Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is calling a woman a chick offensive?
1,037 views
Skip to first unread message
Gus
Aug 27, 2014, 9:50:10 PM8/27/14
to
My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
Do the men?
Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N word
or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same group?
talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
Do the men?
Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N word
or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same group?
Marius Hancu
Aug 27, 2014, 11:25:39 PM8/27/14
to
Dingbat
Aug 27, 2014, 11:57:50 PM8/27/14
to
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
>
When I was young, boys a few years older used terms like "groovy chick" and "far out broad" with slight distinctions between the terms. I don't know how women took the terms because it wasn't within their hearing.
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
>
>
> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>
Chick flicks.
> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>
Stan Brown
Aug 28, 2014, 5:06:24 AM8/28/14
to
On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400, Gus wrote:
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
>
Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
>
diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually
every context.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
R H Draney
Aug 28, 2014, 6:48:27 AM8/28/14
to
Gus filted:
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>Do the men?
It's not as offensive as calling a chick a woman....r
>My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>Do the men?
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Peter Moylan
Aug 28, 2014, 8:19:40 AM8/28/14
to
On 28/08/14 11:50, Gus wrote:
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
Chicks slick, cats cool.
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 28, 2014, 8:47:51 AM8/28/14
to
On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
The counterpart of "guy" is "gal," but "gal" is of more limited use.
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
what the women "feel."
> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N word
> or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same group?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
James Silverton
Aug 28, 2014, 9:03:46 AM8/28/14
to
On 8/28/2014 8:19 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 28/08/14 11:50, Gus wrote:
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>> Do the men?
>
I'm not sure I would have the nerve to use "chick" when talking with
> On 28/08/14 11:50, Gus wrote:
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>> Do the men?
>
women even if the OED records a first use for a girl or young woman in
"Elmer Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis in 1927. Compounds like "Chicklit"
(writing supposed to be mainly for women) are quite common.
Going to a small Spanish dictionary (Random House), I find "chico" given
for boy and "chica" for girl. I don't have an entomological dictionary
but I don't suppose the Spanish words derive from the Old English "chicken".
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not." in Reply To.
James Silverton
Aug 28, 2014, 11:20:20 AM8/28/14
to
names: etymology. I've always used the "looks right" method in spelling
and it failed for me here.
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Aug 28, 2014, 12:46:12 PM8/28/14
to
The British singer Chico:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chico_Slimani
performed "It's Chico Time", which he co-wrote. (It dislodged Madonna
from the top spot in the UK Singles Chart.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_-isKzt4O4
I don't know where he got the stage-name "Chico". He is of Moroccan
Berber parentage.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Aug 28, 2014, 3:15:50 PM8/28/14
to
PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>
> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>
*All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see an abnormal homosexual
>
> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>
like PeteY speaking for us normal heterosexual men.
No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
ugly or hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
>
> They don't care what the women "feel."
>
Sez homosexual PeteY who has never fucked a woman. We normal
> They don't care what the women "feel."
>
heterosexual men "feel their pain" and patiently ignore a whiney woman's
endless moanings about their "feelings."
| "A common accusation from common women who think they're god's
| gift to every man on earth and can't imagine any male not lusting
| after them."
--- "Sensitive" misogynist swine PeteY Daniels, 23 Dec. 2013
Looks like hypocritical homosexual PeteY also doesn't care what the
women "feel."
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
spuorg...@gowanhill.com
Aug 28, 2014, 4:16:00 PM8/28/14
to
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 1:56:59 PM UTC+1, Lewis wrote:
> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
I'd hope for Girls' Night and Boys' Night. Otherwise it's going to be rather competitive.
Owain
> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
I'd hope for Girls' Night and Boys' Night. Otherwise it's going to be rather competitive.
Owain
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 28, 2014, 4:37:58 PM8/28/14
to
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 3:15:50 PM UTC-4, Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
> Peter T. Daniels:
> > Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>
> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see [PTD] speaking for
us normal heterosexual men.
There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
And ReinholY Aman in the disgusting comments deleted below reveals how
poor an observer of normal males he is.
> Peter T. Daniels:
> > Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>
us normal heterosexual men.
There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
And ReinholY Aman in the disgusting comments deleted below reveals how
poor an observer of normal males he is.
Christian Weisgerber
Aug 28, 2014, 3:32:05 PM8/28/14
to
On 2014-08-28, James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Going to a small Spanish dictionary (Random House), I find "chico" given
> for boy and "chica" for girl. I don't have an entomological dictionary
> but I don't suppose the Spanish words derive from the Old English "chicken".
It's from Latin "ciccum".
> Going to a small Spanish dictionary (Random House), I find "chico" given
> for boy and "chica" for girl. I don't have an entomological dictionary
> but I don't suppose the Spanish words derive from the Old English "chicken".
http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=chico
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Joe Fineman
Aug 28, 2014, 5:19:54 PM8/28/14
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>> context.
>
boys")?
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Better sometimes an ass, than always a sheep. :||
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>> context.
>
> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
Do women no longer speak of "a night out with the girls" (cf. "with the
boys")?
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Better sometimes an ass, than always a sheep. :||
Mike L
Aug 28, 2014, 5:50:07 PM8/28/14
to
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:55:04 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>Okay, so one time? In band camp? Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> was all, like:
> --> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400 <ltm1sl$cl3$1...@news.albasani.net>
>
>I use guys as gender-neutral, and *that* offends some women. C'est la
>vie, i still use it. I'm certainly not going to keep a mental scorecard
>for which word to use with which person.
>
>Whatever you say is going to offend someone.
>can't use that either.
>someone a nigger in any way.
Oh, I see: thanks. No, I would never call anybody a nigger. I thought
he must mean "Necrophiliac" or "Nonentity", though I spell neither
with a capital "N". As for the "G" word, I can only guess:
"Grotesque"? "Gormless"? "Geraldine"?
--
Mike.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>Okay, so one time? In band camp? Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> was all, like:
> --> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400 <ltm1sl$cl3$1...@news.albasani.net>
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>
>Some women, sure.
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>
>
>I use guys as gender-neutral, and *that* offends some women. C'est la
>vie, i still use it. I'm certainly not going to keep a mental scorecard
>for which word to use with which person.
>
>Whatever you say is going to offend someone.
>
>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>
>Not that I've noticed. It's 'girls' that I hear, but of course, you
>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>
>can't use that either.
>
>> Is this like the N word or the G word and you can only use it if you
>> are part of the same group?
>
>I don't know what the G word is, but chicks is nothing like calling
>> Is this like the N word or the G word and you can only use it if you
>> are part of the same group?
>
>someone a nigger in any way.
Oh, I see: thanks. No, I would never call anybody a nigger. I thought
he must mean "Necrophiliac" or "Nonentity", though I spell neither
with a capital "N". As for the "G" word, I can only guess:
"Grotesque"? "Gormless"? "Geraldine"?
--
Mike.
Tony Cooper
Aug 28, 2014, 6:26:45 PM8/28/14
to
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:19:54 -0400, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>
>>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>>> context.
>>
>> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
>
>Do women no longer speak of "a night out with the girls" (cf. "with the
>boys")?
My wife certainly does. She has a group of friends she's know for
over 30 years, and they regularly get together for a meal on "girl's
night out".
Today, as happens, was "girl's day out". They all met at one of the
houses and brought desserts and dessert recipes.
(My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
today how good it is. She saved some.)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
wrote:
>Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>
>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>
>>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>>> context.
>>
>> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
>
>Do women no longer speak of "a night out with the girls" (cf. "with the
>boys")?
over 30 years, and they regularly get together for a meal on "girl's
night out".
Today, as happens, was "girl's day out". They all met at one of the
houses and brought desserts and dessert recipes.
(My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
today how good it is. She saved some.)
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Tony Cooper
Aug 28, 2014, 6:37:41 PM8/28/14
to
New Jersey Shore Italian)
Robert Bannister
Aug 28, 2014, 7:44:30 PM8/28/14
to
instructor is teaching a dance she frequently uses "...and the girl
opposite", "face the girl on your right" and so on. She almost never
uses "woman" in that context. Nevertheless, it would be different if I
were to use "girl" except - perhaps - in an unambiguously joking manner.
For our big dance out in a couple of weeks' time, I will be dressing in
the same costume as them, so, briefly, I'll be one of the girls too.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
Robert Bannister
Aug 28, 2014, 7:46:17 PM8/28/14
to
On 29/08/2014 6:26 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
won't have any, thanks. I'm on a diet" can and do eat three portions of
dessert?
Robert Bannister
Aug 28, 2014, 7:50:43 PM8/28/14
to
On 29/08/2014 3:32 am, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> On 2014-08-28, James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Going to a small Spanish dictionary (Random House), I find "chico" given
>> for boy and "chica" for girl. I don't have an entomological dictionary
>> but I don't suppose the Spanish words derive from the Old English "chicken".
>
> It's from Latin "ciccum".
>
> http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=chico
>
"ciccum": proverbially worthless object, trifle, bagatelle; seed
> On 2014-08-28, James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Going to a small Spanish dictionary (Random House), I find "chico" given
>> for boy and "chica" for girl. I don't have an entomological dictionary
>> but I don't suppose the Spanish words derive from the Old English "chicken".
>
> It's from Latin "ciccum".
>
> http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=chico
>
membrane of pomegranate;
Robert Bannister
Aug 28, 2014, 7:53:24 PM8/28/14
to
On 29/08/2014 3:15 am, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>
>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>>
> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see an abnormal homosexual
> like PeteY speaking for us normal heterosexual men.
>
> No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
> ugly or hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
It is blindingly obvious when you look around at married couples that
> PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>
>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>>
> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see an abnormal homosexual
> like PeteY speaking for us normal heterosexual men.
>
> No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
> ugly or hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
even the most grotesquely ugly men and women are capable of finding
someone to love them. Not all of course, but a great number, so it must
have more to do with personality than looks.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Aug 28, 2014, 7:59:23 PM8/28/14
to
PeteY "P�d�" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
{I restored PeteY-falsified text:}
>> an abnormal homosexual like PeteY speaking for us normal
(1) I don't fuck men/boys in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
(2) I don't let men fuck me in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
(3) I don't suck cocks, as abnormal PeteY does.
(4) I don't swallow cum, as abnormal PeteY does.
(5) I don't felch, as abnormal PeteY does.
Therefore, I am a *normal* heterosexual man.
That was easy.
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
{I restored PeteY-falsified text:}
>>
>> PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>>
>> PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>>
>>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>>>
>> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see [PTD]
{I restored PeteY-falsified text:}
>>>
>> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see [PTD]
>> an abnormal homosexual like PeteY speaking for us normal
>> heterosexual men.
>>
> There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
>
Au contraire, mon p'tit p�d� encul�:
>>
> There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
>
(1) I don't fuck men/boys in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
(2) I don't let men fuck me in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
(3) I don't suck cocks, as abnormal PeteY does.
(4) I don't swallow cum, as abnormal PeteY does.
(5) I don't felch, as abnormal PeteY does.
Therefore, I am a *normal* heterosexual man.
That was easy.
Peter Moylan
Aug 28, 2014, 9:53:13 PM8/28/14
to
the vegetable stomach is full.
Tony Cooper
Aug 28, 2014, 9:54:10 PM8/28/14
to
attention to what she says, told me about the luncheon and what she
was preparing. Somehow I got the idea that all of the girls were
bringing desserts.
In fact, just my wife brought a dessert. Each of the other girls
brought some other course.
One of them, which brings in another thread here, brought a side dish:
mac and cheese. To what extent scratch was involved is not known by
me. I can't see one of these women using a box mix, though.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 28, 2014, 11:44:31 PM8/28/14
to
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:53:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Bannister:
> On 29/08/2014 3:15 am, Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
> > Peter T. Daniels:
> >> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
> On 29/08/2014 3:15 am, Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
> > Peter T. Daniels:
> >> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
> > No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
> > ugly or hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
>
> It is blindingly obvious when you look around at married couples that
> even the most grotesquely ugly men and women are capable of finding
> someone to love them. Not all of course, but a great number, so it must
> have more to do with personality than looks.
Not a concept available to a sociopath.
> > ugly or hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
>
> It is blindingly obvious when you look around at married couples that
> even the most grotesquely ugly men and women are capable of finding
> someone to love them. Not all of course, but a great number, so it must
> have more to do with personality than looks.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 28, 2014, 11:48:05 PM8/28/14
to
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:59:23 PM UTC-4, Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
> Peter T. Daniels:
> > There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
>
> Au contraire:
> Therefore, I am a *normal* heterosexual man.
> That was easy.
Sorry, but "normal" humans, of any gender, do not spew
lies and hatred and bigotry.
> Peter T. Daniels:
> > There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
>
> (1) I don't fuck men/boys in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
> (2) I don't let men fuck me in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
> (3) I don't suck cocks, as abnormal PeteY does.
> (4) I don't swallow cum, as abnormal PeteY does.
> (5) I don't felch, as abnormal PeteY does.
What leads you think you know anything about that?
> (2) I don't let men fuck me in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
> (3) I don't suck cocks, as abnormal PeteY does.
> (4) I don't swallow cum, as abnormal PeteY does.
> (5) I don't felch, as abnormal PeteY does.
> Therefore, I am a *normal* heterosexual man.
> That was easy.
lies and hatred and bigotry.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 28, 2014, 11:52:06 PM8/28/14
to
On Thursday, August 28, 2014 9:54:10 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> One of them, which brings in another thread here, brought a side dish:
> mac and cheese. To what extent scratch was involved is not known by
> me. I can't see one of these women using a box mix, though.
Perhaps you could see some of the others doing so, though, especially
> One of them, which brings in another thread here, brought a side dish:
> mac and cheese. To what extent scratch was involved is not known by
> me. I can't see one of these women using a box mix, though.
if you visited their kitchens.
Tony Cooper
Aug 29, 2014, 12:07:38 AM8/29/14
to
other dishes for routine meals at home for their family. However, at
these monthly get-togethers, when they bring dishes for the group to
share I don't see them using a box mix. It's a pride thing.
However, all of these women are either retired or have not been
working-wives for some time. None have children at home. They now
have the time to prepare things that take a little longer. They are
all good cooks.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Aug 29, 2014, 12:31:31 AM8/29/14
to
PeteY "P�d�" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
>> PeteY "P�d�" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
{PeteY-falsified text restored above.}
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman:
>> PeteY "P�d�" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>>
>>> There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
>>>
>>> There is nothing "normal" about ReinholY Aman.
>>>
>> Au contraire, mon p'tit p�d� encul�:
{PeteY-deleted text restored above}
>>
>> (1) I don't fuck men/boys in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (2) I don't let men fuck me in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (3) I don't suck cocks, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (4) I don't swallow cum, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (5) I don't felch, as abnormal PeteY does.
>>
> What leads you think you know anything about that?
>>
"ReinholY" is brilliant; he knows lots of stuff.
>> (1) I don't fuck men/boys in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (2) I don't let men fuck me in the ass, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (3) I don't suck cocks, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (4) I don't swallow cum, as abnormal PeteY does.
>> (5) I don't felch, as abnormal PeteY does.
>>
> What leads you think you know anything about that?
>>
>>
>> Therefore, I am a *normal* heterosexual man.
>> That was easy.
>>
> Sorry, but "normal" humans, of any gender, do not spew
> lies and hatred and bigotry.
>
Exactly! Since *you* frequently spew lies and hatred and bigotry, you
>> Therefore, I am a *normal* heterosexual man.
>> That was easy.
>>
> Sorry, but "normal" humans, of any gender, do not spew
> lies and hatred and bigotry.
>
are *doubly* abnormal. Deal with it.
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Aug 29, 2014, 1:53:24 AM8/29/14
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>>
>>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>>>
>> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see an abnormal homosexual
>> like PeteY speaking for us normal heterosexual men.
>>
>> No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
>> ugly {woman} or a hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>>
>>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>>>
>> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see an abnormal homosexual
>> like PeteY speaking for us normal heterosexual men.
>>
>> No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
>
> It is blindingly obvious when you look around at married couples that
> even the most grotesquely ugly men and women are capable of finding
> someone to love them.
>
In many such cases, it has nothing to do with *love*.
> It is blindingly obvious when you look around at married couples that
> even the most grotesquely ugly men and women are capable of finding
> someone to love them.
>
>
> Not all of course, but a great number, so it must
> have more to do with personality than looks.
>
Rather than love or personality but more plausible reasons:
> Not all of course, but a great number, so it must
> have more to do with personality than looks.
>
(1) Extreme poverty. Observe the many ugly and filthy "street people" couples.
(2) Wealth. Even if a person is uglier than a hatful of assholes but has
lots of money, s/he'll find a willing partner.
(3) Sexual perversion. Even if a person is so ugly that s/he'd knock a
buzzard off a shit wagon, if two people share a certain sexual
kinkiness, they'll hook up.
(4) Fetish. If someone is a "chubby chaser," that person will seek the
fattest slob s/he'll be able to find.
Etc.
If someone sets you up with a blind date and says, "She has a great
personality," you can be sure she's a dog.
J. J. Lodder
Aug 29, 2014, 3:08:03 AM8/29/14
to
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> was all, like:
> --> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400 <ltm1sl$cl3$1...@news.albasani.net>
> > My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> > talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>
> Some women, sure.
>
> I use guys as gender-neutral, and *that* offends some women. C'est la
> vie, i still use it. I'm certainly not going to keep a mental scorecard
> for which word to use with which person.
>
> Whatever you say is going to offend someone.
>
> > Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>
> Not that I've noticed. It's 'girls' that I hear, but of course, you
> can't use that either.
>
> > Is this like the N word or the G word and you can only use it if you
> > are part of the same group?
>
> I don't know what the G word is, but chicks is nothing like calling
> someone a nigger in any way.
Like in: "Woman Is the Nigger of the World"
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> was all, like:
> --> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400 <ltm1sl$cl3$1...@news.albasani.net>
> > My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> > talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>
> Some women, sure.
>
> I use guys as gender-neutral, and *that* offends some women. C'est la
> vie, i still use it. I'm certainly not going to keep a mental scorecard
> for which word to use with which person.
>
> Whatever you say is going to offend someone.
>
> > Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>
> Not that I've noticed. It's 'girls' that I hear, but of course, you
> can't use that either.
>
> > Is this like the N word or the G word and you can only use it if you
> > are part of the same group?
>
> I don't know what the G word is, but chicks is nothing like calling
> someone a nigger in any way.
(Lennon, Ono)
Gus
Aug 29, 2014, 3:28:06 AM8/29/14
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:501f0e77-37bb-4d47...@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N
egads, I'm not sure my girlfriend would like that!
news:501f0e77-37bb-4d47...@googlegroups.com...
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N
>> word
>> or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same
>> group?
>
> Become a woman and you might just possibly find out.
>> or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same
>> group?
>
egads, I'm not sure my girlfriend would like that!
Gus
Aug 29, 2014, 3:32:30 AM8/29/14
to
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in message
news:c69tnk...@mid.individual.net...
I've read [1] that people overrate the attractiveness of their mates as
compared to outside observers.
[1] I don't have a source for this. Maybe NPR? Psychology Today.
Somebody's blog on the Internet.
news:c69tnk...@mid.individual.net...
compared to outside observers.
[1] I don't have a source for this. Maybe NPR? Psychology Today.
Somebody's blog on the Internet.
Gus
Aug 29, 2014, 3:40:39 AM8/29/14
to
"Tony Cooper" <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6bvv9lcifgpcjip8...@4ax.com...
Gargantuan... As in "honey, where are you and your Gargantuan friends
going out tonight?"
Now, I wonder: Can a spouse be called "honey" or does that offend
beekeepers?
news:m6bvv9lcifgpcjip8...@4ax.com...
going out tonight?"
Now, I wonder: Can a spouse be called "honey" or does that offend
beekeepers?
Gus
Aug 29, 2014, 3:43:53 AM8/29/14
to
> I play music for an all-women's dance group. When the (female)
> instructor is teaching a dance she frequently uses "...and the girl
> opposite", "face the girl on your right" and so on. She almost never
> uses "woman" in that context. Nevertheless, it would be different if I
> were to use "girl" except - perhaps - in an unambiguously joking
> manner. For our big dance out in a couple of weeks' time, I will be
> dressing in the same costume as them, so, briefly, I'll be one of the
> girls too.
> --
post pics!
> instructor is teaching a dance she frequently uses "...and the girl
> opposite", "face the girl on your right" and so on. She almost never
> uses "woman" in that context. Nevertheless, it would be different if I
> were to use "girl" except - perhaps - in an unambiguously joking
> manner. For our big dance out in a couple of weeks' time, I will be
> dressing in the same costume as them, so, briefly, I'll be one of the
> girls too.
> --
Adam Funk
Aug 29, 2014, 7:32:01 AM8/29/14
to
On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
>
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>
> The counterpart of "guy" is "gal," but "gal" is of more limited use.
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>
>
>> Do the men?
>
> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> what the women "feel."
That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
--
I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors.
-- plorkwort
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 29, 2014, 7:48:52 AM8/29/14
to
On Friday, August 29, 2014 7:32:01 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> > what the women "feel."
>
> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
Then an awful lot of Western literature has been way off the mark.
> On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> > what the women "feel."
>
> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
Peter Percival
Aug 29, 2014, 8:51:41 AM8/29/14
to
Gus wrote:
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> Do the men?
> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>
> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N word
> or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same group?
To say of something that it is offensive means only that someone is
offended by it. To that one can often say 'so what?' Nowadays it is
not even necessary for the person to whom a thing is said to say that it
is offensive; people being being offended on behalf of others now
happens on an industrial scale.
What I don't understand are the great leaps that are made:
from
it is offensive
to
the person doing it is wrong
to
the person doing it must be punished.
--
[Dancing is] a perpendicular expression of a horizontal desire.
G.B. Shaw quoted in /New Statesman/, 23 March 1962
Rich Ulrich
Aug 29, 2014, 1:12:14 PM8/29/14
to
as being human beings who might do something that was
experimental or random or special or simply human.
I have the vague memory of my mother once or a few times making
noodles from scratch -- to the extent of rolling out dough, slicing,
separating and drying thin strands. The memory stuck with me
because I could not (then) figure why she would do it once, making
better noodles than the store-bought, but she did not go on to do it
every time. As if raising 4 kids did not take any time.
--
Rich Ulrich
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Adam Funk
Aug 29, 2014, 4:18:14 PM8/29/14
to
want to go down that route.
--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.
Adam Funk
Aug 29, 2014, 4:19:31 PM8/29/14
to
On 2014-08-29, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> was all, like:
> --> Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:32:01 +0100 <hu46dbx...@news.ducksburg.com>
> and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
> them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
> young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
> people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
> anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
> events, and culture as I do.
You, sir, are a violator of Western literary tradition. I'm not sure
whether that's better or worse than being lecherous --- I guess PTD
will have to judge.
--
They do (play, that is), and nobody gets killed, but Metallic K.O. is
the only rock album I know where you can actually hear hurled beer
bottles breaking against guitar strings. --- Lester Bangs
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> was all, like:
> --> Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:32:01 +0100 <hu46dbx...@news.ducksburg.com>
>> On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
>>>
>>>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>>>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>>>
>>> The counterpart of "guy" is "gal," but "gal" is of more limited use.
>>>
>>>> Do the men?
>>>
>>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
>>> what the women "feel."
>
>> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
>
> Yes, of course. I have more female friends than male friends, in fact,
>
>>> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
>>>
>>>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>>>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>>>
>>> The counterpart of "guy" is "gal," but "gal" is of more limited use.
>>>
>>>> Do the men?
>>>
>>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
>>> what the women "feel."
>
>> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
>
> and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
> them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
> young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
> people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
> anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
> events, and culture as I do.
You, sir, are a violator of Western literary tradition. I'm not sure
whether that's better or worse than being lecherous --- I guess PTD
will have to judge.
--
They do (play, that is), and nobody gets killed, but Metallic K.O. is
the only rock album I know where you can actually hear hurled beer
bottles breaking against guitar strings. --- Lester Bangs
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 29, 2014, 5:11:47 PM8/29/14
to
On Friday, August 29, 2014 2:03:25 PM UTC-4, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> was all, like:
> --> Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:32:01 +0100 <hu46dbx...@news.ducksburg.com>
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> was all, like:
> --> Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:32:01 +0100 <hu46dbx...@news.ducksburg.com>
> > On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
> >>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> >>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> >> The counterpart of "guy" is "gal," but "gal" is of more limited use.
> >>> Do the men?
> >> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> >> what the women "feel."
> > That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
>
> >> On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:50:10 PM UTC-4, Gus wrote:
> >>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
> >>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
> >> The counterpart of "guy" is "gal," but "gal" is of more limited use.
> >>> Do the men?
> >> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> >> what the women "feel."
> > That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
>
> Yes, of course. I have more female friends than male friends, in fact,
> and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
> them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
> young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
> people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
> anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
> events, and culture as I do.
"Mate" in the animal sense, i.e. "copulate." Remember this is in the
> and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
> them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
> young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
> people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
> anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
> events, and culture as I do.
context of the sociopath.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 29, 2014, 5:13:59 PM8/29/14
to
On Friday, August 29, 2014 4:19:31 PM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2014-08-29, Lewis wrote:
> > Okay, so one time? In band camp? Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> was all, like: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:32:01 +0100 <hu46dbx...@news.ducksburg.com>
> On 2014-08-29, Lewis wrote:
> >> On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> >>> what the women "feel."
> >> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
> > Yes, of course. I have more female friends than male friends, in fact,
> > and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
> > them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
> > young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
> > people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
> > anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
> > events, and culture as I do.
>
> You, sir, are a violator of Western literary tradition. I'm not sure
> whether that's better or worse than being lecherous --- I guess PTD
> will have to judge.
Oh, there's the Funkster's high horse again. Every so often he gets
> >>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> >>> what the women "feel."
> >> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
> > Yes, of course. I have more female friends than male friends, in fact,
> > and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
> > them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
> > young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
> > people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
> > anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
> > events, and culture as I do.
>
> You, sir, are a violator of Western literary tradition. I'm not sure
> whether that's better or worse than being lecherous --- I guess PTD
> will have to judge.
sanctimonious.
John Varela
Aug 29, 2014, 5:28:50 PM8/29/14
to
Eleanor.
--
John Varela
John Varela
Aug 29, 2014, 5:32:52 PM8/29/14
to
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:32:30 UTC, "Gus" <gus.o...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I have anecdotal evidence for this. My (then; he's dead now) best
friend truly thought that his wife was beautiful and that all other
men were jealous of him. I thought her rather ordinary.
--
John Varela
wrote:
friend truly thought that his wife was beautiful and that all other
men were jealous of him. I thought her rather ordinary.
--
John Varela
David Kleinecke
Aug 29, 2014, 8:00:13 PM8/29/14
to
limitations.
And then there was the guy who was horny he would hump
a woodpile if he thought there was a snake in it.
Robert Bannister
Aug 29, 2014, 9:04:32 PM8/29/14
to
On 29/08/2014 9:53 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 29/08/14 09:46, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 29/08/2014 6:26 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>> (My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
>>> cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
>>> today how good it is. She saved some.)
>>
>> Isn't it strange how the same women who say "I'll just have salad" or "I
>> won't have any, thanks. I'm on a diet" can and do eat three portions of
>> dessert?
>
> Even children know that there's room in the dessert stomach even after
> the vegetable stomach is full.
>
I thought most children had no stomach for greens at all.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
> On 29/08/14 09:46, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 29/08/2014 6:26 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>> (My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
>>> cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
>>> today how good it is. She saved some.)
>>
>> Isn't it strange how the same women who say "I'll just have salad" or "I
>> won't have any, thanks. I'm on a diet" can and do eat three portions of
>> dessert?
>
> Even children know that there's room in the dessert stomach even after
> the vegetable stomach is full.
>
I thought most children had no stomach for greens at all.
--
Robert Bannister - 1940-71 SE England
1972-now W Australia
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Aug 29, 2014, 9:10:03 PM8/29/14
to
Asshole Lewis "Okay, so one time? In band camp?" wrote:
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>>
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>>
>> No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
>> ugly {woman} or a hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
>>
> Ah, thanks for quoting Rey and reminding me that yes, he does belong
> in the killfile.
>
Bullseye! It looks like I hit Lewis's sore spot.
Asshole Lewis's reaction proves that he's married to a fat & ugly broad.
That explains his nastiness & assholicity.
Robert Bannister
Aug 29, 2014, 9:10:09 PM8/29/14
to
On 30/08/2014 1:12 am, Rich Ulrich wrote:
> I suppose that when I was 10 or 11, I had no notion of Mothers
> as being human beings who might do something that was
> experimental or random or special or simply human.
Slightly away from the point you raised, but following on from the above
> I suppose that when I was 10 or 11, I had no notion of Mothers
> as being human beings who might do something that was
> experimental or random or special or simply human.
paragraph: the woman I was talking to last night was telling me about
how her mother used to give the same meals every week: Sunday roast,
Monday cold meat, Tuesday stew, etc. - and how she and her siblings had
got quite used to this comforting schedule. One Tuesday, without
conferring, each one of them said something like "What have you done to
the stew, Mum?" and refused to eat it. Apparently, the offending
ingredient was thyme, but after that the mother never experimented again.
Robert Bannister
Aug 29, 2014, 9:10:48 PM8/29/14
to
On 30/08/2014 1:53 am, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> was all, like:
> --> Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:54:10 -0400 <k2nvv99kp435c1gk6...@4ax.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
>>>>>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>>>>>>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do women no longer speak of "a night out with the girls" (cf. "with the
>>>>> boys")?
>>>>
>>>> My wife certainly does. She has a group of friends she's know for
>>>> over 30 years, and they regularly get together for a meal on "girl's
>>>> night out".
>>>>
>>>> Today, as happens, was "girl's day out". They all met at one of the
>>>> houses and brought desserts and dessert recipes.
>> attention to what she says, told me about the luncheon and what she
>> was preparing. Somehow I got the idea that all of the girls were
>> bringing desserts.
>
>> In fact, just my wife brought a dessert. Each of the other girls
>> brought some other course.
> did not manufacture her own macaroni.
>
She might have a macaroni tree in her back garden/yard.
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> was all, like:
> --> Thu, 28 Aug 2014 21:54:10 -0400 <k2nvv99kp435c1gk6...@4ax.com>
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:46:17 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 29/08/2014 6:26 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:19:54 -0400, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net>
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>> On 29/08/2014 6:26 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
>>>>>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>>>>>>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>>>>>>> context.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do women no longer speak of "a night out with the girls" (cf. "with the
>>>>> boys")?
>>>>
>>>> My wife certainly does. She has a group of friends she's know for
>>>> over 30 years, and they regularly get together for a meal on "girl's
>>>> night out".
>>>>
>>>> Today, as happens, was "girl's day out". They all met at one of the
>>>> houses and brought desserts and dessert recipes.
>>>>
>>>> (My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
>>>> cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
>>>> today how good it is. She saved some.)
>>>
>>> Isn't it strange how the same women who say "I'll just have salad" or "I
>>> won't have any, thanks. I'm on a diet" can and do eat three portions of
>>> dessert?
>
>> Actually, it was my error. My wife, who often says I don't pay
>>>> (My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
>>>> cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
>>>> today how good it is. She saved some.)
>>>
>>> Isn't it strange how the same women who say "I'll just have salad" or "I
>>> won't have any, thanks. I'm on a diet" can and do eat three portions of
>>> dessert?
>
>> attention to what she says, told me about the luncheon and what she
>> was preparing. Somehow I got the idea that all of the girls were
>> bringing desserts.
>
>> In fact, just my wife brought a dessert. Each of the other girls
>> brought some other course.
>
>> One of them, which brings in another thread here, brought a side dish:
>> mac and cheese. To what extent scratch was involved is not known by
>> me. I can't see one of these women using a box mix, though.
>
> But I can guarantee with a reasonably great degree of certitude that she
>> One of them, which brings in another thread here, brought a side dish:
>> mac and cheese. To what extent scratch was involved is not known by
>> me. I can't see one of these women using a box mix, though.
>
> did not manufacture her own macaroni.
>
She might have a macaroni tree in her back garden/yard.
Robert Bannister
Aug 29, 2014, 9:12:10 PM8/29/14
to
On 30/08/2014 1:52 am, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> was all, like:
> --> Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:46:17 +0800 <c69ta9...@mid.individual.net>
> that way you always have room for it and there's no spurious brussels
> sprout in the way of a second slice of cheescake.
>
In my opinion, this is what morning coffee is for. I never eat sweet
things at mealtimes, but morning coffee-time doesn't count.
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> was all, like:
> --> Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:46:17 +0800 <c69ta9...@mid.individual.net>
>> On 29/08/2014 6:26 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:19:54 -0400, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
>>>>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>>>>>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>>>>>> context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
>>>>
>>>> Do women no longer speak of "a night out with the girls" (cf. "with the
>>>> boys")?
>>>
>>> My wife certainly does. She has a group of friends she's know for
>>> over 30 years, and they regularly get together for a meal on "girl's
>>> night out".
>>>
>>> Today, as happens, was "girl's day out". They all met at one of the
>>> houses and brought desserts and dessert recipes.
>>>
>>> (My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
>>> cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
>>> today how good it is. She saved some.)
>
>> Isn't it strange how the same women who say "I'll just have salad" or "I
>> won't have any, thanks. I'm on a diet" can and do eat three portions of
>> dessert?
>
> I find it saves a lot of fuss and bother if you just start with dessert;
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:19:54 -0400, Joe Fineman <jo...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Stan Brown
>>>>> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> was all, like:
>>>>
>>>>>> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
>>>>>> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually every
>>>>>> context.
>>>>>
>>>>> Girl's Night/Boy's Night are very common around here.
>>>>
>>>> Do women no longer speak of "a night out with the girls" (cf. "with the
>>>> boys")?
>>>
>>> My wife certainly does. She has a group of friends she's know for
>>> over 30 years, and they regularly get together for a meal on "girl's
>>> night out".
>>>
>>> Today, as happens, was "girl's day out". They all met at one of the
>>> houses and brought desserts and dessert recipes.
>>>
>>> (My wife's was a warm raspberry topping on ice cream. It involved
>>> cooking the raspberries and rendering them down. I'll find out later
>>> today how good it is. She saved some.)
>
>> Isn't it strange how the same women who say "I'll just have salad" or "I
>> won't have any, thanks. I'm on a diet" can and do eat three portions of
>> dessert?
>
> that way you always have room for it and there's no spurious brussels
> sprout in the way of a second slice of cheescake.
>
In my opinion, this is what morning coffee is for. I never eat sweet
things at mealtimes, but morning coffee-time doesn't count.
Robert Bannister
Aug 29, 2014, 9:13:27 PM8/29/14
to
On 29/08/2014 7:50 am, Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 29/08/2014 3:32 am, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2014-08-28, James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Going to a small Spanish dictionary (Random House), I find "chico" given
>>> for boy and "chica" for girl. I don't have an entomological dictionary
>>> but I don't suppose the Spanish words derive from the Old English
>>> "chicken".
>>
>> It's from Latin "ciccum".
>>
>> http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=chico
>>
> "ciccum": proverbially worthless object, trifle, bagatelle; seed
> membrane of pomegranate;
>
Sorry about this boringly bare comment. I meant to wonder about how
often Romans dined on pomegranate membrane.
> On 29/08/2014 3:32 am, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2014-08-28, James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Going to a small Spanish dictionary (Random House), I find "chico" given
>>> for boy and "chica" for girl. I don't have an entomological dictionary
>>> but I don't suppose the Spanish words derive from the Old English
>>> "chicken".
>>
>> It's from Latin "ciccum".
>>
>> http://lema.rae.es/drae/?val=chico
>>
> "ciccum": proverbially worthless object, trifle, bagatelle; seed
> membrane of pomegranate;
>
Sorry about this boringly bare comment. I meant to wonder about how
often Romans dined on pomegranate membrane.
Robert Bannister
Aug 29, 2014, 9:18:03 PM8/29/14
to
On 30/08/2014 1:56 am, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> was all, like:
> --> Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:53:24 +0800 <c69tnk...@mid.individual.net>
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> was all, like:
>> On 29/08/2014 3:15 am, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>>> PeteY "AUE's Idiot #1" Daniels, a person of homosexuality, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates.
>>>>
>>> *All* women? Ridiculous! It's amusing to see an abnormal homosexual
>>> like PeteY speaking for us normal heterosexual men.
>>>
>>> like PeteY speaking for us normal heterosexual men.
>>>
>>> No normal heterosexual man would fuck a morbidly obese or frightfully
>>> ugly or hairy-legged bulldyke, of which there are millions.
>
> Ah, thanks for quoting Rey and reminding me that yes, he does belong in
> the killfile.
>
> Ah, thanks for quoting Rey and reminding me that yes, he does belong in
> the killfile.
>
>> It is blindingly obvious when you look around at married couples that
>> even the most grotesquely ugly men and women are capable of finding
>> someone to love them. Not all of course, but a great number, so it must
>> have more to do with personality than looks.
>
> Looks are useful for initial attarction but have nothing at all to do
>> even the most grotesquely ugly men and women are capable of finding
>> someone to love them. Not all of course, but a great number, so it must
>> have more to do with personality than looks.
>
> with anything at all beyond the first 15 minutes. Well, maybe longer for
> someone like Summer Glau or Mila Kunis or Isabella Rossellini.
The thing is: while these people are nice to perv^H^H^H look at, would
they be nice as marriage partners? The most good-looking couple I have
known had been going around together for ages, but their marriage didn't
last three years. Both of them far too pretty for their own good.
Robert Bannister
Aug 29, 2014, 9:24:49 PM8/29/14
to
On 29/08/2014 8:51 pm, Peter Percival wrote:
> Gus wrote:
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>> Do the men?
>>
>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N word
>> or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same group?
>
> To say of something that it is offensive means only that someone is
> offended by it. To that one can often say 'so what?' Nowadays it is
> not even necessary for the person to whom a thing is said to say that it
> is offensive; people being being offended on behalf of others now
> happens on an industrial scale.
I heard on radio yesterday that some school library had withdrawn a
> Gus wrote:
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>> Do the men?
>>
>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes? Is this like the N word
>> or the G word and you can only use it if you are part of the same group?
>
> To say of something that it is offensive means only that someone is
> offended by it. To that one can often say 'so what?' Nowadays it is
> not even necessary for the person to whom a thing is said to say that it
> is offensive; people being being offended on behalf of others now
> happens on an industrial scale.
Roald Dahl book because it contained the word "slut". I had no idea this
was deemed an offensive word as, for me, it still just means "dirty or
slovenly woman" or in some contexts "promiscuous woman" - I find it hard
to see even the latter makes it an offensive word. As you say, some
people seem to make a profession out of taking offence on behalf of
others who hadn't even noticed.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 29, 2014, 10:54:56 PM8/29/14
to
On Friday, August 29, 2014 8:00:13 PM UTC-4, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 4:48:52 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, August 29, 2014 7:32:01 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> > > On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> > > > what the women "feel."
> > > That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
> > Then an awful lot of Western literature has been way off the mark.
>
> I think the "all" is rhetorical. Everybody seems to have
> limitations.
Wasn't it Casanova who said to just put a basket over their head,
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 4:48:52 AM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, August 29, 2014 7:32:01 AM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
> > > On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
> > > > what the women "feel."
> > > That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
> > Then an awful lot of Western literature has been way off the mark.
>
> I think the "all" is rhetorical. Everybody seems to have
> limitations.
they're all the same?
ISTR Don Giovnni getting his come-uppance. (Never did read Byron's
rather extended version, don't know how it turns out.)
> And then there was the guy who was horny he would hump
> a woodpile if he thought there was a snake in it.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 29, 2014, 10:56:48 PM8/29/14
to
Rich Ulrich
Aug 29, 2014, 10:57:47 PM8/29/14
to
the book from its shelves, after complaints to their Facebook page.
Well, "slut" is not expected in a children's book.
The reaction seems to ignore the context (which, when I think of it,
is par for the course for protests about books).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/28/aldi-takes-roald-dahls-revolting-rhymes-off-shelves-over-the-word-slut
The collection of poems, published in 1982, reimagines traditional
fables and folk stories in Dahl�s maniacal style.
The particular poem that prompted complaint, the author�s take on
the Cinderella fairytale, casts Prince Charming as a lovelorn,
murderous fanatic, who beheads Cinderella�s two ugly sisters and
then rounds on the heroine herself.
�Poor Cindy�s heart was torn to shreds. My Prince! she thought. He
chops off heads! How could I marry anyone who does that sort of
thing for fun? The Prince cried, �Who�s this dirty slut? Off with
her nut! Off with her nut!�,� the rhyme goes.
If you are reading this to your kid, are you going to worry about
the word "slut"?
And - is it just me? - I need to see those lines as "rhyme".
Poor Cindy�s heart was torn to shreds.
My Prince! she thought. He chops off heads!
How could I marry anyone
who does that sort of thing for fun?
The Prince cried, �Who�s this dirty slut?
Off with her nut! Off with her nut!�.
--
Rich Ulrich
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 30, 2014, 9:32:49 AM8/30/14
to
book?
I knew nothing of Roald Dahl (except that a couple of really bad movies
had been wrenched out of books of his), but after seeing *Matilda: The
Musical* on Broadway, I wanted to read the book and discovered that I
could get a boxed set of all 15 of his children's books from amazon for
about $40. (I read them in chronological order -- *Matilda* is the last
and by far the best -- and the set includes one that's definitely not
suitable for children, the second volume of memoirs covering his active
duty war service.) (I cannot comprehend the renown of *Charlie and the
Chocolate Factory*, and several of them look as though he was stuck with
a contract to turn out yet another one and would put just anything down
on paper. The ones that rely least on "fantasy" are the best. *Matilda*
works because it's classic SF on the Campbell/Asimov principle: change
one thing about the real world and investigate the consequences.)
What's left out of the box are about half a dozen picture books for
very small children -- and the above-cited book of "Revolting Rhymes."
If it's aimed at "children," it's "children" who would be ready for his
sex tales, which AFAICT comprise his entire non-children's output. And
comport with his own personal behavior. It seems that while he was
stationed in Washington as an attaché to the British embassy (and may
well have been a spy), he made it his principal occupation to bed every
woman who crossed his path. His list of celebrity conquests seems to
rival Barbara Walters'.
FromTheRafters
Aug 30, 2014, 9:36:36 AM8/30/14
to
Peter T. Daniels formulated the question :
Funny.
Don Phillipson
Aug 29, 2014, 8:27:14 PM8/29/14
to
"James Silverton" <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ltn9ba$10t$1...@dont-email.me...
> I'm not sure I would have the nerve to use "chick" when talking with women
> even if the OED records a first use for a girl or young woman in "Elmer
> Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis in 1927. Compounds like "Chicklit" (writing
> supposed to be mainly for women) are quite common.
The OED item seems historically late. Groucho Marx said Chico
Marx acquired the nickname Chico because he was always chasing
chicks, long before 1927, possibly before the First World War.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
news:ltn9ba$10t$1...@dont-email.me...
> I'm not sure I would have the nerve to use "chick" when talking with women
> even if the OED records a first use for a girl or young woman in "Elmer
> Gantry" by Sinclair Lewis in 1927. Compounds like "Chicklit" (writing
> supposed to be mainly for women) are quite common.
The OED item seems historically late. Groucho Marx said Chico
Marx acquired the nickname Chico because he was always chasing
chicks, long before 1927, possibly before the First World War.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Charles Bishop
Aug 30, 2014, 11:39:30 AM8/30/14
to
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Peter Moylan
Aug 30, 2014, 8:49:09 AM8/30/14
to
On 30/08/14 11:18, Robert Bannister wrote:
> The thing is: while these people are nice to perv^H^H^H look at, would
> they be nice as marriage partners? The most good-looking couple I have
> known had been going around together for ages, but their marriage didn't
> last three years. Both of them far too pretty for their own good.
This evening I went to see "Lucy" (which really should have been X-rated
> The thing is: while these people are nice to perv^H^H^H look at, would
> they be nice as marriage partners? The most good-looking couple I have
> known had been going around together for ages, but their marriage didn't
> last three years. Both of them far too pretty for their own good.
for extreme violence (and probably also for insulting our intelligence;
one star). The title character was, I gather, supposed to be a very
attractive young woman. I thought she was an unattractive bimbo.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Moylan
Aug 30, 2014, 8:44:20 AM8/30/14
to
high school, when I discovered that a classmate lusted after a girl who
was, in my opinion, the ugliest girl in the class.
One man's fish is another man's poisson.
R H Draney
Aug 30, 2014, 4:20:08 PM8/30/14
to
Robert Bannister filted:
She should have a word with whoever it was that said "The best gift you can give
your child is your thyme"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
your child is your thyme"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Mike L
Aug 30, 2014, 5:19:45 PM8/30/14
to
On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:44:30 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>I play music for an all-women's dance group. When the (female)
>instructor is teaching a dance she frequently uses "...and the girl
>opposite", "face the girl on your right" and so on. She almost never
>uses "woman" in that context. Nevertheless, it would be different if I
>were to use "girl" except - perhaps - in an unambiguously joking manner.
>For our big dance out in a couple of weeks' time, I will be dressing in
>the same costume as them, so, briefly, I'll be one of the girls too.
I'm very much in touch with my feminine side. She's a lesbian.
--
Mike.
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[...]
>
>I play music for an all-women's dance group. When the (female)
>instructor is teaching a dance she frequently uses "...and the girl
>opposite", "face the girl on your right" and so on. She almost never
>uses "woman" in that context. Nevertheless, it would be different if I
>were to use "girl" except - perhaps - in an unambiguously joking manner.
>For our big dance out in a couple of weeks' time, I will be dressing in
>the same costume as them, so, briefly, I'll be one of the girls too.
I'm very much in touch with my feminine side. She's a lesbian.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
Aug 30, 2014, 9:16:32 PM8/30/14
to
Peter Moylan
Aug 30, 2014, 10:06:22 PM8/30/14
to
spaghetti, and the few other varieties of pasta that we had at the time,
but mentally classified macaroni among the vegetables I didn't like.
Message has been deleted
Jerry Friedman
Aug 30, 2014, 10:45:56 PM8/30/14
to
On 8/28/14 4:37 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:50:07 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:55:04 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> was all, like:
>>> --> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400 <ltm1sl$cl3$1...@news.albasani.net>
>>>
>>> I use guys as gender-neutral, and *that* offends some women. C'est la
>>> vie, i still use it. I'm certainly not going to keep a mental scorecard
>>> for which word to use with which person.
>>>
>>> Whatever you say is going to offend someone.
>>> can't use that either.
>>> someone a nigger in any way.
>>
>> Oh, I see: thanks. No, I would never call anybody a nigger. I thought
>> he must mean "Necrophiliac" or "Nonentity", though I spell neither
>> with a capital "N". As for the "G" word, I can only guess:
>> "Grotesque"? "Gormless"? "Geraldine"?
>
> Gypsy? Georgian? (European or American Georgia) Guinea? (African or
> New Jersey Shore Italian)
Germaine?
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 22:50:07 +0100, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:55:04 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Gus <gus.o...@gmail.com> was all, like:
>>> --> Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400 <ltm1sl$cl3$1...@news.albasani.net>
>>>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>>>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>>>
>>> Some women, sure.
>>>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>>>
>>>
>>> I use guys as gender-neutral, and *that* offends some women. C'est la
>>> vie, i still use it. I'm certainly not going to keep a mental scorecard
>>> for which word to use with which person.
>>>
>>> Whatever you say is going to offend someone.
>>>
>>>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>>>
>>> Not that I've noticed. It's 'girls' that I hear, but of course, you
>>>> Don't women call each other chicks sometimes?
>>>
>>> can't use that either.
>>>
>>>> Is this like the N word or the G word and you can only use it if you
>>>> are part of the same group?
>>>
>>> I don't know what the G word is, but chicks is nothing like calling
>>>> Is this like the N word or the G word and you can only use it if you
>>>> are part of the same group?
>>>
>>> someone a nigger in any way.
>>
>> Oh, I see: thanks. No, I would never call anybody a nigger. I thought
>> he must mean "Necrophiliac" or "Nonentity", though I spell neither
>> with a capital "N". As for the "G" word, I can only guess:
>> "Grotesque"? "Gormless"? "Geraldine"?
>
> Gypsy? Georgian? (European or American Georgia) Guinea? (African or
> New Jersey Shore Italian)
Germaine?
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
Aug 30, 2014, 10:49:47 PM8/30/14
to
On 8/28/14 3:06 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
When I was in college that was Forbidden.
--
Jerry Friedman
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 21:50:10 -0400, Gus wrote:
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>> Do the men?
>> My ex said it was to her. I thought it was just like saying "guy" when
>> talking about men... Do the women here find saying "chick" offensive?
>>
>
> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually
> every context.
In polite society, but not among a lot of people around here.
>
> Seriously? Dude, it's 2014, not 1965. "Chick", "girl", and other
> diminutives trivialize women and are inappropriate in virtually
> every context.
I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
When I was in college that was Forbidden.
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
Aug 30, 2014, 11:30:34 PM8/30/14
to
two college males will sit around and talk about some party they
attended and the good looking ladies, women, or females that were
there without reverting to a few trivializing terms. It just wouldn't
be natural.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Peter Moylan
Aug 31, 2014, 2:56:53 AM8/31/14
to
On 31/08/14 12:29, Lewis wrote:
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> was all, like:
> --> Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:49:09 +1000 <ltsh88$667$1...@dont-email.me>
> Scarlett Johansson is neither unattractive nor a bimbo.
Which just goes to show that different people will make different
judgements about attractiveness.
I should add that I know nothing about the actress. Perhaps she's more
attractive in real life than in the film.
> Okay, so one time? In band camp? Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> was all, like:
> --> Sat, 30 Aug 2014 22:49:09 +1000 <ltsh88$667$1...@dont-email.me>
Which just goes to show that different people will make different
judgements about attractiveness.
I should add that I know nothing about the actress. Perhaps she's more
attractive in real life than in the film.
Peter Moylan
Aug 31, 2014, 2:57:25 AM8/31/14
to
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
Aug 31, 2014, 3:17:48 AM8/31/14
to
Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> I should add that I know nothing about the actress.
> Perhaps she's more attractive in real life than in the film.
>
She ain't. Scarlett Johansson without makeup:
>
> I should add that I know nothing about the actress.
> Perhaps she's more attractive in real life than in the film.
>
http://i.imgur.com/fhFLXh4.jpg
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Adam Funk
Aug 31, 2014, 10:25:09 AM8/31/14
to
On 2014-08-29, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 4:19:31 PM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2014-08-29, Lewis wrote:
>> > Okay, so one time? In band camp? Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> was all, like: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:32:01 +0100 <hu46dbx...@news.ducksburg.com>
>> >> On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> >>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
>> >>> what the women "feel."
>> >> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
>> > Yes, of course. I have more female friends than male friends, in fact,
>> > and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
>> > them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
>> > young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
>> > people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
>> > anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
>> > events, and culture as I do.
>>
>> You, sir, are a violator of Western literary tradition. I'm not sure
>> whether that's better or worse than being lecherous --- I guess PTD
>> will have to judge.
>
> Oh, there's the Funkster's high horse again. Every so often he gets
> sanctimonious.
Maybe you shouldn't make such stupid generalizations then.
--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor
> On Friday, August 29, 2014 4:19:31 PM UTC-4, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2014-08-29, Lewis wrote:
>> > Okay, so one time? In band camp? Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> was all, like: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:32:01 +0100 <hu46dbx...@news.ducksburg.com>
>> >> On 2014-08-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> >>> Heterosexual men view all women as potential mates. They don't care
>> >>> what the women "feel."
>> >> That is as ridiculous as the corresponding stereotype about gay men.
>> > Yes, of course. I have more female friends than male friends, in fact,
>> > and though some of them are quite attractive I don't think of any of
>> > them as potential mates. Several of them are, at least technically,
>> > young enough to be my daughters. I realize that's no barrier to some
>> > people, but I cannot imagine being in any sort of relationship with
>> > anyone who doesn't remember the same movies, tv shows, music, world
>> > events, and culture as I do.
>>
>> You, sir, are a violator of Western literary tradition. I'm not sure
>> whether that's better or worse than being lecherous --- I guess PTD
>> will have to judge.
>
> Oh, there's the Funkster's high horse again. Every so often he gets
> sanctimonious.
Maybe you shouldn't make such stupid generalizations then.
--
Thinking about her this morning, lying in bed, and trying to get my
thoughts on the right track, I reached into the drawer of the bedstand,
and found the Gideons' Bible, and I was going for the Psalms, friend, honest
I was, but I found the Song of Solomon instead. --- Garrison Keillor
Jerry Friedman
Aug 31, 2014, 11:32:30 AM8/31/14
to
possible. "Ladies" and "females" wouldn't have been, in any circles I
knew anything about. Only a year or two later I started hearing "bitch"
for women in general with no special implication of dislike.
I actually don't remember conversations about good-looking women
collectively like that, just about individuals, and there you don't need
a synonym for "woman"--you can just say So-and-So is gorgeous.
Two stories. One of the guys across the hall from me found a woman
student's ID card or dining-hall card and returned it to her. I'm
pretty sure he said "woman", though what I remember is that his roommate
said, "That's gotta be key"--the only non-parodic use I heard of the
allegedly classic preppyism "key" for "excellent".
A guy at another college told me that he'd been sitting around with a
friend in their fraternity when a woman came in and offered them each a
blow job. They accepted. I'm sure "woman" was the word he used. I
suppose he might have used another word with his fraternity brother
later, though.
(For those wondering what goes on at American colleges, that's the only
time I heard of anything like that happening. I imagine she'd taken a
dare or lost a bet.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Tony Cooper
Aug 31, 2014, 11:44:13 AM8/31/14
to
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 16:56:53 +1000, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
If "Monster" was the only movie in which you saw Charlize Theron, you
might conclude that she is not an attractive woman. You would be
wrong.
wrote:
might conclude that she is not an attractive woman. You would be
wrong.
Charles Bishop
Aug 31, 2014, 12:00:50 PM8/31/14
to
In article <lttvuv$ftf$2...@dont-email.me>,
Whenever I remember something similar about one of my likes/dislikes or
just an interpretation of information, I can't remember the reasoning
that brought me to that conclusion. It seems odd now, of course, but I
must have thought about it somehow to have reached my conclusion. I just
can't recreate the thought process.
I've seen it also in children, but when I talk to them about it they
aren't aware of their reasoning.
charles
just an interpretation of information, I can't remember the reasoning
that brought me to that conclusion. It seems odd now, of course, but I
must have thought about it somehow to have reached my conclusion. I just
can't recreate the thought process.
I've seen it also in children, but when I talk to them about it they
aren't aware of their reasoning.
charles
Tony Cooper
Aug 31, 2014, 12:36:47 PM8/31/14
to
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 09:32:30 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I didn't say there were no trivializing terms. "Babes" might have been
>possible. "Ladies" and "females" wouldn't have been, in any circles I
>knew anything about. Only a year or two later I started hearing "bitch"
>for women in general with no special implication of dislike.
>
>I actually don't remember conversations about good-looking women
>collectively like that, just about individuals, and there you don't need
>a synonym for "woman"--you can just say So-and-So is gorgeous.
>
While you may not recall them, there are certainly situations where
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I didn't say there were no trivializing terms. "Babes" might have been
>possible. "Ladies" and "females" wouldn't have been, in any circles I
>knew anything about. Only a year or two later I started hearing "bitch"
>for women in general with no special implication of dislike.
>
>I actually don't remember conversations about good-looking women
>collectively like that, just about individuals, and there you don't need
>a synonym for "woman"--you can just say So-and-So is gorgeous.
>
that happens.
"Let's go to the Pi Phi party. There are sure to be some hot
(trivializing term) there."
"Were you at McGuffy's for Nickel Beer Night? The place was packed
with (trivializing terms)".
It's assumed that a sorority party will include women and that Nickel
Beer Night's crowd will include women. The trivializing terms single
out the attractive ones in the comments.
Christian Weisgerber
Aug 31, 2014, 4:25:04 PM8/31/14
to
On 2014-08-30, Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org> wrote:
> This evening I went to see "Lucy" (which really should have been X-rated
> for extreme violence (and probably also for insulting our intelligence;
> one star). The title character was, I gather, supposed to be a very
> attractive young woman. I thought she was an unattractive bimbo.
If you follow some of the online talk accompanying the Canadian TV
> This evening I went to see "Lucy" (which really should have been X-rated
> for extreme violence (and probably also for insulting our intelligence;
> one star). The title character was, I gather, supposed to be a very
> attractive young woman. I thought she was an unattractive bimbo.
series _Orphan Black_, you'll see people discussing which of the
show's clone characters is the most attractive. These clones are
all played by the same actress, Tatiana Maslany, so they all basically
look the same, but with different hairdo, fashion, body language,
accent, and personality. And yes, people have clear preferences,
and while there are some overall trends, there is no general
consensus.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
Message has been deleted
R H Draney
Sep 1, 2014, 3:39:02 AM9/1/14
to
Lewis filted:
>
>Okay, so one time? In band camp? Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> was
>all, like:
>--> Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:25:04 +0000 (UTC)
><slrnm07150...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
>Despite being played by the same actress, they are *very* different
>characters.
>
>I'd stay away from anyone who preferred Helena.
Here's a more "encapsulated" form of the same idea:
http://youtu.be/Yt_v2EXS418
>
>Okay, so one time? In band camp? Christian Weisgerber <na...@mips.inka.de> was
>all, like:
>--> Sun, 31 Aug 2014 20:25:04 +0000 (UTC)
><slrnm07150...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
>characters.
>
>I'd stay away from anyone who preferred Helena.
Here's a more "encapsulated" form of the same idea:
http://youtu.be/Yt_v2EXS418
Oliver Cromm
Sep 3, 2014, 5:28:26 PM9/3/14
to
* Tony Cooper:
So far, I have circumvented the issue by never having that kind of
conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
A fellow student once reassured me that guys the world over always
have a common subject to talk about - sports, cars or girls. I
have very little to say on the first two, and I won't broach the
third subject with someone who makes claims like that. Sorry,
guys, you'll have to dig a little deeper.
--
Performance: A statement of the speed at which a computer system
works. Or rather, might work under certain circumstances. Or was
rumored to be working over in Jersey about a month ago.
conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
A fellow student once reassured me that guys the world over always
have a common subject to talk about - sports, cars or girls. I
have very little to say on the first two, and I won't broach the
third subject with someone who makes claims like that. Sorry,
guys, you'll have to dig a little deeper.
--
Performance: A statement of the speed at which a computer system
works. Or rather, might work under certain circumstances. Or was
rumored to be working over in Jersey about a month ago.
Tony Cooper
Sep 3, 2014, 10:14:41 PM9/3/14
to
On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:28:26 -0400, Oliver Cromm
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:49:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
>>>students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
>>>When I was in college that was Forbidden.
>>
>> While times may have changed, I really do have a problem thinking that
>> two college males will sit around and talk about some party they
>> attended and the good looking ladies, women, or females that were
>> there without reverting to a few trivializing terms. It just wouldn't
>> be natural.
>
>So far, I have circumvented the issue by never having that kind of
>conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
Mr Bishop may have something to say about those two sentences combined
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:49:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
>>>students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
>>>When I was in college that was Forbidden.
>>
>> While times may have changed, I really do have a problem thinking that
>> two college males will sit around and talk about some party they
>> attended and the good looking ladies, women, or females that were
>> there without reverting to a few trivializing terms. It just wouldn't
>> be natural.
>
>So far, I have circumvented the issue by never having that kind of
>conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
as a statement. While it doesn't say that you were never of college
age, it does imply that - when you were - you didn't engage in a
conversations about women and that you didn't attend parties. While
both may be possible, at least one is not probable.
Oliver Cromm
Sep 4, 2014, 1:41:52 PM9/4/14
to
* Tony Cooper:
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:28:26 -0400, Oliver Cromm
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:49:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
>>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
>>>>students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
>>>>When I was in college that was Forbidden.
>>>
>>> While times may have changed, I really do have a problem thinking that
>>> two college males will sit around and talk about some party they
>>> attended and the good looking ladies, women, or females that were
>>> there without reverting to a few trivializing terms. It just wouldn't
>>> be natural.
>>
>>So far, I have circumvented the issue by never having that kind of
>>conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
>
> Mr Bishop may have something to say about those two sentences combined
> as a statement. While it doesn't say that you were never of college
> age,
Of course not. I presupposed the common-sense knowledge that
someone who is past college age once was of college age. I wanted
to stress that I lived through my whole college age phase, and the
years thereafter, when I might still be suspected to act like a
college boy, without having that kind of conversation. I even
spent the decades thereafter without the urge of doing belatedly
what I had missed during college. It's not to be expected that I
will have that kind of conversation in the future.
> it does imply that - when you were - you didn't engage in a
> conversations about women and that you didn't attend parties. While
> both may be possible, at least one is not probable.
I don't see where you get that I didn't attend parties from "never
having that kind of conversation". It clearly refers to the
talking only.
Expanding, I did attend few parties, rarely talked about parties I
had attended, even rarer with other guys, and if I did, rarely
talked about women (especially in plural), and if I ever did, not
in a manner that would favor the use of trivializing terms.
I can't elaborate on the specific terms I used or didn't to talk
about women at college age, because these conversations would have
been in German, where the situation is a bit different. And at a
German university in the Eighties, which was a bit of a different
thing from a US college (I guess German universities these days
would be closer).
--
The bee must not pass judgment on the hive. (Voxish proverb)
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.125
> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:28:26 -0400, Oliver Cromm
> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:49:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
>>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
>>>>students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
>>>>When I was in college that was Forbidden.
>>>
>>> While times may have changed, I really do have a problem thinking that
>>> two college males will sit around and talk about some party they
>>> attended and the good looking ladies, women, or females that were
>>> there without reverting to a few trivializing terms. It just wouldn't
>>> be natural.
>>
>>So far, I have circumvented the issue by never having that kind of
>>conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
>
> Mr Bishop may have something to say about those two sentences combined
> as a statement. While it doesn't say that you were never of college
> age,
someone who is past college age once was of college age. I wanted
to stress that I lived through my whole college age phase, and the
years thereafter, when I might still be suspected to act like a
college boy, without having that kind of conversation. I even
spent the decades thereafter without the urge of doing belatedly
what I had missed during college. It's not to be expected that I
will have that kind of conversation in the future.
> it does imply that - when you were - you didn't engage in a
> conversations about women and that you didn't attend parties. While
> both may be possible, at least one is not probable.
having that kind of conversation". It clearly refers to the
talking only.
Expanding, I did attend few parties, rarely talked about parties I
had attended, even rarer with other guys, and if I did, rarely
talked about women (especially in plural), and if I ever did, not
in a manner that would favor the use of trivializing terms.
I can't elaborate on the specific terms I used or didn't to talk
about women at college age, because these conversations would have
been in German, where the situation is a bit different. And at a
German university in the Eighties, which was a bit of a different
thing from a US college (I guess German universities these days
would be closer).
--
The bee must not pass judgment on the hive. (Voxish proverb)
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.125
Tony Cooper
Sep 4, 2014, 3:22:44 PM9/4/14
to
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 13:41:52 -0400, Oliver Cromm
that could be ambiguous but the application of common sense would
remove the ambiguity.
When we examine these statements in isolation, as are wont to do here,
they come across as meaning something quite different from what should
be gleaned from them if we did apply common sense.
>> it does imply that - when you were - you didn't engage in a
>> conversations about women and that you didn't attend parties. While
>> both may be possible, at least one is not probable.
>
>I don't see where you get that I didn't attend parties from "never
>having that kind of conversation". It clearly refers to the
>talking only.
The party reference was in my comments that you included: "...sit
around and talk about some party they attended...". If you didn't
have those conversations, it implies that you didn't have those
conversations because you didn't attend the parties that they were
about.
>Expanding, I did attend few parties, rarely talked about parties I
>had attended, even rarer with other guys, and if I did, rarely
>talked about women (especially in plural), and if I ever did, not
>in a manner that would favor the use of trivializing terms.
Your medal is in the mail.
>I can't elaborate on the specific terms I used or didn't to talk
>about women at college age, because these conversations would have
>been in German, where the situation is a bit different. And at a
>German university in the Eighties, which was a bit of a different
>thing from a US college (I guess German universities these days
>would be closer).
Are you saying that male German university students in the 80s did not
talk about women? How strange.
<lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:28:26 -0400, Oliver Cromm
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:49:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
>>>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
>>>>>students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
>>>>>When I was in college that was Forbidden.
>>>>
>>>> While times may have changed, I really do have a problem thinking that
>>>> two college males will sit around and talk about some party they
>>>> attended and the good looking ladies, women, or females that were
>>>> there without reverting to a few trivializing terms. It just wouldn't
>>>> be natural.
>>>
>>>So far, I have circumvented the issue by never having that kind of
>>>conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
>>
>> Mr Bishop may have something to say about those two sentences combined
>> as a statement. While it doesn't say that you were never of college
>> age,
>
>Of course not. I presupposed the common-sense knowledge that
>someone who is past college age once was of college age.
The reason that I mentioned Mr Bishop is that he, too, used a sentence
>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:28:26 -0400, Oliver Cromm
>> <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2014 20:49:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
>>>> <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm shocked to hear college students referring to themselves and fellow
>>>>>students as "girls" and "kids" (but not "boys" very much, I think).
>>>>>When I was in college that was Forbidden.
>>>>
>>>> While times may have changed, I really do have a problem thinking that
>>>> two college males will sit around and talk about some party they
>>>> attended and the good looking ladies, women, or females that were
>>>> there without reverting to a few trivializing terms. It just wouldn't
>>>> be natural.
>>>
>>>So far, I have circumvented the issue by never having that kind of
>>>conversation. And I'm a bit past college age.
>>
>> Mr Bishop may have something to say about those two sentences combined
>> as a statement. While it doesn't say that you were never of college
>> age,
>
>Of course not. I presupposed the common-sense knowledge that
>someone who is past college age once was of college age.
that could be ambiguous but the application of common sense would
remove the ambiguity.
When we examine these statements in isolation, as are wont to do here,
they come across as meaning something quite different from what should
be gleaned from them if we did apply common sense.
>> it does imply that - when you were - you didn't engage in a
>> conversations about women and that you didn't attend parties. While
>> both may be possible, at least one is not probable.
>
>I don't see where you get that I didn't attend parties from "never
>having that kind of conversation". It clearly refers to the
>talking only.
around and talk about some party they attended...". If you didn't
have those conversations, it implies that you didn't have those
conversations because you didn't attend the parties that they were
about.
>Expanding, I did attend few parties, rarely talked about parties I
>had attended, even rarer with other guys, and if I did, rarely
>talked about women (especially in plural), and if I ever did, not
>in a manner that would favor the use of trivializing terms.
>I can't elaborate on the specific terms I used or didn't to talk
>about women at college age, because these conversations would have
>been in German, where the situation is a bit different. And at a
>German university in the Eighties, which was a bit of a different
>thing from a US college (I guess German universities these days
>would be closer).
talk about women? How strange.
David Kleinecke
Sep 4, 2014, 7:15:29 PM9/4/14
to
On Thursday, September 4, 2014 12:22:44 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> Are you saying that male German university students in the 80s did not
> talk about women? How strange.
At Berkeley in the late 40's my life was so intertwined
>
> Are you saying that male German university students in the 80s did not
> talk about women? How strange.
with women (of all kinds) that I cannot remember just
sitting around with the boys. The closest I can remember is
us physics TA's singing dirty songs together in the room
where we answered questions when there were no students
around.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages