Meeting other Poly's!
Todd Q
ask some deeper questions.
A) How does a poly meet other poly's?
B) How does a poly explain him/herself to non-poly's?
C) If a poly is new to being poly (myself included), how does oneself
approach others that he/she would like included in the poly
relationship?
Well, I guess those are enough for now! Thanks for all the neat
answers on my last post and I look forward to getting to know you all
better soon!
Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
Kai Jones
wrote:
>Okay, since my last post created such a HUGE discussion, I'd like to
>ask some deeper questions.
>
>A) How does a poly meet other poly's?
I don't know. How I've met other polys: by accident (livejournal
friendslist, Usenet group other than this one), on purpose (subscribed
to local poly mailing list, read this NG).
>B) How does a poly explain him/herself to non-poly's?
So far I've only done it once. The explanation was particular to my
relationship with that person and is not what I would say to anyone
but that person.
>C) If a poly is new to being poly (myself included), how does oneself
>approach others that he/she would like included in the poly
>relationship?
Haven't done it yet: I was approached by a poly person who asked
whether zir perception that we'd been on what felt like a "first date"
was accurate.
>Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
>the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
Got them at work. They're called laser printers. The printer is
relatively expensive and the toner is relatively inexpensive, compared
to inkjet.
--
Kai Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature.
Todd Q
> Haven't done it yet: I was approached by a poly person who asked
> whether zir perception that we'd been on what felt like a "first date"
> was accurate.
What is "zir"?
> >Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
> >the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
>
> Got them at work. They're called laser printers. The printer is
> relatively expensive and the toner is relatively inexpensive, compared
> to inkjet.
The bit about the printers was being funny :D I still have an Epson
RX-80 from 1981 that prints just fine (if you like dot matrix) and I
can buy a dozen ink cartridges for about $1.
Todd Q
Kai Jones
wrote:
>Kai Jones wrote:
>> Haven't done it yet: I was approached by a poly person who asked
>> whether zir perception that we'd been on what felt like a "first date"
>> was accurate.
>
>What is "zir"?
It's a gender neutral pronoun--instead of "he" or "she" which
sometimes elicit a particular image (male or female), I enjoy using a
neutral one when the sex of the person about whom I am speaking is not
necessary to the meaning of the conversation.
>> >Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
>> >the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
>>
>> Got them at work. They're called laser printers. The printer is
>> relatively expensive and the toner is relatively inexpensive, compared
>> to inkjet.
>
>The bit about the printers was being funny :D I still have an Epson
>RX-80 from 1981 that prints just fine (if you like dot matrix) and I
>can buy a dozen ink cartridges for about $1.
I fondly remember daisy-wheel printers, with their big big sound
hoods.
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
>I fondly remember daisy-wheel printers, with their big big sound
>hoods.
You wouldn't remember them so fondly if you'd ever been near one without
sound hood.
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
Steve Pope
>On 9 Jun 2005 08:15:48 -0700, "Todd Q" <todd.q...@maines.net>
>wrote:
>>What is "zir"?
>It's a gender neutral pronoun--instead of "he" or "she" which
>sometimes elicit a particular image (male or female), I enjoy using a
>neutral one when the sex of the person about whom I am speaking is not
>necessary to the meaning of the conversation.
Just to be specific, "zir" is used in place of "his" or her",
while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
used in the singular.
Steve
Kai Jones
Machine) published the following for anyone to read:
>In article <senga1he8ovi4j7ic...@4ax.com>,
>Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>
>>I fondly remember daisy-wheel printers, with their big big sound
>>hoods.
>
>You wouldn't remember them so fondly if you'd ever been near one without
>sound hood.
Dude, who do you think lifted the hood to get stuff out? I'm the one
who insisted they buy the sound hood!
But also, I could make those puppies sing and dance; I could specify
exactly where to print on any piece of paper, load it, and get what I
wanted. As a control freak, I am happy to have that level of control
over a print job.
Todd Q
> Just to be specific, "zir" is used in place of "his" or her",
> while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
> used in the singular.
Is this something I MUST do, SHOULD do, or CAN/MAY do? It seems
confusing to me.
Todd Q - How many licks does it take to get to the center of a
Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop?
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Just to be specific, "zir" is used in place of "his" or her",
>> while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
>> used in the singular.
>Is this something I MUST do, SHOULD do, or CAN/MAY do? It seems
>confusing to me.
In my view, you can do it if you like, however if you wish
to speak and write correct English you're better off avoiding
"zie" and "zir".
Steve
Kai Jones
published the following for anyone to read:
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Just to be specific, "zir" is used in place of "his" or her",
>> while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
>> used in the singular.
>
>Is this something I MUST do, SHOULD do, or CAN/MAY do? It seems
>confusing to me.
In my opinion using gender neutral pronouns is completely optional.
Some people have a strong aversion to them, and it is possible that
using them will alienate those people. I like them and I use them for
that reason.
>Todd Q - How many licks does it take to get to the center of a
>Tootsie-Roll Tootsie-Pop?
Obviously, it's three. Three licks.
Because after that, you crunch it.
Tacit
"Todd Q" <todd.q...@maines.net> wrote:
> Okay, since my last post created such a HUGE discussion, I'd like to
> ask some deeper questions.
>
> A) How does a poly meet other poly's?
I personally don't meet "other polys." I meet other *people*; and some
of those people will turn out to be poly.
What I think happens in a lot of subcultures is that people canstart
looking for another partner, and become so fixated on finding someone of
a particular TYPE--a hot bi babe, a submissive woman, a polyamorous
man--that they stop thinking of peple as *people*, y'know? Even a hot bi
babe or a submissive woman or whatever likes to be seen as a person
first.
That doesn't really answer the question, but hang on, it leads into:
> B) How does a poly explain him/herself to non-poly's?
I don't try to "explain myself," unless someone asks. But I am very open
and casual about being polyamorous. For example, I was at work one
Valentine's day and received a huge bouquet of flowers delivered to my
office. A lot of my coworkers asked "Is that from your wife?" and when i
read the card, i said 'No, it's from my girlfriend; it's to my wife and
I."
What I've found is that people who can't deal with that kind of thing
generally don't remain in my social circle. They don't go into fits
about it; I've never been confronted with a situation where someone goes
off on me, or it's affected my job, or anything like that; people who
don't like it have simply tended to fade away. hat that means is that
the people who are in my social circle tend to be people who are at
least open to the idea of non-traditional relationships--which helps in
answering Question A.
> C) If a poly is new to being poly (myself included), how does oneself
> approach others that he/she would like included in the poly
> relationship?
As with any kind of communication, communication about interest in a
relationship works best, in my experience, when it's up front.
Generally, what I do is remain open to new romantic relationships
without actually searching for them, and when I meet someone I connect
with, I say so. Simple, but it works very well.
> Well, I guess those are enough for now! Thanks for all the neat
> answers on my last post and I look forward to getting to know you all
> better soon!
>
> Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
> the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
There's more money in siving the razors away and selling the blades.
Inkjet ink is incredibly profitable--in 2003, for example, 70% of all of
Hewlett-Packard's total net operating profits, across the board, came
from sales of inkjet ink. Ounce for ounce, the stuff is more expensive
than the most expensive champagne, and it's all profit.
--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Todd Q
Tacit, those are some excellent answers! I am grateful for your
advice. Looking at it from the perspective of going about normal life
and allowing oneself to consider others seems so much more simple. And
as any relationship, I am always open about the situation, now more so!
Sometimes our vision is clouded behind a veil of our own making. Keep
it simple!
> Well, I guess those are enough for now! Thanks for all the neat
> answers on my last post and I look forward to getting to know you all
> better soon!
>
> Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
> the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
> There's more money in siving the razors away and selling the blades.
> Inkjet ink is incredibly profitable--in 2003, for example, 70% of all of
> Hewlett-Packard's total net operating profits, across the board, came
> from sales of inkjet ink. Ounce for ounce, the stuff is more expensive
> than the most expensive champagne, and it's all profit.
As to the printer question, it was sort of a signature! :D I am
putting on oddball questions as a little bit of showing people who I
am, and who I am is one who questions the way things are.
Laura Elizabeth Back
>As to the printer question, it was sort of a signature! :D I am
>putting on oddball questions as a little bit of showing people who I
>am, and who I am is one who questions the way things are.
Then you should get along well with all the folks here who like to answer
rhetorical questions. :-) It's safe to expect that if you raise something
interesting or amusing, *somebody* will jump on the opportunity to talk
about it...
--
Laura E. Back
Philippa Cowderoy
> On 9 Jun 2005 08:15:48 -0700, "Todd Q" <todd.q...@maines.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Kai Jones wrote:
>>> Haven't done it yet: I was approached by a poly person who asked
>>> whether zir perception that we'd been on what felt like a "first date"
>>> was accurate.
>>
>> What is "zir"?
>
> It's a gender neutral pronoun--instead of "he" or "she" which
> sometimes elicit a particular image (male or female), I enjoy using a
> neutral one when the sex of the person about whom I am speaking is not
> necessary to the meaning of the conversation.
>
They're also useful when the person in question isn't of one of the two
conventional genders, as "it" is rather likely to offend.
The task of the academic is not to scale great
intellectual mountains, but to flatten them.
suzee
I like his sig questions!
sue
Philippa Cowderoy
> In alt.polyamory, (Mean Green Dancing Machine) wrote in
> <d89n4n$blf$1...@panix3.panix.com>::
>
>> In article <senga1he8ovi4j7ic...@4ax.com>,
>> Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I fondly remember daisy-wheel printers, with their big big sound
>>> hoods.
>>
>> You wouldn't remember them so fondly if you'd ever been near one without
>> sound hood.
>
> Eh?
>
What was that? I can't hear you!
ElissaAnn
news:8hqga1pjeqfhtlpan...@4ax.com...
> On 9 Jun 2005 08:59:15 -0700, "Todd Q" <todd.q...@maines.net>
> published the following for anyone to read:
>
>>Steve Pope wrote:
>>> Just to be specific, "zir" is used in place of "his" or her",
>>> while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
>>> used in the singular.
>>
>>Is this something I MUST do, SHOULD do, or CAN/MAY do? It seems
>>confusing to me.
>
> In my opinion using gender neutral pronouns is completely optional.
> Some people have a strong aversion to them, and it is possible that
> using them will alienate those people. I like them and I use them for
> that reason.
ROFL
Marry me?
Elissa
--
"Who doesn't look good with a harp?" -- Anya, somewhere in the nonexistent
Season 6
Kai Jones
<eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>"Kai Jones" <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
>news:8hqga1pjeqfhtlpan...@4ax.com...
>> On 9 Jun 2005 08:59:15 -0700, "Todd Q" <todd.q...@maines.net>
>> published the following for anyone to read:
>>
>>>Steve Pope wrote:
>>>> Just to be specific, "zir" is used in place of "his" or her",
>>>> while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
>>>> used in the singular.
>>>
>>>Is this something I MUST do, SHOULD do, or CAN/MAY do? It seems
>>>confusing to me.
>>
>> In my opinion using gender neutral pronouns is completely optional.
>> Some people have a strong aversion to them, and it is possible that
>> using them will alienate those people. I like them and I use them for
>> that reason.
>
>ROFL
>
>Marry me?
Aren't we already married by concatenation?
Todd Q
> I like his sig questions!
Awww! Thanks Sue! (I have a fan!) Hugs! :D
Todd Q - Okay, my health insurance goes up 10% and they give me a raise
of 2% and expect me to be happy?!?
Stef
>ask some deeper questions.
>
>A) How does a poly meet other poly's?
By hanging out where other poly folks hang out (in online forums like
this, and in local groups, many of which are listed on
www.polyamory.org.
>B) How does a poly explain him/herself to non-poly's?
I think it's easier if you have partners already; then you can say "I
have more than one partner, and we all know about each other" or "I have
an open relationship." A lot of non-poly folks seem to know the term
"open relationship."
When I didn't have partners already, I said to prospective sweeties "I
don't want to be exclusive" and "I don't want to be monogamous." I
didn't discuss it with people who weren't prospective sweeties. But
that was before I had heard the term polyamory, and I didn't know all
the philosophy that went with it.
The FAQ available at the abovementioned web site has more Q&As.
>C) If a poly is new to being poly (myself included), how does oneself
>approach others that he/she would like included in the poly
>relationship?
Very carefully. :-)
If the others in question are also poly, then I approach them by getting
to know them better as people and seeing if there is any mutual romantic
interest.
If the others in question are not poly - I haven't done this in a long
time - then I might approach them by getting to know them as friends and
over a period of months and years letting them see how poly fits into my
life, and letting them take the lead if they have questions or if they
decide they are interested in poly. I usually won't agree to be their
first poly relationship and am very uncomfortable being both a "poly
mentor" and a sweetie at the same time.
>Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
>the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
The same thing that's up with inexpensive razors that take expensive
cartridges. But there are also expensive printers with expensive ink...
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to
vote."
-- Kosh Naranek, "Believers," Babylon 5
Stef
Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On 9 Jun 2005 08:59:15 -0700, "Todd Q" <todd.q...@maines.net>
>published the following for anyone to read:
>
>>> while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
>>> used in the singular.
>>
>>Is this something I MUST do, SHOULD do, or CAN/MAY do? It seems
>>confusing to me.
Can/may.
>In my opinion using gender neutral pronouns is completely optional.
>Some people have a strong aversion to them, and it is possible that
>using them will alienate those people. I like them and I use them for
>that reason.
You use them because you like them? Or you like them and use them
because it alienates some people? Or "amplectere potestem 'et'"?
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
A journey of a thousand miles starts under one's feet. --Lao Tsu
ElissaAnn
Married with cats. That sounds about right.
Kai Jones
published the following for anyone to read:
>In article <8hqga1pjeqfhtlpan...@4ax.com>,
>Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>>On 9 Jun 2005 08:59:15 -0700, "Todd Q" <todd.q...@maines.net>
>>published the following for anyone to read:
>>
>>>> Just to be specific, "zir" is used in place of "his" or her",
>>>> while "zie" is used in place of "she" or "he". They are always
>>>> used in the singular.
>>>
>>>Is this something I MUST do, SHOULD do, or CAN/MAY do? It seems
>>>confusing to me.
>
>Can/may.
>
>>In my opinion using gender neutral pronouns is completely optional.
>>Some people have a strong aversion to them, and it is possible that
>>using them will alienate those people. I like them and I use them for
>>that reason.
>
>You use them because you like them? Or you like them and use them
>because it alienates some people? Or "amplectere potestem 'et'"?
I use them because I like them. The other bit was just "buyer beware"
for someone who is new to the concept and also might care not to
alienate people.
I wouldn't have said it before you asked, because I didn't actually
think about it, but it is true that I also use them to alienate
people. Not any particular person, and not specifically because of
those words (I've got a little list of words myself, and "should" is
at the top of the list), but because I find them useful, euphonious
and nice (in the old fashioned sense).
Stef
Kai Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:17:15 +0000 (UTC), st...@panix.com (Stef)
>published the following for anyone to read:
>>because it alienates some people? Or "amplectere potestem 'et'"?
>
>I use them because I like them. The other bit was just "buyer beware"
>for someone who is new to the concept and also might care not to
>alienate people.
>
>I wouldn't have said it before you asked, because I didn't actually
>think about it, but it is true that I also use them to alienate
>people. Not any particular person, and not specifically because of
>those words (I've got a little list of words myself, and "should" is
>at the top of the list), but because I find them useful, euphonious
>and nice (in the old fashioned sense).
For me it's along the lines of "I use them because I find gender-neutral
pronouns absolutely essential to my writing, and zie/zir forms are the
best option among not-all-that-great options.
I also sometimes use "they/them/their" in place of singular pronouns,
but only if no "-self" forms are required in what I am writing; I hate
hate hate using "themselves" and "theirselves" in that capacity.
ObPedantry (not a correction of anyone, just something I haven't seen
many people mention): "They" is not a singular pronoun, because even
when used to refer to a single person, it still takes plural verb forms
- "when someone has an umbrella, they have protection from the rain,"
not "they has protection from the rain." I'm terribly thankful that I
learned English as a baby and don't have to try to make sense of this
weirdness as an adult ESL learner.
I know that zie/zir alienate some people, and I'm OK with alienating
people who are going to jump to the conclusion that I'm doing this to be
politically correct. I'm sad that it might alienate people just because
they think zie/zir forms look awkward. But since I'm the only person who
is guaranteed to read what I write, I'll default to writing in a way
that looks non-awkward to me over a way that might look non-awkward to
other people.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
The Goddess does not seek worship--she rejoices in being vividly imagined.
Laura Elizabeth Back
>I also sometimes use "they/them/their" in place of singular pronouns,
>but only if no "-self" forms are required in what I am writing; I hate
>hate hate using "themselves" and "theirselves" in that capacity.
Ooh, me too. I sometimes go with "themself" instead, but that is also
icky.
>ObPedantry (not a correction of anyone, just something I haven't seen
>many people mention): "They" is not a singular pronoun, because even
>when used to refer to a single person, it still takes plural verb forms
>- "when someone has an umbrella, they have protection from the rain,"
>not "they has protection from the rain." I'm terribly thankful that I
>learned English as a baby and don't have to try to make sense of this
>weirdness as an adult ESL learner.
I'm not sure it'd be particularly more perplexing than learning that the
formal "you" is a plural pronoun in French, or that it's a third-person
pronoun in Spanish.
Not that English isn't ugly in plenty of other ways that make me glad it's
my native language...
--
Laura E. Back
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> ObPedantry (not a correction of anyone, just something I haven't seen
> many people mention): "They" is not a singular pronoun, because even
> when used to refer to a single person, it still takes plural verb forms
> - "when someone has an umbrella, they have protection from the rain,"
> not "they has protection from the rain." I'm terribly thankful that I
> learned English as a baby and don't have to try to make sense of this
> weirdness as an adult ESL learner.
And so is "you".
- Darkhawk, expandingly
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
umarc
>In article <1118327066.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>Todd Q <todd.q...@maines.net> wrote:
>>Todd Q - Whatever happened to expensive printers with cheap ink? What
>>the hell is up with a $50 printer that takes $75 ink?
>The same thing that's up with inexpensive razors that take expensive
>cartridges. But there are also expensive printers with expensive ink...
By coincidence, at work today my assistant showed me information on
several color printers he's considering to replace one in Sales. Do I
want to buy a $1300 printer, a $1500 printer, or a $3000 printer? Well,
it turned out that the cartridges for these machines vary from $30
apiece to $170, and we'd need four of them every couple of months.
So the question isn't so much the cost of the machine but how expensive
it'd be to keep it running. I asked him to do some more research and get
back to me next week.
umar
Steve Pope
>Stef <st...@cat-and-dragon.com> wrote:
>>ObPedantry (not a correction of anyone, just something I haven't seen
>>many people mention): "They" is not a singular pronoun, because even
>>when used to refer to a single person, it still takes plural verb forms
>>- "when someone has an umbrella, they have protection from the rain,"
>>not "they has protection from the rain." I'm terribly thankful that I
>>learned English as a baby and don't have to try to make sense of this
>>weirdness as an adult ESL learner.
>I'm not sure it'd be particularly more perplexing than learning that the
>formal "you" is a plural pronoun in French, or that it's a third-person
>pronoun in Spanish.
Also the singular "they" sometimes uses the same verb tenses
as other singular pronouns, as in "they did what they had to do"
or "they came to work early". I'm more comfortable with the
singular "they" in such sentences than Stef's example above,
which I would probably rearrange into something like "when someone
has an umbrella, it protects them from the rain".
Steve
Steve Pope
> Stef <st...@panix.com> wrote:
>> ObPedantry (not a correction of anyone, just something I
>> haven't seen many people mention): "They" is not a singular
>> pronoun, because even when used to refer to a single person, it
>> still takes plural verb forms - "when someone has an umbrella,
>> they have protection from the rain," not "they has protection
>> from the rain." I'm terribly thankful that I learned English
>> as a baby and don't have to try to make sense of this weirdness
>> as an adult ESL learner.
>And so is "you".
Good point.
One difference is that while the language contains third-person
gender-specific pronouns, it does not contain any second-person
gender specific pronouns, unless you admit constructs such as
"you man".
Steve
Aqua
> Laura Elizabeth Back <leb...@cyclone.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Stef <st...@cat-and-dragon.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>ObPedantry (not a correction of anyone, just something I haven't seen
>>>many people mention): "They" is not a singular pronoun, because even
>>>when used to refer to a single person, it still takes plural verb forms
>>>- "when someone has an umbrella, they have protection from the rain,"
>>>not "they has protection from the rain." I'm terribly thankful that I
>>>learned English as a baby and don't have to try to make sense of this
>>>weirdness as an adult ESL learner.
>
>
>>I'm not sure it'd be particularly more perplexing than learning that the
>>formal "you" is a plural pronoun in French, or that it's a third-person
>>pronoun in Spanish.
>
> Also the singular "they" sometimes uses the same verb tenses
> as other singular pronouns, as in "they did what they had to do"
> or "they came to work early". I'm more comfortable with the
> singular "they" in such sentences than Stef's example above,
> which I would probably rearrange into something like "when someone
> has an umbrella, it protects them from the rain".
I don't quite understand the point of these examples: they still takes
the plural verb form, it just happens to be the same as the singular
third person verb form for all tenses other than the present:
I did what I had to do
You did what you had to do
Zie did what zie had to do
We did what we had to do
They did what they had to do.
Aqua
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> Also the singular "they" sometimes uses the same verb tenses
>> as other singular pronouns, as in "they did what they had to do"
>> or "they came to work early". I'm more comfortable with the
>> singular "they" in such sentences than Stef's example above,
>> which I would probably rearrange into something like "when someone
>> has an umbrella, it protects them from the rain".
>I don't quite understand the point of these examples: they still takes
>the plural verb form, it just happens to be the same as the singular
>third person verb form for all tenses other than the present:
>I did what I had to do
>You did what you had to do
>Zie did what zie had to do
>We did what we had to do
>They did what they had to do.
Yes, you're right, my phrase "the same verb tenses" above is incorrect.
The singular "they" is always used with a plural verb form.
However, when that form happend to be the same word as the
corresponding singular verb form, I find the singular they
less jarring.
Dunno if it's just me.
Steve
Stef
Some people would argue that "you guys" stands in as a gender specific
pronoun. And the feminist in me agrees. But I grew up with it, and it
feels entirely comfortable to me to use it to refer to a group of women
and girls. (I don't feel comfortable using "man" to refer to humans as a
whole or using "he" to refer to a human regardless of gender.)
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
...once this realization is accepted, that even between the closest
people infinite distances exist, a marvelous living side-by-side can
grow up from them, if they succeed in loving the expanse between them,
which gives them the possibility of always seeing each other as a whole
and an immense sky. -- Rilke
Aqua
Maybe because it's easier to mentally substitute a specific person into
the "they" slot, because the rest of the sentence doesn't need to be
changed?
Aqua
Aqua
> In article <d8ffof$p1j$1...@blue.rahul.net>,
> Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>
>>One difference is that while the language contains third-person
>>gender-specific pronouns, it does not contain any second-person
>>gender specific pronouns, unless you admit constructs such as
>>"you man".
>
> Some people would argue that "you guys" stands in as a gender specific
> pronoun. And the feminist in me agrees. But I grew up with it, and it
> feels entirely comfortable to me to use it to refer to a group of women
> and girls. (I don't feel comfortable using "man" to refer to humans as a
> whole or using "he" to refer to a human regardless of gender.)
I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
Aqua
Ruth Lawrence
"Aqua" <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:q2hsn2-...@transparent.jamver.id.au...
And yet we used it at my girls' school, which also had a female staff,
constantly.
-which may be why I'm not very bothered by it, I guess.
Ruth, who doesn't know
Steve Pope
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> The singular "they" is always used with a plural verb form.
>> However, when that form happens to be the same word as the
>> corresponding singular verb form, I find the singular they
>> less jarring.
>>
>> Dunno if it's just me.
> Maybe because it's easier to mentally substitute a specific
> person into the "they" slot, because the rest of the sentence
> doesn't need to be changed?
That, or simply that the verb one expects with "he" or "she"
also sounds right with the singular "they", whereas the
verb one does not expect doesn't sounds as right.
S.
Steve Pope
>I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
>Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
>books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
>people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
>says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
>and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
"you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
Steve
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
> Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
> books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
> people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
> says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
> and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
In all discussion I've seen of this, most people have come to the
conclusion that "guys" and "you guys" are almost completely distinct.
As my father is wont to say, "Complicated language, English."
- Darkhawk, distractedly
ElissaAnn
"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
news:d8gb3i$kqi$1...@blue.rahul.net...
That is not my experience.
Elissa, wondering whether the two US coasts speak two different languages
greenfizzpops
> In article <1118327066.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Todd Q <todd.q...@maines.net> wrote:
>>A) How does a poly meet other poly's?
>
>
> By hanging out where other poly folks hang out (in online forums like
> this, and in local groups, many of which are listed on
> www.polyamory.org.
How often are the local resources lists on www.polyamory.org updated?
Reason being - I submitted 1 website and 2 mailing lists by email a
while back.
Greenfizzpops, intrepid local organiser
--
http://zapoly.wuzzle.org
Trust is more important than monogamy
Erasmus
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll) wrote:
> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
>>Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
>>books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
>>people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
>>says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
>>and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
>
>
> In all discussion I've seen of this, most people have come to the
> conclusion that "guys" and "you guys" are almost completely distinct.
>
> As my father is wont to say, "Complicated language, English."
>
> - Darkhawk, distractedly
>
>
Yes, but don't be distracted. At least we have a real language, unlike
most other folks. Your father I might like to meet, as his mind is not
trivial. Yours is growing out of the trivial, groping toward the light,
and Norm's is not trivial, however misguided.
I don't know why my thinking seems to be such a challenge to others, as
it is so simple to me. But the simplest things are often the hardest.
As in where did E = mc^2 come from? It's a derivation plus an
extrapolation.
Pay attention to Norm. I do, especially when I take him to the
woodshed. He yelps most satisfactorily.
jimbat
Todd Q
Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
>Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
>books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
>people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
>says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
>and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
Steve Pope wrote:
> That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
> "you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
> group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
I think "you guys" derives from a famous movie quote "Hey you guys!"
found in the movie "The Goonies". I'm sure it is from an earlier movie
too, but it has become so common as to be constantly used as a slang
replacement for "you people" with no gender specific reference.
Todd Q - Shoot me if I'm wrong. (luckily I have a bullet-proof vest)
umarc
>One difference is that while the language contains third-person
>gender-specific pronouns, it does not contain any second-person
>gender specific pronouns, unless you admit constructs such as
>"you man".
Arabic has such pronouns. I've never enconutered them in an Indo-European
language, though.
umar
umarc
>Some people would argue that "you guys" stands in as a gender specific
>pronoun. And the feminist in me agrees. But I grew up with it, and it
>feels entirely comfortable to me to use it to refer to a group of women
>and girls.
I have heard it so used.
umar
Todd Q
> In all discussion I've seen of this, most people have come to the
> conclusion that "guys" and "you guys" are almost completely distinct.
And I finally discovered Darkhawk is a female! Yay! Not to mention
intelligent, now only if she is attractive and willing to have another
relationship! :D
Todd Q - Put them in the Iron Maiden! Excellent! Execute them! Bogus!
Jose
and nobody has commented on the title of the thread.
Jose
Mean Green Dancing Machine
Jose <1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I find it amusing that this thread is about the subtleties of language,
>and nobody has commented on the title of the thread.
Welcome to Usenet!
--
--- Aahz <*> (Copyright 2005 by aa...@pobox.com)
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het Pythonista
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
Erasmus
umarc wrote:
Arabic is Indo-European in the Semitic branch.
jimbat
For Madmen Only
<eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
>> "you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
>> group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
>
>That is not my experience.
Nor mine. I've often heard it used for mixed groups.
>
>Elissa, wondering whether the two US coasts speak two different languages
Could be--I've been an East-Coaster all my life.
fmmo
Erasmus
Jose wrote:
One can well wonder. It's incorrect but consider the audience. I was
at a dinner party in the 80s in Westwood when a 2-yr-old on a cycle was
told by his mother "No way, Jose!", to which he invented on the spot
"Yes way, Jose!", which put his his mother down, just as my daughter's
"Mother fucking titty sucking boo bah bitch" did her mother. Now he has
just graduated college. I am offended that we were not invited.
What is the plural of Poly? Polies or Polys? Perhaps the apostrophe is
just a way of escaping the question. I prefer the latter.
jimbat
Kai Jones
Machine) wrote:
>In article <gdWqe.12$on...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
>Jose <1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>I find it amusing that this thread is about the subtleties of language,
>>and nobody has commented on the title of the thread.
>
>Welcome to Usenet!
<snrk>
--
Kai Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Smartass by nurture as well as nature.
Jose
Really, I expected better. It can't be "polies", the "o" would be long.
"Pollies" maybe, just maybe, for the perverse (and cheese encumbered).
But "polys" wins.
Side note - I hear the New York Times stylebook specifies the apostrophe
for plurals of initial contractions like CD, with Saffire silent on the
matter. The world ended and nobody noticed.
Jose
ElissaAnn
"Jose" <1...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pIYqe.575$G55...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
You left out a citation, Jose. What are you using to post? Someone here
will surely be able to help you figure out how to make the quotes feature
work.
Someone else wrote:
ROFL
The slope got slippery when the Grey Lady starting using color.
Elissa
Steve Pope
> Side note - I hear the New York Times stylebook specifies
> the apostrophe for plurals of initial contractions like CD,
> with Saffire silent on the matter. The world ended and nobody
> noticed.
How does one get hold of a copy of the New York Times Stylebook?
Steve
ElissaAnn
Bookstore (regular or online). You can buy a paper copy or download the
digital version.
The title is "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage : The Official
Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most
Authoritative Newspaper".
Steve Pope
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>> How does one get hold of a copy of the New York Times Stylebook?
>Bookstore (regular or online). You can buy a paper copy or download the
>digital version.
>The title is "The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage : The Official
>Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most
>Authoritative Newspaper".
Thanks! That works -- my previous attempts to search for this
had been thwarted by not knowing the exact title...
S.
Jose
> You left out a citation, Jose. [...] Someone here
Beat me, beat me. Sheesh - this is the only group where a minor gaffe
like this is flog-worthy. (of course, some may consider that a favor,
in which case I'm sure the comfy chair would be brought out.)
Jose
Todd Q
> Beat me, beat me. Sheesh - this is the only group where a minor gaffe
> like this is flog-worthy. (of course, some may consider that a favor,
> in which case I'm sure the comfy chair would be brought out.)
>
> Jose
What was this post about anyways?
Todd Q - Why are all the scientists worried about global warming? If
we have an Ice Age every 100,000 years and the last one was 10,000
years ago... it's supposed to get warmer for another 40,000 years!
Morons.
Jose
> What was this post about anyways?
I commented on the title of the thread, in the context of the language
discussion taking place inside it. In one of my replies I forgot to say
who said what I said zie said before I said what I said.
There is no forgiveness here for such a gaffe, and I was promply jumped
upon. The post you quoted was my "ouch", and a jocular complaint that a
little more tolerance for an oops would be nice.
I know, stuff doesn't go through usenet in order. If you don't see the
thread yet, it will arrive soon. If it doesn't, nothing of great import
is lost.
Some things just... well...
Never mind.
Jose
Jerry Chesko
> Not that English isn't ugly in plenty of other ways that make me glad it's
> my native language...
Reminds me of a quote I read in a different NG:
"English doesn't borrow words from other languages. It beats other
languages senseless, like some mugger in an alley, and leaves them bloody
and almost dead" Don't remember the person who that came from though.
Stef
My quote file says:
"Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages,
it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head,
and goes through their pockets." -- Eddy Peters
"Not only that, instead of the money, it escapes with the pocket lint."
-- Don Roberts
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Next time...your punishment will be to write an essay on the differences
between Karl and Groucho Marx. In MS Word. On a 286. Over a 1200-baud
modem. Without using the letter 'e'. -- Karl Allen
suzee
> One can well wonder. It's incorrect but consider the audience. I was
> at a dinner party in the 80s in Westwood when a 2-yr-old on a cycle was
> told by his mother "No way, Jose!", to which he invented on the spot
> "Yes way, Jose!",
Errr, he didn't invent it; it happens when kids are learning language.
My kids and the others at daycare would respond with `Yes way', when
told `No way' (no Jose added). This was about 1980 in N. Idaho. They'd
also say that something happened `on accident'... as opposed to
something happening `on purpose'.
sue
suzee
Not true - other groups like to point this out to new-comers too.
sue
For Madmen Only
ElissaAnn's remark seemed like a polite reminder/request to me, not
anything like a flogging.
fmmo
suzee
> Todd Q wrote
>
>>What was this post about anyways?
>
> I commented on the title of the thread, in the context of the language
> discussion taking place inside it. In one of my replies I forgot to say
> who said what I said zie said before I said what I said.
>
> There is no forgiveness here for such a gaffe, and I was promply jumped
> upon.
More like a gentle reminder.
sue
Stef
greenfizzpops <greenf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Stef wrote:
>> In article <1118327066.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>> Todd Q <todd.q...@maines.net> wrote:
>
>>>A) How does a poly meet other poly's?
>>
>>
>> By hanging out where other poly folks hang out (in online forums like
>> this, and in local groups, many of which are listed on
>> www.polyamory.org.
>
>How often are the local resources lists on www.polyamory.org updated?
>Reason being - I submitted 1 website and 2 mailing lists by email a
>while back.
I'm really behind on updating, sorry.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
Hello. Hello.
Here come the quick. There go the dead.
Here they come. Bright red.
Speak my language.
-- Laurie Anderson, "Speak My Language," _Bright Red_
Stef
Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
>>Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
>>books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
>>people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
>>says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
>>and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
>
>"you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
>group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
I grew up in Michigan and "you guys" was used for mixed groups, groups
of females, and groups of males.
--
Stef ** avid/sensible/sensual/wise/essential/elemental/tangle
** st...@cat-and-dragon.com <*> http://www.cat-and-dragon.com/stef
**
You stop worrying about what other people think about
you when you realize how little they do. --Mark Twain
Pat Kight
According to today's Jim Kilpatrick column on language, the Times stylebook
also prefers "like" over "such as" in sentences such as this one. The world
not only ended, but it went to hell in a handbasket.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Jerry Chesko
"ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote in message
news:3h1tv5F...@individual.net...> news:d8gb3i$kqi$1...@blue.rahul.net...
>> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
>>>Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
>>>books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
>>>people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
>>>says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
>>>and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
>>
>> That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
>> "you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
>> group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
>
>
>
with thier omittion of 'r' in their speech: car --> cah. (Though, I'm
hearing that is fading.) Southerners, with a tendency towards awkward
contractions. Closer to my city, there's a tendency to punctuate a sentence
with 'eh', a la Canada-style.
Pat Kight
> In article <d8gb3i$kqi$1...@blue.rahul.net>,
> Steve Pope <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote:
>
>>Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
>>>Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
>>>books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
>>>people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
>>>says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
>>>and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
>>
>>That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
>>"you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
>>group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
>
>
> I grew up in Michigan and "you guys" was used for mixed groups, groups
> of females, and groups of males.
I went to school in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, where the phrase was
mutated to "youse (pronounced "yuz") guys," and similarly ungendered.
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
suzee
> "ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote in message
> news:3h1tv5F...@individual.net...
>>
>>Elissa, wondering whether the two US coasts speak two different languages
>>
>
> Not just coasts, regions in the US have dialectical differences. Bostonians
> with thier omittion of 'r' in their speech: car --> cah. (Though, I'm
> hearing that is fading.) Southerners, with a tendency towards awkward
> contractions. Closer to my city, there's a tendency to punctuate a sentence
> with 'eh', a la Canada-style.
A lot of places on the US side of the border tend to do that. I used to
live in N. Idaho, about 50 miles from Canada and we got a lot of
tourists from over the border in the summer. When you hear something
frequently, you tend to pick it up. I've noticed the Yupers in Michigan
seem to use it a lot more than those in the LP.
sue
Tiger Spot
>In article <pc_qe.12129$gL4.5831@trnddc07>,
>Jerry Chesko <res7...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not that English isn't ugly in plenty of other ways that make me glad it's
>>> my native language...
>>
>>Reminds me of a quote I read in a different NG:
>>"English doesn't borrow words from other languages. It beats other
>>languages senseless, like some mugger in an alley, and leaves them bloody
>>and almost dead" Don't remember the person who that came from though.
>
>My quote file says:
>
>"Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages,
> it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head,
> and goes through their pockets." -- Eddy Peters
>"Not only that, instead of the money, it escapes with the pocket lint."
>-- Don Roberts
And mine says:
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow
words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways
to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
-- James Nicoll
--Theresa
ElissaAnn
I'm so sorry that I did something that made you feel bad. I intended to be
informational, not punitive, and the real reason I responded to the post
was because I found it funny; hence, the ROFL.
What made it feel like a flogging? Sometimes I'm not as tactful as I
should be, and people take things differently than I intended them, so I
would be grateful for your input.
Lissa McCollum
Ok, I've got to ask about the language mutation. Until Tal
came in recently using Poly as a noun to mean a polyamorous
person, I hadn't seen that usage before. Is that a Tal creation,
or did I miss something? To me, there is polyamorous, and
polyamory. Poly is a shortened version of either of those
words. I can be poly, meaning polyamorous. I can talk about
poly, meaning polyamory. But I can't be 'a poly', because
that would be saying I am 'a polyamorous', or 'a polyamory'.
Neither of those make sense to me. So the whole question
of how to make poly plural doesn't make sense to me either.
A poly person, is that. A poly person. Plural would
be poly people, or poly folk. Calling a poly person
'a poly' is like calling a monogamous person 'a monog'.
That has been my understanding. So, did I miss the language
drift at some point? Is calling a polyamorous person a poly
the current usage?
-Lissa
Pat Kight
> Ok, I've got to ask about the language mutation. Until Tal
> came in recently using Poly as a noun to mean a polyamorous
> person, I hadn't seen that usage before. Is that a Tal creation,
> or did I miss something? To me, there is polyamorous, and
> polyamory. Poly is a shortened version of either of those
> words. I can be poly, meaning polyamorous. I can talk about
> poly, meaning polyamory. But I can't be 'a poly', because
> that would be saying I am 'a polyamorous', or 'a polyamory'.
> Neither of those make sense to me. So the whole question
> of how to make poly plural doesn't make sense to me either.
>
> A poly person, is that. A poly person. Plural would
> be poly people, or poly folk. Calling a poly person
> 'a poly' is like calling a monogamous person 'a monog'.
>
> That has been my understanding. So, did I miss the language
> drift at some point? Is calling a polyamorous person a poly
> the current usage?
I've seen the "a poly/some polys" usage elsewhere - in the LiveJournal
polyamory community, for instance. It seems to emanate from a particular
poly subculture that may or may not be California-based (although I hasten
to add that there are plenty of Californians in this very newsgroup who
haven't adopted it).
Personally, I give it a silliness quotient right up there with "polyamor"
as a noun describing the person with whom one is having a polyamorous
relationship.
But I like adjectives, and don't see what's to be gained by nouning them ...
--
Pat Kight
kig...@peak.org
Aqua
If what ElissaAnn wrote is a flogging, I'd hate to see what you think of
language actually intended to wound.
Aqua
Aqua
For Madmen Only wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:02:28 -0400, "ElissaAnn"
> <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>
>>>Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
Please check your attributions. I do not believe I wrote anything
quoted in this post.
>
> <snip>
>
>>>That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
>>>"you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
>>>group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
>>
>>That is not my experience.
>
>
> Nor mine. I've often heard it used for mixed groups.
>
>>Elissa, wondering whether the two US coasts speak two different languages
>
>
> Could be--I've been an East-Coaster all my life.
Aqua
Steve Pope
>For Madmen Only wrote:
(snip)
>Please check your attributions. I do not believe I wrote anything
>quoted in this post.
The attributions in fmmo's post were valid, by most Usenet
standards. I have seen a few people object to this attibution style
occasionally; I think cleared would be to indent the word "snip":
>> (snip)
Steve
For Madmen Only
wrote:
>
>
>For Madmen Only wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:02:28 -0400, "ElissaAnn"
>> <eli...@everybodycansing.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>Please check your attributions. I do not believe I wrote anything
>quoted in this post.
Oops. Sorry. There were two levels that ElissaAnn quoted, but I only
requoted one of those and I inadvertently deleted the wrong
attribution.
The >>>> quotes below are actually from Steve Pope.
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
>>>>"you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
>>>>group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
>>>
>>>That is not my experience.
>>
>>
>> Nor mine. I've often heard it used for mixed groups.
>>
>>>Elissa, wondering whether the two US coasts speak two different languages
>>
>>
>> Could be--I've been an East-Coaster all my life.
fmmo
For Madmen Only
Well, it wasn't how I intended to attribute. I goofed, and I agree
that my faulty attribution made it look like Aqua had stated something
I quoted. Would have been okay if I'd included both of you in the
attribution (even if I'd snipped what Aqua had said), but to leave
Aqua's name in and yours out, did result in misattribution.
fmmo
Jose
> I'm so sorry that I did something that made you feel bad. [...]
>
> What made it feel like a flogging?
It didn't (and I did play it up for effect, hoping that humor would also
help soften my reaction).
But what is a little icksome is that there is so little room on this
particular group for differences in posting style, and occasional errors
such as failure to attribute (especially in case where attribution
doesn't really matter except to those keeping score - sometimes it
matters who said what, sometimes it really isn't such a big deal).
The last time I made such a gaffe I had a number of people "helpfully"
point out where I could get new software that would automate the
process, and what the proper styles were. I've never run into this in
any other group (I frequent about ten, and have visited twice as many).
Other groups seem to have more listening flexibility.
Ironic in a group about communication.
So Elissa, nothing in your post felt like flogging, rather, the fact
that, every time somebody (not just me) makes an attribution or
top/bottom posting error, it is "corrected" rather than tolerated, makes
all such things feel like a knuckle rapping.
Jose
Jose
won't quote her because I can't think of a good short snippet which
represents the whole in a pithy concentrated form, and quoting the
interesting background stuff is less elegant (elegant though it may be
in situ). Of course, my rambling is probably even higher in the
clumsiness rankings, but so be it.
I have found quite a few examples of {adjective} {noun} to be reduced to
{adjective-as-noun} where the vanished noun part is understood in
context. Poly for Poly person, which is short for Polyamorous person,
would be one example. Others (in various stages of adoption) include
"vegitarian" (for "vegitarian person"),
"cell" (for "cell phone" (for "cellular telephone")),
"cordless" (ditto) (well, not exactly ditto, but you get it)
"homo" (for "homosexual person", though derogatory it's still an English
word which fits the pattern)
"wireless" (for "wireless radio", a bit of an oxymoron, but there it is,
with a long history)
"digital" (for "digital camera", well on the way to following "wireless")
"co-ed" (for... er... did anybody ever say "coeducational student"?)
My pet peeve is "carbs" for "grams of carbohydrate". It should mean
"types of carbohydrate". But I'll save that rant for later.
And I'm noticing that the line length limit imposed by posting etiquette
for this forum makes the list above less elegant (it won't de-interlace
when the viewing window is widened).
Jose
ElissaAnn
> Elissa said:
>> I'm so sorry that I did something that made you feel bad. [...]
>>
>> What made it feel like a flogging?
>
> It didn't (and I did play it up for effect, hoping that humor would also
> help soften my reaction).
>
> But what is a little icksome is that there is so little room on this
> particular group for differences in posting style, and occasional errors
> such as failure to attribute (especially in case where attribution
> doesn't really matter except to those keeping score - sometimes it
> matters who said what, sometimes it really isn't such a big deal).
I think it does matter. I want to be credited for my words, and I like to
give other people that same respect.
>
> The last time I made such a gaffe I had a number of people "helpfully"
> point out where I could get new software that would automate the process,
> and what the proper styles were. I've never run into this in any other
> group (I frequent about ten, and have visited twice as many). Other
> groups seem to have more listening flexibility.
>
> Ironic in a group about communication.
I think it's appropriate in a group about communication that we like to
give people credit for their words.
> So Elissa, nothing in your post felt like flogging, rather, the fact
> that, every time somebody (not just me) makes an attribution or
> top/bottom posting error, it is "corrected" rather than tolerated, makes
> all such things feel like a knuckle rapping.
So it felt like I was rapping your knuckles. I did not intend that. My
intention was to give you useful information.
Cally Soukup
> I think "you guys" derives from a famous movie quote "Hey you guys!"
> found in the movie "The Goonies". I'm sure it is from an earlier movie
> too, but it has become so common as to be constantly used as a slang
> replacement for "you people" with no gender specific reference.
> Todd Q - Shoot me if I'm wrong. (luckily I have a bullet-proof vest)
I remember that the childrens' TV show _The Electric Company_ started
with a woman shouting out, "Hey You Guys!" Googling tells me that this
was in 1971.
--
"I disapprove of what you have to say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Chris Malcolm
Newspaper style guides aren't meant to be a guide to good
English. Newspapers aim very delieberately at a certain reading age,
i.e. a certain vocabulary and a certain degree of sophistication (or
not) in complexity of grammar, unusual usages, etc.. So their style
guides tell you what they expect all of their readers to be
comfortable with.
I don't know where to find a list of the reading ages of US
newspapers. In the UK these are often issued to people teaching adult
illiterates to read. I remember being surprised to see that none of
the UK daily newspapers, including the top quality ones, got high into
the late teens. Only a very few weeklies made it into the twenties,
which they regarded as "graduate level", although of course you don't
have to be a university graduate to get to that level, and plenty of
university graduates don't have reading comprehension at that level.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Chris Malcolm
> Todd Q - Why are all the scientists worried about global warming? If
> we have an Ice Age every 100,000 years and the last one was 10,000
> years ago... it's supposed to get warmer for another 40,000 years!
If that's meant to be a serious question, the problem is the unusual
speed, fast enough not only to cause problems with biological
adapation and shifting of territories, plus what rising sea levels are
going to do to low-lying human coastal settlements. What worries the
scientists is that most of the people who have the power to do
something about it are busy pretending it's not their problem, which
in a democracy where the electorate can vote them out every few years
it probably isn't, but human societies do need to take a longer
perspective on their future than the timing of the next election.
Ruth Lawrence
"Pat Kight" <kig...@peak.org> wrote in message
news:TICdne1J2Kh...@scnresearch.com...
... then I'm in trouble, as I refer to my cats as Nauts.
Ruth
David Matthewman
> > What is the plural of Poly? Polies or Polys?
>
> Really, I expected better. It can't be "polies", the "o" would be long.
> "Pollies" maybe, just maybe, for the perverse (and cheese encumbered).
> But "polys" wins.
To my way of thinking, 'poly's' is (potentially) correct, with the
apostrophe referring to the elided 'amorist'. That's how I read it,
anyway.
--
David Matthewman
David Matthewman
> Poly for Poly person, which is short for Polyamorous person,
> would be one example.
I'd still like to throw in a vote for 'poly' being short for
'poly[something]', whether that's polyamorous, polysexual, polyfidelitous,
or poly[other-term-we-don't-really-have-the-Latin-for]. It is my
observation that that is in practice how it often gets used. Although it's
also my observation that a lot of people (including me, at times) use
'polyamorous' when they're not really talking about multiple *loves* as
such, so maybe the battle's not really worth fighting.
--
David Matthewman
Doug Wickstrom
<3h1tv5F...@individual.net>
"ElissaAnn" <eli...@everybodycansing.com> caused electrons to
dance and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>
>"Steve Pope" <spo...@speedymail.org> wrote in message
>news:d8gb3i$kqi$1...@blue.rahul.net...
>> Aqua <aq...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I feel very ambivalent about "you guys" as gender neutral. I think
>>>Douglas Hofstadter is responsible for my ambivalence. In one of his
>>>books, he mentions looking at how it's used and talking to various
>>>people about it. One woman, in defence of "you guys" as gender neutral,
>>>says, "Even guys use it that way". That example left both Hofstadter
>>>and me thinking it probably wasn't as neutral as all that.
>>
>> That I have seen it isn't exactly gender neutral because
>> "you guys" is often used to refer to a group of females, or a
>> group of males, but not usually a mixed group.
>
>That is not my experience.
>
>Elissa, wondering whether the two US coasts speak two different languages
I think it's more generational differences than geographic. I'm
offended by the very phrase, especially when directed towards me
in a situation that calls for more formality. I get the same
reaction from my given name being used by someone with whom I am
not familiar.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Things are more like they are now than they ever were before."
--Dwight Eisenhower
Now filtering out all cross-posted messages and everything posted
through Google News.
Doug Wickstrom
<103pa1lgmavtlcnfa...@4ax.com>
Tiger Spot <tiger...@mapache.org> caused electrons to dance
and photons to travel coherently in saying:
>On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:50:14 +0000 (UTC), st...@panix.com (Stef) wrote:
I believe that is the original version.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"The police are not here to create disorder. They are here to preserve
disorder." --Richard Daley
Doug Wickstrom
<zX5re.660$G55...@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>
Jose <1...@aol.com> caused electrons to dance and photons to travel
coherently in saying:
>Elissa said:
>> I'm so sorry that I did something that made you feel bad. [...]
>>
>> What made it feel like a flogging?
>
>It didn't (and I did play it up for effect, hoping that humor would also
>help soften my reaction).
>
>But what is a little icksome is that there is so little room on this
>particular group for differences in posting style, and occasional errors
>such as failure to attribute (especially in case where attribution
>doesn't really matter except to those keeping score - sometimes it
>matters who said what, sometimes it really isn't such a big deal).
You are surrounded by an unusually high percentage of folks who
go back to the dark ages of Usenet, when it went from system to
system on magnetic tape (yes, it is older than the Internet), and
attribution and posting style were critical to communication,
because the quoted message might not only not be available for
reference, it might _never_ be available.
For that matter, Usenet as a service is defined as "asynchronous,
connectionless, unreliable." We've gotten used to nearly
reliable news transport, but it's not _completely_ reliable, and
some messages never do show up on all servers.
--
Doug Wickstrom <nims...@comcast.net>
"Here's to our wives and girlfriends: May they never meet."
--Groucho Marx
Jose
> [wireless radio is h]ardly an oxymoron. A pleonasm if anything.
Right. My bad. Language hasn't mutated that much!
Jose
Fat Naked Dangerous
>Todd Q <todd.q...@maines.net> wrote in article <1118575264.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
>> I think "you guys" derives from a famous movie quote "Hey you guys!"
>> found in the movie "The Goonies". I'm sure it is from an earlier movie
>> too, but it has become so common as to be constantly used as a slang
>> replacement for "you people" with no gender specific reference.
>I remember that the childrens' TV show _The Electric Company_ started
>with a woman shouting out, "Hey You Guys!" Googling tells me that this
>was in 1971.
Aha! I wonder if the fans of the show are more likely to themselves
use "you guys"? I know I sure do.
--
Piglet
Ruth Lawrence
"Fat Naked Dangerous" <pig...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:d8jrou$57o$1...@reader1.panix.com...
It was never shown here* as far as I know, but we used it.
Maybe it was also in a popular movie?
Ruth
*Australia