes
Texas
It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.
-G.K. Chesterton
David
<hangin...@cox.net> typed:
That would depend on whether it was abnormal or just a normal part of
human sexuality. Unfortunately, in the current, witch-hunt climate,
research to ascertain such would be impossible.
--
David
No email replies please.
Do something unusual today. Pay a bill.
Tom the Alien Cat
wrote:
Hi, folks,
Yup, interview went well, have to write thank you notes soon. So,
GreaseMonkey, eh?
I got it, and it works just fine. Took about ten minutes.
1. Okay, go to http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html .
2. Click on Firefox to get firefox.
3. Install that.
4. Then use firefox to go to go to http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html
again.
5. Click on GreaseMonkey to get greasemonkey.
6. When you see the INSTALL button, click it.
7. When it asks you to restart Firefox, do that.
8. Then go to http://www.penney.org/ggkiller.html AGAIN.
9. Click on "Latest Google Groups KillFile Script" to get the killfile
script.
10. When it asks about installing, do it.
11. Now go to http://groups.google.com/group/alt.callahans to go to
alt.callahans .
12. Do you see the underlined X now? Click on the X next to anything
you object to. I needed to hit the Refresh button (the circular
arrow), or F5 which is the same thing.
------------------------------
Here is how I got rid of anything that has a lot of tildes in it.
(Like "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Woo Woo Woo! ~~~~~".) I click on the X and a
Killfile box opens. I edit it to just say "Killfile:~~~~~~~~~~~",
click OK and then F5.
They all disappear.
Give it a try?
tom tac
Morgan
wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
> <robsp...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>
>> John wrote:
>>> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>>> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>>> unlikely in the extreme.
>>
>> In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>> terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
>> may be quite right.
>>
> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
> "pï¿œdophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
DSM-IV-TR = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is
published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides diagnostic
criteria for mental disorders. It is used in the United States and in
varying degrees around the world, by clinicians, researchers, psychiatric
drug regulation agencies, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical
companies and policy makers."
That said:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pedophile
pedophilia
1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos "loving."
First attested in Havelock Ellis. Derivative noun pedophile is first
recorded 1951.
pedo-
from Gk. pedo-, comb. form of pais "boy, child," from PIE base *peu-
"small, little, few, young" (see few (adj.)). The British form paed- is
better because it avoids confusion with ped-.
Sooo... you're both right?
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/4/SNL-New-Shimmer-Commercial-704661.html
(skip ahead to about 1:30)
Morgan /|\
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Curiosity, David? What is a physician who specializes in treating
children called in your neck of the woods?
Here they are pediatricians (spelled just as I've indicated), and the
specialization is pediatrics.
(here's what wiki says, and it mixes spelling all over the place! They
also spell it pead... in one place and paed... in others, while also
using ped...))
"In Commonwealth countries, the respective spellings paediatrics and
paediatrician are usually preferred. There may be a slight semantic
difference: in the USA, a pediatrician (US spelling) is often a
primary care physician who specializes in children, whereas in the
Commonwealth a paediatrician (British spellling) generally is a
medical specialist not in primary general practice. For further
detail, see discussion on the broad and narrow meanings of physician."
Aramanth Dawe
wrote:
He or she would be a paediatrician, working in the field of
paediatrics.
However one BIG difference between Oz and the US - most children would
NOT see a paediatrician at any point in their lives. Only the most
ill children would see a specialist. For most children the family
doctor (GP or General Practitioner) would deal with normal medical
requirements like dealing with ear infections. Vaccinations are
usually arranged by special Vaccination Clinics - in my state (South
Australia) most commonly through Child and Youth Health workers
(mostly nurses) who also guide parents through the minefield of new
parenthood, do baby wellness checks, and so forth.
Of my two children, only the oldest saw a paediatrician during her
infancy - she was born nearly 2 months prematurely and so she was kept
a Close Watch On until she was 12 months old and had caught up on most
things despite her early arrival. My younger girl was seen by a
paediatrician during her delivery (by C-section - she was transverse
and in distress) and while I was still in hospital with her he checked
in on her most days but once we were out of hospital she saw our GP
when needed rather than a specialist.
>(here's what wiki says, and it mixes spelling all over the place! They
>also spell it pead... in one place and paed... in others, while also
>using ped...))
>
>"In Commonwealth countries, the respective spellings paediatrics and
>paediatrician are usually preferred. There may be a slight semantic
>difference: in the USA, a pediatrician (US spelling) is often a
>primary care physician who specializes in children, whereas in the
>Commonwealth a paediatrician (British spellling) generally is a
>medical specialist not in primary general practice. For further
>detail, see discussion on the broad and narrow meanings of physician."
<nodding> That's the way it is here - a paediatrician deals with
*usually* very ill children or those with the potential for becoming
ill outside of the normal issues such as with my older girl rather
than as a primary carer for the normal general practise issues of
children. GPs are our Primary Care Phsicians who deal with all
members of the family from the youngest to the oldest unless there is
a need to refer the patient for more specialist care.
Az
David
We are a Commonwealth country and use "paed" (more correctly "p�d") as
the prefix fo child related medical conditions.
A "pediatrician" fixes feet. I need to make a visit to a pediatrician
to get my toes examined to see why my toenails keep falling off.
Both are specialists not in general practice so I would need a
referral from my GP in order to get Medicare benefits.
--
David
No email replies please.
Fine day to work off excess energy. Steal something heavy.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
Here (USA) that would be a podiatrist.
>Both are specialists not in general practice so I would need a
>referral from my GP in order to get Medicare benefits.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
David
typed:
Both terms are in use here.
--
David
No email replies please.
You too can wear a nose mitten.
MajorOz
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:24:58 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:26:50 GMT, Hanging Jester
>
> >>>David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in> >>>> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>
> >>>>>John wrote:
> >>>>>> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
> >>>>>> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
> >>>>>> unlikely in the extreme.
>
> >>>>>In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
> >>>>>terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
> >>>>>may be quite right.
>
> >>>> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
> >>>> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
> >>>> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>
> >>>Going off the way that the field of psycology usually makes it's words, it
What is the medical-legal state of affairs in Australia? In much of
the US, what you describe is not done because of the pressure --
direct, indirect, through malpractice carriers, and just plain bitchy
people -- brought to do this test, that test, and ensure that only the
MOST qualified do anything. It all contributes to the problem.
cheers
oz
Tom the Alien Cat
I am updating this in a separate thread.
tom tac
MargW
Canada, a Commonwealth country, uses the American usage of podiatrist
for feet and pediatrician for children. I have never seen pediatrician
used for a foot specialist in Canada.
MargW
Wes Struebing
<ma...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:24:58 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>Curiosity, David? What is a physician who specializes in treating
>>children called in your neck of the woods?
>>
>>Here they are pediatricians (spelled just as I've indicated), and the
>>specialization is pediatrics.
>
>He or she would be a paediatrician, working in the field of
>paediatrics.
>
>However one BIG difference between Oz and the US - most children would
>NOT see a paediatrician at any point in their lives. Only the most
>ill children would see a specialist. For most children the family
>doctor (GP or General Practitioner) would deal with normal medical
>requirements like dealing with ear infections. Vaccinations are
>usually arranged by special Vaccination Clinics - in my state (South
>Australia) most commonly through Child and Youth Health workers
>(mostly nurses) who also guide parents through the minefield of new
>parenthood, do baby wellness checks, and so forth.
A definite difference between you and us. We split our GP and Family
Practice into separate specialties. And, for example, a GP (new
style) is not allowed to treat children, whereas the Family Practice
physician can. And pediatricians (USA spelling) treat ONLY children.
That is their specialty.
>
<snip>
>Az
Thanks, Az for corroborating the wiki article (with all its
inconsistent spellings...<G>)
(and Ill bet you spell encyclopedia as "encyclopaedia", too!<G>)
Wes Struebing
wrote:
Yeah - see my comment on encyclopedia to Az...;-)
>
>A "pediatrician" fixes feet. I need to make a visit to a pediatrician
>to get my toes examined to see why my toenails keep falling off.
Actually, I think a podiatrist cares for your feet, too. ;-)
>
>Both are specialists not in general practice so I would need a
>referral from my GP in order to get Medicare benefits.
Hmm. Interesting...
David
typed:
>On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:37:27 +1030, Aramanth Dawe
LOL. Of course,
--
David
No email replies please.
A visit to a fresh place will bring strange work.
Aramanth Dawe
<Maj...@centurytel.net> wrote:
>On Nov 11, 9:07�pm, Aramanth Dawe <ma...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 19:24:58 -0700, Wes Struebing <str...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:09:54 +1030, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >>On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:26:50 GMT, Hanging Jester
>> >><hangingjes...@cox.net> typed:
>>
>> >>>David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote in
>> >>>news:amgkf5prni9fmefab...@4ax.com:
>>
>> >>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
>> >>>> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>>
>> >>>>>John wrote:
>> >>>>>> � Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>> >>>>>> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>> >>>>>> unlikely in the extreme.
>>
>> >>>>>In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>> >>>>>terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. �Etymologically speaking, though, you
>> >>>>>may be quite right.
>>
>> >>>> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
>> >>>> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
>> >>>> "p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
>> >>>> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>>
>> >>>Going off the way that the field of psycology usually makes it's words, it
>> >>>should be "p�dophilliac".
While one MAY sue for malpractice, you had better be able to prove
*serious* malpractice resulting in significant loss or damage. A
minor inconvenience is not going to be entertained by a court. Nor are
you likely to find a doctor willing to support you as Expert Witness
in a minor matter. The pressure here is in the other direction, AWAY
from suing unless there is a real, serious error with serious
consequences.
A GP is always your first port of call. He or she assesses the
situation and either treats it or refers you on to a specialist as
needed. You *can* always choose to see a specialist without a
referral but Medicare (socialised medicine) will NOT pay anything
towards those visits. Easier on the pocket to see the GP first and
get him to refer you to the specialist!
Az
Jette Goldie
Britain is much the same as Australia - GP (General Practitioner) is
the family's _first port of call_ for *any* member of the family in
any illness. Paediatricians will only be found in a hospital, and
mostly in the specialist units there - or even the specialist
children's hospitals like Edinburgh's Sick Children's (aka "The Sick
Kids") or London's Great Ormond Street. Basically our GP is your
Family Practice. Paediatricians do specialise in children and will
only usually be treating children - but you may find that your
Obstetrician is also your Gynecologist AND a Paediatrician
(specialising in neo-natal cases obviously).
--
Jette Goldie
jette....@gmail.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wolfette/
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
http://wolfette.livejournal.com/
("reply to" is spamblocked - use the email addy in sig)
Joseph Greene
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
> <robsp...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>
>> John wrote:
>>> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>>> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>>> unlikely in the extreme.
>> In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>> terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
>> may be quite right.
>>
> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
> "p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
The DSM is the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."
It's also spelled that way in the DM-ID, Diagnostic Manual-Intellectual
Disability. That's the one used in the UK. I don't know what
publications are used in the rest of the commonwealth.
"Pedophile" is the correct clinical spelling. Again, from a linguistics
standpoint it may be wrong. But in clinical practice this is the
correct spelling. How I know what is correct in clinical practice is by
virtue of being a licensed therapist- which is why I knew what the DSM
and DM-ID use for their spelling.
I suggest if you have further doubts that you examine some scholarly
journals on the subject.
Regards,
Seosaidh
Joseph Greene
> DSM-IV-TR = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders
>
>
> "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is
> published by the American Psychiatric Association and provides
> diagnostic criteria for mental disorders. It is used in the United
> States and in varying degrees around the world, by clinicians,
> researchers, psychiatric drug regulation agencies, health insurance
> companies, pharmaceutical companies and policy makers."
>
> That said:
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=pedophile
>
> pedophilia
> 1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos "loving."
> First attested in Havelock Ellis. Derivative noun pedophile is first
> recorded 1951.
>
> pedo-
> from Gk. pedo-, comb. form of pais "boy, child," from PIE base *peu-
> "small, little, few, young" (see few (adj.)). The British form paed- is
> better because it avoids confusion with ped-.
>
> Sooo... you're both right?
> http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/4/SNL-New-Shimmer-Commercial-704661.html
Exactly so. As I said in my first post, linguistically speaking, he may
be right. However, the term "pedophile" is a technical term. Thus, it
is appropriate to use the technical spelling.
> (skip ahead to about 1:30)
Aroo?
Regards,
Seosaidh
Hanging Jester
@newsfe01.iad:
So the question I have is:
Given the adoption of a the linguistically (at least) "wrong" usage of
"pedophile" to mean 'someone who has an (abnormal) sexual fetish for
children.
What then would be the term for a person who has a completely normal
affinity for children?
~ Jester
Joseph Greene
I'm not sure what you mean here- I think you mean a "non-sexual
affinity." In which case, we wouldn't call them anything- normative
and/or healthy, maybe.
As for a "normal sexual affinity"- by definition, being sexually
attracted to prepubescent children is by definition not "normal." Note,
however, that the diagnostic criteria are pretty stringent- there's a
time period and intensity involved, the person has to have acted on them
or gad significant distress about not acting on them. The person also
has to be at least 16 (and five years older than the child to whom
they're attracted). "Acting on", in my opinion, would include viewing
of child pornography or erotica. I believe that's a generally accepted
interpretation; I'd have to ask one of my colleagues if anybody
disagrees with that interpretation.
Also, note that this definition is restricted to prepubescent children.
A person attracted to a 13-year-old who has reached puberty is not a
pedophile. If he (or, more rarely, she) were attracted to another
13-year-old who had not reached puberty, and all the other criteria were
met, then he or she would be a pedophile.
I'm going on about this because it answers your question, Jester- a
normal sexual affinity for "children" might involve attraction to
post-pubescent teenagers. Societally, they are usually considered
children, and most countries have laws that are intended to protect them
from exploitation by older and more sophisticated adults. Biologically,
however, they are capable of reproduction and thus are within the normal
range for attraction. That doesn't make it _legal_- or even moral- to
have sex with them, particularly in industrialized cultures, given
relative levels of sophistication.
I could go on for days, but you get the idea, I hope. I don't know if
that has any bearing to what you meant, but I thought I'd cover the bases.
Regards,
Seosaidh
ULBC
On Nov 10, 11:56 pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>
> >John wrote:
> >> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
> >> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
> >> unlikely in the extreme.
>
> >In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
> >terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
> >may be quite right.
>
> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
> "pædophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
> --
> David
> No email replies please.
> You will always get the greatest recognition for the job you least like.
You are 100 percent wrong.
Webster defines it thusly.
Main Entry: pe·do·phile
Pronunciation: \ˈpe-də-ˌfī(-ə)l, ˈpē-\
Function: noun
Date: 1951
:one affected with pedophilia
Tim Merrigan
boy/girl lover
%
"Ultima Thule" <PYT...@THULE.COM> wrote in message
news:rld4g55slv04iv7gj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:33:50 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>x-no-archive:
>>On Nov 10, 11:56 pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
>>>
>>> >John wrote:
>>> >> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>>> >> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>>> >> unlikely in the extreme.
>>>
>>> >In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>>> >terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
>>> >may be quite right.
>>>
>>> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
>>> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
>>> "p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
>>> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>>> David
>>> No email replies please.
>>> You will always get the greatest recognition for the job you least like.
>>
>>You are 100 percent wrong.
>>
>>Webster defines it thusly.
>>
>>Main Entry: pe�do�phile
>>Function: noun
>>Date: 1951
>>
>>:one affected with pedophilia
>>
>>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile
>
> theories that sodomizing your own children is good parenting.
>
> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pedophilia
>
> pedophilia
> 1905, from Gk. pais (gen. paidos) "child" (see pedo-) + philos
> "loving." First attested in Havelock Ellis. Derivative noun pedophile
> is first recorded 1951.
>
see i told you ,
this is how it starts
David
typed:
>Re: wow - what happened
>
>On Nov 10, 11:56�pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
>> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>>
>> >John wrote:
>> >> � Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>> >> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>> >> unlikely in the extreme.
>>
>> >In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>> >terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. �Etymologically speaking, though, you
>> >may be quite right.
>>
>> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
>> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
>> "p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
>> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>
>You are 100 percent wrong.
>
>Webster defines it thusly.
>
>Main Entry: pe�do�phile
>Pronunciation: \?pe-d?-?f?(-?)l, ?p?-\
>Function: noun
>Date: 1951
>
>:one affected with pedophilia
>
>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile
From an English dictionary, Concise Oxford, is this:
paedophile n. (US pedophile)
a person who displays paedophilia.
Websters is, of course, an American dictionary and thus, obviously,
would spell words the way Americans (mis)spell them.
So I am not 100% wrong and do not crosspost to other groups from here.
It will only get you killfiled.
--
David
No email replies please.
Q:How does the Polish Constitution differ from the American? A:Under
the Polish Constitution citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, but
under the United States constitution they are guaranteed freedom after
speech. -- being told in Poland, 1987
ULBC
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:28:54 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com>
> typed:
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text ->Re: wow - what happened
>
> >On Nov 10, 11:56 pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
> >> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>
> >> >John wrote:
> >> >> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
> >> >> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
> >> >> unlikely in the extreme.
>
> >> >In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
> >> >terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
> >> >may be quite right.
>
> >> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
> >> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
> >> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>
> >You are 100 percent wrong.
>
> >Webster defines it thusly.
>
> >Main Entry: pe·do·phile
> >Pronunciation: \?pe-d?-?f?(-?)l, ?p?-\
> >Function: noun
> >Date: 1951
>
> >:one affected with pedophilia
>
> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile
>
> From an English dictionary, Concise Oxford, is this:
>
> paedophile n. (US pedophile)
> a person who displays paedophilia.
>
> Websters is, of course, an American dictionary and thus, obviously,
> would spell words the way Americans (mis)spell them.
Oxford isn't the father of all dictionaries David. You were wrong. It
cannot be a misspelling if it's in any dictionary.
>
> So I am not 100% wrong and do not crosspost to other groups from here.
> It will only get you killfiled.
Aren't we the pushy one?
I haven't crossposted David. And while you're at it unless you're
my mother or father do not attempt to give me orders. You're a
sore loser.
Sean Cleary
wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:26:50 -0800, Sean Cleary wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:09 am, Moira <moi...@abraxasgroup.net> wrote:
> >> Have not been here for many months.. do stop and peruse to see what's
> >> up. don't bother responding anymore as the name calling and lack of
> >> people reading an entire post before responding became really bad.. Saw
> >> the nasty fight with Mike and others and the usual flamethrowing and
> >> meanness.. but at that time things seemed normal.. bar is open etc,,
>
> >> what is going on????.. pedophiles are rampant, the normal group are
> >> not discussing anything.. (I always felt the opposition would
> >> eventually been screamed away and then the group would be left to
> >> itself.. but it appears you are invaded by weird)
>
> >> Oh well.. it was a nice bar with a wonderful fire and perhaps someday
> >> it will be again...
>
> >> Moira
> >> see ya all in many many months...
>
> > Ok, I just got another re-install of Linux. (did not keep track and can
> > not count how often that happens) and as usual I get to see the trolls.
> > There is akillfilesolution that I am going to employ, but each time it
> > needs to be educated up.
> > I wish i knew where it stored thekillfilelist, maybe I can research
> > that, but if any one can quickly help, thanks. Moria, thekillfile
> > system is that you install stuff into your browser, for isntance
> > greasemonkey for firefox, install a script, and then when you do not
> > what to see a persons posts ever again, click and indicate that.
>
> > pdate that works for IE and another browser.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/googlegroupskillfile/browse_thread/thr...
>
> > As to the kiddy porn spammers, well they are here because Frank was
> > here.
> > Frank was a well behaved member of Callahans. We liked Frank, and
> > defended him.
> > Frank was a bit eccentric, which made him fit right in. Frank like to
> > push others buttons. He would post verbal kiddy porn and any other kind
> > of description on several other newsgroups, not here. Those news groups
> > are the ones that you see if you ever reply to the spammers.
> > And you should look into the section that shows what groups your reply
> > is going to, posting to more than one group is crossposting, and is
> > looked down on.
>
> > So we have learned to live with them, as have similar groups elsewhere.
> > Ditto the salespeople who infest these groups.
>
> > WE like weird. Just not the porn spammer, nor the salesperson, nor other
> > such.
> > O, by the way, posting to a porn spammer will break through our kill
> > files,
> > Please don't.
>
> > Sean
>
> Sean, you might have a look at a newsreader called PAN. I've been pretty
> happy with it for some while. It uses slrn-style filtering, so it's not
> too hard to manage a well-prunedkillfile.
>
> --
> When you find a big kettle of crazy, it's best not to stir it.
> - Scott Adams, "Dilbert" Sept 22,'09
Sorry for taking so much time to get back to you.
What I need is a store-able killfile log, one that can be taken from
computer to computer.
Does Pan have that?
I run both windows and Linux, is Pan for both?
I run firefox, and the access and software is free. Is Pan this too?
email me.
Sean
Sean Cleary
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:56:01 -0800, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused Morgan <ljw-motzare...@invalid.invalid> to write:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:15:23 -0800, kath8562 <kat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Nov 9, 11:39 pm, rincewind <edrho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Nov 9, 10:19 pm, Kay Shapero <k...@invalid.net> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >>> Sadly, google doesn't allow killfiles and I don't think a regular
> >>> newsgroup reader will work with this system. (I don't think Verizon is
> >>> subscribing to newsgroups, so a reader couldn't find anything)
>
> >>> And I'm not involved enough to actually pay money for a program to
> >>> read newsgroups.
>
> >> Oh, yes it does-- here's kitten's post with the filters-
> >>http://tinyurl.com/googlekillfile
>
> >Caveat: It works IF you're using the right browser.
>
> >OTOH, if you use Opera, you can just use eternal-september.org (formerly
> >mozzarella.org) and the built-in reader, and set up filters. I can't say
> >which other browsers that might work on, but IIRC there are some decent
> >freeware readers out there. I leave it to others to point them out and
> >discuss their relative merits ;-).
>
> >Morgan /|\
> >alt.Callahanian since 1995, Opera user since IIRC v.5
>
> I'll second the recommendation for Eternal September/Motzarella.
>
> I switched to Teranews when Time Warner started dropping newsgroups,
> but was quickly disappointed with their "service"--after a couple of
> instances of not getting *anything* for a couple of days, complaining,
> and having it "fixed" by receiving *every* message from the past three
> months (99% of which I'd already read, of course) as "new" messages, I
> decided they weren't worth it. Since Teranews only costs a one-time
> fee, I have to wonder if their business model is primarily based on
> getting that fee, not on actually delivering what's promised.
>
> Eternal September, on the other paw, has been quite reliable.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged.
>
> -G.K. Chesterton
Other than having to retrain the killfile each iteration of computer
or OS, I have had no problems with firefox and kittens solution.
Sean
Cindy Wells
<snip>
> Sorry for taking so much time to get back to you.
> What I need is a store-able killfile log, one that can be taken from
> computer to computer.
> Does Pan have that?
> I run both windows and Linux, is Pan for both?
> I run firefox, and the access and software is free. Is Pan this too?
> email me.
That might be easier with a newsreader or Firefox with the Greasemonkey
solution running from a USB drive.
Cindy Wells
(I do not have any details of the requirements for the feature but I
remember reading about them)
> Sean
David
typed:
>Re: wow - what happened
>On Nov 17, 7:01�am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:28:54 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com>
>> typed:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text ->Re: wow - what happened
>>
>> >On Nov 10, 11:56�pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
>> >> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>>
>> >> >John wrote:
>> >> >> � Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>> >> >> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>> >> >> unlikely in the extreme.
>>
>> >> >In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>> >> >terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. �Etymologically speaking, though, you
>> >> >may be quite right.
>>
>> >> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
>> >> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
>> >> "p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
>> >> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>>
>> >You are 100 percent wrong.
>>
>> >Webster defines it thusly.
>>
>> >Main Entry: pe�do�phile
>> >Pronunciation: \?pe-d?-?f?(-?)l, ?p?-\
>> >Function: noun
>> >Date: 1951
>>
>> >:one affected with pedophilia
>>
>> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile
>>
>> From an English dictionary, Concise Oxford, is this:
>>
>> paedophile �n. (US pedophile)
>> a person who displays paedophilia.
>>
>> Websters is, of course, an American dictionary and thus, obviously,
>> would spell words the way Americans (mis)spell them.
>
>Oxford isn't the father of all dictionaries David. You were wrong. It
>cannot be a misspelling if it's in any dictionary.
>
Then you must be wrong as well. The Oxford Dictionary is considered to
be the most authoritative dictionary by everyone outside of America.
>>
>> So I am not 100% wrong and do not crosspost to other groups from here.
>> It will only get you killfiled.
>
>Aren't we the pushy one?
>
Simply stating a fact.
>I haven't crossposted David. And while you're at it unless you're
>my mother or father do not attempt to give me orders. You're a
>sore loser.
>
Funny how this got posted to all those other groups then. I certainly
did not add them.
--
David
No email replies please.
You will feel hungry again in another hour.
ULBC
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:15:26 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com> typed
> furiously:
I'm not wrong. I said it was *not* a misspelling and I was right.
Are you paranoid or what?
> >>
> >> So I am not 100% wrong and do not crosspost to other groups from here.
> >> It will only get you killfiled.
> >
> >Aren't we the pushy one?
> >
> No, I'm just stating a fact.
It's more like a fantasy.
>
> >I haven't crossposted either David. And while you're at it unless
> >you're
> >my mother or father do not attempt to give me orders.
>
> Funny how this post went to all those other groups then. I only posted
> this to alt.callahans.
What does that have to do with do not attempt to give me orders?
Avoiding the subject doesn't make it go away David. Why were you
rude?.
>
> Newsgroups: alt.support.boy-lovers, alt.sex.stories.d,
> alt.suicide.holiday. alt.callahans.
>
> I didn't add them so you must have.
Aren't you forgetting one Ultima Thule? Have you always been so quick
to
jump to conclusions? It's a good bet you don't have a wife or
boyfriend as it
might be in your case. In the future you may keep your pompous
attitude
and your rude disposition to your self. If you wish to communicate
with
another person keep your holier than thou attitude buried where it
belongs
because David, you aren't better than most.
Tim Merrigan
>Re: wow - what happened
>On Nov 17, 7:01�am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:28:54 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com>
>> typed:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text ->Re: wow - what happened
>>
>> >On Nov 10, 11:56�pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
>> >> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>>
>> >> >John wrote:
>> >> >> � Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
>> >> >> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
>> >> >> unlikely in the extreme.
>>
>> >> >In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>> >> >terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. �Etymologically speaking, though, you
>> >> >may be quite right.
>>
>> >> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
>> >> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
>> >> "p�dophile" with an 'ae' ligature or dipthong. A "pedophile" is most
>> >> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>>
>> >You are 100 percent wrong.
>>
>> >Webster defines it thusly.
>>
>> >Main Entry: pe�do�phile
>> >Pronunciation: \?pe-d?-?f?(-?)l, ?p?-\
>> >Function: noun
>> >Date: 1951
>>
>> >:one affected with pedophilia
>>
>> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile
>>
>> From an English dictionary, Concise Oxford, is this:
>>
>> paedophile �n. (US pedophile)
>> a person who displays paedophilia.
>>
>> Websters is, of course, an American dictionary and thus, obviously,
>> would spell words the way Americans (mis)spell them.
>
>Oxford isn't the father of all dictionaries David. You were wrong. It
>cannot be a misspelling if it's in any dictionary.
Then what *does* Samuel Johnson have to say on the subject.
Tim Merrigan
wrote:
BTW in English, from anywhere in the world, dictionaries record what
is rather than prescribing what should be.
Sean Cleary
> Aren't you forgetting one Ultima Thule? Have you always been so quick
> to
> jump to conclusions? It's a good bet you don't have a wife or
> boyfriend as it
> might be in your case. In the future you may keep your pompous
> attitude
> and your rude disposition to your self. If you wish to communicate
> with
> another person keep your holier than thou attitude buried where it
> belongs
> because David, you aren't better than most.
Please play less nastily and/or read the FAQ.
Is this really the group for you?
Sean
Hanging Jester
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There are people who detest children
and others who have a pronounced affinity for them (completely non-
sexual). Such people are considered normal, but they do have opposing
points of view towards children.
~ Jester
Hanging Jester
news:qh14g5lmr2lheionh...@4ax.com:
No, that doesn't work as by using the word "lover" it infers a sexual
element.
~ Jester
ULBC
On Nov 11, 10:39 am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:26:50 GMT, Hanging Jester
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> >news:amgkf5prni9fmefab...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:35:03 -0800, Joseph Greene
>
> >>>John wrote:
> >>>> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits of
> >>>> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though that's
> >>>> unlikely in the extreme.
>
> >>>In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
> >>>terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking, though, you
> >>>may be quite right.
>
> >> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way they
> >> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
> >> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is incorrect.
>
>
> > phile = a normal affinity for,
>
> > philliac = an abnormal obsession/fetish.
>
> >~ Jester
>
> That would depend on whether it was abnormal or just a normal part of
> human sexuality. Unfortunately, in the current, witch-hunt climate,
> research to ascertain such would be impossible.
Please explain yourself when you refer to the climate regarding
Paedophilia
to be a witch-hunt. Do you believe it is a witch-hunt to ebb the tide
of
child molestation David?
Firesong
wrote:
>
>On Nov 11, 10:39�am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:26:50 GMT, Hanging Jester
>> <hangingjes...@cox.net> typed:
>>
>>
>> That would depend on whether it was abnormal or just a normal part of
>> human sexuality. Unfortunately, in the current, witch-hunt climate,
>> research to ascertain such would be impossible.
>
>Please explain yourself when you refer to the climate regarding
>Paedophilia
>to be a witch-hunt. Do you believe it is a witch-hunt to ebb the tide
>of
>child molestation David?
When a paediatrician is beaten because the name of their job starts
with paed... it's a witch hunt.
Firesong
%
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 02:09:45 +1030, David <faro...@picknowl.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:52:58 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com>
>>typed:
>>
>>>David wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:15:26 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com> typed
>>>> furiously:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >On Nov 17, 7:01 am, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:28:54 -0800 (PST), ULBC <ul...@ymail.com>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> - Hide quoted text -
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >On Nov 10, 11:56 pm, David <farook...@picknowl.com.au> wrote:
>>>> >> >> <robspie...@fastmail.fm> typed:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >> >John wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> Oh, and it's paedophile. A pedophile likes *feet*. Or bits
>>>> >> >> >> of
>>>> >> >> >> bicycles, or possibly shoes. Or possibly pedants, though
>>>> >> >> >> that's
>>>> >> >> >> unlikely in the extreme.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >> >In point of fact, "pedophile" is accurate, at least in clinical
>>>> >> >> >terminology, per the DSM-IV-TR. Etymologically speaking,
>>>> >> >> >though, you
>>>> >> >> >may be quite right.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >> Americans always like to force the world to spell words the way
>>>> >> >> they
>>>> >> >> think they should be spelt. As John wrote the correct spelling is
>>>> >> >> probably a foot-fetishist. The DSM, whatever that is, is
>>>> >> >> incorrect.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >Webster defines it thusly.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >Pronunciation: \?pe-d?-?f?(-?)l, ?p?-\
>>>> >> >Function: noun
>>>> >> >Date: 1951
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >:one affected with pedophilia
>>>> >>
>>>> >> >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophile
>>>> >>
>>>> >> From an English dictionary, Concise Oxford, is this:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> paedophile n. (US pedophile)
>>>> >> a person who displays paedophilia.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Websters is, of course, an American dictionary and thus, obviously,
>>>> >> would spell words the way Americans (mis)spell them.
>>>> >
>>>> >Oxford isn't the father of all dictionaries David. You were wrong. It
>>>> >cannot be a misspelling if it's in any dictionary.
>>>> >
>>>
>>>I'm not wrong. I said it was *not* a misspelling and I was right.
>>>Are you paranoid or what?
>>>
>>would not consider it a misspelt word most of those would be
>>Americans.
>>
>>In most other English-speaking locations it is considered to be a
>>misspelling as we consider most of the words that American English
>>uses to differentiate itself from everyone else misspellings.
>
> You are an idiotic racist.
>
> The term "pedophile" was coined in 1951 by Havelock Ellis, an
> American.
>
>
>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> So I am not 100% wrong and do not crosspost to other groups from
>>>> >> here.
>>>> >> It will only get you killfiled.
>>>> >
>>>> >Aren't we the pushy one?
>>>> >
>>>
>>>It's more like a fantasy.
>>>
>>get killfiled.
>
> From the "King of the killfiles" that's a classic PKB.
>
>> I'm not giving you orders just some friendly advice.
>
> As someone who has been reported to the authorities many times for his
> disgusting perverted rants on the joys of incestuous pedophilia you
> would know-right?
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>> >I haven't crossposted either David. And while you're at it unless
>>>> >you're
>>>> >my mother or father do not attempt to give me orders.
>>>>
>>>> this to alt.callahans.
>>>
>>>What does that have to do with do not attempt to give me orders?
>>>Avoiding the subject doesn't make it go away David. Why were you
>>>rude?.
>>>
>>
>>Like begets like. Why were you so rude to me in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.support.boy-lovers, alt.sex.stories.d,
>>>> alt.suicide.holiday. alt.callahans.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't add them so you must have.
>>>
>>>to
>>>jump to conclusions?
>>
>
> not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
>
>> He has not posted to this thread as far as I am aware.
>
> "He"?
>
> 100% wrong again.
>
>>>It's a good bet you don't have a wife or
>>>boyfriend as it
>>>might be in your case. In the future you may keep your pompous
>>>attitude
>>>and your rude disposition to your self. If you wish to communicate
>>>with
>>>another person keep your holier than thou attitude buried where it
>>>belongs
>>>because David, you aren't better than most.
>>
>>you in kind. I do not consider myself better than most, just better
>>than some.
>
> You are a depraved swine welcome only in your pedophile and incest
> groups, and of course, alt.callahans
see , you hate me
%
> 100% wrong doesn't mean I hate %!
>
> :)
oh
Mike Duffy
news:Xns9CC71B9FDE197h...@69.16.185.247:
> Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There are people who detest children
> and others who have a pronounced affinity for them (completely non-
> sexual). Such people are considered normal, but they do have opposing
Kids are a bit like cats. They always have an unerring ability to seek out
the laps of those who do not want to be bothered.
For a large part of my life, I was always a bit bewildered (suspicious
even) about why anyone would, for example, volunteer to be a Scout leader.
Why would anyone in his right mind want to give up an evening every week
and half of his weekends, only to be burdened with the responsibility of
taking care of someone else's poorly-behaved progeny?
Then my own child wanted to join the local Scout group. Here (Canada) the
younger groups are mixed, and I just could not bring myself to allow my
little girl to go off into the bush for the weekend with a bunch of middle-
aged men I really did not know. I soon found myself doing paperwork that
would put a public servant to shame, cleaning up vomit (& worse), and
giving out merit badges to kids just because we all managed to make it back
to camp before our hypothermia symptoms passed beyond the first to the
second stage.
Bit I have to admit that after a while, I did not consider the youngsters
to be my kid's friends, but actually as my own friends. The kids seem to
have a way to "break through" what I see as a natural aversion to their
natural ill-mannered insolence. Is that what you were referring to above as
"normal"? Or am I over-analysing?
One of the happiest moments I ever had in my whole life was at a summer
camp. I had awakened early (nature's call) and decided to fire up the
leftover chocolate milk because there was not enough for all of the kids,
but it *was* an ample amount for one person of my stature. Just sitting
there watching the sun come up while the kids slept in their tents was so
peaceful compared to the nonstop cooking, head-counting, and first aid
application that would consume the rest of the day. I felt like it could
last forever. Of course, it only lasted until the boys made their first
foray behind the girl's tent to see if the peepholes had become any larger.
Morgan
wrote:
> Morgan wrote:
<snip>
>> Sooo... you're both right?
>> http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/4/SNL-New-Shimmer-Commercial-704661.html
>
> Exactly so. As I said in my first post, linguistically speaking, he may
> be right. However, the term "pedophile" is a technical term. Thus, it
> is appropriate to use the technical spelling.
>
>> (skip ahead to about 1:30)
>
> Aroo?
It was for the "you're both right" reference -- the relevant part of the
vid starts at about 1:30.
Morgan /|\
back on usenet after the main computer crashed on the 13th