Goose behavior
UC
(King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw a goose flying
toward the bridge just above the water. It approached the bridge and
started climbing and flew over the bridge, then down toward the water
again, then climbed again to fly over another bridge. The puzzling
thing is that the goose could have flown through the openings in the
bridges with less effort. And of course there is some risk in flying
over the bridge, because there may be a big truck coming by just as he
flies over.
Any ideas out there?
Kalkidas
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uranium-e8428c5c-c2f6-...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Maybe the goose was just having fun with an obstacle course.
Will in New Haven
There is no rational explanation for the behavior of any living thing
in central Ohio. Maybe he's just another Buckeye fan.
--
Will in New Haven
raven1
It was avoiding being eaten by trolls.
J. J. Lodder
Going over doesn't take much energy.
The goose converts speed into height,
and recovers the speed when descending again.
Most of the energy cost is temporary loss of ground effect,
partially compensated for by less drag at lower speed.
BTW, never saw it. The geese I see go under the bridges,
Jan
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
The goose obeys FAA regulations.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Steven L.
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uranium-e8428c5c-c2f6-...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Perhaps by flying high over the water, the goose was able to take
advantage of updrafts to conserve energy while gliding.
Birds instinctively seek out thermals and updrafts so that they can
glide over them rather than having to flap their wings, which is
energy-intensive.
-- Steven L.
Paul J Gans
Now now... Be nice. Some of us here are Ohio State graduates
even if we don't brag about it.
As for the geese, perhaps it is instinctive, perhaps learned,
but I suspect that the underside of a bridge looks constricting
to them and they don't like to be caught in constricted air
space.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Jeffrey Turner
That's why there are no geese on usenet!
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
J. J. Lodder
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uranium-e8428c5c-c2f6-...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.co:
>
> > Was standing on a big bridge over the Olentangy River the other day
> > (King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw a goose flying
> > toward the bridge just above the water. It approached the bridge and
> > started climbing and flew over the bridge, then down toward the water
> > again, then climbed again to fly over another bridge. The puzzling
> > thing is that the goose could have flown through the openings in the
> > bridges with less effort. And of course there is some risk in flying
> > over the bridge, because there may be a big truck coming by just as he
> > flies over.
> >
> > Any ideas out there?
>
> Perhaps by flying high over the water, the goose was able to take
> advantage of updrafts to conserve energy while gliding.
>
> Birds instinctively seek out thermals and updrafts so that they can
> glide over them rather than having to flap their wings, which is
> energy-intensive.
Just the oppposite.
Over quiet water geese fly into ground effect whenever possible.
(sometimes even with wingtips touching water)
Other big birds do likewise,
for ground effect allows for great savings in energy,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> UC wrote:
>
> > Was standing on a big bridge over the Olentangy River the other day
> > (King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw a goose flying
> > toward the bridge just above the water. It approached the bridge and
> > started climbing and flew over the bridge, then down toward the water
> > again, then climbed again to fly over another bridge. The puzzling thing
> > is that the goose could have flown through the openings in the bridges
> > with less effort.
>
> Like Jan said, there was probably not much effort involved at all. If the
> goose had a good wind under its wings, just a slight adjustment in the
> angle of its wings and it would soar up.
Geese have a high wing loading, hence have to fly fast.
Mere ballistics will take them over a low bridge,
Jan
r norman
Watch an albatross or other similar large sea bird skim the surface
seemingly forever without a twitch of the wings.
heekster
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>On 10/6/2010 2:26 PM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2010 10:27:35 -0700 (PDT), UC
>> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Was standing on a big bridge over the Olentangy River the other day
>>> (King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw a goose flying
>>> toward the bridge just above the water. It approached the bridge and
>>> started climbing and flew over the bridge, then down toward the water
>>> again, then climbed again to fly over another bridge. The puzzling
>>> thing is that the goose could have flown through the openings in the
>>> bridges with less effort. And of course there is some risk in flying
>>> over the bridge, because there may be a big truck coming by just as he
>>> flies over.
>>>
>>> Any ideas out there?
>>
>> It was avoiding being eaten by trolls.
>
>That's why there are no geese on usenet!
Paul Gans is on usenet.
UC
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:40:50 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>
>
>
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I thought birds liked to fly high for easy flying.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I was about to suggest that it didn't know it could go under. Maybe
it didn't.
Maybe it was afraid that something that eats geese could be lurking on
the other side of the bridge, where it couldn't see. A colony of drop-
bears, for instance. Or a raptor. If you know they're around...
JennyB
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > Maybe the goose was just having fun with an obstacle course.
>
> enjoy flying.
Or maybe it's seen people drop stuff.
Greg G.
It's probably a scout from the team up north for the game on Saturday.
Maybe he doesn't like pigeons pooping at him.
J. J. Lodder
Yes! Pieces of bread! MjamMjam!
Move in fast before the gulls have it,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
That's a mistake.
Flying very close to the ground is much easier.
The reason is called 'ground effect'.
If fact, the Wright Brothers first plane
could only fly close to the ground.
Only their later ones could climb out of ground effect,
by having better L/D and more power/weight.
Jan
Dick C.
9f7a-32b...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Practicing stealth bombing runs.
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
John S. Wilkins
Laden, or unladen?
[Sorry, I can't help it!]
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
>UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Was standing on a big bridge over the Olentangy River the other day
>> (King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw a goose flying
>> toward the bridge just above the water. It approached the bridge and
>> started climbing and flew over the bridge, then down toward the water
>> again, then climbed again to fly over another bridge. The puzzling
>> thing is that the goose could have flown through the openings in the
>> bridges with less effort. And of course there is some risk in flying
>> over the bridge, because there may be a big truck coming by just as he
>> flies over.
>>
>> Any ideas out there?
>
>Laden, or unladen?
>
>[Sorry, I can't help it!]
I'm wondering how he reconciles his use of "truck" as
(apparently) a motorized cargo vehicle and its original
meaning(s) which predate motorized vehicles, since words are
immutable.
John S. Wilkins
For UC, words are only immutable from the time *he* first learned
them...
TimR
> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Was standing on a big bridge over the Olentangy River the other day
> > (King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw a goose flying
> > toward the bridge just above the water. It approached the bridge and
> > started climbing and flew over the bridge, then down toward the water
> > again, then climbed again to fly over another bridge. The puzzling
> > thing is that the goose could have flown through the openings in the
> > bridges with less effort. And of course there is some risk in flying
> > over the bridge, because there may be a big truck coming by just as he
> > flies over.
>
> > Any ideas out there?
>
> Laden, or unladen?
>
> [Sorry, I can't help it!]
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Wait, wait, African or European?????
UC
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:09:49 +1000, the following appeared in
> > Wilkins):
>
> > >UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Was standing on a big bridge over the Olentangy River the other day
> > >> (King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw a goose flying
> > >> toward the bridge just above the water. It approached the bridge and
> > >> started climbing and flew over the bridge, then down toward the water
> > >> again, then climbed again to fly over another bridge. The puzzling
> > >> thing is that the goose could have flown through the openings in the
> > >> bridges with less effort. And of course there is some risk in flying
> > >> over the bridge, because there may be a big truck coming by just as he
> > >> flies over.
>
> > >> Any ideas out there?
>
> > >Laden, or unladen?
>
> > >[Sorry, I can't help it!]
>
> > I'm wondering how he reconciles his use of "truck" as
> > (apparently) a motorized cargo vehicle and its original
> > meaning(s) which predate motorized vehicles, since words are
> > immutable.
>
> For UC, words are only immutable from the time *he* first learned
> them...
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
I assure I don't believe the meanings of words are or should be
'immutable', but deliberate confusion of two perfectly good words,
each with a distinct meaning, is unconscionable.
If the question is "are you 'male' or 'female', that is a matter of
one's sex, NOT gender. If anyone says otherwise, that person is simply
mistaken.
If someone says asks "is 'Antwort' masculine or feminine" the question
hinges on the gender of the word.
The gender of 'Antwort' is feminine. The gender of 'Mädchen' is
neuter, even though the word means 'girl'.
As a philosopher, you surely understand the importance of using
language precisely.
John S. Wilkins
> I assure I don't believe the meanings of words are or should be
> 'immutable', but deliberate confusion of two perfectly good words,
> each with a distinct meaning, is unconscionable.
>
> If the question is "are you 'male' or 'female', that is a matter of
> one's sex, NOT gender. If anyone says otherwise, that person is simply
> mistaken.
>
> If someone says asks "is 'Antwort' masculine or feminine" the question
> hinges on the gender of the word.
>
> The gender of 'Antwort' is feminine. The gender of 'Mädchen' is
> neuter, even though the word means 'girl'.
>
> As a philosopher, you surely understand the importance of using
> language precisely.
Always, and in every case, as at some time index. Words do change
meanings across time, no matter what prescriptivism you want to assert
is divine truth. Otherwise, if I tell you that I am going to let you
continue, you might feel constricted.
UC
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
But this case is different. You don't see that? It was due to
political activism, not to 'natural' forces of linguistic change. As
such, we can indeed criticize it. Linguists had the word 'gender';
biology had the word 'sex', and these had become differentiated quite
some time ago, in the 19th century at least.
Feminists seized upon the word 'gender' and redefined it for their
political purposes.
Feminism is nothing but Marxism with the word 'class' stricken out and
replaced by the word 'woman', etc.
It's transparent to anyone with a brain. Too bad you don't qualify
UC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnq96W9jtuw
"This a dog license with the word 'dog' crossed out and the word 'cat'
written in."
I repeat:
Feminism is nothing but Marxism with the word 'workers' stricken out
and replaced by the word 'women', etc.
Part of the communist, feminist program is the manipulation of
language, to confuse and befuddle the victims of their propaganda.
Those who resist are labelled with the usual epithets.
GENDER is a grammatical term. GET IT, dumbass?
Fuckfaced academics....
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>But this case is different. You don't see that? It was due to
>political activism, not to 'natural' forces of linguistic change.
Just curious... What exactly do you think constitutes those
"natural forces of linguistic change", if they aren't
composed of people using existing words in novel ways (Beat,
stoned, gay, rock, etc., ad infinitum)? Stone tablets from
Mt. Webster, perhaps?
<snip>
John S. Wilkins
> But this case is different. You don't see that? It was due to
> political activism, not to 'natural' forces of linguistic change. As
> such, we can indeed criticize it. Linguists had the word 'gender';
> biology had the word 'sex', and these had become differentiated quite
> some time ago, in the 19th century at least.
>
> Feminists seized upon the word 'gender' and redefined it for their
> political purposes.
>
> Feminism is nothing but Marxism with the word 'class' stricken out and
> replaced by the word 'woman', etc.
>
> It's transparent to anyone with a brain. Too bad you don't qualify
Why do you think political activism *isn't* "natural" force? Juts
because someone activises for a particular view doesn't make it
effective (recall the ill-fated "Brights" campaign), so its acceptance
just *is* "natural". I take it that you are redefining "natural" here to
mean something like "organic", which is itself a neologism imposed by
political activists.
chris thompson
Well, monks had the word 'cell' long before biologists coopted it to
apply to the basic unit of life. Biology used cell because the
appearance of cells was reminiscent of the chamber inhabited by monks.
Should we search for a new word to replace 'cell' in the biological
sense?
>
> Feminists seized upon the word 'gender' and redefined it for their
> political purposes.
>
> Feminism is nothing but Marxism with the word 'class' stricken out and
> replaced by the word 'woman', etc.
Ah it all becomes clear. Your objection is based on sexist dorkism.
>
> It's transparent to anyone with a brain. Too bad you don't qualify
Projection.
Chris
UC
wrote:
Not at all. They weren't trying to change the other usages.
UC
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Don't play stupid with me. You know damned well what I mean.
What I mean by 'natural' is something arising out of ordinary
linguistic drift, not dictated by academics in the service of their
degenerate Marxist/Feminist ideology.
Do you remember the novel 1984, and how language was manipulated?
Newspeak?
http://www.sysdesign.ca/archive/berkes_1984_language.html
Are you unaware that feminists claim that the use of 'he' as a common
pronoun is the work of male oppressors? What horseshit! So
academicians actually take this shit seriously; thus I have seen
guides on avoiding 'sexist language', as if there were such a thing.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
>Don't play stupid with me.
You first. Or aren't you playing?
<snip>
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:42:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
><uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>>On Oct 10, 6:05 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
<snip>
>>>... Words do change
>>> meanings across time, no matter what prescriptivism you want to assert
>>> is divine truth. Otherwise, if I tell you that I am going to let you
>>> continue, you might feel constricted.
>>But this case is different. You don't see that? It was due to
>>political activism, not to 'natural' forces of linguistic change.
>Just curious... What exactly do you think constitutes those
>"natural forces of linguistic change", if they aren't
>composed of people using existing words in novel ways (Beat,
>stoned, gay, rock, etc., ad infinitum)?
[Crickets...]
chris thompson
But your main complaint is that the gender applies to grammar, and no
one is trying to change that. You really should learn to read for
context.
Chris
Burkhard
Gender role, gender identity are terms coined and popularised
(adopting from established use by mostly male anthropologists) by John
Money, professor of pediatrics and medical psychology at Johns Hopkins
University . I'd be interested to see your evidence that, troubled
individual that he was, he was either a feminist or a Marxist.
UC
Are you completely unfamiliar with feminist critiques of the English
language? It seems odd that Germans have no such complaints, and that
'man' (which means 'one' in German, such as "man hat die Arbeit zu
machen" = "one has work to do", 'there is work to be done") is
masculine by gender, but has no hint of 'masculinity' about it.
Germans apparently have no trouble separating gender from sex. The
personal pronoun 'he' in English is treated the same way, except by
those feminists who are so fucking stupid they can't separate gender
from sex.
Burkhard
No, I'm not. Doesn't change the fact that the term "gender" was
introduced to psychology, sociology and anthropology by people who had
no discernible feminist agenda whatsoever.
It seems odd that Germans have no such complaints, and that
> 'man' (which means 'one' in German, such as "man hat die Arbeit zu
> machen" = "one has work to do", 'there is work to be done") is
> masculine by gender, but has no hint of 'masculinity' about it.
There has been the same feminist critique of the use of this term,
resulting in e.g. the use of man/frau (note non--capitalised
spelling). So what? That has nothing to do with the issue at stake,
that the expression gender always had uses other than grammar, and
that recently scientists in a variety of disciplines found it helpful
to tack on that usage and make term s such as gender role explicitly
defined terms of art for the purpose of their disciplines. This usage
caught on, for a variety of legal and everyday uses. Language
changed.
UC
Where? I am unfamiliar with such. It could be merely 'copycatting'.
Radical chic...
> So what? That has nothing to do with the issue at stake,
> that the expression gender always had uses other than grammar, and
> that recently scientists in a variety of disciplines found it helpful
> to tack on that usage and make terms such as gender role explicitly
> defined terms of art for the purpose of their disciplines. This usage
> caught on, for a variety of legal and everyday uses. Language
> changed.
But it's a fraud. The word has a specific (restricted) use, and it is
a ***grammatical*** one. What the fuck is 'gender role'? These people
are idiots. The fact that they hold positions of authority is evidence
of that.
> > Germans apparently have no trouble separating gender from sex. The
> > personal pronoun 'he' in English is treated the same way, except by
> > those feminists who are so fucking stupid they can't separate gender
> > from sex.
'He' is no more 'male' than 'der' is. It's just gender, not sex!
UC
gregwrld
People can do whatever they want to do with
language - whether you or anyone else approves
of it or not. Get over yourself...
gregwrld
UC
Well it's irresponsible, inn'it? You can go off and create your own
private language and copyright it if you want. But what's the point of
language after all? COMMUNICATION, fuck-face. Oh, by the way, for ME
"fuck-face" is a term of endearment. Maybe I should tell you that.
Friar Broccoli
I didn't look it up, but I assume 'ground effect' refers to air that
is pushed down immediately being pushed up again providing free lift?
Also, what does "high wing loading" mean? What are its advantages and
disadvantages?
UC
I would think that flying low to the water requires more effort, not
less...
Burkhard
None of this of course has anything to do with the use of the term
"gender" by social scientists, anthropologists etc - apart from the
first sentence that correctly says that sex implies " an unequivocal
demarcation between men and women", Which is exactly why it extremely
useful for all sorts of research (and legal regulation etc) to have
in _addition_ a term that allows more fine grained distinctions, and
the notion of change over time..
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:18:58 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:42:39 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>><uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>>On Oct 10, 6:05�am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>>... Words do change
>>>> meanings across time, no matter what prescriptivism you want to assert
>>>> is divine truth. Otherwise, if I tell you that I am going to let you
>>>> continue, you might feel constricted.
>
>>>But this case is different. You don't see that? It was due to
>>>political activism, not to 'natural' forces of linguistic change.
>
>>Just curious... What exactly do you think constitutes those
>>"natural forces of linguistic change", if they aren't
>>composed of people using existing words in novel ways (Beat,
>>stoned, gay, rock, etc., ad infinitum)?
>
>[Crickets...]
Still waiting for an answer, UC...
UC
What in the world do you mean? In biology, there is sexual and asexual
reproduction. There is no alternative (though some forms, some
molluscs believe, are ***both*** male and female). You are either male
or female (notwithstanding peculiarities such as androgen-insensitive
individuals who appear female but have male genetics).
Male and female are distinct at the chromosomal level. Human males
have XY and females XX.
UC
Thank you for taking the time to read the article, by the way.
r norman
What you would think and what people who understand the situation know
are two rather different things.
r norman
Two points: First for Burkhard --
You write "first sentence that correctly says that sex implies " an
unequivocal demarcation between men and women""
That is exactly the problem. The first sentence is not correct
because there is no unequivocal demarcation between men and women.
There are far two many indeterminate cases and there are too many ways
of defining what set of indivduals are "men" and what set are "women."
Second for UC. Read what I wrote to Burkhard and pay attention.
You are NOT either male or female. It is NOT true that male and
female are distinct at the chromosomal level. There are lots of
people running around with XYY and XXY and XXX and all sorts of
things.
In non-human biology there are all sorts of cases where an individual
has absolutely no sexual characteristics whatsoever (of course not all
members of a species have this property!) and there are cases where an
individual has both male and female characteristics and there are
cases where an individual switches between male and female according
to various circumstances. There are cases where chromosomes have
nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
In human social interactions, there are attitudes and social
interactions and laws and customs that apply to whether one "thinks"
another person to be "male" or "female" regardless of whether the
chromosomes say "XY" or "XX" or something else or whether the
individual has a penis or a vagina or parts of both or neither or
whatever the person chooses to be sexually active with one or more
individuals who are "male" or "female". There are a whole bunch of
other factors that go into the distinctions we make and there are far,
far too many cases where all the factors do not agree. That is why
the simple word "sex" fails to represent reality and new words are
needed.
You simply do not live in the real world. You can continue living in
your isolated little hole but don't force the rest of us to share it
with you.
Burkhard
Fair enough (and should I not know this, having taught a class just
the other day on the legal implications of the Caster Semenya case).
What I had in mind is that for all sorts of research purposes, we
might want to contrast a persons biological (and, comparatively,
though not absolutely fixed ) sex with the his/her much more fluent
gender. Of course, that to is a huge oversimplification, and
especially in borderline cases, they will interact in very complex
ways
>
> Second for UC. �Read what I wrote to Burkhard and pay attention.
>
> You are NOT either male or female. �It is NOT true that male and
> female are distinct at the chromosomal level. �There are lots of
> people running around with XYY and XXY and XXX and all sorts of
> things.
>
> In non-human biology there are all sorts of cases where an individual
> has absolutely no sexual characteristics whatsoever (of course not all
> members of a species have this property!) and there are cases where an
> individual has both male and female characteristics and there are
> cases where an individual switches between male and female according
> to various circumstances. �There are cases where chromosomes have
> nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
>
> In human social interactions, there are attitudes and social
> interactions and laws and customs that apply to whether one "thinks"
> another person to be "male" or "female" regardless of whether the
> chromosomes say "XY" or "XX" or something else or whether the
> individual has a penis or a vagina or parts of both or neither or
> whatever the person chooses to be sexually active with one or more
> individuals who are "male" or "female". �There are a whole bunch of
> other factors that go into the distinctions we make and there are far,
> far too many cases where all the factors do not agree. �That is why
> the simple word "sex" fails to represent reality and new words are
> needed.
>
> You simply do not live in the real world. �You can continue living in
> your isolated little hole but don't force the ...
>
> read more �
UC
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:18:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
But those are abnormalities of course. XY or XX are 'normal' and of
course I know that abnormalities are not uncommon, but that's not what
we are talking about.
>
> In non-human biology there are all sorts of cases where an individual
> has absolutely no sexual characteristics whatsoever (of course not all
> members of a species have this property!) and there are cases where an
> individual has both male and female characteristics and there are
> cases where an individual switches between male and female according
> to various circumstances. There are cases where chromosomes have
> nothing whatsoever to do with sex.
But that isn't what we're talking about, inn'it? There are two and
only two sexes. I can imagine a world in which there are three sexes
but given the way reproduction works on earth, you are male or female,
or both (either simultaneously or successively) but there is no
'third' sex. Some snails have male and female parts. There is sexual
competition between mating snails to make the OTHER one carry the
fertilized eggs, so biting off of the penis is common. It's called
Apophallation.
> In human social interactions, there are attitudes and social
> interactions and laws and customs that apply to whether one "thinks"
> another person to be "male" or "female" regardless of whether the
> chromosomes say "XY" or "XX" or something else or whether the
> individual has a penis or a vagina or parts of both or neither or
> whatever the person chooses to be sexually active with one or more
> individuals who are "male" or "female".
Yeah? So? I know of a woman who is taking Androgel to become male-sh.
She works in a bookstore in Columbus. I know this because she made a
video about it. Nonetheless, her genetic structure remains XX, inn'it?
>There are a whole bunch of
> other factors that go into the distinctions we make and there are far,
> far too many cases where all the factors do not agree. That is why
> the simple word "sex" fails to represent reality and new words are
> needed.
Nope. Wrong. False.
>
> You simply do not live in the real world. You can continue living in
> your isolated little hole but don't force the rest of us to share it
> with you.
You amuse me.
J. J. Lodder
Mere thinking doesn't help to reach the correct conclusion.
It takes some knowledge as well,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Not quite. What matters is L/D.
And yes, the same wing has a higher L/D close to the ground
than high up away from the ground,
for other reasons than the one you mention.
So all big birds will fly close to the surface,
if at all possible.
(watch a gull crossing a small harbour for example.
It will drop down from the pole it was sitting upon,
skim acros the water almost touching, without moving a wing,
pull up on the other side using the excess speed it still has,
land on the next pole with one flap of the wings
to restore the lost energy while gliding.
This is far more efficient than just flying across)
> Also, what does "high wing loading" mean? What are its advantages and
> disadvantages?
High wing loading means having smallish wings for your weight.
The consequence is that you can, (and must!) fly relatively fast
to generate enough lift to support your weight.
Swans, ducks, and geese have the highest wing loadings in birdkind.
It costs more energy, but you can travel long distances.
Evolution has of course fine-tuned all this,
Jan
UC
But usually birds climb high to fly log distances, to catch the
thermals, right?
r norman
I am happy to serve some purpose. Sadly the feeling is not
reciprocal.
UC
> >> You simply do not live in the real world. �You can continue living in
> >> your isolated little hole but don't force the rest of us to share it
> >> with you.
>
> >You amuse me.
>
> I am happy to serve some purpose. �Sadly the feeling is not
> reciprocal.
An organism can be male, female, or have both sexes. But it cannot
have a 'gender' of any kind.
Desertphile
I have a gender, and I'm an organism.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
UC
wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:40:15 -0700 (PDT), UC
>
> > On Oct 13, 6:40�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> You simply do not live in the real world. �You can continue living in
> > > >> your isolated little hole but don't force the rest of us to share it
> > > >> with you.
> > > >You amuse me.
>
> > > I am happy to serve some purpose. �Sadly the feeling is not
> > > reciprocal.
> > An organism can be male, female, or have both sexes. But it cannot
> > have a 'gender' of any kind.
>
> I have a gender, and I'm an organism.
No, you don't. You are mistaken. Only nouns have genders.
Masculine or feminine or neuter nouns (genders)
Male or female organisms (sexes)
chris thompson
And technology is forcing the issue in human society. A transgender
(NOT transsexual) woman is suing the LPGA over their requirement that
a contestant must be "female at the time of birth", claiming it
violates California Civil Rights Laws:
http://stats.cbc.ca/golf/story.asp?tour=PGA&i=20101013164251269041108&ref=hea&tm=&src=
Chris
(rest of fine post snipped for bandwidth only)
UC
wrote:
>
> Chris
> (rest of fine post snipped for bandwidth only)
The word is transsexual.
chris thompson
Really? What about all those people who are born into the wrong
bodies? What about all those people who are so desperately unhappy in
their male or female bodies that they have gender-reassignment
surgery? What about those people who feel most comfortable when
dressing in clothes considered most appropriate for the other sex?
Their sex might be determined (by society) by their anatomy, but their
gender is determined by their self-perception. Note that the two can
be complete opposites (as idiots like you define things), and it does
not matter if you consider them "abnormal" (whatever the hell that
means)- the fact is that their feelings and self-perceptions are
legitimate, and we need a word to describe it, and "sex" is not the
right word and "gender" is. Deal with reality.
Chris
UC
>
> Chris
> (rest of fine post snipped for bandwidth only)
He is not female.
John McKendry
>> > >> > > > > > > > > 'Mädchen' is neuter, even though the word means
What's the word for my friend Norman who has felt for forty years
that he is a woman misborn into a man's body, or my friend Chris
who considers himself a man in a woman's body? Biologically, Norman
is male and Chris is female. Psychologically it's the other way
around.
You said that the purpose of language is communication. It's the
only correct thing you've said in this whole argument, and it
explains why everything else you say is wrong. Communication is
supposed to tell you things you don't already know. That's why
it's correct and important to say that humans are apes and birds
are dinosaurs. That's why it's correct and important to say that
humans have gender, and gender is not the same as sex.
Your mistake is believing that words govern reality, that you can
settle questions of material fact by looking in the dictionary. You
will likely say that Norman is a man and Chris is a woman, period.
But that is not reality, that's only your blinkered, pig-headed
refusal to learn something new. You want to use language to protect
yourself from having to change your mind, but it won't work, no
matter how hard you stamp your foot. You only make yourself look
foolish. The rest of us will continue to learn new things, and
will continue to use language in new ways to say what we've
learned.
John
UC
wrote:
> On Oct 13, 7:40�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 6:40�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > >> You simply do not live in the real world. �You can continue living in
> > > >> your isolated little hole but don't force the rest of us to share it
> > > >> with you.
>
> > > >You amuse me.
>
> > > I am happy to serve some purpose. �Sadly the feeling is not
> > > reciprocal.
>
> > An organism can be male, female, or have both sexes. But it cannot
> > have a 'gender' of any kind.
>
> Really? What about all those people who are born into the wrong
> bodies?
What do you mean? This is about WHAT WORDS MEAN. HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT
WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
Dumb FUCK!!!!!!!
> What about all those people who are so desperately unhappy in
> their male or female bodies that they have gender-reassignment
> surgery?
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
Dumb FUCK!!!!!
> What about those people who feel most comfortable when
> dressing in clothes considered most appropriate for the other sex?
> Their sex might be determined (by society) by their anatomy, but their
> gender is determined by their self-perception. Note that the two can
> be complete opposites (as idiots like you define things), and it does
> not matter if you consider them "abnormal" (whatever the hell that
> means)- the fact is that their feelings and self-perceptions are
> legitimate, and we need a word to describe it, and "sex" is not the
> right word and "gender" is. Deal with reality.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
Dumb FUCK!!!!!!!
>
> Chris
UC
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > 'girl'.
>
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > As a philosopher, you surely understand the
> >> > >> > > > > > > > > importance of using language precisely.
>
> >> > >> > > > > > > > Always, and in every case, as at some time index.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > Words do change meanings across time, no matter what
> >> > >> > > > > > > > prescriptivism you want to assert is divine truth.
> >> > >> > > > > > > > Otherwise, if I tell you that I am going to let you
> >> > >> > > > > > > > continue, you might feel constricted. --
> >> > >> > > > > > > > John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond
What the FUCK do I care? It's fucking IRRELEVANT to what the word
GENDER MEANS!!!!!
The word GENDER refers to GRAMMATICAL PHENOMENA.
End of discussion!
> �You said that the purpose of language is communication. It's the
> only correct thing you've said in this whole argument, and it
> explains why everything else you say is wrong. Communication is
> supposed to tell you things you don't already know. That's why
> it's correct and important to say that humans are apes and birds
> are dinosaurs.
Precisely the opposite, you dumb fuck. Do you know what DUMB FUCK
means? Am I communicating? Perhaps I need to be more direct?
>That's why it's correct and important to say that
> humans have gender, and gender is not the same as sex.
NO!
> �Your mistake is believing that words govern reality, that you can
> settle questions of material fact by looking in the dictionary. You
> will likely say that Norman is a man and Chris is a woman, period.
Correct. That's what the words man and woman are used for.
> But that is not reality, that's only your blinkered, pig-headed
> refusal to learn something new. You want to use language to protect
> yourself from having to change your mind, but it won't work, no
> matter how hard you stamp your foot. You only make yourself look
> foolish. The rest of us will continue to learn new things, and
> will continue to use language in new ways to say what we've
> learned.
You should be ashamed of your abysmal imbecility. I am ashamed to
share the planet with you. I know slugs with more intelligence.
>
> John
J. J. Lodder
Depends which bird you are talking about.
Some have to use the thermals,
some (like geese in V)
can do it under their own power,
Jan
G
[....]
>> > If fact, the Wright Brothers first plane
>> > could only fly close to the ground.
>> > Only their later ones could climb out of ground effect,
>> > by having better L/D and more power/weight.
>
> I would think that flying low to the water requires more effort, not
> less...
>
Do a search for "ekranoplan" or "GEV" (Ground effect vehicle) and you'll
see....
G
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 13:01:54 -0700 (PDT), UC
> <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 8, 4:09 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Oct 7, 8:33 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > > > On Thu, 7 Oct 2010 10:40:50 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>
> >> > > > Lodder) wrote:
> >> > > > >Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > >> "UC" <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > > > >>news:uranium-e8428c5c-c2f6-...@f25g2000yqc.googl
egroups
> >> > > > >> Perhaps by flying high over the water, the goose was able to take
As a practcal example, the greatest goose of them all,
Howard Hughes' Spruce Goose,
never flew out of ground effect,
Jan
UC
Thank you!
But if that's the case, why did the goos fly over the bridge instead
of keeping low to the water?
chris thompson
It takes little imagination to fill in the sound of stamping feet as
one reads this. Unfortunately, the impact was lessened since you were
still in your tiger-suit footed pajamas. Only one question remains-
were you holding your breath as you typed?
Chris
UC
G
Who knows? Maybe a previous bad experience flying under a bridge, or the
bridge was wide and under it was darker,or claustrophobia, or maybe that was
what is dad used to do and what was good for him.....
G
Mark Isaak
> On Oct 13, 8:54�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 13, 7:40�pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 13, 6:40�pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> You simply do not live in the real world. �You can continue
>> > > >> living in your isolated little hole but don't force the rest of
>> > > >> us to share it with you.
>>
>> > > >You amuse me.
>>
>> > > I am happy to serve some purpose. �Sadly the feeling is not
>> > > reciprocal.
>>
>> > An organism can be male, female, or have both sexes. But it cannot
>> > have a 'gender' of any kind.
>>
>> Really? What about all those people who are born into the wrong bodies?
>
> What do you mean? This is about WHAT WORDS MEAN. HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT
> WORDS MEAN.
> HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
> HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
> HELLO!? IT'S ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN.
[defective writing adjusted]
I wish you would apply that, rather than just repeating it. Of course,
for you to apply it properly, you would have to admit that words have
meanings beyond and/or different from what you think they mean. "Gender"
included.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
gregwrld
> On Oct 13, 2:48 pm, gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 12:17 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 10, 7:24 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
> > > > UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 9, 7:05 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > > > > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:09:49 +1000, the following appeared in
> > > > > > > > > talk.origins, posted by j...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
> > > > > > > > > Wilkins):
>
> > > > > > > > > >UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >> other day (King Ave, bridge). (No, Garfunkel wasn't there.) Saw
> > > > > > > > > >> a goose flying toward the bridge just above the water. It
> > > > > > > > > >> approached the bridge and started climbing and flew over the
> > > > > > > > > >> bridge, then down toward the water again, then climbed again to
> > > > > > > > > >> fly over another bridge. The puzzling thing is that the goose
> > > > > > > > > >> could have flown through the openings in the bridges with less
> > > > > > > > > >> effort. And of course there is some risk in flying over the
> > > > > > > > > >> bridge, because there may be a big truck coming by just as he
> > > > > > > > > >> flies over.
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Any ideas out there?
>
>
> > > > > > > > > >[Sorry, I can't help it!]
>
> > > > > > > > > I'm wondering how he reconciles his use of "truck" as (apparently)
> > > > > > > > > a motorized cargo vehicle and its original meaning(s) which
> > > > > > > > > predate motorized vehicles, since words are immutable.
>
> > > > > > > > For UC, words are only immutable from the time *he* first learned
> > > > > > > > them...
>
> > > > > > > I assure I don't believe the meanings of words are or should be
> > > > > > > 'immutable', but deliberate confusion of two perfectly good words,
> > > > > > > each with a distinct meaning, is unconscionable.
>
> > > > > > > If the question is "are you 'male' or 'female', that is a matter of
> > > > > > > one's sex, NOT gender. If anyone says otherwise, that person is simply
> > > > > > > mistaken.
>
> > > > > > > If someone says asks "is 'Antwort' masculine or feminine" the question
> > > > > > > hinges on the gender of the word.
>
> > > > > > > The gender of 'Antwort' is feminine. The gender of 'M�dchen' is
> > > > > > > neuter, even though the word means 'girl'.
>
> > > > > > > As a philosopher, you surely understand the importance of using
> > > > > > > language precisely.
>
> > > > > > Always, and in every case, as at some time index. Words do change
> > > > > > meanings across time, no matter what prescriptivism you want to assert
> > > > > > is divine truth. Otherwise, if I tell you that I am going to let you
> > > > > > continue, you might feel constricted.
>
> > > > > political activism, not to 'natural' forces of linguistic change. As
> > > > > such, we can indeed criticize it. Linguists had the word 'gender';
> > > > > biology had the word 'sex', and these had become differentiated quite
> > > > > some time ago, in the 19th century at least.
>
> > > > > Feminists seized upon the word 'gender' and redefined it for their
> > > > > political purposes.
>
> > > > > Feminism is nothing but Marxism with the word 'class' stricken out and
> > > > > replaced by the word 'woman', etc.
>
> > > > > It's transparent to anyone with a brain. Too bad you don't qualify
>
> > > > because someone activises for a particular view doesn't make it
> > > > effective (recall the ill-fated "Brights" campaign), so its acceptance
> > > > just *is* "natural". I take it that you are redefining "natural" here to
> > > > mean something like "organic", which is itself a neologism imposed by
> > > > political activists.
> > > > --
> > > > John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond Universityhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> > > > But al be that he was a philosophre,
> > > > Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
>
>
> > > What I mean by 'natural' is something arising out of ordinary
> > > linguistic drift, not dictated by academics in the service of their
> > > degenerate Marxist/Feminist ideology.
>
> > > Do you remember the novel 1984, and how language was manipulated?
> > > Newspeak?
>
> > >http://www.sysdesign.ca/archive/berkes_1984_language.html
>
> > > Are you unaware that feminists claim that the use of 'he' as a common
> > > pronoun is the work of male oppressors? What horseshit! So
> > > academicians actually take this shit seriously; thus I have seen
> > > guides on avoiding 'sexist language', as if there were such a thing.
>
> > People can do whatever they want to do with
> > language - whether you or anyone else approves
> > of it or not. Get over yourself...
>
>
> Well it's irresponsible, inn'it? You can go off and create your own
> private language and copyright it if you want. But what's the point of
> language after all? COMMUNICATION, fuck-face. Oh, by the way, for ME
> "fuck-face" is a term of endearment. Maybe I should tell you that.
Feeling distraught today? Language changes all
the time. Dictionaries get updated regularly. Keeping
up is a challenge but not impossible.
Face-fucking is irrelevant to this: you are very anal.
Got an itch?
gregwrld
gregwrld
You are distraught!
Whatever you do, do not hang with teens. Their
ways with words will drive you even crazier.
gregwrld
>
>
> > Chris
J. J. Lodder
Better safe than sorry, if you are going at > 20 m/s,
and need tens of meters free room to turn or stop,
Jan
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<uraniumc...@yahoo.com>:
So this has now come full circle and we're back to your
initial assertion. Since this is about the meaning of words,
which is commonly listed in dictionaries and based on actual
usage, I refute it thus:
gen�der (j�n�d�r) n. Abbr. g., gen. 1. Grammar. a. A
grammatical category used in the analysis of nouns,
pronouns, adjectives, and, in some languages, verbs that may
be arbitrary or based on characteristics such as sex or
animacy and that determines agreement with or selection of
modifiers, referents, or grammatical forms. b. One category
of such a set. c. The classification of a word or
grammatical form in such a category. d. The distinguishing
form or forms used. 2. Sexual identity, especially in
relation to society or culture. --attributive. 1. Often used
to modify another noun: �Women entered graduate schools . .
.. and encountered gender discrimination when they applied
for the few academic positions� (New York Times). --gen�der
tr.v. gen�dered, gen�der�ing, gen�ders. To engender. [Middle
English gendre, from Old French, kind, gender, from Latin
genus, gener-. See gen�- below.] --gen�der�less adj.
��������������������
USAGE NOTE: Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to
refer to the grammatical categories of �masculine,�
�feminine,� and �neuter�; but in recent years the word has
become well established in its use to refer to sex-based
categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the
politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice
of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to
biological categories, while using gender to refer to social
or cultural categories. According to this rule, one would
say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on
the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant
societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more
clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle,
but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable
variation in usage occurs at all levels.
��������������������
See def 2) and the usage note? The meaning of words changes
over time, and is not cut and dried. Deal with it.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
UC
Part of education, when one is growing up and learning a language, is
learning what words mean. Words change meaning very slowly, and some
not at all ('not') at least not for centuries...
There are sound reasons for conservatism in using language. It allows
people from different parts of the world who use a given language to
communicate (think of Spanish, English, French, and other 'colonial'
languages that originated in small areas but were dispersed across the
globe by colonists).
I recently had a conversation with a young man from Montreal, who told
me that the 'French' he speaks is in some ways an antiquated version,
that in Paris people think he just stepped out of a time machine from
the 18th century.
What we have here in the case of 'gender' is basically deliberate
academic-feminist obfuscation. 'Gender' and 'sex' over the centuries
had each developed separate meanings. True, 'gender' was occasionally
used by Victorians in a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" sense, as a kind of
jocular or euphemistic play on the word.
Not so with feminist usage.
It is in part a euphemism of the word 'sex', which has come to mean
"sexual intercourse" among a certain part of the population, partly
because 'intercourse' itself has become a 'bad' word, which is
doubling the irony.
So, some people say 'sex' instead of "sexual intercourse", and say
'gender' instead of 'sex' because to them 'sex' means "sexual
intercourse" and those are 'bad' words.
Feminists say 'gender' because of the reasons and because they want to
sound intelligent, distinguishing between 'biology' and 'culture'.
I am not buying it.
Properly speaking, 'sex' is biological and 'gender' is grammatical.
Walter Bushell
nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
And how high was the bridge?
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
UC
> In article <1jqd2ur.14uo4mcs8p...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
http://www.fceo.co.franklin.oh.us/Franklin%20County%20Bridges/cwdata/1999-2%20King%20Avenue.html
Walter Bushell
<uranium-93af632a-000d-...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.c
om>,
UC <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ah, a goose might find that under the bridge was very constricted space,
if I read the scale alright.
UC
> om>,
> > King%20Avenue.html
>
> Ah, a goose might find that under the bridge was very constricted space,
> if I read the scale alright.
>
The arches are very big....and just above the water? enormous!
Mark Isaak
> Part of education, when one is growing up and learning a language, is
> learning what words mean.
Which means learning *all* that they mean, not forcing the meaning into
the one or two most prominent definitions that a dictionary gives.
> Words change meaning very slowly, and some not
> at all ('not') at least not for centuries...
Not. True, there are a very few words whose meaning has not changed in
centuries, but they are very rare (I know of one). The 1987 Supplement
to the OED devotes more than a column to the word "not". Why would it do
that if new meanings and shades of meaning had not appeared since the
main OED had been published?
Language changes a lot more quickly than you give it credit for.
> There are sound reasons for conservatism in using language.
There are sound reasons for liberality in using langauge, too. In
particular, conservatism would force an inability to communicate about
new inventions and discoveries, not to mention novel viewpoints.
> It allows people from different parts of the world who use a given
> language to communicate (think of Spanish, English, French, and other
> 'colonial' languages that originated in small areas but were dispersed
> across the globe by colonists).
As it happens, I have been translating a lot of Spanish lately, and I
notice it has the same flexibility that you would deny of English. For
example, my Spanish dictionary says "poner" means, primarily, "to put."
But in context, I find that it is often translated better as "to do", "to
wear", "to go", "to assume", "to take", and more.
> I recently had a conversation with a young man from Montreal, who told
> me that the 'French' he speaks is in some ways an antiquated version,
> that in Paris people think he just stepped out of a time machine from
> the 18th century.
Dialects. Shows how language is constantly changing.
[snip irrelevant feminist rant]
> Properly speaking, 'sex' is biological and 'gender' is grammatical.
Properly speaking, "sex" is biolgical, social, religious, and mechanical,
and so is "gender", in addition to be grammatical.
Bob Casanova
>On Oct 14, 1:01 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Ummm, UC? When the accepted meaning of a word changes
through usage, no matter how the change started, the changed
meaning *is* the correct one. You can accept that, or you
can remain lost in your delusion that your definition is
"right" and that of the majority is "wrong". But it *is* a
delusion; the majority always rules in word usage.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
[Crickets...]
Yeah, if I were in your position I'd ignore it, too.
UC
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:57:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
But it has to be agreed on, don't forget. It has to be 'conventional',
spontaneous, and damn-near universal. You can't go off on your own, as
feminazis have. That's impermissible!
That's Newspeak. Read 1984.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
>On Oct 15, 1:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:57:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by UC
<snip>
>> >Properly speaking, 'sex' is biological and 'gender' is grammatical.
>> Ummm, UC? When the accepted meaning of a word changes
>> through usage, no matter how the change started, the changed
>> meaning *is* the correct one.
>But it has to be agreed on, don't forget. It has to be 'conventional',
>spontaneous, and damn-near universal.
Nope. The only requirement is that the majority come to
accept it, regardless of its genesis.
> You can't go off on your own, as
>feminazis have. That's impermissible!
Not if they can get the majority to agree, as they have;
i.e., it's been "agreed on". And dictionaries describe the
current usage, which disagrees with yours. Or is it a vast
conspiracy?
>That's Newspeak. Read 1984.
I have. It doesn't support your assertion although, like
violations of Godwin, it *can* be used in an attempt to
misdirect. We're talking about changed usage, not government
decree.
And I'd point out that, regardless of the fact that Newspeak
was created by the government, once it was accepted by the
majority it *became* the new correct usage.
Mark Isaak
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:58:55 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com>:
>
>>On Oct 15, 1:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:57:37 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by UC
>
> <snip>
>
>>> >Properly speaking, 'sex' is biological and 'gender' is grammatical.
>
>>> Ummm, UC? When the accepted meaning of a word changes through usage, no
>>> matter how the change started, the changed meaning *is* the correct
>>> one.
>
>>But it has to be agreed on, don't forget. It has to be 'conventional',
>>spontaneous, and damn-near universal.
>
> Nope. The only requirement is that the majority come to accept it,
> regardless of its genesis.
More accurately, the only requirement is that the majority *within a
relevant community* come to accept it. Thus diamond dealers have a
definition of "point" which is quite different from a meaning accepted by
geographers, which differs again from the meaning used by taxidermists,
which is yet different from the meaning used by typesetters. And if
sociologists or biologists (or medical doctors or pastry chefs or chimney
sweeps) want their own meaning for "gender" within their field, then UC
must establish himself as a contributing member within that field before
he gets any say in the matter whatsoever.
r norman
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:27:43 -0700, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:58:55 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by UC <uraniumcommi...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>>On Oct 15, 1:32 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:57:37 -0700 (PDT), the following appeared in
>>>> talk.origins, posted by UC
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> >Properly speaking, 'sex' is biological and 'gender' is grammatical.
>>
>>>> Ummm, UC? When the accepted meaning of a word changes through usage, no
>>>> matter how the change started, the changed meaning *is* the correct
>>>> one.
>>
>>>But it has to be agreed on, don't forget. It has to be 'conventional',
>>>spontaneous, and damn-near universal.
>>
>> Nope. The only requirement is that the majority come to accept it,
>> regardless of its genesis.
>
>More accurately, the only requirement is that the majority *within a
>relevant community* come to accept it. Thus diamond dealers have a
>definition of "point" which is quite different from a meaning accepted by
>geographers, which differs again from the meaning used by taxidermists,
>which is yet different from the meaning used by typesetters. And if
>sociologists or biologists (or medical doctors or pastry chefs or chimney
>sweeps) want their own meaning for "gender" within their field, then UC
>must establish himself as a contributing member within that field before
>he gets any say in the matter whatsoever.
More correctly, UC must establish himself as a contributing member of
the human race (to use an historic word improperly) before he gets any
say in anything.
John S. Wilkins
Moreover, *how* a community of relevant language users comes to accept a
usage is largely irrelevant to the fact that it *has*. There is no such
thing as "natural" language evolution compared to "artificial" language
evolution in any sense. In short, if it is accepted it *is* natural.
This leads to the fundamental problem of prescriptivism: it dresses up
its own political agendas as natural descriptive facts, when it is as
manipulative and artificial as anything it opposes. The reason why the
Coleridgeans held you cannot split an infinitive was a matter of class
education; who knew Latin. English can, and has, since the era of
Chaucer.
Almost always (and I don't want to sound Marxian here, but just because
Marx said it doesn't make it wrong) when prescriptivism in language is
being played out, it is motivated by class, usually the aspirant
upper-middle class. In every case, it is motivated by a class of some
kind wanting to have dominance over another class.
I shall now return to the domain of watching scientific schools of
thought argue over "monophyly"...
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> Part of education, when one is growing up and learning a language, is
> learning what words mean. Words change meaning very slowly, and some
> not at all ('not') at least not for centuries...
"gay" "random" "bad" "cool"
you plainly don't know any teenagers
> There are sound reasons for conservatism in using language. It allows
> people from different parts of the world who use a given language to
> communicate (think of Spanish, English, French, and other 'colonial'
> languages that originated in small areas but were dispersed across the
> globe by colonists).
this is a bit like group selection. Most people don't care if someone
on the other side of the world understands them.
> I recently had a conversation with a young man from Montreal, who told
> me that the 'French' he speaks is in some ways an antiquated version,
> that in Paris people think he just stepped out of a time machine from
> the 18th century.
I knew someone who was studing French at university. They wouldn't let
him have his year abroad in Canada. I always think Quebequois sounds
so pleasant, they sing.
I've had an Icelander point out to me that many of the place names in
the Lake District (north west england) are badly spelled Old Norse (or
Icelandic which is almost the same thing).
A Dutch friend of mine can follow Afrikaans.
OTOH I have trouble with Jamaican english. But then I struggle with
geordie and glaswegian as well!
<snip gibberish>
You aren't Backspace are you?
Nick Keighley
> On Oct 13, 2:48 pm, gregwrld <GCzeba...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:17 am, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Are you unaware that feminists claim that the use of 'he' as a common
> > > pronoun is the work of male oppressors?
oh quite aware. And I think it's a daft idea to bugger around with the
language for political correctness. I'm happy to say none of the
proposals seems to have taken. I still find books that conciously try
to avoid "he" jarring. "After the programmer had coded the loop she
took a coffee break".
On the other hand it was "he" that was taken as the sex-indefinite 2nd
person rather than she...
> > > What horse<excrement>! So
> > > academicians actually take this <expletive> seriously; thus I have seen
> > > guides on avoiding 'sexist language', as if there were such a thing.
>
> > People can do whatever they want to do with
> > language - whether you or anyone else approves
> > of it or not. Get over yourself...
>
> Well it's irresponsible, inn'it?
you know "inn'it" in Ohio? I thought that was pure "Estuary
English" (Kent and Essex UK)
> You can go off and create your own
> private language and copyright it if you want. But what's the point of
> language after all? COMMUNICATION, <expletive>.
sometimes it's exclusion. Look at cockney rhyming slang or theives'
argot (but I repeat myself :-). Try and decode teen-speak.
Specialist technical vocabularies enhance communication within the
group but also serve to exclude outsiders.
I find it amusing when specialists attempt tocommunicate with non-
specialists but can't drop the technical vocabulary. This is
especially ironic when the specialists are at least partially supposed
to good at communication. Eg. social workers and managers. I was
compiling a dictionary of management-speak.
<snip>
Nick Keighley
> Well, monks had the word 'cell' long before biologists coopted it to
> apply to the basic unit of life. Biology used cell because the
> appearance of cells was reminiscent of the chamber inhabited by monks.
> Should we search for a new word to replace 'cell' in the biological
> sense?
my favourite is "camera". "the hearing was held "in camera" due to its
sensitive nature".
Walter Bushell
<46554f2b-676b-4ace...@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> sometimes it's exclusion. Look at cockney rhyming slang or theives'
> argot (but I repeat myself :-). Try and decode teen-speak.
> Specialist technical vocabularies enhance communication within the
> group but also serve to exclude outsiders.
Jive and all manner of teenage speak.