Probably heard the oral sex ones before.....
Ophan
Okay kids I heard this one not too long ago......
Oral sex was owtlawed in Oregon, it is still considered sodomy
Anal sex was also outlawed
But we have no indecent exposure laws.....
Except for the one that says that a man cannot walk around with a visible
erection
The story behind these is that these laws were created to make it illegal
to be gay.... interesting hmmm?
"God was here but he left early"- Irwin shaw
Ophan
>Why is it then if "gay sex" is illegal in Oregon and Massachusetts, that
>there are so many queers living in those states? Northhampton, Ma. is a
>lesbian mecca, as is most of the state of Oregon. Riddle me that!
>
>
>
>
>
That is very true..... But, Oregon has an extremely tremulous history
between the eastern side of the state (think Texas only more religious)
and the laid back west......And. most of the gay community is in the
western part of the state
Colin McElroy
bi...@magpage.com (Bill D) wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>In article <19970726200...@ladder01.news.aol.com> in
>newsgroup alt.folklore.urban, Ophan <op...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Okay kids I heard this one not too long ago......
>>Oral sex was owtlawed in Oregon, it is still considered sodomy
>>Anal sex was also outlawed
>Both are illegal in Massachusetts, too, as far as I know, and lots of
>other places too.
How many other places are there?
Colin
Morbidia I
bi...@magpage.com wrote regarding oral and anal sex:
>Both are illegal in Massachusetts, too, as far as I know, and lots of
>other places too.
I remember it once being said that in Massachusetts if you were making
love and accidentally fell out of bed you could be deemed to have
committed at least 4 felonies. In that era, of course, no book could be
considered even mildly racy unless it had already been banned in Boston.
Bob Hiebert
In article <5ref06$t...@mackrel.fishnet.net>, s...@fishnet.net (Colin McElroy) wrote:
>bi...@magpage.com (Bill D) wrote:
>>>Okay kids I heard this one not too long ago......
>>>Oral sex was owtlawed in Oregon, it is still considered sodomy
>>>Anal sex was also outlawed
>
>>Both are illegal in Massachusetts, too, as far as I know, and lots of
>>other places too.
>
>How many other places are there?
That's an eary thought.
Bob "nose a bad thread when he reads it" Hiebert
---
E-mail address is munged. Correct to reply.
For the full story on Urban Legends, don't miss
http://www.urbanlegends.com/
James Geren
Colin McElroy writes:
>>>Okay kids I heard this one not too long ago......
>>>Oral sex was owtlawed in Oregon, it is still considered sodomy
>>>Anal sex was also outlawed
>>Both are illegal in Massachusetts, too, as far as I know, and lots of
>>other places too.
>How many other places are there?
I read the figure sometime recently but don't recall--something like 20-30
states have anti-sodomy laws. Among them: North Carolina (where a man was
supposedly thrown into prison a few years ago after his wife brought up,
during their divorce proceedings, that she'd fellated him during their
marriage; is this UL?) and Georgia, whose anti-sodomy statute was challenged,
and upheld, in the notorious U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick --
perhaps the most distressing, poorly-reasoned, and mean-spirited decision to
be handed down by the Court in many years.
James B. Geren
Columbus, Ohio
ger...@osu.edu
***To reply via e-mail, remove <NO-ADS> from return address.
***Advertisements to this address are forbidden, unwelcome, resented.
Rush Strong
In article <gerenNO-ADS.2...@osu.edu>, gerenN...@osu.edu (James Geren) wrote:
[snip]
>marriage; is this UL?) and Georgia, whose anti-sodomy statute was challenged,
>and upheld, in the notorious U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick --
>perhaps the most distressing, poorly-reasoned, and mean-spirited decision to
>be handed down by the Court in many years.
IIRC, the court ruled that a state had the right to enact its own laws, and
that the Supreme Court had no right to impose its will upon the state - I
thought it was indeed well reasoned. [I also believe that the Georgia law is
absurd, but it's up to Georgia to change it].
- Rush "I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but I saw one on TV" Strong
Please remove [SPAMBLOCK] from my address if replying by e-mail.
Michele Tepper
....by Winston Churchill, no doubt.
People? Once again, may I remind you all, posting anecdotal evidence as
fact is never pretty. Not to pick on our friend Morbidia I here[1], of
course, and my apologies to her, but one has to start somewhere.
Michele "[1] although for future reference, Morbidia, you should
know that Judith Martin, who is most decidedly not Barbara
Mikkelson, says in _Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct
Behavior_ that the first holder of a dynastic name is never
properly styled 'Soandso I' in his or her lifetime. This does
make the current constitutional monarch of Spain incorrect, as Ms.
Martin notes, but what do you expect of some guy who lisps?" Tepper
--
Michele Tepper "I have nothing to add to this thread, but it seems to me
mte...@panix.com like you know an awful lot about what happens when you
keep a slab of beef in your shorts all day." - Bo Bradham
James Geren
Rush Strong writes:
>In article <gerenNO-ADS.2...@osu.edu>, gerenN...@osu.edu (James Geren) wrote:
>[snip]
>>marriage; is this UL?) and Georgia, whose anti-sodomy statute was challenged,
>>and upheld, in the notorious U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick --
>>perhaps the most distressing, poorly-reasoned, and mean-spirited decision to
>>be handed down by the Court in many years.
>IIRC, the court ruled that a state had the right to enact its own laws, and
>that the Supreme Court had no right to impose its will upon the state - I
>thought it was indeed well reasoned. [I also believe that the Georgia law is
>absurd, but it's up to Georgia to change it].
From a states'-rights perspective (which I don't much relate to but which I
won't debate here), this seems logical enough. But, of course, the Supreme
Court does have the right to impose its "will" (i.e., the Constitution, at
least in theory) on the states. It has done so many times, striking down
state laws or upholding federal laws relating to labor relations to school
integration. The real question is and always has been who to include within
the groups of people protected by the Bill of Rights. I stand by my original
point. There might be a good argument for excluding gays from such
protection, but I haven't heard it -- certainly not from Justice Kennedy in
his Bowers v. Hardwick opinion.
Rush Strong
In article <gerenNO-ADS.2...@osu.edu>, gerenN...@osu.edu (James Geren) wrote:
>Rush Strong writes:
>>In article <gerenNO-ADS.2...@osu.edu>, gerenN...@osu.edu (James
> Geren) wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>marriage; is this UL?) and Georgia, whose anti-sodomy statute was challenged,
>
>>>and upheld, in the notorious U.S. Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick --
>>>perhaps the most distressing, poorly-reasoned, and mean-spirited decision to
>>>be handed down by the Court in many years.
>
>>IIRC, the court ruled that a state had the right to enact its own laws, and
>>that the Supreme Court had no right to impose its will upon the state - I
>>thought it was indeed well reasoned. [I also believe that the Georgia law is
>>absurd, but it's up to Georgia to change it].
>
>From a states'-rights perspective (which I don't much relate to but which I
>won't debate here), this seems logical enough. But, of course, the Supreme
>Court does have the right to impose its "will" (i.e., the Constitution, at
>least in theory) on the states. It has done so many times, striking down
>state laws or upholding federal laws relating to labor relations to school
>integration. The real question is and always has been who to include within
>the groups of people protected by the Bill of Rights. I stand by my original
>point. There might be a good argument for excluding gays from such
>protection, but I haven't heard it -- certainly not from Justice Kennedy in
>his Bowers v. Hardwick opinion.
If you relate to the Constitution, you have to relate to states' rights - it's
as much a part of the Constitution as is freedom of speech.
The question of 'who to include' was never an issue - the Georgia law was
against sodomy, not against sodomy amongst gays. As such, it wasn't
discriminatory, nor was it unconstitutional. I won't suggest that the law
wasn't selectively applied, but that wasn't an issue that the was being
decided. Would you suggest that the Supreme Court should have ruled that gays
were exempt from the law?
- Rush
s
u
p
e
r
f
l
o
u
s
lines
t
o
raise
m
y
reply line count
Morbidia I
Michele Tepper wrote:
>Michele "[1] although for future reference, Morbidia, you should
> know that Judith Martin, who is most decidedly not Barbara
> Mikkelson, says in _Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct
> Behavior_ that the first holder of a dynastic name is never
> properly styled 'Soandso I' in his or her lifetime.
Dearest Michele: I have no dynastic pretensions, the screen name Morbidia
had been used previously on my internet server and therefore could not be
reused. If this is not excruciatingly correct, let it merely stand as
being excruciating. Having said this, I will not waste further bandwidth
on explaining or defending my screen name. To clarify my previous post, I
was not posting anecdotal evidence, I was posting an anecdote that I heard
when living in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Anecdotes frequently
become urban legends. - Morbidia I-
Barbara Mikkelson
Morbidia I <morb...@aol.com> wrote:
> Anecdotes frequently become urban legends.
For someone new to these parts, you certainly said a mouthful. Such
insight is always welcome, as is the reminder that urban legends don't
always arrive neatly packaged up in finished form. Them as keep trying
to chase personal reminiscences off this group might well cause all of
us to miss out on either discovering where an already existing UL came
from or even being present at the birth of a new one.
In addition to remembered and misremembered news stories, deliberately
cooked up tales, jokes that over time transform into a "this really
happened" story, there's also the category of personal experiences which
later come back told as happening to someone else in another city. A fine
example is the "Green Stamp UL" -- Brunvand himself is convinced it began
as a personal anecdote of a particular Texas housewife and was such a
great story it radiated out from there.
Barbara "yes, I give stamps with that -- why do you ask?" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | I have no desire to debate you on the premise
bmikkels@fas. | of lemmings on my computer. Besides, they're
harvard.edu | ferrets, not lemmings. - Jim Stewart
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Had your spooning today? --> http://www.snopes.com
Lee Rudolph
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) writes:
>In addition to remembered and misremembered news stories, deliberately
>cooked up tales, jokes that over time transform into a "this really
>happened" story, there's also the category of personal experiences which
>later come back told as happening to someone else in another city. A fine
>example is the "Green Stamp UL" -- Brunvand himself is convinced it began
>as a personal anecdote of a particular Texas housewife and was such a
>great story it radiated out from there.
Well, that's my personal favorite of the ULs I've read in Brunvand's
books, but the most that can honestly be said is that the _detail_
of the green stamps (which is peripheral to the real meat of the UL)
may well have begun with that housewife. The central situation is
classical enough to have an Arne Tale Type attached to it! To quote
the second half of my Legman Report at
http://www.urbanlegends.com/books/legman ,
--begin quotation---
I believe it is in {\it The Mexican Pet} that JHB presents compelling
evidence that the UL of {Green Stamps at the gynecologist's} actually
did happen at least once. Nonetheless (and not withstanding), it's
clearly a UL; we've recently seen a version reported on a.f.u. which
ends with the punchline of the following joke from Legman (p. 831).
``It is the striking trait of the yoking by the toilet-seat (Tale
type 571A) which has become crucial in the most common modern form
of the joke, with various rationalizations. {\it An Italian immigrant
writes a letter (in dialect verse) to `Mr. Kresge,' complaining that
he has painted the toilet-seat with a can of 10-cent-store paint,
and that it never dried, trapping his daughter on the seat. They
go to the doctor to have the seat removed, and when the doctor looks
astonished, the Italian asks if he has never seen one of those things
before. `Sure,' says the doctor, `but this is the first time I saw
one with a frame around it.'} (Printed `novelty' card, circulated
since the 1940's in America.)''
--end quotation--
Lee "IHNJ,IJLS`Tale type 571A'" Rudolph
Barbara Mikkelson
Lee Rudolph <lrud...@panix.com> wrote:
> To quote the second half of my Legman Report at
>
> http://www.urbanlegends.com/books/legman ,
<
> {\it An Italian immigrant writes a letter (in dialect verse) to
> `Mr. Kresge,' complaining that he has painted the toilet-seat with a can
> of 10-cent-store paint, and that it never dried, trapping his daughter
> on the seat. They go to the doctor to have the seat removed, and when
> the doctor looks astonished, the Italian asks if he has never seen one
> of those things before. `Sure,' says the doctor, `but this is the first
> time I saw one with a frame around it.'} (Printed `novelty' card,
> circulated since the 1940's in America.)''
I kept wondering why I'd been squirreling away various tellings of that
joke, because for the life of me I couldn't remember why I wanted to think
it had some connection with ULs. Now it all makes sense -- you'd quoted
this joke from Legman before.
Though I've a later _Playboy_ sighting of this, my earliest so far comes
from a 1951 joke book. In neither case was it told of an Italian and his
daughter -- both the versions I encountered gave it as happening at a
party held in a house with a newly-painted bathroom.
You might have something there, Lee -- there's the pudendum on display
aspect and the wise-cracking doctor. Though the stories aren't nearly
the same, I'd at least be willing to put them in the same bed in that
they appear to be of a type.
> Lee "IHNJ,IJLS`Tale type 571A'" Rudolph
Barbara "no, I use my fingers -- ten digits beats one fanny for speed
every time" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | I hate to see misinformation go by
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu | unpedanted. - Kevin T. Keith
Michele Tepper
Barbara Mikkelson <bmik...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> Them as keep trying
>to chase personal reminiscences off this group might well cause all of
>us to miss out on either discovering where an already existing UL came
>from or even being present at the birth of a new one.
You are misrepresenting my position. I have no objection to people
posting "personal reminiscences" of encounters with ULs, relevant stories,
or even long-winded discussions of wedding etiquette. I do however fail
to see how "I remember it once being said..." brings any of us closer to
enlightenment on the roots, growth, or even travel vector of a UL without
someone having to follow up and say "really? when? where? what sort of
people said this?" Certainly there are times when it's worth doing so,
but it is also worthwhile to uphold the standards this group has long
maintained of skepticism, scholarship, and rational inquiry. If you
prefer lists of Funny Names for Songs About Sexual Acts Illegal in Many
American States and half-remembered half-baked reminiscences, there's
always misc.misc.
Michele "or the Zima web site" Tepper
--
Michele Tepper "Feel free to provide authoritative references;
mte...@panix.com in the meantime, you won't mind if we conclude
that you're simply making this up." -- Ian York
rmk
In article <01bc9a1d$661ae920$d67c...@tom.cdepot.net>, "Tom Paul"
<t...@cdepot.net> wrote:
:Why is it then if "gay sex" is illegal in Oregon and Massachusetts, that
:there are so many queers living in those states? Northhampton, Ma. is a
:lesbian mecca, as is most of the state of Oregon. Riddle me that!
Just lucky, I guess.
...rmk
--
Hamlet is the tragedy of tackling a family problem
too soon after college.
- Tom Masson (1866-1934)
Barbara Mikkelson
Michele Tepper <mte...@panix.com> wrote:
> You are misrepresenting my position.
No; you are.
> I have no objection to people posting "personal reminiscences" of
> encounters with ULs, relevant stories, or even long-winded discussions
> of wedding etiquette.
I well recall your getting snarky over people posting "ways to chase the
Jehovahs Witnesses away" stories to this newsgroup for you felt the thread
was off-charter despite it being chockful of personal reminiscences and
"this is what a friend told me he did" tales. Rather than seeing those
as encounters with a UL and being relevant stories in support of same,
your arrogant directions then echo those of now:
> If you prefer lists of Funny Names for Songs About Sexual Acts Illegal
> in Many American States and half-remembered half-baked reminiscences,
> there's always misc.misc.
Whatever AFU's problems are, having people post too much folklore to it
isn't one of them.
Barbara " " Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | What? I can't post ULs to AFU? Damn, that's
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu | what I thought it was for. - Chris Butler
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Helge Moulding
Michele Tepper wrote:
> Certainly there are times when it's worth doing so,
I suppose I could carry a notebook around with me from now on, to
satisfy your demands for exacting verisimilitude of reminiscences.
Nah. Sue me.
"I remember hearing" is a perfectly valid qualification, in any
polite conversation, and AFU. So say I, AFU's official arbiter
of good taste. And the particular reminiscence to which you were
referring is hardly of a kind with "Funny Names." I think that is
a very unfair representation.
--
Helge "You, too, will be old and forgetful one day." Moulding
mailto:h...@slc.unisys.com Just another guy
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1401 with a weird name
Emily Kelly
Helge Moulding <h...@slc.unisys.com> wrote:
>Michele Tepper wrote:
>> Certainly there are times when it's worth doing so,
>
>polite conversation, and AFU. So say I, AFU's official arbiter
>of good taste.
The real dilemma is that the problem doesn't occur with the words "I
remember hearing", et al., but with the sometimes implied message behind
them, "...and that's how I know it's true". Most of us who've been on AFU
for a while have learned to explicitly warn "M*TT*!" or "no proof here,
but..." when we're about to embark on the uncharted terrain of unvorified
memory, just to be unmistakeably clear about the nature of the content
we're relating. I think that kind of carefulness is a good thing, and
something to be instilled in new posters with both the carrot and the stick.
I *don't* think it's productive to rule out all personal observations and
anecdotes out of hand, and as far as I can tell, that's not what Misha was
trying to do. In her first post, she said (emphasis mine): "posting
anecdotal evidence *as fact* is never pretty". That's an important
qualification.
>And the particular reminiscence to which you were
>referring is hardly of a kind with "Funny Names." I think that is
>a very unfair representation.
This is true, and I do think Misha may have spoken a bit strongly. But
the areas around fact, remembrance, rumor, and legend are slippery and
sometimes hard to distinguish from one another, and without the landmarks
of facts and specific sightings that folks like Ian and Barbara and Bo dig
up daily, the discussion can lose all sense of perspective in a hurry.
Without further qualification, "I remember hearing..." becomes a danger
signal, and it's easy to become as oversensitized to it as we are to any
mention, even intelligent mention, of gl*ss fl*w. Not that we shouldn't
guard against it.
> Helge "You, too, will be old and forgetful one day." Moulding
Emily "young and forgetful, but I try not to use it as an excuse" Kelly
--
Emily Harrison Kelly "You know the type - he keeps puffing out his little
eke...@acpub.duke.edu chest and standing up straight for all he's worth, and
he's still only four foot eight." --Madeleine Page
For the AFU and UL Archive: http://www.urbanlegends.com/
Henrik Brameus
But it was this thing with visible erection...
--
All opinions above are mine, but can be yours for a small fee.
(remove crap after email address for correct address)
Unknown
mte...@panix.com (Michele Tepper) cost the Net hundreds, if not
thousands of dollars writing in <5rh4oh$h...@panix2.panix.com>:
>Michele "[1] although for future reference, Morbidia, you should
> know that Judith Martin, who is most decidedly not Barbara
> Mikkelson, says in _Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct
> Behavior_ that the first holder of a dynastic name is never
> properly styled 'Soandso I' in his or her lifetime. This does
> make the current constitutional monarch of Spain incorrect, as Ms.
> Martin notes, but what do you expect of some guy who lisps?" Tepper
Shows just what Miss Manners knows about royal naming, or what
Belgians know about it (I can never decide). The previous king of
Belgium, the first one ever to be named Boudewijn/Baudwin (MOUSE[1]:
Baldwin), was sometimes called Boudewijn I/Baudwin Ier. Not all the
time, but often enough. And all that while he was still alive.
Hansje
[1] MOUSE: Most Of Usenet Speaks English
+--- Hans Derycke ---- hansderycke at mindspring dot com ------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| * * * Your Ad Here * * * |
| Low Prices - High Impact - E-mail for details |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, bmik...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) said:
>Michele Tepper <mte...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> You are misrepresenting my position.
>
>No; you are.
>
But what am ....... Oh, never mind.
>> I have no objection to people posting "personal reminiscences" of
>> encounters with ULs, relevant stories, or even long-winded discussions
>> of wedding etiquette.
>
>I well recall your getting snarky over people posting "ways to chase the
>Jehovahs Witnesses away" stories to this newsgroup for you felt the thread
>was off-charter despite it being chockful of personal reminiscences and
>"this is what a friend told me he did" tales.
People get snarky for all kinds of reasons on AFU. I remember one
woman who really lit into other female posters because they had
college educations!
>Rather than seeing those
>as encounters with a UL and being relevant stories in support of same,
>your arrogant directions then echo those of now:
>
Arrogant? I'd have to say that I trust you to recognize arrogance.
>> If you prefer lists of Funny Names for Songs About Sexual Acts Illegal
>> in Many American States and half-remembered half-baked reminiscences,
>> there's always misc.misc.
>
However, this doesn't seem any more arrogant than most of the pointers
we've given to new posters who haven't quite got it yet. I'll admit
that it's cutsie-quotient is awfully low, but adorableness never got
too far with me. YMMV, of course.
>Whatever AFU's problems are, having people post too much folklore to it
>isn't one of them.
>
Ahh, but AFU isn't just a story froup. We've landed with many
collective feet on lots of posters who simply restate a story they've
heard. We've chided them, nicey-nicey or with condoms and wolves, to
include some information with the story - where did they hear it?
When? What was the context?
Stories are probably just the thing for alt.folklore.suburban, though;
the ULs from _The Guardian_ are usually pretty good.
Vicki " " Robinson
--
Visit our wedding at <A HREF="http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/wedding.html"
</A> and sign our guest book!
The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive can be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com. Take a look, if you have a week to spare.
Phil Edwards
Bracing myself for grapeshot from at least two quarters...
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) wrote:
>Michele Tepper <mte...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> You are misrepresenting my position.
>
>No; you are.
Bad call. Michele can rephrase, refine or even revise her position;
she can't *misrepresent* it, unless what you're talking about is a
specific position taken on a specific past occasion - and even then
them's fighting words, which (a) require a high degree of evidential
support and (b) raise the temperature, which itself needs justifying.
>> I have no objection to people posting "personal reminiscences" of
>> encounters with ULs, relevant stories, or even long-winded discussions
>> of wedding etiquette.
Er, Michele... if you *don't* object to the wedding etiquette can we
just leave it out of the discussion? (Mixing serious statements with
sarcasm for polemical purposes is often frowned upon).
>I well recall your getting snarky over people posting "ways to chase the
>Jehovahs Witnesses away" stories to this newsgroup for you felt the thread
>was off-charter despite it being chockful of personal reminiscences and
>"this is what a friend told me he did" tales.
Your interpretation of whatever it was that Michele did on that
occasion, whenever it was, doesn't have to be consistent with what
she's saying now. People don't always think or do the same things;
people don't always interpret what other people do the same way.
People can bury the past; people can agree to differ.
>> If you prefer lists of Funny Names for Songs About Sexual Acts Illegal
>> in Many American States and half-remembered half-baked reminiscences,
>> there's always misc.misc.
>
>Whatever AFU's problems are, having people post too much folklore to it
>isn't one of them.
Did someone mention folklore? I didn't notice.
Phil "let's ALL be *FRIENDLY*, dammit!" Edwards
--
Phil Edwards amroth(at)zetnet.co.uk
"With each and every circumstance
I lose knowledge and gain innocence" - Beth Orton
Barbara Mikkelson
Emily Kelly <eke...@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
> I *don't* think it's productive to rule out all personal observations and
> anecdotes out of hand,
Precisely. Anecdotes have a valid place on AFU (not the sum total of it,
of course, but still a place), and I would be very sad to see them chased
off the group. I think they add both to the texture of the place as well
as to our growing knowledge about specific ULs. Let them be, sez I.
They don't harm anything, and they might well be doing a lot of good.
That's not to say that *if an anecdote is presented as fact* it can't be
questioned. But of course we should ask questions then. "Then" is the
keyword in all this -- I advocate waiting until someone has stridently
asserted the story's veracity before taking him to task over it. Reset
the default, sez I. Fire not wildly at anything that moves but rather
only at Them Wot Deserves Killing.
Let's talk about datapoints for a second -- "I heard it said that..."
*isn't* someone claiming <whatever> as fact, it's but the reporting of a
datapoint. Even without knowing when or where this was heard (although
I'll grant that would be better), you now know this particular belief was
circulating in popular culture, that this wasn't something peculiar to but
your own family. In other words, you learned something.
"I heard Carl's Junior is owned by the KKK" does not mean "I *believe*
Carl's Junior is owned by the KKK." Who on this newsgroup would mistake
one for the other if I were the one saying it? Clearly in the first
instance I would be reporting a datapoint by telling the group the rumour
had been presented to me, and in the second I would be taking leave of my
senses.
To jump the gun by assuming newcomers mean they *believe* something when
they but say they *heard* something is doing them a frightful disservice.
Beyond the insult done to the particular poster, this practice also works
to discourage others from posting what might have proved to be extremely
valuable information about particular ULs. Having seen a million too
many other newcomers who tried to do something similar get jumped on, what
kind of fools would they have to be to want to put themselves through
that?
I get notes from lurkers all the time, and the one common theme that runs
through them is a *fear* of posting to AFU. I honestly could not begin
to keep track of the emails I've written back encouraging those people to
share their stories with AFU, to write up their letter to me as a post.
Most of them do but some of them do not, and AFU is the one to lose out.
I know that because I got to see a lot of stuff that *didn't* get posted
here.
I'm not saying everyone has to stop being indiscriminately snarky (hey,
even I have my days), but I am asking people to consider the cumulative
effect this practice has on the newsgroup. In the long-run, is it worth
it? Is AFU truly gaining more than it is losing?
Barbara "choices" Mikkelson
--
Barbara Mikkelson | A number of weasels were spotted on the
bmikkels@fas. | sidewalk after they had walked under a
harvard.edu | painter's ladder. - Don Erickson
Barbara Mikkelson
Vicki Robinson <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote:
> Ahh, but AFU isn't just a story froup.
True enough -- it's not. But it also shouldn't be a story-free group.
There's room for most everything -- why act like there's not?
> We've landed with many collective feet on lots of posters who simply
> restate a story they've heard.
We might well have been wrong to do that too. Does AFU know when the ice
first appeared in the bathtub? The answer is no -- other places on the
Net knew a long time before we did, and that's because no one came here
to tell us the story.
> We've chided them, nicey-nicey or with condoms and wolves, to include
> some information with the story - where did they hear it? When? What
> was the context?
What if we did all that, changing "chided" to "invited"? Would it make
a difference? Is it at least something we should consider?
The more time I spend pondering this question, the more I see I've often
taken the wrong path. In the past I've often told people they should have
read the FAQ instead of posting a UL here. Great plan -- keeps the
newsgroup uncluttered -- well done, Barbara! Unfortunately, long-term
it's a killer. When ULs don't get posted to AFU, AFU misses out on
knowing what's happening to them.
I spent some time recently reading old DejaNews threads, looking for
recountings of the kidney theft UL. Found a handful too. Also found
double handfuls of followups, each telling the poster in their own way
(some gentle, some not so gentle) that he shouldn't have posted his story
to AFU, that if he'd read the FAQ first he would have known not to for
we've already heard it.
Each telling of the kidney theft was markedly different from the previous
yet those following up (including myself) weren't picking up on this.
The bloody thing was evolving in front of our eyes, yet we were trying
to keep people from telling us about it. And indeed, we succeeded --
we missed out on seeing some key shifts.
The kidney theft UL (guy wakes up in a hotel room one) dates back to 1991
-- it's one of the few major ULs born in AFU's time. Should have been our
nurtured and fussed-over child, yet we now know less about it than if we'd
packed it off to a babysitter and just checked in on it every weekend.
AFU doesn't have to turn into a story group. But it does, I think, need
to make more room for the ULs themselves.
Barbara "else UL be sorry" Mikkelson
--
| I, for one, can state that I have never run
Barbara Mikkelson | around aimlessly with a tennis ball stuck in
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu | my mouth and a blissful expression of total
| mindlessness upon my face. - Bill VanHorne
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy W. Burgeson
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) wrote:
>I get notes from lurkers all the time, and the one common theme that runs
>through them is a *fear* of posting to AFU. I honestly could not begin
>to keep track of the emails I've written back encouraging those people to
>share their stories with AFU, to write up their letter to me as a post.
>Most of them do but some of them do not, and AFU is the one to lose out.
>I know that because I got to see a lot of stuff that *didn't* get posted
>here.
I'll say that I have suffered from a genuine fear of posting UL sightings
to AFU. During the summer of '94 (I believe, it was pre-Deja News), I had
a marvelous sighting of a current much-discussed legend, complete with
location (of sighting _and_ alleged occurance), and distribution of people
who believed it. Classic example of what Barbara is disturbed by. Old
news now.
Jeremy
Phil Edwards
bmik...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) wrote:
>The more time I spend pondering this question, the more I see I've often
>taken the wrong path. In the past I've often told people they should have
>read the FAQ instead of posting a UL here.
<snip>
>Each telling of the kidney theft was markedly different from the previous
>yet those following up (including myself) weren't picking up on this.
>The bloody thing was evolving in front of our eyes, yet we were trying
>to keep people from telling us about it.
This is a very good point, which I'm largely going to ignore - the
more I thought about it the more it seemed that what's really at issue
isn't so much whether afu's a folklore-friendly environment as the
group's attitude to newbies and decloaked lurkers. (Any regular
posters hung-up about posting folklore to afu? Shame on you if so -
for feeling hung-up about posting *anything* to afu, I mean, with the
exception of offcharteria, one-line fever and, er, t-word. You're
*here* now, for goodness' sake - relax. After all, if you do put a
foot wrong you'll find out soon enough (heh)).
If we're talking about newbies, though, I think there is some room for
improvement. I must confess I've always thought newbie-flaming in
general an occasional and regrettable necessity rather than a
bloodsport (et ego, etc). It's like the approach I'd hope we'd take in
conversation. If someone posts a UL, you comment on any new features &
point the poster at the FAQ for their further edification (nicely). If
they post a UL as fact, you point out that it's known in other forms
(pointing out that it's implausible is less important), tell them it
looks like a UL to us and proceed as before. If they post a whole
stack of BTWs and IMHOs and sm*l*ys, tell them this isn't entirely
welcome. Nicely. If they make a factual assertion without sources, for
gods' sake give 'em a break and let it go.
Yes, if I ruled afu every week would be nicey-nicey week... Naah - the
point is to offer a clue *before* unleashing the full force of afu's
blistering pendantry, invitations to a TV dinner with Ewan, irritating
in-jokes and general snottiness. Again, conversational rules should
really apply: if the innocent neophyte argues that the singer from
Marilyn Manson really *is* a gerbil, Silly String really *does* flow
and we can't know for *certain* that nobody's ever had their tonsils
removed at Disney World, we can reiterate our reasons for thinking
otherwise. Nicely - oh, all right, not quite so nicely this time.
List threads, Mornington Crescent cascades, etiquette guidelines and
pointless anecdotes about common rodents can be terminated with
extreme prejudice, however.
Phil "but nicely" Edwards
Michael Doelle
Barbara Mikkelson wrote:
> The kidney theft UL (guy wakes up in a hotel room one) dates back to 1991
> -- it's one of the few major ULs born in AFU's time. Should have been our
> nurtured and fussed-over child, yet we now know less about it than if we'd
> packed it off to a babysitter and just checked in on it every weekend.
>
It's been around for a bit longer than that, although maybe not on the
Net. I recall (m*tt* ?) first hearing it of it in 89 or 90, complete
with FOAFOAF who really ('no shit') knew the 1-kidney guy. It was going
around in Germany and the kidneys were stolen in Italy. Moral: be
careful when venturing South, and at a time when Italy received a lot of
negative press because of stolen cars, etc.
The way it was told was that a guy is kidnapped in his own car (see
above) and is later found by police looking for the missing car/guy in
the backseat minus one kidney.
Sorry, no cites.
michael, munich
Helge Moulding
Michael Doelle wrote:
> at a time when Italy received a lot of negative press because of
> stolen cars, etc.
So, do they make The Club(TM) for kidneys?
--
Helge "And can you circumvent it by just sawing off a leg?" Moulding
Bob Hiebert
In article <5rpovg$70c$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, bmik...@fas.harvard.edu (Barbara Mikkelson) wrote:
Darn good case for turning down the afterburners deleted.
>AFU doesn't have to turn into a story group. But it does, I think, need
>to make more room for the ULs themselves.
Room is made for ULs though it appears to be somewhat arbitrary to me. I
fully support gang tackling any fool who vigorously defends an indefensible
tale. It's the ones where people come in and ask about a story that seem to
have a coin toss generator attached to the response bots.
I have watched never ending threads that have nothing to do with ULs. Heck,
I've participated in these. I've sorted through 200+ messages on days where
I'd be lucky to find 20 that actually were discussing ULs. This isn't
necessarily bad, though it has been cumbersome since SEPTEMBER(tm) arrived.
So what pushes the launch button when someone posts a question about ULs? Is
it so that we can spend half our time debating word origins?
It seems to me that the negative vibes come from the group memory of
previous idiots. Glass flow had been debated before, but it was only after
this last round that any thread about glass flow is immediately stomped out.
(the fact that it isn't really a UL is not really germane to my theory, and
is almost never used as a reason to call for an end to the thread). The
tragedy is that we punish newcomers for the sins of assholes long gone.
If you compound this problem by the 50+ regular posters, each with their own
past "nightmare thread" it is possible to see an endpoint that resembles
newsgroup entropy.
Bob "and the Furrian gambit failed" Hiebert
---
E-mail address is invalid. Correct to reply.