People of color
Petibacsi
ignorant.
The speaker obviously meant by people of color blacks,asians,native
Americans,etc. although white just as much of a color as those.
So the expression is kind of silly to me.
Pk2222
> I heard this expression on the radio and I find it somehow racist, if not
>ignorant.
It might be, but where I go to school, (a graduate program in which the
majority of students are persons of color), it seems to be the preferred
appelation. In fact, we're taught to say "persons with disabilities" (instead
of "disabled people" or "crippled people" or "blind people", etc.) and "kids of
color" instead of black kids or Hispanic kids, etc.
Of all the politically correct catch phrases, actually I find this among the
more graceful. 'Course it's racist, the persons who invented it were of a
certain race, but as they tend to use it to embrace a number of races, it can
also be inclusive. Or exclusive, if you happen to be of the pale beige variety.
<ducking quickly and running for cover> It's very tricky to be a caucasian in
America these days. One tends not to let on when one dislikes the put-on terms
but is drawn to the speakers.
pk
pk
JB
I remember about 10 years ago, when this phrase was gaining ascendancy,
an NYU academic (a "person of color" himself) mocked this phrase by
likening it to "jeans of blue". --JB
JUST AN H
>From: peti...@aol.comic (Petibacsi)
>Date: Fri, Dec 11, 1998 10:16 EST
>Message-id: <19981211101625...@ng-fb2.aol.com>
>
> I heard this expression on the radio and I find it somehow racist, if not
>ignorant.
>Americans,etc. although white just as much of a color as those.
> So the expression is kind of silly to me.
It seems kinda silly to me, too. When I was born in 1960, Black people were
still being referred to as "Coloreds." Then came "Negro," which was
subsequently scrapped and replaced by "Black," which enjoyed a relatively long
life ... until "African-American" came along. Now we've got "people of color."
Frankly, I don't understand the incessant tinkering with euphemisms for the
different races in this country. It seems like a past-time for succeeding
generations of White and politically correct middle-class Americans, which is
one more reason I threw up my hands at this seemingly never-ending nonsense
years ago.
Until somebody, somewhere comes up with something that'll stick and make
everybody happy once and for all, I'll continue to refer to "Whites," "Blacks,"
"Hispanics," "Indians" and "Asians" in day to day life. They're dignified, and
the only protest I've encountered in the past 20 years is from an occasional
White.
J.
P&DSchultz
> Why do you have to classify people with their skin colours? Why don't
> you just say "people"?
Because that would give you sentences such as:
"In South Africa, people formerly kept people from voting."
And that doesn't make any sense.
//P. Schultz
Yoshiro Shibasaki
> It seems kinda silly to me, too. When I was born in 1960, Black people were
> still being referred to as "Coloreds." Then came "Negro," which was
> subsequently scrapped and replaced by "Black," which enjoyed a relatively long
> life ... until "African-American" came along. Now we've got "people of color."
>
> Frankly, I don't understand the incessant tinkering with euphemisms for the
> different races in this country. It seems like a past-time for succeeding
> generations of White and politically correct middle-class Americans, which is
> one more reason I threw up my hands at this seemingly never-ending nonsense
> years ago.
>
> Until somebody, somewhere comes up with something that'll stick and make
> everybody happy once and for all, I'll continue to refer to "Whites," "Blacks,"
> "Hispanics," "Indians" and "Asians" in day to day life. They're dignified, and
> the only protest I've encountered in the past 20 years is from an occasional
> White.
Why do you have to classify people with their skin colours? Why don't
you just say "people"?
Y.
--
Yoshiro Shibasaki, PhD
Edinburgh, Scotland
Charles Riggs
<yo...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Why do you have to classify people with their skin colours? Why don't
>you just say "people"?
People apparently like to distinguish one group from another - perhaps
it makes them feel superior. Why do you find it necessary to put the
PhD after your name in a newsgroup message?
Charles
Pk2222
>you just say "people"?
Sometimes because the people in question have asked us to do so. I agree with
you in principle, but don't mind acquiescing to a reasonable request.
pk
jan...@mailexcite.com
This is where I have a problem. I am perfectly willing to refer
to people however they would like me to. I'm just never sure
how to find out what that is. People never ask me to refer to
them in any way. Generally, I just wait until an issue comes up
that clues me in. Sooner or later, people usually say something
like, "we blacks" or "we japanese-americans," and I go with
that. I have never heard a person of color ever refer to
herself as a "person of color." Maybe it's our age, but the
black people I know never crossed over to "african-american,"
either. We all still use the term "black." I have seen people
refer to themselves as "african-american" on the internet.
Besides that, I can't think of a situation in which I would use
the term "persons of color." I'm not sure what it means. Does
it include asian-americans or not? What about people from
Spain? What about portuguese and portuguese-american people?
Does it refer to skin color or ethnic background? What about
italians?
It's all very confusing for me. Even if I knew who people of
color are, I don't think I would ever have a reason to lump them
all together.
jane
p.s. How do black people in other countries refer to
themselves?
Pk2222
>This is where I have a problem. I am perfectly willing to refer
>to people however they would like me to. I'm just never sure
>how to find out what that is. People never ask me to refer to
>them in any way.
Those whom I meet at work and in the technical industries don't seem to label
themselves. In class (at Roosevelt University - bastion of free thinking in
Chicago) students in the Masters program in Education (from twenty-years old
through forty or fifty) all refer to "people of color" and "kids of color". In
this case, they mean themselves and generally include African-Americans,
Hispanic -Americans and Native Americans. They tend to say "Asian" for Asian
students of various nationalities and "Caucasians" for white Americans and
Europeans. School is a very queer situation when most of the students come to
class angry about centuries of mistreatment and with the attitude that it is
the "colorless" community that must proove itself to be human.
I worked for a year (last year) in a Federal building, where the majority of
workers called themselves "African-Americans", "Hispanic" or "persons with
disabilties". These terms were in use by persons of all ages. I'm dead sure
(from overhearing cube-farm telephone conversations) that the usage changes
depending upon the audience.
It's very confusing. My take on it is to use the pc version, showing all
possible respect (which is, after all, the point), and then stand corrected by
the person's stated preference. I'm with Peti, in the end. It would be far
easier just to call each other by name. <eg>
pk
Chris L
> you just say "people"?
>
> --
> Yoshiro Shibasaki, PhD
> Edinburgh, Scotland
Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish. For example in a news report
about medicine "White people are more prone to skin cancer than black
people". Just saying "people" in these kind of instances would fail to
convey the information properly.
Chris Longley
evan...@my-dejanews.com
Exactly the point I was going to raise: sometimes it is necessary or most
distinctive descriptive.
Also, I've never really liked the term "African-American". I sometimes say in
it's place t"of African heritage". No one has objected.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Petibacsi
Probably we.
Yoshiro Shibasaki
> Sometimes it is necessary to distinguish. For example in a news report
> about medicine "White people are more prone to skin cancer than black
> people". Just saying "people" in these kind of instances would fail to
> convey the information properly.
The point is not in that kind of context. Your sentence can easily be
written as "People with pale skin are more prone to skin cancer than
darker skin." without any hint of discrimination/distinction. It does
not refer to any ethnic/racial character of the people. There are
variety of skin colour also among Caucasian (from dark to pale;
Indian-Sem/Ham (Israeli/Arabic)-Hispanic-Latin-Slavic-Germanic-Celtic).
I am an Oriental (in British classification) but some of the German
people have (native [not tanned]) darker skin than my skin.
Yoshi
--
Yoshiro Shibasaki
Edinburgh, Scotland
Charles Riggs
If you didn't like that example I submit this one, in which you can't
simply substitute dark-skinned for negro: Negroes are far more apt to
contract sickle cell anemia than caucasians. Why do racial
distinctions and differences bother you?
Charles
JB
"People of darker skin in the U.S. tend to vote for the Democratic
Party." --JB
JUST AN H
>simply substitute dark-skinned for negro: Negroes are far more apt to
>contract sickle cell anemia than caucasians. Why do racial
>distinctions and differences bother you?
>
Right on, CHARLES!
The whole trouble with euphemisms is that they're insidiously self-conscious,
apologetic and condescending, and exist only to blur and deny the very real
differences between the countless races of people on this Earth and their
cultures ... differences which should be celebrated rather than hidden behind
"niceties." (Hey, who died and declared White, middle-class Americans the
"supreme race?)
I, for one, see no harm in acknowledging those differences ... but only if we
can do so in a non-derrogatory manner, and by this, I don't mean walking on
eggshells. Here in our own country, there are people of every nationality
whose skin color and culture runs the gamut ... kinda like a rainbow. I have a
hodge-podge of friends who take absolutely no offense by the use of "Black,"
"Hispanic," "Italian," "Hmong," "Cambodian," "German," "Russian," "Jewish,"
"Asian," etc, etc.
However, if you were to come into my house and refer to "Niggers," "Chinks,",
"Slant eyes,"
"Dagos," "Jungle bunny" and other such nonsense, you'll be quickly shown the
door.
J.
Yowie
> I, for one, see no harm in acknowledging those differences ... but only
if we
> can do so in a non-derrogatory manner, and by this, I don't mean walking
on
> eggshells. Here in our own country, there are people of every
nationality
> whose skin color and culture runs the gamut ... kinda like a rainbow. I
have a
> hodge-podge of friends who take absolutely no offense by the use of
"Black,"
> "Hispanic," "Italian," "Hmong," "Cambodian," "German," "Russian,"
"Jewish,"
> "Asian," etc, etc.
>
> However, if you were to come into my house and refer to "Niggers,"
"Chinks,",
> "Slant eyes,"
> "Dagos," "Jungle bunny" and other such nonsense, you'll be quickly shown
the
> door.
Strange, but in my little region of Australia, the word "wog" (which when
used around here refers to mainly those of an Italian, Greek or Macedonian
descent) is used without offence. In fact, those people willingly refer to
themselves as "wogs". They call the Anglo people "Skips", after Skippy The
Bush Kangaroo. The informal teams at school were always "wogs" on one side,
and "skips" on the other. Being a pommie, I was labeled a "skip" and was
put into the "skip" teams. I accepted my "skip" label without being
offended, because out of the two options, I was obviously "skip" material.
I wasn't offended. We were all best of mates and all the sparring, jibing
and teasing was in the spirit of "taking the piss". Occasionally, I copped
a "Ya Pommie Bastard" but understood that the "insult" was a sign of
acceptance, not aggression. Accepting the "wog" label (or "Pommie Bastard",
for that matter) and wearing it with pride, I believe, was and is part of
"Australianising" new Australians. The comedy team from "Wogs Out Of Work"
no doubt have a certain pride in their European heritage, but can "take the
piss" out of it like any Australian can take the piss out of anything, as
their shows aptly demonstrate.
Why is it OK for an African American to refer to themselves or their
African-American friends as "nigger" but not OK for a non-African-American
to do the same? By using the insulting word for themselves are they
reclaiming it as their own , and taking the sting out of it? Or is it the
same as my experience of the use of the word "wog" and "skip"; fine to use
for friends who will appreciate the humour, but a genuine insult to a
stranger? If it is the friend/stranger difference, why do find the same
word, which has the same meaning, offensive in one case but not the other?
Why is it OK for an Irish person to tell Irish jokes, or a Polish person
tell Polish jokes, but racist if a non-Irish or non-Polish person tells the
same jokes?
Yowie
jan...@mailexcite.com
>
> snip
>
> Why is it OK for an Irish person to tell Irish jokes, or a Polish person
> tell Polish jokes, but racist if a non-Irish or non-Polish person tells the
> same jokes?
>
> Yowie
What makes you think it is?
Yowie
<3685936D...@mailexcite.com>...
Personally, I am unsure whether it is acceptable or not. However, it seems
that the society I live in accepts and finds funny a victim of cerebal
palsy telling "spastic" jokes, but would condemn the same jokes if they
were told by an able-bodied person. Why isn't the comedian with cerebal
palsy considered "politically incorrect"? I was just pondering why we as a
society don't find it offensive when a person with x-characteristic refers
to the x-character in a derogatory or demeaning way, but take offense when
a person without the x-characteristic does the same thing.
Yowie.
Elaine Gallegos
Yowie wrote in message <01be2e13$3c71cd60$LocalHost@Malachite>...
>Why is it OK for an African American to refer to themselves or their
>African-American friends as "nigger" but not OK for a non-African-American
>to do the same?
Don't you believe it. The most common cause of death to black males is
murder by...yes, another black male.
jan...@mailexcite.com
I think there's something a little bit different going on with
physical disabilities. I could be completely wrong, of course.
I get the feeling that the audience doesn't really laugh at the
disability as something separate from themselves. There's a
person on stage finding humor in his daily life, just like other
comedians. The trials he finds humor in involve spasticity, but
they could be something else. If it's successful, it brings the
audience in, involves them in the world and daily life of the
person with cerebral palsy. There's not that same sense of
laughing at something from the outside as something different
from you. I think that what offends people in ethnic humor is
that it isolates and objectifies a group.
Ethnic humor can be successful that way too. If Jackie Mason
makes jokes about a jewish mother, for example, it's funny to us
only if he reminds us of the "jewish mothers" in our own lives.
If the audience can't associate the humor with someone they know
and love, they get uncomfortable. It's like finding yourself at
a klan rally. To some extent I think audiences give comedians
the benefit of the doubt when they are finding humor in their
own experience.
jane
Elaine Gallegos
Yowie wrote in message <01be320d$65adb880$LocalHost@Malachite>...
>Personally, I am unsure whether it is acceptable or not. However, it seems
>that the society I live in accepts and finds funny a victim of cerebal
>palsy telling "spastic" jokes, but would condemn the same jokes if they
>were told by an able-bodied person.
I've only seen one CP comedian. She was funny, but I also appriciated her
willingness to talk about her very unique situation. CP must be an
incredibly difficult condition in many ways, but notably in the social
world. I had a very good friend with CP, and his everyday experience was
very difficult, especially socially.
I liked her because she was so clever, and honest. She did laugh at
herself, and put others at ease. Believe me, I spent a lot of time ill at
ease with my CP friend. Just couldn't help it. That was in spite of the fact
that he was nice, and I liked spending time with him.
Tom Tobin
<368A444A...@mailexcite.com>...
> Yowie wrote:
<snipped very interesting insights into humour>
>It's like finding yourself at a klan rally.
You're on your way to a Trick or Treat party. You're dressed
in your 'scary' white sheet. You're lost in a strange
neighbourhood. You stop when you see all the cars - and the
backs of the people dressed like you. You push you're way
towards the barbecue - to meet your host, Bill. When you hit the
front - three things happen.
Firstly, you see the 'barbecue'.
Secondly, you realise they are *not* chanting 'Bill, Bill, Bill'.
Lastly, you feel a bit silly - everyone is looking at the 'scary'
pumpkin in your armsů
Just my guess... How did it really happen?
Regards,
Tom.
jan...@mailexcite.com
>
> jan...@mailexcite.com wrote in article
> <368A444A...@mailexcite.com>...
> > Yowie wrote:
> <snipped very interesting insights into humour>
> >It's like finding yourself at a klan rally.
> You're on your way to a Trick or Treat party. You're dressed
> in your 'scary' white sheet. You're lost in a strange
> neighbourhood. You stop when you see all the cars - and the
> backs of the people dressed like you. You push you're way
> towards the barbecue - to meet your host, Bill. When you hit the
> front - three things happen.
> Firstly, you see the 'barbecue'.
> Secondly, you realise they are *not* chanting 'Bill, Bill, Bill'.
> Lastly, you feel a bit silly - everyone is looking at the 'scary'
>
> Just my guess... How did it really happen?
>
> Regards,
> Tom.
Oh, YOU were the guy with the pumpkin. I was the one who
couldn't bring herself to waste a good sheet by cutting holes in
it.
Pk2222
> I think audiences give comedians
>the benefit of the doubt when they are finding humor in their
>own experience.
I agree. We tell lots of Irish jokes in our family, but try to be careful about
others. We end up with lots of truly awful puns.
pk
Bill McCray
>You push you're way towards the barbecue
Oh, dear.
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
Ellen Mizzell
> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
>
> Oh, dear.
>
Come on, it's only the equivalent of a typo. The Klan rally was the
funniest thing I read all that day.
--
Ellen Mizzell
Graham
Ellen Mizzell <$news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
<76j8uo$g...@tictac.demon.co.uk>...
Your much to generous - been on the festive spirit ?
HNY
--
Graham W. - WIMBORNE Dorset UK
D-I-Y Astronomy Stuff http://www.graham-wood.freeserve.co.uk/
Wessex Astro. Society http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/
jan...@mailexcite.com
>
> Ellen Mizzell <$news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> <76j8uo$g...@tictac.demon.co.uk>...
> >Bill McCray (tob...@mis.net) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
> >>
> >> Oh, dear.
> >>
> >
> >Come on, it's only the equivalent of a typo. The Klan rally was the
> >funniest thing I read all that day.
> >
>
> Your much to generous - been on the festive spirit ?
>
> HNY
>
Now, Graham, are you implying their wrong to toast the new year?
Ellen Mizzell
You are all very cruel. You are jealous because you can't quit
smoking.
--
Ellen Mizzell
Graham
jan...@mailexcite.com wrote in message
<368D7DAD...@mailexcite.com>...
>Graham wrote:
>>
>> Ellen Mizzell <$news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> <76j8uo$g...@tictac.demon.co.uk>...
>> >Bill McCray (tob...@mis.net) wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
>> >>
>> >> Oh, dear.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Come on, it's only the equivalent of a typo. The Klan rally was the
>> >funniest thing I read all that day.
>> >
>>
>> Your much to generous - been on the festive spirit ?
>>
>> HNY
>>
>
>Now, Graham, are you implying their wrong to toast the new year?
Not at all Jane, its just I regard typo's as wronlgy copied text or
a wrong key 'prest by misstake'. I can't regard "you're" as a typo
of 'your'. But 'yuor' and 'ypur' would be. Anyway my spel chequer
catches all of these.
HYN
Graham
>jan...@mailexcite.com wrote:
>> Graham wrote:
>> >
>> > Ellen Mizzell <$news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > <76j8uo$g...@tictac.demon.co.uk>...
>> > >Bill McCray (tob...@mis.net) wrote:
>> > >> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk>
>> > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
>> > >>
>> > >> Oh, dear.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Come on, it's only the equivalent of a typo. The Klan rally was
the
>> > >funniest thing I read all that day.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Your much to generous - been on the festive spirit ?
>> >
>> > HNY
>> >
>>
>> Now, Graham, are you implying their wrong to toast the new year?
>
>smoking.
>
Folks - we must excuse this outburst from Ellen.
These extreme mood swings are typical of withdrawal from
an addictive drug.
Personally, I've only had one glass of wine all Xmas/New Year.
Sad or what?
JUST AN H
>>the benefit of the doubt when they are finding humor in their
>>own experience.
I agree. I don't think I've ever known people who enjoy lawyer jokes as much
as lawyers do.
J.
Ellen Mizzell
>
> jan...@mailexcite.com wrote in message
> <368D7DAD...@mailexcite.com>...
> >
>
> a wrong key 'prest by misstake'. I can't regard "you're" as a typo
> of 'your'. But 'yuor' and 'ypur' would be. Anyway my spel chequer
> catches all of these.
>
I didn't say it was a typo, I said it was the equivalent of
a typo, by which I meant that it's a sort of slip of the tongue
made by the fingers, if you see what I mean. Of course, I don't
*know* that that's what it was, but I'm making that assumption.
And I too sometimes type one word when I really meant another.
General the Inner Proofreader rings the alarm bell before I
inflict it on the outside world, but I have no intention of
pinning my self-esteem and my personal reputation on any kind
of guarantee that it has never got through and never will get
through. Take it or leave it, say I.
It irritates me when people make mistakes and don't realise they're
mistakes -- especially if they also won't listen to anyone who
tries to correct them, and even more especially if they never had
anything interesting to say in the first place. But it doesn't
irritate me when someone makes an obvious slip in the course of
providing me with amusement.
When I was a teenager I used to be soo-oo-ooo contemptuous of my
family's country way of talking. I would sit there and look at
them, in what I'm sure must have been a ludicrously superior
fashion, rewriting their every utterance in my head in what I
considered to be "correct" English. Too many years later, I came
to understand how much wit and humour I missed while I was being
Little Miss Grammar Policeperson. What an asshole I was.
OK, you may say, but that was spoken English, this is written
English. To which I would say, no, this is something in between.
And I would rather have people's flights of wit hot from the
keyboard, than two hours later after they have been through the
spellchecker, Mr Gates' version of the Grammar Police, and the
Inner Critic's deadly infusions of uncertainty and doubt.
So there. :-)
</quasi-serious>
--
Ellen Mizzell
Ellen Mizzell
[..]
>
> Personally, I've only had one glass of wine all Xmas/New Year.
> Sad or what?
>
Oh well, then, no wonder.
--
Ellen Mizzell
Bill McCray
wrote:
>Bill McCray (tob...@mis.net) wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
>>
>> Oh, dear.
>>
>
>Come on, it's only the equivalent of a typo. The Klan rally was the
>funniest thing I read all that day.
>
No, no. A typo is when the brain thinks one thing and the fingers type
another. Typing "hte" for "the" is a typo. Typing "you're" for "your"
is not a typo; it's a brain glitch. Typing "to" for "too" could be
either. Yes, it was funny.
Out of a Sunday-School class of about twenty members, five former
smokers have quit. It can be done. One of them said that he took
out a cigarette one day, looked at it, said "Who's in charge: you
or me?", and quit. I'm pulling for you to make it.
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
Ellen Mizzell
> On 1 Jan 1999 19:50:48 -0000, $news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk (Ellen Mizzell)
> wrote:
>
> >Bill McCray (tob...@mis.net) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
> >>
> >> Oh, dear.
> >>
> >
> >Come on, it's only the equivalent of a typo. The Klan rally was the
> >funniest thing I read all that day.
> >
> No, no. A typo is when the brain thinks one thing and the fingers type
> another. Typing "hte" for "the" is a typo. Typing "you're" for "your"
> is not a typo; it's a brain glitch. Typing "to" for "too" could be
> either. Yes, it was funny.
Tssk. I sentence the lot of you -- or at least Bill and Graham -- to
go back and look again at what I said. Here is a clue: when I say
"it's only the equivalent of a typo"
that *doesn't* mean
"it's only a typo"
>
> Out of a Sunday-School class of about twenty members, five former
> smokers have quit. It can be done. One of them said that he took
> out a cigarette one day, looked at it, said "Who's in charge: you
> or me?", and quit. I'm pulling for you to make it.
>
That's one approach. I pulled out a cigarette one day and said,
"How much do you cost?". When it wouldn't even answer, I knew I
was smoking the wrong stuff. Spliffs generally talk back.
--
Ellen Mizzell
Graham
>
>Oh well, then, no wonder.
>
>--
>Ellen Mizzell
Happy New Year Ellen.
And congrats on passing the first serious test of your
declared intentions. (Personally I gripe to all and
sundry if, when working in a non-smoking area, I
smell cigarette smoke from someone for whom the rule
apparently does not apply !) eg Chairman of the board <g>.
Ellen Mizzell
>
>Ellen Mizzell <$news1$@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
><76kui1$2...@tictac.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>Oh well, then, no wonder.
>>
>>--
>>Ellen Mizzell
>
>Happy New Year Ellen.
:-)
>
>And congrats on passing the first serious test of your
>declared intentions. (Personally I gripe to all and
>sundry if, when working in a non-smoking area, I
>smell cigarette smoke from someone for whom the rule
>apparently does not apply !) eg Chairman of the board <g>.
>
"exceptio confirmat regulam" -- the fact that you can't get
away with smoking in the non-smoking area proves that you
are not the Chairman of the Board.
--
Ellen Mizzell
Tom Tobin
<368bd076...@netnews.mis.net>...
> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
>
> Oh, dear.
>
> Lexington, KY
>
>
My apologies! I'd like to blame the seasonal spirit (alcoholic
or otherwise) - but I can't.
I sent myself to my room; 'grounded' for 3 days and forbidden
to use my beloved computer. <snivel, snivel>
That's how I deal with that sort of slovenliness!
Friendliness, erudition, intelligence, wit, helpfulness and
high standards - these are some of the reasons I like
this group. So, for 1999, I have to work harder at raising my
standards. OK! OK! So I have to work harder, also, at being
friendlier, learning, etc.
And, without getting too philosophical, that's why I'm here!
Regards,
Tom.
Graham
Tom Tobin wrote in message <01be3830$911f8420$82818181@tom>...
>Bill McCray <tob...@mis.net> wrote in article
><368bd076...@netnews.mis.net>...
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:49:15 GMT, "Tom Tobin" <t...@acara.co.uk>
wrote:
>>
>> >You push you're way towards the barbecue
>>
>> Oh, dear.
>
>or otherwise) - but I can't.
>
>I sent myself to my room; 'grounded' for 3 days and forbidden
>to use my beloved computer. <snivel, snivel>
>That's how I deal with that sort of slovenliness!
>
>Friendliness, erudition, intelligence, wit, helpfulness and
>high standards - these are some of the reasons I like
>this group. So, for 1999, I have to work harder at raising my
>standards. OK! OK! So I have to work harder, also, at being
>friendlier, learning, etc.
>
>And, without getting too philosophical, that's why I'm here!
>
Tom.
I think that like the news media, who were short of *real* stories
over the festive break, your post provided us with a delightful
interval of silliness.
But since you were paying your penance, you may have missed
these posts.
Anyway Happy New Year!