Precise meaning of spectator

[Paul]

At a tennis event, who precisely are the "spectators"? A first attempt to
answer might be "Everyone watching who isn't playing". But this isn't correct
because the officials and ballkids aren't spectators. How about the coaches?
Are they "spectators"?

Paul

[David Kleinecke]

The officials and ballkids are not spectators. Tennis coaches
had better remain spectators. (Unlike baseball coaches.)

Everybody not playing an active part in the entertainment is
a spectator. Everybody else ain't.

[jerryfr...@gmail.com]

The people selling refreshments aren't spectators either. I'd
say the definition is that spectators' main purpose is to watch
and enjoy the match.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Ross]

The only sure test is to watch them and see if they spectate.

[Snidely]

On Friday, jerryfr...@gmail.com yelped out that:

No argument.

> and enjoy the match.

Always the optimist.

/dps "You don't have the Rams"

--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013

[Paul]

If so, then coaches definitely aren't spectators by your definition.
Coaches aren't (typically) trying to "enjoy" the match. Part of
their job is to watch the matches of the players they work for,
in the hope of acquiring information that can help them give advice.
Enjoyment doesn't really come into it.

Parents aren't typically looking to "enjoy" the experience either,
but they feel it's the right thing to do to support their
children's careers.

That's what I mean by saying the definition seems ambiguous.

Paul

[grabber]

Lots of words mean slightly different things in different contexts. It's
commonplace in cricket to say that one batsman was a spectator as his
partners got out at the other end, but would he not be classified as a
spectator at the match.

The parents at the tennis are certainly spectators in a sense, but they
aren't run-of-the-mill spectators. I don't think this is a peculiarity
of the word spectator but a symptom of the fluidity with which all
language is used.

[jerryfr...@gmail.com]

That would make you a metaspectator.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Charles Bishop]

In article <mn.85827e0c72310b7a.127094@snitoo>,

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, jerryfr...@gmail.com yelped out that:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 2:57:13 PM UTC-7, David Kleinecke wrote:
> >> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-8, Paul wrote:
> >>> At a tennis event, who precisely are the "spectators"? A first attempt to
> >>> answer might be "Everyone watching who isn't playing". But this isn't
> >>> correct because the officials and ballkids aren't spectators. How about
> >>> the coaches? Are they "spectators"?
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>
> >> The officials and ballkids are not spectators. Tennis coaches
> >> had better remain spectators. (Unlike baseball coaches.)
> >>
> >> Everybody not playing an active part in the entertainment is
> >> a spectator. Everybody else ain't.
> >
> > The people selling refreshments aren't spectators either. I'd
> > say the definition is that spectators' main purpose is to watch
>
> No argument.
>
> > and enjoy the match.
>
> Always the optimist.
>
> /dps "You don't have the Rams"

The Rams - the new Old Mets?

--
chrles, not at these prices

[bebe...@aol.com]

I would say a spectator is someone attending the event for the _express purpose_ of watching a match, exclusive of people who just happen to be "beholders" of the match, owing to their necessary presence on the premises of the event.

[David Kleinecke]

So we have two extreme definitions:
(1) everybody watching except the actual players and their
involved support (umpires, ballkids, etc.)
(2) everybody who came just to watch
Hence there is a gray area full of coaches (mostly), vendors,
security and other people who just happen to be there. We need
a name for the gray area.

[Tony Cooper]

Why? Under what circumstances do we need this term?

If a terrorist sets off a bomb at a tennis match, and nine people are
killed, do we need to say "...killing two players, a vendor, four
spectators, and two (term for gray area members)." or can we just say
"...killing nine people including two players."

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[bebe...@aol.com]

Then a convenient classification could be:

- Players
- Staff: players' staff and event staff, inclusive of the people in what you call the "grey area" ("de facto" beholders by my definition)
- Spectators

[Sam Plusnet]

Sounds good to me.
The spectators are the people who are there to watch.
Everyone else is taking part - in one way or another.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Does "audience" have the same meaning as "spectators" for the purposes
of this discussion?


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

[Dr. HotSalt]

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 2:28:23 PM UTC-8, PeterWD wrote:

(players, judges, coaches, ballpersons, vendors, ushers, etc.)

> Does "audience" have the same meaning as "spectators" for the purposes
> of this discussion?

I would think that "audience" implies listening while "spectators" are those watching. "Attendees" might work as a generic term considering that the blind go to movies and the deaf go to concerts.

In either case I think you have to pay money to qualify.

Ah, except for those events for which no fee is charged.


Dr. HotSalt

[Tony Cooper]

Meaning, yes. Usage, no. An orchestra plays before an audience, but
a tennis match is played before spectators.

The grey area is the rock concert. Audience or spectators?

[bebe...@aol.com]

Crowd

[RH Draney]

On 12/17/2016 3:28 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
> Does "audience" have the same meaning as "spectators" for the purposes
> of this discussion?

Based on etymology, "spectators" watch a performance, and an "audience"
listens to one....r

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

A bit tricky for the audiences watching silent movies!

Of course, their status as listeners might be maintained by the presence
of live music: a pianist, organist or even a small orchestra.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:29:54 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:29:12 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/17/2016 3:28 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>
>>> Does "audience" have the same meaning as "spectators" for the purposes
>>> of this discussion?
>>
>>Based on etymology, "spectators" watch a performance, and an "audience"
>>listens to one....r
>
>A bit tricky for the audiences watching silent movies!

Also tricky for many musical acts. It seems that singers no longer
just stand there and a belt out a song. It now seems required that
the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.

So, if you're at the arena to hear the singer, aren't you there as
part of both the audience and the spectators?

[RH Draney]

A chestnut often repeated in alt.movies.silent when I used to hang out
there is that silent movies were never silent....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:49:38 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:29:54 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:29:12 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:

> >>Based on etymology, "spectators" watch a performance, and an "audience"
> >>listens to one....r
> >A bit tricky for the audiences watching silent movies!
>
> Also tricky for many musical acts. It seems that singers no longer
> just stand there and a belt out a song.

When was that ever the case? And whom do you have in mind as "belting"?

> It now seems required that
> the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
> employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.

Your experience with "singing" acts appears to be limited to Super Bowl
halftime shows.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:08:57 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:49:38 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:29:54 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> >On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:29:12 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> >>Based on etymology, "spectators" watch a performance, and an "audience"
>> >>listens to one....r
>> >A bit tricky for the audiences watching silent movies!
>>
>> Also tricky for many musical acts. It seems that singers no longer
>> just stand there and a belt out a song.
>
>When was that ever the case? And whom do you have in mind as "belting"?

Actually, I was thinking of Frank Sinatra when I saw him in Las Vegas.
It was his birthday. Just Frank on the stage. Sometime in the late
1960s or early 1970s.

The Fifth Dimension was also on the program and I heard "Ode to Billie
Joe" the first time. I thought it might become popular. I hadn't
heard Bobbie Gentry's version.

>
>> It now seems required that
>> the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
>> employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.
>
>Your experience with "singing" acts appears to be limited to Super Bowl
>halftime shows.

If you can stay awake long enough to watch the musical acts at the end
of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, you'll see a singer, the singer
dance, a troupe of dancers with the singer, and laser lights. Not
fireworks, though.

>> So, if you're at the arena to hear the singer, aren't you there as
>> part of both the audience and the spectators?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:34:06 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 20:08:57 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 6:49:38 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:29:54 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> >> <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 13:29:12 -0700, RH Draney <dado...@cox.net> wrote:

> >> >>Based on etymology, "spectators" watch a performance, and an "audience"
> >> >>listens to one....r
> >> >A bit tricky for the audiences watching silent movies!
> >> Also tricky for many musical acts. It seems that singers no longer
> >> just stand there and a belt out a song.
> >When was that ever the case? And whom do you have in mind as "belting"?
>
> Actually, I was thinking of Frank Sinatra when I saw him in Las Vegas.
> It was his birthday. Just Frank on the stage. Sometime in the late
> 1960s or early 1970s.
>
> The Fifth Dimension was also on the program and I heard "Ode to Billie
> Joe" the first time. I thought it might become popular. I hadn't
> heard Bobbie Gentry's version.

Then I'm afraid you have no idea what "belt" means, said of singers.

Moreover, Sinatra never sang unaccompanied. There was a "big band"
associated with his act at all times, whether in his early days fronting
one of the Dorsey bands, or later when Nelson Riddle was his usual
arranger. You'd be hard pressed to find him even with just piano, bass,
and drums like a cabaret singer.

> >> It now seems required that
> >> the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
> >> employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.

Like I said. Super Bowl.

> >Your experience with "singing" acts appears to be limited to Super Bowl
> >halftime shows.
>
> If you can stay awake long enough to watch the musical acts at the end
> of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, you'll see a singer, the singer
> dance, a troupe of dancers with the singer, and laser lights. Not
> fireworks, though.

If there's going to be a pop music act, I turn off the TV before the very
long commercial break before it starts.

To be sure, the programming under Jon Batiste isn't nearly up to
the standard achieved by Paul Shafer.

[David Kleinecke]

It hardly counts as belting but one of the best musical acts I
ever saw was nothing but Burl Ives, a chair and a guitar.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:34:06 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:

[replying to each other]

> > >> It now seems required that
> > >> the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
> > >> employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.
>
> Like I said. Super Bowl.
>
> > >Your experience with "singing" acts appears to be limited to Super Bowl
> > >halftime shows.

Your experience with popular singers seems limited ...

> > If you can stay awake long enough to watch the musical acts at the end
> > of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, you'll see a singer, the singer
> > dance, a troupe of dancers with the singer, and laser lights. Not
> > fireworks, though.
>
> If there's going to be a pop music act, I turn off the TV before the very
> long commercial break before it starts.

... and you admit it!

So it seems weird to say Tony's experience is limited.

(Michael Jackson didn't start it, I'm sure, but he made it mandatory. Didn't Dean Martin always have dancers behind on his songs? But he didn't moonwalk, no more than a little soft shoe. And in another venue, there was Chris LeDoux [1])

>
> To be sure, the programming under Jon Batiste isn't nearly up to
> the standard achieved by Paul Shafer.

Was Paul Shafer that good in 1983? (Letterman interviews Frank Zappa)

[1] I regret not seeing Chris live, even if it would have been towards the end. He didn't make it to 2016, like everybody else.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 2:33:20 PM UTC-5, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:34:06 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> [replying to each other]
>
> > > >> It now seems required that
> > > >> the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
> > > >> employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.
> >
> > Like I said. Super Bowl.
> >
> > > >Your experience with "singing" acts appears to be limited to Super Bowl
> > > >halftime shows.
>
> Your experience with popular singers seems limited ...

vide infra

> > > If you can stay awake long enough to watch the musical acts at the end
> > > of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, you'll see a singer, the singer
> > > dance, a troupe of dancers with the singer, and laser lights. Not
> > > fireworks, though.
> > If there's going to be a pop music act, I turn off the TV before the very
> > long commercial break before it starts.
>
> ... and you admit it!
>
> So it seems weird to say Tony's experience is limited.

I am awake for the first performance on SNL (it's followed by Weekend
Update, after which I turn off the TV and watch the tape of the rest the
next day, ordinarily skipping the second performance), and the SNL "musical
guest" was often on Colbert earlier in the week (their studios are a few blocks apart).

Though it was from SNL that I learned of Billy Joel -- both "Piano Man"
and "We Didn't Start the Fire."

> (Michael Jackson didn't start it, I'm sure, but he made it mandatory. Didn't Dean Martin always have dancers behind on his songs? But he didn't moonwalk, no more than a little soft shoe. And in another venue, there was Chris LeDoux [1])

The Dean Martin Show was before my time (likewise the Rat Pack), and I
haven't heard of Chris LeDoux.

> > To be sure, the programming under Jon Batiste isn't nearly up to
> > the standard achieved by Paul Shafer.
>
> Was Paul Shafer that good in 1983? (Letterman interviews Frank Zappa)

He'd already done several years on SNL. In early clips he had hair.

I came to Letterman shortly before returning to NY in 1997, I think, when
he had moved to CBS (even in Chicago I wouldn't have watched a Late Late
Show), because I gave up on *Nightline* shortly after Ted Koppel left.
WLS-7 apparently owned the entire RKO catalogue and after *Nightline* there
was usually an unknown '30s movie (often featuring Gene Raymond -- Mr.
Jeanette MacDonald -- and/or Jean Arthur), and during New Year's week they
always had an Astaire/Rogers festival, so there was no incentive to turn
to Johnny or whatever CBS was trying against him at any particular time.

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:33:16 -0800 (PST), snide...@gmail.com wrote:

>On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:34:06 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
>[replying to each other]
>
>> > >> It now seems required that
>> > >> the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
>> > >> employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.
>>
>> Like I said. Super Bowl.
>>
>> > >Your experience with "singing" acts appears to be limited to Super Bowl
>> > >halftime shows.
>
>Your experience with popular singers seems limited ...
>
>> > If you can stay awake long enough to watch the musical acts at the end
>> > of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, you'll see a singer, the singer
>> > dance, a troupe of dancers with the singer, and laser lights. Not
>> > fireworks, though.
>>
>> If there's going to be a pop music act, I turn off the TV before the very
>> long commercial break before it starts.
>
>... and you admit it!
>
>So it seems weird to say Tony's experience is limited.

I think PTD said he watched "American Idol" when it was on. That puts
lie to any claim that singers don't perform with a troupe of dancers,
laser lights, fog machines, and other special effects. That was
standard in the final competitions.

The troupe of dancers were often back-up singers who danced or dancers
who sang back-up.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 5:04:35 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2016 11:33:16 -0800 (PST), snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 6:45:06 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:34:06 AM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >[replying to each other]

> >> > >> It now seems required that
> >> > >> the singer dance, have a troupe of dancers on stage with them, and
> >> > >> employ a crew to operate the laser lighting and fireworks.
> >> Like I said. Super Bowl.
> >> > >Your experience with "singing" acts appears to be limited to Super Bowl
> >> > >halftime shows.
> >Your experience with popular singers seems limited ...
> >> > If you can stay awake long enough to watch the musical acts at the end
> >> > of The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, you'll see a singer, the singer
> >> > dance, a troupe of dancers with the singer, and laser lights. Not
> >> > fireworks, though.
> >> If there's going to be a pop music act, I turn off the TV before the very
> >> long commercial break before it starts.
> >... and you admit it!
> >So it seems weird to say Tony's experience is limited.
>
> I think PTD said he watched "American Idol" when it was on. That puts

No, he never said any such thing.

Or can you not tell the difference between *American Idol* and *America's
Got Talent*?

> lie to any claim that singers don't perform with a troupe of dancers,
> laser lights, fog machines, and other special effects. That was
> standard in the final competitions.
>
> The troupe of dancers were often back-up singers who danced or dancers
> who sang back-up.

Nice to know that you watched both the Super Bowl Halftime Show and American Idol.

Still wondering what you think "belt" means in a singing context.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 19/12/2016 22:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Still wondering what you think "belt" means in a singing context.

To me it means "Ethel Merman".

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 5:59:07 PM UTC-5, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 19/12/2016 22:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Still wondering what you think "belt" means in a singing context.
>
> To me it means "Ethel Merman".

Exactamento.

And Sophie Tucker ... I used to see her on Ed Sullivan! "The Last of the
Red-Hot Mamas."

In their day, there were no microphones. they had to reach the back row
of the second balcony.

I actually saw Ethel Merman once -- she was the last in the long line of
divas in the original run of *Hello, Dolly*, probably ca. 1969. I wish I
could say whether she was miked or not!

[Harvey]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 22:59:06 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
> On 19/12/2016 22:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > Still wondering what you think "belt" means in a singing context.

> To me it means "Ethel Merman".

Yup, although any of the singers of "power ballads" would qualify
for me.

I've not thought of this before, but it's not applied to male
singers very often - some stage singers, perhaps, but even then not
nearly as often as the women.

--
Cheers, Harvey
CanE (30 years) & BrE (34 years), indiscriminately mixed

[Dingbat]

A spectacle, in one of its meanings, is watched or worthy of being watched.
Yet, becoming a spectacle isn't one meaning of 'bespectacled.' Could one say
that BASED ON ETYMOLOGY, this is one meaning of 'bespectacled' but in usage/
idiom, it is not a meaning of 'bespectacled'?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Etymology is no guide to meaning.

[Paul Wolff]

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016, Harvey <use...@whhvs.co.uk> posted:

>On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 22:59:06 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2016 22:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> > Still wondering what you think "belt" means in a singing context.
>
>> To me it means "Ethel Merman".
>
>Yup, although any of the singers of "power ballads" would qualify for
>me.
>I've not thought of this before, but it's not applied to male singers
>very often - some stage singers, perhaps, but even then not nearly as
>often as the women.
>

Harry Secombe, Neddy Seagoon in the original Goon Show cast and Welsh
tenor, was fond of describing his own singing as not bel canto, but can
belto.
--
Paul

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Let's hope we won't need to know.

--
athel

[Mack A. Damia]

You silly twisted boy, you.

[Peter Young]

He did indeed, but he wasn't by a long way the originator of that
term.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Ir)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

[bebe...@aol.com]

?? It certainly is a _guide_ to meaning, if not a be-all and end-all in this respect.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Etymology is far more misleading than leading. A guide is supposed to lead.

[bebe...@aol.com]

Yet, it points to the general direction to follow, which context can often help refine.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 21/12/2016 08:31, Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 22:59:06 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>> On 19/12/2016 22:51, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> > Still wondering what you think "belt" means in a singing context.
>
>> To me it means "Ethel Merman".
>
> Yup, although any of the singers of "power ballads" would qualify for me.
> I've not thought of this before, but it's not applied to male singers
> very often - some stage singers, perhaps, but even then not nearly as
> often as the women.
>

Quite. There are far too many Full-throated Divas.

--
Sam Plusnet

[CDB]

On 12/21/2016 2:05 PM, bebe...@aol.com wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>> bebe...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels a écrit :

>>>> Dingbat wrote:

>>>>> RH Draney wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:

>>>>>>> Does "audience" have the same meaning as "spectators" for
>>>>>>> the purposes of this discussion?
>>>>>> Based on etymology, "spectators" watch a performance, and
>>>>>> an "audience" listens to one....r

>>>>> A spectacle, in one of its meanings, is watched or worthy of
>>>>> being watched. Yet, becoming a spectacle isn't one meaning of
>>>>> 'bespectacled.' Could one say that BASED ON ETYMOLOGY, this
>>>>> is one meaning of 'bespectacled' but in usage/ idiom, it is
>>>>> not a meaning of 'bespectacled'?

You must know that "bespectacled" refers to "spectacles", an extension
of the Latin singular that couldn't come along until people got good at
grinding lenses.

spectacle:
'mid-14c., "specially prepared or arranged display," from Old French
spectacle "sight, spectacle, Roman games" (13c.), from Latin spectaculum
"a public show, spectacle, place from which shows are seen," from
spectare "to view, watch, behold," frequentative form of specere "to
look at," from PIE *spek- "to observe" (see scope (n.1)).'

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=spectacle

Note its origin in a verb that meant "very much look" (so to speak).

>>>> Etymology is no guide to meaning.

>>> ?? It certainly is a _guide_ to meaning, if not a be-all and
>>> end-all in this respect.

A quibble on the meaning of "guide". You have to know the current use,
but a words's etymology is often useful as a guide to its usage, as
witness the discussion of "rather".

>> Etymology is far more misleading than leading.

> Yet, it points to the general direction to follow, which context can
> often help refine.

>> A guide is supposed to lead.

Think of it as the kind of guide that shows you around after you have
arrived.

[jerryfr...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 2:30:16 AM UTC-5, Snidely wrote:
> On Friday, jerryfr...@gmail.com yelped out that:
> > On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 2:57:13 PM UTC-7, David Kleinecke wrote:

> >> On Friday, December 16, 2016 at 1:42:22 PM UTC-8, Paul wrote:
> >>> At a tennis event, who precisely are the "spectators"? A first attempt to
> >>> answer might be "Everyone watching who isn't playing". But this isn't
> >>> correct because the officials and ballkids aren't spectators. How about
> >>> the coaches? Are they "spectators"?
> >>>
> >>> Paul
> >>

> >> The officials and ballkids are not spectators. Tennis coaches
> >> had better remain spectators. (Unlike baseball coaches.)
> >>
> >> Everybody not playing an active part in the entertainment is
> >> a spectator. Everybody else ain't.
> >
> > The people selling refreshments aren't spectators either. I'd
> > say the definition is that spectators' main purpose is to watch
>
> No argument.
>
> > and enjoy the match.
>
> Always the optimist.
>
> /dps "You don't have the Rams"

What do Californians know about bad football teams?

--
Jerry Friedman is posting from Cleveland, Ohio.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, December 22, 2016 at 6:06:17 AM UTC-8, jerryfr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 2:30:16 AM UTC-5, Snidely wrote:
> > On Friday, jerryfr...@gmail.com yelped out that:

[...]

> > > and enjoy the match.
> >
> > Always the optimist.
> >
> > /dps "You don't have the Rams"
>
> What do Californians know about bad football teams?

> [...]

> Jerry Friedman is posting from Cleveland, Ohio.

We're where the auditions are held.

(although Oakland has been so down lately)

/dps

[Snidely]

snide...@gmail.com is guilty of
<f98ff38e-71bd-4da8...@googlegroups.com> as of
12/22/2016 1:45:35 PM

*Not* been so down lately

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.