"Apothegmbusters4" - Nod = Wink to Blind Man

[abzorba]

A Nod is as Good as a Good as a Wink to a Blind Man

The literal idea being that as a blind man can't see either a wink or
a nod, he can have no idea what is going on. But I think differently.
My blind friend, Homer Carruthers and I were walking down the street
together when I winked at a friendly girl who lives nearby, and he
asked: "Myles, did you just wink at that girl?" I was astonished. How
did you know that!?" I asked. "Oh, I heard it". Of course I knew that
blind people have excellent hearing, but I had no idea just how good.
"But my dear Homes" I went on, "How did you know I wasn't just
blinking?" He smiled like a Cheshire cat: "Well, if you had blinked
both your eyes, the sound would have been stereophonic…" True story
(T)*
*FSVOT, mainly where V=0

The meaning of the expression is a suggestion that some kind of covert
signal is being given in a conspiracy intending some illicit plan.
Americans being essentially guileless, the expression has no place in
their culture and is best observed amongst the Cockneys and Irish,
where it merges with the patois of their demimonde.

I am a Novocastrian. This does not mean I have recently been
castrated, but refers to my home town of Newcastle (the one in New
South Wales in Australia). The following account will be recognized by
many who were (or are) residents there, and in many other regional
towns, circa 1950s.

The young lad knows that the Acropolis milk bar in Hunter Street
Newcastle serves milk shakes and hot pies downstairs, but has heard on
the grapevine that other services are offered UPSTAIRS, if you catch
my drift, if the correct "nod and wink" is given. Thus, he nervously
approaches the Greek proprietor behind the bar. "Look, cobber could I
have a …" He pauses, and gulps. "Could I please have a…" and now he
puts his left forefinger against his nose, and with his other
forefinger pointing emphatically at a green handkerchief, the corner
of which prominently protrudes from his right trouser pocket. Winking
furiously, he continues, "A…black milkshake…", and waits anxiously as
the motionless proprietor gazes at him with totally impassive eyes.
The youth goes on, as if he has not been understood properly, this
time enunciating his words very clearly for the Greek man: "A…BLACK…
MILK…SHAKE…" And soon he has his black milkshake, and if he likes
licorice flavored milk, he might enjoy it.

Story 2. Sometime in the 1930s, in Paris, a Frenchman is hosting his
German friend, who has a little pet dachshund and they are
inseparable. Now they have paid to go on a rail trip to Marseilles,
but the guard says the rules stipulate no pets. The Frenchmen looks at
his German friend, and whispers that he will "take care of it". He
approaches the guard with a charming smile, takes him aside, and, with
a forefinger on his nose, surreptitiously proffers the then equivalent
of $US 20 (about 400 million francs). The guard, well pleased with
himself, fronts the two men and twirling his moustache: "Ahhh" he says
"I do not zee any dawg 'ere". "What! Are you blind, you ignorant
cheese-eating dummkopf?!" storms the German, "He's right here at my
feet!"

So here are two stories in which "nod as good as a wink" machinations
have led, not to the neat meshing of intentions, but to speaking at
counter purposes, due to the code being misunderstood, or being
ignored, by one of the parties.

But there ARE other venues where the practitioners of this illicit art
are most expert in this field, and ironically, and sadly, such
expertise is best seen in the Courts, where it is forms part of the
Masonic art of the corruption of justice. To be dealt with in my next
post.

Apothegm status:

Confirmed with a caveat, busted with a codicil, plausible with a
cavil

Myles (Yes, *I* sometimes wonder why I bother, too) Paulsen

[Harrison Hill]

On Jan 10, 2:18 am, abzorba <myles...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Apothegm status:
>
> Confirmed with a caveat, busted with a codicil, plausible with a
> cavil
>

> Myles (Yes, *I* sometimes wonder why I bother, too) Paulsen#

At least no one can accuse you of a scarceness of extreme English
Usage! I had to look up "cavil" in my COD and "captious objection"
sent me rushing back through the C-words, for the first time in many
years.

My job involves me in obtaining people's signatures. I worked long and
hard when I was thirteen to get a signature to be proud of, with
impressive squiggles and flourishes impossible to impersonate. The
people I most admire in my dotage for their signatures are people who
(like my Dad) can unleash a simple line with a wiggle on the end. They
have saved themselves hours of their lives, otherwise wasted on
impressing people with things that don't actually impress people at
all; merely waste their time!

"Less" is always "more" and I would be surprised if anyone can come up
with a situation where that doesn't apply.

[tony cooper]

My signature is best described as a squiggle. You can't even
determine that the first letter is a "T" because my "T"s are done
differently.

The only time a bank has ever returned a check because the signature
was not acceptable compared to the one on file was when my signing
hand was heavily bandaged and every letter of my name in the signature
was clearly discernable.

I don't think bank employees *look* at checks anymore. They did at
one time, though.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter Brooks]

On Jan 10, 10:22 pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The only time a bank has ever returned a check because the signature
> was not acceptable compared to the one on file was when my signing
> hand was heavily bandaged and every letter of my name in the signature
> was clearly discernable.
>

For about a year, back in the '80s, my bank would me a note after
every cheque with 'signature on file', since every one was different.
Eventually they gave up. I think that they finally got the point that
a signature is supposed to be unique.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On 1/9/2012 9:18 PM, abzorba wrote:
> "But my dear Homes" I went on, "How did you know I wasn't just
> blinking?" He smiled like a Cheshire cat: "Well, if you had blinked

> both your eyes, the sound would have been stereophonic�"

Clearly what he heard was not your eyelids clapping together but the
girl's involuntary gasp of horror.

�R

[abzorba]

Tony, you are certainly one to give with one hand and frenziedly
masturbate with the other. It was not but yesterday that you scorned a
fellow frouper because he had deigned to pay me the courtesy of
reading one of my posts. You made a point that you would never stoop
so low. That I was a pompous ring-in who had no right to be here. And
24 hours later, you become only the SECOND person to post in on this,
my new thread. Of course it is off-topic, but then it is hard to find
one of yours that isn't.

Fellow frouper, you are obsessed with me. I am your Amadeus, and you
are my Salieri. I note that Salieri wrote his account of Amadeus from
a mental asylum, and that fits perfectly too. Add it to the copious
off-topic dissertations of "Things wrong with my body and brain" that
you inflict on this froup. Hey, I'm not Dr Phil, take it somewhere
else, please.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I am a good writer who finds
it difficult to suffer fools who advertise their foolishness from the
hilltops. You are someone whose writings are forgotten the instant
they are written, but you might well do better at
rec.macrame.patterns.

Myles (Amadeus) Paulsen

[abzorba]

On Jan 11, 4:51 am, Harrison Hill <harrish...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2:18 am, abzorba <myles...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Apothegm status:
>
> > Confirmed with a caveat, busted with a codicil, plausible with a
> > cavil
>
> > Myles (Yes, *I* sometimes wonder why I bother, too) Paulsen#
>
> At least no one can accuse you of a scarceness of extreme English
> Usage! I had to look up "cavil" in my COD and "captious objection"
> sent me rushing back through the C-words, for the first time in many
> years.
>

Thank you Harrison for your kind words. (Btw, have you got a sister
called Primrose? - that would be nice)

Cavil is the upmarket word for quibble. If you have little money, you
might have to hire a lawyer who will say, concerning your case that
"There is not a JOT of evidence against this man'. If you can afford
more, you will get one who will say "There is not an IOTA of evidence
against this man".

But if you are really willing to pay top dollar, you will get one who
will utter "There is not a SCINTILLA of evidence against this man".

Myles (I have avocations, you have hobbies, he is "mucking around")
Paulsen

[abzorba]

On Jan 11, 11:19 am, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> On 1/9/2012 9:18 PM, abzorba wrote:
>
> > "But my dear Homes" I went on, "How did you know I wasn't just
> > blinking?" He smiled like a Cheshire cat: "Well, if you had blinked
> > both your eyes, the sound would have been stereophonic "
>

> Clearly what he heard was not your eyelids clapping together but the
> girl's involuntary gasp of horror.
>

That's winked, not blinked.

Myles (and there are a few foxy chicks that owe me a big favour)
Paulsen

[Peter Brooks]

I'd expect even a jobbing lawyer to be able to say not a jot, tittle,
iota or scintilla - but then, in my experience, lawyers do disappoint,
so my expectation is probably set too high. They're likely to claim
this, of course, without so much as a portable scintillometer, nor,
indeed, any awareness of when they jot down a tittle, nor, even, the
tautology involved in invoking both iotas and jots.

I suppose that you're saying that, if you did find an expensive enough
lawyer, he'd know all this - and, of course, be perfectly capable of
bogging the case but still getting paid.

[CDB]

abzorba wrote:
> tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
[duckshuffle]

>>
> Tony, you are certainly one to give with one hand and frenziedly
> masturbate with the other. It was not but yesterday that you
> scorned a fellow frouper because he had deigned to pay me the
> courtesy of reading one of my posts. You made a point that you
> would never stoop so low. That I was a pompous ring-in who had no
> right to be here. And 24 hours later, you become only the SECOND
> person to post in on this, my new thread. Of course it is
> off-topic, but then it is hard to find one of yours that isn't.
>

Harrison can only serve as a blind a few times before he is plonked
too. Use him wisely, Grasshopper.
>
[quacking and pecking]

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:26:14 -0500, "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

Are Harrison and Absorbed (with himself) one and the same?

Harrison has little to offer, but comparatively underweens.

[Leslie Danks]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:51:29 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

[...]

> Harrison has little to offer, but comparatively underweens.

Had to look that up; but it's given as a transitive verb in Dictionary.com.

--
Les
(BrE)

[CDB]

tony cooper wrote:
> "CDB" <belle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> abzorba wrote:
>>> tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>> [duckshuffle]
>>>>
>>> Tony, you are certainly one to give with one hand and frenziedly
>>> masturbate with the other. It was not but yesterday that you
>>> scorned a fellow frouper because he had deigned to pay me the
>>> courtesy of reading one of my posts. You made a point that you
>>> would never stoop so low. That I was a pompous ring-in who had no
>>> right to be here. And 24 hours later, you become only the SECOND
>>> person to post in on this, my new thread. Of course it is
>>> off-topic, but then it is hard to find one of yours that isn't.
>>>
>> Harrison can only serve as a blind a few times before he is plonked
>> too. Use him wisely, Grasshopper.
>>>
>> [quacking and pecking]
>>
> Are Harrison and Absorbed (with himself) one and the same?
>

So I believe. Harrison is the unoffending sock, except when Myles
loses track.

>
> Harrison has little to offer, but comparatively underweens.
>

I think Myles has something to offer, if he can ever get over himself.
Maybe we'll find out eventually, maybe not.