"couldn't organise a ..."?
Michael Corby
piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
they know. There is one floating around in the back of my head that
uses 'organise' in the trade-union sense, but I'll be darned if I can
remember it.
TIA,
Mike
AZ
Mike Barnes
>Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
>piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
>indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
>they know.
Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged man in
an arse-kicking contest".
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Jeffrey Turner
Couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted him the 'c' and the 'a'?
Did a "heckuva job"?
--Jeff
--
The most extravagant idea that can arise
in a politician's head is to believe that
it is enough for a people to invade a
foreign county to make it adopt their laws
and their constitution. No one loves armed
missionaries... --Robespierre
Purl Gurl
> Michael Corby wrote:
>> Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
>> piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
>> indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
>> they know.
> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged man in
> an arse-kicking contest".
Such a negative, defeatist attitude is yours!
We Okies say,
"Busier than a one-legged man at a butt kicking contest."
Purl Gurl
John Dean
Couldn't pour piss out of a boot if you wrote the instructions on the heel.
Couldn't run a chook raffle.
Could fuck up a two car funeral.
Couldn't organise a two-man rush on a three-hole shithouse.
Couldn't organise a blow-job in a brothel
And, of more recent coinage, for our Iraqui readers:
Couldn't organise a hanging on a gallows.
Who remembers when you could describe a pointless activity as "like giving a
digital watch to a one-armed man"?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Django Cat
or a chocolate teapot...
Peter Duncanson
<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:
>Michael Corby wrote:
>
>> Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
>> piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
>> indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
>> they know. There is one floating around in the back of my head that
>> uses 'organise' in the trade-union sense, but I'll be darned if I can
>> remember it.
>
>Couldn't spell "cat" if you spotted him the 'c' and the 'a'?
>
>Did a "heckuva job"?
>
That suggestion has earned you several Brownie points.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
<john...@fraglineone.net> wrote:
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Michael Corby wrote:
>>> Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
>>> piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello"
>>> to indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
>>> they know.
>>
>> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged man
>> in an arse-kicking contest".
>
>Couldn't pour piss out of a boot if you wrote the instructions on the heel.
>Couldn't run a chook raffle.
>Could fuck up a two car funeral.
>Couldn't organise a two-man rush on a three-hole shithouse.
>Couldn't organise a blow-job in a brothel
>
Could fuck up an iron ball.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
R H Draney
Could throw himself on the ground, and miss....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Spehro Pefhany
As useless as tits on a bull/boar.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Robert Bannister
There are a whole lot that go "He/she is as much use as..." (eg an
ashtray on a motorbike).
--
Rob Bannister
Michael Corby
><snip> the OP wrote:
> > Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
> > they know. There is one <snip> that
> > uses 'organise' in the trade-union sense <snip>
Hoping for expressions with the prefix "he couldn't organise a ..."
Cheers,
Mike
AZ
Peter Moylan
Couldn't organise a fight in an Irish pub.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Mike Barnes wrote:
>
>> Michael Corby wrote:
>
>>> Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise
>>> a piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a
>>> bordello" to indicate utter incompetence, could people please
>>> offer some others they know.
"Couldn't find his ass with both hands"
>> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged
>> man in an arse-kicking contest".
>
> Such a negative, defeatist attitude is yours!
>
> We Okies say,
>
> "Busier than a one-legged man at a butt kicking contest."
In Chicago, "Busy as a one-armed paper hanger with an itch".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You cannot solve problems with the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |same type of thinking that created
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |them.
| Albert Einstein
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Matthew Huntbach
But isn't the whole point of an arse-kicking contest for a one-legged
man to be useless at it? In which case, of course, he isn't useless at
all at it, he is the main attraction.
Matthew Huntbach
Frances Kemmish
... bunfight in a bakery.
Fran
Back in the USA
Mike Barnes
>On 13 Mar, 12:13, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Michael Corby wrote:
>
>> >Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
>> >piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
>> >indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
>> >they know.
>
>> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged man in
>> an arse-kicking contest".
>
>But isn't the whole point of an arse-kicking contest for a one-legged
>man to be useless at it?
I bow to your superior knowledge of arse-kicking contests. I had assumed
that they generally don't involve one-legged men at all.
>In which case, of course, he isn't useless at
>all at it, he is the main attraction.
I don't see why.
Oleg Lego
Well, he can't kick back now, can he?
Matthew Huntbach
> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> On 13 Mar, 12:13, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged man in
>>> an arse-kicking contest".
>> But isn't the whole point of an arse-kicking contest for a one-legged
>> man to be useless at it?
> I bow to your superior knowledge of arse-kicking contests. I had assumed
> that they generally don't involve one-legged men at all.
I have only ever heard of arse-kicking contests in the context of the
uselessness of one-legged men at them. From this I wondered if arse-kicking
contests exist apart from when one-legged men are at them being useless.
>> In which case, of course, he isn't useless at
>> all at it, he is the main attraction.
> I don't see why.
Because he is useless at arse-kicking. So people can point to him and say
"Look, here we are at an arse-kicking contest, and here's a one-legged man
and he's useless at it". I would revise my opinion if someone could demonstrate an
arse-kicking contest which is not dreamed up in order for a one-legged man
to be useless at it.
Matthew Huntbach
Mike Barnes
*Obviously* he can't kick, that's the whole point.
But it's supposed to be a competition, isn't it? How does the presence
of a non-competitor qualify as "the main attraction"?
Mike Barnes
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Mike Barnes wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>> On 13 Mar, 12:13, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged man in
>>>> an arse-kicking contest".
>
>>>But isn't the whole point of an arse-kicking contest for a one-
>>>useless at all at it, he is the main attraction.
>
>> I don't see why.
>
>Because he is useless at arse-kicking.
So, let's recap:
Matthew: "...he isn't useless at all at [arse-kicking]..."
Mike: "I don't see why"
Matthew: "Because he is useless at arse-kicking"
I think you're in danger of disappearing up your own arse.
R H Draney
I wonder whether, given the events of the past year, Paul McCartney has any
thoughts on the matter....r
Mike Lyle
> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>>> On 13 Mar, 12:13, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged
>>>>> man in an arse-kicking contest".
>>
>>>> But isn't the whole point of an arse-kicking contest for a one-
>>>> legged man to be useless at it? In which case, of course, he
>>>> isn't useless at all at it, he is the main attraction.
>>
>>> I don't see why.
>>
>> Because he is useless at arse-kicking.
>
> So, let's recap:
>
> Matthew: "...he isn't useless at all at [arse-kicking]..."
> Mike: "I don't see why"
> Matthew: "Because he is useless at arse-kicking"
>
> I think you're in danger of disappearing up your own arse.
Which is the point, nein? Perhaps I understood it not so much owing to a
congenital oojum tendency, but because I once witnessed Thompson Minor
accepting a challenge to kick a soccer ball with both feet. An
exhilarating scene.
--
Mike.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Mike Barnes wrote:
>>>> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>>>> On 13 Mar, 12:13, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Not an "organise", but I quite like "as much use as a one-legged
>>>>>> man in an arse-kicking contest".
>>>
>>>>> But isn't the whole point of an arse-kicking contest for a one-
>>>>> legged man to be useless at it? In which case, of course, he
>>>>> isn't useless at all at it, he is the main attraction.
>>>
>>>> I don't see why.
>>>
>>> Because he is useless at arse-kicking.
>>
>> So, let's recap:
>>
>> Matthew: "...he isn't useless at all at [arse-kicking]..."
>> Mike: "I don't see why"
>> Matthew: "Because he is useless at arse-kicking"
>>
>> I think you're in danger of disappearing up your own arse.
>
>Which is the point, nein?
You can see a *point*?
Django Cat
Well, there's Tony Blair rushing to pander to Bush's every whim.
Oh no, sorry, my mistake, that's an arse-Licking contest...
DC
Ian Noble
<michael...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Couldn't organise a strike in a match factory?
Cheers - Ian
Ian Noble
Not of the same shape, but:
"If 'is brains were dynamite, they wouldn't blow 'is cap off..."
Cheers - Ian
Patricia
"Ian Noble" <fr...@dropthis.clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uckgv2p5kj5onm1e6...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> Couldn't organise a strike in a match factory?
>
> Cheers - Ian
Now that, I like.
Cheers,
Mike
Oleg Lego
Yes, it's supposed to be a competition, and he can't kick. You can
kick HIM with impunity, sure in the knowledge that retribution will be
nonexistent.
Sometimes you surprise me, Mike.
Mike Page
>Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
>piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
>indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
>they know. There is one floating around in the back of my head that
>uses 'organise' in the trade-union sense, but I'll be darned if I can
>remember it.
Couldn't organise a shit fight in a farmyard.
--
Mike Page
Posting trivia to aue since April 1997
Mike Barnes
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:43:14 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>
>>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:27:34 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>>
>>>>In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>>>> isn't useless at
>>>>>all at it, he is the main attraction.
>>>>
>>>>I don't see why.
>>>
>>>Well, he can't kick back now, can he?
>>
>>*Obviously* he can't kick, that's the whole point.
>>
>>But it's supposed to be a competition, isn't it? How does the presence
>>of a non-competitor qualify as "the main attraction"?
>
>Yes, it's supposed to be a competition, and he can't kick. You can
>kick HIM with impunity, sure in the knowledge that retribution will be
>nonexistent.
But competitors are there for the purpose of winning, not avoiding
retribution. How does his presence help you *win*?
>Sometimes you surprise me, Mike.
I'm pleased to hear it.
I wonder if you are perhaps visualising a competition with only two
people in it. In my experience, competitions aren't like that. Or
perhaps a competition in which cruelty rather than winning is the main
objective. That certainly didn't occur to me.
Oleg Lego
>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:43:14 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>
>>>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:27:34 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>>>
>>>>>In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>>>>>[the proverbial "one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest"]
>>>>>> isn't useless at
>>>>>>all at it, he is the main attraction.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't see why.
>>>>
>>>>Well, he can't kick back now, can he?
>>>
>>>*Obviously* he can't kick, that's the whole point.
>>>
>>>But it's supposed to be a competition, isn't it? How does the presence
>>>of a non-competitor qualify as "the main attraction"?
>>
>>Yes, it's supposed to be a competition, and he can't kick. You can
>>kick HIM with impunity, sure in the knowledge that retribution will be
>>nonexistent.
>
>But competitors are there for the purpose of winning, not avoiding
>retribution. How does his presence help you *win*?
Well, he is going to lose to you, nicht war?
>>Sometimes you surprise me, Mike.
>
>I'm pleased to hear it.
>
>I wonder if you are perhaps visualising a competition with only two
>people in it. In my experience, competitions aren't like that. Or
>perhaps a competition in which cruelty rather than winning is the main
>objective. That certainly didn't occur to me.
A competition may have any number of people in it, including 1, if you
are competing with yourself (beating best previous performance, etc.).
Of course, an ass-kicking competition is not going to have just one,
but two is altogether possible.
Even with more than one in the competition, depending on the
competition format, the presence of someone who can't kick ass, puts
everyone else up a notch.
Skitt
> Well, he is going to lose to you, nicht war?
Wahr. Sticking to English is easier ...
--
Skitt
Wer kann das bezahlen, wer hat das bestellt ...
Nasti J
> Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
> piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
> indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
> they know.
The late, great Molly Ivins used to use "couldn't pour piss out of a
boot if the instructions were printed on the heel" - I think in
reference to Shrub.
njg
Oleg Lego
>Oleg Lego wrote:
>
>> Well, he is going to lose to you, nicht war?
>
>Wahr. Sticking to English is easier ...
Drat... fingo, and the spell checker didn't even flinch.
Mike Barnes
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:45:25 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>Yes, it's supposed to be a competition, and he can't kick. You can
>>>kick HIM with impunity, sure in the knowledge that retribution will be
>>>nonexistent.
>>
>>But competitors are there for the purpose of winning, not avoiding
>>retribution. How does his presence help you *win*?
>
>Well, he is going to lose to you, nicht war?
And he's going to lose to everyone else as well. My question stands
unanswered.
>>>Sometimes you surprise me, Mike.
>>
>>I'm pleased to hear it.
>>
>>I wonder if you are perhaps visualising a competition with only two
>>people in it. In my experience, competitions aren't like that. Or
>>perhaps a competition in which cruelty rather than winning is the main
>>objective. That certainly didn't occur to me.
>
>A competition may have any number of people in it, including 1, if you
>are competing with yourself (beating best previous performance, etc.).
>Of course, an ass-kicking competition is not going to have just one,
>but two is altogether possible.
Possible but unlikely. My query was not about whether it was possible,
it was about what you were actually visualising. A two-person
competition is pretty unusual, and either you were imagining that (in
which case I understand) or you weren't (in which case I don't).
>Even with more than one in the competition, depending on the
>competition format, the presence of someone who can't kick ass, puts
>everyone else up a notch.
If you're measuring from the bottom (ha, ha) I would agree with you. But
in most competitions, it's the *top* that matters.
Am I still surprising you?
Matthew Huntbach
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:45:25 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>> In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:43:14 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>>> In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:27:34 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>>>>> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>>>>>>> [the proverbial "one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest"]
>>>>>>> isn't useless atall at it, he is the main attraction.
>>>>>> I don't see why.
>>>>> Well, he can't kick back now, can he?
>>>> *Obviously* he can't kick, that's the whole point.
>>>> But it's supposed to be a competition, isn't it? How does the presence
>>>> of a non-competitor qualify as "the main attraction"?
>>> Yes, it's supposed to be a competition, and he can't kick. You can
>>> kick HIM with impunity, sure in the knowledge that retribution will be
>>> nonexistent.
>> But competitors are there for the purpose of winning, not avoiding
>> retribution. How does his presence help you *win*?
> Well, he is going to lose to you, nicht war?
>>> Sometimes you surprise me, Mike.
>> I'm pleased to hear it.
>> I wonder if you are perhaps visualising a competition with only two
>> people in it. In my experience, competitions aren't like that. Or
>> perhaps a competition in which cruelty rather than winning is the main
>> objective. That certainly didn't occur to me.
> A competition may have any number of people in it, including 1, if you
> are competing with yourself (beating best previous performance, etc.).
> Of course, an ass-kicking competition is not going to have just one,
> but two is altogether possible.
>
> Even with more than one in the competition, depending on the
> competition format, the presence of someone who can't kick ass, puts
> everyone else up a notch.
I am proposing that the real reason an arse-kicking contest (and it is
ARSE, read that, ARSE, and pronounce it as it should be with a good long
southern 'a' and a rolling rhotic 'r') is to humiliate the one-legged
man who is invited to it. Thus, my original point. I would withdraw that
point if anyone could give me an example of an arse-kicking contest which
is not mentioned in the same setence as the uselessness of a one-legged
man at it.
Another one I've heard is "as useless as a ham sandwich at a Bar Mitzvah",
in this case however we know B'nei Mitzvah (I had to look that one up)
are held for other purposes than ham sandwiches to be useless at.
Matthew Huntbach
John Dean
You maybe don't remember the fascination Brits developed for ski-jumping
when Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards was "competing".
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
> Oleg Lego wrote:
>
>> Well, he is going to lose to you, nicht war?
>
> Wahr. Sticking to English is easier ...
jahr jahr is better than wahr wahr
--
John "This year, anyway" Dean
Oxford
Mike Barnes
>I would withdraw that
>point if anyone could give me an example of an arse-kicking contest which
>is not mentioned in the same setence as the uselessness of a one-legged
>man at it.
OK, you asked for it.
"Never enter an arse-kicking contest with a porcupine"
20 hits on Google.
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes wrote:
>> But it's supposed to be a competition, isn't it? How does the presence
>> of a non-competitor qualify as "the main attraction"?
>
>You maybe don't remember the fascination Brits developed for ski-jumping
>when Eddie "the Eagle" Edwards was "competing".
Good point.
Oleg Lego
I was visualising all competitions.
>>Even with more than one in the competition, depending on the
>>competition format, the presence of someone who can't kick ass, puts
>>everyone else up a notch.
>
>If you're measuring from the bottom (ha, ha) I would agree with you. But
>in most competitions, it's the *top* that matters.
To get to the top, one must rise up from the bottom. Every finishing
position (except dead last) starts with moving up one or more notches.
>Am I still surprising you?
Yes, or more correctly, you have not yet finished surprising me in
this one matter.
Oleg Lego
Nope. I will not employ euphemisms for such a mild expletive. It's as
ass,, and I won't sugar coat it.
Pat Durkin
"Oleg Lego" <rat@atatatat..com> wrote in message
news:egslv21l72jhjofbb...@4ax.com...
I just saw a rerun of Everyone Loves Raymond, from 1997.
Raymond asks his doctor, "Who can you refer me to--a proctologist or a
podiatrist?
I can't figure out who can help me get this foot out of my ass."
(He was anticipating getting reamed out by his lovely wife.)
Tony Cooper
Or the fascination Americans had with William Hung on "American Idol".
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The late, great Molly Ivins used to use "couldn't pour piss out of a
> boot if the instructions were printed on the heel" - I think in
> reference to Shrub.
It's older than that. Several books (going back to 1971) report that
Lyndon Jonson said that "the OAS couldn't pour piss out of a boot if
the instructions were written on the heel." The earliest I can see is
They couldn't pour piss out of a boot with a faucet on the toe and
directions on the heel. [James Ross, _The Dead are Mine_, 1963]
which seems to actually rather miss the point.
There's another one, dated 1962 (but unverifiable) that includes a
snippet of a poem
Don't know their arse [sic] from a sassafras root,
And couldn't pour piss from a cowhide boot
With complete directions on the heel.
Searching on those terms turns up the complete poem, by William Jay
Smith, entitled "Plain Talk":
"There are people so dumb," my father said,
"They don't know beans from an old bedstead.
They can't tell one thing from another,
Ella Cinders from Whistler's Mother,
A porcupine quill from a peackock feather,
A buffalo-flop from Florentine leather.
Meatless shanks boiled bare and blue,
They bob up and down linke bones in a stew;
They don't know their ass from a sassafras root
And couldn't pour piss from a cowhide boot
With complete directions on the heel."
That's how *he* felt - that's how *I* feel.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The misinformation that passes for
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |gospel wisdom about English usage
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is sometimes astounding.
| Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | of English Usage
(650)857-7572
Mike Barnes
>To get to the top, one must rise up from the bottom.
Only if one starts at the bottom.
>Every finishing
>position (except dead last) starts with moving up one or more notches.
Bu the presence of one other competitor, no matter how poor their
performance, creates one more upward step that you must take.
Nasti J
> "Nasti J" <njgill...@gmail.com> writes:
> > The late, great Molly Ivins used to use "couldn't pour piss out of a
> > boot if the instructions were printed on the heel" - I think in
> > reference to Shrub.
>
> It's older than that. Several books (going back to 1971) report that
> Lyndon Jonson said that "the OAS couldn't pour piss out of a boot if
> the instructions were written on the heel." The earliest I can see is
>
> They couldn't pour piss out of a boot with a faucet on the toe and
> directions on the heel. [James Ross, _The Dead are Mine_, 1963]
>
> which seems to actually rather miss the point.
well, I said she "used" it - not created it.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Sure. I should have noted that. I just couldn't help looking to see
how far back I could push it.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around one of the earliest including
the notion of a faucet on the toe. The whole point of the phrase
being that you pour it out by turning it over, so it's impossible to
read the heel without doing it, what does the faucet add? To me, that
suggests that the phrase had already been around long enough for
somebody to miss the point and get it wrong.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You gotta know when to code,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Know when to log out,
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |You don't write your program
(650)857-7572 | When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
|There'll be time enough for writin'
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | When you're in the queue.
Oleg Lego
>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>To get to the top, one must rise up from the bottom.
>
>Only if one starts at the bottom.
Everyone starts at the bottom, or everyone starts at the top. If the
former, the winner must have risen up. If the latter, the winner must
have not dropped down.
>>Every finishing
>>position (except dead last) starts with moving up one or more notches.
>
>Bu the presence of one other competitor, no matter how poor their
>performance, creates one more upward step that you must take.
And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
Peter Duncanson
It depends what "heel" means. I assume that in the phrase it means
that part of foot with which in soccer a ball is (back)heeled rather
than the rear part of the sole.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mike Barnes
>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:04:32 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>
>>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>To get to the top, one must rise up from the bottom.
>>
>>Only if one starts at the bottom.
>
>Everyone starts at the bottom, or everyone starts at the top. If the
>former, the winner must have risen up. If the latter, the winner must
>have not dropped down.
We agree that everyone starts in the same place, but I do not agree with
your characterisation of that place as the "top" or the "bottom". You're
clearly visualising something different from me. Perhaps you could help
me understand you by quoting an example from real life. Bear in mind
that your example must be capable of development to explain why a
competitor who is unable to compete is in fact useful.
>>>Every finishing
>>>position (except dead last) starts with moving up one or more notches.
>>
>>Bu the presence of one other competitor, no matter how poor their
>>performance, creates one more upward step that you must take.
>
>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
How is that relevant?
Nasti J
> It depends what "heel" means. I assume that in the phrase it means
> that part of foot with which in soccer a ball is (back)heeled rather
> than the rear part of the sole.
What part of the phrase "couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the
instructions were printed on the heel" would make you think that the
heel inquestion is part of the anatomy of a foot rather than part of
the architecture of a boot?
njg
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
I have this ancient recollection that the underpart of a boot, shoe
or slipper has the general name "sole".
Robert Bannister
All the same, I don't know whether "heel" means the back part of the boot:
____
| \__
|______| the vertical line left
or whether it means part of the sole - the bit that we used to have
covered with a rubber heel in the days when they were made of leather
instead of some kind of plastic.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> Nasti J wrote:
>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>>> It depends what "heel" means. I assume that in the phrase it means
>>> that part of foot with which in soccer a ball is (back)heeled rather
>>> than the rear part of the sole.
>>
>> What part of the phrase "couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the
>> instructions were printed on the heel" would make you think that the
>> heel inquestion is part of the anatomy of a foot rather than part of
>> the architecture of a boot?
>
> All the same, I don't know whether "heel" means the back part of the
> boot:
> ____
>> \__
>> ______| the vertical line left
What is that? What vertical line left? The only vertical line I see is at
the right of whatever that is supposed to be.
> or whether it means part of the sole - the bit that we used to have
> covered with a rubber heel in the days when they were made of leather
> instead of some kind of plastic.
Here's some heels:
http://www.rebelrouserwear.com/images/tech_men_heels.gif
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Paul Wolff
The heel is the solid part of the boot that supports the heel of the
foot. The sole doesn't generally include the heel. When I have my
shoes (not boots, alas) repaired, they are soled and heeled by the
cobbler. If Lewis Carroll didn't make a fishy joke about soles and
eels, he missed a trick; but then he might not have recognised dropped
haitches.
Heel height is measured at the breast.
Quite what part of the heel was to bear the piss-pouring instructions
and the regulation best-before date still eludes me.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Matthew Huntbach
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 10:23:34 +0000, Matthew Huntbach posted:
> >I am proposing that the real reason an arse-kicking contest (and it is
> >ARSE, read that, ARSE, and pronounce it as it should be with a good long
> >southern 'a' and a rolling rhotic 'r') is to humiliate the one-legged
> >man who is invited to it.
> Nope. I will not employ euphemisms for such a mild expletive. It's as
> ass,, and I won't sugar coat it
I assume you are winding me up, and you know perfectly well that the
original word was "arse" and that Americans have taken to calling it
"ass", a term which originated because it sounded less vulgar.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew Huntbach
The original was "never rub bottoms with a porcupine", which is much
finer. But, ok, it's evidence, I grant you that.
Matthew Huntbach
rzed
news:vzRajGoe$G$FF...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk:
[...]
> The heel is the solid part of the boot that supports the heel of
> the foot. The sole doesn't generally include the heel. When I
> have my shoes (not boots, alas) repaired, they are soled and
> heeled by the cobbler. If Lewis Carroll didn't make a fishy
> joke about soles and eels, he missed a trick; but then he might
> not have recognised dropped haitches.
>
> Heel height is measured at the breast.
>
> Quite what part of the heel was to bear the piss-pouring
> instructions and the regulation best-before date still eludes
> me.
Well, that is the question, isn't it? Consider a cowboy boot,
which has a protruberance on the rearmost ground-contacting
portion that I would call a "heel". If the instructions are
printed in such a way that they could be read while a person
(another person, presumably) was standing and wearing the boot,
that would be one thing, but if they placed so that they were in
contact with the ground at that time (on the bottom of the heel,
then), that would be quite another. I mean, it's not at all
obvious how to pour piss out the boot if, say, the instructions
are in a language one doesn't read. Why somebody would be wearing
a piss-filled boot is, of course, yet another question. (That's at
least 3, I think. Or did I lose count? There's another!) All this
talk about the difficulty of determining what a heel is suggests
that the phrase in question probably applies pretty widely. Can we
form a study group to determine the proper solution? Government
funding should be available. If only we could organize it....
I salute the memory of a fine Florida Cracker: H.D.Jones, the
supervisor of our construction crew in the early '70's, who was
the first person I heard talk about piss-in-boots. As I remember,
his version went that so-and-so "didn't have sense enough to pour
piss out of a boot with a hole in the toe and a sign on it with a
arrow says 'this way'."
On my first day on the job, I hit his thumb with my hammer and he
didn't fire me. I'll always respect that man.
--
rzed
Tony Cooper
<mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Straight question: Why do you assume we converted "arse" to "ass"
because we thought "ass" to be less vulgar?
Why not just a spelling and pronunciation drift? It's happened with
other words.
Peter Moylan
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> All the same, I don't know whether "heel" means the back part of
>> the boot: ____
>>> \__ ______| the vertical line left
>
> What is that? What vertical line left? The only vertical line I
> see is at the right of whatever that is supposed to be.
I think you've just discovered a new bug in your newsreader. The
vertical line was there in Rob's post, but appears to have turned into
'>' marks in your response.
Here's another vertical line for you to test (3 lines high):
|
|
|
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Oleg Lego
>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:04:32 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>
>>>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>>To get to the top, one must rise up from the bottom.
>>>
>>>Only if one starts at the bottom.
>>
>>Everyone starts at the bottom, or everyone starts at the top. If the
>>former, the winner must have risen up. If the latter, the winner must
>>have not dropped down.
>
>We agree that everyone starts in the same place, but I do not agree with
>your characterisation of that place as the "top" or the "bottom".
If everyone is tied, which is the case before the competition
generates its first win or loss, then it's obvious that everyone is
tied for either (or both of) first or last place.
> You're
>clearly visualising something different from me. Perhaps you could help
>me understand you by quoting an example from real life. Bear in mind
>that your example must be capable of development to explain why a
>competitor who is unable to compete is in fact useful.
Hockey season is about to start. No games have, as yet, been
completed. All teams in the league are tied for first place. Wait!
There's a winner of the first game. That team is now in sole
possession of first place, and all other teams are tied for last
place.
>>>>Every finishing
>>>>position (except dead last) starts with moving up one or more notches.
>>>
>>>Bu the presence of one other competitor, no matter how poor their
>>>performance, creates one more upward step that you must take.
>>
>>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
>
>How is that relevant?
It rather depends on the format of the competition, innit?
What if a person is eliminated from further participation after he
suffers three losses. In a competition that has 10 participants, the
three people that trounced his ass (so to speak) have gained points,
while the other 6 have not gained anything for the one-legged one.
Thus he becomes the sought-after competitor early on, and in fact, the
centre of attraction.
Mike Barnes
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>> boot:
>> ____
>>> \__
>>> ______| the vertical line left
>
>
>What is that? What vertical line left? The only vertical line I see
>is at the right of whatever that is supposed to be.
Consider using a better newsreader.
John Holmes
"Peter Moylan" <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote in message
news:45fcc0af$0$16553$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Skitt wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>>> All the same, I don't know whether "heel" means the back part of
>>> the boot: ____
>>>> \__ ______| the vertical line left
>>
>> What is that? What vertical line left? The only vertical line I
>> see is at the right of whatever that is supposed to be.
>
> I think you've just discovered a new bug in your newsreader. The
> vertical line was there in Rob's post, but appears to have turned into
> '>' marks in your response.
>
> Here's another vertical line for you to test (3 lines high):
> |
> |
> |
The bug is not in OE, but in Quotefix, which is trying to fix what it thinks
is a non-standard quote character.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Wood Avens
The OED seems to think that ass is more, not less, vulgar than arse.
It says it's "Now chiefly U.S." and a "vulgar and dial. sp. and
pronunc. of ARSE."
I was surprised to see that "ass" (with this meaning) goes back only
as far as 1860:
1860 H. STUART Seaman's Catech. 37 The ass of the block is known by
the scoring being deeper in that part to receive the splice. [Cf. 1721
BAILEY, Arse, (among sailors) the Arse of a Block or Pulley, through
which any Rope runs, is the lower end of it.] 1930 J. DOS PASSOS 42nd
Parallel I. 100 My ass to habeas corpus. 1934 J. O'HARA Appointment in
Samarra (U.S. ed., 1953) iv. 119 You give me a pain in the ass.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Mike Barnes
>If everyone is tied, which is the case before the competition
>generates its first win or loss, then it's obvious that everyone is
>tied for either (or both of) first or last place.
"First place" and "last place" have no real meaning if there's only one
place.
>> You're
>>clearly visualising something different from me. Perhaps you could help
>>me understand you by quoting an example from real life. Bear in mind
>>that your example must be capable of development to explain why a
>>competitor who is unable to compete is in fact useful.
>
>Hockey season is about to start. No games have, as yet, been
>completed. All teams in the league are tied for first place.
I disagree... see above. There is no "first place" in any meaningful
sense.
>Wait!
>There's a winner of the first game. That team is now in sole
>possession of first place, and all other teams are tied for last
>place.
I don't see the relevance, but anyway... you claim that the team that
has lost one game is in the same place as the others that haven't
played. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>[...]
>>>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
>>
>>How is that relevant?
>
>It rather depends on the format of the competition, innit?
>
>What if a person is eliminated from further participation after he
>suffers three losses. In a competition that has 10 participants, the
>three people that trounced his ass (so to speak) have gained points,
>while the other 6 have not gained anything for the one-legged one.
>Thus he becomes the sought-after competitor early on, and in fact, the
>centre of attraction.
Non sequitur - what you've said has nothing to do with the "practice"
that prompted my question.
And, as I've said before, my query isn't about what's *possible* - it's
frequently possible to justify even the most outlandish statements by
applying them to carefully-fabricated situations - it's about contests
in general and what you *actually* understood by the word "contest" in
"as much as use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest". Is it
that the sort of contest you had in mind?
Mike Barnes
>On 16 Mar, 15:39, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>
>> >I would withdraw that
>> >point if anyone could give me an example of an arse-kicking contest which
>> >is not mentioned in the same setence as the uselessness of a one-legged
>> >man at it.
>
>> OK, you asked for it.
>>
>> "Never enter an arse-kicking contest with a porcupine"
>>
>> 20 hits on Google.
>
>The original was "never rub bottoms with a porcupine", which is much
>finer.
Interesting, but I made no claims about its originality.
>But, ok, it's evidence, I grant you that.
I'm pleased to hear it. Can we consider your point withdrawn?
Donna Richoux
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:43:51 -0400, Tony Cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >On 17 Mar 2007 17:11:50 -0700, "Matthew Huntbach"
> ><mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>I assume you are winding me up, and you know perfectly well that the
> >>original word was "arse" and that Americans have taken to calling it
> >>"ass", a term which originated because it sounded less vulgar.
I can assure you, Americans who wished to be less vulgar, avoided
ass/arse completely. It was *not* some childish euphemism like "bottom".
Only in the last 10-20 years has it been allowed on TV shows.
> >
> >Straight question: Why do you assume we converted "arse" to "ass"
> >because we thought "ass" to be less vulgar?
> >
> >Why not just a spelling and pronunciation drift? It's happened with
> >other words.
>
> The OED seems to think that ass is more, not less, vulgar than arse.
> It says it's "Now chiefly U.S." and a "vulgar and dial. sp. and
> pronunc. of ARSE."
>
> I was surprised to see that "ass" (with this meaning) goes back only
> as far as 1860:
That's about what RHHDAS has as well -- 1853 for the first spelling as
"ass". They consider "arse," "ass" and "A--s" to be three
representations of the same word, and the ones before 1853 are spelled
"arse" or "A--s" .
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Oleg Lego
>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>If everyone is tied, which is the case before the competition
>>generates its first win or loss, then it's obvious that everyone is
>>tied for either (or both of) first or last place.
>
>"First place" and "last place" have no real meaning if there's only one
>place.
>
>>> You're
>>>clearly visualising something different from me. Perhaps you could help
>>>me understand you by quoting an example from real life. Bear in mind
>>>that your example must be capable of development to explain why a
>>>competitor who is unable to compete is in fact useful.
>>
>>Hockey season is about to start. No games have, as yet, been
>>completed. All teams in the league are tied for first place.
>
>I disagree... see above. There is no "first place" in any meaningful
>sense.
>
>>Wait!
>>There's a winner of the first game. That team is now in sole
>>possession of first place, and all other teams are tied for last
>>place.
>
>I don't see the relevance, but anyway... you claim that the team that
>has lost one game is in the same place as the others that haven't
>played. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
Not at all. In hockey, to continue with the format of that
competition, the places are determined by points earned as a result of
games won (2 points), tied at the end of regulation time (1 point),
and with 0 points being awarded for a loss.
This may, of course, lead to such interesting situations as having the
first-place team changing several times in the course of a single day,
as multi-way ties are broken by the tied teams playing that one more
game.
>>[...]
>>>>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
>>>
>>>How is that relevant?
>>
>>It rather depends on the format of the competition, innit?
>>
>>What if a person is eliminated from further participation after he
>>suffers three losses. In a competition that has 10 participants, the
>>three people that trounced his ass (so to speak) have gained points,
>>while the other 6 have not gained anything for the one-legged one.
>>Thus he becomes the sought-after competitor early on, and in fact, the
>>centre of attraction.
>
>Non sequitur - what you've said has nothing to do with the "practice"
>that prompted my question.
In the above scenario, three participants have had the benefit of
practicing on the one-legged fellow without a significant chance of
losing any standing.
>And, as I've said before, my query isn't about what's *possible* - it's
>frequently possible to justify even the most outlandish statements by
>applying them to carefully-fabricated situations - it's about contests
>in general and what you *actually* understood by the word "contest" in
>"as much as use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest". Is it
>that the sort of contest you had in mind?
I had no preconceived notions about it at all. Having never
participated in, nor been a spectator at, an ass-kicking contest, I am
totally open to suggestions as to how one might be conducted. Bear in
mind, though, that inasmuch as it is not, apparently, an organized
sport, rules of such contest could vary widely by region.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> All the same, I don't know whether "heel" means the back part of the
>>> boot:
>>> ____
>>>> \__
>>>> ______| the vertical line left
>>
>> What is that? What vertical line left? The only vertical line I
>> see is at the right of whatever that is supposed to be.
>
> Consider using a better newsreader.
Ah, I see -- the left vertical line, consisting of two pipes (legitimate
attribution characters), got converted to ">" attribution marks and treated
as such by QuoteFix. Sometimes it is hard to win for losing.
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> All the same, I don't know whether "heel" means the back part of
>>> the boot: ____
>>>> \__ ______| the vertical line left
>>
>> What is that? What vertical line left? The only vertical line I
>> see is at the right of whatever that is supposed to be.
>
> I think you've just discovered a new bug in your newsreader. The
> vertical line was there in Rob's post, but appears to have turned into
> '>' marks in your response.
>
> Here's another vertical line for you to test (3 lines high):
I have found what is wrong -- it is a "feature" of QuoteFix. In fact, after
converting the pipe characters "|" to ">" characters and finding nothing
after them, QuoteFix deleted them entirely. Notice that there are only
blank lines after your ":".
Reading your message with straight OE produces what you intended, but does
not delete your sig (that is a "feature" of OE).
Mike Barnes
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:18:15 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>There's a winner of the first game. That team is now in sole
>>>possession of first place, and all other teams are tied for last
>>>place.
>>
>>I don't see the relevance, but anyway... you claim that the team that
>>has lost one game is in the same place as the others that haven't
>>played. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>
>Not at all. In hockey, to continue with the format of that
>competition, the places are determined by points earned as a result of
>games won (2 points), tied at the end of regulation time (1 point),
>and with 0 points being awarded for a loss.
>
>This may, of course, lead to such interesting situations as having the
>first-place team changing several times in the course of a single day,
>as multi-way ties are broken by the tied teams playing that one more
>game.
That's interesting, but it doesn't address the issue I was alluding to.
It's sensible (and normal, in my admittedly limited experience) to rank
teams with equal numbers of points according to the number of games left
to play. The team that lost the first match, having one less game to
play than the other teams with no points, is clearly in a worse
position.
>>>[...]
>>>>>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
>>>>
>>>>How is that relevant?
>>>
>>>It rather depends on the format of the competition, innit?
>>>
>>>What if a person is eliminated from further participation after he
>>>suffers three losses. In a competition that has 10 participants, the
>>>three people that trounced his ass (so to speak) have gained points,
>>>while the other 6 have not gained anything for the one-legged one.
>>>Thus he becomes the sought-after competitor early on, and in fact, the
>>>centre of attraction.
>>
>>Non sequitur - what you've said has nothing to do with the "practice"
>>that prompted my question.
>
>In the above scenario, three participants have had the benefit of
>practicing on the one-legged fellow without a significant chance of
>losing any standing.
You seem to be contending that practice against a completely defenceless
opponent is "good" practice, somehow of more value than practice against
realistic opponents.
Oleg Lego
>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:18:15 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>>>There's a winner of the first game. That team is now in sole
>>>>possession of first place, and all other teams are tied for last
>>>>place.
>>>
>>>I don't see the relevance, but anyway... you claim that the team that
>>>has lost one game is in the same place as the others that haven't
>>>played. Doesn't that strike you as odd?
>>
>>Not at all. In hockey, to continue with the format of that
>>competition, the places are determined by points earned as a result of
>>games won (2 points), tied at the end of regulation time (1 point),
>>and with 0 points being awarded for a loss.
>>
>>This may, of course, lead to such interesting situations as having the
>>first-place team changing several times in the course of a single day,
>>as multi-way ties are broken by the tied teams playing that one more
>>game.
>
>That's interesting, but it doesn't address the issue I was alluding to.
>It's sensible (and normal, in my admittedly limited experience) to rank
>teams with equal numbers of points according to the number of games left
>to play. The team that lost the first match, having one less game to
>play than the other teams with no points, is clearly in a worse
>position.
The team that has played one or more game, when ranked against a team
that has played fewer games, is said to have "a game in hand". It does
not affect the position. At least not in the sport I was referring to.
>>>>[...]
>>>>>>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
>>>>>
>>>>>How is that relevant?
>>>>
>>>>It rather depends on the format of the competition, innit?
>>>>
>>>>What if a person is eliminated from further participation after he
>>>>suffers three losses. In a competition that has 10 participants, the
>>>>three people that trounced his ass (so to speak) have gained points,
>>>>while the other 6 have not gained anything for the one-legged one.
>>>>Thus he becomes the sought-after competitor early on, and in fact, the
>>>>centre of attraction.
>>>
>>>Non sequitur - what you've said has nothing to do with the "practice"
>>>that prompted my question.
>>
>>In the above scenario, three participants have had the benefit of
>>practicing on the one-legged fellow without a significant chance of
>>losing any standing.
>
>You seem to be contending that practice against a completely defenceless
>opponent is "good" practice, somehow of more value than practice against
>realistic opponents.
Not at all. I contend that it is practice. I leave it to you to decide
whether or not the practice is good or bad. Perhaps you think it is
better to avoid the one-legged fellow so as to not become complacent.
In that case, the 6 others benefit. The one-legged man then becomes
the centre of attraction for the opposite reason.
Robert Bannister
I agree that those are heels, but "heel" also refers to the back part of
the foot and the corresponding bit of the boot/shoe that covers it - the
part you would kick backwards with. No doubt, shoemakers have a proper
word to distinguish the two types of heel, but - going back to feet - if
you said "I've hurt my heel", I don't think you'd be referring to the
underside of your foot.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
> Skitt wrote:
>> Here's some heels:
>>
>> http://www.rebelrouserwear.com/images/tech_men_heels.gif
>
> I agree that those are heels, but "heel" also refers to the back part
> of the foot and the corresponding bit of the boot/shoe that covers it
> - the part you would kick backwards with. No doubt, shoemakers have a
> proper word to distinguish the two types of heel, but - going back to
> feet - if you said "I've hurt my heel", I don't think you'd be
> referring to the underside of your foot.
Hmm. I probably would be referring to the underside of my foot in the heel
part. Stepping on a sharp rock with the heel is mighty painful, you know.
I hardly ever (I think, never) kick something backwards, but there has been
a rare occasion or two when someone has sort of stepped on the back of my
heel, hurting me a bit.
Matthew Huntbach
> On 17 Mar 2007 17:11:50 -0700, "Matthew Huntbach"
>
AmE has tended to keep rhoticity that has been lost in standard BrE,
not lose it. If you are arguing drift, you have to show it fits into a
common pattern of drift.
In this case, it seems to me the process is similar to other words
which are close to well-known "vulgar" words, but are pronounced
differently and that somehow makes them slightly more acceptable.
Consider, for example "feck" for "fuck", was it the Fr Ted TV
programme which popularised it? Anyhow, "feck" was acceptable for use
in this programme in a way "fuck" wasn't even though it was meant to
be almost the same word. Consider also the pronunciation "shite" for
"shit", sometimes heard in BrE, I think the intention is that it's
slightyly less vulgar when pronounced this way.
The movement seems to have gone so far in AmE that it's been forgotten
that "ass" was originally a polite pronunciation of "arse", so as
"arse" has been completely forgotten, the process now applies again so
"arse" sounds to Americans like a deliberate mispronunication of "ass"
intended to be more polite.
However, "arse" never went away in BrE, maybe because even up till now
"ass" was also an pejorative word, used particularly by elderly ladies
who wouldn't dream of uttering an expletive, and they meant it to
liken someone to the animal properly named by that word.
Matthew Huntbach
CDB
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:02:38 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
[longest arse-kicking contest in history]
> The team that has played one or more game, when ranked against a
> team that has played fewer games, is said to have "a game in hand".
> It does not affect the position. At least not in the sport I was
> referring to.
Sure? "Having a game in hand" to me means having played one game
fewer than the rest, so that whoever has one such has a chance of
finishing the series with a point or two more than their current
standing, while the points of the other competitors at that stage are
already numbered.
[...]
>> You seem to be contending that practice against a completely
>> defenceless opponent is "good" practice, somehow of more value
>> than practice against realistic opponents.
Speaking as one whose desire is always to be useful, if I were such a
man in such a contest I would lie on my back in a corner and wait for
unwary passers-by. They would not find me defenceless, or scoreless
either.
[...]
Oleg Lego
>Oleg Lego wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:02:38 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>
>[longest arse-kicking contest in history]
>
>> The team that has played one or more game, when ranked against a
>> team that has played fewer games, is said to have "a game in hand".
>> It does not affect the position. At least not in the sport I was
>> referring to.
>
>Sure? "Having a game in hand" to me means having played one game
>fewer than the rest, so that whoever has one such has a chance of
>finishing the series with a point or two more than their current
>standing, while the points of the other competitors at that stage are
>already numbered.
Possible. I have heard it used both ways, though I feel it is always a
mistake to take anything a sportscaster says with more than a tiny
grain of salt.
Mike Barnes
>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:02:38 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>teams with equal numbers of points according to the number of games left
>>to play. The team that lost the first match, having one less game to
>>play than the other teams with no points, is clearly in a worse
>>position.
>
>The team that has played one or more game, when ranked against a team
>that has played fewer games, is said to have "a game in hand".
I think you got that the wrong way round. But anyway, I think we
understand each other.
>It does
>not affect the position. At least not in the sport I was referring to.
It seems odd to discard relevant information when assigning positions.
That's all I'm saying, that it seems odd. To me, anyway. Doesn't it seem
logical to you that a team with a game in hand is clearly doing better
than one with the same number of points but no game in hand, and
therefore should be placed higher?
>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How is that relevant?
>>>>>
>>>>>It rather depends on the format of the competition, innit?
>>>>>
>>>>>What if a person is eliminated from further participation after he
>>>>>suffers three losses. In a competition that has 10 participants, the
>>>>>three people that trounced his ass (so to speak) have gained points,
>>>>>while the other 6 have not gained anything for the one-legged one.
>>>>>Thus he becomes the sought-after competitor early on, and in fact, the
>>>>>centre of attraction.
>>>>
>>>>Non sequitur - what you've said has nothing to do with the "practice"
>>>>that prompted my question.
>>>
>>>In the above scenario, three participants have had the benefit of
>>>practicing on the one-legged fellow without a significant chance of
>>>losing any standing.
>>
>>You seem to be contending that practice against a completely defenceless
>>opponent is "good" practice, somehow of more value than practice against
>>realistic opponents.
>
>Not at all. I contend that it is practice. I leave it to you to decide
>whether or not the practice is good or bad.
You've obviously forgotten that what you actually wrote was "he'll be
good practice". Look up and remind yourself.
dcw
Matthew Huntbach <mhun...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>AmE has tended to keep rhoticity that has been lost in standard BrE,
>not lose it. If you are arguing drift, you have to show it fits into a
>common pattern of drift.
Hoss, cuss, bust -- a pattern, though not a common one.
David
Oleg Lego
>In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 18:02:38 +0000, Mike Barnes posted:
>>>It's sensible (and normal, in my admittedly limited experience) to rank
>>>teams with equal numbers of points according to the number of games left
>>>to play. The team that lost the first match, having one less game to
>>>play than the other teams with no points, is clearly in a worse
>>>position.
>>
>>The team that has played one or more game, when ranked against a team
>>that has played fewer games, is said to have "a game in hand".
>
>I think you got that the wrong way round. But anyway, I think we
>understand each other.
>
>>It does
>>not affect the position. At least not in the sport I was referring to.
>
>It seems odd to discard relevant information when assigning positions.
>That's all I'm saying, that it seems odd. To me, anyway. Doesn't it seem
>logical to you that a team with a game in hand is clearly doing better
>than one with the same number of points but no game in hand, and
>therefore should be placed higher?
If the teams in question are tied in points, and one has played fewer
games, it makes sense to me to consider them tied. We cannot know,
until after the game is made up, whether or not the result will still
be a tie, or the team with the game in hand (your version) will move
up in the standings.
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>>And if he can't kick ass worth squat, he'll be good practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How is that relevant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It rather depends on the format of the competition, innit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What if a person is eliminated from further participation after he
>>>>>>suffers three losses. In a competition that has 10 participants, the
>>>>>>three people that trounced his ass (so to speak) have gained points,
>>>>>>while the other 6 have not gained anything for the one-legged one.
>>>>>>Thus he becomes the sought-after competitor early on, and in fact, the
>>>>>>centre of attraction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Non sequitur - what you've said has nothing to do with the "practice"
>>>>>that prompted my question.
>>>>
>>>>In the above scenario, three participants have had the benefit of
>>>>practicing on the one-legged fellow without a significant chance of
>>>>losing any standing.
>>>
>>>You seem to be contending that practice against a completely defenceless
>>>opponent is "good" practice, somehow of more value than practice against
>>>realistic opponents.
>>
>>Not at all. I contend that it is practice. I leave it to you to decide
>>whether or not the practice is good or bad.
>
>You've obviously forgotten that what you actually wrote was "he'll be
>good practice". Look up and remind yourself.
I know. I was grasping at straws; clutching, as it were, for the life
preserver.
Thanks for the interesting conversation, Mike.
Paul Wolff
>Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Skitt wrote:
>
>>> Here's some heels:
>>>
>>> http://www.rebelrouserwear.com/images/tech_men_heels.gif
>>
>> I agree that those are heels, but "heel" also refers to the back part
>> of the foot
True.
>>and the corresponding bit of the boot/shoe that covers it
>> - the part you would kick backwards with.
It certainly can, and to the extent that this is used in the common
speech it is unarguable. But:
>>No doubt, shoemakers have a
>> proper word to distinguish the two types of heel,
When they say heel, they mean the underlying structure, not the rear
seam zone.
>>but - going back to
>> feet - if you said "I've hurt my heel", I don't think you'd be
>> referring to the underside of your foot.
>
>Hmm. I probably would be referring to the underside of my foot in the
>heel part. Stepping on a sharp rock with the heel is mighty painful,
>you know. I hardly ever (I think, never) kick something backwards, but
>there has been a rare occasion or two when someone has sort of stepped
>on the back of my heel, hurting me a bit.
I go for the heelbone as representative of the heel of the foot, with
nether and backward aspects; anything above that at the back is the
Achilles tendon area, then perhaps[1] the ankle. There ought to be a
vulgar term for the tendon, but I can't conjure it up.
[1] I like perhaps: it seems a bastard mixture of Latin and English.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Skitt
> I go for the heelbone as representative of the heel of the foot, with
> nether and backward aspects; anything above that at the back is the
> Achilles tendon area, then perhaps[1] the ankle. There ought to be a
> vulgar term for the tendon, but I can't conjure it up.
>
> [1] I like perhaps: it seems a bastard mixture of Latin and English.
Well, there's always "mayhap" for the etymologically domestic crowd.
emp...@hotmail.com
> Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
> piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
> indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
> they know. There is one floating around in the back of my head that
> uses 'organise' in the trade-union sense, but I'll be darned if I can
> remember it.
> TIA,
> Mike
> AZ
charles
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Sam Plusnet
> In article <c94a99e7-a11c-4fb1...@googlegroups.com>,
> <emp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 13 March 2007 12:02:37 UTC, Michael Corby wrote:
>>> Other than the well-known Australian expression "couldn't organise a
>>> piss-up in a brewery" and "couldn't organise an orgy in a bordello" to
>>> indicate utter incompetence, could people please offer some others
>>> they know. There is one floating around in the back of my head that
>>> uses 'organise' in the trade-union sense, but I'll be darned if I can
>>> remember it.
>>> TIA,
>>> Mike
>>> AZ
>
> The puiab is also used in the UK.
>
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
Oh, sorry, I guess the nepotism hadn't yet started in 2007.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia