playwriting
Richard R. Hershberger
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/12/arts/theater/12TWAI.html, an article
about a Mark Twain play which has turned up. The article twice uses
"playwriting" as a noun, seemingly as a gerund, as well as the noun
form "playwright". Had the latter form been absent, I would have
suspected simple ignorance as the explanation for the former form.
Neither MW10 nor AH4 have an entry for "playwrite" but both have
"playwriting" as a simple noun, MW10 dating it to 1809. I feel no
compulsion to moralize about this, but I find it interesting.
Richard R. Hershberger
Ben Zimmer
There's nothing at all remarkable about "playwriting" as a verbal noun.
As I mentioned in the recent thread on "warmongering" [1], there's a
large class of verbal nouns of the form "X-ing" without an inflectable
verb "X", where "X" is a noun-verb compound (cf. "storytelling",
"whistle-blowing", "mudslinging", etc.) Usually there's also an
agentive noun "X-er" ("storyteller", etc.), but in this case we already
have "playwright", obviating the need for "playwriter". But there's no
need to derive "playwriting" from "playwrite" (if such a verb existed,
it would be a back-formation like "screenwrite" or "skywrite").
[1]
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3E9BF1FD...@midway.uchicago.edu
Harvey Van Sickle
It is interesting, but it strikes me as entirely correct, as a
playwright "writes plays" rather than "wrights plays". The resulting
action is therefore "playwriting" (although I'd personally use play-
writing).
Wouldn't "playwrighting" be an example of hypercorrection?
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 20 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey to whhvs)
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> There's nothing at all remarkable about "playwriting" as a verbal noun.
> As I mentioned in the recent thread on "warmongering" [1], there's a
> large class of verbal nouns of the form "X-ing" without an inflectable
> verb "X", where "X" is a noun-verb compound (cf. "storytelling",
> "whistle-blowing", "mudslinging", etc.) Usually there's also an
> agentive noun "X-er" ("storyteller", etc.), but in this case we already
> have "playwright", obviating the need for "playwriter". But there's no
> need to derive "playwriting" from "playwrite" (if such a verb existed,
> it would be a back-formation like "screenwrite" or "skywrite").
Is there such a beast as a plain "monger"? In usage, it seems to me that
"monger" = "wallah".
rzed
A monger is a seller of some sort. As on-line American Heritage
Dictionary has it:
NOUN: 1. A dealer in a specific commodity. Often used in combination:
an ironmonger. 2. A person promoting something undesirable or
discreditable. Often used in combination: a scandalmonger; a
warmonger.
TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: mon·gered, mon·ger·ing, mon·gers
To peddle.
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English mongere, from Old English mangere, from
Latin mang, dealer in slaves, probably of Greek origin.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/55/M0385500.html
A "wallah" just seems to be the guy in charge, which might make him a
promoter in some cases, so there may be an overlap of meaning, but
they don't appear to be synonyms. Not that I've ever used (and I don't
remember ever hearing) "wallah" in AmE.
--
rzed
AB
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:08:06 GMT, Richard R. Hershberger wrote
>
>> I was interested to read in the New York Times here,
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/12/arts/theater/12TWAI.html, an
>> article about a Mark Twain play which has turned up. The article
>> twice uses "playwriting" as a noun, seemingly as a gerund, as well
>> as the noun form "playwright". Had the latter form been absent, I
>> would have suspected simple ignorance as the explanation for the
>> former form. Neither MW10 nor AH4 have an entry for "playwrite"
>> but both have "playwriting" as a simple noun, MW10 dating it to
>> 1809. I feel no compulsion to moralize about this, but I find it
>> interesting.
>
> It is interesting, but it strikes me as entirely correct, as a
> playwright "writes plays" rather than "wrights plays". The resulting
> action is therefore "playwriting" (although I'd personally use play-
> writing).
>
> Wouldn't "playwrighting" be an example of hypercorrection?
No, your "play-writing" is hypercorrect.
One entry found for playwriting.
Main Entry: play暈rit搏ng
Variant(s): also play暈right搏ng /-"rI-ti[ng]/
Function: noun
Date: 1809
: the writing of plays
John Dean
Wallah from Hindi 'wala' a suffix meaning 'connected with'. Added to all
manner of words in Hindi and has passed into BrE usage. Punkah-wallah was
well known before it was immortalised in 'It Ain't 'Alf 'Ot Mum'. Wallah is
almost never the guy in charge - most frequently a menial although the term
is used for a native of a particular place - Mumbai-wallah
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
rzed
> rzed wrote:
[...]
>>
>> A "wallah" just seems to be the guy in charge, which might make
>> him a promoter in some cases, so there may be an overlap of
>> meaning, but they don't appear to be synonyms. Not that I've ever
>> used (and I don't remember ever hearing) "wallah" in AmE.
>
> Wallah from Hindi 'wala' a suffix meaning 'connected with'. Added
> to all manner of words in Hindi and has passed into BrE usage.
> Punkah-wallah was well known before it was immortalised in 'It
> Ain't 'Alf 'Ot Mum'. Wallah is almost never the guy in charge -
> most frequently a menial although the term is used for a native of
> a particular place - Mumbai-wallah
I stand corrected. We Yanks didn't pick up much Hindi, since about the
time the Brits were colonizing India, we were de-colonizing them from
our turf. I get the impressioni that there is a fairly large chunk of
British English that owes its origins to the subcontinent, and almost
none of it crossed the Atlantic.
--
rzed
Jacqui
> I stand corrected. We Yanks didn't pick up much Hindi, since about
> the time the Brits were colonizing India, we were de-colonizing
> them from our turf. I get the impressioni that there is a fairly
> large chunk of British English that owes its origins to the
> subcontinent, and almost none of it crossed the Atlantic.
Unless you watch Jamie *spit* Oliver.
Jac
Evan Kirshenbaum
Once again, you can't use MWCD to answer questions about whether there
should be (or whether it's more common for there to be) a hyphen or
not or as one or two words. They explicitly pick one form that
appears to be at least as common as the others.
On the subject, the OED has "playwriter" from 1644 (Milton, no less),
and "playwright" from 1687. For the verb, it's "playwriting" from
1809 and "playwrighting" from 1896. (FWIW, the 1809 quotation has it
as "play-writing".)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing.
| Dean Thompson
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
>>> The resulting action is therefore "playwriting" (although I'd
>>> personally use play- writing).
>>> Wouldn't "playwrighting" be an example of hypercorrection?
>> No, your "play-writing" is hypercorrect.
-snip MWCD entry for "playwriting"-
> Once again, you can't use MWCD to answer questions about whether
> there should be (or whether it's more common for there to be) a
> hyphen or not or as one or two words.
I found it odd that someone would classify the choice to use a
hyphenated form -- a purely stylistic choice -- as "hypercorrection".
It suggests to me that the poster has not grasped the concept of
hypercorrection.
-snip-
> On the subject, the OED has "playwriter" from 1644 (Milton, no
> less), and "playwright" from 1687. For the verb, it's
> "playwriting" from 1809 and "playwrighting" from 1896.
Those dates make me suspect even more that "playwrighting" is a
hypercorrected form.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 18:27:49 GMT, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote
> > On the subject, the OED has "playwriter" from 1644 (Milton, no
> > less), and "playwright" from 1687. For the verb, it's
> > "playwriting" from 1809 and "playwrighting" from 1896.
>
> Those dates make me suspect even more that "playwrighting" is a
> hypercorrected form.
Either that or there's a distinction being made between merely writing
plays and engaging in the occupation of a playwright, but I suspect
you're right.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"The Dynamics of Interbeing and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Monological Imperatives in 'Dick
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and Jane' : A Study in Psychic
|Transrelational Modes."
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Don Phillipson
news:b9ok7f$inn$1...@news1.radix.net...
> Is there such a beast as a plain "monger"? In usage, it seems to me that
> "monger" = "wallah".
Monger = vendor (different from wallah, as I
understand it) as in fishmonger, rumour
mongerer, cheesemonger, etc.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphillipson[at]trytel.com
John Dean
Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing control of his
scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
Simon R. Hughes
> On Mon, 12 May 2003 15:08:06 GMT, Richard R. Hershberger wrote
>
> > I was interested to read in the New York Times here,
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/12/arts/theater/12TWAI.html, an
> > article about a Mark Twain play which has turned up. The article
> > twice uses "playwriting" as a noun, seemingly as a gerund, as well
> > as the noun form "playwright". Had the latter form been absent, I
> > would have suspected simple ignorance as the explanation for the
> > former form. Neither MW10 nor AH4 have an entry for "playwrite"
> > but both have "playwriting" as a simple noun, MW10 dating it to
> > 1809. I feel no compulsion to moralize about this, but I find it
> > interesting.
>
> It is interesting, but it strikes me as entirely correct, as a
> playwright "writes plays" rather than "wrights plays".
S/he works plays. In the same way that a wheelwright works wheels.
(Well, it works in the Scandinavian languages -- I guess it does in
German, too.)
> The resulting
> action is therefore "playwriting" (although I'd personally use play-
> writing).
>
> Wouldn't "playwrighting" be an example of hypercorrection?
Back formation.
--
Simon R. Hughes
War is Peace!
Richard R. Hershberger
OK, I'll buy that. I was overly influenced by the classic mistake of
"playwrite" when "playwright" is called for. But it does not follow
that any usage which is reminiscent of this mistake is itself wrong.
Richard R. Hershberger
sage
Don Phillipson <dphil...@trytel.com> wrote in message
news:qxTva.2245$mK2.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
just put it down to the bl**dy *wf*l w**th*r?
I've always found ironmonger to be such a satisfying word.
Cheers, Sage
Jens Brix Christiansen
> Thus Spake Harvey Van Sickle:
> > playwright "writes plays" rather than "wrights plays".
>
> S/he works plays. In the same way that a wheelwright works wheels.
> (Well, it works in the Scandinavian languages -- I guess it does in
> German, too.)
What do you mean, it works in the Scandinavian languages? The analogy
to Danish is somewhat loose:
Wheelwright: hjulmager. En der laver hjul.
Cartwright: karetmager. En der laver kareter.
Shoemaker: skomager. En der laver sko.
Playwright: skuespilforfatter, dramatiker. En der skriver skuespil.
In modern Danish the translation of "-wright" is "-mager", which is
essentially the same as the English word "maker", but the verb for
what the person does is not related. In Swedish the story is much the
same but the verb is different:
Shoemaker: skomakare. En som gör skor.
I am sure you had a point to make, but I don't seem to get it. Is
Norwegian somehow different from Danish and Swedish here?
Simon R. Hughes
> Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote in message news:<MPG.192a0f8f3...@news.online.no>...
> > Thus Spake Harvey Van Sickle:
> > > It is interesting, but it strikes me as entirely correct, as a
> > > playwright "writes plays" rather than "wrights plays".
> >
> > S/he works plays. In the same way that a wheelwright works wheels.
> > (Well, it works in the Scandinavian languages -- I guess it does in
> > German, too.)
[...]
> I am sure you had a point to make, but I don't seem to get it. Is
> Norwegian somehow different from Danish and Swedish here?
"Gör" --> "make"
--> "do"
-/-> "work" ("att gör ett arbet" -- I fluffed it)
The English was fine: a playwright works plays.
--
Simon R. Hughes
<!-- Don't email me. Email address abandoned. -->
rzed
This thread has me wondering whether there might be a useful
distinction between "playwriting" and "playwrighting." In the first
case, I imagine an author, possibly working along, envisioning the
scenes and writing the dialogue, and eventually completing the script
(which might then be produced, or might not). In the second case, I
imagine a collaborative effort, possibly with actors improvising
scenes and refining the action and dialogue as they go, the whole
thing being recorded by the nominal author, and ultimately resulting
in a script. The end result of either process could be regarded
either as the script (which is probably too limited in either
scenario) or the production of the play. The paths to approach the end
could be quite different, though. Different enough for two
distinct-but-related words, perhaps.
--
rzed
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing control of his
> scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
In the popular idiom, the priest always converts the athiest on
his deathbed. I have it on my life list to grab a priest for our team.
Skitt
> John Dean wrote:
>> Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing control
>> of his scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
>
> In the popular idiom, the priest always converts the athiest on
> his deathbed. I have it on my life list to grab a priest for our team.
Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or is it
something else?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Spehro Pefhany
<ski...@attbi.com> wrote:
>tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com wrote:
>> John Dean wrote:
>
>>> Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing control
>>> of his scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
>>
>> In the popular idiom, the priest always converts the athiest on
>> his deathbed. I have it on my life list to grab a priest for our team.
>
>Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or is it
>something else?
Because of that weird "'i' before 'e', except after 'c'" rule?
The one that really bugs me is 'hobbiest'. Google: 14,200
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Skitt
> "Skitt" wrote:
>> tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com wrote:
>>> John Dean wrote:
>>>> Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing
>>>> control of his scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
>>>
>>> In the popular idiom, the priest always converts the athiest on
>>> his deathbed. I have it on my life list to grab a priest for our
>>> team.
>>
>> Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or
>> is it something else?
>
> Because of that weird "'i' before 'e', except after 'c'" rule?
>
> The one that really bugs me is 'hobbiest'. Google: 14,200
Instead of "hobbyist" (Google 203,000)? Weird. I would never think to
spell it "hobbiest".
Robert Bannister
Perhaps we could call this collaborative effort the 'play rite'.
The end result of either process could be regarded
> either as the script (which is probably too limited in either
> scenario) or the production of the play. The paths to approach the end
> could be quite different, though. Different enough for two
> distinct-but-related words, perhaps.
>
> --
> rzed
>
>
--
Rob Bannister
John Dean
You wanna get ahead of the game, find a foxhole & dive in
John Dean
> tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com wrote:
>> John Dean wrote:
>
>>> Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing control
>>> of his scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
>>
>> In the popular idiom, the priest always converts the athiest on
>> his deathbed. I have it on my life list to grab a priest for our
>> team.
>
> Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or is
> it something else?
Mirror mirror on the wall
Who is the athiest of them all?
Skitt
Jennifer Lopez? Naah, you don't lisp, and the first vowel is all AmE.
Spehro Pefhany
Billy Bishop? Manfred von Richthofen?
R F
> tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com wrote:
> > John Dean wrote:
>
> >> Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing control
> >> of his scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
> >
> > In the popular idiom, the priest always converts the athiest on
> > his deathbed. I have it on my life list to grab a priest for our team.
>
> Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or is it
> something else?
Maybe also rigid application of the "i before e except after c" rule.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> You wanna get ahead of the game, find a foxhole & dive in
Did they even dig any foxholes in the Iraq war? It seemed so mobile.
ObFox: Zorro
R J Valentine
Donna Richoux
> tomca...@yaNOSPAMhoo.com wrote:
> > John Dean wrote:
>
> >> Apparently went arse over tip on the Oprah show after losing control
> >> of his scooter. I may have to reconsider my atheism
> >
> > In the popular idiom, the priest always converts the athiest on
> > his deathbed. I have it on my life list to grab a priest for our team.
>
> Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or is it
> something else?
Well, what do you mean by "is it just a typo"?
The Google ratios show that this is among the most common spelling
errors. I saved these, some time back:
atheist 131,000
athiest 9,420 ratio of 14:1
For words that have absolutely no variants accepted by dictionaries,
that puts it third on my list (after accordion and separate).
Now, what *I* would call a typo is something like "caufht":
caught 2,000,000
caufht 5 ratio 400,000:1
I've never seen a definition for the difference between a typo and
spelling mistake, but it's got to involve something like, whether the
writer would change it if he or she noticed it. I suspect most people
who ever randomly typed "caufht" went back and changed it. A real
spelling mistake, people leave alone because they believe it is supposed
to be that way, or they are not sure.
Then the question is, is there any sort of test that would shed light on
your question of why "atheist" is misspelled so often? Investigating
whether "ie" and "ei" are more frequently swapped than other pairs -- I
think we'd find yes, though not as often as this one.
Or think about similar sounds, like "healthiest"... Sometimes
resemblances to more common words causes the problem. Like, I think the
reason I have trouble with "gauge" because I type "language" so often.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
sand
wrote:
>Or think about similar sounds, like "healthiest"... Sometimes
>resemblances to more common words causes the problem. Like, I think the
>reason I have trouble with "gauge" because I type "language" so often.
And then there's "fluorescent".
Jan Sand
MC
sand <jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Or think about similar sounds, like "healthiest"... Sometimes
> >resemblances to more common words causes the problem. Like, I think the
> >reason I have trouble with "gauge" because I type "language" so often.
>
> And then there's "fluorescent".
Speaking of atheist/athiest, I always have a hard time remembering how
to spell "sacrilegious."
Although I *know* it's derived from "sacrilege," which I have no trouble
spelling, "sacreligious" seems right, given the meaning of the word, and
the fact that it's often pronounced "sacreligious" too.
rzed
> Skitt <ski...@attbi.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>>
>> Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or
>> is it something else?
>
>
> I've never seen a definition for the difference between a typo and
> spelling mistake, but it's got to involve something like, whether
> the writer would change it if he or she noticed it. I suspect most
> people who ever randomly typed "caufht" went back and changed it. A
> real spelling mistake, people leave alone because they believe it
> is supposed to be that way, or they are not sure.
>
> Then the question is, is there any sort of test that would shed
> light on your question of why "atheist" is misspelled so often?
> Investigating whether "ie" and "ei" are more frequently swapped
> than other pairs -- I think we'd find yes, though not as often as
> this one.
>
> Or think about similar sounds, like "healthiest"... Sometimes
> resemblances to more common words causes the problem. Like, I think
> the reason I have trouble with "gauge" because I type "language" so
> often.
[Drifting...]
Here in Virginia, the land of the vanity license plate (more Virginia
drivers select the "wording" of their plates than do those of any
other state), one man opted for "ATHEST" on his a few years ago (there
being a 6-character limit at the time). This so upset a woman in his
area that she took him to court, the plate was ruled to be offensive,
and he had to replace the plate.
So the principle seems to be that any misspelling of "atheist" means
"atheist".
--
rzed
[... drifting back]
Ross Howard
<Dick....@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>[Drifting...]
>
>Here in Virginia, the land of the vanity license plate (more Virginia
>drivers select the "wording" of their plates than do those of any
>other state), one man opted for "ATHEST" on his a few years ago (there
>being a 6-character limit at the time). This so upset a woman in his
>area that she took him to court, the plate was ruled to be offensive,
>and he had to replace the plate.
Are there guidelines on this? How would the following fare?
COMN1S
P1NK0E
SM0KER
JUNK1E
NTHRAX
Or, right now, CH1RAC or DX1CHK.
Ross Howard
--------------------
(Kick ass for e-mail)
Ross Howard
wrote:
<gulps and checks everything written in the last 30 years>
rzed
I don't know about guidelines, but Virginia has a list of some 21,000
banned combinations. Other states have allowed "ATHEST" or even
"ATHEIST"; in Virginia, if a plate *offends* even one person, it can
be banned. There's an on-line method of ordering personalized plates,
and I just now entered ATHEST as my desired choice; the site tells me
it's available, so it apparently doesn't check the banned list, or
possibly the word has been dropped since 1991. If it's just a matter
of the software not checking thoroughly, then I guess one just has to
try it and see what happens.
--
rzed
Ben Zimmer
"JUNK1E" is no good in New York, at least:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/nydmv3.shtml
See also:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/fladmv1.shtml
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/flatags1.shtml
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/wiscplates1.shtml
Ross Howard
<Dick....@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>I don't know about guidelines, but Virginia has a list of some 21,000
>banned combinations. Other states have allowed "ATHEST" or even
>"ATHEIST"; in Virginia, if a plate *offends* even one person, it can
>be banned.
The alarming thing to me is that proclaiming one's religious
disbeliefs could be considered by any judge to be reasonably claimed
to be offensive -- as alarming in what it suggests if not in its
financial importance as the NY District Court judge who last week
ruled that $11 million from the newly sequestered Iraqi coffers is to
be earmarked [*sic*] as compensation for the families of the 9-11
victims, because it is perfectly reasonable to suspect -- evenif
there is no reasonable evidence to support that such a suspicion --
that Saddam Hussein might, in some way, have been involved in the WTC
attack.[1]
I think space aliens abducted my hair. So <rubs hands together> who
can I sue?
[1. Web cite for doubters of the veracity of my claims: a facsimile of
the decision is currently avalable at www.thesmokinggun.com]
CyberCypher
news:b9t969$h1v$1...@mailgate2.lexis-nexis.com:
[...]
> [Drifting...]
>
> Here in Virginia, the land of the vanity license plate (more
> Virginia drivers select the "wording" of their plates than do
> those of any other state), one man opted for "ATHEST" on his a few
> years ago (there being a 6-character limit at the time). This so
> upset a woman in his area that she took him to court, the plate
> was ruled to be offensive, and he had to replace the plate.
>
> So the principle seems to be that any misspelling of "atheist"
> means "atheist".
I love this story. It epitomizes the American way. In the land of the
free, one is permitted to say anything as long as it is not offensive
to anyone. But more to the point is that it is also permitted to take
to court and silence anyone who acts on their belief that freedom of
speech is an inalienable human right in the USA. I wonder if that same
judge would allow me to sue everyone in America (well, just in Virginia
would be a good start) who stuck one of those stupid Xian fish signs on
their cars or in their telephone book advertisements on the ground that
such public displays of religious conviction is offensive to me because
I do not have the same convictions.
M. J. Powell
<ggu...@yadonkeyhoo.com> writes
The radio callsign G0NAD was not issued in the UK.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
MC
Ben Zimmer <bgzi...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > Are there guidelines on this? How would the following fare?
> >
> > COMN1S
> > P1NK0E
> > SM0KER
> > JUNK1E
> > NTHRAX
> >
> > Or, right now, CH1RAC or DX1CHK.
>
> "JUNK1E" is no good in New York, at least:
I remember reading an article about the California DMV's standards --
they have a full-time department to check vanity plates. They look for
obscenities in a variety of languages *and* (the thing that made the
article stick in my mind) they check every submission in a mirror --
some combinations that seem innocuous take on a whole new meaning when
reversed -- which is the way you would see the plates in your rear-view
mirror.
sand
<ggu...@yadonkeyhoo.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 May 2003 07:21:54 -0400, MC <copeS...@ca.inter.net>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <hj84cvk3se4mihq4j...@4ax.com>,
>> sand <jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Or think about similar sounds, like "healthiest"... Sometimes
>>> >resemblances to more common words causes the problem. Like, I think the
>>> >reason I have trouble with "gauge" because I type "language" so often.
>>>
>>> And then there's "fluorescent".
>>
And to go on a bit more, "weird", "seize" and "Julius Caesar" can give
me problems.
Jan Sand
MC
sand <jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> And to go on a bit more, "weird", "seize" and "Julius Caesar" can give
> me problems.
Let me guess -- Julius Seizure, eh?
Mark Brader
> ... NY District Court judge ... last week ruled that $11 million
> from the newly sequestered Iraqi coffers is to be earmarked [*sic*]
> as compensation for the families of the 9-11 victims, because it is
> perfectly reasonable to suspect -- evenif there is no reasonable
> evidence to support that such a suspicion -- that Saddam Hussein might,
> in some way, have been involved in the WTC attack.[1]
The judge also observed that this reasonable suspicion might have well
have been offset if anyone representing the defendant had been present
in court and presented a case, but they didn't.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Argh! Hoist by my own canard :-) !"
m...@vex.net -- Steve Summit
sand
wrote:
No, no. That would be epilepsy.
Jan Sand
Spehro Pefhany
(Donna Richoux) wrote:
>For words that have absolutely no variants accepted by dictionaries,
>that puts it third on my list (after accordion and separate).
I suppose you don't count "ad nauseam" because it's Latin?
According to Google, it is spelled incorrectly slightly more often
than not.
>Then the question is, is there any sort of test that would shed light on
>your question of why "atheist" is misspelled so often? Investigating
>whether "ie" and "ei" are more frequently swapped than other pairs -- I
>think we'd find yes, though not as often as this one.
In all the words in the M-W dictionary, ei occurs with only 21% of the
frequency of ie.
There are only 27 words that *end* in "eist", but 978 that end in
"iest" (less than 3% of the frequency). Most of those that end in
"eist" have a different sound than the "eist" in "atheist".
ageist
atheist
canoeist
deist
epeeist
feist
fideist
geist
heist
...
Best regards,
Ross Howard
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I remember reading an article about the California DMV's standards --
> they have a full-time department to check vanity plates. They look for
> obscenities in a variety of languages *and* (the thing that made the
> article stick in my mind) they check every submission in a mirror --
> some combinations that seem innocuous take on a whole new meaning when
> reversed -- which is the way you would see the plates in your rear-view
> mirror.
Alledgedly, they--or some other state--actually issued 3M TA3, but
I've never seen confirmation of it, so it's probably an urban legend
(though Snopes doesn't mention it), but the story itself would be a
good enough impetus to get them checking.
Incidentally, while looking it up, I found that the story of the guy
who got "NO PLATE" (and several thousand parking tickets) was true.
But it turns out that it wasn't somebody trying to game the system
into not being able to ticket him. Rather, the form asks for three
choices, in case the first ones have already been issued, but he only
had two, so he wrote "NO PLATE" in the third blank. When the DMV
finally told police to change what they wrote on the ticket for cars
with missing plates, the notices started getting sent to another guy--
whose plates read MISSING. See
http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/noplate.asp
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time?
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Jerry Friedman
It's not quite the same thing. I suspect the Virginia law is based on
the idea that the state shouldn't be in the business of making
offensive license plates. I'm sure no one can stop Virginians from
putting Darwin-amphibian stickers on their cars. I do think the law
goes too far and I strongly disapprove of the woman's behavior,
though.
You could entertain yourself by moving to Virginia and protesting
every vanity plate you see, though.
--
Jerry Friedman
sand
wrote:
>
>There are only 27 words that *end* in "eist", but 978 that end in
>"iest" (less than 3% of the frequency). Most of those that end in
>"eist" have a different sound than the "eist" in "atheist".
>
>ageist
>atheist
>canoeist
>deist
>epeeist
>feist
>fideist
>geist
>heist
>...
Slightly OT
Is "keister" a legitimate word? It's not in my dictionary.
Jan Sand
Spehro Pefhany
<jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Slightly OT
>Is "keister" a legitimate word? It's not in my dictionary.
M-W:
One entry found for keister.
Main Entry: keis·ter
Pronunciation: 'kEs-t&r, 'kIs-
Variant(s): or kees·ter /'kEs-/
Function: noun
Etymology: English slang keister satchel
Date: 1931
slang : BUTTOCKS
AH:
keister
SYLLABICATION: keis·ter
PRONUNCIATION: kstr
NOUN: Slang 1. The buttocks. 2. The anus.
ETYMOLOGY: Earlier, satchel, suitcase.
I'd spell it "keester" if I ever had to write it. Is it ever used
other than in the alliterative phrase "kick in the keester"?
Alan Jones
[...]
> Slightly OT
> Is "keister" a legitimate word? It's not in my dictionary.
It's in NSOED, marked as "N.Amer.slang" and with three senses:
1 a A suitcase, a satchel; a handbag; a tool-case; a sample-case.
1 b A strongbox in a safe; a safe. .
2 The buttocks.
The last is found only from the mid-20th century, 1 a and b are 19th
century. Variant spellings kee- and key-, pronunciations in the order "kee-"
and "kye-". The spellings suggest to me that "kee-" is the original
pronunciation. The "kye-" version may have arisen on the assumption that the
word is German, though NSOED says firmly "origin unknown".
Alan Jones
Alan Jones
> sand wrote:
> [...]
>> Slightly OT
>> Is "keister" a legitimate word? It's not in my dictionary.
>
> It's in NSOED, marked as "N.Amer.slang" and with three senses:
>
> 1 a A suitcase, a satchel; a handbag; a tool-case; a sample-case.
> 1 b A strongbox in a safe; a safe. .
> 2 The buttocks.
>
> The last is found only from the mid-20th century, 1 a and b are 19th
> century.
Correction: 1a is late 19th cent., 1b early 20th, 2 mid-20th.
Alan Jones
Gunnar Harboe
>> Why does "atheist" get misspelled so often? Is it just a typo, or is it
>> something else?
>
>Well, what do you mean by "is it just a typo"?
>
>The Google ratios show that this is among the most common spelling
>errors. I saved these, some time back:
>
> atheist 131,000
> athiest 9,420 ratio of 14:1
>
>For words that have absolutely no variants accepted by dictionaries,
>that puts it third on my list (after accordion and separate).
dalmatian 184,000
dalmation 69,300
2.66:1
--
Non-native speaker
Corrections appreciated
Jerry Friedman
> On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:15:34 -0400, "rzed"
> <Dick....@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>
>
> >I don't know about guidelines, but Virginia has a list of some 21,000
> >banned combinations. Other states have allowed "ATHEST" or even
> >"ATHEIST"; in Virginia, if a plate *offends* even one person, it can
> >be banned.
>
> The alarming thing to me is that proclaiming one's religious
> disbeliefs could be considered by any judge to be reasonably claimed
> to be offensive
We don't know what standard the judge was required to go by. It
sounds like the fault is the Virginia legislature's.
> -- as alarming in what it suggests if not in its
> financial importance as the NY District Court judge who last week
> ruled that $11 million from the newly sequestered Iraqi coffers is to
> be earmarked [*sic*] as compensation for the families of the 9-11
> victims, because it is perfectly reasonable to suspect -- evenif
> there is no reasonable evidence to support that such a suspicion --
> that Saddam Hussein might, in some way, have been involved in the WTC
> attack.[1]
>
> I think space aliens abducted my hair. So <rubs hands together> who
> can I sue?
>
> [1. Web cite for doubters of the veracity of my claims: a facsimile of
> the decision is currently avalable at www.thesmokinggun.com]
I went there <http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/iraqop1.html> and
to Judge Harold Baer's opinion
<http://www.thesmokinggun.com/photos/iraqop.pdf>. Iraq ws found
individually liable for about $48 million, plus about $20 million that
it was "jointly and several liable" for with the other defendants, to
the families of *two* 9/11 victims. The families had sued, and the
defendants (Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and others) hadn't
responded. Accordingly, the judge entered a default judgement for the
plaintiffs on the basis that their evidence *could possibly* have
convinced a jury.
If you want to know my opinion, this is a travesty, but the problem is
that the frozen assets of Iraq should have been treated as belonging
to the Iraqi people, and provision for claims against them should have
reflected the possibility that someone would sue when no one could
defend--but that's hindsight. Also that the judge has to obey the law
and can't use discretion--but letting him use discretion would lead to
other problems.
Here's a paragraph cut and pasted (with slanted apostrophes and
quotation marks straightened, just in case, and line breaks removed)
from the opinion:
'I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, "by evidence
satisfactory to the court" that Iraq provided material support to bin
Laden and al Qaeda. As noted above, a very substantial portion of
plaintiffs evidence is classically hearsay (and often multiple
hearsay), and without meeting any exceptions is inadmissible for
substantive purposes. Thus, the hearsay rule prevents the Court from
considering as substantive evidence: the Ambassador of the Czech
Republic's letter which repeats Minister Gross's statement about a
meeting between Atta and al Ani in Prague, the contacts described in
CIA Director Tenet's letter to Sen. Graham, the evidence that
Secretary Powell recited in his remarks before the U.N., and the
defectors' descriptions about the use of Salman Pak as a camp to train
Islamic fundamentalists in terrorist. However, the opinion testimony
of the plaintiffs' experts is sufficient to meet plaintiffs' burden
that Iraq collaborated in or supported bin Laden/al Qaeda's terrorist
acts of September 11. Although these experts provided few actual
facts of any material support that Iraq actually provided, their
opinions, coupled with their qualifications as experts on this issue,
provide a
sufficient basis for a reasonable jury to draw inferences which could
lead to the conclusion that Iraq provided material support to al Qaeda
and that it did so with knowledge and intent to further al Qaeda's
criminal acts. In particular, Dr. Mylroie testified about Iraq's
covert involvement in
the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and about the proximity of the
dates of bin Laden's attack on the U.S. embassies and Hussein's ouster
of U.N. weapons inspectors. Juries are invited to draw inferences from
facts presented and this constitutes circumstantial evidence and this
is what the Court has done here. My decision reflects no more than
that the facts and the available inferences meet the plaintiffs'
burden of proof.'
--
Jerry Friedman
Oliver Cromm
> Ross Howard wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 14 May 2003 07:26:12 -0400, "rzed"
>> <Dick....@lexisnexis.com> wrote:
>>
(creative snipping alert!)
>> > "ATHEST" [...]
>> >plate was ruled to be offensive, and he had to replace the
>> >plate.
>>
>> Are there guidelines on this? How would the following fare?
>
> "JUNK1E" is no good in New York, at least:
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/nydmv3.shtml
In Germany, you can normally choose one or two letters and some
numbers. The letter combinations that are ruled out are normally a
smorgasbord of Nazi-related acronyms, example:
"HJ", "KZ", "NZ" "NS", "SA", "SS"
<http://www.heidelberg.de/buerger/hilfe.htm>
--
Oliver Cromm
Fatal exception in module gravitation.dll. Instable state of cosmos.
The universe will be restarted now. Any unsaved data will be lost.
(after an idea from "Boarder Lord" at www.heise.de)
Wood Avens
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Alledgedly, they--or some other state--actually issued 3M TA3, but
>I've never seen confirmation of it, so it's probably an urban legend
>(though Snopes doesn't mention it), but the story itself would be a
>good enough impetus to get them checking.
Just to cross a thread, I ( and doubtless others) once toyed with the
possibility of T513 HTA, a perfectly admissible UK numberplate, which
may, for all I know, actually have been issued in whatever year it was
that had the T suffix.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove number to reply
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Just to cross a thread, I ( and doubtless others) once toyed with
> the possibility of T513 HTA, a perfectly admissible UK numberplate,
> which may, for all I know, actually have been issued in whatever
> year it was that had the T suffix.
For sufficiently "pre" values of "suf"?
Apocryphally, 2BIG469 was issued in the normal California sequence.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant
| Cecil Adams
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Wood Avens
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>For sufficiently "pre" values of "suf"?
Um - it's a suffix when seen, as intended, in a rear-view mirror.
(I admit nuffin!)
R H Draney
>
>Incidentally, while looking it up, I found that the story of the guy
>who got "NO PLATE" (and several thousand parking tickets) was true.
>But it turns out that it wasn't somebody trying to game the system
>into not being able to ticket him. Rather, the form asks for three
>choices, in case the first ones have already been issued, but he only
>had two, so he wrote "NO PLATE" in the third blank. When the DMV
>finally told police to change what they wrote on the ticket for cars
>with missing plates, the notices started getting sent to another guy--
>whose plates read MISSING. See
>
> http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/noplate.asp
Quick bit of fun...if there are no restrictions for "offensive" plates and the
like, there are 36^6=2,176,782,336 possible plates of six letters and numbers,
36^5=60,466,176 with five, 36^4=1,679,616 with four, 36^3=46,656 with three,
36^2=1296 with two, and 36^1=36 with one...the last are probably much prized,
and I would expect that one could pay a hefty price to encourage the holder of
such a plate to give it up...the same sequence says there is exactly 36^0=1
plate with *no* letters or numbers, and some day I'd like to apply for it...I'm
sure the appropriate law in each state takes great pains to specify the maximum
number of symbols on a plate but says nothing of a minimum, and I anticipate
great pleasure in listening to a DMV employee try to explain *why* I can't have
a blank plate....
I've toyed with the idea of requesting a vanity plate that looks just like one
of the regular series, three letters followed by three digits in Arizona...this
occurred to me first back in the early 70s when gas rationing was done on the
basis of "even/odd" plates, with vanity plates considered "odd" regardless of
content; I thought I could make up one that would be "even" in appearance, but
with official state documentation that it should really entitle me to gas on
"odd" days as well....
Another head-game involves generating a plate that is obviously a vanity plate
(all letters, or letters and numbers in a pattern completely unlike the default
for that state) but where it fails to spell or suggest *anything*
meaningful...the target for this little prank would be the other people in
traffic, scratching their heads as they try to figure out the meaning of
"SRGMZN" or "7VTK0R" at a traffic light....r
Oliver Cromm
> dalmatian 184,000
> dalmation 69,300
>
> 2.66:1
Flabbergasted. Why is this so different from, e.g.,
Alsatian 105,000
Alsation 3,500
(30:1)
(Alsacian 3,390, Alastian 109)
?
Jacqui
> Quoth Gunnar Harboe:
>
>> dalmatian 184,000
>> dalmation 69,300
>>
>> 2.66:1
>
> Flabbergasted. Why is this so different from, e.g.,
> Alsatian 105,000
> Alsation 3,500
> (30:1)
Because no one's yet written or filmed "101 Alsatians".
Jac
Donna Richoux
That's impressive. When I run it myself and make sure my language
settings are "English only" (for consistency, and to protect from
contamination by similar words in other languages), I get slightly
different numbers but an even lower ratio!
dalmatian 95,200
dalmation 62,100 ratio 1.5:1
That's staggering, that moves it to the head of the chart. Looking for
any reason why this should be, I tried:
"dalmatian coast" 5,890
"dalmation coast" 807 ratio 7:1
"dalmatian pup" 880
"dalmation pup" 382 ratio 2:1
"dalmatian dog" 6620
"dalmation dog" 3090 ratio 2:1
So it doesn't look as though we can blame some obscure use as being the
culprit -- it's the dog people who are leading the pack. A ratio of 7:1
for the "coast" is still in the category of frequent spelling mistakes,
but up until now, I associated ratios of 2:1 and under with quite other
sorts of variation.
Fascinating. I wonder what the situation will be in twenty years' time.
--
Best wishes -- Donna Richoux
Gwen Lenker
wrote:
>I'd spell it "keester" if I ever had to write it. Is it ever used
>other than in the alliterative phrase "kick in the keester"?
Sure. "And there I was, flat broke, sitting on my kiester."
That might be the "satchel" or "suitcase" sense, though. Marilyn
Monroe in "Some Like it Hot" has a similar line about sitting on her
ukelele.
Robert Bannister
> Or think about similar sounds, like "healthiest"... Sometimes
> resemblances to more common words causes the problem. Like, I think
> the reason I have trouble with "gauge" because I type "language" so
> often.
I'm so glad I'm not the only one who has problems with 'gauge'. Even
when I've spelt it right, it still looks wrong: I want to pronounce it
'gawj' or 'goje'. It's not just the frequency of words like 'language' -
it's a feeling that 'gu' is for the first hard 'g' in contrast to the
second hard one. OK, I know that 'ga' mostly implies a hard 'g', but...
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>
>
>
>
>> Or think about similar sounds, like "healthiest"... Sometimes
>> resemblances to more common words causes the problem. Like, I think
>> the reason I have trouble with "gauge" because I type "language" so
>> often.
>
>
I don't see the problem with this one, unless you actually say something
like 'flower/flour' for the first syllable.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Here in Virginia, the land of the vanity license plate (more Virginia
> drivers select the "wording" of their plates than do those of any
> other state), one man opted for "ATHEST" on his a few years ago
> (there being a 6-character limit at the time). This so upset a woman
> in his area that she took him to court, the plate was ruled to be
> offensive, and he had to replace the plate.
Pity you couldn't give more details of the court case. It is hard to
believe how anyone, let alone a court, could find 'athest' or 'atheist'
offensive.
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
More details (at least the name of the person involved, Arnold Via,
and the official and department that refused) can be found at
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist2/writedmv.htm
Using that as a clue, it appears that things changed about a decade
ago:
In 1991, officials with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
refused to issue "ATHEIST" plates to Atheist and First Amendment
activist Arnold Via. The state reversed its decision after legal
pressure.
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist6.htm
(That's not a typo. According to the first page, the length limit had
been raised to seven by then, and Via applied for "ATHEIST" and was
denied.) On the other hand, the second page is about Florida, in
2002, reversing a recent decision that had held "ATHEIST" to be
"obscene or objectionable".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle
|key distribution, is a useless
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |farce.
(650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer
Oliver Cromm
I originally wanted to argue "even though the film could have made the
spelling of 'Dalmatian' more well-known".
Skitt
> Quoth Jacqui:
>> Oliver Cromm wibbled:
>>> Quoth Gunnar Harboe:
>>>
>>>> dalmatian 184,000
>>>> dalmation 69,300
>>>>
>>>> 2.66:1
>>>
>>> Flabbergasted. Why is this so different from, e.g.,
>>> Alsatian 105,000
>>> Alsation 3,500
>>> (30:1)
>>
>> Because no one's yet written or filmed "101 Alsatians".
>
> I originally wanted to argue "even though the film could have made the
> spelling of 'Dalmatian' more well-known".
What really happened is that the word "Dalmatian" got put into many people's
minds, including the minds of those who have never had a need to spell
anything correctly. Now they write on the Internet ...
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Robert Lipton
Skitt wrote:
> Oliver Cromm wrote:
>
>>Quoth Jacqui:
>>
>>>Oliver Cromm wibbled:
>>>
>>>>Quoth Gunnar Harboe:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>dalmatian 184,000
>>>>>dalmation 69,300
>>>>>
>>>>>2.66:1
>>>>>
>>>>Flabbergasted. Why is this so different from, e.g.,
>>>>Alsatian 105,000
>>>>Alsation 3,500
>>>>(30:1)
>>>>
>>>Because no one's yet written or filmed "101 Alsatians".
>>>
>>I originally wanted to argue "even though the film could have made the
>>spelling of 'Dalmatian' more well-known".
>>
>
> What really happened is that the word "Dalmatian" got put into many people's
> minds, including the minds of those who have never had a need to spell
> anything correctly. Now they write on the Internet ...
>
Just because they never felt the need doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Bob
Robert Bannister
> More details (at least the name of the person involved, Arnold Via,
> and the official and department that refused) can be found at
>
> http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist2/writedmv.htm
>
> Using that as a clue, it appears that things changed about a decade
> ago:
>
> In 1991, officials with the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
> refused to issue "ATHEIST" plates to Atheist and First Amendment
> activist Arnold Via. The state reversed its decision after legal
> pressure.
>
> http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheist6.htm
>
> (That's not a typo. According to the first page, the length limit
> had been raised to seven by then, and Via applied for "ATHEIST" and
> was denied.) On the other hand, the second page is about Florida, in
> 2002, reversing a recent decision that had held "ATHEIST" to be
> "obscene or objectionable".
Thanks, Evan. Fascinating stuff. Florida is certainly a weird State at
times. I see in this morning's newspaper that they're now appointing
people to guard the foetus of a raped woman until it comes to term.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>That's staggering, that moves it to the head of the chart. Looking for
>any reason why this should be, I tried:
>
> "dalmatian coast" 5,890
> "dalmation coast" 807 ratio 7:1
>
> "dalmatian pup" 880
> "dalmation pup" 382 ratio 2:1
>
> "dalmatian dog" 6620
> "dalmation dog" 3090 ratio 2:1
>
>So it doesn't look as though we can blame some obscure use as being the
>culprit -- it's the dog people who are leading the pack. A ratio of 7:1
>for the "coast" is still in the category of frequent spelling mistakes,
>but up until now, I associated ratios of 2:1 and under with quite other
>sorts of variation.
Just to make it absolutely clear that it's the Disney fans who are responsible:
"101 dalmatians" 60,200
"101 dalmations" 27,400 ratio 2.2:1
I'm trying to remember if there's a Disney movie with a deliberately misspelled
word in the title...the resulting Google ratio might make a nice indication of
exactly how powerful the empire's influence is....r
CyberCypher
news:96efe132.03051...@posting.google.com:
I know, I know. Back in 1962 there was a Rolls Royce (I think it was a
Rolls, but it could have been a Benz--not that they look at all alike,
but after 42 years all automobiles that I could never afford to buy
look the same to me) at Brown University with the license plate "LXIX".
The story on the street was that the owner had applied for "69" but was
turned down, so he used Roman numberals and had no trouble getting
that. Seems like an urban legend to me now, but I saw the car many
times when I was there.
> I'm sure no one can stop
> Virginians from putting Darwin-amphibian stickers on their cars.
> I do think the law goes too far and I strongly disapprove of the
> woman's behavior, though.
>
> You could entertain yourself by moving to Virginia and protesting
> every vanity plate you see, though.
Someone famous said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance", but
that was before the litigiousness of Americans was advertised by Alexis
de Tocqueville in 1831. Today the price of freedom is eternal
vigilance, US$500 an hour for legal fees, and the energy to pursue the
daily assaults made on that freedom by individuals (people still insist
that their local and school libraries ban _Catcher in the Rye_), local
communities, and the state and federal governments. Combatting
ignorance and stupidity at every level is hardly what I would call
entertaining; it sounds to me much more like a Sisyphean task,
something like trying to turn the tide before its time.
CyberCypher
news:Xns937B99753BC...@127.0.0.1:
[...]
>
> In Germany, you can normally choose one or two letters and some
> numbers. The letter combinations that are ruled out are normally a
> smorgasbord of Nazi-related acronyms, example:
>
> "HJ", "KZ", "NZ" "NS", "SA", "SS"
>
> <http://www.heidelberg.de/buerger/hilfe.htm>
This makes sense, at least.
CyberCypher
news:3EC2E326...@it.net.au:
[...]
> Florida is certainly a weird
> State at times. I see in this morning's newspaper that they're now
> appointing people to guard the foetus of a raped woman until it
> comes to term.
Which means, of course, that the woman carrying that fetus is being
confined in violation of the Constitution.
Ben Zimmer
>
> In Germany, you can normally choose one or two letters and some
> numbers. The letter combinations that are ruled out are normally a
> smorgasbord of Nazi-related acronyms, example:
>
> "HJ", "KZ", "NZ" "NS", "SA", "SS"
>
> <http://www.heidelberg.de/buerger/hilfe.htm>
And Singapore, which has license plates with three-letter prefixes,
decided to stop using vowels for the middle letter to avoid SEX and SIN:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/10/1034061260566.html
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>Just to make it absolutely clear that it's the Disney fans who are responsible:
>
>"101 dalmatians" 60,200
>"101 dalmations" 27,400 ratio 2.2:1
>
>I'm trying to remember if there's a Disney movie with a deliberately misspelled
>word in the title...the resulting Google ratio might make a nice indication of
>exactly how powerful the empire's influence is....r
Well, there's 'The Aristocats'. A pun, obviously, but then again a
deliberate misspelling would almost have to be.
I doubt it has inspired much imitation, though.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Here in Virginia, the land of the vanity license plate (more Virginia
> drivers select the "wording" of their plates than do those of any
> other state), one man opted for "ATHEST" on his a few years ago (there
> being a 6-character limit at the time). This so upset a woman in his
> area that she took him to court, the plate was ruled to be offensive,
> and he had to replace the plate.
>
> So the principle seems to be that any misspelling of "atheist" means
> "atheist".
Some years ago--at least ten--in California there was a similar case.
An American of Arab descent wanted a vanity plate with his given name.
The DMV refused (or perhaps the neighbors complained: I don't
recall). His name was "Jihad".
Richard R. Hershberger
Paul Giaccone
> >that puts it third on my list (after accordion and separate).
>
> dalmation 69,300
>
> 2.66:1
This is off-topic, but as we're talking about mistakes, I'd like to
point out that ratios are written using integers. This ratio is
therefore about 133 : 50, or, expressed in a more understandable form,
about 8 : 3.
Mark Brader
> > 2.66:1
Paul Giaccone:
> This is off-topic,
No, it isn't.
> but as we're talking about mistakes, I'd like to point out that
> ratios are written using integers.
No, they aren't necessarily. "2.66:1" is a perfectly normal way to
write a ratio. The same ratio might also be written as a simple
real number, 2.66, or in ways such as Paul suggests.
*Rational numbers* are, essentially, ratios of integers.
--
Mark Brader | "I do have an idea ... based on the quite obvious fact
Toronto | that the number two is ridiculous and can't exist."
m...@vex.net | -- Ben Denison (Isaac Asimov, "The Gods Themselves")
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
You've never been to see a film in 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 aspect ratio?
Any convention about ratios being integer-only dates from the days
before they had calculators. I don't see why we should bother any more.
R F
> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> burbled
> news:3EC2E326...@it.net.au:
>
> [...]
>
> > Florida is certainly a weird
> > State at times. I see in this morning's newspaper that they're now
> > appointing people to guard the foetus of a raped woman until it
> > comes to term.
Oy, not a "guard", a *guardian*. According to the New York Times, Gov.
Jeb Bush has *asked* a Florida court to appoint someone to protect the
legal interests of the fetus. But the court declined to consider the
matter because the request was made too late or something. The judge
said that the state could submit motions on behalf of the fetus and
that the court would consider them later.
In a 1989 case, the Florida Supreme Court apparently held that it was
"clearly improper" to appoint a guardian for a fetus, though I don't
know the details (and whether that was a general statement or specific
to that case). Apparently, in the current case, neither the raped
woman nor her caregivers have sought to abort the fetus. The woman is
developmentally disabled, according to the article.
> Which means, of course, that the woman carrying that fetus is being
> confined in violation of the Constitution.
The issue seems to be whether they can stop the woman, or someone
acting on her behalf, from getting an abortion should she (or someone
acting on her behalf) decide to try to abort the fetus. I don't know
what the particulars of Florida's abortion laws are. Under the original
_Roe v. Wade_ decision, the state was constitutionally permitted to
prevent a woman from getting an abortion in order to protect the
rights (or potential rights) of the fetus only in the third
trimester. In _Casey_, the early '90s decision which reaffirmed the
"core" _Roe_ holding, the rigid Blackmun trimester scheme was scrapped
in favor of a more sensible standard that made fetal viability the
important dividing line. Today (unlike in 1973) fetal viability is
usually somewhat earlier than the start of the third trimester, FWIU.
CyberCypher
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030515...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu:
[Richard, If you keep my words, please don't snip my attribution line.
XNews highlights this post of yours anyway]
[Restored attribution: CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw> said
news:Xns937C68916...@130.133.1.4:]
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> burbled
>> news:3EC2E326...@it.net.au:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Florida is certainly a weird
>> > State at times. I see in this morning's newspaper that they're
>> > now appointing people to guard the foetus of a raped woman
>> > until it comes to term.
>
> Oy, not a "guard", a *guardian*. According to the New York Times,
> Gov. Jeb Bush has *asked* a Florida court to appoint someone to
> protect the legal interests of the fetus.
[quote]
The governor [Jeb Bush] said in his statement, "While others may
interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the
singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best
interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."
[/quote]
We now can see that double-talk and saying nothing of substance has
been passed down to from father to sons. And Jeb's gonna run for
president one day soon too.
> But the court declined
> to consider the matter because the request was made too late or
> something. The judge said that the state could submit motions on
> behalf of the fetus and that the court would consider them later.
>
> In a 1989 case, the Florida Supreme Court apparently held that it
> was "clearly improper" to appoint a guardian for a fetus, though I
> don't know the details (and whether that was a general statement
> or specific to that case). Apparently, in the current case,
> neither the raped woman nor her caregivers
The Florida Department of Children and Families
> have sought to abort
> the fetus. The woman is developmentally disabled,
An interesting euphemism. More to the point is that she has no family
and has been a ward of the state for more than 18 years.
> according to the article.
>
>> Which means, of course, that the woman carrying that fetus is
>> being confined in violation of the Constitution.
>
> The issue seems to be whether they can stop the woman, or someone
> acting on her behalf, from getting an abortion should she (or
> someone acting on her behalf) decide to try to abort the fetus. I
> don't know what the particulars of Florida's abortion laws are.
Yes, that is pressing business for so many Bible-Belt states,
especially now that the buckle of the Bible Belt sports all those BA
BAs in D.C. In order to prevent the woman from having an abortion, they
would have to impose a Constitutionally questionable restraint on the
woman's liberty, in violation of the 5th Amendment, viz. ". . . nor
shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; . . ." But because she's already a ward of
the state and is too disabled to be granted any freedom of movement,
the question is moot, so I withdraw this objection. It does not fit the
facts of this particular case.
> Under the original _Roe v. Wade_ decision, the state was
> constitutionally permitted to prevent a woman from getting an
> abortion in order to protect the rights (or potential rights) of
> the fetus only in the third trimester. In _Casey_, the early '90s
> decision which reaffirmed the "core" _Roe_ holding, the rigid
> Blackmun trimester scheme was scrapped in favor of a more sensible
> standard that made fetal viability the important dividing line.
> Today (unlike in 1973) fetal viability is usually somewhat earlier
> than the start of the third trimester, FWIU.
This is probably true. Medical technology advances at an amazing pace
while the application of that technology leaves questions about the
ethics of its application light-years behind and with wolfishly
moralistic proxies in the officious wool of ersatz guardians of fetuses
they will never be concerned about after they have been born.
Skitt
True, but isn't "double-talk and saying nothing of substance" the hallmark
[heh, heh, I know that I could sneak that word in here] of great
politicianship [is that a word with any stature]? You must admit that what
he said sounds good, and no one could successfully argue against it. Best
interests shall prevail! That, and motherhood! Apple pie too.
I don't want to argue the abortion issue, so I snipped the rest -- that's
proper politics, you know. What's right is right, innit.
Ray Heindl
> I'm
> sure the appropriate law in each state takes great pains to
> specify the maximum number of symbols on a plate but says nothing
> of a minimum, and I anticipate great pleasure in listening to a
> DMV employee try to explain *why* I can't have a blank plate....
Don't try that in Ohio:
from <http://www.oplates.com/faq/BrowseTopic.asp>
"A personalized plate must contain no less than four letters and no
more than seven letters or a combination of letters, numbers and spaces
totaling up to seven characters."
I wonder if that means that ABC123 would not be allowed, as it has
fewer than four letters. Or less than four letters, in BMV-speak.
I also wonder why they call them "personalized plates", instead of
"vanity plates", as everyone else in the country does.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the X to reply)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> burbled
>> news:3EC2E326...@it.net.au:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Florida is certainly a weird
>> > State at times. I see in this morning's newspaper that they're now
>> > appointing people to guard the foetus of a raped woman until it
>> > comes to term.
>
>Oy, not a "guard", a *guardian*. According to the New York Times, Gov.
>Jeb Bush has *asked* a Florida court to appoint someone to protect the
>legal interests of the fetus. But the court declined to consider the
>matter because the request was made too late or something. The judge
>said that the state could submit motions on behalf of the fetus and
>that the court would consider them later.
>
>In a 1989 case, the Florida Supreme Court apparently held that it was
>"clearly improper" to appoint a guardian for a fetus, though I don't
>know the details (and whether that was a general statement or specific
>to that case). Apparently, in the current case, neither the raped
>woman nor her caregivers have sought to abort the fetus. The woman is
>developmentally disabled, according to the article.
>
>> Which means, of course, that the woman carrying that fetus is being
>> confined in violation of the Constitution.
The woman in this case is severely mentally disabled and has the
mental capacity of an infant. She is not aware that she is pregnant.
She is 22, and has never learned to speak, feed herself, walk, or even
recognize other people. To say that she is being "confined in
violation of the Constitution" is a ridiculous statement. She's been
in a group home for 19 years, and has no known relatives.
Some want a guardian appointed to give permission to obtain DNA
samples to use to determine the person who raped her. The girl is
unable to give permission or even understand the question.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
R H Draney
>
>"A personalized plate must contain no less than four letters and no
>more than seven letters or a combination of letters, numbers and spaces
>totaling up to seven characters."
>
>I wonder if that means that ABC123 would not be allowed, as it has
>fewer than four letters. Or less than four letters, in BMV-speak.
That description is a boolean nightmare...assuming in concert with convention
that "and" binds tighter than "or", and that "or" means the inclusive sort, it
seems to parse as:
((letters >= 4) & (letters <=7)) | ((letters+numbers+spaces) <= 7)
Seems there are two workable loopholes here that would allow a blank plate: the
one-sided limit on "characters" (a maximum of seven but no minimum specified),
and the inclusion of "spaces" among permissible characters...since the "total
characters" clause stands alone on one side of the disjunction, the restrictions
on the number of letters is irrelevant to the outcome of the expression....
In fact, if I read it aright, the rule says that my desired blank plate (zero
characters) is distinct from the plate containing only one space, the plate
containing only two spaces, on up to the plate with seven spaces...there are
actually *eight* permissible blank plates in Ohio...(I think I'd like to borrow
this example for my next programming class as an illustration of the importance
of unambiguous requirements)....
(It also appears that the plate "space-P-L-A-T-E-space" is not the same as
"P-L-A-T-E" under these rules...and I thought that allowing either the letter O
or the digit zero equal footing was asking for trouble!)...r
John Dean
>> ...
> Slightly OT
> Is "keister" a legitimate word? It's not in my dictionary.
>
> Jan Sand
OED has it as American slang :-
1. a. A suitcase, satchel; a handbag; a burglar's tool-case; a salesman's
sample-case, etc.
b. A strong-box in a safe; a safe
2. The buttocks.
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
CyberCypher
news:ba0qeb$oa73s$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de:
If you rotate it counterclockwise 90 degrees, it has much greater
stature than the alternative: politics.
> You
> must admit that what he said sounds good, and no one could
> successfully argue against it. Best interests shall prevail!
> That, and motherhood! Apple pie too.
Yerright! Reminds me of one of my favorite Frog and Toad stories, the
one where they look at themselves in the mirror and
Frog says, "We look brave."
"Yes," says Toad [, the critical thinker in the piece], "but are
we?"
> I don't want to argue the abortion issue, so I snipped the rest --
> that's proper politics, you know.
I didn't think I was arguing for or against abortion, merely a
definition of one phrase in the Fifth Amendment and an idealistic
interpretation of "with liberty and justice for all". But now that
you've confirmed that my position is "proper politics", I lay the
matter to rest. Where two of us agree, there can be no need for further
discussion.
> What's right is right, innit.
I always like to think so, but the world does not seem to agree with
that sentiment.
CyberCypher
news:n878cvclhupfiuk68...@4ax.com:
And you have all this information about her based on what sources? Not
the NY Times article Richard quotes--I know that because I've read that
one. It must come from watching Florida TV news shows and reading local
newspapers.
> To say that she is being
> "confined in violation of the Constitution" is a ridiculous
> statement.
Based on the information available to me when I wrote that line, it is
not ridiculous, Tony. Based on what I have since learned, it would be
ridiculous of me to say so. That much I'll give you. She seems to
already have had her due process.
> She's been in a group home for 19 years, and has no
> known relatives.
That information, of course, was not provided by anyone else in this
thread, and the NY Times article that Richard refers to does not give
as many details about the victim's mental capacities as you have. All
it says is that she is severely developmentaly disabled, a PC euphemism
that means nothing without a specific description of the developmental
disabilities she suffers from.
> Some want a guardian appointed to give permission to obtain DNA
> samples to use to determine the person who raped her.
Is there really a legal necessity for such an appointment? The woman is
already a ward of the state and the Florida state Department of
Children and Families, so is there any need to provide her with another
guardian? The information that some want to get permission for DNA
samples for what ever reason was not in the NY Times article I read. It
must not be one of significant reasons offered for the officious demand
for guardianship by the BACs who otherwise have nothing to do with the
woman's everyday life.
> The girl is unable to give permission or even understand
> the question.
It was my impression that the rape victim is in fact 22 years old and
is not, therefore, a "girl" but legally a "woman", no matter how
mentally incompetent.
Robert Bannister
>>Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> burbled
>>news:3EC2E326...@it.net.au:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Florida is certainly a weird
>>>State at times. I see in this morning's newspaper that they're now
>>>appointing people to guard the foetus of a raped woman until it
>>>comes to term.
>>
>
> Oy, not a "guard", a *guardian*. According to the New York Times, Gov.
> Jeb Bush has *asked* a Florida court to appoint someone to protect the
> legal interests of the fetus. But the court declined to consider the
> matter because the request was made too late or something. The judge
> said that the state could submit motions on behalf of the fetus and
> that the court would consider them later.
>
> In a 1989 case, the Florida Supreme Court apparently held that it was
> "clearly improper" to appoint a guardian for a fetus, though I don't
> know the details (and whether that was a general statement or specific
> to that case). Apparently, in the current case, neither the raped
> woman nor her caregivers have sought to abort the fetus. The woman is
> developmentally disabled, according to the article.
Looks like my paper only gave part of the story. It gave the bit about
her being mentally disabled, but gave the impression that she or her
carers were being prevented from proceeding to an abortion.
--
Rob Bannister
Tony Cooper
>>>> Which means, of course, that the woman carrying that fetus is
>>>> being confined in violation of the Constitution.
>>
>> The woman in this case is severely mentally disabled and has the
>> mental capacity of an infant. She is not aware that she is
>> pregnant. She is 22, and has never learned to speak, feed herself,
>> walk, or even recognize other people.
>
>And you have all this information about her based on what sources? Not
>the NY Times article Richard quotes--I know that because I've read that
>one. It must come from watching Florida TV news shows and reading local
>newspapers.
She's a patient in an Orlando group home, Franke. I live in Orlando.
I don't read the NYT for Orlando news.
>> To say that she is being
>> "confined in violation of the Constitution" is a ridiculous
>> statement.
>
>Based on the information available to me when I wrote that line, it is
>not ridiculous, Tony. Based on what I have since learned, it would be
>ridiculous of me to say so. That much I'll give you. She seems to
>already have had her due process.
If I read a blub about something happening in some other area, I would
be inclined to dig just a wee bit before taking a position as radical
as "confined in violation of the Constitution". It's not like the
story has not been available to those not getting the Orlando Sentinel
home delivery.
>> Some want a guardian appointed to give permission to obtain DNA
>> samples to use to determine the person who raped her.
>
>Is there really a legal necessity for such an appointment?
Yes. She's an adult, and must provide permission just like any other
adult for a DNA or blood sample to be taken. Since she can't give
permission, the only way to get a DNA sample is for the court to
appoint a guardian who can grant the permission. Or, wait until the
baby is born and obtain the DNA from the infant.
> The woman is
>already a ward of the state and the Florida state Department of
>Children and Families, so is there any need to provide her with another
>guardian?
Check with one of our resident attorneys for the difference between
being a ward and having a guardian. I don't know.
>The information that some want to get permission for DNA
>samples for what ever reason was not in the NY Times article I read. It
>must not be one of significant reasons offered for the officious demand
>for guardianship by the BACs who otherwise have nothing to do with the
>woman's everyday life.
Clearly, she was raped. There's a criminal charge involved. The only
way to determine the rapist is by DNA.
>> The girl is unable to give permission or even understand
>> the question.
>
>It was my impression that the rape victim is in fact 22 years old and
>is not, therefore, a "girl" but legally a "woman", no matter how
>mentally incompetent.
The word "girl" does not mean or imply lack of legal majority. A
female is not a girl one day and a woman the next based on a birthday.
(Yes, I can read the definitions in the dictionary. I also know that
usage prevails and some women are girls and some girls are women.
Anyone that assumes age based on usage of "girl" or "woman" is playing
silly pedants.)
Legally, she is an adult female. I stated in the posting that she is
22 years old. It's right up there above.
She is incontestably female. She is un contestably an adult. Since
she has the mental faculties of an infant, the words "girl", "woman",
and "child" become very difficult associations in describing her.
Tony Cooper
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>Looks like my paper only gave part of the story. It gave the bit about
>her being mentally disabled, but gave the impression that she or her
>carers were being prevented from proceeding to an abortion.
Well, it's a tangled situation. There's the abortion issue. There's
the issue of giving a fetus legal rights. There's the issue of the
taking of DNA. There's the issue of setting legal precedent. There's
the issue of criminal charges. There's the issue of the health and
well-being of the girl/woman. There's the issue of liability on the
part of the state facility. There's the issue of what possibility
there is of the child being born even close to normal and healthy.
Any issue you argue has a host of people against that position for
logical reasons and for selfish reasons of "greater" causes. The
pro-abortionists don't want a legal precedent of a fetus being given
legal rights. The anti-abortionists don't care if the child is, like
it's mother, a vegetable as long as the child has a chance of being
born. Neither of those two side want the other to win, but neither
seems to give a rat's ass about the reality of the dilemma.
Some people want the state sued and punished since the female was
under the state's care. But, who has the right to sue? Who has
suffered loss?
Some people say the police should take the DNA samples because there's
a crime unsolved. Others say that this is precedence that must be
avoided.
So far, the only issue that hasn't come up is what kind of punishment
is appropriate for a man that has sexual intercourse with a female
with the mental capacity of an infant. A female that is almost
comatose, and has been for 22 years.
Would you say that this man has a clear defense of insanity since no
sane person could even consider such an act? Or, would you say he
should be tried as a simple criminal and a rapist?
DT
>
>
> This thread has me wondering whether there might be a useful
> distinction between "playwriting" and "playwrighting." In the first
> case, I imagine an author, possibly working along, envisioning the
> scenes and writing the dialogue, and eventually completing the script
> (which might then be produced, or might not). In the second case, I
> imagine a collaborative effort, possibly with actors improvising
> scenes and refining the action and dialogue as they go, the whole
> thing being recorded by the nominal author, and ultimately resulting
> in a script. The end result of either process could be regarded
> either as the script (which is probably too limited in either
> scenario) or the production of the play. The paths to approach the end
> could be quite different, though. Different enough for two
> distinct-but-related words, perhaps.
>
> --
> rzed
A day late and a dollar short, but here's my two cents on this, being a
trained and educated theater professional. We were taught unequivocally
that plays were not "written", they were "wrought." In my mind at least,
with the experience I've had, there is no question about this.
The action inherent in the script is as important as the words that are
spoken/written, and within that action you will *always* discover
meanings not apparent through mere reading.
Beyond that, there is the stagecraft -- the scenery, costumes, lighting,
props, music, etc. -- that must be created during the production. A
competent playwright understands all these elements and "works" them
into the script.
Look at it another way . . . you can write the script, but you must
build the play. The play is inherent in the script, therefore the
playwright must mentally wright the play as (s)he writes the script.
(If you say, for example, that someone can write a play that is not
intended to be produced, then I contend it's not a play. It's a story,
or whatever, meant to resemble a play, but it is not a play.)
Consider this: one who creates building plans is properly called a
draftsman, not a *drawer*. Likewise, a play represents the *plans* for
a production.
Then again, since we made our living in the theater, we knew we were all
a bit nuts to begin with. I could be overwrought about this whole thing.
DT
CyberCypher
news:13f8cvsg56uvqehuh...@4ax.com:
> On 16 May 2003 00:29:57 GMT, CyberCypher <fra...@seed.net.tw>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> Which means, of course, that the woman carrying that fetus is
>>>>> being confined in violation of the Constitution.
>>>
>>> The woman in this case is severely mentally disabled and has the
>>> mental capacity of an infant. She is not aware that she is
>>> pregnant. She is 22, and has never learned to speak, feed
>>> herself, walk, or even recognize other people.
>>
>>And you have all this information about her based on what sources?
>>Not the NY Times article Richard quotes--I know that because I've
>>read that one. It must come from watching Florida TV news shows
>>and reading local newspapers.
>
> She's a patient in an Orlando group home, Franke. I live in
> Orlando. I don't read the NYT for Orlando news.
Yes, Tony. That is just the answer I expected. Local news is usually
more fully reported in the local press.
>>> To say that she is being
>>> "confined in violation of the Constitution" is a ridiculous
>>> statement.
>>
>>Based on the information available to me when I wrote that line,
>>it is not ridiculous, Tony. Based on what I have since learned, it
>>would be ridiculous of me to say so. That much I'll give you. She
>>seems to already have had her due process.
>
> If I read a blub about something happening in some other area, I
> would be inclined to dig just a wee bit before taking a position
> as radical as "confined in violation of the Constitution".
Aw, you're just saying that, Tony. You're a bullshitter from way back.
You tend to take positions like this when it suits your purposes and
not when it doesn't. Don't try to make yourself out to be better than
you are. In any case, I don't have all that much time to do the kind of
research it takes to dig up information about that kind of local news.
But when I had enough to make the research easy enough, I did it and
revised and even retracted my statement, so cut the crap and update
yourself on the thread before carping.
> It's
> not like the story has not been available to those not getting the
> Orlando Sentinel home delivery.
It hasn't made CNN Asia Edition TV Headline News yet. We're more
wrapped up with SARS than Jeb Bush and the ridiculous antics of right-
to-lifers in Florida.
>>> Some want a guardian appointed to give permission to obtain DNA
>>> samples to use to determine the person who raped her.
>>
>>Is there really a legal necessity for such an appointment?
>
> Yes. She's an adult, and must provide permission just like any
> other adult for a DNA or blood sample to be taken. Since she
> can't give permission, the only way to get a DNA sample is for the
> court to appoint a guardian who can grant the permission. Or,
> wait until the baby is born and obtain the DNA from the infant.
>
>> The woman is
>>already a ward of the state and the Florida state Department of
>>Children and Families, so is there any need to provide her with
>>another guardian?
>
> Check with one of our resident attorneys for the difference
> between being a ward and having a guardian. I don't know.
Maybe you ought to take your own advice and do a little digging before
you make such absurd statements. In your previous paragraph you said
"Yes", it is necessary for a guardian to be appointed, but in this one,
you say that you don't know the difference between being a ward of the
state and having a guardian. So which is it, Tony? Yes or I don't know?
Make up your mind--or the other personality's mind, if that's what's
happening here.
>>The information that some want to get permission for DNA
>>samples for what ever reason was not in the NY Times article I
>>read. It must not be one of significant reasons offered for the
>>officious demand for guardianship by the BACs who otherwise have
>>nothing to do with the woman's everyday life.
>
> Clearly, she was raped. There's a criminal charge involved. The
> only way to determine the rapist is by DNA.
That is not guaranteed. If they don't have the rapist's DNA on file
already, they will have to name a few suspects and get a court to
require them to give a DNA sample. Do they have suspects? If they don't
have good reasons to substantiate their claim that A-Z are reasonable
suspects, they will have to travel through the Magic Kingdon looking
for a man who fits the DNA sample. A lot more difficult than looking
for Cinderella, I fear.
>>> The girl is unable to give permission or even understand
>>> the question.
>>
>>It was my impression that the rape victim is in fact 22 years old
>>and is not, therefore, a "girl" but legally a "woman", no matter
>>how mentally incompetent.
>
> The word "girl" does not mean or imply lack of legal majority.
I know, Tony. It means that an old coot like yourself feels perfectly
comfortable calling any human female more than 40 years your junior a
"girl" regardless of her legal majority or minority. Perfectly normal.
>> A female is not a girl one day and a woman the next based on a
> birthday. (Yes, I can read the definitions in the dictionary. I
> also know that usage prevails and some women are girls and some
> girls are women.
Yep. True here in Taiwan that women want to be called and thought of as
"girls" for as long as possible, simply because it means that must look
younger than they really are. But this is an English usage group, so
please don't be surprised when you are called on your usages.
> Anyone that assumes age based on usage of "girl"
> or "woman" is playing silly pedants.)
Or PC word games. But I was thinking of Allen Ginsburg's use of "girl"
in _Howl_. Much more interesting.
>
> Legally, she is an adult female.
But so is a seven-year-old bitch. The latter is not a "woman", however.
Maybe it's just my AMA Manual of Style talking through my fingers. They
suggest that we call adult females "women" and adult males "men" so as
not to suggest that they might be experimental animals, and the APA
Style Manual suggests that we use "participants" rather than "subjects"
for those humans we enroll in our studies, so as not to give the
impression that they are mindless entities.
But this woman seems to be sui generis.
> I stated in the posting that she
> is 22 years old. It's right up there above.
Yep. I saw it. Why didn't you?
> She is incontestably female. She is un contestably an adult.
> Since she has the mental faculties of an infant, the words "girl",
> "woman", and "child" become very difficult associations in
> describing her.
Then you ought to try using "a severely developmentally disabled and
legally mentally incompetent person" instead. It is actually more
descriptively accurate than the vague and, therefore, incorrect word
"girl" or "child" would be.
CyberCypher
news:l0j8cvg8auf972vs1...@4ax.com:
Well, if she's a vegetable, as you say above, the guy should be charged
with botaniality.