Re: No Soliciting sign

Message has been deleted

Pablo

unread,

May 4, 2013, 3:55:24 AM5/4/13

to

Lewis wrote:

> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
> sign for my door.

What have you got against hookers?

--
Pablo

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
http://paulc.es/

Curlytop

unread,

May 4, 2013, 3:57:53 AM5/4/13

to

Lewis set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:

> (Girl Scouts are welcome)

That will probably be ruled illegal on gender discrimination grounds.
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Anton Shepelev

unread,

May 4, 2013, 4:13:11 AM5/4/13

to

Lewis:

> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for

> a no soliciting sign for my door. It used to be
> enough to simply say "no soliciting" and no one
> would bother you, but now people think that if
> they are not carrying a case of brushes and or
> knives to sell at that door, they are not solicit-
> ing. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos,
> handy- men, lawn jockeys, and various others come
> to the door.

rec.humor.funny suggests:

To solicitors:

Please remove rings, watches, belt buckles, and
other metal objects before entering. Our pit
bull has trouble digesting such items. Thank
you for your cooperation.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

R H Draney

unread,

May 4, 2013, 5:17:18 AM5/4/13

to

Lewis filted:

>
>I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
>and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
>carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they

>are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-

>men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.
>

>Anyone have suggestions?

PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE LEOPARDS

....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Whiskers

unread,

May 4, 2013, 5:56:49 AM5/4/13

to

On 2013-05-04, Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
> sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
> and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
> carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they
> are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-
> men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.

[...]

> Anyone have suggestions?

"Not invited? Not welcome!"

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Eric Walker

unread,

May 4, 2013, 6:19:48 AM5/4/13

to

On Sat, 04 May 2013 07:14:18 +0000, Lewis wrote:

> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting sign
> for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting" and no
> one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not carrying
> a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they are not
> soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy- men, lawn
> jockeys, and various others come to the door.

[...]

> Anyone have suggestions?

Not elegant, but perhaps something like--

Peddlers--whether of goods, services, or ideas--are unwelcome.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

Stan Brown

unread,

May 4, 2013, 6:47:21 AM5/4/13

to

On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:14:18 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
> sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
> and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
> carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they
> are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-
> men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.
>

> I thought about something direct and to the point:
>
> Anyone have suggestions?

Stick with "no solicitors". People of good will will know what you
mean and respect it. The others, those who do not care if they annoy
you, would not respect your sign no matter what it said.

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

Tony Cooper

unread,

May 4, 2013, 8:15:23 AM5/4/13

to

On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:14:18 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
>and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
>carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they
>are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-
>men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.
>
>I thought about something direct and to the point:
>

>"If you don't live here, fuck off"
>
>But I was overruled.
>
>Then I suggested:
>
>"If you're selling anything, including a god or a candidate, we're not
>buying. If you're leaving fliers or coupons, don'T. If you're selling
>Girl Scout cookies, ring the bell."
>
>But it's too long.
>
>POST NO BILLS
>NO SOLICITING
>(this includes
>NO RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, or CHARITABLE
>soliciting)
>
>(Girl Scouts are welcome)
>
>Which says it all, but we're getting dangerously close to tl;dr
>
>Anyone have suggestions?

BEWARE OF PIT BULL
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

Athel Cornish-Bowden

unread,

May 4, 2013, 8:23:10 AM5/4/13

to

> On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:14:18 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>> sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
>> and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
>> carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they
>> are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-
>> men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.
>>
>> I thought about something direct and to the point:
>>
>> Anyone have suggestions?

The other day I saw a large (and obviously permanent) sign in front of
a house that said "There is no one at home". Of course, burglars might
take that as an invitation.
--
athel

Message has been deleted

Peter Brooks

unread,

May 4, 2013, 2:57:59 PM5/4/13

to

On May 4, 7:19 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <aujt7cFqep...@mid.individual.net>

> Pablo <no...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Lewis wrote:
> >> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
> >> sign for my door.
> > What have you got against hookers?
>

> Nothing, just don't want them ringing the doorbell.
>
That's fair enough, they should have the sense to know to use the back
door.

Leslie Danks

unread,

May 4, 2013, 3:39:29 PM5/4/13

to

Lewis wrote:

> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting

> sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
> and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
> carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they
> are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-
> men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.
>
> I thought about something direct and to the point:
>

> "If you don't live here, fuck off"
>
> But I was overruled.
>
> Then I suggested:
>
> "If you're selling anything, including a god or a candidate, we're not
> buying. If you're leaving fliers or coupons, don'T. If you're selling
> Girl Scout cookies, ring the bell."
>
> But it's too long.
>
> POST NO BILLS
> NO SOLICITING
> (this includes
> NO RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, or CHARITABLE
> soliciting)
>
> (Girl Scouts are welcome)
>
> Which says it all, but we're getting dangerously close to tl;dr
>
> Anyone have suggestions?
>

WIWAL the standard sign was:

No hawkers
No circulars

Dictionary.com:

hawk·er (2)
noun
a person who offers goods for sale by shouting his or her wares in the
street or going from door to door; peddler.

circular (9)
noun
a letter, advertisement, notice, or statement for circulation among the
general public.

--
Les (BrE)
"... be skeptical of government guidelines. The Indians learned not to trust
our government and neither should you." (Fallon & Enig)

Jerry Friedman

unread,

May 4, 2013, 4:34:30 PM5/4/13

to

On May 4, 1:14 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
> sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
> and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
> carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they
> are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-
> men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.
>
> I thought about something direct and to the point:
>
> "If you don't live here, fuck off"
>
> But I was overruled.
>
> Then I suggested:
>
> "If you're selling anything, including a god or a candidate, we're not
> buying. If you're leaving fliers or coupons, don'T. If you're selling
> Girl Scout cookies, ring the bell."
>
> But it's too long.
>
> POST NO BILLS
> NO SOLICITING
> (this includes
> NO RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, or CHARITABLE
> soliciting)
>
> (Girl Scouts are welcome)
>
> Which says it all, but we're getting dangerously close to tl;dr
>
> Anyone have suggestions?

"Religious" runs into the "Religion is empty formalism. I hate
religion. I'm talking about the love of our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ." meme.

If "No soliciting" doesn't work, I think you're going to have to be
comprehensive. "If you're looking for customers or donors or talking
about God or politics, do not enter. Girl Scouts welcome."

--
Jerry Friedman

John Briggs

unread,

May 4, 2013, 4:54:54 PM5/4/13

to

For that, you need a pit - with a bull in it.
--
John Briggs

Mike L

unread,

May 4, 2013, 5:18:13 PM5/4/13

to

But then a tabloid newspaper would set up a mob to lynch you as a
paedophile.

I have a neat little sign reading "No sales or surveys, thank you".
None of the proselytizers has bothered me yet, and I don't really mind
binning a few leaflets, especially the ones the postman is paid a
small fee for delivering.

--
Mike.

Message has been deleted

R H Draney

unread,

May 4, 2013, 8:41:34 PM5/4/13

to

Lewis filted:
>
>In message <MPG.2beeb1452...@news.individual.net> Stan Brown

><the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Stick with "no solicitors". People of good will will know what you
>> mean and respect it. The others, those who do not care if they annoy
>> you, would not respect your sign no matter what it said.
>

>Politicos and god-botherers don't think they are soliciting. And I do
>want to feel that I can slam the door in their faces with a, "Can't
>you fucking read" if I do happen to answer the door.

Try:

SOLICITORS WILL BE IGNORED.
POLITICOS AND GOD-BOTHERERS
WILL BE FLOGGED WITH LIVE CATS.

(Or there's the old Lenny Bruce line: "Trespassers will be violated")....r

Robert Bannister

unread,

May 4, 2013, 9:32:16 PM5/4/13

to

On 4/05/13 3:55 PM, Pablo wrote:
> Lewis wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>> sign for my door.
>
> What have you got against hookers?
>

My first thought too. In England, they call them "hawkers", which made
me think of people spitting. I'm not even sure if we have an official
word here in Australia - apart from the JWs and Mormons, they are very
rare - I'd probably say "door to door salesman" even if was a girl like
the last time - I say "girl" because she looked about 16.

--
Robert Bannister

Reinhold {Rey} Aman

unread,

May 4, 2013, 10:02:05 PM5/4/13

to

Jesus. In AmE, "hookers" are whores.

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

Tony Cooper

unread,

May 4, 2013, 10:30:15 PM5/4/13

to

"No soliciting" or "No solicitors" signs are seen frequently in the
US. The meaning is understood to be "Don't try to sell anything
here", but that is directed only at door-to-door salesmen selling
cheap goods.

"Solicitation", meaning offering sex for money, seems to be a term
used only by the police and by newspapers.

In the sex for money sense, I haven't heard of any hookers going
door-to-door. House doors, anyway. They do come to the car door of
cars on certain streets.

Stan Brown

unread,

May 5, 2013, 4:55:46 AM5/5/13

to

On Sun, 5 May 2013 00:08:56 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> Politicos and god-botherers don't think they are soliciting.
>

Irrelevant.

The point is that they think their message justifies their bothering
you. There is no sign you can post, nothing you can say to them in
person, that will change their mind.

Pablo

unread,

May 5, 2013, 5:00:58 AM5/5/13

to

And in BrE - hence my reply. Soliciting for prostitution is the offence,
matched by the client equivalent of kerb crawling (looking for hookers).

Dr Nick

unread,

May 5, 2013, 5:35:17 AM5/5/13

to

Yes, we all know that. But "soliciting" has gone out of use in BrE (at
least, maybe AusE as well) to mean "touting for business" with one
exception: whores touting for business. Presumably because it's still
in the law they are charged with.

The first time a visiting Brit sees a "no soliciting" sign he will
either grin or be bemused or both.

arth...@yahoo.com

unread,

May 5, 2013, 6:48:44 AM5/5/13

to

I had never heard the word "god-botherer". I think it is British. If there had been no context, I would have probably thought it meant "people who bother god"!!

I think "Bible-bashers" were called that because they struck their Bible while preaching. They thumped on it! It seems to me that nowadays most people think that a Bible-basher is someone who hits you with a Bible.

I just loved:
2+2=5 for sufficiently large values of 2.
and:
In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the
silence of our friends. -Martin Luther King, Jr

Danger! Do not touch the doorbell. Risk of electrocution.

Or put a plaque beside the door which says:
Broken Hearts Charity
Helping the dejected since beforever (I like that one!)
or something like that.

I am a teeny weeny bit inebriated again so I cannot vouch for myself or the ideas I am peddling.

Respectfully,
Navi.

Iain Archer

unread,

May 5, 2013, 9:04:57 AM5/5/13

to

Dr Nick wrote on Sun, 5 May 2013 at 10:35:17 GMT

>Reinhold {Rey} Aman <am...@sonic.net> writes:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>>
>>> Pablo wrote:
>>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>>>>> sign for my door.
>>>>
>>>> What have you got against hookers?
>>>
>>> My first thought too. In England, they call them "hawkers", which made
>>> me think of people spitting. I'm not even sure if we have an official
>>> word here in Australia - apart from the JWs and Mormons, they are very
>>> rare - I'd probably say "door to door salesman" even if was a girl like
>>> the last time - I say "girl" because she looked about 16.
>>>
>> Jesus. In AmE, "hookers" are whores.
>
>Yes, we all know that. But "soliciting" has gone out of use in BrE (at
>least, maybe AusE as well) to mean "touting for business" with one
>exception: whores touting for business. Presumably because it's still
>in the law they are charged with.
>

Street Offences Act (1959), s.1(1): "It shall be an offence for a common
prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the
purpose of prostitution."

But so is the converse.

Sexual Offences Act (2003), s.51(1): "It is an offence for a person in a
street or public place to solicit another (B) for the purpose of
obtaining B's sexual services as a prostitute."
--
Iain Archer

Pablo

unread,

May 5, 2013, 9:09:10 AM5/5/13

to

aka kerb-crawling.

Iain Archer

unread,

May 5, 2013, 9:58:23 AM5/5/13

to

Pablo wrote on Sun, 5 May 2013 at 15:09:10 GMT

>Iain Archer wrote:

>> Sexual Offences Act (2003), s.51(1): "It is an offence for a person in a
>> street or public place to solicit another (B) for the purpose of
>> obtaining B's sexual services as a prostitute."
>
>aka kerb-crawling.
>

Not "aka". "Includes", if you like.
--
Iain Archer

Skitt

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:00:56 PM5/5/13

to

Stan Brown wrote:
> Lewis wrote:

>> Politicos and god-botherers don't think they are soliciting.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> The point is that they think their message justifies their bothering
> you. There is no sign you can post, nothing you can say to them in
> person, that will change their mind.
>

Door-to-door salesmen are instructed in their sales meetings to ignore
the "No soliciting" signs, as those signs are usually put up by people
who have difficulty resisting sales pitches.

I was told that when I was a salesman, back in my much younger days. I
ignored the signs and was never berated for doing so.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html

Reinhold {Rey} Aman

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:00:50 PM5/5/13

to

Dr Nick wrote:

>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman writes:
>
>> Jesus. In AmE, "hookers" are whores.
>
> Yes, we all know that.
>

Apparently not. See Robert Bannister.

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:11:30 PM5/5/13

to

arth...@yahoo.com writes:

> I had never heard the word "god-botherer". I think it is British. If
> there had been no context, I would have probably thought it meant
> "people who bother god"!!

That's what it means. People who feel that it is worthwhile to spend
their time pestering one or more deities with requests or telling them
how great they think they are.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The Society for the Preservation of
SF Bay Area (1982-) |Tithesis commends your ebriated and
Chicago (1964-1982) |scrutable use of delible and
|defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
evan.kir...@gmail.com |and couth. We are gruntled and
|consolate that you have the ertia and
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |eptitude to choose such putably
|pensible tithesis, which we parage.

Arcadian Rises

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:12:07 PM5/5/13

to

On May 4, 10:30 pm, Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 09:32:16 +0800, Robert Bannister
>
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >On 4/05/13 3:55 PM, Pablo wrote:
> >> Lewis wrote:
>
> >>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
> >>> sign for my door.
>
> >> What have you got against hookers?
>
> >My first thought too. In England, they call them "hawkers", which made
> >me think of people spitting. I'm not even sure if we have an official
> >word here in Australia - apart from the JWs and Mormons, they are very
> >rare - I'd probably say "door to door salesman" even if was a girl like
> >the last time - I say "girl" because she looked about 16.
>
> "No soliciting" or "No solicitors" signs are seen frequently in the
> US. The meaning is understood to be "Don't try to sell anything
> here", but that is directed only at door-to-door salesmen selling
> cheap goods.
>
> "Solicitation", meaning offering sex for money, seems to be a term
> used only by the police and by newspapers.

...and by any penal code that incriminates criminal solicitation.

Obviously you're living a very sheltered life.

Iain Archer

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:23:50 PM5/5/13

to

Skitt wrote on Sun, 5 May 2013 at 10:00:56 GMT

Did you get any worse treatment from the people who didn't put up signs?
--
Iain Archer

Dr Nick

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:28:04 PM5/5/13

to

Reinhold {Rey} Aman <am...@sonic.net> writes:

> Dr Nick wrote:
>>
>> Reinhold {Rey} Aman writes:
>>
>>> Jesus. In AmE, "hookers" are whores.
>>
>> Yes, we all know that.
>>
> Apparently not. See Robert Bannister.

Eh? The conversation was like this:

>>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>>> sign for my door.
>>
>> What have you got against hookers?
>
> My first thought too.

Robert being the last contributor.

I agree he went on immediately to talk about hawkers, but I'm pretty
sure he didn't mean that he didn't know what a hooker was.

John Briggs

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:36:46 PM5/5/13

to

On 05/05/2013 18:11, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> arth...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> I had never heard the word "god-botherer". I think it is British. If
>> there had been no context, I would have probably thought it meant
>> "people who bother god"!!
>
> That's what it means. People who feel that it is worthwhile to spend
> their time pestering one or more deities with requests or telling them
> how great they think they are.

Some deities are not above this themselves, of course. See Michael
Nyman's setting of the "Self-laudatory hymn of Inanna and her omnipotence".
--
John Briggs

R H Draney

unread,

May 5, 2013, 1:44:50 PM5/5/13

to

Evan Kirshenbaum filted:

>
>arth...@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> I had never heard the word "god-botherer". I think it is British. If
>> there had been no context, I would have probably thought it meant
>> "people who bother god"!!
>
>That's what it means. People who feel that it is worthwhile to spend
>their time pestering one or more deities with requests or telling them
>how great they think they are.

Beautifully encapsulated by Ambrose Bierce in "The Devil's Dictionary":

“PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single
petitioner confessedly unworthy.”

(ObDigression: Evan, has something happened to your .sig separator?)...r

Skitt

unread,

Nick Spalding

unread,

May 5, 2013, 4:22:04 PM5/5/13

to

R H Draney wrote, in <km65q...@drn.newsguy.com>
on 5 May 2013 10:44:50 -0700:

> (ObDigression: Evan, has something happened to your .sig separator?)...r

`
Looks OK here.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Nick Spalding

unread,

May 5, 2013, 4:23:25 PM5/5/13

to

Mike L wrote, in <87edo8d1jh84oh93i...@4ax.com>
on Sun, 05 May 2013 20:55:48 +0100:

It was part of my father's vocabulary back to the 1940s at least.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Katy Jennison

unread,

May 5, 2013, 4:27:17 PM5/5/13

to

It's accepted quite cheerfully by God-botherers themselves. We've
greeted more than one friend of that persuasion* with "How's the
God-bothering business?"

*One Anglican clergyman, one Methodist ditto, AFAIR.

--
Katy Jennison

Robin Bignall

unread,

May 5, 2013, 5:39:45 PM5/5/13

to

On Sun, 05 May 2013 21:22:04 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
wrote:

>R H Draney wrote, in <km65q...@drn.newsguy.com>
> on 5 May 2013 10:44:50 -0700:
>
>> (ObDigression: Evan, has something happened to your .sig separator?)...r
>`
>Looks OK here.

And here.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)

Robert Bannister

unread,

May 5, 2013, 8:21:43 PM5/5/13

to

On 5/05/13 10:02 AM, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>> Pablo wrote:
>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>

>>>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>>>> sign for my door.
>>>
>>> What have you got against hookers?
>>

>> My first thought too. In England, they call them "hawkers", which made
>> me think of people spitting. I'm not even sure if we have an official
>> word here in Australia - apart from the JWs and Mormons, they are very
>> rare - I'd probably say "door to door salesman" even if was a girl like
>> the last time - I say "girl" because she looked about 16.
>>

> Jesus. In AmE, "hookers" are whores.
>

That word is known everywhere, I think. My error was in not making the
antecedent to "they" clear. It was meant to refer to people who try to
sell you stuff at your door.

--
Robert Bannister
My last landlords in England were "Hooker". Embarrassing to have to
write them a cheque.

Sam Plusnet

unread,

May 5, 2013, 8:21:50 PM5/5/13

to

In article <1u9l1h...@gmail.com>, evan.kir...@gmail.com says...

>
> arth...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> > I had never heard the word "god-botherer". I think it is British. If
> > there had been no context, I would have probably thought it meant
> > "people who bother god"!!
>
> That's what it means. People who feel that it is worthwhile to spend
> their time pestering one or more deities with requests or telling them
> how great they think they are.

Plus those who feel it their duty to guide their deity's lightning
bolts.

--
Sam

Robert Bannister

unread,

May 5, 2013, 8:22:38 PM5/5/13

to

I think some solicitors get embarrassed at admitting what their job is.

--
Robert Bannister

Robert Bannister

unread,

May 5, 2013, 8:23:40 PM5/5/13

to

On 6/05/13 1:00 AM, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> Dr Nick wrote:
>>
>> Reinhold {Rey} Aman writes:
>>
>>> Jesus. In AmE, "hookers" are whores.
>>
>> Yes, we all know that.
>>
> Apparently not. See Robert Bannister.
>

You misunderstood. I have explained.

--
Robert Bannister

Peter Moylan

unread,

May 5, 2013, 9:25:48 PM5/5/13

to

On 04/05/13 20:47, Stan Brown wrote:

> On Sat, 4 May 2013 07:14:18 +0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>>
>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting

>> sign for my door. It used to be enough to simply say "no soliciting"
>> and no one would bother you, but now people think that if they are not
>> carrying a case of brushes and or knives to sell at that door, they
>> are not soliciting. So, all manner of god-bothers, politicos, handy-
>> men, lawn jockeys, and various others come to the door.
>>
>> I thought about something direct and to the point:
>>
>> Anyone have suggestions?

>
> Stick with "no solicitors". People of good will will know what you
> mean and respect it. The others, those who do not care if they annoy
> you, would not respect your sign no matter what it said.
>

That brings up another interesting case of words that mean different
things in different places.

I understood "no soliciting". "No solicitors" would have a whole nother
meaning. It brought to mind a telephone company salesman at the door
saying "But I don't even have a law degree".

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

R H Draney

unread,

May 6, 2013, 12:35:09 AM5/6/13

to

Robin Bignall filted:

>
>On Sun, 05 May 2013 21:22:04 +0100, Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie>
>wrote:
>
>>R H Draney wrote, in <km65q...@drn.newsguy.com>
>> on 5 May 2013 10:44:50 -0700:
>>

>>> (ObDigression: Evan, has something happened to your .sig =

>separator?)...r
>>`
>>Looks OK here.
>
>And here.

It was just the one message...looked fine, the .sig proper displayed in the
smaller font that DRN uses for that purpose, but when I tried to reply it didn't
get stripped off....r

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

unread,

May 6, 2013, 7:51:53 AM5/6/13

to

Q: Why doesn't God answer people's prayers?

A: God has delegated prayer answering to a small group of angels. They
aren't omnipotent. They have limited capacity. The enormous number of
prayers they receive effectively constitute a Distributed Denial of
Service (DDoS) attack.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

unread,

May 6, 2013, 10:58:06 AM5/6/13

to

Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> filted:

>
>Q: Why doesn't God answer people's prayers?
>
>A: God has delegated prayer answering to a small group of angels. They
>aren't omnipotent. They have limited capacity. The enormous number of
>prayers they receive effectively constitute a Distributed Denial of
>Service (DDoS) attack.

God answers all prayers; it's just that the answer is often "no"....r

LFS

unread,

May 6, 2013, 11:13:59 AM5/6/13

unread,

May 6, 2013, 11:09:01 PM5/6/13

to

On Mon, 6 May 2013 23:16:32 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <b85bc0c1-d036-4f8f...@googlegroups.com>

> arth...@yahoo.com <arth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I had never heard the word "god-botherer". I think it is British.
>

>I may have picked it up from some BrE friends.

>
>. If there had been no context, I would have probably thought it meant "people who bother god"!!
>

>They do, don't they? Constantly beseeching for the great plan for the
>universe to be altered to meet their desires?
>
>> I think "Bible-bashers" were called that because they struck their Bible while preaching. They thumped on it! It seems to me that nowadays most people think that a Bible-basher is someone who hits you with a Bible.
>
>I've never heard bible-basher. I think you mean bible-thumper.

I've heard both. Never kept track of which is used the most, though.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

R H Draney

unread,

May 6, 2013, 11:48:44 PM5/6/13

to

Tony Cooper filted:

Thumpers treat the Book like it's a drum; bashers use it as a tambourine....r

Adam Funk

unread,

May 7, 2013, 3:31:25 PM5/7/13

to

On 2013-05-05, Iain Archer wrote:

> Street Offences Act (1959), s.1(1): "It shall be an offence for a common
> prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the
> purpose of prostitution."

What about a rare prostitute?

--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."

Adam Funk

unread,

May 7, 2013, 3:32:16 PM5/7/13

to

On 2013-05-04, Curlytop wrote:

> Lewis set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>
>> (Girl Scouts are welcome)
>
> That will probably be ruled illegal on gender discrimination grounds.

How about "Scouts with cookies are welcome"?

--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

Adam Funk

unread,

May 7, 2013, 3:30:31 PM5/7/13

to

On 2013-05-05, Robert Bannister wrote:

> On 4/05/13 3:55 PM, Pablo wrote:

>> Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>>> sign for my door.
>>

>> What have you got against hookers?
>>
>
> My first thought too. In England, they call them "hawkers", which made
> me think of people spitting.

Those would be "hockers" to me.

--
A recent study conducted by Harvard University found that the average
American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study by the AMA found
that Americans drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. This
means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/average-americans-mpg

Leslie Danks

unread,

May 7, 2013, 4:00:29 PM5/7/13

to

Adam Funk wrote:

> On 2013-05-05, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> On 4/05/13 3:55 PM, Pablo wrote:
>>> Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to come up with appropriate wording for a no soliciting
>>>> sign for my door.
>>>
>>> What have you got against hookers?
>>>
>>
>> My first thought too. In England, they call them "hawkers", which made
>> me think of people spitting.
>
> Those would be "hockers" to me.
>
>

"Critchers!" Horney Hogan barked,
"Critchers!" Horney hawked and spart.

(Dredged from the depths of my (possibly distorted) childhood memories..."

--
Les (BrE)
"... be skeptical of government guidelines. The Indians learned not to trust
our government and neither should you." (Fallon & Enig)

R H Draney

unread,

unread,

May 8, 2013, 6:00:49 AM5/8/13

to

What about a noble prostitute?

Seriously, what does the "common" mean there?

--
I have a natural revulsion to any operating system that shows so
little planning as to have to named all of its commands after
digestive noises (awk, grep, fsck, nroff).
[The UNIX-Haters Handbook]

Adam Funk

unread,

May 8, 2013, 6:02:45 AM5/8/13

to

On 2013-05-08, Lewis wrote:

> In message <0f1o5ax...@news.ducksburg.com>
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>> On 2013-05-04, Curlytop wrote:
>
>>> Lewis set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>>>
>>>> (Girl Scouts are welcome)
>>>
>>> That will probably be ruled illegal on gender discrimination grounds.
>
>
>> How about "Scouts with cookies are welcome"?
>

> I wouldn't want any members of the BSA hate-group thinking they were welcome.

But you said Girl Scouts are OK?

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Adam Funk

unread,

May 8, 2013, 6:01:16 AM5/8/13

to

On 2013-05-07, John Briggs wrote:

But then it's not Lewis's sign that's potentially discriminatory.

--
"Gonzo, is that the contract from the devil?"
"No, Kermit, it's worse than that. This is the bill from special
effects."

Cheryl

unread,

May 8, 2013, 6:27:46 AM5/8/13

to

On 2013-05-08 7:30 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-05-07, John Briggs wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2013 20:31, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-05, Iain Archer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Street Offences Act (1959), s.1(1): "It shall be an offence for a common
>>>> prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the
>>>> purpose of prostitution."
>>>
>>> What about a rare prostitute?
>>
>> Ho, ho (so to speak...) But that's not what "common" means".
>
> What about a noble prostitute?
>
> Seriously, what does the "common" mean there?
>
>

Common to everyone. The opposite of 'exclusive'. She isn't in an
exclusive sexual relationship with someone.

Coincidentally, the local media have discovered that there are
prostitutes in my home city - a port city, yet! They're justifying this
astonishing discovery by saying, well, there's more money around now so
therefore there's prostitution. I'm more than dubious about the
implication that there has been a sudden discovery of prostitutes where
there were none before, but there may certainly be more of them than
there were in the past.

Yesterday's story was on the really rich ones who travel from place to
place and boast about their rich clients and how shocked their families
would be. Today's was about the young, poor, drug-addicted ones who a
regularly beaten up by their pimps. I wonder what tomorrow's version
will be?

--
Cheryl

James Hogg

unread,

May 8, 2013, 6:42:02 AM5/8/13

to

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-05-07, John Briggs wrote:
>
>> On 07/05/2013 20:31, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-05, Iain Archer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Street Offences Act (1959), s.1(1): "It shall be an offence for
>>>> a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public
>>>> place for the purpose of prostitution."
>>> What about a rare prostitute?
>> Ho, ho (so to speak...) But that's not what "common" means".
>
> What about a noble prostitute?
>
> Seriously, what does the "common" mean there?

Even the OED wonders about this and comparable expressions:

"It is difficult to fix the original sense: those of 'public, apert,
overt, confessed', 'the subject of common report', 'notorious', and
'habitual' appear all to enter in."

Also "existing for the use of the public".

--
James

jgharston

unread,

May 8, 2013, 7:51:53 AM5/8/13

to

> If "No soliciting" doesn't work, I think you're going to have to be
> comprehensive. "If you're looking for customers or donors or talking
> about God or politics, do not enter. Girl Scouts welcome."

In the past when canvassing the simplest way to prevent me coming to
the door was to put a poster in the window - as long as I could see it
before I got to the door. If it was my party I'd tick my "supporter"
column, if it was another party I'd tick my "party X" column.

When leafletting I'm working so quickly I don't have time to absorb
any words long enough for me to read them, by that time I'm halfway
back down the path to the next house. When leafletting the point of
the task is to get as many delivered as possible, not hang around
peering through windows or chatting to people.

JGH

unread,

May 8, 2013, 3:23:50 PM5/8/13

to

James Hogg filted:

The opposite of "preferred"....

("Prostitution" is itself the opposite of "constitution")....r

John Briggs

unread,

May 8, 2013, 3:40:38 PM5/8/13

to

On 08/05/2013 20:23, R H Draney wrote:
>
> ("Prostitution" is itself the opposite of "constitution")....r

Just as "The opposite of an Introduction is a Contradiction" - and, if
pressed, I could point to a book which actually has one...
--
John Briggs

Robert Bannister

unread,

May 8, 2013, 8:37:02 PM5/8/13

to

"It's the same the whole world over..."

--
Robert Bannister

Arcadian Rises

unread,

May 8, 2013, 11:35:15 PM5/8/13

to

On May 8, 11:21 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> writes:
> > Adam Funk wrote:
> >> On 2013-05-07, John Briggs wrote:
>
> >>> On 07/05/2013 20:31, Adam Funk wrote:
> >>>> On 2013-05-05, Iain Archer wrote:
>
> >>>>> Street Offences Act (1959), s.1(1): "It shall be an offence for
> >>>>> a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public
> >>>>> place for the purpose of prostitution."
> >>>> What about a rare prostitute?
> >>> Ho, ho (so to speak...) But that's not what "common" means".
> >> What about a noble prostitute?
> >> Seriously, what does the "common" mean there?
>
> > Even the OED wonders about this and comparable expressions:
>
> > "It is difficult to fix the original sense: those of 'public, apert,
> > overt, confessed', 'the subject of common report', 'notorious', and
> > 'habitual' appear all to enter in."
>
> > Also "existing for the use of the public".
>
> That last is the way I'd take it. As Cheryl said, not "exclusive".
> Serving all customers. Open to all. In particular, not a
> "courtesan", which MW defines as
>
> a prostitute with a courtly, wealthy, or upper-class clientele
>
> A common prostitute slept with anybody who could pay; a courtesan only
> slept with the right sort of people.

A courtesan, I believe, is the European equivalent of a geisha. The
most famous is Violeta of "Traviata" followed by Musette of "La
Boheme". They still hail from the oldest profession, but in some
circles they were respected for their connections, influence; and
taste, for many courtesans were patrons of the arts.

Arcadian Rises

unread,

May 8, 2013, 11:42:16 PM5/8/13

to

On May 8, 11:35 pm, Arcadian Rises <Arcadianri...@aol.com> wrote:

>They still hail from the oldest profession, but in some
> circles they were respected for their connections, influence; and

> taste, for many courtesans were patrons of the arts/

Coco Chanel started her career as a courtesan, or kept woman. IMO a
kept woman also practices the oldest profession.

Adam Funk

unread,

May 9, 2013, 7:52:25 AM5/9/13

to

On 2013-05-08, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes:
>
>> Adam Funk wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-07, John Briggs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/05/2013 20:31, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-05-05, Iain Archer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Street Offences Act (1959), s.1(1): "It shall be an offence for
>>>>>> a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public
>>>>>> place for the purpose of prostitution."
>>>>> What about a rare prostitute?
>>>> Ho, ho (so to speak...) But that's not what "common" means".
>>> What about a noble prostitute?
>>> Seriously, what does the "common" mean there?
>>
>> Even the OED wonders about this and comparable expressions:
>>
>> "It is difficult to fix the original sense: those of 'public, apert,
>> overt, confessed', 'the subject of common report', 'notorious', and
>> 'habitual' appear all to enter in."
>>
>> Also "existing for the use of the public".
>
> That last is the way I'd take it. As Cheryl said, not "exclusive".
> Serving all customers. Open to all. In particular, not a
> "courtesan", which MW defines as
>
> a prostitute with a courtly, wealthy, or upper-class clientele
>
> A common prostitute slept with anybody who could pay; a courtesan only
> slept with the right sort of people.

e.g., legislators

--
The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine
him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote
Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine.
--- Hunter S Thompson

Adam Funk

unread,

May 9, 2013, 7:51:56 AM5/9/13

to

On 2013-05-08, Cheryl wrote:

> On 2013-05-08 7:30 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2013-05-07, John Briggs wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/05/2013 20:31, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>> On 2013-05-05, Iain Archer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Street Offences Act (1959), s.1(1): "It shall be an offence for a common
>>>>> prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the
>>>>> purpose of prostitution."
>>>>
>>>> What about a rare prostitute?
>>>
>>> Ho, ho (so to speak...) But that's not what "common" means".
>>
>> What about a noble prostitute?
>>
>> Seriously, what does the "common" mean there?
>>
>>
> Common to everyone. The opposite of 'exclusive'. She isn't in an
> exclusive sexual relationship with someone.

Aha, hence the cynical jokes about marriage.

--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]

Adam Funk

unread,

May 9, 2013, 7:58:23 AM5/9/13

to

On 2013-05-08, Lewis wrote:

> In message <5fkp5ax...@news.ducksburg.com>

> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-08, Lewis wrote:
>
>>> In message <0f1o5ax...@news.ducksburg.com>
>>> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2013-05-04, Curlytop wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Lewis set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Girl Scouts are welcome)
>>>>>
>>>>> That will probably be ruled illegal on gender discrimination grounds.
>>>
>>>
>>>> How about "Scouts with cookies are welcome"?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't want any members of the BSA hate-group thinking they were welcome.
>
>> But you said Girl Scouts are OK?
>

> Girl Scouts are not a hate-group and have no affiliation with the BSA.
> They also do not seem to be trying to ferret out gay members and kick
> them out. Neither do they kick out atheists. So, yeah, Girl Scouts are
> ok.

I thought all the scout groups were connected.

The scouting movement has always had an openly pro-monotheist side. I
see no reason why it needs to accommodate atheists. It would be
unreasonable to join a church rambling group & then whine because they
have a prayer before lunch; similarly, people can join some other
group if they have a problem with scouting's monotheist aspect.

I was not aware that the BSA was anti-gay; AFAICT the British
organization is not.

--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.

Tony Cooper

unread,

May 9, 2013, 5:35:08 PM5/9/13

to

On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:58:23 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>

Whether or not the BSA can be considered to be anti-gay might prove to
be an interesting argument. The BSA will not allow a gay person to be
a scoutmaster. They don't (as far as I know) criticize gays for being
gay.

That makes them a discriminatory organization, but not-in my
opinion-an anti-gay organization.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

Robin Bignall

unread,

May 9, 2013, 5:44:27 PM5/9/13

to

Does that include a woman who stays at home to bring the children up
while her husband goes to work and pays all the bills?
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)

John Briggs

unread,

May 9, 2013, 6:40:13 PM5/9/13

to

They don't accept gay members - which amounts to the same thing.

> That makes them a discriminatory organization, but not-in my
> opinion-an anti-gay organization.

See above.
--
John Briggs