race on the census form, was once: Food stereotype origins?
Myles Paulson
One thing that struck me the other week was how much *visible*
attributes of skin colour signify to others. Now Black people look
different, but really *what* are we talking about. The skin
and its pigment from the corpse of a black man, would, perhaps, fill, an
ice-cream container. Many Bulgarians are squat and powerful, and make
good weight-lifters. Certainly this phoneme does not put them
into a special category which requires unique educational
differences, and social ones. Suppose I think that Croatians have specially
formed livers which look and function quite differently to other groups.
Would this lead to a whole debate on Croatian life, their role in
society, their special needs, or would it be seen simply as
something of a non-event. Even if it could be proved that these differences
were in some quantifiable sense more deeply rooted and anatomically
significant than simple skin-colouring, would people object to their
progeny marrying someone because they were thick-set, hairy, had funny
toes etc.
This reasoning has been been at the base of some modern critiques
of "racial" identification. Why is it just so self-evident to so
many that a simple thing like skin colour, a phoneme which is
nothing more than the expression of more melatonin in the skin, is
somehow of much more interest than the broad feet of one group,
and the tallness of another, both morphological features that are
more deeply connected with anatomy than the "colouring" process.
It is precisely these sociologists argument that the issue is not
a biological one, but a social one. We literally *see* Blacks as
different. In Australia, an Aboriginal leader can have as little as
1/64th of Koori blood in him, and still speak for Aboriginals as if
they were his nearest and dearest kin. How does this happen? Why is
that many "coloured" people, who look in all other respects more
like Caucasians in their body proportions, still be demarcated in a
way that we never do with Basques or Hungarians, or the Inuit.
Perhaps there should be a new class of logical fallacy called the
"Exaggerated distinction based on superficial appearance".
If anthropologists are beginning to question the idea of "race"
on the basis of Melatonin levels in skin then good on them. If
there is a good reason to categorise people in groups like this,
and I have no doubt there is, perhaps a more careful attention to
other phonemic expressions might lead us to the surprising
conclusion that Italians, or Irish, or what have you, are more
different to the "average" person, than are the Afro-American, who
simply are more visible. Tell me now, if you saw Tiger Woods, and he
looked white, would any of you really think anything of his Cherokee
background?
Myles Paulson
--
Myles Paulson <xexr...@wackydoo.dialix.oz.au>
Enkidu
In article <5k84a4$9...@verdi.nethelp.no>, ci...@nvg.unit.no (Cindy
Kandolf) wrote:
> Myles Paulson (xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au) writes:
> | One thing that struck me the other week was how much *visible*
> | attributes of skin colour signify to others. Now Black people look
> | different, but really *what* are we talking about. The skin
> | and its pigment from the corpse of a black man, would, perhaps, fill, an
> | ice-cream container. Many Bulgarians are squat and powerful, and make
> | good weight-lifters. Certainly this phoneme does not put them
> | into a special category [...]
>
> I take your point, but this is a definition of "phoneme" that someone
> forgot to tell us poor neglected linguists about.
>
> - Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
> ci...@nvg.unit.no Trondheim, Norway
> The flodweb: http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/
> Follow the links to the Bilingual Families Web page!
I believe "phoneme" in the above-quoted message is meant to be phenomenon.
Also, unless I've missed some nuance of this issue dealing with racial
differences in free oxygen radicals, it probably means "melanin" and not
"melatonin."
Omar
NOT a malapropism flame
--
I'm not Stian Oksavik, but I like Ethernet enough to lie about it.
Respondants kindly asked to use the spacebar.
Tony Sweeney
Enkidu wrote:
:
> Kandolf) wrote:
>
: > Myles Paulson (xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au) writes:
: > | One thing that struck me the other week was how much *visible*
: > | attributes of skin colour signify to others. Now Black people
look
: > | different, but really *what* are we talking about. The skin
: > | and its pigment from the corpse of a black man, would, perhaps,
fill, an
: > | ice-cream container. Many Bulgarians are squat and powerful,
and make
: > | good weight-lifters. Certainly this phoneme does not put them
: > | into a special category [...]
: >
: > I take your point, but this is a definition of "phoneme" that
someone
: > forgot to tell us poor neglected linguists about.
>
> I believe "phoneme" in the above-quoted message is meant to be phenomenon.
> Also, unless I've missed some nuance of this issue dealing with racial
> differences in free oxygen radicals, it probably means "melanin" and not
> "melatonin."
No, I think he means "phenome", which is to say "an instance of
expression of a phenotype". I have certainly heard or seen this
word used in this sense, but it seems to have escaped the compilers
of Chambers.
Tony.
Cindy Kandolf
Myles Paulson (xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au) writes:
| One thing that struck me the other week was how much *visible*
| attributes of skin colour signify to others. Now Black people look
| different, but really *what* are we talking about. The skin
| and its pigment from the corpse of a black man, would, perhaps, fill, an
| ice-cream container. Many Bulgarians are squat and powerful, and make
| good weight-lifters. Certainly this phoneme does not put them
| into a special category [...]
I take your point, but this is a definition of "phoneme" that someone
forgot to tell us poor neglected linguists about.
- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
Myles Paulson
In article <enkidu-3004...@terra.dorm.utexas.edu>, Enkidu (enk...@mail.utexas.edu) writes:
>In article <5k84a4$9...@verdi.nethelp.no>, ci...@nvg.unit.no (Cindy
>Kandolf) wrote:
>
>Also, unless I've missed some nuance of this issue dealing with racial
>differences in free oxygen radicals, it probably means "melanin" and not
>"melatonin."
>
Well EXCUUUSE ME.. What is this? .... Picky-picky week again.
Does everyone in all 52 states of the US of A need to chime in on
spelling mistakes.
Writing 100 line posts takes a little more time than unburdening
oneself of a bon-mot. Yes, it was melanin, and I meant the set of
phonemes expressed in the musculature of the Bulgarian, not a
single phoneme, in this case, although skin colour, like eye
colour, *is* determined by a straightforward genome to phenome
expression.
Myles "They laughed at Brian Kopoloskovy too" Paulson
--
Myles Paulson <xexr...@wackydoo.dialix.oz.au>
Jeffrey Nelson / STILL AGIN'
On Thu, 1 May 1997, Myles Paulson wrote:
*Well EXCUUUSE ME.. What is this? .... Picky-picky week again.
*Does everyone in all 52 states of the US of A need to chime in on
*spelling mistakes.
*
*Writing 100 line posts takes a little more time than unburdening
*oneself of a bon-mot. Yes, it was melanin, and I meant the set of
*phonemes expressed in the musculature of the Bulgarian, not a
*single phoneme, in this case, although skin colour, like eye
*colour
Myles, Myles, Myles, you're burning your bridges here, buddy. Mama
Flodnak posted a gentle query, followed by others generously granting you
the benefit of the doubt, filling in the mental blanks where apparent.
Basically, you had some rando-allies on Damage Control Patrol, and yet you
insisted on frantically and rudely zapping them back with whining over
quantity of leeway afforded thou.
Not only that, but you further proved unworthy of their AutoDefense
mechanisms by not only trotting your Pony of Ignorance into the ring. You
arrogantly expected the glue-worthy nag to garnish flowers by the dozens.
When carrots were offered and polite lumps of sugar by concerned parents,
you shooed them away and growled at their kids. Please accept this
tomato on my behalf, forever to adorn one unkempt equine mane. Your crowd
remains discontented and violent until I calm them with news that the glue
factory rep. will be here any minute. They have only to jeer and titter
amongst themselves, silently satisfied in the knowledge that you should
hardly be aware of the fate about to befall your source of income(-ing
fruit) since you've been *goddamned* *oblivious* so fucking far.
So, in jeering conclusion, I simply offer a less-polite reutterance of the
thoughts of our favorite mechanic,
"What about 'Phenome isn't a word' didn't you understand, Myles?"
So, Myles, if and when you return to the ring to reply, please answer the
following questions:
1) What is a 'phoneme'?
2) What is a 'phenome'?
3) What is a 'phenomenon'?
Come to think of it, since I'm in a nice mood, all you have to do is match
the questions with the below answers
a) Myles Paulson authoring a coherent post
b) A member of the set of the smallest units of speech that serve to
distinguish one utterance from another in a language or dialect
c) Not a real word at all, possibly a result of substance abuse
Reading list: "The Rivals," by R.B. Sheridan
Jeffrey "Myles, is your mother's maiden name Malaprop?" Nelson
===========================================================================
"There must be some mistake. I didn't mean to let them take away my soul.
Am I too old? Is it too late?" --Pink Floyd
Jeffrey Nelson http://mole.uvm.edu/~jlnelson
[to respond to me personally, change the [dot] to a . in my address]
===========================================================================
DaveHatunen
In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.970501...@mole.uvm.edu>,
--
*********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
* In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
* Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
*********************************************************
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au (Myles Paulson) wrote previously:
*}Well EXCUUUSE ME.. What is this? .... Picky-picky week again.
*}Writing 100 line posts takes a little more time than unburdening
*}oneself of a bon-mot. Yes, it was melanin, and I meant the set of
*}phonemes expressed in the musculature of the Bulgarian, not a
*}single phoneme, in this case, although skin colour, like eye
*}colour, *is* determined by a straightforward genome to phenome
*}expression.
It must really be embarrassing to be so thick as not to be able to
correct a spelling mistake (repeated a dozen times through Paulson's
earlier post), even after a dozen people have attempted correction.
I guess I'll try once more: a 'phoneme' is a linguistic term for the
minimal meaningful sound-unit in a language. It has nothing whatsoever
to do with the use which Paulson is trying to put it do (and resists
correction on). I was actually quite puzzled initially what word he
possibly even could have meant (I just figured he was using fancy words
at random, without much thought to meanings) ... but someone was kind
enough to remind us of the term 'phenome', which is the concrete noun
corresponding to the abstract noun 'phenotype'.
FWIW, Paulson's notions of genetics are just as bad as his grasp of
English.
Yours, Lulu...
quilty@ _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: \_\_\_\_ n o
philos. _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises \_\_
umass. _/_/ \_\_ d o
edu _/_/_/ IN A WORLD W/O WALLS, THERE WOULD BE NO GATES \_\_\_ z e
Myles Paulson
> *********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@netcom.com) ***********
> * In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
> * Until they find out he can see, then they kill him *
> *********************************************************
It often transpires, here, and I believe elsewhere, that some reader of a
local rag, which otherwise caters generally for quotidian "disgusted
mother of three" brigade, will write the editor an impassioned and
thoughtful letter on some subject of moment. I do not depend on
imagination alone when I feel again the exquisite chagrin that such a
writer feels when the only reply he receives is from some supercilious
fuckwit who has nothing better than to point out that the writer a. split an
infinitive, b. misspelled a word, and c. all his friends think the same.
Now I do take some umbrage, David, in that while you, as ever, have had
nothing to contribute to this debate, your compulsion to browbeat
someone who does, and to big-note yourself generally, has led you to cavil
on spelling errors of terms about which you know little and care less. The
tribe to which you belong to is legion. They are frightened that what they
say, if it has any heft to it at all, will reveal their minds to be franchised to
empty parking lots; that they will be shown to be as painted pigskin,
blown up like an obscene balloon, full of piss and wind, and painted up
like an Franklin Mint heritage piece in beige colours.
So, you adopt that pret-a-porter coolness, and you keep your head down,
until the sitting duck arrives, someone who is not in the tribe, and who, at
the right moment presents his big backside for your boot, which is
delivered, as ever, with one eye on the *real* audience of your peers with
whom you are trying to curry favour. Or to put it in demotic English, crawl
up their arse.
The plight of orphans and widows has left you cold, but now you are
galvanised, you have a mission, a purpose, or should I say, a target for
your easy venom. And so you set out to pull my nose. My good-humoured
picky-picky joke is passed off as vexatious, my points on the racial
taxonomy issue, a contribution to which would have tested your
intellectual mettle, is conveniently forgotten. After a long hiatus in this
debate, you are suddenly vociferous - you have found your stride, and you
have seen your quarry. This is your big chance: you can quote dictionaries,
not in defence of something you have proffered, but in the miserable quest
to make someone *else* look like a fool. So, you are good enough to tell
me that I have traduced the Mother tongue - you, who have never had any
use for it but to ask your daddy for more money, and to afflict those with
some purpose with your cruel insouciance. I am treated to an essay on the
meanings of "phoneme" and "phenome", as if even the most stern of
honourable critics could not descry that this was nothing more than a slip,
a transposition of vowels. I have little time and respect for this snotty form
of undergraduate palaver. I know it well, and as you can see, I have an
adequate answer for it.
Oh, yes, David, yes, what a laughing stock I made of myself... What a faux
pas ... What a howler... How can I live it down... Especially now that you
have taken the long wooden pointer and in as sardonic and slow a drawl as
you can muster - and I imagine this is one of the few weapons in your
armoury - you explain to me (not by e-mail, but on the froup, and at
extravagant length), the meanings of these terms. Yes, let us have a little
play to the Peanut, or should I say Macadamia Nut gallery. Indeed, the
many references to the Watchers, are intended not so much for my ears,
but for theirs. So, I must be a butt for your snobbery, that is my role. But
for whom? - why, for all of that small coterie whose praise makes your
heart swell, in whose lap you would rest your head, and like a dog who has
chased some interloper from the front garden with your yapping, prick up
your ears as they say, Good puppy, good puppy...
Yes, your response is casebook standard. They occur frequently on AFU -
they are sung for another audience, a niche audience, the audience of their
peers. And you are one of these, or should I say a wannabe hat. Here is
the most significant symptom of the AFU Casebook Response. You
mention your comrades by name or refer to their company implicitly, the
ones whose favour you count on; you coddle them, you "stroke" them, you
pay homage to them, you overlook their mistakes, and you defend them
when they should be reproached. You laud them for the inconsequential
scraps they sent in response to my post, while the meat of my own post is
not deemed worthy the most meagre mention.
No, I am to be given a spelling lesson, while you look over your shoulder,
like a Net Nazi, to see if the Commandants are laughing. And they aren't.
Not really. You need a bit more than naked servility and a willingness to
bludgeon the unsuspecting with a gratuitous and heavy-handed wit. You
need panache. You need style. You need grace. You need the sense of a
steely intellect behind the whimsical mask. In short you need a cerebral
cortex. And you are not in that race. No, David, a man's got to know his
own limitations. And if you can rent it, get that video inspired by the film
"I can jump puddles". It's called "I can crawl up arses".
You proceed to use sophistry to vilify the outsider, with all the simple-
mindedness of a devout Baptist redneck who can see no good at all in the
wheat held in the hand of the stranger and see nothing but good in those
who have offer the commonplace and banal.
Do you see now the difference between your piece of sardonic witlessness
and this post I write today. I speak candidly, and this will hurt you, and it
is public, but I speak for myself only. I play to no gallery, I do not bring
down nor invite anyone else to join in. I hate the sight of a pack of dogs
tearing down a stag. I fight one-to-one. I am not a Net Nazi, who looks
backwards as he foments contempt, checking, checking, that his peers, all
the other Nazi goons are always there, that they will back up his
fulminations, as he belittles and ridicules others. Yes you can see these
blown-up cockroaches, who are so full of bluster when they have the pack
behind them. My, how the spotlight can reduce a big man to a craven
wreck. But when they are alone, and in the spotlight, and before a neutral
audience, and when they must answer for themselves, you should see
them shuffle the loose change in their pocket, and twist their legs like an
errant schoolboy whose has been found out, and who can hardly contain
his bladder. What a bladder indeed are the lives of people like you. No, if
you upset me then, I reply, but I do so without leave of any group. I speak
for myself, and that is just the way it is. Do I mix my metaphors? I am
large enough to mix my metaphors.
Let me put it this way, if Snopes or Barbara had made this little slip,
would you have given yourself the latitude for your facile and rude
posturing? No, I don't think so. Deep down, people like you really know
their place. If I was a Hat, you would have your tongue up my arse, David,
there is no question in my mind about that, nor I imagine in the minds of
even your compatriots. Let me put this in word you will understand. I have
a doctorate in English Literature, and I rarely mention it because I do not
wish to pull rank. Still, in the end I suppose that there is little other use for
it but in this regard , when the occasion arises, to wipe the smirk off the
face of a simpering nebbish like you.
It is of no concern at all that I wrote "phoneme" when I meant
"phenome". This is a simple slip, not a blunder, and hey, I shall do so
again, and if you care to appear once again from the termite stack and tell
me how silly I am, and how silly all your friends think I am, and how
patient all your friends have been with me, then go ahead. It was late. I
wrote a post, not a paper. I have other things to do. I am a busy man. I
would have expected that as one of the Americans, who are known for
having a generosity of spirit, and an egalitariarian outlook, you would not
descend into the gnome-like rhetorical flourish of the Oxford Union,
replete with all their anal-retentive bullshit, and their appeals to propriety
(when it suits them).
I know the meaning of the words I use, and you know I do, even though
you consider these topics to be beneath you, and confine yourself to the
demonstration of your presumed status in life, at a safe distance from
calling any shot that could be held against you. Perhaps, if the chronic
funk that abides in your spirit is not terminal, you might, one day, open a
window and like the Walt Whitman of your land, just say it like it like it
is. If indeed a mouse can turn into a lion, and you do, I hope that you will
venture an opinion on a subject in hand instead of picking nits off my
luxurious fur.
This might come as a *big* surprise to you, my friend, but I don't
write to this group in order to make friends, especially with a
tissue-thin little grub like you. I care nothing for the unctuous
deliberations of your Autodefence Club, nor the always present
insinuation that you speak for a group of some special social
standing, whose chief delight is in chortling up their sleeve, and
who go into a mass frenzy when someone not in their local fanzine
lineup gets a boot up the bum. This is not the first time I have
had occasion to explain to some insufferable and noxious
light-weight that the world doesn't begin and end on their say so.
When you manage to frighten that neuron that you keep on the dag in
your arse hole into some sort of activity, perhaps you might begin
to understand. Here is my manifesto. You, who would rather cut
your throat before you lost face or status in front of your (tribe)
clique, can never comprehend it. Your greatest fear is that you will
say that which those in your tribe do not agree. Your only
weapon is to invoke the great pointer to my solitary abode. "You are
alone, we have a whole group here, and *we* all think that *you*
are infradig". A great gulf separates us David. Because what means
everything to you is like shit on my shoes. I would never write a
post to correct a slip, and then bring to bear the spectre of
*entire* society of VIPs who are *all* frowning in unison. Oh,
David, David, what a heartbreak little non-entity you are. so perhaps you
should find yourself a target who won't spank your butt quite as
effectively as I have done.
This will be difficult for you to understand, but here goes. Understand this:
I write what I like, and I welcome substantive criticism, and
good-humoured sallies alike. I don't carry tuppence for your support,
respect, friendship or admiration, or those of your self-satisfied clique. I
don't seek it or desire it. I don't write here to join any fucking country club,
to paraphrase Bernadette Devlin.
If you or the some old hats *begged* me into the sort of wet conspiracy
where they brow-beat newcomers and satisfy themselves of their status by
the weapons of condescension and ostracism, then I can say, I am
impervious. I write by my wits, and what I say needs no buttress. I ask no
one for permission to do so, and I am not answerable to anyone for what I
say. As you can see, this is an example. To those who can understand, I
exhort them. Be like this. Spit in the faces of the Net Nazis. Do you
believe in an occasional cold shower, for the sake of your character? Than
exalt your soul, and mortify your pretentious by taking on an unpopular
cause. I speak not to you, David, because you are a slug, and you would
rather kill your mother before losing face with your peers, and you will
leave the world nothing but a slimy trail going no where. I speak to the
ones who understand.
Honestly, David, I do not care if all of your friends think the same as you
do. The constant chorus of *everyone* here thinks you're a dork, which is
the standard way people like you have of giving weight to their arguments,
mean nothing to me. Everytime someone in this group speaks out of place
the cabal descend, united and secure that they alone are the good, the
worthy, the ones who can laugh up their sleeve when someone makes a
mistake. Believe me, this has happened before. I like it. I welcome it. I
know I am doing well when my lightening rod attracts the discharge of the
mob because then I know I am not going soft.
I do not have many friends, but the ones I have are very special people. I
do not consort with fools, not through snobbery, but because we have
nothing in common. They have their paths - the robbers will mix with
robbers, the vacuous socialites with others of their ilk, derelicts with
derelicts, and so on. You think that you belong here, because you are
willing to play the game without the slightest trace of curve ball. The ones
in the box seat have your approval, your support, hell, your unconditional
love. That is the man you are. Read the books and believe in the religion,
and live the life appropriate to such a man. And let me live my life and
think my thoughts. Don't bug me like a mosquito on an errand. Reply to
other sycophants, to other snobs, to the vacuous, and leave my material to
be read by those who can understand it.
One thing that life has taught me is that people start out in mixed groups,
as in school, and eventually, and it may take decades, end up in the group
to which they belong. You are a sycophant and a moron, and you belong in
the company that appreciates and welcomes your kind. If the Net Nazis
exist, then people like you must exist, for vicious actors (and that is what
Nazis are) need an audience and a family who gives them unconditional
love, and a beggar needs his patronage. And you are one of life's beggars.
So you have done well. You have found a nobody (me) on the Net and
*explained* what a phenome and a phoneme is, words you had just looked
up that very day, and for no other reason but to belittle a vulnerable target.
You will never have anything genuinely interesting or original to say, and
your life will pass like a trailer for a pretentious art-film. That is your lot.
Like mole-rats, and blue-green algae, you too have a role to play, but it is
probably not the one you imagine. But don't be discouraged. Fertiliser is
such a big part of it all.
Myles "Hey, it is *picky-picky week! Paulson
--
Myles Paulson <xexr...@wackydoo.dialix.oz.au>
DaveHatunen
In article <15...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au>,
Myles Paulson <xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au> wrote:
[...]
>It often transpires, here, and I believe elsewhere, that some reader of a
>local rag, which otherwise caters generally for quotidian "disgusted
>mother of three" brigade, will write the editor an impassioned and
>thoughtful letter on some subject of moment. I do not depend on
>imagination alone when I feel again the exquisite chagrin that such a
>writer feels when the only reply he receives is from some supercilious
>fuckwit who has nothing better than to point out that the writer a. split an
>infinitive, b. misspelled a word, and c. all his friends think the same.
>
>Now I do take some umbrage, David, in that while you, as ever, have had
>nothing to contribute to this debate, your compulsion to browbeat
>someone who does, and to big-note yourself generally, has led you to cavil
>on spelling errors of terms about which you know little and care less. The
>tribe to which you belong to is legion. They are frightened that what they
>say, if it has any heft to it at all, will reveal their minds to be franchised to
>empty parking lots; that they will be shown to be as painted pigskin,
>blown up like an obscene balloon, full of piss and wind, and painted up
>like an Franklin Mint heritage piece in beige colours.
How do you feel about people who jump all over other people without
actually examining the stuff they're reading. If you will look closely
at the quote in your post, you will see that not one single word, with
the exception of the sig, is mine.
I trust you will now do the right thing and print out a copy of your
post, roll it up, and gently insert it where the sun don't shine,
publicly announcing you are doing so.
[Lots and lots of irrelevancy deleted.]
--
mig
On Fri, 02 May 1997 10:01:52 GMT, xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au
(Myles Paulson) wrote lots of misattributed hooey followed by
remarkable quantities of other stuff I scrolled through with nary a
pause.
I'm not EVEN getting near whatever it was that inspired you to write
something larger than most of the files I download from
alt.hot.ooh.baby, but I thought I could just point out how nice and
shiny you could have made your car in the time it took to write it
all.
saludos, mig the spic n' span
"There are a great many of these accusers, and they have been accusing
me now for a great many years, and what is more, they approached you
at the most impressionable age, when some of you were children or
adolescents; and literally won their case by default, because there
was no one to defend me."
-- Socrates. Speech to the jury. (Quoted in: Plato, Apology, sct. 17.)
Keith M Ellis
In alt.folklore.urban DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
> actually examining the stuff they're reading. If you will look closely
> at the quote in your post, you will see that not one single word, with
> the exception of the sig, is mine.
Curioser and curioser. What's the deal with all of your reposts of
Jeffery's posts? That was bound to confuse somebody sooner or later.
As I was reading Myles's, um, masterpiece (and I'll get to that in a sec),
I found myself thinking "Hey! Is there something I don't know? Are Dave
and Jeffery the same person? Is Dave playing some strange game that I
don't know about?" Apparently not.
Anyway, this is all very odd. It's odd because Myles is way out of line
for writing an enormously insulting diatribe against Dave for something
he didn't write. It's also odd because, in my opinion, if it *hadn't* of
been Myles who made the mistake he made (phenome vs phoneme) lots *more*
people would've posted and said something to the effect of "you're an
idiot." I think Myles was given the benefit of the doubt.
It's still more odd because it was Jeffery - the guy everyone loves to
hate - who jumped on Myles in another battle of his typical love/hate
relationship with the afuista that won't accept him. And it is odd
because, in my opinion, *in spite* of Myles's confusion, his post still
hits home against alot of people here on afu, including Dave.
And I think it's odd because I rather liked Jeffery's out-of-kilter and
strangely demented post. I didn't worry about Myles being too insulted by
Jeffery, 'cause no one seems to take Jeffery seriously. It is revealing
that *the very same words*, when thought to originate from Dave, inspire a
veritable tome of hate from Myles. Considering this, methinks he doth
protest his imperviousness to afu opinion too loudly.
So I salute all - except Dave since I can't figure out what the fuck he is
doing reposting every one of Jeffery's - this has been an episode of
the asburd with a surpise moral at the end.
The moral is: everyone looks like a snotty nine-year old boy when they
engage in playground fisticuffs. USENET flaming is a faux bloodsport for
children.
-Keith Ellis
BTW, there are paragraphs of Myle's, um, performance that I admire greatly
and agree with greatly. Congrats. Too bad the whole thing is founded
upon an exquisite faux pas. The Truth and Irony is delicious.
Madeleine Page
Myles Palson wrote:
[vast vats of vituperation misdirected at Dave Hatunen snipped]
Look, duck, you're making a total fool of yourself here.
First, if Dave H *had* written the post to which you responded, your
passionate protracted prolixity would have been over the top.
The fact that he did *not* write it, just turns your blathering into
bathos. Be mortified. Very mortified.
Now. Take a deep breath. And another one. Good.
Feeling better? Now apologise for what you said to Dave Hatunen. Good.
Now blush because you got so riled you forget to read the post you were
responding to. Good.
Now apologise to Dave Hatunen for confusing him with Jeffy The Terminally
Inane. Good.
A couple more deep breaths, a couple of days to cool down, and you'll be
*fine*.
Madeleine "soothe soothe <pat> <pat>" Page
--
It's back! TAFKAC is available once more. So...
for the official afu archive, go to www.urbanlegends.com
Glen Quarnstrom
xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au (Myles Paulson) wrote:
>In article <hatunenE...@netcom.com>, DaveHatunen (hat...@netcom.com) writes:
>>In article <Pine.OSF.3.93.970501...@mole.uvm.edu>,
>>Jeffrey Nelson / STILL AGIN' <jlnelson@mole[dot]uvm.edu> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 1 May 1997, Myles Paulson wrote:
<nearly 300 lines of boring material terminated with extreme malice>
>Myles "Hey, it is *picky-picky week! Paulson
Geeze, Myles, such verbosity! I gave up trying to make sense of it
about half-way through.
May I suggest that next time a simple "Bite me!" would more eloquently
and succinctly express your sentiments? It might help if you knew
*who* you were flaming, too.
--
gl...@cyberhighway.net
Ian Munro
Myles Paulson (xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au) wrote:
: Let me put this in word you will understand. I have a doctorate in
: English Literature, and I rarely mention it because I do not wish to
: pull rank.
I'll pass on the chance to make the obvious jokes about close reading, and
I'll refrain from pointing out that doctorates are pretty thick on the
ground here in AFU and in any event would hardly give someone the occasion
to "pull rank." But I will note that the idea that Dave in particular
would be impressed by a PhD in English is very, very funny.
By the way, has the group been invaded by Martians over the past month or
so? It looks like someone has fucked all the TV dinners.
Ian "back when I get another chapter finished" Munro
--
"The concept of 'it's okay to do what you want to, people can killfile
you' is akin to saying that is okay to allow people to piss into the
bottle, because the drinker can always spit it out."--Martin Gilbert
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
Plonk!
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PGP 2.6 key: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~quilty/lulu-pgp.html
V-X
On 2 May 1997 17:43:57 GMT, in alt.folklore.urban, Keith M Ellis
<kme...@io.com> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.urban DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> actually examining the stuff they're reading. If you will look closely
>> at the quote in your post, you will see that not one single word, with
>> the exception of the sig, is mine.
>
>Curioser and curioser. What's the deal with all of your reposts of
>Jeffery's posts? That was bound to confuse somebody sooner or later.
It's to make sure that Jeffrey's posts are archived or something.
And yes, that is weird and obsessive, and is really not in keeping with the
bandwidth-preserving ideals of the "old hats" of this group...but Dave has also
pretty much had the year from hell, and having just finished one of those and
taken a lot of it out on Usenet, myself, I'll give him some slack.
I'm sure he's falling all over himself with gratitude.
--Robert
Visit the Jack Chick Archive and Loads o' Groove at:
http://www.ungh.com
Coming Soon: A New Jack Chick Site @ www.yaaa.org
Coming Sooner: Nerd Farm @ www.nerd-farm.com
Don't bother going thrifting. We already got all the good stuff.
Leo G. Simonetta
Myles Paulson wrote:
> It often transpires, here, and I believe elsewhere, that some reader of a
> local rag, which otherwise caters generally for quotidian "disgusted
> mother of three" brigade, will write the editor an impassioned and
> thoughtful letter on some subject of moment. I do not depend on
> imagination alone when I feel again the exquisite chagrin that such a
> writer feels when the only reply he receives is from some supercilious
> fuckwit who has nothing better than to point out that the writer a. split an
> infinitive, b. misspelled a word, and c. all his friends think the same.
MAJOR SNIP
> Myles "Hey, it is *picky-picky week! Paulson
> --
> Myles Paulson <xexr...@wackydoo.dialix.oz.au>
Wow, does Bill Palmer have cousins in the land down under?
You might want to get a scorecard while you are at it.
--
Leo (Excess Verbiage) Simonetta
ARC...@LANGATE.GSU.EDU My opinions. Mine! All mine!
DaveHatunen
In article <3421740b....@news.accessone.com>, V-X <v...@ungh.com> wrote:
>On 2 May 1997 17:43:57 GMT, in alt.folklore.urban, Keith M Ellis
><kme...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.folklore.urban DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>> actually examining the stuff they're reading. If you will look closely
>>> at the quote in your post, you will see that not one single word, with
>>> the exception of the sig, is mine.
>>
>>Curioser and curioser. What's the deal with all of your reposts of
>>Jeffery's posts? That was bound to confuse somebody sooner or later.
>
>It's to make sure that Jeffrey's posts are archived or something.
>
>And yes, that is weird and obsessive, and is really not in keeping with the
>bandwidth-preserving ideals of the "old hats" of this group...but Dave has also
>pretty much had the year from hell, and having just finished one of those and
>taken a lot of it out on Usenet, myself, I'll give him some slack.
>
>I'm sure he's falling all over himself with gratitude.
Thank you, thank you, thank you ever so much. If there's ever enaythign
I can do for you in future...
Anyway, it wasn't meant to be anal-retentive looking; it's more that
it's failed to have its intended effect, so I may give up on it.
fastrada
V-X wrote:
>
> On 2 May 1997 17:43:57 GMT, in alt.folklore.urban, Keith M Ellis
> <kme...@io.com> wrote:
>
> >In alt.folklore.urban DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> actually examining the stuff they're reading. If you will look closely
> >> at the quote in your post, you will see that not one single word, with
> >> the exception of the sig, is mine.
> >
> >Curioser and curioser. What's the deal with all of your reposts of
> >Jeffery's posts? That was bound to confuse somebody sooner or later.
>
> It's to make sure that Jeffrey's posts are archived or something.
>
> And yes, that is weird and obsessive, and is really not in keeping with the
> bandwidth-preserving ideals of the "old hats" of this group...but Dave has also
> pretty much had the year from hell, and having just finished one of those and
> taken a lot of it out on Usenet, myself, I'll give him some slack.
>
> I'm sure he's falling all over himself with gratitude.
>
>
> Visit the Jack Chick Archive and Loads o' Groove at:
> http://www.ungh.com
> Coming Soon: A New Jack Chick Site @ www.yaaa.org
> Coming Sooner: Nerd Farm @ www.nerd-farm.com
> Don't bother going thrifting. We already got all the good stuff.
YOU'RE the Jack Chick Archive guy?!? Thanks for a great site! I love
reading through all of your stuff, and I've been eagerly awaiting the
new site.
Regards,
Joe
Jeffrey Nelson / STILL AGIN'
I started out replying to Myles' barrage, paragraph by paragraph, but
then realized someone who does not take the courtesy to reply on-topic to
the issues previously discussed does not deserve to have his post
commented on in real time either. In other words, shorter post to read
for everyone! I have come to some additional conclusions.
a) Myles does not understand Usenet posting very well, to the extent that
headers elude him.
b) Myles like to obfuscate and gratuitously elevate the verbiage in the
hopes that all onlookers will focus on his current slight(!)-of-hands
rather than the disappearing act he pulled in (lack of) response to
previous posts.
c) Myles likes to use his persecution complex to win his shoddy arguments
d) Myles hallucinates that I have a default value for PostTone set for
"Honor hats" This further shows he hasn't or doesn't read a.f.u
e) Myles likes to conjur up legitimate antagonistic paradigms in the hopes
that readers' sympathy for Nazi victims will rub off on his posts.
f) Myles likes to declare victory despite the resounding buzzer sounding
every time someone expands the history of flamehood by hosing him online.
g) Myles points out non-existent Hat loyalty and dictates its terms by
superimposing motives on my writing.
*Still, in the end I suppose that there is little other use for it but in
*this regard , when the occasion arises, to wipe the smirk off the
*face of a simpering nebbish like you.
I suppose, Myles, that if all else fails, you can always read the
instructions, in this case my post asking you to match three questions
with three answers. Did you do that?
*It is of no concern at all that I wrote "phoneme" when I meant
*"phenome".
Many disagree. I will be more blatant this post, since you have wasted my
politeness efforts. BEFORE YOU POST AGAIN DEFINE "PHENOME" AND CITE.
*Your greatest fear is that you will say that which those in your tribe do
*not agree.
<ROTFL>
Oh how rong-o you are, Myles. I take *particular delight* in posting
messages which incite fellow Usenetters to anger and <gasp> thought!
*I speak not to you, David, because you are a slug, and you would
*rather kill your mother before losing face with your peers, and you will
*leave the world nothing but a slimy trail going no where. I speak to the
*ones who understand.
Ooh. I'm quaking for David's sake. Dave, can you learn from this not to
keep posting my chronicled-under-my-name posts? My posts are showing up.
*So you have done well. You have found a nobody (me) on the Net and
**explained* what a phenome and a phoneme is
Yes, but since you have evidenced knowledge of neither, I wouldn't want
to break my hand in a self-pat. I'll accept your apology when you
acknowledge it wasn't a simple speling misteak. You bitterly deserve a
denotching. Until then (post cite of "phenome") shut the fuck up, please.
Jeffrey "and, of course, thank you" Nelson
Jeffrey Nelson / STILL AGIN'
On Sun, 4 May 1997, DaveHatunen wrote:
[reposting my messages
*Anyway, it wasn't meant to be anal-retentive looking; it's more that
*it's failed to have its intended effect, so I may give up on it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which was what, praytell?
Jeffrey "no crack, just inquiry..." Nelson
Chris Grace
Keith M Ellis (kme...@io.com) wrote:
: Anyway, this is all very odd. It's odd because Myles is way out of line
: for writing an enormously insulting diatribe against Dave for something
: he didn't write. It's also odd because, in my opinion, if it *hadn't* of
: been Myles who made the mistake he made (phenome vs phoneme) lots *more*
: people would've posted and said something to the effect of "you're an
: idiot." I think Myles was given the benefit of the doubt.
You see, Myles is an Australian. All Australians find it difficult to read
effectively - but they write and talk a lot. When you see them en masse
they all have pointed heads as well. Just don't ask him about VFL.
And *never* buy a car from him.
--
Chris 'fufas' Grace Somewhere south of the equator and north of antarctica
V-X
>YOU'RE the Jack Chick Archive guy?!? Thanks for a great site! I love
>reading through all of your stuff, and I've been eagerly awaiting the
>new site.
You're welcome, but now I just feel worse about how long the new stuff has been
delayed.
Sigh.
I still haven't seen myself on TV...
Walter Eric Johnson
On Sun, 4 May 1997 21:01:36 -0400, Jeffrey Nelson / STILL AGIN' (jlnelson@mole[dot]uvm.edu), waived his fifth amendment rights and wrote:
:
: Dave, can you learn from this not to
: keep posting my chronicled-under-my-name posts? My posts are showing up.
Out of curiousity, I checked with deja news and only see about
20 of them!
If I play a few games with it, I can get another screen which
shows 414 posts to alt.folklore.urban from you. Yet, they
all come up as "Article Unavailable" when I try to look at the
list of them.
I thought that it could be that 20 is all that were not completely
devoid of interest, but looking at the 20 that showed up, I see
that I was wrong.
Eric Johnson
Greg Goss
xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au (Myles Paulson) wrote:
>simply are more visible. Tell me now, if you saw Tiger Woods, and he
>looked white, would any of you really think anything of his Cherokee
>background?
In the photos I've seen, he looks mostly east-asian. The face bones
would still be the same shape if you bleached his skin.
-----------------------------------------------------
Mindlink R.I.P . 1986-1997 Ten years at one ISP.
We shall remember our cyber village. Sigh!
Greg Goss
enk...@mail.utexas.edu (Enkidu) wrote:
> > I take your point, but this is a definition of "phoneme" that someone
> > forgot to tell us poor neglected linguists about.
>
>I believe "phoneme" in the above-quoted message is meant to be phenomenon.
Genotype is what the DNA contains. Phenotype is what is expressed
from that DNA. I expect that Phoneme is intended to be a formation
from phenotype.
Wonder Woman
gg...@direct.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:
>xexr...@wackydoo.DIALix.oz.au (Myles Paulson) wrote:
>
>>simply are more visible. Tell me now, if you saw Tiger Woods, and he
>>looked white, would any of you really think anything of his Cherokee
>>background?
>
>In the photos I've seen, he looks mostly east-asian. The face bones
>would still be the same shape if you bleached his skin.
His mother is Thai and his father is a Black American. The cheekbones
appear to come from them both.
Wonder Woman (yeah, I DO have a spamkiller in my address)
Ben Ostrowsky
gg...@direct.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:
>Genotype is what the DNA contains. Phenotype is what is expressed
>from that DNA. I expect that Phoneme is intended to be a formation
>from phenotype.
Sorry, but I don't think you're correct this time. Have you confused
'phone-' with 'pheno-'? The Oxford English Dictionary offers:
[= Fr. phoneme, ad. Gr. fwnhma a sound, f. fwnein to sound.]
I never learned Greek, but -gm(a(ta)) seems to nominalize verbs in a
passive sense. Dogma is taught. Stigmata mark. It seems reasonable to
say that a phonegma (-> phoneme) is something that is sounded -- in
simpler terms, a sound.
Linguists don't *use* it that way, mind you. And I've spent half an hour
writing this sentence, finally giving up on all attempts to explain
phonemes succinctly. There is no royal road to linguistics, but it's fun
to try.
Ben
Grant Hughes
In article <5kq297$end$1...@news.usf.edu>,
Ben Ostrowsky <bost...@luna.usf.edu> wrote:
>gg...@direct.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:
>>Genotype is what the DNA contains. Phenotype is what is expressed
>>from that DNA. I expect that Phoneme is intended to be a formation
>>from phenotype.
>
>Sorry, but I don't think you're correct this time. Have you confused
>'phone-' with 'pheno-'?
From what I have read on this thread an on other news groups, "phenome" is
a new word (neologism?).
"Genome" is the collective genetic material of an organism; "Phenome" may
be the collective phenotype, a heretofore wordless concept.
Grant "My, you have a lovely phenome" Hughes
Greg Goss
bost...@luna.usf.edu (Ben Ostrowsky) wrote:
>gg...@direct.ca (Greg Goss) wrote:
>>Genotype is what the DNA contains. Phenotype is what is expressed
>>from that DNA. I expect that Phoneme is intended to be a formation
>>from phenotype.
>
>Sorry, but I don't think you're correct this time. Have you confused
>'phone-' with 'pheno-'? The Oxford English Dictionary offers:
"intended to be". Only the original author can call me wrong. I had
noticed that the O and E were swapped.
[evidence snipped]
DaveHatunen
>but protocol, not to mention self-interest, suggests it remain in-house. It
>has the same effect as say, the indigenes of lower and upper Chad
>accusing each other, from the forum of nations, of being dishonest
>morons. Northern Hemispherical Chauvinists will simply have their
>prejudices confirmed about *everyone* who lives in this neck of the
>water. So, let us display a more appropriate and seemly demeanour of
>solidarity.
>
>Translation of above for New Zealanders:
>Baah bah, bbaah Bleeeet, bleeeet, bah baaaah bah baaaaah, burp, fart,
>baah bbbaaaah BBBAAAH.
>
>Myles "What the hell..." Paulson
I mean, really, would it have been that hard to remove my name from the
subject line and replace it with something like "Kiwis" or something?
Dave "I keep getting the ugly one" Hatunen
ReluctantMessiah
In article <hatunenE...@netcom.com>,
DaveHatunen <hat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>I mean, really, would it have been that hard to remove my name from the
>subject line and replace it with something like "Kiwis" or something?
GIF!
-jc
--
"...alt.folklore.urban frowns upon the usage of emoticons in postings...
please consider that emoticons which are inappropriately displayed in AFU
are also distasteful. They add nothing useful to your posting and are very
distracting."--Charles Wm. Dimmick, email ;) to dim...@ccsu.ctstateu.edu