Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: square meters Re: Olympic question(s)
195 views
Skip to first unread message
Robin Bignall
Sep 7, 2012, 7:19:49 PM9/7/12
to
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:00:34 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
[Could of]
>I can only assume some of the "of"-sayers do it because they are copying
>others. Some may assume that the sound of "'ve" in "could've" is simply
>an indistinct form of "of", and that therefore saying a clear "of" is
>better and less "lazy".
That's one idea. I'm less PC and will say that it's because they have
no idea how English works. It's easy to prove. All of these people can
read, but they won't find 'would ofs' or 'could ofs' in books, except as
reported speech by characters in the books who are being depicted as
clueless. Imagine Dr Watson saying "Sherlock said he would of if he
could of but he'd taken too much cocaine". There seems to be no
connection in their minds between what they read and what they write.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
[Could of]
>I can only assume some of the "of"-sayers do it because they are copying
>others. Some may assume that the sound of "'ve" in "could've" is simply
>an indistinct form of "of", and that therefore saying a clear "of" is
>better and less "lazy".
That's one idea. I'm less PC and will say that it's because they have
no idea how English works. It's easy to prove. All of these people can
read, but they won't find 'would ofs' or 'could ofs' in books, except as
reported speech by characters in the books who are being depicted as
clueless. Imagine Dr Watson saying "Sherlock said he would of if he
could of but he'd taken too much cocaine". There seems to be no
connection in their minds between what they read and what they write.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Message has been deleted
tony cooper
Sep 7, 2012, 7:26:31 PM9/7/12
to
connectivity and all. Just see if I send *you* a free copy of my
books.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
DKleinecke
Sep 7, 2012, 7:37:41 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 7:30 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2012-09-07, António Marques wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk wrote (07-09-2012 10:50):
> >> A bishop must also be a priest in the Orthodox, Roman, & Anglican
> >> churches now (& AFAIK in all churches that use the 3 orders).
>
> >> A person has to be a priest already in order to be consecrated as a
> >> bishop (similarly, already a deacon to be ordained a priest); this
> >> wasn't always required in the early Middle Ages when orders were
> >> fuzzier, but has been strictly the case since around C.10 in the west
> >> & probably as long in the east.
>
> > Eh? When ever was someone ordained a bishop without having been ordained a
> > priest first?
>
> In the early Middle Ages people sometimes went straight from deacon to
> bishop, or from subdeacon to priest, for example. (This is an
> incidental thing I picked up from reading Macy's _The Hidden History
> of Women's Ordination_ recently, although I have come across it
> elsewhere.)
>
> --
> When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
> whose? --- Don Marquis
I think it was Ambrose who went from being a pagan to being bishop of
Milan in a single day.
> On 2012-09-07, António Marques wrote:
>
> > Adam Funk wrote (07-09-2012 10:50):
> >> A bishop must also be a priest in the Orthodox, Roman, & Anglican
> >> churches now (& AFAIK in all churches that use the 3 orders).
>
> >> A person has to be a priest already in order to be consecrated as a
> >> bishop (similarly, already a deacon to be ordained a priest); this
> >> wasn't always required in the early Middle Ages when orders were
> >> fuzzier, but has been strictly the case since around C.10 in the west
> >> & probably as long in the east.
>
> > Eh? When ever was someone ordained a bishop without having been ordained a
> > priest first?
>
> In the early Middle Ages people sometimes went straight from deacon to
> bishop, or from subdeacon to priest, for example. (This is an
> incidental thing I picked up from reading Macy's _The Hidden History
> of Women's Ordination_ recently, although I have come across it
> elsewhere.)
>
> --
> When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
> whose? --- Don Marquis
I think it was Ambrose who went from being a pagan to being bishop of
Milan in a single day.
DKleinecke
Sep 7, 2012, 7:55:16 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 8:33 am, Evan Kirshenbaum
> Polygamous marriage
should also be recognized, but it would require a
> *lot* of changes to the law. With two-person marriages, the only
> situations possible are that both want to do something, one wants to
> and the other doesn't, or neither does. So, legally, some things are
> possible on the say-so of any (either) of the spouses and some require
> all (both) of them. With more than two, you have to assume that there
> will be issues where more than one but less than all are in favor and
> so have to decide how many (one, two, a majority, a majority of a
> quorum, a supermajority, ...) are required for each thing. You get
> into questions of whether a person's spouses are necessarily spouses
> of one another. You have to decide what happens when some, but not
> all, of the spouses want to dissolve the marriage. You have to decide
> whether spouses can be added to a marriage after the fact and, if so,
> what happens if they're already married to others.
>
> These are all solvable problems, but the solutions aren't stroke-of-
> the-pen solutions. So it probably won't happen until there's a large
> number of people clamoring for it to.
>
I don't see any way to reconcile polygamy, polyandry and group
marriage with community property. The best scheme I have come up with
goes like this: A marriage is a group of people who agree to come
together as a marriage. The marriage, as an association, may own
assets. If a person in a marriage wants to leave the marriage they can
take their share of the assets with them. If a person wants to join a
marriage it is up to the members of the marriage how much they must
contribute to the marriage before they are allowed to join. I imagine
a marriage license / ceremony where all the present members of the
marriage appear and assure some neutral authority that adding this new
member is acceptable and that authority issuing a proper update to the
original marriage.
One interesting consequence is that a marriage can be immortal. And I
assume that two marriages might merge or split. There are doubtless
even more consequences.
> Polygamous marriage
should also be recognized, but it would require a
> *lot* of changes to the law. With two-person marriages, the only
> situations possible are that both want to do something, one wants to
> and the other doesn't, or neither does. So, legally, some things are
> possible on the say-so of any (either) of the spouses and some require
> all (both) of them. With more than two, you have to assume that there
> will be issues where more than one but less than all are in favor and
> so have to decide how many (one, two, a majority, a majority of a
> quorum, a supermajority, ...) are required for each thing. You get
> into questions of whether a person's spouses are necessarily spouses
> of one another. You have to decide what happens when some, but not
> all, of the spouses want to dissolve the marriage. You have to decide
> whether spouses can be added to a marriage after the fact and, if so,
> what happens if they're already married to others.
>
> These are all solvable problems, but the solutions aren't stroke-of-
> the-pen solutions. So it probably won't happen until there's a large
> number of people clamoring for it to.
>
I don't see any way to reconcile polygamy, polyandry and group
marriage with community property. The best scheme I have come up with
goes like this: A marriage is a group of people who agree to come
together as a marriage. The marriage, as an association, may own
assets. If a person in a marriage wants to leave the marriage they can
take their share of the assets with them. If a person wants to join a
marriage it is up to the members of the marriage how much they must
contribute to the marriage before they are allowed to join. I imagine
a marriage license / ceremony where all the present members of the
marriage appear and assure some neutral authority that adding this new
member is acceptable and that authority issuing a proper update to the
original marriage.
One interesting consequence is that a marriage can be immortal. And I
assume that two marriages might merge or split. There are doubtless
even more consequences.
DKleinecke
Sep 7, 2012, 8:03:10 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 11:22 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 12:32 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In answer to the other question by the previous poster, if Frank was
> > not married and referred to his "boyfriend" being at the convention
> > that night, there would have been no "jolt". The idea that a man can
> > have a "boyfriend" (in the sense of a male lover) has been
> > established so long that it doesn't jolt. That a man can have a
> > husband is a newer concept, and the mind doesn't always keep up.
>
> "Boyfriends" said of octogenarians is jarring.
Not among octogenarians. Rare though.
> On Sep 7, 12:32 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In answer to the other question by the previous poster, if Frank was
> > not married and referred to his "boyfriend" being at the convention
> > that night, there would have been no "jolt". The idea that a man can
> > have a "boyfriend" (in the sense of a male lover) has been
> > established so long that it doesn't jolt. That a man can have a
> > husband is a newer concept, and the mind doesn't always keep up.
>
> "Boyfriends" said of octogenarians is jarring.
Not among octogenarians. Rare though.
Robin Bignall
Sep 7, 2012, 8:12:17 PM9/7/12
to
Frank S
Sep 7, 2012, 8:26:36 PM9/7/12
to
"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnk4l0j9....@mbp55.local...
> In message <k2dlq...@drn.newsguy.com>
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Mike L filted:
>>>
>>>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:19:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 7/09/12 6:14 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
>>>>> unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
>>>>
>>>>In England, it has to be "Greensleeves". There are other tunes, but that
>>>>one is iconic.
>>>
>>>The one round here plays a distorted rendering of "Whistle while you
>>>work", which always comes to my mind as the childhood ditty "Mussolini
>>>is a twerp,/ Hitler's barmy,/ So's his army...". I don't think
>>>Hirohito got a verse.
>
> I think the version I learned was something like: Hitler is a jerk,
> Mussolini bit his weenie and now it doesn't squirt!
>
>> Around here it's "Turkey in the Straw" or "When the Saints Go Marching
>> In", or
>> some little canon I've never been able to identify....
>
>> Some years ago I thought of collecting all the tunes associated with
>> ice-cream
>> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>
> Well, depending on which meaning you're thinking of that could either be
> a tortuous medley, or the basis for a graduate degree.
>
>
Whistle while you work,
Hitler is a jerk.
Mussolini is a weenie,
Tojo's ten times worse.
Very satisfying to a 6- or 7-year-old when shouted while bicycling down the
street.
--
Frank ess
Cheryl
Sep 7, 2012, 9:09:04 PM9/7/12
to
is essentially meaningless - and, of course, that may well be the
direction in which society is headed.
When you're talking about larger groups of people forming a group which
may continue over many generations, you're talking more about some form
of communal living, like a monastery (only, potentially at least, with
sex and children). Company law might be useful, too, in providing a
legal framework for more complex organizations. "Traditional" marriage
has already changed, in practice if not in law, over a generation, and
further changes seem inevitable. Of course, you will run into situations
in which groups do NOT want their polygamous marriages to be recognized
in law. If a government tries to legalize more and more complicated
associations of people, they're going to run into a LOT of issues other
than how much of the property in a marriage with 4 spouses goes to one
who wants a divorce, and to his/her children in the form of child
support. Things get tough enough with two spouses and maybe a lover on
the side for one of them.
But I think the idea of marriage as the union of 2 (or more) people for
life etc etc is pretty much passe in the younger generation, except as
an excuse for a big party. The legalities are almost an afterthought in
a relationship that has been ongoing for years - and governments trying
to provide a legal framework for more and more different kinds of living
arrangements probably shouldn't limit themselves to looking at the
traditional family as a pattern. Few others seem to be doing so!
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 7, 2012, 10:13:26 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 7:02 pm, Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >>> (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >>>>> Lewis wrote:
> >>>>>> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >>>>> Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >>>> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >>> Looks like you never watched it.
>
> >>> John Ratzenberger played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>
> >> QED.
>
> > Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> > supposed to be spelled.
>
> First, you make certain logical assumptions. Then, when someone writes
> something that does not seem right, you check the IMDb.
IMDB did not exist during the show's run. I know perfectly well what
Cliff's last name was -- i.e., not Clayburn --; there is no way of
knowing what was spelled in the scripts for such an unusual name.
Ditto, even, for Norm Peterse/on.
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >>> (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >>>>> Lewis wrote:
> >>>>>> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >>>>> Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >>>> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >>> Looks like you never watched it.
>
> >>> John Ratzenberger played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>
> >> QED.
>
> > Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> > supposed to be spelled.
>
> First, you make certain logical assumptions. Then, when someone writes
> something that does not seem right, you check the IMDb.
IMDB did not exist during the show's run. I know perfectly well what
Cliff's last name was -- i.e., not Clayburn --; there is no way of
knowing what was spelled in the scripts for such an unusual name.
Ditto, even, for Norm Peterse/on.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 7, 2012, 10:16:11 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 6:58 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <k2dcs6$oo...@dont-email.me>
> António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > Lewis wrote (07-09-2012 18:28):
> >> "The typical progression of ordination is: reader, subdeacon, deacon,
> >> priest, bishop. Each ordination must take place in order, although it
> >> is possible to ordain a layman to all five offices in the course of a
> >> weekend."
>
> >> <http://www.kurskroot.com/orthodox_priests.html>
> > I will admit I didn't know that subdeacon was a holy order (though
> > apparently it is a holy order only in the Western Rite?).
>
> No idea. Was that page just about Western Rite?
>
> I was surprised at both reader (I think of that as just someone from the
> audience who gets up to read) and subdeacon.
>
> Yes, I know 'audience' is tactless, but then again I have a very low
> tolerance for voodoo.
An "audience" only listens. A congregation participates.
> >>>> levels of
> >>>> ordination, but they can easily follow one right after the other.
>
> >>> But that's not what I was responding to.
>
> >>>> In the Roman Catholic church, the only requirement to be Pope is that
> >>>> you are male. You have to be baptized Catholic, but that can be part of
> >>>> your investiture. Of course, it's been close to 800 years since the last
> >>>> Pope who was not a cardinal.
>
> >>> But 'papacy' isn't a holy order.
>
> >> Neither is Cardinalcy, which is why a Cardinal is properly referred to
> >> as, for example, John Cardinal Smith.
> > Nor archepiscopacy, nor patriarchy.
>
> In the Orthodox church the patriarch must be a Bishop, and more
> specifically the Bishop of Alexandria. However, he does not have the
> same sort of authority over the church as the pope does over the Roman
> Catholics.
> In message <k2dcs6$oo...@dont-email.me>
> António Marques <antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
> > Lewis wrote (07-09-2012 18:28):
> >> "The typical progression of ordination is: reader, subdeacon, deacon,
> >> priest, bishop. Each ordination must take place in order, although it
> >> is possible to ordain a layman to all five offices in the course of a
> >> weekend."
>
> >> <http://www.kurskroot.com/orthodox_priests.html>
> > I will admit I didn't know that subdeacon was a holy order (though
> > apparently it is a holy order only in the Western Rite?).
>
> No idea. Was that page just about Western Rite?
>
> I was surprised at both reader (I think of that as just someone from the
> audience who gets up to read) and subdeacon.
>
> Yes, I know 'audience' is tactless, but then again I have a very low
> tolerance for voodoo.
An "audience" only listens. A congregation participates.
> >>>> levels of
> >>>> ordination, but they can easily follow one right after the other.
>
> >>> But that's not what I was responding to.
>
> >>>> In the Roman Catholic church, the only requirement to be Pope is that
> >>>> you are male. You have to be baptized Catholic, but that can be part of
> >>>> your investiture. Of course, it's been close to 800 years since the last
> >>>> Pope who was not a cardinal.
>
> >>> But 'papacy' isn't a holy order.
>
> >> Neither is Cardinalcy, which is why a Cardinal is properly referred to
> >> as, for example, John Cardinal Smith.
> > Nor archepiscopacy, nor patriarchy.
>
> In the Orthodox church the patriarch must be a Bishop, and more
> specifically the Bishop of Alexandria. However, he does not have the
> same sort of authority over the church as the pope does over the Roman
> Catholics.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 7, 2012, 10:17:19 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 7:05 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <72caaf96-4bdd-4f24-8721-04f39468d...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
> > On Sep 7, 3:30 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> One male was described by my mother as very forward and the type to
> >> try to "get in a woman's underwear". My mother wasn't good at modern
> >> slang terms, so I pointed out that the phrase is "get in a woman's
> >> pants".
> > "A girl's," surely. "Panties," surely. (Unless you're a crypto-Brit.)
>
> No. THe phrase is "Get in a woman's pants" (though I suspect "girl's" is
> about the same frequency now.
>
> >> The first time I met him, as he approached the table, my mother leaned
> >> over and whispered "That's Charlie. He's safe". The idea of my
> >> mother, at her advanced age, being reassured because a man was "safe"
> >> just broke me up. A couple of other men walked by the table, and I
> >> asked my mother of each "Is he safe?". This earned frowns and that
> >> disapproving lip purse; it wasn't a joking matter.
> > I would take "He's safe" as 'Even though he's effeminate, he's not gay
> > and won't be hitting on you'.
>
> You would be entirely wrong.
Really? Did you keep your mother in the same old folks' home as tony?
> In message <72caaf96-4bdd-4f24-8721-04f39468d...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
> > On Sep 7, 3:30 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> One male was described by my mother as very forward and the type to
> >> try to "get in a woman's underwear". My mother wasn't good at modern
> >> slang terms, so I pointed out that the phrase is "get in a woman's
> >> pants".
> > "A girl's," surely. "Panties," surely. (Unless you're a crypto-Brit.)
>
> No. THe phrase is "Get in a woman's pants" (though I suspect "girl's" is
> about the same frequency now.
>
> >> The first time I met him, as he approached the table, my mother leaned
> >> over and whispered "That's Charlie. He's safe". The idea of my
> >> mother, at her advanced age, being reassured because a man was "safe"
> >> just broke me up. A couple of other men walked by the table, and I
> >> asked my mother of each "Is he safe?". This earned frowns and that
> >> disapproving lip purse; it wasn't a joking matter.
> > I would take "He's safe" as 'Even though he's effeminate, he's not gay
> > and won't be hitting on you'.
>
> You would be entirely wrong.
Really? Did you keep your mother in the same old folks' home as tony?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 7, 2012, 10:20:27 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 7:13 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <5c5f30ea-7481-4b66-8b2e-69ae2c90b...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
> > On Sep 7, 5:13 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> >> On 07/09/2012 1:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:> On 7 Sep 2012 01:29:25 -0700, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> tony cooper filted:
>
> >> >>> Catholics weren't supposed to get involved with "secret orders", but
> >> >>> for some reason regular fraternities weren't frowned on by Catholics.
>
> >> >> Wait, then what was all that DeMolay business?...r
>
> >> > I don't understand the question. I know what DeMolay is, their
> >> > connections with the Masonic Order, and was even somewhat involved
> >> > when a teenager. A friend was in DeMolay and I went to some meetings.
>
> >> Jacques de Molay was in charge of the Templars when a French king
> >> decided to solve his financial problems in a rather unusual fashion,
> >> involving the agonizing deaths of a lot of Templars for bizarre (and
> >> probably non-existent) crimes and the destruction of the entire order.
>
> >> This led to an unending stream of terrible books and conspiracy theories
> >> and apparently a modern group I'd never heard about until now.
> > That had nothing to do with the activities of the club for Masonic
> > boys that some of my friends at my Episcopal school were members of.
> > They got to march around in silly costumes just like their dads. And
> > for women (or women and girls?) it was the Order of the Eastern Star.
>
> Eastern Star was for women, Job's Daughters was for girls.
Cheryl Ann Sullivan's mother was Eastern Star, her father was a Mason,
and she had no such club to belong to.
> In message <5c5f30ea-7481-4b66-8b2e-69ae2c90b...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
> > On Sep 7, 5:13 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> >> On 07/09/2012 1:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:> On 7 Sep 2012 01:29:25 -0700, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> tony cooper filted:
>
> >> >>> Catholics weren't supposed to get involved with "secret orders", but
> >> >>> for some reason regular fraternities weren't frowned on by Catholics.
>
> >> >> Wait, then what was all that DeMolay business?...r
>
> >> > I don't understand the question. I know what DeMolay is, their
> >> > connections with the Masonic Order, and was even somewhat involved
> >> > when a teenager. A friend was in DeMolay and I went to some meetings.
>
> >> Jacques de Molay was in charge of the Templars when a French king
> >> decided to solve his financial problems in a rather unusual fashion,
> >> involving the agonizing deaths of a lot of Templars for bizarre (and
> >> probably non-existent) crimes and the destruction of the entire order.
>
> >> This led to an unending stream of terrible books and conspiracy theories
> >> and apparently a modern group I'd never heard about until now.
> > That had nothing to do with the activities of the club for Masonic
> > boys that some of my friends at my Episcopal school were members of.
> > They got to march around in silly costumes just like their dads. And
> > for women (or women and girls?) it was the Order of the Eastern Star.
>
> Eastern Star was for women, Job's Daughters was for girls.
Cheryl Ann Sullivan's mother was Eastern Star, her father was a Mason,
and she had no such club to belong to.
Jerry Friedman
Sep 7, 2012, 10:41:02 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 7, 5:25 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <k2dlqr01...@drn.newsguy.com>
"Mussolini
Bit my weenie.
Now it doesn't work."
Eastern suburbs of Cleveland.
> --
> Live long enough to become a problem to your kids.
But can I live long enough to forget dirty songs I learned in
childhood?
--
Jerry Friedman
> In message <k2dlqr01...@drn.newsguy.com>
> > Mike L filted:
>
> >>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:19:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
> >><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On 7/09/12 6:14 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> >>>> They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
> >>>> unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
>
> >>>In England, it has to be "Greensleeves". There are other tunes, but that
> >>>one is iconic.
>
> >>The one round here plays a distorted rendering of "Whistle while you
> >>work", which always comes to my mind as the childhood ditty "Mussolini
> >>is a twerp,/ Hitler's barmy,/ So's his army...". I don't think
> >>Hirohito got a verse.
>
> I think the version I learned was something like: Hitler is a jerk,
> Mussolini bit his weenie and now it doesn't squirt!
...
>
> >>On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:19:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
> >><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On 7/09/12 6:14 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> >>>> They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
> >>>> unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
>
> >>>In England, it has to be "Greensleeves". There are other tunes, but that
> >>>one is iconic.
>
> >>The one round here plays a distorted rendering of "Whistle while you
> >>work", which always comes to my mind as the childhood ditty "Mussolini
> >>is a twerp,/ Hitler's barmy,/ So's his army...". I don't think
> >>Hirohito got a verse.
>
> I think the version I learned was something like: Hitler is a jerk,
> Mussolini bit his weenie and now it doesn't squirt!
"Mussolini
Bit my weenie.
Now it doesn't work."
Eastern suburbs of Cleveland.
> --
> Live long enough to become a problem to your kids.
But can I live long enough to forget dirty songs I learned in
childhood?
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Sep 7, 2012, 10:50:52 PM9/7/12
to
On Sep 5, 3:38 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
...
> I made an observation that the US media might take more
> notice of the Paralympics if the US were top of the medal table, but that's
> just speculation on my part.
...
The Chess Olympiad is going on now. Yet oddly enough, I think most of
the U.S. media have been silent on the American team's upset victory
over Russia yesterday, not to mention our loss to China earlier
today. This isn't intended to make any points about what the American
media cover, since they don't cover chess much no matter what
happens. (I suppose they would if an American were in contention for
the World Championship, which doesn't look likely any time soon.)
The Chess Olympiad is almost as nationalistic as the Olympics.
However, there are three international teams, representing the
Committee of Silent Chess, the Braille Chess Association, and the
Physically Disabled Chess Association.
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> I made an observation that the US media might take more
> notice of the Paralympics if the US were top of the medal table, but that's
> just speculation on my part.
...
The Chess Olympiad is going on now. Yet oddly enough, I think most of
the U.S. media have been silent on the American team's upset victory
over Russia yesterday, not to mention our loss to China earlier
today. This isn't intended to make any points about what the American
media cover, since they don't cover chess much no matter what
happens. (I suppose they would if an American were in contention for
the World Championship, which doesn't look likely any time soon.)
The Chess Olympiad is almost as nationalistic as the Olympics.
However, there are three international teams, representing the
Committee of Silent Chess, the Braille Chess Association, and the
Physically Disabled Chess Association.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 10:55:17 PM9/7/12
to
On 7/09/12 1:49 PM, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Sep 7, 2:54 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 7/09/12 8:28 AM, benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> A bit of both. Are there many languages like English, Greek and Hebrew,
>> that have names for the letters of the alphabet which go a bit further
>> than just imitating the sound the letter usually makes?
>
> English hardly goes more than "a bit" further -- H,Q,W,Y are the only
> ones that deviate from the general principle. Do you think there is
> some special virtue in this? Otherwise why refuse to recognize the
> "obvious" ones as letter-names?
I never thought of it as a virtue - merely as a peculiarity. G and J are
fun because they are almost the opposite names in French.
--
Robert Bannister
> On Sep 7, 2:54 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 7/09/12 8:28 AM, benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> A bit of both. Are there many languages like English, Greek and Hebrew,
>> that have names for the letters of the alphabet which go a bit further
>> than just imitating the sound the letter usually makes?
>
> English hardly goes more than "a bit" further -- H,Q,W,Y are the only
> ones that deviate from the general principle. Do you think there is
> some special virtue in this? Otherwise why refuse to recognize the
> "obvious" ones as letter-names?
I never thought of it as a virtue - merely as a peculiarity. G and J are
fun because they are almost the opposite names in French.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 10:57:41 PM9/7/12
to
On 7/09/12 2:28 PM, Guy Barry wrote:
> [a.u.e only]
>
> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> news:aat5um...@mid.individual.net...
> go any further at all. For consonants they generally suffix /i:/ or
> prefix /E/, with a few odd exceptions. As I mentioned previously, with
> the exception of "aitch" and "zed", there seems to be no generally
> agreed way of writing the names of English letters.
>
I find the vowel names a little odd. It is true that a, e, i, o, u can
be pronounced like their names, but I wouldn't think of those as being
the "normal" pronunciation.
--
Robert Bannister
> [a.u.e only]
>
> "Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> news:aat5um...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> A bit of both. Are there many languages like English, Greek and
>> Hebrew, that have names for the letters of the alphabet which go a bit
>> further than just imitating the sound the letter usually makes?
>
> In English they go a bit further, but not much. For vowels they don't
>> A bit of both. Are there many languages like English, Greek and
>> Hebrew, that have names for the letters of the alphabet which go a bit
>> further than just imitating the sound the letter usually makes?
>
> go any further at all. For consonants they generally suffix /i:/ or
> prefix /E/, with a few odd exceptions. As I mentioned previously, with
> the exception of "aitch" and "zed", there seems to be no generally
> agreed way of writing the names of English letters.
>
I find the vowel names a little odd. It is true that a, e, i, o, u can
be pronounced like their names, but I wouldn't think of those as being
the "normal" pronunciation.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 10:59:00 PM9/7/12
to
On 8/09/12 1:24 AM, Lewis wrote:
> By that logic, then eight lesbians would be four times as attractive as
> two, right?
>
> I'm not thinking that is the case. Two is the number.
>
> I also don't know if it's universal or not.
>
If you don't want them all, send six over to me.
--
Robert Bannister
> By that logic, then eight lesbians would be four times as attractive as
> two, right?
>
> I'm not thinking that is the case. Two is the number.
>
> I also don't know if it's universal or not.
>
If you don't want them all, send six over to me.
--
Robert Bannister
R H Draney
Sep 7, 2012, 10:59:02 PM9/7/12
to
Lewis filted:
some kind in the offing....
I'm imagining something in this vein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb-29YlZuqY
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>In message <k2dlq...@drn.newsguy.com>
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Some years ago I thought of collecting all the tunes associated with ice-cream
>> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>
>Well, depending on which meaning you're thinking of that could either be
>a tortuous medley, or the basis for a graduate degree.
The musical meaning, of course, but I still think there could be an award of
>In message <k2dlq...@drn.newsguy.com>
> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Some years ago I thought of collecting all the tunes associated with ice-cream
>> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>
>Well, depending on which meaning you're thinking of that could either be
>a tortuous medley, or the basis for a graduate degree.
some kind in the offing....
I'm imagining something in this vein:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb-29YlZuqY
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:15:15 PM9/7/12
to
On 7/09/12 12:17 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <aat6k4...@mid.individual.net>
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> So, you seem to be saying there is no all-embracing word. I reject
>> "religious leader" because with the larger organisations that have
>> bishops and archbishops or even higher, it is not accurate. Coming from
>> England originally, I suppose the word I knew was "vicar", but even as a
>> boy, I was aware that not all priests were called vicars. I see it as a
>> difference between "the priest" (RC or pagan) and "a priest" (could be
>> any clergyman or woman. Perhaps "clergyperson" would be best if it
>> weren't such an ugly word.
>
> If you refer to a minister as a preist, you will almost certainly be
> corrected, just as if you referred to a rabbi as a preist. It is simply
> the wrong word.
>
If I had to group rabbis, I would put them more with religious teachers
or advisors than with priests, but I don't know enough about the duties
of a rabbi. I thought "minister" was used only in Scotland, but I
suppose if people would correct me then it shows that they understood
what I meant by "priest". I am not at all sure that "minister" would be
understood out of context - I am guessing that it used by one or two
particular sects.
--
Robert Bannister
> In message <aat6k4...@mid.individual.net>
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> So, you seem to be saying there is no all-embracing word. I reject
>> "religious leader" because with the larger organisations that have
>> bishops and archbishops or even higher, it is not accurate. Coming from
>> England originally, I suppose the word I knew was "vicar", but even as a
>> boy, I was aware that not all priests were called vicars. I see it as a
>> difference between "the priest" (RC or pagan) and "a priest" (could be
>> any clergyman or woman. Perhaps "clergyperson" would be best if it
>> weren't such an ugly word.
>
> If you refer to a minister as a preist, you will almost certainly be
> corrected, just as if you referred to a rabbi as a preist. It is simply
> the wrong word.
>
If I had to group rabbis, I would put them more with religious teachers
or advisors than with priests, but I don't know enough about the duties
of a rabbi. I thought "minister" was used only in Scotland, but I
suppose if people would correct me then it shows that they understood
what I meant by "priest". I am not at all sure that "minister" would be
understood out of context - I am guessing that it used by one or two
particular sects.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:17:53 PM9/7/12
to
On 7/09/12 9:11 PM, António Marques wrote:
> I just don't see where Mr Bannister is comming from. Priests (catholic,
> anglican, orthodox) tend to have certain attributes which are not
> necessarily the same (and often aren't the same) as those of the
> officials of non-episcopal churches. A certain set of attributes says
> 'priest', another says 'minister', 'elder', 'rabbi', 'imam', 'guru'.
So you don't see any similarity in their role? Interesting that you used
"Anglican priest".
--
Robert Bannister
> I just don't see where Mr Bannister is comming from. Priests (catholic,
> anglican, orthodox) tend to have certain attributes which are not
> necessarily the same (and often aren't the same) as those of the
> officials of non-episcopal churches. A certain set of attributes says
> 'priest', another says 'minister', 'elder', 'rabbi', 'imam', 'guru'.
So you don't see any similarity in their role? Interesting that you used
"Anglican priest".
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:24:21 PM9/7/12
to
On 8/09/12 6:58 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In the Orthodox church the patriarch must be a Bishop, and more
> specifically the Bishop of Alexandria. However, he does not have the
> same sort of authority over the church as the pope does over the Roman
> Catholics.
I presume you are referring to a particular Orthodox Church, since they
> In the Orthodox church the patriarch must be a Bishop, and more
> specifically the Bishop of Alexandria. However, he does not have the
> same sort of authority over the church as the pope does over the Roman
> Catholics.
are autocephalous - in other words, each country has its own head and
they do not all defer to the Patriarch or Metropol or whatever of any
other place. It is more complicated than that insofar as the Russian,
Ukrainian, Serbian, Macedonian, Greek, etc. Orthodox Churches in, for
example, Australia, are under the jurisdiction of the heads of the
Church in their respective countries.
--
Robert Bannister
Charles Bishop
Sep 8, 2012, 12:23:27 AM9/8/12
to
In article <k2b5c...@drn.newsguy.com>, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
>Charles Bishop filted:
>>
>>There was a Sidewalk Sundae that was ice cream of the gods when I were a
>>lad. There was also the, can't rembember the name, but a scoop of ice
>>cream on a "waffle" cone. The scoop was covered in chocolate, with nuts on
>>the chocolate.
>
>That'd be your basic "Nutty Buddy"....r
I was thinking of "drumstick" as a poster informed me.
--
charles
wrote:
>Charles Bishop filted:
>>
>>There was a Sidewalk Sundae that was ice cream of the gods when I were a
>>lad. There was also the, can't rembember the name, but a scoop of ice
>>cream on a "waffle" cone. The scoop was covered in chocolate, with nuts on
>>the chocolate.
>
>That'd be your basic "Nutty Buddy"....r
I was thinking of "drumstick" as a poster informed me.
--
charles
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:32:09 PM9/7/12
to
On 7/09/12 1:26 PM, Peter Brooks wrote:
> On Sep 7, 3:09 am, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 6/09/12 11:54 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 8:30 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>> Moreover, assuming the "land" that got flooded was mainly the part
>>>> between the Tigris and the Euphrates, the main rain could have been up
>>>> in Turkey or somewhere far away. Flooding may be worsened by rain
>>>> falling "here" now, but it's the water coming downriver that starts it.
>>
>>> That reflects the Fundamentalist attitude that the text must be
>>> literally true, but miracles are not permitted to account for it. That
>>> strikes me as inconsistent.
>>
>> Wow. I've never been called a Fundamentalist before. Amazing.
>> I believe there is some geological evidence of a big flood over much of
>> the Middle East. I rather doubt that the dates fit the Assyrian-Jewish
>> story, but that's why I thought of the Tigris-Euphrates region that used
>> to flood regularly. Most ancient fairy stories contain a grain of -
>> well, if not truth, then some factual basis that gave rise to the story;
>> it's just that it's heavily disguised.
>>
> I'm not sure that I'd find the term 'flood' a particularly heavy
> disguise for a flood.
>
It's a question of whether the flood covered the whole world, which
seems somewhat unlikely, or simply covered a larger part than usual of
the region where the original story was set.
--
Robert Bannister
> On Sep 7, 3:09 am, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 6/09/12 11:54 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 5, 8:30 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>> Moreover, assuming the "land" that got flooded was mainly the part
>>>> between the Tigris and the Euphrates, the main rain could have been up
>>>> in Turkey or somewhere far away. Flooding may be worsened by rain
>>>> falling "here" now, but it's the water coming downriver that starts it.
>>
>>> That reflects the Fundamentalist attitude that the text must be
>>> literally true, but miracles are not permitted to account for it. That
>>> strikes me as inconsistent.
>>
>> Wow. I've never been called a Fundamentalist before. Amazing.
>> I believe there is some geological evidence of a big flood over much of
>> the Middle East. I rather doubt that the dates fit the Assyrian-Jewish
>> story, but that's why I thought of the Tigris-Euphrates region that used
>> to flood regularly. Most ancient fairy stories contain a grain of -
>> well, if not truth, then some factual basis that gave rise to the story;
>> it's just that it's heavily disguised.
>>
> I'm not sure that I'd find the term 'flood' a particularly heavy
> disguise for a flood.
>
It's a question of whether the flood covered the whole world, which
seems somewhat unlikely, or simply covered a larger part than usual of
the region where the original story was set.
--
Robert Bannister
Charles Bishop
Sep 8, 2012, 12:24:46 AM9/8/12
to
In article <7gs6pz...@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Sep 6, 9:13�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Now "Good Humor" is just a brand you can
>>> find at the store around here, though there are people who walk around
>>> the neighborhood with carts (complete with music) selling ic ecream
>>> bars and popsicles.
>>
>> Do they play endless series of alleged children's songs performed by
>> alleged children's choruses? Aargh!
several others that don't come to mind at present. All Instrumentals, in
a very upbeat tempo.
--
chrles
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> On Sep 6, 9:13�am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Now "Good Humor" is just a brand you can
>>> find at the store around here, though there are people who walk around
>>> the neighborhood with carts (complete with music) selling ic ecream
>>> bars and popsicles.
>>
>> Do they play endless series of alleged children's songs performed by
>> alleged children's choruses? Aargh!
>
>They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
>unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
Lessee, we got Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head, The Entertainer, and
>They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
>unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
several others that don't come to mind at present. All Instrumentals, in
a very upbeat tempo.
--
chrles
Charles Bishop
Sep 8, 2012, 12:28:59 AM9/8/12
to
In article <slrnk4iver....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <ctbishop-060...@global-66-81-252-88.dialup.o1.com>
> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <4nnccl...@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <pq60cu...@gmail.com>,
>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Or "My two favorite teams are Stanford and whoever's playing Cal"
>>>>>(adapt as needed).
>>>>
>>>> I've always found it somewhat confusing that the university I know as
>>>> "Berkeley" or "UCB" is referred to as "Cal" by the sports people.
>>>
>>>Not just sports people. It's pretty much universally "Cal" around
>>>here, even to people who go there and teach there. As the first UC
>>>campus, it gets pride of place, so "[University of] California"
>>>unambiguously refers to Berkeley.
>
>> For everybody, or just those in the neighborhood?
>
>At least for everybody in the US who ever follows college sports. Cal is
>UC Berkeley, and only Berkeley. There may be several schools whose
>initials are MIT, but MIT is always the one in Cambridge, MA.
I think I heard that USC (University of Southern California) got huffy
with USC (University (Somethign) Conneticut. Turns out the one in
Conneticut is older.
--
chrles
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <ctbishop-060...@global-66-81-252-88.dialup.o1.com>
> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <4nnccl...@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>>
>>>> In article <pq60cu...@gmail.com>,
>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Or "My two favorite teams are Stanford and whoever's playing Cal"
>>>>>(adapt as needed).
>>>>
>>>> I've always found it somewhat confusing that the university I know as
>>>> "Berkeley" or "UCB" is referred to as "Cal" by the sports people.
>>>
>>>Not just sports people. It's pretty much universally "Cal" around
>>>here, even to people who go there and teach there. As the first UC
>>>campus, it gets pride of place, so "[University of] California"
>>>unambiguously refers to Berkeley.
>
>> For everybody, or just those in the neighborhood?
>
>At least for everybody in the US who ever follows college sports. Cal is
>UC Berkeley, and only Berkeley. There may be several schools whose
>initials are MIT, but MIT is always the one in Cambridge, MA.
I think I heard that USC (University of Southern California) got huffy
with USC (University (Somethign) Conneticut. Turns out the one in
Conneticut is older.
--
chrles
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:38:32 PM9/7/12
to
On 8/09/12 7:19 AM, Robin Bignall wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:00:34 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> [Could of]
>
>> I can only assume some of the "of"-sayers do it because they are copying
>> others. Some may assume that the sound of "'ve" in "could've" is simply
>> an indistinct form of "of", and that therefore saying a clear "of" is
>> better and less "lazy".
>
> That's one idea. I'm less PC and will say that it's because they have
> no idea how English works. It's easy to prove. All of these people can
> read, but they won't find 'would ofs' or 'could ofs' in books, except as
> reported speech by characters in the books who are being depicted as
> clueless. Imagine Dr Watson saying "Sherlock said he would of if he
> could of but he'd taken too much cocaine". There seems to be no
> connection in their minds between what they read and what they write.
>
Nevertheless, I am sure the professional linguists will say these people
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:00:34 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> [Could of]
>
>> I can only assume some of the "of"-sayers do it because they are copying
>> others. Some may assume that the sound of "'ve" in "could've" is simply
>> an indistinct form of "of", and that therefore saying a clear "of" is
>> better and less "lazy".
>
> That's one idea. I'm less PC and will say that it's because they have
> no idea how English works. It's easy to prove. All of these people can
> read, but they won't find 'would ofs' or 'could ofs' in books, except as
> reported speech by characters in the books who are being depicted as
> clueless. Imagine Dr Watson saying "Sherlock said he would of if he
> could of but he'd taken too much cocaine". There seems to be no
> connection in their minds between what they read and what they write.
>
are following definite rules and their dialect must not be labelled
uneducated or wrong.
--
Robert Bannister
Charles Bishop
Sep 8, 2012, 12:31:15 AM9/8/12
to
In article <ipbpn7...@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> But a deeper mystery opened up. In Chicago, there is an ice cream
>> flavor called variously "New York" and "New York Cherry." Naturally
>> I bought a box of it the first time I saw it, to find out what was
>> being ascribed to us, and I never tried it again. I don't know what
>> was in it, and I don't know why anyone would think it was a flavor
>> ice cream should have, and I certainly don't know why it was called
>> "New York."
>
>In a thread in AUE back in 2004 it was asserted that "New York" (which
>I've never seen on its own) and "New York cherry" are actually two
>different flavors, the latter being New York[1] with cherry pieces
>added. Growing up, I just thought of it as being vanilla ice cream
>with cherry pieces and assumed that that was what was called "cherry"
>in New York, as opposed to our cherry ice cream, which was made with
>cherry juice and so was purplish pink. Cherry ice cream with cerry
>pieces was "Burgundy cherry".
>
>[1] "A variety of vanilla--stronger and more cream-colored than most,
> yet not as rich in color or flavor as French vanilla."
One of the major decisions of childhood was whether to go into Baskin
Robbins and get a single scoop for 10� or to Sav-On and get a double scoop
for 5�. Burgandy Cherry was a favorite.
--
charless
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> But a deeper mystery opened up. In Chicago, there is an ice cream
>> flavor called variously "New York" and "New York Cherry." Naturally
>> I bought a box of it the first time I saw it, to find out what was
>> being ascribed to us, and I never tried it again. I don't know what
>> was in it, and I don't know why anyone would think it was a flavor
>> ice cream should have, and I certainly don't know why it was called
>> "New York."
>
>In a thread in AUE back in 2004 it was asserted that "New York" (which
>I've never seen on its own) and "New York cherry" are actually two
>different flavors, the latter being New York[1] with cherry pieces
>added. Growing up, I just thought of it as being vanilla ice cream
>with cherry pieces and assumed that that was what was called "cherry"
>in New York, as opposed to our cherry ice cream, which was made with
>cherry juice and so was purplish pink. Cherry ice cream with cerry
>pieces was "Burgundy cherry".
>
>[1] "A variety of vanilla--stronger and more cream-colored than most,
> yet not as rich in color or flavor as French vanilla."
One of the major decisions of childhood was whether to go into Baskin
Robbins and get a single scoop for 10� or to Sav-On and get a double scoop
for 5�. Burgandy Cherry was a favorite.
--
charless
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:41:52 PM9/7/12
to
On 7/09/12 1:33 PM, pauljk wrote:
> In the early seventies, an office colleague of mine went by the name
> of Earl King.
Did they call him "Duke" for short?
--
Robert Bannister
> In the early seventies, an office colleague of mine went by the name
> of Earl King.
Did they call him "Duke" for short?
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:43:30 PM9/7/12
to
On 8/09/12 1:15 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/09/12 5:22 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Or, without stick, Eskimo Pie.)
>>>
>>> Possibly because those brand name eatables are not sold in the UK.
>>>
>>
>> I'm only surprised the "Eskimo" hasn't been changed to "Inuit".
>
> It's American. Our Eskimos, mostly, aren't Inuit.
>
Right. I had got the impression that "Eskimo" was another of those
forbidden words.
--
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/09/12 5:22 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> (Or, without stick, Eskimo Pie.)
>>>
>>> Possibly because those brand name eatables are not sold in the UK.
>>>
>>
>> I'm only surprised the "Eskimo" hasn't been changed to "Inuit".
>
> It's American. Our Eskimos, mostly, aren't Inuit.
>
Right. I had got the impression that "Eskimo" was another of those
forbidden words.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 7, 2012, 11:44:46 PM9/7/12
to
On 8/09/12 4:35 AM, R H Draney wrote:
> Mike L filted:
--
Robert Bannister
> Mike L filted:
>>
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:19:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/09/12 6:14 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>
>> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:19:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/09/12 6:14 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>
>>>> They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
>>>> unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
>>>
>>>> unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
>>>
>>> In England, it has to be "Greensleeves". There are other tunes, but that
>>> one is iconic.
>>
>> The one round here plays a distorted rendering of "Whistle while you
>> work", which always comes to my mind as the childhood ditty "Mussolini
>> is a twerp,/ Hitler's barmy,/ So's his army...". I don't think
>> Hirohito got a verse.
>
>>> one is iconic.
>>
>> The one round here plays a distorted rendering of "Whistle while you
>> work", which always comes to my mind as the childhood ditty "Mussolini
>> is a twerp,/ Hitler's barmy,/ So's his army...". I don't think
>> Hirohito got a verse.
>
> Around here it's "Turkey in the Straw" or "When the Saints Go Marching In", or
> some little canon I've never been able to identify....
>
> some little canon I've never been able to identify....
>
> Some years ago I thought of collecting all the tunes associated with ice-cream
> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>
>
There could be a PhD in this. Have you applied for an Arts Council grant?
> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>
>
--
Robert Bannister
Garrett Wollman
Sep 8, 2012, 12:37:58 AM9/8/12
to
In article <aavsto...@mid.individual.net>,
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
["could/should/would of"]
people are using a form that may be permitted in their dialect, but is
not accepted in Standard Written English.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
["could/should/would of"]
>Nevertheless, I am sure the professional linguists will say these people
>are following definite rules and their dialect must not be labelled
>uneducated or wrong.
I am sure the professional linguists will, in the main, say that these
>are following definite rules and their dialect must not be labelled
>uneducated or wrong.
people are using a form that may be permitted in their dialect, but is
not accepted in Standard Written English.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sep 8, 2012, 12:38:24 AM9/8/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGVXLNQ3dY
And, of course, there's always his "Eine Kleine Nichtmusik"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_j6yU4Whg
(To see how well you did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAMB01JK5pY )
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The only man I know who behaves
SF Bay Area (1982-) |sensibly is my tailor; he takes my
Chicago (1964-1982) |measurements anew each time he sees
|me. The rest go on with their old
evan.kir...@gmail.com |measurements and expect me to fit
|them.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
| Shaw, _Man and Superman_
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 12:58:40 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 7, 10:35 pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Mike L filted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:19:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
> ><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 7/09/12 6:14 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> >>> They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
> >>> unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
>
> >>In England, it has to be "Greensleeves". There are other tunes, but that
> >>one is iconic.
>
> >The one round here plays a distorted rendering of "Whistle while you
> >work", which always comes to my mind as the childhood ditty "Mussolini
> >is a twerp,/ Hitler's barmy,/ So's his army...". I don't think
> >Hirohito got a verse.
>
> Around here it's "Turkey in the Straw" or "When the Saints Go Marching In", or
> some little canon I've never been able to identify....
>
> Mike L filted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:19:19 +0800, Robert Bannister
> ><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> >>On 7/09/12 6:14 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> >>> They play endless repetitions of a single short snippet of something
> >>> unidentifiable played by a very simple synthesizer.
>
> >>In England, it has to be "Greensleeves". There are other tunes, but that
> >>one is iconic.
>
> >The one round here plays a distorted rendering of "Whistle while you
> >work", which always comes to my mind as the childhood ditty "Mussolini
> >is a twerp,/ Hitler's barmy,/ So's his army...". I don't think
> >Hirohito got a verse.
>
> Around here it's "Turkey in the Straw" or "When the Saints Go Marching In", or
> some little canon I've never been able to identify....
>
> Some years ago I thought of collecting all the tunes associated with ice-cream
> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>
What a nice idea.
> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 8, 2012, 1:05:57 AM9/8/12
to
an allonym, or exonym, or whatever). There was a story that got around
saying that "Eskimo" in Algonquian meant "eaters of raw meat"; and
this, together with the various Eskimo groups preferring to be called
by their own self-designations, is probably what you remember. It now
seems that this etymology is incorrect, and that whatever it means
it's not insulting, so we can use it as a handy cover term for the
Inuit, Yupik etc.
Hey! Look what I found! There's quite an informative note on the a.u.e
faq!
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxeskimo.html
Garrett Wollman
Sep 8, 2012, 1:09:30 AM9/8/12
to
In article <ctbishop-070...@global-66-81-245-238.dialup.o1.com>,
"OSU". Ohio ended up with osu.edu (Oregon got orst.edu but now uses
the more prolix oregonstate.edu); I think I've heard at least national
sports reporters distinguishing them as "Ohio State" and "Oregon
State". (N.B.: the "State" bit is mandatory; unqualified "Oregon"
refers to the University of Oregon, a different institution an hour
south of Oregon State.[1])
-GAWollman
[1] So, considering only systems that have a distinct "main campus" on
both sides, is the 47 miles from Corvallis to Eugene the closest
between two of them in a single state? Bozeman to Missoula is 200
miles; Seattle to Pullman is 280; Logan to Salt Lake City is 80; Tempe
to Tucson is 110; Albuquerque to Las Cruces is 220; DING! we have a
winner: Chapel Hill to Raleigh is 29 miles, nearly tied with Austin to
San Marcos at 30 miles. (Others: Boulder to Fort Collins is 45 miles;
Grand Forks to Fargo, 80; Vermillion to Brookings, 115; Manhattan to
Lawrence, 85; Stillwater to Norman, 85; Austin to College Station,
110; Ann Arbor to East Lansing, 65; Athens to Columbus, 75; Athens to
Atlanta, 70; Gainesville to Tallahassee, 150.)
Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I think I heard that USC (University of Southern California) got huffy
>with USC (University (Somethign) Conneticut. Turns out the one in
>Conneticut is older.
The Ohio State and Oregon State Universities had a similar to-do over
>I think I heard that USC (University of Southern California) got huffy
>with USC (University (Somethign) Conneticut. Turns out the one in
>Conneticut is older.
"OSU". Ohio ended up with osu.edu (Oregon got orst.edu but now uses
the more prolix oregonstate.edu); I think I've heard at least national
sports reporters distinguishing them as "Ohio State" and "Oregon
State". (N.B.: the "State" bit is mandatory; unqualified "Oregon"
refers to the University of Oregon, a different institution an hour
south of Oregon State.[1])
-GAWollman
[1] So, considering only systems that have a distinct "main campus" on
both sides, is the 47 miles from Corvallis to Eugene the closest
between two of them in a single state? Bozeman to Missoula is 200
miles; Seattle to Pullman is 280; Logan to Salt Lake City is 80; Tempe
to Tucson is 110; Albuquerque to Las Cruces is 220; DING! we have a
winner: Chapel Hill to Raleigh is 29 miles, nearly tied with Austin to
San Marcos at 30 miles. (Others: Boulder to Fort Collins is 45 miles;
Grand Forks to Fargo, 80; Vermillion to Brookings, 115; Manhattan to
Lawrence, 85; Stillwater to Norman, 85; Austin to College Station,
110; Ann Arbor to East Lansing, 65; Athens to Columbus, 75; Athens to
Atlanta, 70; Gainesville to Tallahassee, 150.)
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 1:12:29 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 7, 11:55 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> On 9/7/2012 11:00 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 4:24 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> >> On 9/7/2012 3:56 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 7, 8:40 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/7/2012 1:21 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>> Just want to make sure: plenty of evidence of which
> >>>> of the following?
>
> >>>> (1) most homosexual chaps also find naked women
> >>>> exciting;
> >>>> or
> >>>> (2) there being a continuum between chaps who are
> >>>> allergic to men on the one end and chaps who
> >>>> allergic to women on the other
>
> >>> Both.
>
> >> Any online references?
>
> >>> A sociobiological argument for the evolutionary survival of
> >>> homosexuality is that homosexuals do, indeed, reproduce (if they
> >>> didn't then you'd expect any heritable component to die out in a few
> >>> generations, unless carrying, but not expressing, the genes for
> >>> homosexuality carries some advantage). The argument, for male
> >>> homosexuality (I've not seen much discussion of the evolutionary
> >>> benefit of female homosexuality) is that, by appearing not to be a
> >>> sexual threat, homosexual men reduce male jealousy and female
> >>> circumspection in a way that enables them to get on sufficiently
> >>> intimate terms with women to inseminate them.
>
> >> It is just an argument. The ontological argument
> >> for the existence of god is another argument.
>
> >>> Not all homosexuality is heritable, of course,
>
> >> If at all.
>
> > There's quite a good discussion of it all here:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
>
> >>> and not all that is heritable is genetic.
>
> >> Yes, but what you described below is not a
> >> mechanism of inheritance by any sense of the
> >> word.
>
> > and?
>
> >>> Both left-handedness and homosexuality can have
> >>> similar aetiology - an excess of testosterone during gestation, or, in
> >>> some cases, brain damage during birth. This is not to say (of course,
> >>> but enough people misunderstand for a caveat to be necessary) that,
> >>> despite both homosexuals and left-handers being more prevalent in
> >>> theatrics, they are the same, left-handers are not much more likely to
> >>> be homosexual, nor are homosexuals that much more likely to be left-
> >>> handed.
>
> >> Can have similar etiology, and can have disparate
> >> etiology.
>
> > That's a quaint spelling of it - I'd think it was the study of 'ands'
> > if it weren't for this context. I see that another quaint version is
> > 'aitiology'.
>
> > If I hadn't meant that I wouldn't have said 'can', would I?
>
> And?
>
I'm puzzled as to what you thought your comment added.
>
> >>> The differential aetiology leads to the continuum (using the term
> >>> loosely).
>
> >> How?
>
> > See the above article, but anything that has such differential
> > aetiology will not be binary.
>
> It all depends on how the trait is defined. (By
> "differential etiology" I assume you meant "multi-
> factorial etiology", rather than the usual meaning
> of "differential diagnosis".) For example,
> the trait defined as X-and-Y (where X and Y are
> binary traits with different etiology) can be
> defined as binary: either X-and-Y or not-(X-and-Y).
>
Yes, multifactorial. If X and Y have different aetiology, then you
have the cases:
X + Y | ~X + Y | X + ~Y | ~X + ~Y
That is, from two binary traits, you get 4 possible outcomes. When you
have multiple binary traits, you get more. Thus, with something like
left-handedness or homosexuality, that's based on quite a few traits,
not all of them binary, you end up with many possible outcomes - what
I called a loose continuum.
>
> > It's a matter of simple observation that
> > some people are very strongly left-handed, some are ambidextrous and
> > most lie somewhere in between perhaps kicking and fishing sinistrally,
> > but doing everything else dextrally. The Kerrs are an unusual case of
> > strongly heritable left-handedness.
>
> This does not explain "how".
>
It wasn't supposed to, but what 'how' are you wanting explained? If
you look at the wikipaedia article that I posted, you'll see most of
what I've mentioned discussed, quite well and simply.
> On 9/7/2012 11:00 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 4:24 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> >> On 9/7/2012 3:56 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 7, 8:40 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 9/7/2012 1:21 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> >>>> Just want to make sure: plenty of evidence of which
> >>>> of the following?
>
> >>>> (1) most homosexual chaps also find naked women
> >>>> exciting;
> >>>> or
> >>>> (2) there being a continuum between chaps who are
> >>>> allergic to men on the one end and chaps who
> >>>> allergic to women on the other
>
> >>> Both.
>
> >> Any online references?
>
> >>> A sociobiological argument for the evolutionary survival of
> >>> homosexuality is that homosexuals do, indeed, reproduce (if they
> >>> didn't then you'd expect any heritable component to die out in a few
> >>> generations, unless carrying, but not expressing, the genes for
> >>> homosexuality carries some advantage). The argument, for male
> >>> homosexuality (I've not seen much discussion of the evolutionary
> >>> benefit of female homosexuality) is that, by appearing not to be a
> >>> sexual threat, homosexual men reduce male jealousy and female
> >>> circumspection in a way that enables them to get on sufficiently
> >>> intimate terms with women to inseminate them.
>
> >> It is just an argument. The ontological argument
> >> for the existence of god is another argument.
>
> >>> Not all homosexuality is heritable, of course,
>
> >> If at all.
>
> > There's quite a good discussion of it all here:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
>
> >>> and not all that is heritable is genetic.
>
> >> Yes, but what you described below is not a
> >> mechanism of inheritance by any sense of the
> >> word.
>
> > and?
>
> >>> Both left-handedness and homosexuality can have
> >>> similar aetiology - an excess of testosterone during gestation, or, in
> >>> some cases, brain damage during birth. This is not to say (of course,
> >>> but enough people misunderstand for a caveat to be necessary) that,
> >>> despite both homosexuals and left-handers being more prevalent in
> >>> theatrics, they are the same, left-handers are not much more likely to
> >>> be homosexual, nor are homosexuals that much more likely to be left-
> >>> handed.
>
> >> Can have similar etiology, and can have disparate
> >> etiology.
>
> > That's a quaint spelling of it - I'd think it was the study of 'ands'
> > if it weren't for this context. I see that another quaint version is
> > 'aitiology'.
>
> > If I hadn't meant that I wouldn't have said 'can', would I?
>
> And?
>
I'm puzzled as to what you thought your comment added.
>
> >>> The differential aetiology leads to the continuum (using the term
> >>> loosely).
>
> >> How?
>
> > See the above article, but anything that has such differential
> > aetiology will not be binary.
>
> It all depends on how the trait is defined. (By
> "differential etiology" I assume you meant "multi-
> factorial etiology", rather than the usual meaning
> of "differential diagnosis".) For example,
> the trait defined as X-and-Y (where X and Y are
> binary traits with different etiology) can be
> defined as binary: either X-and-Y or not-(X-and-Y).
>
Yes, multifactorial. If X and Y have different aetiology, then you
have the cases:
X + Y | ~X + Y | X + ~Y | ~X + ~Y
That is, from two binary traits, you get 4 possible outcomes. When you
have multiple binary traits, you get more. Thus, with something like
left-handedness or homosexuality, that's based on quite a few traits,
not all of them binary, you end up with many possible outcomes - what
I called a loose continuum.
>
> > It's a matter of simple observation that
> > some people are very strongly left-handed, some are ambidextrous and
> > most lie somewhere in between perhaps kicking and fishing sinistrally,
> > but doing everything else dextrally. The Kerrs are an unusual case of
> > strongly heritable left-handedness.
>
> This does not explain "how".
>
It wasn't supposed to, but what 'how' are you wanting explained? If
you look at the wikipaedia article that I posted, you'll see most of
what I've mentioned discussed, quite well and simply.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sep 8, 2012, 1:12:57 AM9/8/12
to
wol...@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) writes:
> In article <aavsto...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> ["could/should/would of"]
>>Nevertheless, I am sure the professional linguists will say these people
>>are following definite rules and their dialect must not be labelled
>>uneducated or wrong.
>
> I am sure the professional linguists will, in the main, say that these
> people are using a form that may be permitted in their dialect, but is
> not accepted in Standard Written English.
And which, due to social perceptions and stereotypes of the groups
> In article <aavsto...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> ["could/should/would of"]
>>Nevertheless, I am sure the professional linguists will say these people
>>are following definite rules and their dialect must not be labelled
>>uneducated or wrong.
>
> I am sure the professional linguists will, in the main, say that these
> people are using a form that may be permitted in their dialect, but is
> not accepted in Standard Written English.
that use such dialects, may cause others to judge them to be
uneducated.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |You may hate gravity, but gravity
SF Bay Area (1982-) |doesn't care.
Chicago (1964-1982) | Clayton Christensen
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sep 8, 2012, 1:22:17 AM9/8/12
to
The California USC are the Trojans, the Carolina USC are the
Gamecocks. A friend from South Carolina told me that when the
Southern California went out to South Carolina for a football game,
people brought signs that read "No little Trojans can hold our
Cocks".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The law of supply and demand tells us
SF Bay Area (1982-) |that when the price of something is
Chicago (1964-1982) |artificially set below market level,
|there will soon be none of that thing
evan.kir...@gmail.com |left--as you may have noticed the
|last time you tried to buy something
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |for nothing.
| P.J. O'Rourke
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 1:28:07 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 8, 12:01 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sep 7, 6:59 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > and, despite E.O.Wilson's most enjoyable recent book, that's a
> >> > theory of Dodo-like liveliness.
>
> >> > It'd be an interesting mechanism that managed to evolve a useful
> >> > behaviour with no feedback.
>
> >> There is a feedback mechanism. If a non-reproducing person can
> >> increase the number of surviving children his siblings have (in the
> >> aggregate) by, on average, slightly more than twice the number he'd be
> >> likely to have by reproducing, it's to the advantage of the gene for a
> >> tendency for such behavior, since half his siblings are likely to also
> >> carry that gene.
>
> > Yes, that's true. There is some evidence for this being part of the
> > mechanism too. Though it may contribute, it isn't a strong enough
> > effect to be the sole reason - not being eusocial insects, homosexual
> > uncles don't all, always contribute to improved survival for their
> > siblings.
>
> They don't have to always do so, just on average. And often enough to
> result in a particular evolutionarily stable level.
>
Rather more than 'on average' with such an indirect effect!
It's far more likely to be similar to the case of nipples. They exist,
on men, as, from an evolutionary point of view, useless appendages.
However they have great value, of course, on women, both for feeding
children and as a sexual lure for chaps who are into them, both of
which make them very likely to be evolutionarily stable. Male nipples
don't have a sufficient negative effect, so they remain, a side-effect
of the useful female ones that, presumably, makes the embryonic
development code less complicated than it would need to be to suppress
the male development completely. Similarly, if the characteristics
that, when fully expressed, lead to somebody who is sterile, but, when
partially, or differently, expressed lead to somebody with a more than
usual fecundity, then these characteristics are likely to survive.
This is a more likely mechanism for homosexuality because it's a much
more reliable one. As I've said, and is pretty clearly the case, there
are a number of contributors to homosexuality, so there is no need to
establish, beyond doubt, that any particular one is entirely
responsible because it's likely that no single one is.
With males, the links between high levels of testosterone in the womb
and the development of homosexuality and/or left-handedness have been
known as strong for quite a long time. High levels of testosterone in
the womb are associated with either (or both) an environmental reason
(women under great stress, as, for example, German woman pregnant when
Germany was being bombed after WWII are likely to have elevated
testosterone levels) or a genetic one. Since most of the testosterone
that develops the male brain is produced by the testes, in utero, the
speed of their development and their size, both of which are largely
genetic, are going to have an influence on the brain development.
Since war has been pretty well endemic through human history, it's
possible that there is some evolutionary adaptation to boy babies born
after the most intense period of a war to be homosexual, or left
handed. This would be a trait that would pass down the maternal line
if valuable.
wrote:
> Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sep 7, 6:59 pm, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.bro...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> > and, despite E.O.Wilson's most enjoyable recent book, that's a
> >> > theory of Dodo-like liveliness.
>
> >> > It'd be an interesting mechanism that managed to evolve a useful
> >> > behaviour with no feedback.
>
> >> There is a feedback mechanism. If a non-reproducing person can
> >> increase the number of surviving children his siblings have (in the
> >> aggregate) by, on average, slightly more than twice the number he'd be
> >> likely to have by reproducing, it's to the advantage of the gene for a
> >> tendency for such behavior, since half his siblings are likely to also
> >> carry that gene.
>
> > Yes, that's true. There is some evidence for this being part of the
> > mechanism too. Though it may contribute, it isn't a strong enough
> > effect to be the sole reason - not being eusocial insects, homosexual
> > uncles don't all, always contribute to improved survival for their
> > siblings.
>
> They don't have to always do so, just on average. And often enough to
> result in a particular evolutionarily stable level.
>
Rather more than 'on average' with such an indirect effect!
It's far more likely to be similar to the case of nipples. They exist,
on men, as, from an evolutionary point of view, useless appendages.
However they have great value, of course, on women, both for feeding
children and as a sexual lure for chaps who are into them, both of
which make them very likely to be evolutionarily stable. Male nipples
don't have a sufficient negative effect, so they remain, a side-effect
of the useful female ones that, presumably, makes the embryonic
development code less complicated than it would need to be to suppress
the male development completely. Similarly, if the characteristics
that, when fully expressed, lead to somebody who is sterile, but, when
partially, or differently, expressed lead to somebody with a more than
usual fecundity, then these characteristics are likely to survive.
This is a more likely mechanism for homosexuality because it's a much
more reliable one. As I've said, and is pretty clearly the case, there
are a number of contributors to homosexuality, so there is no need to
establish, beyond doubt, that any particular one is entirely
responsible because it's likely that no single one is.
With males, the links between high levels of testosterone in the womb
and the development of homosexuality and/or left-handedness have been
known as strong for quite a long time. High levels of testosterone in
the womb are associated with either (or both) an environmental reason
(women under great stress, as, for example, German woman pregnant when
Germany was being bombed after WWII are likely to have elevated
testosterone levels) or a genetic one. Since most of the testosterone
that develops the male brain is produced by the testes, in utero, the
speed of their development and their size, both of which are largely
genetic, are going to have an influence on the brain development.
Since war has been pretty well endemic through human history, it's
possible that there is some evolutionary adaptation to boy babies born
after the most intense period of a war to be homosexual, or left
handed. This would be a trait that would pass down the maternal line
if valuable.
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 1:30:59 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 8, 12:40 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:02:08 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:03:57 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> ><guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>"tony cooper" wrote in message
> >>news:p6ig489e6ms88cobg...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:33:47 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> >>> <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> > I'm surprised that no one has decided that the use of the word "lesbian"
> >>> > to
> >>> > describe gay women is racially offensive.
>
> >>> Well, cross-post to sci.lang and you might end your surprise.
>
> >>No thanks! As far as I'm concerned sci.lang does not exist at the moment.
> >>You know, like the Olympics didn't happen in 1980 :-)
>
> >Well, let's not miss an opportunity to take offence on somebody else's
> >behalf. Keeping it in the a.u.e. family, I say that using a lower-case
> >initial for people from Lesbos is a clear case of ethnic or cultural
> >discrimination.
>
> UK context: Lesbos > lesbians; Asbos > absians ?
>
They've moved so quickly to acronym? They must be more common than I
realised.
wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:02:08 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:03:57 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> ><guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>"tony cooper" wrote in message
> >>news:p6ig489e6ms88cobg...@4ax.com...
>
> >>> On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:33:47 +0100, "Guy Barry"
> >>> <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>> > I'm surprised that no one has decided that the use of the word "lesbian"
> >>> > to
> >>> > describe gay women is racially offensive.
>
> >>> Well, cross-post to sci.lang and you might end your surprise.
>
> >>No thanks! As far as I'm concerned sci.lang does not exist at the moment.
> >>You know, like the Olympics didn't happen in 1980 :-)
>
> >Well, let's not miss an opportunity to take offence on somebody else's
> >behalf. Keeping it in the a.u.e. family, I say that using a lower-case
> >initial for people from Lesbos is a clear case of ethnic or cultural
> >discrimination.
>
> UK context: Lesbos > lesbians; Asbos > absians ?
>
They've moved so quickly to acronym? They must be more common than I
realised.
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 1:32:56 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 8, 1:01 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <r4qdlah8....@gmail.com>
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that a lot of natural selection is mate selection
> > rather than selection due to death, and there doesn't seem to be any
> > reason to believe that those pressures are any less strong than
> > they've ever been.
>
> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
>
It's interesting how it's adapted as the economic role of women is
changing - there's an article in this week's Spectator on the subject.
With rather a nice adaptation of Rosy the Riveter illustrating it.
> In message <r4qdlah8....@gmail.com>
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not to mention that a lot of natural selection is mate selection
> > rather than selection due to death, and there doesn't seem to be any
> > reason to believe that those pressures are any less strong than
> > they've ever been.
>
> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
>
It's interesting how it's adapted as the economic role of women is
changing - there's an article in this week's Spectator on the subject.
With rather a nice adaptation of Rosy the Riveter illustrating it.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sep 8, 2012, 1:38:01 AM9/8/12
to
> On Sep 7, 7:02 pm, Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> >>> (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> >>>>> Lewis wrote:
>
>> >>>>>> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>>
>> >>>>> Klavan (or Klavin)
>>
>> >>>> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>>
>> >>> Looks like you never watched it.
>>
>> >>> John Ratzenberger played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>>
>> >> QED.
>>
>> > Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
>> > supposed to be spelled.
>>
>> First, you make certain logical assumptions. Then, when someone writes
>> something that does not seem right, you check the IMDb.
>
> IMDB did not exist during the show's run. I know perfectly well what
> Cliff's last name was -- i.e., not Clayburn --; there is no way of
> knowing what was spelled in the scripts for such an unusual name.
Absolutely none. Nobody who saw the scripts could possibly have told
anybody, and the studio would never have printed the name in any press
releases. The fact that the _NY Times_ spelled it "Clavin" was just a
guess.
> Ditto, even, for Norm Peterse/on.
Their guess on that one was "Peterson", which, strangely, also agrees
with IMDb.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The purpose of writing is to inflate
SF Bay Area (1982-) |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Chicago (1964-1982) |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
evan.kir...@gmail.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
| Calvin
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> >>> (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
>> >>>>> Lewis wrote:
>
>> >>>>>> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>>
>> >>>>> Klavan (or Klavin)
>>
>> >>>> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>>
>> >>> Looks like you never watched it.
>>
>> >>> John Ratzenberger played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>>
>> >> QED.
>>
>> > Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
>> > supposed to be spelled.
>>
>> First, you make certain logical assumptions. Then, when someone writes
>> something that does not seem right, you check the IMDb.
>
> IMDB did not exist during the show's run. I know perfectly well what
> Cliff's last name was -- i.e., not Clayburn --; there is no way of
> knowing what was spelled in the scripts for such an unusual name.
Absolutely none. Nobody who saw the scripts could possibly have told
anybody, and the studio would never have printed the name in any press
releases. The fact that the _NY Times_ spelled it "Clavin" was just a
guess.
> Ditto, even, for Norm Peterse/on.
Their guess on that one was "Peterson", which, strangely, also agrees
with IMDb.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The purpose of writing is to inflate
SF Bay Area (1982-) |weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning,
Chicago (1964-1982) |and inhibit clarity. With a little
|practice, writing can be an
evan.kir...@gmail.com |intimidating and impenetrable fog!
| Calvin
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sep 8, 2012, 1:50:31 AM9/8/12
to
the extent that San Jose State is the "main campus" for the Cal State
system, it's 51 miles from there to Berkely.
If you don't limit it to main campuses, UCSF and SFSU are 4 miles
apart by road, 3 as the crow flies.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |People think it must be fun to be a
SF Bay Area (1982-) |super genius, but they don't
Chicago (1964-1982) |realize how hard it is to put up
|with all the idiots in the world.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Calvin
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 2:21:57 AM9/8/12
to
"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
news:ghnk48ltippdflt3f...@4ax.com...
> I can only assume some of the "of"-sayers do it because they are copying
> others. Some may assume that the sound of "'ve" in "could've" is simply
> an indistinct form of "of", and that therefore saying a clear "of" is
> better and less "lazy".
thinking of?" and similar sentences where "of" is sentence-final. The
pronunciation with a clear "o" is much commoner when "he could of" stands
alone than in sentences like "he could of done it".
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 2:32:39 AM9/8/12
to
[a.u.e only]
"tony cooper" wrote in message
news:grqk489ec2ph2ks6a...@4ax.com...
> Thinking about this, it
> seems I have no friends who are Masons, either.
That's someone you presumably *wouldn't* know about, though.
--
Guy Barry
"tony cooper" wrote in message
> Thinking about this, it
> seems I have no friends who are Masons, either.
That's someone you presumably *wouldn't* know about, though.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 2:36:46 AM9/8/12
to
"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
> UK context: Lesbos > lesbians; Asbos > absians ?
Asbos are going to be abolished and replaced by something called "Criminal
Behaviour Orders":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18155579
I've already heard them referred to as "Crimbos".
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 2:39:14 AM9/8/12
to
[a.u.e only]
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk4kv5p....@mbp55.local...
> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
How can that possibly be the case, when humans were selecting mates
thousands of years before money was invented?
--
Guy Barry
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk4kv5p....@mbp55.local...
> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
thousands of years before money was invented?
--
Guy Barry
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 2:48:25 AM9/8/12
to
> "Lewis" wrote in messagenews:slrnk4kv5p....@mbp55.local...
> > And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
>
> How can that possibly be the case, when humans were selecting mates
> thousands of years before money was invented?
>
You don't need money to have an economy.
>
> How can that possibly be the case, when humans were selecting mates
> thousands of years before money was invented?
>
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 3:06:55 AM9/8/12
to
"Jerry Friedman" wrote in message
news:b766a55b-4379-40c8...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 5, 3:38 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
...
> > I made an observation that the US media might take more
> > notice of the Paralympics if the US were top of the medal table, but
> > that's
> > just speculation on my part.
...
> The Chess Olympiad is going on now. Yet oddly enough, I think most of
> the U.S. media have been silent on the American team's upset victory
> over Russia yesterday, not to mention our loss to China earlier
> today. This isn't intended to make any points about what the American
> media cover, since they don't cover chess much no matter what
> happens. (I suppose they would if an American were in contention for
> the World Championship, which doesn't look likely any time soon.)
When Nigel Short challenged Garry Kasparov for the world title in 1993 there
was considerable media interest in this country. There was even an hour's
live coverage each day on Channel 4, which was one of the oddest live
broadcasts I've ever watched. Mostly it consisted of studio "experts"
looking at a diagram of the board and speculating about what the players
might be thinking. On one occasion one of them was reduced to talking about
the colour of Nigel Short's shirt.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 3:25:06 AM9/8/12
to
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:aavqh5...@mid.individual.net...
> I find the vowel names a little odd. It is true that a, e, i, o, u can be
> pronounced like their names, but I wouldn't think of those as being the
> "normal" pronunciation.
Well it's certainly not an abnormal pronunciation. In the above quote
you've used the words "I", "find", "names", "be", "like" and "those", all of
which are common everyday words. I wouldn't like to say whether the "short"
or "long" pronunciation is commoner in general. The commonest pronunciation
of any English vowel is almost certainly schwa, but that wouldn't be much
use as a name!
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 3:28:04 AM9/8/12
to
[a.u.e only]
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
news:aavt9e...@mid.individual.net...
> There could be a PhD in this. Have you applied for an Arts Council grant?
I didn't think the Arts Council funded PhDs. (Well not ours anyway.)
--
Guy Barry
"Robert Bannister" wrote in message
> There could be a PhD in this. Have you applied for an Arts Council grant?
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 3:29:32 AM9/8/12
to
"Garrett Wollman" wrote in message
news:k2ei36$133u$1...@grapevine.csail.mit.edu...
> In article <aavsto...@mid.individual.net>,
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> ["could/should/would of"]
> >Nevertheless, I am sure the professional linguists will say these people
> >are following definite rules and their dialect must not be labelled
> >uneducated or wrong.
> I am sure the professional linguists will, in the main, say that these
> people are using a form that may be permitted in their dialect, but is
> not accepted in Standard Written English.
--
Guy Barry
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 3:33:32 AM9/8/12
to
"Peter Brooks" wrote in message
news:19062dc2-16dd-41d8...@d9g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
by the Labour government in 1998. You're almost behind the times - this
government is going to abolish them!
--
Guy Barry
R H Draney
Sep 8, 2012, 3:54:32 AM9/8/12
to
Peter Brooks filted:
>
>I visited nightclubs quite a bit with another homosexual friend,
>trying to fathom whether there was any pleasure to be found in the
>activity apart from the prospect of picking people up. I discovered
>that there wasn't, but, given how much some people were keen on the
>activity, I had to go quite a few times to be certain that there
>wasn't something about the experience that I was missing.
I'm surprised that you didn't stick around long enough to discover that they
often get the best bands....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>I visited nightclubs quite a bit with another homosexual friend,
>trying to fathom whether there was any pleasure to be found in the
>activity apart from the prospect of picking people up. I discovered
>that there wasn't, but, given how much some people were keen on the
>activity, I had to go quite a few times to be certain that there
>wasn't something about the experience that I was missing.
I'm surprised that you didn't stick around long enough to discover that they
often get the best bands....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
Sep 8, 2012, 3:59:41 AM9/8/12
to
Peter T. Daniels filted:
>
>On Sep 7, 5:33=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> In article
>> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
>r
>>
>> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Sep 6, 3:52=3DA0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >On Sep 5, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> =
>wrote=3D
That's how I knew that the transsexual beauty contestant on an episode of "Xena:
Warrior Princess" was supposed to be "Miss Artiphys"...had the writers thought
about it, they would have realized that most viewers would naturally hear her
name as "Miss Artifice" and spoil what they intended as a surprise....r
>
>On Sep 7, 5:33=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> In article
>> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
>r
>>
>> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Sep 6, 3:52=3DA0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> >> In article
>> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >On Sep 5, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>>
>> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>>
>> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>>
>> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>>
>> >Looks like you never watched it.
>>
>> >John Ratzenberter played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>>
>> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>>
>> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>>
>> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>>
>> >Looks like you never watched it.
>>
>>
>> QED.
>
>Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
>supposed to be spelled.
Closed-captioning....
>> QED.
>
>Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
>supposed to be spelled.
That's how I knew that the transsexual beauty contestant on an episode of "Xena:
Warrior Princess" was supposed to be "Miss Artiphys"...had the writers thought
about it, they would have realized that most viewers would naturally hear her
name as "Miss Artifice" and spoil what they intended as a surprise....r
Hans Aberg
Sep 8, 2012, 4:06:27 AM9/8/12
to
On 2012/09/08 00:30, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> writes:
>
> Not in Alaska. Most of the Inuit live in Canada and Greenland, and
> most of the Eskimos in Canada and Greenland are Inuit. Those in
> Alaska are primarily Yup'ik and, to a lesser extent, Inupiat.
In Alaska, Yupik and Inuit populations are about equal, WP says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yupik_peoples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit
The Inupiat population is about one half of each these two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inupiat_people
> Hans Aberg <haber...@telia.com> writes:
>
>> On 2012/09/07 19:15, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 6/09/12 5:22 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Or, without stick, Eskimo Pie.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly because those brand name eatables are not sold in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm only surprised the "Eskimo" hasn't been changed to "Inuit".
>>>
>>> It's American. Our Eskimos, mostly, aren't Inuit.
>>
>> Yupik is a much smaller group.
>> On 2012/09/07 19:15, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 6/09/12 5:22 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 21:17:29 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> (Or, without stick, Eskimo Pie.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly because those brand name eatables are not sold in the UK.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm only surprised the "Eskimo" hasn't been changed to "Inuit".
>>>
>>> It's American. Our Eskimos, mostly, aren't Inuit.
>>
>
> Not in Alaska. Most of the Inuit live in Canada and Greenland, and
> most of the Eskimos in Canada and Greenland are Inuit. Those in
> Alaska are primarily Yup'ik and, to a lesser extent, Inupiat.
In Alaska, Yupik and Inuit populations are about equal, WP says:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yupik_peoples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit
The Inupiat population is about one half of each these two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inupiat_people
R H Draney
Sep 8, 2012, 4:25:06 AM9/8/12
to
Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>
>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> Lewis filted:
>>>
>>>In message <k2dlq...@drn.newsguy.com>
>> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Some years ago I thought of collecting all the tunes associated with ice-cream
>>>> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>>
>> I'm imagining something in this vein:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb-29YlZuqY
>
>Or
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGVXLNQ3dY
>
>And, of course, there's always his "Eine Kleine Nichtmusik"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_j6yU4Whg
>
>(To see how well you did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAMB01JK5pY )
I could never claim that Professor Schickele wasn't a further influence...others
were Dudley Moore ("And The Same To You" from "Beyond the Fringe") and Henry
Mancini's march for "The Great Race":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l3hq4G1iHs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaDqPABHi-c
(I'm not going to try to account for the visuals on that last one)....r
>
>R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> writes:
>
>> Lewis filted:
>>>
>>>In message <k2dlq...@drn.newsguy.com>
>> R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Some years ago I thought of collecting all the tunes associated with ice-cream
>>>> trucks and working them into a quodlibet....r
>>
>> I'm imagining something in this vein:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb-29YlZuqY
>
>Or
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGVXLNQ3dY
>
>And, of course, there's always his "Eine Kleine Nichtmusik"
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_j6yU4Whg
>
>(To see how well you did: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAMB01JK5pY )
I could never claim that Professor Schickele wasn't a further influence...others
were Dudley Moore ("And The Same To You" from "Beyond the Fringe") and Henry
Mancini's march for "The Great Race":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l3hq4G1iHs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaDqPABHi-c
(I'm not going to try to account for the visuals on that last one)....r
R H Draney
Sep 8, 2012, 4:32:02 AM9/8/12
to
Charles Bishop filted:
>
>In article <k2b5c...@drn.newsguy.com>, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Charles Bishop filted:
>>>
>>>There was a Sidewalk Sundae that was ice cream of the gods when I were a
>>>lad. There was also the, can't rembember the name, but a scoop of ice
>>>cream on a "waffle" cone. The scoop was covered in chocolate, with nuts on
>>>the chocolate.
>>
>>That'd be your basic "Nutty Buddy"....r
>
>I was thinking of "drumstick" as a poster informed me.
We had both, and distant memory tells me they were indistinguishable to the
eye...the waffle cone for the Drumstick tasted "darker", although that may have
just meant we were getting stale ones....r
>
>In article <k2b5c...@drn.newsguy.com>, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Charles Bishop filted:
>>>
>>>There was a Sidewalk Sundae that was ice cream of the gods when I were a
>>>lad. There was also the, can't rembember the name, but a scoop of ice
>>>cream on a "waffle" cone. The scoop was covered in chocolate, with nuts on
>>>the chocolate.
>>
>>That'd be your basic "Nutty Buddy"....r
>
>I was thinking of "drumstick" as a poster informed me.
We had both, and distant memory tells me they were indistinguishable to the
eye...the waffle cone for the Drumstick tasted "darker", although that may have
just meant we were getting stale ones....r
R H Draney
Sep 8, 2012, 4:37:23 AM9/8/12
to
Guy Barry filted:
And of course, the word "schwa" doesn't contain one....r
PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Sep 8, 2012, 5:46:59 AM9/8/12
to
- would you agree?
It's also got a rather abnormal name.
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 8, 2012, 5:59:52 AM9/8/12
to
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:17:53 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 7/09/12 9:11 PM, Ant�nio Marques wrote:
>
>> I just don't see where Mr Bannister is comming from. Priests (catholic,
>> anglican, orthodox) tend to have certain attributes which are not
>> necessarily the same (and often aren't the same) as those of the
>> officials of non-episcopal churches. A certain set of attributes says
>> 'priest', another says 'minister', 'elder', 'rabbi', 'imam', 'guru'.
>
>So you don't see any similarity in their role? Interesting that you used
>"Anglican priest".
"Priest" is the official term used in the Church of England. CofE
priests have job titles in accordance with the positions they are in. A
very common one is "Vicar". A priest who is an assistant to a vicar
could be a "Curate".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 7/09/12 9:11 PM, Ant�nio Marques wrote:
>
>> I just don't see where Mr Bannister is comming from. Priests (catholic,
>> anglican, orthodox) tend to have certain attributes which are not
>> necessarily the same (and often aren't the same) as those of the
>> officials of non-episcopal churches. A certain set of attributes says
>> 'priest', another says 'minister', 'elder', 'rabbi', 'imam', 'guru'.
>
>So you don't see any similarity in their role? Interesting that you used
>"Anglican priest".
"Priest" is the official term used in the Church of England. CofE
priests have job titles in accordance with the positions they are in. A
very common one is "Vicar". A priest who is an assistant to a vicar
could be a "Curate".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Sep 8, 2012, 6:03:46 AM9/8/12
to
On 08-Sep-12 12:28 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <slrnk4iver....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <ctbishop-060...@global-66-81-252-88.dialup.o1.com>
>> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> In article <4nnccl...@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>>> In article <pq60cu...@gmail.com>,
>>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or "My two favorite teams are Stanford and whoever's playing Cal"
>>>>>> (adapt as needed).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always found it somewhat confusing that the university I know as
>>>>> "Berkeley" or "UCB" is referred to as "Cal" by the sports people.
>>>>
>>>> Not just sports people. It's pretty much universally "Cal" around
>>>> here, even to people who go there and teach there. As the first UC
>>>> campus, it gets pride of place, so "[University of] California"
>>>> unambiguously refers to Berkeley.
>>
>>> For everybody, or just those in the neighborhood?
>>
>> At least for everybody in the US who ever follows college sports. Cal is
>> UC Berkeley, and only Berkeley. There may be several schools whose
>> initials are MIT, but MIT is always the one in Cambridge, MA.
> In article <slrnk4iver....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <ctbishop-060...@global-66-81-252-88.dialup.o1.com>
>> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> In article <4nnccl...@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>>> In article <pq60cu...@gmail.com>,
>>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or "My two favorite teams are Stanford and whoever's playing Cal"
>>>>>> (adapt as needed).
>>>>>
>>>>> I've always found it somewhat confusing that the university I know as
>>>>> "Berkeley" or "UCB" is referred to as "Cal" by the sports people.
>>>>
>>>> Not just sports people. It's pretty much universally "Cal" around
>>>> here, even to people who go there and teach there. As the first UC
>>>> campus, it gets pride of place, so "[University of] California"
>>>> unambiguously refers to Berkeley.
>>
>>> For everybody, or just those in the neighborhood?
>>
>> At least for everybody in the US who ever follows college sports. Cal is
>> UC Berkeley, and only Berkeley. There may be several schools whose
>> initials are MIT, but MIT is always the one in Cambridge, MA.
>
> I think I heard that USC (University of Southern California) got huffy
> with USC (University (Somethign) Conneticut. Turns out the one in
> Conneticut is older.
>
We have similar problems. UCL, for example.
> I think I heard that USC (University of Southern California) got huffy
> with USC (University (Somethign) Conneticut. Turns out the one in
> Conneticut is older.
>
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 6:04:44 AM9/8/12
to
"PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}" wrote in message
news:ab0igs...@mid.individual.net...
> Guy Barry wrote:
> > Well it's certainly not an abnormal pronunciation. In the above quote
> > you've used the words "I", "find", "names", "be", "like" and "those",
> > all of which are common everyday words. I wouldn't like to say whether
> > the "short" or "long" pronunciation is commoner in general. The
> > commonest pronunciation of any English vowel is almost certainly schwa,
> > but that wouldn't be much use as a name!
> Not quite. Y is often a vowel, but it's less often pronounced as a schwa -
> would you agree?
really only talking about the vowels that "say their names" - a, e, i, o, u.
(Actually I don't normally pronounce unstressed "i" as a schwa either,
though I know some people do.)
> It's also got a rather abnormal name.
--
Guy Barry
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 8, 2012, 6:06:20 AM9/8/12
to
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:36:46 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>news:4utk48h5mrobreqf5...@4ax.com...
>
>> UK context: Lesbos > lesbians; Asbos > absians ?
>
>[typo for "asbians", presumably?]
>
Yes. My apologies for that anti-social behaviour.
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>"Peter Duncanson [BrE]" wrote in message
>news:4utk48h5mrobreqf5...@4ax.com...
>
>> UK context: Lesbos > lesbians; Asbos > absians ?
>
>[typo for "asbians", presumably?]
>
>Asbos are going to be abolished and replaced by something called "Criminal
>Behaviour Orders":
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18155579
>
>I've already heard them referred to as "Crimbos".
--
PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Sep 8, 2012, 6:34:37 AM9/8/12
to
schwa.
I may have heard satyr at school but I don't recall. I always thought
it was sat-err.
*I am lazy. If the context is clear, I don't bother with "s or 's (-:
CDB
Sep 8, 2012, 6:45:19 AM9/8/12
to
On 08/09/2012 4:37 AM, R H Draney wrote:
> Guy Barry filted:
> Guy Barry filted:
>> "Robert Bannister" wrote:
>>> I find the vowel names a little odd. It is true that a, e, i, o, u can be
>>> pronounced like their names, but I wouldn't think of those as being the
>>> "normal" pronunciation.
>> Well it's certainly not an abnormal pronunciation. In the above quote
>> you've used the words "I", "find", "names", "be", "like" and "those", all of
>> which are common everyday words. I wouldn't like to say whether the "short"
>> or "long" pronunciation is commoner in general. The commonest pronunciation
>> of any English vowel is almost certainly schwa, but that wouldn't be much
>> use as a name!
> And of course, the word "schwa" doesn't contain one....r
Maybe a little tiny one between the "sch" and the "wa".
>>> I find the vowel names a little odd. It is true that a, e, i, o, u can be
>>> pronounced like their names, but I wouldn't think of those as being the
>>> "normal" pronunciation.
>> Well it's certainly not an abnormal pronunciation. In the above quote
>> you've used the words "I", "find", "names", "be", "like" and "those", all of
>> which are common everyday words. I wouldn't like to say whether the "short"
>> or "long" pronunciation is commoner in general. The commonest pronunciation
>> of any English vowel is almost certainly schwa, but that wouldn't be much
>> use as a name!
> And of course, the word "schwa" doesn't contain one....r
CDB
Sep 8, 2012, 6:45:43 AM9/8/12
to
On 07/09/2012 11:41 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>> Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
[mixed doubles]
>>> The heterosexual male is likewise turned off by another man's body.
>>> Thus, a woman only make out scene is even more attractive to the
>>> average heterosexual male than a man-woman one.
>> Not that simple. If it were, a woman arousing herself would be just as
>> attractive as two women, but it's not.
>
> If I like X, one X would be just as good as two Xes?
No, one X appears to be the problem (see above). Here we are discussing
the difference between two Xs and four Xs.
> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>> Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx> wrote:
[mixed doubles]
>>> The heterosexual male is likewise turned off by another man's body.
>>> Thus, a woman only make out scene is even more attractive to the
>>> average heterosexual male than a man-woman one.
>> Not that simple. If it were, a woman arousing herself would be just as
>> attractive as two women, but it's not.
>
> If I like X, one X would be just as good as two Xes?
No, one X appears to be the problem (see above). Here we are discussing
the difference between two Xs and four Xs.
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 7:07:52 AM9/8/12
to
think that they'd been invented then. No live music at all.
I'd have enjoyed it much more if there had been live music, it might
not have been so horribly loud. I enjoyed sometimes, when living in
Bristol, going to jazz evenings at the Old Duke.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 8, 2012, 7:38:27 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 8, 1:38 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 7:02 pm, Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >> >>> (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >> something that does not seem right, you check the IMDb.
>
> > IMDB did not exist during the show's run. I know perfectly well what
> > Cliff's last name was -- i.e., not Clayburn --; there is no way of
> > knowing what was spelled in the scripts for such an unusual name.
>
> Absolutely none. Nobody who saw the scripts could possibly have told
> anybody, and the studio would never have printed the name in any press
> releases. The fact that the _NY Times_ spelled it "Clavin" was just a
> guess.
I realize that you have infinite time available to search the most
idiotic details of the most useless factoids. Other people don't, and/
or don't give a flying fuck about such things.
> > Ditto, even, for Norm Peterse/on.
>
> Their guess on that one was "Peterson", which, strangely, also agrees
> with IMDb.
wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> writes:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 7, 7:02 pm, Skitt <skit...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >> >>> (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >>>> "Peter T. Daniels" wrote:
> >> >>>>> Lewis wrote:
>
> >> >>>>>> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >> >>>>> Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >> >>>> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >> >>> Looks like you never watched it.
>
> >> >>> John Ratzenberger played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>
> >> >>>>>> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >> >>>>> Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >> >>>> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >> >>> Looks like you never watched it.
>
>
> >> >> QED.
>
> >> > Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> >> > supposed to be spelled.
>
> >> First, you make certain logical assumptions. Then, when someone writes
> >> >> QED.
>
> >> > Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> >> > supposed to be spelled.
>
> >> something that does not seem right, you check the IMDb.
>
> > IMDB did not exist during the show's run. I know perfectly well what
> > Cliff's last name was -- i.e., not Clayburn --; there is no way of
> > knowing what was spelled in the scripts for such an unusual name.
>
> Absolutely none. Nobody who saw the scripts could possibly have told
> anybody, and the studio would never have printed the name in any press
> releases. The fact that the _NY Times_ spelled it "Clavin" was just a
> guess.
I realize that you have infinite time available to search the most
idiotic details of the most useless factoids. Other people don't, and/
or don't give a flying fuck about such things.
> > Ditto, even, for Norm Peterse/on.
>
> Their guess on that one was "Peterson", which, strangely, also agrees
> with IMDb.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 8, 2012, 7:43:47 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 8, 3:59 am, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 7, 5:33=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
> >r
>
> >> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 6, 3:52=3DA0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Sep 5, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> =
> >wrote=3D
> >> >:
>
> >> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >> >Looks like you never watched it.
>
> >> >John Ratzenberter played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>
> >> QED.
>
> >Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> >supposed to be spelled.
>
> Closed-captioning....
Did that exist in 1982-1993? At what point did it become "built in" to
> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 7, 5:33=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
> >r
>
> >> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 6, 3:52=3DA0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Sep 5, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> =
> >wrote=3D
> >> >:
>
> >> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >> >Looks like you never watched it.
>
> >> >John Ratzenberter played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>
> >> QED.
>
> >Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> >supposed to be spelled.
>
> Closed-captioning....
TV shows, rather than made up on the fly the way live events are still
done? When did TV sets come with obiligatory closed captioning
display?
> That's how I knew that the transsexual beauty contestant on an episode of "Xena:
> Warrior Princess" was supposed to be "Miss Artiphys"...had the writers thought
> about it, they would have realized that most viewers would naturally hear her
> name as "Miss Artifice" and spoil what they intended as a surprise....r
"Artifice"? If you thought it was "Artifice," it would have been
because of a pattern of using English words as characters' names. Was
that how it worked? Seems like the most likely opportunity for
confusion would have been with "Artemis."
Peter Brooks
Sep 8, 2012, 7:51:40 AM9/8/12
to
don't give a flying fuck about facts is something that, to a solipsist
like yourself, will come as a surprise.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 8, 2012, 7:51:41 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 7, 11:15 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 7/09/12 12:17 PM, Lewis wrote:
>
> > In message <aat6k4Fip...@mid.individual.net>
> > Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> So, you seem to be saying there is no all-embracing word. I reject
> >> "religious leader" because with the larger organisations that have
> >> bishops and archbishops or even higher, it is not accurate. Coming from
> >> England originally, I suppose the word I knew was "vicar", but even as a
> >> boy, I was aware that not all priests were called vicars. I see it as a
> >> difference between "the priest" (RC or pagan) and "a priest" (could be
> >> any clergyman or woman. Perhaps "clergyperson" would be best if it
> >> weren't such an ugly word.
>
> > If you refer to a minister as a preist, you will almost certainly be
> > corrected, just as if you referred to a rabbi as a preist. It is simply
> > the wrong word.
>
> If I had to group rabbis, I would put them more with religious teachers
> or advisors than with priests, but I don't know enough about the duties
> of a rabbi. I thought "minister" was used only in Scotland, but I
> suppose if people would correct me then it shows that they understood
> what I meant by "priest". I am not at all sure that "minister" would be
> understood out of context - I am guessing that it used by one or two
> particular sects.
"Priest" is also the term for the US Episcopal church (of the Anglican
Communion) -- oddly, the full name is Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States, even though they kind-sorta think of themselves as
more Catholic than Protestant -- and "minister" is used by the United
Presbyterian Church and the other varieties of Presbyterian.
"Methodist minister" is also very common. Lutherans say "pastor."
> On 7/09/12 12:17 PM, Lewis wrote:
>
> > In message <aat6k4Fip...@mid.individual.net>
> > Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> So, you seem to be saying there is no all-embracing word. I reject
> >> "religious leader" because with the larger organisations that have
> >> bishops and archbishops or even higher, it is not accurate. Coming from
> >> England originally, I suppose the word I knew was "vicar", but even as a
> >> boy, I was aware that not all priests were called vicars. I see it as a
> >> difference between "the priest" (RC or pagan) and "a priest" (could be
> >> any clergyman or woman. Perhaps "clergyperson" would be best if it
> >> weren't such an ugly word.
>
> > If you refer to a minister as a preist, you will almost certainly be
> > corrected, just as if you referred to a rabbi as a preist. It is simply
> > the wrong word.
>
> If I had to group rabbis, I would put them more with religious teachers
> or advisors than with priests, but I don't know enough about the duties
> of a rabbi. I thought "minister" was used only in Scotland, but I
> suppose if people would correct me then it shows that they understood
> what I meant by "priest". I am not at all sure that "minister" would be
> understood out of context - I am guessing that it used by one or two
> particular sects.
"Priest" is also the term for the US Episcopal church (of the Anglican
Communion) -- oddly, the full name is Protestant Episcopal Church in
the United States, even though they kind-sorta think of themselves as
more Catholic than Protestant -- and "minister" is used by the United
Presbyterian Church and the other varieties of Presbyterian.
"Methodist minister" is also very common. Lutherans say "pastor."
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 8, 2012, 7:55:57 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 8, 1:51 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <c4ccec02-bfa5-48ad-9cc9-056b24377...@o19g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
> > On Sep 7, 7:13 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> In message <5c5f30ea-7481-4b66-8b2e-69ae2c90b...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
> >> > On Sep 7, 5:13 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> >> >> On 07/09/2012 1:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:> On 7 Sep 2012 01:29:25 -0700, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> tony cooper filted:
>
> >> >> >>> Catholics weren't supposed to get involved with "secret orders", but
> >> >> >>> for some reason regular fraternities weren't frowned on by Catholics.
>
> >> >> >> Wait, then what was all that DeMolay business?...r
>
> >> >> > I don't understand the question. I know what DeMolay is, their
> >> >> > connections with the Masonic Order, and was even somewhat involved
> >> >> > when a teenager. A friend was in DeMolay and I went to some meetings.
>
> >> >> Jacques de Molay was in charge of the Templars when a French king
> >> >> decided to solve his financial problems in a rather unusual fashion,
> >> >> involving the agonizing deaths of a lot of Templars for bizarre (and
> >> >> probably non-existent) crimes and the destruction of the entire order.
>
> >> >> This led to an unending stream of terrible books and conspiracy theories
> >> >> and apparently a modern group I'd never heard about until now.
> >> > That had nothing to do with the activities of the club for Masonic
> >> > boys that some of my friends at my Episcopal school were members of.
> >> > They got to march around in silly costumes just like their dads. And
> >> > for women (or women and girls?) it was the Order of the Eastern Star.
>
> >> Eastern Star was for women, Job's Daughters was for girls.
> > Cheryl Ann Sullivan's mother was Eastern Star, her father was a Mason,
> > and she had no such club to belong to.
>
> She may not have joined the club, but it certainly exists.
>
> <http://www.jobsdaughtersinternational.org/index.html>
Even today, they're not in New York (no "Jurisdiction"). No telling,
of course, what the situation was almost 50 years ago.
> <http://www.jobsdaughtersinternational.org/AboutUs/MasonicHeritage.htm>
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job%27s_Daughters>
> In message <c4ccec02-bfa5-48ad-9cc9-056b24377...@o19g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>
> > On Sep 7, 7:13 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> In message <5c5f30ea-7481-4b66-8b2e-69ae2c90b...@c9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
> >> > On Sep 7, 5:13 pm, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> >> >> On 07/09/2012 1:09 PM, tony cooper wrote:> On 7 Sep 2012 01:29:25 -0700, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> tony cooper filted:
>
> >> >> >>> Catholics weren't supposed to get involved with "secret orders", but
> >> >> >>> for some reason regular fraternities weren't frowned on by Catholics.
>
> >> >> >> Wait, then what was all that DeMolay business?...r
>
> >> >> > I don't understand the question. I know what DeMolay is, their
> >> >> > connections with the Masonic Order, and was even somewhat involved
> >> >> > when a teenager. A friend was in DeMolay and I went to some meetings.
>
> >> >> Jacques de Molay was in charge of the Templars when a French king
> >> >> decided to solve his financial problems in a rather unusual fashion,
> >> >> involving the agonizing deaths of a lot of Templars for bizarre (and
> >> >> probably non-existent) crimes and the destruction of the entire order.
>
> >> >> This led to an unending stream of terrible books and conspiracy theories
> >> >> and apparently a modern group I'd never heard about until now.
> >> > That had nothing to do with the activities of the club for Masonic
> >> > boys that some of my friends at my Episcopal school were members of.
> >> > They got to march around in silly costumes just like their dads. And
> >> > for women (or women and girls?) it was the Order of the Eastern Star.
>
> >> Eastern Star was for women, Job's Daughters was for girls.
> > Cheryl Ann Sullivan's mother was Eastern Star, her father was a Mason,
> > and she had no such club to belong to.
>
> She may not have joined the club, but it certainly exists.
>
> <http://www.jobsdaughtersinternational.org/index.html>
Even today, they're not in New York (no "Jurisdiction"). No telling,
of course, what the situation was almost 50 years ago.
> <http://www.jobsdaughtersinternational.org/AboutUs/MasonicHeritage.htm>
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job%27s_Daughters>
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 8, 2012, 8:00:23 AM9/8/12
to
On Sep 7, 11:38 pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> In article <ipbpn7a8....@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
> >> But a deeper mystery opened up. In Chicago, there is an ice cream
> >> flavor called variously "New York" and "New York Cherry." Naturally
> >> I bought a box of it the first time I saw it, to find out what was
> >> being ascribed to us, and I never tried it again. I don't know what
> >> was in it, and I don't know why anyone would think it was a flavor
> >> ice cream should have, and I certainly don't know why it was called
> >> "New York."
>
> >In a thread in AUE back in 2004 it was asserted that "New York" (which
> >I've never seen on its own) and "New York cherry" are actually two
> >different flavors, the latter being New York[1] with cherry pieces
> >added. Growing up, I just thought of it as being vanilla ice cream
> >with cherry pieces and assumed that that was what was called "cherry"
> >in New York, as opposed to our cherry ice cream, which was made with
> >cherry juice and so was purplish pink. Cherry ice cream with cerry
> >pieces was "Burgundy cherry".
>
> >[1] "A variety of vanilla--stronger and more cream-colored than most,
> > yet not as rich in color or flavor as French vanilla."
>
> One of the major decisions of childhood was whether to go into Baskin
> Robbins and get a single scoop for 10¢ or to Sav-On and get a double scoop
> for 5¢. Burgandy Cherry was a favorite.
Was Baskin Robbins more than 4 times better than Sav-On?
> In article <ipbpn7a8....@gmail.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
> >> But a deeper mystery opened up. In Chicago, there is an ice cream
> >> flavor called variously "New York" and "New York Cherry." Naturally
> >> I bought a box of it the first time I saw it, to find out what was
> >> being ascribed to us, and I never tried it again. I don't know what
> >> was in it, and I don't know why anyone would think it was a flavor
> >> ice cream should have, and I certainly don't know why it was called
> >> "New York."
>
> >In a thread in AUE back in 2004 it was asserted that "New York" (which
> >I've never seen on its own) and "New York cherry" are actually two
> >different flavors, the latter being New York[1] with cherry pieces
> >added. Growing up, I just thought of it as being vanilla ice cream
> >with cherry pieces and assumed that that was what was called "cherry"
> >in New York, as opposed to our cherry ice cream, which was made with
> >cherry juice and so was purplish pink. Cherry ice cream with cerry
> >pieces was "Burgundy cherry".
>
> >[1] "A variety of vanilla--stronger and more cream-colored than most,
> > yet not as rich in color or flavor as French vanilla."
>
> One of the major decisions of childhood was whether to go into Baskin
> Robbins and get a single scoop for 10¢ or to Sav-On and get a double scoop
> for 5¢. Burgandy Cherry was a favorite.
Was Baskin Robbins more than 4 times better than Sav-On?
Trond Engen
Sep 8, 2012, 8:33:32 AM9/8/12
to
Peter T. Daniels:
> Robert Bannister:
>
>> Lewis:
>>
>>> Robert Bannister:
Here, in the northwestern parts of Lutherania proper, pastor is no
longer used by the Church. Well, I think it's common for parish priest
in Sweden, but in Norway the title is 'sogneprest'. His assistant is a
'kapellan'. Between the bishops and the parish priests there's an
intermediate level, 'prosti', led by a 'prost'. I think a 'prost' is
first among equals, with no principal ot liturgical distinction from
regular priests.
'Pastor' is used by certain other churches, though. I think some of the
low-church Lutheran congregations ('Frikirke' "Free Church") may use it,
and I know it's used by the Penticostals.
--
Trond Engen
> Robert Bannister:
>
>> Lewis:
>>
>>> Robert Bannister:
longer used by the Church. Well, I think it's common for parish priest
in Sweden, but in Norway the title is 'sogneprest'. His assistant is a
'kapellan'. Between the bishops and the parish priests there's an
intermediate level, 'prosti', led by a 'prost'. I think a 'prost' is
first among equals, with no principal ot liturgical distinction from
regular priests.
'Pastor' is used by certain other churches, though. I think some of the
low-church Lutheran congregations ('Frikirke' "Free Church") may use it,
and I know it's used by the Penticostals.
--
Trond Engen
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 8, 2012, 8:38:21 AM9/8/12
to
>It's also got a rather abnormal name.
tony cooper
Sep 8, 2012, 9:20:45 AM9/8/12
to
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:32:39 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>[a.u.e only]
>
>"tony cooper" wrote in message
>news:grqk489ec2ph2ks6a...@4ax.com...
>
>> Thinking about this, it
>> seems I have no friends who are Masons, either.
>
>That's someone you presumably *wouldn't* know about, though.
Masons are more easily identified than gays. Many US Masons wear a
Masonic ring. http://tinyurl.com/8n2kuv7 Many, when wearing a
suit, have a lapel pin with the Masonic device.
I've yet to see a Rainbow ring.
In some parts of the world, at one time, Masonic membership was
supposed to be a secret. Not here, not now.
And, of course, there are the Shriners (part of Masonry). No parade
is complete without Shriners dressed as clowns, Shriners riding
motorcycles, and Shriners in or on other vehicles. It's difficult to
keep your identity secret when you are stuffed in a toy car and
wearing an inverted felt bucket on your head.
http://tinyurl.com/8peys3a
The Shriners here in Orlando are mourning. Their camel, a fixture at
parades here, has retired from active duty. Sir Gus is now in a zoo.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>[a.u.e only]
>
>"tony cooper" wrote in message
>news:grqk489ec2ph2ks6a...@4ax.com...
>
>> Thinking about this, it
>> seems I have no friends who are Masons, either.
>
>That's someone you presumably *wouldn't* know about, though.
Masons are more easily identified than gays. Many US Masons wear a
Masonic ring. http://tinyurl.com/8n2kuv7 Many, when wearing a
suit, have a lapel pin with the Masonic device.
I've yet to see a Rainbow ring.
In some parts of the world, at one time, Masonic membership was
supposed to be a secret. Not here, not now.
And, of course, there are the Shriners (part of Masonry). No parade
is complete without Shriners dressed as clowns, Shriners riding
motorcycles, and Shriners in or on other vehicles. It's difficult to
keep your identity secret when you are stuffed in a toy car and
wearing an inverted felt bucket on your head.
http://tinyurl.com/8peys3a
The Shriners here in Orlando are mourning. Their camel, a fixture at
parades here, has retired from active duty. Sir Gus is now in a zoo.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
tony cooper
Sep 8, 2012, 9:26:55 AM9/8/12
to
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:39:14 +0100, "Guy Barry"
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>[a.u.e only]
>
>"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk4kv5p....@mbp55.local...
>
>> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
>
>How can that possibly be the case, when humans were selecting mates
>thousands of years before money was invented?
Mate selection by females based on the ability of the male to provide.
A mate who "brings home the bacon" need not be bringing home money or
meat. What he brings home must be sufficient to provide for his mate
in whatever form of providing is in place at the time.
<guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>[a.u.e only]
>
>"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk4kv5p....@mbp55.local...
>
>> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
>
>How can that possibly be the case, when humans were selecting mates
>thousands of years before money was invented?
Mate selection by females based on the ability of the male to provide.
A mate who "brings home the bacon" need not be bringing home money or
meat. What he brings home must be sufficient to provide for his mate
in whatever form of providing is in place at the time.
John Karl
Sep 8, 2012, 10:00:46 AM9/8/12
to
not just once, multiple times. Actually, they don't enter the fray,
they initiate it, then stand their ground in the face of overwhelming
evidence contrary to their position.
Does that remind you of anyone?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Cheryl
Sep 8, 2012, 10:39:48 AM9/8/12
to
home the bacon because she can do it herself, with or without government
assistance when she has small children.
Of course, it's MUCH too early to see any effect that this might have on
human evolution.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
Sep 8, 2012, 10:43:48 AM9/8/12
to
'priest' unless they're reading directly from the Book of Common Prayer.
The term is 'Minister'.
I've never heard 'Vicar' or 'Curate' used in Canada, but that doesn't
mean the terms couldn't be used, just as you'll sometimes find parishes
where the person in charge is routinely referred to as a priest. There's
a lot of variation in terminology.
--
Cheryl
James Silverton
Sep 8, 2012, 10:54:04 AM9/8/12
to
of a parish in the US but not as a title; "Father Brown" not "Pastor
Brown". However, it seems to me that "Pastor" would be a good compromise
title for priests of either sex; "Come it will for a' that", even it is
a slightly changed meaning for Robert Burns line.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
Cheryl
Sep 8, 2012, 10:54:45 AM9/8/12
to
On 07/09/2012 12:35 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> So, you seem to be saying there is no all-embracing word. I reject
> "religious leader" because with the larger organisations that have
> bishops and archbishops or even higher, it is not accurate. Coming from
> England originally, I suppose the word I knew was "vicar", but even as a
> boy, I was aware that not all priests were called vicars. I see it as a
> difference between "the priest" (RC or pagan) and "a priest" (could be
> any clergyman or woman. Perhaps "clergyperson" would be best if it
> weren't such an ugly word.
>
I don't think there is an all-embracing word for 'religious leader at
>
> So, you seem to be saying there is no all-embracing word. I reject
> "religious leader" because with the larger organisations that have
> bishops and archbishops or even higher, it is not accurate. Coming from
> England originally, I suppose the word I knew was "vicar", but even as a
> boy, I was aware that not all priests were called vicars. I see it as a
> difference between "the priest" (RC or pagan) and "a priest" (could be
> any clergyman or woman. Perhaps "clergyperson" would be best if it
> weren't such an ugly word.
>
the parish/ church/ smallest organizational unit level.
Many of the members at the Anglican church I go to now use 'priest' -
but not all, and that usage struck me as extremely unusual originally.
I'd never refer to someone in, say, the United Church of Canada
(Presbyterian, Congregationalist and a couple more I forget) as a
priest, I'd say 'minister'. Mostly, I say 'minister' for Protestant
groups and 'priest' for Catholic or Orthodox ones, although I know some
groups originating in the US, and Pentecostals tend to prefer 'pastor'.
I'm not sure what Baptists prefer. Jews and Muslims have rabbis and
imams respectively, although the roles are a bit different than that of
priests. Hindus have priests.
I can't think of anything universal, though.
On a related note - when there was all that debate about female Anglican
priests/ministers etc in Canada years ago, one argument against the
innovations was that they'd be called 'priestesses'. I didn't understand
the complaint at first, but finally decided that the term must have far
too many connotations from pagan priestesses who go around naked in the
old movies.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
Sep 8, 2012, 10:59:27 AM9/8/12
to
On 07/09/2012 11:47 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sep 7, 7:05 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <72caaf96-4bdd-4f24-8721-04f39468d...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
>>> On Sep 7, 3:30 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> One male was described by my mother as very forward and the type to
>>>> try to "get in a woman's underwear". My mother wasn't good at modern
>>>> slang terms, so I pointed out that the phrase is "get in a woman's
>>>> pants".
>>> "A girl's," surely. "Panties," surely. (Unless you're a crypto-Brit.)
>>
>> No. THe phrase is "Get in a woman's pants" (though I suspect "girl's" is
>> about the same frequency now.
>>
>>>> The first time I met him, as he approached the table, my mother leaned
>>>> over and whispered "That's Charlie. He's safe". The idea of my
>>>> mother, at her advanced age, being reassured because a man was "safe"
>>>> just broke me up. A couple of other men walked by the table, and I
>>>> asked my mother of each "Is he safe?". This earned frowns and that
>>>> disapproving lip purse; it wasn't a joking matter.
>>> I would take "He's safe" as 'Even though he's effeminate, he's not gay
>>> and won't be hitting on you'.
>>
>> You would be entirely wrong.
>
> Really? Did you keep your mother in the same old folks' home as tony?
>
I know lots of octogenarians, and based on my knowledge about the kind
of language the female ones use about men and sex, I agree with Tony's
interpretation - a 'safe' male friend for a female is one who might fake
a flirtation charmingly and amusingly, but who would never try to take
unwanted advantage because he's gay.
Actually, I'm not sure that that usage is limited to octogenarians.
--
Cheryl
> On Sep 7, 7:05 pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> In message <72caaf96-4bdd-4f24-8721-04f39468d...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
>>> On Sep 7, 3:30 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> One male was described by my mother as very forward and the type to
>>>> try to "get in a woman's underwear". My mother wasn't good at modern
>>>> slang terms, so I pointed out that the phrase is "get in a woman's
>>>> pants".
>>> "A girl's," surely. "Panties," surely. (Unless you're a crypto-Brit.)
>>
>> No. THe phrase is "Get in a woman's pants" (though I suspect "girl's" is
>> about the same frequency now.
>>
>>>> The first time I met him, as he approached the table, my mother leaned
>>>> over and whispered "That's Charlie. He's safe". The idea of my
>>>> mother, at her advanced age, being reassured because a man was "safe"
>>>> just broke me up. A couple of other men walked by the table, and I
>>>> asked my mother of each "Is he safe?". This earned frowns and that
>>>> disapproving lip purse; it wasn't a joking matter.
>>> I would take "He's safe" as 'Even though he's effeminate, he's not gay
>>> and won't be hitting on you'.
>>
>> You would be entirely wrong.
>
> Really? Did you keep your mother in the same old folks' home as tony?
>
I know lots of octogenarians, and based on my knowledge about the kind
of language the female ones use about men and sex, I agree with Tony's
interpretation - a 'safe' male friend for a female is one who might fake
a flirtation charmingly and amusingly, but who would never try to take
unwanted advantage because he's gay.
Actually, I'm not sure that that usage is limited to octogenarians.
--
Cheryl
James Silverton
Sep 8, 2012, 11:17:14 AM9/8/12
to
their clients feel safer.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 8, 2012, 11:20:05 AM9/8/12
to
is a "subsitute". There is the adjective "vicarious".
In the Church of England it's to do with tithes. A parish priest may be
a vicar or a rector.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vicar?q=vicar
vicar
(in the Church of England) an incumbent of a parish where tithes
formerly passed to a chapter or religious house or layman. Compare
with rector (sense 1).
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/rector#rector__1
rector
1. (in the Church of England) the incumbent of a parish where all
tithes formerly passed to the incumbent. Compare with vicar.
This use of "vicar" would not travel well to a place where the ancient
arrangement of tithing does not exist.
Message has been deleted
Guy Barry
Sep 8, 2012, 12:05:14 PM9/8/12
to
"Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk4mldj....@mbp55.local...
> In message <jKB2s.694996$NM3.6...@fx04.am4>
Guy Barry <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > [a.u.e only]
> > "Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk4kv5p....@mbp55.local...
> >> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
> > How can that possibly be the case, when humans were selecting mates
> > thousands of years before money was invented?
> Economics doesn't require money.
> > [a.u.e only]
> > "Lewis" wrote in message news:slrnk4kv5p....@mbp55.local...
> >> And mate selection in humans is primarily based on economics.
> > How can that possibly be the case, when humans were selecting mates
> > thousands of years before money was invented?
OK, fair enough. "Economics is the social science that analyzes the
production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services."
(Wikipedia)
So let's ask another question. How can that possibly be the case, when
humans were selecting mates thousands of years before goods and services
were invented? Or, to put it another way, how can human mate selection
possibly be dependent on consumer culture? It isn't in any other species.
--
Guy Barry
pauljk
Sep 8, 2012, 12:06:45 PM9/8/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b1914bbc-32a2-4d70...@s5g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
general relativity theory experiments to establish the relationship
between cost and reward. I empirically proved that it is never linear.
For example, an expensive bottle of wine A costing twice as much
as bottle of B is never more than a square root of 2 better than B.
Assuming the scoops at Baskin Robbins are the same size as in
Sav-On, I would not expect the BR ice cream to be more than
twice as good.
pjk
Charles Bishop
Sep 8, 2012, 1:07:50 PM9/8/12
to
In article
<f25b30e1-5aa8-4816...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
>> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
--
charles
<f25b30e1-5aa8-4816...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
>> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >On Sep 5, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> =
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>>
>> >> [snip]
>wrote=3D
>> >:
>>
>>
>> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>>
>> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>>
>> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>>
>> >Looks like you never watched it.
>>
>> >John Ratzenberter played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>>
>> QED.
>
>Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
>supposed to be spelled.
Check IMDB.
>> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>>
>> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>>
>> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>>
>> >Looks like you never watched it.
>>
>> >John Ratzenberter played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>>
>> QED.
>
>Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
>supposed to be spelled.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 8, 2012, 1:22:09 PM9/8/12
to
In article <slrnk4kvus....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <ctbishop-070...@global-66-81-244-17.dialup.o1.com>
> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnk4ib14....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>In message
<265bf3c4-a3de-4546...@r4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>>>> I disagree, comfortable is not a binary like pregnant. YOu can be
>>>>> neither comfortable nor uncomfortable. For example, some chairs are
>>>>> comfortable (like this recliner), and some chairs are uncomfortable
>>>>> (like that straight back torture device over there), but other chairs
>>>>> are just chairs, neither one nor the other.
>>>
>>>> Really? If you're sitting in a chair and someone asks you if it's
>>>> comfortable, are you sometimes unable to say?
>>>
>>>I would probably say, "I'm OK."
>>>
>>>>If it's not specifically uncomfortable in some way, then necessarily
>>>>it's comfortable.
>>>
>>>No, I disagree completely.
>
>> Won't do you any good. None at all.
>
>I'm seeing that.
Well done, grasshopper. You have achieved knowing. Use it to make decisions.
--
charles
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>In message <ctbishop-070...@global-66-81-244-17.dialup.o1.com>
> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnk4ib14....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>In message
<265bf3c4-a3de-4546...@r4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 6, 12:17 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I disagree, comfortable is not a binary like pregnant. YOu can be
>>>>> neither comfortable nor uncomfortable. For example, some chairs are
>>>>> comfortable (like this recliner), and some chairs are uncomfortable
>>>>> (like that straight back torture device over there), but other chairs
>>>>> are just chairs, neither one nor the other.
>>>
>>>> Really? If you're sitting in a chair and someone asks you if it's
>>>> comfortable, are you sometimes unable to say?
>>>
>>>I would probably say, "I'm OK."
>>>
>>>>If it's not specifically uncomfortable in some way, then necessarily
>>>>it's comfortable.
>>>
>>>No, I disagree completely.
>
>> Won't do you any good. None at all.
>
>I'm seeing that.
Well done, grasshopper. You have achieved knowing. Use it to make decisions.
--
charles
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 8, 2012, 12:30:02 PM9/8/12
to
> <f25b30e1-5aa8-4816-9f06-02f0ae246...@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 7, 5:33=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
> >r
>
> >> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 6, 3:52=3DA0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Sep 5, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> =
> >wrote=3D
> >> >:
>
> >> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >> >Looks like you never watched it.
>
> >> >John Ratzenberger played Cliff [according to Skitt] Clavin.
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 7, 5:33=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <3b1eff61-0276-4ba1-a430-365d66cfa...@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
> >r
>
> >> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 6, 3:52=3DA0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <77f2c03e-7c3d-4ce9-af2e-a9242f2be...@fm12g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Sep 5, 11:29=3D3DA0pm, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> =
> >wrote=3D
> >> >:
>
> >> >> [snip]
>
> >> >> >> John Ratzenberger is an actor, he's best know as Cliff CLayburn on
>
> >> >> >Klavan (or Klavin)
>
> >> >> There was no character on the show named Klavan (or Klavin).
>
> >> >Looks like you never watched it.
>
>
> >> QED.
>
> >Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> >supposed to be spelled.
>
> Check IMDB.
You're several days and two decades late.
> >> QED.
>
> >Do explain how a watcher of the series would know how the name is
> >supposed to be spelled.
>
> Check IMDB.
Charles Bishop
Sep 8, 2012, 1:27:33 PM9/8/12
to
In article
<de5c2f6b-2537-4142...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 7, 8:33=A0am, Evan Kirshenbaum
>
>> Polygamous marriage
>should also be recognized, but it would require a
>> *lot* of changes to the law. =A0With two-person marriages, the only
>> situations possible are that both want to do something, one wants to
>> and the other doesn't, or neither does. =A0So, legally, some things are
>> possible on the say-so of any (either) of the spouses and some require
>> all (both) of them. =A0With more than two, you have to assume that there
>> will be issues where more than one but less than all are in favor and
>> so have to decide how many (one, two, a majority, a majority of a
>> quorum, a supermajority, ...) are required for each thing. =A0You get
>> into questions of whether a person's spouses are necessarily spouses
>> of one another. =A0You have to decide what happens when some, but not
>> all, of the spouses want to dissolve the marriage. =A0You have to decide
>> whether spouses can be added to a marriage after the fact and, if so,
>> what happens if they're already married to others.
>>
>> These are all solvable problems, but the solutions aren't stroke-of-
>> the-pen solutions. =A0So it probably won't happen until there's a large
>> number of people clamoring for it to.
>>
>
>I don't see any way to reconcile polygamy, polyandry and group
>marriage with community property. The best scheme I have come up with
>goes like this: A marriage is a group of people who agree to come
>together as a marriage. The marriage, as an association, may own
>assets. If a person in a marriage wants to leave the marriage they can
>take their share of the assets with them. If a person wants to join a
>marriage it is up to the members of the marriage how much they must
>contribute to the marriage before they are allowed to join. I imagine
>a marriage license / ceremony where all the present members of the
>marriage appear and assure some neutral authority that adding this new
>member is acceptable and that authority issuing a proper update to the
>original marriage.
>
>One interesting consequence is that a marriage can be immortal. And I
>assume that two marriages might merge or split. There are doubtless
>even more consequences.
Your scheme would work for most I think. Also, like many laws or social
conventions, it would probably be tweaked. It might be that there would be
"primary" partners in a marriage. Their legal status would be known, and
if others were added, they would also have a known legal status. But the
status could be changed by the appropriate contracts such as we have now,
with wills, prenups and the like.
Of course, as with all contracts, there certainly would be situations
where somebody was suing somebody else. Just as we have now.
--
charles
<de5c2f6b-2537-4142...@rq1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 7, 8:33=A0am, Evan Kirshenbaum
>
>> Polygamous marriage
>should also be recognized, but it would require a
>> *lot* of changes to the law. =A0With two-person marriages, the only
>> situations possible are that both want to do something, one wants to
>> and the other doesn't, or neither does. =A0So, legally, some things are
>> possible on the say-so of any (either) of the spouses and some require
>> all (both) of them. =A0With more than two, you have to assume that there
>> will be issues where more than one but less than all are in favor and
>> so have to decide how many (one, two, a majority, a majority of a
>> quorum, a supermajority, ...) are required for each thing. =A0You get
>> into questions of whether a person's spouses are necessarily spouses
>> of one another. =A0You have to decide what happens when some, but not
>> all, of the spouses want to dissolve the marriage. =A0You have to decide
>> whether spouses can be added to a marriage after the fact and, if so,
>> what happens if they're already married to others.
>>
>> These are all solvable problems, but the solutions aren't stroke-of-
>> the-pen solutions. =A0So it probably won't happen until there's a large
>> number of people clamoring for it to.
>>
>
>I don't see any way to reconcile polygamy, polyandry and group
>marriage with community property. The best scheme I have come up with
>goes like this: A marriage is a group of people who agree to come
>together as a marriage. The marriage, as an association, may own
>assets. If a person in a marriage wants to leave the marriage they can
>take their share of the assets with them. If a person wants to join a
>marriage it is up to the members of the marriage how much they must
>contribute to the marriage before they are allowed to join. I imagine
>a marriage license / ceremony where all the present members of the
>marriage appear and assure some neutral authority that adding this new
>member is acceptable and that authority issuing a proper update to the
>original marriage.
>
>One interesting consequence is that a marriage can be immortal. And I
>assume that two marriages might merge or split. There are doubtless
>even more consequences.
Your scheme would work for most I think. Also, like many laws or social
conventions, it would probably be tweaked. It might be that there would be
"primary" partners in a marriage. Their legal status would be known, and
if others were added, they would also have a known legal status. But the
status could be changed by the appropriate contracts such as we have now,
with wills, prenups and the like.
Of course, as with all contracts, there certainly would be situations
where somebody was suing somebody else. Just as we have now.
--
charles
Jerry Friedman
Sep 8, 2012, 12:35:17 PM9/8/12
to
On Sep 8, 8:54 am, Cheryl <cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
...
> Mostly, I say 'minister' for Protestant
> groups and 'priest' for Catholic or Orthodox ones,
Me too.
> although I know some
> groups originating in the US, and Pentecostals tend to prefer 'pastor'.
> I'm not sure what Baptists prefer.
Southern Baptists appear to use "minister" to encompass their two
types of clergy, deacons and pastors.
"We affirm the priesthood of all believers. Laypersons have the same
right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret
Scripture, and minister in Christ's name."
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pspriesthood.asp
"A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous
local congregation of baptized believers... Its scriptural officers
are pastors and deacons."
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> Mostly, I say 'minister' for Protestant
> groups and 'priest' for Catholic or Orthodox ones,
> although I know some
> groups originating in the US, and Pentecostals tend to prefer 'pastor'.
> I'm not sure what Baptists prefer.
types of clergy, deacons and pastors.
"We affirm the priesthood of all believers. Laypersons have the same
right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret
Scripture, and minister in Christ's name."
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pspriesthood.asp
"A New Testament church of the Lord Jesus Christ is an autonomous
local congregation of baptized believers... Its scriptural officers
are pastors and deacons."
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp
--
Jerry Friedman
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages