Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Making love" as opposed to "having sex"
168 views
Skip to first unread message
Harrison Hill
Oct 18, 2013, 5:24:39 PM10/18/13
to
See if you can work out the two meanings:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=556238287758868&set=vb.236486913157711&type=2&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=556238287758868&set=vb.236486913157711&type=2&theater
j...@mdfs.net
Oct 18, 2013, 5:48:00 PM10/18/13
to
Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
JGH
before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
JGH
the Omrud
Oct 18, 2013, 5:54:06 PM10/18/13
to
On 18/10/2013 22:48, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
It did.
> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
--
David
Stan Brown
Oct 19, 2013, 4:27:27 AM10/19/13
to
Stapleton's "sister" was actually his wife:
"Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he
have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?"
"Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir
Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to
her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his
wife and not his sister."
When I read that as a young person, I thought it meant something very
different from what it meant at the time.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
the Omrud
Oct 19, 2013, 4:32:21 AM10/19/13
to
On 19/10/2013 09:27, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:54:06 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/2013 22:48, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
>>> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
>>> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
>>
>> It did.
>
> From /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, after Holmes reveals that
> Stapleton's "sister" was actually his wife:
>
> "Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he
> have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?"
>
> "Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir
> Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to
> her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his
> wife and not his sister."
>
> When I read that as a young person, I thought it meant something very
> different from what it meant at the time.
I heard somebody on the radio talking about a theatre review he had
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:54:06 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/2013 22:48, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
>>> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
>>> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
>>
>> It did.
>
> From /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, after Holmes reveals that
> Stapleton's "sister" was actually his wife:
>
> "Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he
> have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?"
>
> "Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir
> Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to
> her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his
> wife and not his sister."
>
> When I read that as a young person, I thought it meant something very
> different from what it meant at the time.
written in the late 40s. It went something like this:
- The main characters continued to argue at the front of the stage.
Meanwhile, the young couple were quietly making love behind them.
He explained that the young couple were actually sitting on a couch,
talking earnestly.
--
David
Joe Fineman
Oct 19, 2013, 5:20:16 PM10/19/13
to
j...@mdfs.net writes:
> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
My impression is that, well before then, it was (sometimes usefully)
> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
ambiguous. IIRC, I first saw it in a translation of Anatole France
(probably from the 1920s), in which couples were described as innocently
"making love on the beach". Pretty clear that that means fucking.
However, there is also an old saying "To talk of love is to make love"
(which Google brings up in Balzac), in which it probably means to
further one's amorous purposes.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Every number is very small: almost all other numbers are :||
||: very much larger. :||
Robin Bignall
Oct 19, 2013, 6:28:13 PM10/19/13
to
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:32:21 +0100, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Exactly what it meant when I was a young man. In my milieu no two
people of opposite sex who had reached puberty were allowed to meet
unchaperoned. Talking earnestly was but a forerunner of hanky-panky.
This was the working classes, incidentally. I think we were even more
strict than the middle classes about such things.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)
wrote:
people of opposite sex who had reached puberty were allowed to meet
unchaperoned. Talking earnestly was but a forerunner of hanky-panky.
This was the working classes, incidentally. I think we were even more
strict than the middle classes about such things.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)
Robert Bannister
Oct 19, 2013, 9:29:31 PM10/19/13
to
On 19/10/13 5:48 AM, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Oct 19, 2013, 9:32:56 PM10/19/13
to
I am guessing the early 1960s. More to the point, we didn't use the
expression although it's common enough in 19th century literature. I
thought the American expression "making out" meant having sex for a long
time.
--
Robert Bannister
Mark Brader
Oct 20, 2013, 3:09:00 AM10/20/13
to
Robert Bannister:
The earliest cite in the OED Online is from 1927, and I was puzzled
enough by their abbreviated citation "J. S. Bolan Deposition in
L. Schlissel 3 Plays Mae West (1997)" that I looked it up in Google
Books, which was willing to show me enough pages to figure it out.
It turns out that in 1926 Mae West wrote and starred in a play
titled "Sex", which was a hit on Broadway until she and others
were convicted on obscenity charges over it.
This play was republished, along with two others about homosexuality
that West wrote in the following years, in a book edited by Lillian
Schissel and logically titled "Three Plays by Mae West". But the
book also includes at least some of the documents from the obscenity
trial, and one of those is a deposition by Deputy Inspector James
S. Bolan, who attended the play on behalf of the police. And this
deposition is what the OED is citing.
The passage reads:
At another point all the characters have left the scene except
Jimmy Stanton and the prostitute Margie LaMont. Jimmy embraces
Margie LaMont and goes through with her the business of making
love to her by lying on top of her on a couch, each embracing
the other.
So it's clear enough which meaning was intended. Mae West played
Margie, but the way.
Curiously, I found this in Google Books by searching for the exact
phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
to actually show the phrase in the search results. The others were
* "Rape of the Fair Country" by Alexander Cordell, 1998
* "Dictionary of Word Origins" by John Ayto, 2011
* "Chambers Dictionary of Etymology" by Robert K. Barnhart and
Sol Steinmetz, 1999
* "Song of the earth: a novel" by Alexander Cordell, 1970
* "Getting Started with Beef and Dairy Cattle" by Heather Smith
Thomas, 2005
Okay, the dictionaries make sense and I have no comment on the
Cordell books, but get a load of that last hit!
Returning to the OED, the next three cites are from Ernest Hemingway
("A Farewell to Arms", 1929), George Orwell ("Burmese Days",
1934), and Mervyn Peake ("Ghormenghast", 1950). I'm not sure
if the Hemingway one really has the intended meaning, though.
Again I'll give a bit more context than the OED does:
It was lovely in the nights and if we could only touch each other
we were happy. Besides all the big times we had many small ways
of making love and we tried putting thoughts in the other one's
head while we were in different rooms.
It seems to me that "small ways of making love" must refer to,
ah, making out rather than making love in the sexual sense.
For the next two cites it's pretty clear what was meant, though.
As for the "whispering sweet nothings" sense -- or as they put it,
"to pay amorous attention; to court, woo" -- the OED has cites for
that one as far back as 1567, and as recently as 1972 and 1991.
--
Mark Brader "Never trust anybody who says 'trust me.'
Toronto Except just this once, of course."
m...@vex.net -- John Varley, "Steel Beach"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> I'm trying to remember when "making love" acquired this sexual meaning.
> I am guessing the early 1960s. ... I thought the American expression
> "making out" meant having sex for a long time.
As usual, it's older than you'd think.
The earliest cite in the OED Online is from 1927, and I was puzzled
enough by their abbreviated citation "J. S. Bolan Deposition in
L. Schlissel 3 Plays Mae West (1997)" that I looked it up in Google
Books, which was willing to show me enough pages to figure it out.
It turns out that in 1926 Mae West wrote and starred in a play
titled "Sex", which was a hit on Broadway until she and others
were convicted on obscenity charges over it.
This play was republished, along with two others about homosexuality
that West wrote in the following years, in a book edited by Lillian
Schissel and logically titled "Three Plays by Mae West". But the
book also includes at least some of the documents from the obscenity
trial, and one of those is a deposition by Deputy Inspector James
S. Bolan, who attended the play on behalf of the police. And this
deposition is what the OED is citing.
The passage reads:
At another point all the characters have left the scene except
Jimmy Stanton and the prostitute Margie LaMont. Jimmy embraces
Margie LaMont and goes through with her the business of making
love to her by lying on top of her on a couch, each embracing
the other.
So it's clear enough which meaning was intended. Mae West played
Margie, but the way.
Curiously, I found this in Google Books by searching for the exact
phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
to actually show the phrase in the search results. The others were
* "Rape of the Fair Country" by Alexander Cordell, 1998
* "Dictionary of Word Origins" by John Ayto, 2011
* "Chambers Dictionary of Etymology" by Robert K. Barnhart and
Sol Steinmetz, 1999
* "Song of the earth: a novel" by Alexander Cordell, 1970
* "Getting Started with Beef and Dairy Cattle" by Heather Smith
Thomas, 2005
Okay, the dictionaries make sense and I have no comment on the
Cordell books, but get a load of that last hit!
Returning to the OED, the next three cites are from Ernest Hemingway
("A Farewell to Arms", 1929), George Orwell ("Burmese Days",
1934), and Mervyn Peake ("Ghormenghast", 1950). I'm not sure
if the Hemingway one really has the intended meaning, though.
Again I'll give a bit more context than the OED does:
It was lovely in the nights and if we could only touch each other
we were happy. Besides all the big times we had many small ways
of making love and we tried putting thoughts in the other one's
head while we were in different rooms.
It seems to me that "small ways of making love" must refer to,
ah, making out rather than making love in the sexual sense.
For the next two cites it's pretty clear what was meant, though.
As for the "whispering sweet nothings" sense -- or as they put it,
"to pay amorous attention; to court, woo" -- the OED has cites for
that one as far back as 1567, and as recently as 1972 and 1991.
--
Mark Brader "Never trust anybody who says 'trust me.'
Toronto Except just this once, of course."
m...@vex.net -- John Varley, "Steel Beach"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
R H Draney
Oct 20, 2013, 5:54:57 AM10/20/13
to
Robert Bannister filted:
refer to something earthy and animalistic....
"Making love" still meant just talk at least as late as 1931, when Groucho Marx
made romantic overtures to Thelma Todd in "Monkey Business" and she asked him
"are you making love to me?"...
If the phrase had yet taken on a sexual meaning, Thelma Todd of all people
wouldn't have had to ask....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>I'm trying to remember when "making love" acquired this sexual meaning.
>I am guessing the early 1960s. More to the point, we didn't use the
>expression although it's common enough in 19th century literature. I
>thought the American expression "making out" meant having sex for a long
>time.
I had the same impression of the BrE term "snogging"...sounds like it should
>I'm trying to remember when "making love" acquired this sexual meaning.
>I am guessing the early 1960s. More to the point, we didn't use the
>expression although it's common enough in 19th century literature. I
>thought the American expression "making out" meant having sex for a long
>time.
refer to something earthy and animalistic....
"Making love" still meant just talk at least as late as 1931, when Groucho Marx
made romantic overtures to Thelma Todd in "Monkey Business" and she asked him
"are you making love to me?"...
If the phrase had yet taken on a sexual meaning, Thelma Todd of all people
wouldn't have had to ask....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Stan Brown
Oct 20, 2013, 8:15:53 AM10/20/13
to
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 02:09:00 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
> Curiously, I found this in Google Books by searching for the exact
> phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
> six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
> to actually show the phrase in the search results.
>
I am finding that more and more with Google. I do a search, it comes
> Curiously, I found this in Google Books by searching for the exact
> phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
> six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
> to actually show the phrase in the search results.
>
up with results, but link after link leads to a page that doesn't
include the searched-for terms (even when I used a + sign), or the
searched-for quoted phrase.
It's quite frustrating. Maybe instead of "don't be evil" (which
they're not living up to anyway), their slogan should be "it's the
searches, stupid!" That's how they started, and more and more they
get it wrong.
Leslie Danks
Oct 20, 2013, 8:43:07 AM10/20/13
to
Stan Brown wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 02:09:00 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Curiously, I found this in Google Books by searching for the exact
>> phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
>> six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
>> to actually show the phrase in the search results.
>>
>
> I am finding that more and more with Google. I do a search, it comes
> up with results, but link after link leads to a page that doesn't
> include the searched-for terms (even when I used a + sign), or the
> searched-for quoted phrase.
I'm finding the same. What is going on? I think we should be told.
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 02:09:00 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Curiously, I found this in Google Books by searching for the exact
>> phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
>> six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
>> to actually show the phrase in the search results.
>>
>
> I am finding that more and more with Google. I do a search, it comes
> up with results, but link after link leads to a page that doesn't
> include the searched-for terms (even when I used a + sign), or the
> searched-for quoted phrase.
> It's quite frustrating. Maybe instead of "don't be evil" (which
> they're not living up to anyway), their slogan should be "it's the
> searches, stupid!" That's how they started, and more and more they
> get it wrong.
>
--
Have I got this right, Mrs. McTavish? Whilst swimming in the Tay, your
husband was hit by a train.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 20, 2013, 8:53:27 AM10/20/13
to
as a put-down -- either the creep is so incompetent that his "moves" can't
be recognized as such, or the horny boy is so beneath her standards/notice
that she can't believe he's even bothering.
Message has been deleted
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 20, 2013, 2:24:08 PM10/20/13
to
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 1:57:00 PM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
> In message <bcgq6b...@mid.individual.net>
It seems to say that Sir Henry fell in love with the girl but they were
never unchaperoned so that there could be no canoodling (or that horrid
word "snogging"). Let alone anything unspeakable.
> In message <bcgq6b...@mid.individual.net>
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > On 19/10/13 4:32 PM, the Omrud wrote:
> >> On 19/10/2013 09:27, Stan Brown wrote:
> >>> From /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, after Holmes reveals that
> >>> Stapleton's "sister" was actually his wife:
>
> >>> "Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he
> >>> have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?"
>
> >>> "Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir
> >>> Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to
> >>> her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his
> >>> wife and not his sister."
>
> >>> When I read that as a young person, I thought it meant something very
> >>> different from what it meant at the time.
>
> >> I heard somebody on the radio talking about a theatre review he had
> >> written in the late 40s. It went something like this:
>
> >> - The main characters continued to argue at the front of the stage.
> >> Meanwhile, the young couple were quietly making love behind them.
>
> >> He explained that the young couple were actually sitting on a couch,
> >> talking earnestly.
>
> > I'm trying to remember when "making love" acquired this sexual meaning.
>
> Did we all skip over the Sherlock Holmes quote up thread?
> > On 19/10/13 4:32 PM, the Omrud wrote:
> >> On 19/10/2013 09:27, Stan Brown wrote:
> >>> From /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, after Holmes reveals that
> >>> Stapleton's "sister" was actually his wife:
>
> >>> "Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he
> >>> have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?"
>
> >>> "Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir
> >>> Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to
> >>> her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his
> >>> wife and not his sister."
>
> >>> When I read that as a young person, I thought it meant something very
> >>> different from what it meant at the time.
>
> >> I heard somebody on the radio talking about a theatre review he had
> >> written in the late 40s. It went something like this:
>
> >> - The main characters continued to argue at the front of the stage.
> >> Meanwhile, the young couple were quietly making love behind them.
>
> >> He explained that the young couple were actually sitting on a couch,
> >> talking earnestly.
>
> > I'm trying to remember when "making love" acquired this sexual meaning.
>
It seems to say that Sir Henry fell in love with the girl but they were
never unchaperoned so that there could be no canoodling (or that horrid
word "snogging"). Let alone anything unspeakable.
Mark Brader
Oct 20, 2013, 3:14:13 PM10/20/13
to
Mark Brader:
in addition to indicating phrases.
What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
search terms appear" pulldown.
I mentioned the other hits for amusement value.
--
Mark Brader | "Of course, the most important part of making the
Toronto | proposal something special for both of you is
m...@vex.net | addressing it to the right person." --Mara Chibnik
>> Curiously, I found this in Google Books by searching for the exact
>> phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
>> six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
>> to actually show the phrase in the search results.
Stan Brown:
>> phrase "Jimmy embraces Margie LaMont" -- and it claimed to find
>> six hits. The first one was the intended hit and was the only one
>> to actually show the phrase in the search results.
> I am finding that more and more with Google. I do a search, it comes
> up with results, but link after link leads to a page that doesn't
> include the searched-for terms (even when I used a + sign), or the
> searched-for quoted phrase.
+ signs are obsolete. Quotation marks now incorporate that meaning
> up with results, but link after link leads to a page that doesn't
> include the searched-for terms (even when I used a + sign), or the
> searched-for quoted phrase.
in addition to indicating phrases.
What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
search terms appear" pulldown.
I mentioned the other hits for amusement value.
--
Mark Brader | "Of course, the most important part of making the
Toronto | proposal something special for both of you is
m...@vex.net | addressing it to the right person." --Mara Chibnik
Mike L
Oct 20, 2013, 5:16:46 PM10/20/13
to
the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
--
Mike.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 20, 2013, 9:23:39 PM10/20/13
to
On Sunday, October 20, 2013 5:16:46 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister
> >In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
>
> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>
> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
fabzorba
Oct 21, 2013, 1:31:04 AM10/21/13
to
On Monday, 21 October 2013 12:23:39 UTC+11, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 5:16:46 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote: > On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister > >In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly. > > And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of > the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text - > was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her". How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
"Making love" is a euphemism, and it would have come about because
> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 5:16:46 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote: > On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister > >In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly. > > And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of > the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text - > was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her". How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
there is no attractive and non-medical way to talk about "the act"
without using something like it. Coitus, copulation, sexual
intercourse, sexual congress, fornication - they are legion but all sound legalistic andor nasty.
Of course, once "making love" gained this additional meaning,
there was no way it could ever be used in its original sense again
without an element of salacious ambiguity.
Peter Moylan
Oct 21, 2013, 2:50:59 AM10/21/13
to
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Lanarcam
Oct 21, 2013, 1:49:43 PM10/21/13
to
Le 21/10/2013 08:50, Peter Moylan a �crit :
It still does, "baisez-lui la main".
Mike L
Oct 21, 2013, 5:28:47 PM10/21/13
to
time. B-P, of course, wouldn't have written about "that kind of thing"
to the target age group even if he'd been inclined to.
--
Mike.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 21, 2013, 5:52:23 PM10/21/13
to
from it.
Percival P. Cassidy
Oct 21, 2013, 10:16:03 PM10/21/13
to
On 10/21/13 01:49 pm, Lanarcam wrote:
>>>> In Victorian
>>>> times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly. > >
>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One
>>>> of > the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred
>>>> text - > was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry
>>>> her". How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>>
>>> "Making love" is a euphemism, and it would have come about because
>>> there is no attractive and non-medical way to talk about "the act"
>>> without using something like it. Coitus, copulation, sexual
>>> intercourse, sexual congress, fornication - they are legion but all
>>> sound legalistic andor nasty.
>>>
>>> Of course, once "making love" gained this additional meaning,
>>> there was no way it could ever be used in its original sense again
>>> without an element of salacious ambiguity.
>>
>> It's worse in French. The verb "baiser" used to mean "kiss".
>>
> It still does, "baisez-lui la main".
Depends on how it is used, I think. I don't recall the exact French
>>>> In Victorian
>>>> times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly. > >
>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One
>>>> of > the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred
>>>> text - > was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry
>>>> her". How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>>
>>> "Making love" is a euphemism, and it would have come about because
>>> there is no attractive and non-medical way to talk about "the act"
>>> without using something like it. Coitus, copulation, sexual
>>> intercourse, sexual congress, fornication - they are legion but all
>>> sound legalistic andor nasty.
>>>
>>> Of course, once "making love" gained this additional meaning,
>>> there was no way it could ever be used in its original sense again
>>> without an element of salacious ambiguity.
>>
>> It's worse in French. The verb "baiser" used to mean "kiss".
>>
> It still does, "baisez-lui la main".
wording now, but ISTR reading that the verb with a person as the object
without specifying a body part (such as "la main" above) is now taken to
be equivalent to the f-word in English. If all that is meant is to kiss
a person (without specifying the body part that is to be kissed), one
has to use the French equivalent of "give him/her a kiss." Please
correct me if I have misunderstood or misremembered.
Perce
Stan Brown
Oct 21, 2013, 11:05:19 PM10/21/13
to
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 14:14:13 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
> search terms appear" pulldown.
>
Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
> search terms appear" pulldown.
>
10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"? Wow!
Stan Brown
Oct 21, 2013, 11:06:19 PM10/21/13
to
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:16:03 -0400, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
> Depends on how it is used, I think. I don't recall the exact French
> wording now, but ISTR reading that the verb with a person as the object
> without specifying a body part (such as "la main" above) is now taken to
> be equivalent to the f-word in English. If all that is meant is to kiss
> a person (without specifying the body part that is to be kissed), one
> has to use the French equivalent of "give him/her a kiss."
>
I learned a different euphemism: "Embrasse-moi".
> Depends on how it is used, I think. I don't recall the exact French
> wording now, but ISTR reading that the verb with a person as the object
> without specifying a body part (such as "la main" above) is now taken to
> be equivalent to the f-word in English. If all that is meant is to kiss
> a person (without specifying the body part that is to be kissed), one
> has to use the French equivalent of "give him/her a kiss."
>
Mark Brader
Oct 21, 2013, 11:38:03 PM10/21/13
to
Mark Brader:
And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
--
Mark Brader | Peter Neumann on Y2K:
Toronto | This problem gives new meaning to "going out on
m...@vex.net | a date" (which many systems will do on 1/1/00).
>> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
>> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
>> search terms appear" pulldown.
Stan Brown:
>> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
>> search terms appear" pulldown.
> Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
> 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
> actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
Well, either that or use the pulldown.
> 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
> actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
--
Mark Brader | Peter Neumann on Y2K:
Toronto | This problem gives new meaning to "going out on
m...@vex.net | a date" (which many systems will do on 1/1/00).
Lanarcam
Oct 22, 2013, 1:57:59 PM10/22/13
to
Le 22/10/2013 04:16, Percival P. Cassidy a �crit :
That's correct.
"Baiser quelqu'un" has also another slang meaning, to screw someone,
not in the sexual sense.
"Baiser quelqu'un" has also another slang meaning, to screw someone,
not in the sexual sense.
Irwell
Oct 22, 2013, 7:25:39 PM10/22/13
to
"I am one, sir, that comes to tell you your daughter and the Moor are
now making the beast with two backs."
Robert Bannister
Oct 23, 2013, 3:54:24 AM10/23/13
to
>
> For the next two cites it's pretty clear what was meant, though.
I'm beginning to think that there was a small group in Hollywood or
> For the next two cites it's pretty clear what was meant, though.
perhaps it was more widespread among the entire acting profession, who
used a lot of code words like "gay" or "making love" in ways that did
not become known to the general public until much later.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Oct 23, 2013, 3:56:11 AM10/23/13
to
On 22/10/13 11:38 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Mark Brader:
>>> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
>>> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
>>> search terms appear" pulldown.
>
> Stan Brown:
>> Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
>> 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
>> actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
>
> Well, either that or use the pulldown.
>
> And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
> to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
>
When Google first appeared, I thought it was wonderful. Now I am
> Mark Brader:
>>> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
>>> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
>>> search terms appear" pulldown.
>
> Stan Brown:
>> Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
>> 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
>> actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
>
> Well, either that or use the pulldown.
>
> And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
> to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
>
beginning to think it is little more than a gathering tool for the CIA.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Oct 23, 2013, 3:58:09 AM10/23/13
to
On 21/10/13 1:57 AM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <bcgq6b...@mid.individual.net>
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> In message <bcgq6b...@mid.individual.net>
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> Did we all skip over the Sherlock Holmes quote up thread?
You've lost me there.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Oct 23, 2013, 3:59:22 AM10/23/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Oct 23, 2013, 4:02:42 AM10/23/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Oct 23, 2013, 4:06:33 AM10/23/13
to
I was 12 even though I was well aware of fucking, shagging and screwing.
Oh, and then there was the movies: clearly thunderstorms, surf on the
beach, galloping horses and similar all meant fucking, but "making love
to" didn't parse.
--
Robert Bannister
Mark Brader
Oct 23, 2013, 5:36:57 AM10/23/13
to
Robert Bannister:
for "making love" comes from a New York police officer's deposition.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Any company large enough to have a research lab
m...@vex.net | is large enough not to listen to it. --Alan Kay
> I'm beginning to think that there was a small group in Hollywood or
> perhaps it was more widespread among the entire acting profession, who
> used a lot of code words like "gay" or "making love" in ways that did
> not become known to the general public until much later.
Whether that's so or not, the fact remains that the earliest OED cite
> perhaps it was more widespread among the entire acting profession, who
> used a lot of code words like "gay" or "making love" in ways that did
> not become known to the general public until much later.
for "making love" comes from a New York police officer's deposition.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | Any company large enough to have a research lab
m...@vex.net | is large enough not to listen to it. --Alan Kay
John Briggs
Oct 23, 2013, 5:43:07 AM10/23/13
to
Defense - as such, it can legally operate both at home and overseas.
--
John Briggs
Stan Brown
Oct 23, 2013, 7:08:34 AM10/23/13
to
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 22:38:03 -0500, Mark Brader wrote:
>
> Mark Brader:
> >> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
> >> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
> >> search terms appear" pulldown.
>
> Stan Brown:
> > Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
> > 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
> > actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
>
> Well, either that or use the pulldown.
>
> And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
> to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
I'm not being disingenuous here, but I really don't understand: how
>
> Mark Brader:
> >> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
> >> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
> >> search terms appear" pulldown.
>
> Stan Brown:
> > Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
> > 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
> > actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
>
> Well, either that or use the pulldown.
>
> And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
> to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
is it "more useful" to sort through pages that _don't_ contain what
I'm searching for?
Stan Brown
Oct 23, 2013, 7:17:35 AM10/23/13
to
took care that Sir henry did not "make love" to Stapleton's purported
sister (who was actually his wife).
Mark Brader
Oct 23, 2013, 7:28:19 AM10/23/13
to
Mark Brader:
are *about* what you're searching for, but just don't describe it in
the way you did.
--
Mark Brader "I would love to make it, more than
Toronto anything else I've not written."
m...@vex.net --William Goldman
> > And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
> > to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
Stan Brown:
> > to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
> I'm not being disingenuous here, but I really don't understand: how
> is it "more useful" to sort through pages that _don't_ contain what
> I'm searching for?
Because, if things work as they expect, they're likely to be pages that
> is it "more useful" to sort through pages that _don't_ contain what
> I'm searching for?
are *about* what you're searching for, but just don't describe it in
the way you did.
--
Mark Brader "I would love to make it, more than
Toronto anything else I've not written."
m...@vex.net --William Goldman
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 23, 2013, 7:54:25 AM10/23/13
to
been clues.
Ian Jackson
Oct 23, 2013, 6:00:31 PM10/23/13
to
In message <bcpduq...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
Of course they were - but they WERE expected to "be prepared". When
suitably prepared, their lovemaking was usually 'intense'.
--
Ian
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
<rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
suitably prepared, their lovemaking was usually 'intense'.
--
Ian
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Robert Bannister
Oct 24, 2013, 12:19:04 AM10/24/13
to
drones in Pakistan yesterday, I realised that the word "legal" means
different things in different places.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Oct 24, 2013, 12:20:37 AM10/24/13
to
On 23/10/13 7:17 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:58:09 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>> On 21/10/13 1:57 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>> Did we all skip over the Sherlock Holmes quote up thread?
>>
>> You've lost me there.
>
> I posted it, from /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, where Sapleton
> took care that Sir henry did not "make love" to Stapleton's purported
> sister (who was actually his wife).
>
But I still understood that to mean "speaking about love" rather than
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:58:09 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
>> On 21/10/13 1:57 AM, Lewis wrote:
>>> Did we all skip over the Sherlock Holmes quote up thread?
>>
>> You've lost me there.
>
> I posted it, from /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, where Sapleton
> took care that Sir henry did not "make love" to Stapleton's purported
> sister (who was actually his wife).
>
doing the dirty.
--
Robert Bannister
Jerry Friedman
Oct 24, 2013, 1:10:41 AM10/24/13
to
On 10/19/13 2:27 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:54:06 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/2013 22:48, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
>>> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
>>> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
>>
>> It did.
>
> From /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, after Holmes reveals that
> Stapleton's "sister" was actually his wife:
>
> "Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he
> have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?"
>
> "Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir
> Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to
> her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his
> wife and not his sister."
>
> When I read that as a young person, I thought it meant something very
> different from what it meant at the time.
I probably did too.
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 22:54:06 +0100, the Omrud wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/2013 22:48, j...@mdfs.net wrote:
>>> Judging by a handful of old films I've seen, "making love" back
>>> before the 1960s meant canoodling or talking sweet nothings.
>>
>> It did.
>
> From /The Hound of the Baskervilles/, after Holmes reveals that
> Stapleton's "sister" was actually his wife:
>
> "Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he
> have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?"
>
> "Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir
> Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to
> her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his
> wife and not his sister."
>
> When I read that as a young person, I thought it meant something very
> different from what it meant at the time.
Since people have mentioned the quotation again, here's what Watson
himself had observed:
"Yet I am certain that he does not wish their intimacy to ripen into
love, and I have several times observed that he has taken pains to
prevent them from being tete-a-tete."
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=DoyHoun.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
--
Jerry Friedman
Dr Nick
Oct 24, 2013, 2:23:48 AM10/24/13
to
m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) writes:
> Mark Brader:
>> > And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
>> > to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
>
> Stan Brown:
>> I'm not being disingenuous here, but I really don't understand: how
>> is it "more useful" to sort through pages that _don't_ contain what
>> I'm searching for?
>
> Because, if things work as they expect, they're likely to be pages that
> are *about* what you're searching for, but just don't describe it in
> the way you did.
And if you consider that the sort of person who is likely to be using
> Mark Brader:
>> > And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
>> > to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
>
> Stan Brown:
>> I'm not being disingenuous here, but I really don't understand: how
>> is it "more useful" to sort through pages that _don't_ contain what
>> I'm searching for?
>
> Because, if things work as they expect, they're likely to be pages that
> are *about* what you're searching for, but just don't describe it in
> the way you did.
Google and - critically - clicking on the adverts presented is the sort
of person who comments on news stories, you'll understand why it needs
to return pages about Barack Obama when you enter >dat presidant dude
lol<
(it manages one as number 3)
Message has been deleted
Mike L
Oct 24, 2013, 11:42:20 AM10/24/13
to
Legion. He was called "Colonel" and wore a uniform forage cap with
badges on throughout. He was explaining that US forces never committed
atrocities because no order from a US officer could be illegal.
Rubbish, of course, but an eye-opener.
--
Mike.
Mike L
Oct 24, 2013, 11:49:07 AM10/24/13
to
On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:06:33 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[...]
that one got AIDS from icebergs. There was also the inane Welsh
commentator who explained that somebody had left the rugby field for
treatment of a bleeding wound "because of a disease we can't mention
on the radio".
--
Mike.
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>I don't think "make love to a girl" would have made any sense to me when
>I was 12 even though I was well aware of fucking, shagging and screwing.
>Oh, and then there was the movies: clearly thunderstorms, surf on the
>beach, galloping horses and similar all meant fucking, but "making love
>to" didn't parse.
Remember those early anti-AIDS ads on TV which made it quite clear
>I don't think "make love to a girl" would have made any sense to me when
>I was 12 even though I was well aware of fucking, shagging and screwing.
>Oh, and then there was the movies: clearly thunderstorms, surf on the
>beach, galloping horses and similar all meant fucking, but "making love
>to" didn't parse.
that one got AIDS from icebergs. There was also the inane Welsh
commentator who explained that somebody had left the rugby field for
treatment of a bleeding wound "because of a disease we can't mention
on the radio".
--
Mike.
John Briggs
Oct 24, 2013, 12:43:38 PM10/24/13
to
of our scientists would raise it whenever someone objected to the
drawbacks of automatated systems):
A US helicopter landed on the roof of a building and soldiers swiftly
went through the building, securing it and tying up the occupants.
Unfortunately, the building was the UN Building. It had a big sign
outside the door saying "United Nations". It did not have a sign on the
roof...
One of those being tied up protested that they were UN staff. One
soldier was heard to reply, "Yes, I know - but we have our orders!"
--
John Briggs
J. J. Lodder
Oct 24, 2013, 1:13:29 PM10/24/13
to
Jan
Tony Cooper
Oct 24, 2013, 1:36:48 PM10/24/13
to
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
J. J. Lodder
Oct 24, 2013, 3:07:18 PM10/24/13
to
May I remind you that it was established at Neurenberg,
(chiefly by Americans, acing as judges)
that 'Befehl ist Befehl!' is -not- an acceptable excuse?
Jan
Mark Brader
Oct 24, 2013, 5:05:46 PM10/24/13
to
Mike Lyle:
alone British ones. How did they go?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Damn! Damn! Damn! Er, I mean thanks, Mark."
m...@vex.net | --Steve Ball
> Remember those early anti-AIDS ads on TV which made it quite clear
> that one got AIDS from icebergs.
Actually, I don't remember *ever* seeing anti-AIDS ads on TV, let
> that one got AIDS from icebergs.
alone British ones. How did they go?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Damn! Damn! Damn! Er, I mean thanks, Mark."
m...@vex.net | --Steve Ball
Jerry Friedman
Oct 24, 2013, 5:06:55 PM10/24/13
to
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 12:41:33 AM UTC-6, Lewis wrote:
> In message <bcrlgl...@mid.individual.net>
> That makes no sense. If he's passing her off as his sister, having her
> flirt and engage with Sir Henry would be good. Making them take it steps
> further would not be...
It may make no sense in the story, but it's what happens. I'll post
the whole paragraph:
"On our way back we stayed for lunch at Merripit House, and it was there
that Sir Henry made the acquaintance of Miss Stapleton. From the first
moment that he saw her he appeared to be strongly attracted by her, and
I am much mistaken if the feeling was not mutual. He referred to her
again and again on our walk home, and since then hardly a day has passed
that we have not seen something of the brother and sister. They dine here
tonight, and there is some talk of our going to them next week. One would
imagine that such a match would be very welcome to Stapleton, and yet I
have more than once caught a look of the strongest disapprobation in his
face when Sir Henry has been paying some attention to his sister. He is
much attached to her, no doubt, and would lead a lonely life without her,
but it would seem the height of selfishness if he were to stand in the
way of her making so brilliant a marriage. Yet I am certain that he does
alone will become very much more onerous if a love affair were to be
added to our other difficulties. My popularity would soon suffer if I
were to carry out your orders to the letter."
Here's what Stan quoted:
"'The lady who has passed here as Miss Stapleton is in reality his wife.'
"'Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?'
"'Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his wife and not his sister.'"
So what Stapleton took care to do was keep Sir Henry from anything that
could lead to marrying Stapleton's sister--keep him from telling her
he loved her and wanted to marry her, for example. He also kept them
from having sex, if either would have done so outside of marriage.
Incidentally, the OED defines one sense of "affair" as
"A romantic or sexual relationship, often of short duration, between two
people who are not married to each other; spec. (a) one that is carried
on illicitly, one or both partners being involved in a relationship with
another person; (b) an intense sexual relationship. Also: a sexual
encounter of any of these types. Freq. with with. Cf. earlier affair of
love n. at Phrases 1; cf. also affaire n."
So Watson's use of "love affair" doesn't necessarily imply sex either.
--
Jerry Friedman
> In message <bcrlgl...@mid.individual.net>
> flirt and engage with Sir Henry would be good. Making them take it steps
> further would not be...
It may make no sense in the story, but it's what happens. I'll post
the whole paragraph:
"On our way back we stayed for lunch at Merripit House, and it was there
that Sir Henry made the acquaintance of Miss Stapleton. From the first
moment that he saw her he appeared to be strongly attracted by her, and
I am much mistaken if the feeling was not mutual. He referred to her
again and again on our walk home, and since then hardly a day has passed
that we have not seen something of the brother and sister. They dine here
tonight, and there is some talk of our going to them next week. One would
imagine that such a match would be very welcome to Stapleton, and yet I
have more than once caught a look of the strongest disapprobation in his
face when Sir Henry has been paying some attention to his sister. He is
much attached to her, no doubt, and would lead a lonely life without her,
but it would seem the height of selfishness if he were to stand in the
way of her making so brilliant a marriage. Yet I am certain that he does
not wish their intimacy to ripen into love, and I have several times
observed that he has taken pains to prevent them from being tete-a-tete.
By the way, your instructions to me never to allow Sir Henry to go out
observed that he has taken pains to prevent them from being tete-a-tete.
alone will become very much more onerous if a love affair were to be
added to our other difficulties. My popularity would soon suffer if I
were to carry out your orders to the letter."
Here's what Stan quoted:
"'The lady who has passed here as Miss Stapleton is in reality his wife.'
"'Good heavens, Holmes! Are you sure of what you say? How could he have permitted Sir Henry to fall in love with her?'
"'Sir Henry's falling in love could do no harm to anyone except Sir Henry. He took particular care that Sir Henry did not make love to her, as you have yourself observed. I repeat that the lady is his wife and not his sister.'"
So what Stapleton took care to do was keep Sir Henry from anything that
could lead to marrying Stapleton's sister--keep him from telling her
he loved her and wanted to marry her, for example. He also kept them
from having sex, if either would have done so outside of marriage.
Incidentally, the OED defines one sense of "affair" as
"A romantic or sexual relationship, often of short duration, between two
people who are not married to each other; spec. (a) one that is carried
on illicitly, one or both partners being involved in a relationship with
another person; (b) an intense sexual relationship. Also: a sexual
encounter of any of these types. Freq. with with. Cf. earlier affair of
love n. at Phrases 1; cf. also affaire n."
So Watson's use of "love affair" doesn't necessarily imply sex either.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 24, 2013, 5:07:55 PM10/24/13
to
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 11:42:20 AM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
> A while ago I saw a TV interview with a spokesman for the American
> Legion. He was called "Colonel" and wore a uniform forage cap with
> badges on throughout. He was explaining that US forces never committed
> atrocities because no order from a US officer could be illegal.
> Rubbish, of course, but an eye-opener.
That was Nixon's explanation: "If the President does it, it isn't illegal."
> A while ago I saw a TV interview with a spokesman for the American
> Legion. He was called "Colonel" and wore a uniform forage cap with
> badges on throughout. He was explaining that US forces never committed
> atrocities because no order from a US officer could be illegal.
> Rubbish, of course, but an eye-opener.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 24, 2013, 5:15:55 PM10/24/13
to
On Thursday, October 24, 2013 5:06:55 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> It may make no sense in the story, but it's what happens. I'll post
> the whole paragraph:
>
> "On our way back we stayed for lunch at Merripit House, and it was there
> that Sir Henry made the acquaintance of Miss Stapleton. From the first
> moment that he saw her he appeared to be strongly attracted by her, and
That's interesting. Nowadays we say "attracted to her."
> It may make no sense in the story, but it's what happens. I'll post
> the whole paragraph:
>
> "On our way back we stayed for lunch at Merripit House, and it was there
> that Sir Henry made the acquaintance of Miss Stapleton. From the first
> moment that he saw her he appeared to be strongly attracted by her, and
[...]
> So what Stapleton took care to do was keep Sir Henry from anything that
> could lead to marrying Stapleton's sister--
could lead to Sir Henry's attempting to marry Stapleton's _wife_ -- who
was being passed off as his sister.
John Briggs
Oct 24, 2013, 5:21:08 PM10/24/13
to
schoolgirl was reduced to tears by being described as ignorant - as she
didn't want to die of it...
--
John Briggs
R H Draney
Oct 24, 2013, 5:32:22 PM10/24/13
to
Mark Brader filted:
http://youtu.be/tK_jDA3qrUU
I remember hearing that some couple who were photographed for a PSA like this
one weren't told what it was about, and complained later when it appeared,
giving the impression that they both had VD....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>Mike Lyle:
>> Remember those early anti-AIDS ads on TV which made it quite clear
>> that one got AIDS from icebergs.
>
>Actually, I don't remember *ever* seeing anti-AIDS ads on TV, let
>alone British ones. How did they go?
Not British, but this is the one I remember:
>Mike Lyle:
>> Remember those early anti-AIDS ads on TV which made it quite clear
>> that one got AIDS from icebergs.
>
>Actually, I don't remember *ever* seeing anti-AIDS ads on TV, let
>alone British ones. How did they go?
http://youtu.be/tK_jDA3qrUU
I remember hearing that some couple who were photographed for a PSA like this
one weren't told what it was about, and complained later when it appeared,
giving the impression that they both had VD....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
Oct 24, 2013, 5:34:14 PM10/24/13
to
Ian Jackson filted:
>
>In message <bcpduq...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
><rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
>>On 21/10/13 9:23 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 5:16:46 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>
>>>>> In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
>>>>
>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
>>>> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
>>>> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
>>>
>>> How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>>
>>
>>Scouts were not supposed to know about that sort of thing.
>
>Of course they were - but they WERE expected to "be prepared". When
>suitably prepared, their lovemaking was usually 'intense'.
Scout was Tonto's *horse*, you pervert!...r
>In message <bcpduq...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
><rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
>>On 21/10/13 9:23 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 5:16:46 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>>
>>>>> In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
>>>>
>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
>>>> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
>>>> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
>>>
>>> How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>>
>>
>>Scouts were not supposed to know about that sort of thing.
>
>Of course they were - but they WERE expected to "be prepared". When
>suitably prepared, their lovemaking was usually 'intense'.
Mack A. Damia
Oct 24, 2013, 6:11:17 PM10/24/13
to
On 24 Oct 2013 14:34:14 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
wrote:
She was also Atticus Finch's young daughter, you nasty man!
--
wrote:
--
Mike L
Oct 24, 2013, 6:40:48 PM10/24/13
to
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:07:18 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Srebrenica. Jan, you know as well as anybody else that there are
people in every nation who justify appalling crimes of commission and
omission when it's their own troops who are responsible. Wars do that
to people. I was reporting on a particular TV appearance by a
particular idiot.
people in every nation who justify appalling crimes of commission and
omission when it's their own troops who are responsible. Wars do that
to people. I was reporting on a particular TV appearance by a
particular idiot.
Robert Bannister
Oct 25, 2013, 12:43:35 AM10/25/13
to
government, the Pentagon, the CIA and now the NSA live in a different
world where baby-eating could well be the norm for reasons beyond our
understanding.
--
Robert Bannister
Stan Brown
Oct 25, 2013, 2:47:30 AM10/25/13
to
Stan Brown
Oct 25, 2013, 2:48:41 AM10/25/13
to
speaking in a more serious way -- what we might now call "making
plans".
Stan Brown
Oct 25, 2013, 2:51:34 AM10/25/13
to
whom I had such high hopes, seems to feel even less bound by
legalities than his unlamented predecessor.
Stan Brown
Oct 25, 2013, 2:53:04 AM10/25/13
to
theory, but not in practice.
Message has been deleted
Peter Moylan
Oct 25, 2013, 6:53:47 AM10/25/13
to
set the rules. Nobody has yet set up a court to judge those who are
controlling the drones. I doubt that they'll be found guilty in my
lifetime, and even in theirs.
Your "particular idiot" was perhaps being more honest than is usual, but
he was reflecting the opinion of those in power in the USA. Consider the
revelation that several governments, including the American government,
are spying on the public in ways that are illegal in their own
countries. Many people reacted with anger. The governments in question
didn't show the slightest sign of shame at being caught out. Their focus
is on trying to catch and punish the person who revealed their illegality.
In this country we have bikie gangs who behave the same way.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
Oct 25, 2013, 6:57:17 AM10/25/13
to
were prevented from mentioning anything at all on the radio.
Peter Moylan
Oct 25, 2013, 7:14:46 AM10/25/13
to
On 25/10/13 02:49, Mike L wrote:
advertisement, which can still be found by googling. I've been told that
it caused a surge in discrimination against gay men. Whether it also
caused a change in anyone's sexual behaviour is something that I don't
know. I suspect that it increased the use of condoms.
At about the same time -- sorry, I can't pin it down better than that --
we were presented with an advertisement that said that every time we had
sex with someone we were effectively having sexual contact with dozens
of people. Again, I don't know how effective that was. It's true that
AIDS was a much smaller problem in Australia than in much of Africa, but
who can say why? It might just be because the Pope was less influential
here than in Africa.
My mind has just leapt back to the girlfriend I had in the early 1980s.
When I first met her, she quite bluntly enquired about my state of
sexual health. That says that we were already conscious about taking
precautions against sexually transmissible diseases in those days.
CDB
Oct 25, 2013, 7:27:41 AM10/25/13
to
On 24/10/2013 5:34 PM, R H Draney wrote:
> Ian Jackson filted:
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> Mike L wrote:
>>>>> Robert Bannister
[making love]
>>>>>> In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
>>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
>>>>> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
>>>>> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
>>>> How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>> Scouts were not supposed to know about that sort of thing.
>> Of course they were - but they WERE expected to "be prepared". When
>> suitably prepared, their lovemaking was usually 'intense'.
> Scout was Tonto's *horse*, you pervert!...r
Or his main man. Hard to be sure what their intent was.
"Later, an Indian named Tonto stumbles onto the scene and discovers one
ranger is still alive, though barely. (In some versions, Tonto
recognizes the lone survivor as the man who saved his life when they
were children; according to the television series, when Tonto left the
Reid place with a horse given him by the boy Reid, he gave Reid a ring
and the name Kemo Sabe, which he said means "trusty scout".[14])"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Ranger#Tonto
He was only a simple sidekick, but he sure could get'um up.
> Ian Jackson filted:
>> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> writes
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> Mike L wrote:
>>>>> Robert Bannister
[making love]
>>>>>> In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
>>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
>>>>> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
>>>>> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
>>>> How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>> Scouts were not supposed to know about that sort of thing.
>> Of course they were - but they WERE expected to "be prepared". When
>> suitably prepared, their lovemaking was usually 'intense'.
> Scout was Tonto's *horse*, you pervert!...r
"Later, an Indian named Tonto stumbles onto the scene and discovers one
ranger is still alive, though barely. (In some versions, Tonto
recognizes the lone survivor as the man who saved his life when they
were children; according to the television series, when Tonto left the
Reid place with a horse given him by the boy Reid, he gave Reid a ring
and the name Kemo Sabe, which he said means "trusty scout".[14])"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lone_Ranger#Tonto
He was only a simple sidekick, but he sure could get'um up.
J. J. Lodder
Oct 25, 2013, 8:16:19 AM10/25/13
to
by 'a spokesman for the American Legion'.
One may assume a spokesperson speaks for the organization.
(with about 3 million members)
America cannot maintain that:
A) Acting on an SS officers' orders may be a punishable war crime.
and
B) Acting on an US officers' orders is always perfectly legal.
and
C) Insist that the America's armed forces are morally superior
to the Germany's in WW II,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Oct 25, 2013, 8:16:20 AM10/25/13
to
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:13:29 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:19:04 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > > A while ago I saw a TV interview with a spokesman for the
> > > American Legion. He was called "Colonel" and wore a uniform
> > > forage cap with badges on throughout. He was explaining that US
> > > forces never committed atrocities because no order from a US
> > > officer could be illegal. Rubbish, of course, but an eye-opener.
> >
> > That makes the USA a nation of war criminals,
>
> Only to the extent that we choose our leaders -- which we do in
> theory, but not in practice.
The conclusion from the kind of thinking above
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:13:29 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 12:19:04 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> > > A while ago I saw a TV interview with a spokesman for the
> > > American Legion. He was called "Colonel" and wore a uniform
> > > forage cap with badges on throughout. He was explaining that US
> > > forces never committed atrocities because no order from a US
> > > officer could be illegal. Rubbish, of course, but an eye-opener.
> >
> > That makes the USA a nation of war criminals,
>
> Only to the extent that we choose our leaders -- which we do in
> theory, but not in practice.
is that president of the United States
(being the commander in chief)
is the only American who can possibly commit a war crime,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Oct 25, 2013, 8:50:23 AM10/25/13
to
It can pass judgement on those accused of war crimes.
(such as Mr Milosovic for example)
<www.icc-cpi.int/EN_Menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx>
> Your "particular idiot" was perhaps being more honest than is usual, but
> he was reflecting the opinion of those in power in the USA. Consider the
> revelation that several governments, including the American government,
> are spying on the public in ways that are illegal in their own
> countries. Many people reacted with anger. The governments in question
> didn't show the slightest sign of shame at being caught out. Their focus
> is on trying to catch and punish the person who revealed their illegality.
>
> In this country we have bikie gangs who behave the same way.
(one-sided, by the The Hague invasion Act)
The Netherlands is treaty-bound to guarantee the integrity of the ICC.
The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
I could further point out that this law is in existence a the behest
of the oragnization the above-mentioned 'idiot' is a spokesman for,
Jan
John Briggs
Oct 25, 2013, 9:57:07 AM10/25/13
to
criminal organisation. You should rather cite the (numerically
considerably fewer, but still significant) war crimes committed by the
Wehrmacht.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Oct 25, 2013, 9:58:53 AM10/25/13
to
On 25/10/2013 13:16, J. J. Lodder wrote:
--
John Briggs
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 25, 2013, 10:56:27 AM10/25/13
to
On Friday, October 25, 2013 8:16:19 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> America cannot maintain that:
>
> A) Acting on an SS officers' orders may be a punishable war crime.
> and
> B) Acting on an US officers' orders is always perfectly legal.
> and
> C) Insist that the America's armed forces are morally superior
> to the Germany's in WW II,
It wasn't, by and large, the armed forces that operated the concentration
> America cannot maintain that:
>
> A) Acting on an SS officers' orders may be a punishable war crime.
> and
> B) Acting on an US officers' orders is always perfectly legal.
> and
> C) Insist that the America's armed forces are morally superior
> to the Germany's in WW II,
camps and the death camps. It may, by and large, have been a single branch
of the armed forces, and not one in which conscripts served.
John Briggs
Oct 25, 2013, 11:12:35 AM10/25/13
to
moral superiority of the Waffen-SS is a fantasy, of course, and its
members were drawn initially from the Allgemeine-SS - including those
branches responsible for the concentration and death camps.
--
John Briggs
J. J. Lodder
Oct 25, 2013, 11:17:11 AM10/25/13
to
And if the USA ever gets occupied
the US army may well acquire the legal status
of a criminal organisation too.
> You should rather cite the (numerically
> considerably fewer, but still significant) war crimes committed by the
> Wehrmacht.
And yes, agreed, the distinction between a clean 'Wehrmacht'
and a dirty (Waffen)-SS is no more than a (to some) convenient fiction,
Jan
Skitt
Oct 25, 2013, 1:41:56 PM10/25/13
to
On 10/25/2013 8:17 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
insignia) officers (in turn, not at the same time) in our apartment
during the German occupation (1941-1945). I had to give up my bedroom
and move into what used to be the maid's room.
I still remember that their names were Herr Kniep and Herr Busecke. I
don't remember their ranks.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html
> John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> You should rather cite the (numerically
>> considerably fewer, but still significant) war crimes committed by the
>> Wehrmacht.
>
> Yes, but that would spoil the visual rhyme between the lines.
>
> And yes, agreed, the distinction between a clean 'Wehrmacht'
> and a dirty (Waffen)-SS is no more than a (to some) convenient fiction,
That reminded me that our family had to board two Waffen-SS (Totenkopf
>> You should rather cite the (numerically
>> considerably fewer, but still significant) war crimes committed by the
>> Wehrmacht.
>
> Yes, but that would spoil the visual rhyme between the lines.
>
> And yes, agreed, the distinction between a clean 'Wehrmacht'
> and a dirty (Waffen)-SS is no more than a (to some) convenient fiction,
insignia) officers (in turn, not at the same time) in our apartment
during the German occupation (1941-1945). I had to give up my bedroom
and move into what used to be the maid's room.
I still remember that their names were Herr Kniep and Herr Busecke. I
don't remember their ranks.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/main.html
an...@alum.wpi.edi
Oct 25, 2013, 2:15:49 PM10/25/13
to
police and other seemingly unrelated agencies.
ANMcC
J. J. Lodder
Oct 25, 2013, 2:42:19 PM10/25/13
to
were committed by the Wehrmacht, some by conscripts.
Jan
John Briggs
Oct 25, 2013, 2:51:36 PM10/25/13
to
both sides, for that matter) Elsewhere, it was usually the Waffen-SS.
--
John Briggs
Jerry Friedman
Oct 25, 2013, 4:12:07 PM10/25/13
to
On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:50:23 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
...
> The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
> whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
...
He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
"SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
"(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
(b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED- The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:
(1) Covered United States persons.
(2) Covered allied persons.
(3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:7:./temp/~c107J54Gjs:e248755:
The President is also authorized to proved legal assistance to people
detained, etc., by the ICC, which shows that authors of the bill
envisioned a situation where the person in question was not freed. (You'll
be glad to see he's not authorized to bribe anyone on behalf of such
people.)
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
> whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
"SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
"(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.
(b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE FREED- The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following persons:
(1) Covered United States persons.
(2) Covered allied persons.
(3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of such government."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c107:7:./temp/~c107J54Gjs:e248755:
The President is also authorized to proved legal assistance to people
detained, etc., by the ICC, which shows that authors of the bill
envisioned a situation where the person in question was not freed. (You'll
be glad to see he's not authorized to bribe anyone on behalf of such
people.)
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
Oct 25, 2013, 4:26:25 PM10/25/13
to
that it was declared a criminal organisation after the war.
Hence everyone in it became criminals by definition,
independently of their actual behaviour during the war.
This differed greatly, some Waffen-SS units
were as bad as the regular SS,
others were more like regular Wehrmacht units.
There is no telling how good or bad your Herr Kniep may have been
without further information,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Oct 25, 2013, 4:58:24 PM10/25/13
to
Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:50:23 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> ...
>
> > The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
> > whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
> ...
>
> He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
In practice it will be very difficult not to,
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:50:23 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> ...
>
> > The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
> > whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
> ...
>
> He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
given the noise that organisations like the American legion
are going to make.
>
> "SEC. 2008. AUTHORITY TO FREE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED
> STATES AND CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS DETAINED OR IMPRISONED BY OR ON BEHALF OF
> THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
>
> "(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and
> appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in
> subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at
> the request of the International Criminal Court. (b) PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO
> BE FREED- The authority of subsection (a) shall extend to the following
> persons: (1) Covered United States persons. (2) Covered allied persons.
> (3) Individuals detained or imprisoned for official actions taken while
> the individual was a covered United States person or a covered allied
> person, and in the case of a covered allied person, upon the request of
> such government."
It authorises the president (on his own) to start a war on an ally.
This ally can call on NATO help, hence American help
for defence against agression.
(which invading The Hague no doubt is)
Jan
Evan Kirshenbaum
Oct 25, 2013, 5:46:37 PM10/25/13
to
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
> America cannot maintain that:
> A) Acting on an SS officers' orders may be a punishable war crime.
> and
> B) Acting on an US officers' orders is always perfectly legal.
> and
> C) Insist that the America's armed forces are morally superior
> to the Germany's in WW II,
Does "America" maintain (B)? The current precedent (US v. Keenan)
> America cannot maintain that:
> A) Acting on an SS officers' orders may be a punishable war crime.
> and
> B) Acting on an US officers' orders is always perfectly legal.
> and
> C) Insist that the America's armed forces are morally superior
> to the Germany's in WW II,
held that
the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist
if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and
understanding would know it to be illegal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan
Keenan was convicted of murder for following his commander's order to
shoot a Vietnamese civilian.
The precedent goes back to Little v. Barreme (1804), which stated that
a naval captain "act[ed] at [his] own peril" when following illegal
orders:
The frigate USS Boston commanded by captain George Little captured
a Danish vessel, the Flying Fish, under orders of the Secretary of
the Navy on behalf of President John Adams "to intercept any
suspected American ship sailing to or from a French port." The
Congress, however, had passed a law authorizing the navy to seize
"vessels or cargoes [that] are apparently, as well as really,
American" and "bound or sailing to any [French] port" in an
attempt to prevent American vessels transporting goods to
France. The Flying Fish was sailing from and not to a French
port. Captain Little was declared to be liable for executing a
command that was illegal in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_v._Barreme
Little appealed the decision to the supreme court on the bases that
(1) an order by the president couldn't be illegal and (2) officers are
expected to follow orders. The supreme court ruled against him.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Never ascribe to malice that which
SF Bay Area (1982-) |can adequately be explained by
Chicago (1964-1982) |stupidity.
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Jerry Friedman
Oct 25, 2013, 6:57:01 PM10/25/13
to
On Friday, October 25, 2013 2:58:24 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:50:23 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
> > > whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
> > ...
>
> > He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
>
> In practice it will be very difficult not to,
> given the noise that organisations like the American legion
> are going to make.
I don't know what basis you have for that statement. American military
> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:50:23 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
> > > whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
> > ...
>
> > He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
>
> In practice it will be very difficult not to,
> given the noise that organisations like the American legion
> are going to make.
personnel are tried and, if convicted, imprisoned in other countries. In
2004, Japan held about 20 American servicemembers in prison (and they
complained about having to work for for-profit Japanese companies).
http://www.stripes.com/news/ex-marine-decries-nature-of-japan-prison-work-1.21905
There's no politically important move to get them under our
jurisdiction.
In any case, it's not going to happen. If the U.S. government did want
somebody back because of public pressure or anything else, all it would
have to do is start our own investigation of the allegations.
http://www.iccnow.org/documents/FS_ICC_QA.pdf
I suppose that it's barely conceivable that we could invade if the
detainee were a former president or some such. But I doubt it.
An amusing (in a sick way) possibility: if the crime was murder and
American public opinion was against the accused, Americans might want
him back because the ICC doesn't have the death penalty.
> > "(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and
> > appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in
> > subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at
> > the request of the International Criminal Court.
> It is an utterly crazy law even by American standards.
> It authorises the president (on his own) to start a war on an ally.
> This ally can call on NATO help, hence American help
> for defence against agression.
> (which invading The Hague no doubt is)
about that. I wonder whether they thought about it, and if so, decided
it would be even worse publicity to say explicitly that the U.S. could
repudiate its NATO obligations.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 25, 2013, 11:15:29 PM10/25/13
to
On Friday, October 25, 2013 5:46:37 PM UTC-4, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Little appealed the decision to the supreme court on the bases that
> (1) an order by the president couldn't be illegal and (2) officers are
> expected to follow orders. The supreme court ruled against him.
Fortunately that was the Marshall Court and not the Scalia-Roberts Court.
> Little appealed the decision to the supreme court on the bases that
> (1) an order by the president couldn't be illegal and (2) officers are
> expected to follow orders. The supreme court ruled against him.
Jerry Friedman
Oct 25, 2013, 11:18:31 PM10/25/13
to
On 10/25/13 4:57 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 2:58:24 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:50:23 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>>> The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
>>>> whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
>>> ...
>>
>>> He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
>>
>> In practice it will be very difficult not to,
>> given the noise that organisations like the American legion
>> are going to make.
>
> I don't know what basis you have for that statement. American military
> personnel are tried and, if convicted, imprisoned in other countries. In
> 2004, Japan held about 20 American servicemembers in prison (and they
> complained about having to work for for-profit Japanese companies).
>
> http://www.stripes.com/news/ex-marine-decries-nature-of-japan-prison-work-1.21905
...
> On Friday, October 25, 2013 2:58:24 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 25, 2013 6:50:23 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>
>>>> The American president is bound by his law to invade The Netherlands
>>>> whenever an American is accused of a war crime before the ICC.
>>> ...
>>
>>> He's authorized to do that, not bound to do it.
>>
>> In practice it will be very difficult not to,
>> given the noise that organisations like the American legion
>> are going to make.
>
> I don't know what basis you have for that statement. American military
> personnel are tried and, if convicted, imprisoned in other countries. In
> 2004, Japan held about 20 American servicemembers in prison (and they
> complained about having to work for for-profit Japanese companies).
>
> http://www.stripes.com/news/ex-marine-decries-nature-of-japan-prison-work-1.21905
Well, I suppose there could be a lot of pressure if the arrest were for
something that lots of Americans consider to be a normal action in war,
such as a mistake on the battlefield that leads to a massacre of civilians.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Oct 25, 2013, 11:19:59 PM10/25/13
to
On 10/25/13 11:41 AM, Skitt wrote:
> On 10/25/2013 8:17 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
...
> On 10/25/2013 8:17 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> And yes, agreed, the distinction between a clean 'Wehrmacht'
>> and a dirty (Waffen)-SS is no more than a (to some) convenient fiction,
>
> That reminded me that our family had to board two Waffen-SS (Totenkopf
> insignia) officers (in turn, not at the same time) in our apartment
> during the German occupation (1941-1945). I had to give up my bedroom
> and move into what used to be the maid's room.
>
> I still remember that their names were Herr Kniep and Herr Busecke. I
> don't remember their ranks.
than by their ranks. But what do I know about the SS?
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Oct 25, 2013, 11:27:48 PM10/25/13
to
On 10/25/13 3:46 PM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>
>> America cannot maintain that:
>> A) Acting on an SS officers' orders may be a punishable war crime.
>> and
>> B) Acting on an US officers' orders is always perfectly legal.
>> and
>> C) Insist that the America's armed forces are morally superior
>> to the Germany's in WW II,
>
> Does "America" maintain (B)? The current precedent (US v. Keenan)
> held that
>
> the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist
> if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and
> understanding would know it to be illegal.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan
>
> Keenan was convicted of murder for following his commander's order to
> shoot a Vietnamese civilian.
>
> The precedent goes back to Little v. Barreme (1804), which stated that
> a naval captain "act[ed] at [his] own peril" when following illegal
> orders:
...
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>
>> America cannot maintain that:
>> A) Acting on an SS officers' orders may be a punishable war crime.
>> and
>> B) Acting on an US officers' orders is always perfectly legal.
>> and
>> C) Insist that the America's armed forces are morally superior
>> to the Germany's in WW II,
>
> Does "America" maintain (B)? The current precedent (US v. Keenan)
> held that
>
> the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist
> if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and
> understanding would know it to be illegal.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Keenan
>
> Keenan was convicted of murder for following his commander's order to
> shoot a Vietnamese civilian.
>
> The precedent goes back to Little v. Barreme (1804), which stated that
> a naval captain "act[ed] at [his] own peril" when following illegal
> orders:
See also the Abu Ghraib cases, such as
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/15/graner.court.martial/
--
Jerry Friedman
Stan Brown
Oct 26, 2013, 7:51:19 AM10/26/13
to
them out is also a war crime. That was established at Nuremberg.
And people acting independently can also commit war crimes, as I
believe Lt. Calley did at My Lai.
(*) I don't know enough about the legal definition of war crimes to
know whether any of this President's orders qualify.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
J. J. Lodder
Oct 26, 2013, 3:12:16 PM10/26/13
to
Later in WW II the Waffen-SS grew into a complete army
of many divisions.
Many of the later members were foreign volunteers and even conscripts.
IIRC the conscripts were exempted
from the crimnal status of the organisation,
because they had served involuntarily,
Jan
Tak To
Oct 26, 2013, 3:24:12 PM10/26/13
to
On 10/23/2013 4:06 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 22/10/13 5:52 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 5:28:47 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:23:39 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 5:16:46 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>> time. B-P, of course, wouldn't have written about "that kind of thing"
>>> to the target age group even if he'd been inclined to.
>>
>> What was intended isn't at all necessarily what 12-year-old boys took
>> from it.
Also, arching of the woman's feet (popular in Japanese
movies) and smoking cigarettes afterwards. I also seem
to recall pile-driving machines as well.
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
> On 22/10/13 5:52 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Monday, October 21, 2013 5:28:47 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 18:23:39 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, October 20, 2013 5:16:46 PM UTC-4, Mike L wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 09:29:31 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>
>>>>>> In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
>>>
>>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
>>>>> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
>>>>> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
>>>
>>>> How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>>
>>> Well, mainly by our knowing what was intended in such contexts at the
>>>>>> In Victorian times, it definitely meant nothing more than talking sweetly.
>>>
>>>>> And, as others have said upthread, not only in Victorian times. One of
>>>>> the instructions in _Scouting For Boys_ - once almost a sacred text -
>>>>> was "don't make love to a girl unless you mean to marry her".
>>>
>>>> How does that exclude (as Sheldon Cooper would say) coitus?
>>>
>>> time. B-P, of course, wouldn't have written about "that kind of thing"
>>> to the target age group even if he'd been inclined to.
>>
>> What was intended isn't at all necessarily what 12-year-old boys took
>> from it.
>>
>
> I don't think "make love to a girl" would have made any sense to me when
> I was 12 even though I was well aware of fucking, shagging and screwing.
> Oh, and then there was the movies: clearly thunderstorms, surf on the
> beach, galloping horses and similar all meant fucking, [...]
>
> I don't think "make love to a girl" would have made any sense to me when
> I was 12 even though I was well aware of fucking, shagging and screwing.
> Oh, and then there was the movies: clearly thunderstorms, surf on the
Also, arching of the woman's feet (popular in Japanese
movies) and smoking cigarettes afterwards. I also seem
to recall pile-driving machines as well.
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Tak To
Oct 26, 2013, 3:26:49 PM10/26/13
to
On 10/24/2013 12:19 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 23/10/13 5:43 PM, John Briggs wrote:
>> On 23/10/2013 08:56, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 22/10/13 11:38 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> Mark Brader:
>>>>>> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
>>>>>> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
>>>>>> search terms appear" pulldown.
>>>>
>>>> Stan Brown:
>>>>> Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
>>>>> 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
>>>>> actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
>>>>
>>>> Well, either that or use the pulldown.
>>>>
>>>> And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
>>>> to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Google first appeared, I thought it was wonderful. Now I am
>>> beginning to think it is little more than a gathering tool for the CIA.
>>
>> The NSA, not the CIA. The NSA is formally part of the Department of
>> Defense - as such, it can legally operate both at home and overseas.
>
> Ah. I feel much better now. Listening to a spokesman about the use of
> drones in Pakistan yesterday, I realised that the word "legal" means
> different things in different places.
You expected otherwise?!
> On 23/10/13 5:43 PM, John Briggs wrote:
>> On 23/10/2013 08:56, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> On 22/10/13 11:38 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
>>>> Mark Brader:
>>>>>> What you need to use is "allintext:", which is the equivalent of
>>>>>> selecting the "In the text of the page" item in the "where the
>>>>>> search terms appear" pulldown.
>>>>
>>>> Stan Brown:
>>>>> Let me see if I understand. I have to use an extra operator, typing
>>>>> 10 or 11 extra characters, just to say "yes, I want pages that
>>>>> actually contain the search terms I'm searching for"?
>>>>
>>>> Well, either that or use the pulldown.
>>>>
>>>> And I think you know why: they think the way it works now is more useful
>>>> to more people more often than the way you would like it to work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When Google first appeared, I thought it was wonderful. Now I am
>>> beginning to think it is little more than a gathering tool for the CIA.
>>
>> The NSA, not the CIA. The NSA is formally part of the Department of
>> Defense - as such, it can legally operate both at home and overseas.
>
> Ah. I feel much better now. Listening to a spokesman about the use of
> drones in Pakistan yesterday, I realised that the word "legal" means
> different things in different places.
Peter T. Daniels
Oct 26, 2013, 4:11:13 PM10/26/13
to
On Saturday, October 26, 2013 3:24:12 PM UTC-4, Tak To wrote:
> On 10/23/2013 4:06 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > I don't think "make love to a girl" would have made any sense to me when
> > I was 12 even though I was well aware of fucking, shagging and screwing.
> > Oh, and then there was the movies: clearly thunderstorms, surf on the
> > beach, galloping horses and similar all meant fucking, [...]
There's still not been a scene in mainstream cinema more erotic than Deborah
> On 10/23/2013 4:06 AM, Robert Bannister wrote:
> > I don't think "make love to a girl" would have made any sense to me when
> > I was 12 even though I was well aware of fucking, shagging and screwing.
> > Oh, and then there was the movies: clearly thunderstorms, surf on the
> > beach, galloping horses and similar all meant fucking, [...]
Kerr & Burt Lancaster on the beach in *From Here to Eternity*.
> Also, arching of the woman's feet (popular in Japanese
> movies) and smoking cigarettes afterwards. I also seem
> to recall pile-driving machines as well.
directly after the couple had retired to their sleeping compartment.
(Could it be in *The Lady Vanishes*, much of which takes place on a train?)
Tak To
Oct 26, 2013, 7:14:25 PM10/26/13
to
administrative staffs, were organized into the
SS-Totenkopfverbände in 1936. The SS-TV
(with their own skull and bone insignia)
was generally not considered to be part of
Allgemeine-SS.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages