Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Pink Pussy (Wodehouse)
184 views
Skip to first unread message
Adam Funk
Apr 30, 2013, 4:34:47 PM4/30/13
to
We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
time.
Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
evening.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
"pussy" back to 1699)?
--
Master Foo said: "A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like
a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers
it and burns his hand." --- Eric Raymond
references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
time.
Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
evening.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
"pussy" back to 1699)?
--
Master Foo said: "A man who mistakes secrets for knowledge is like
a man who, seeking light, hugs a candle so closely that he smothers
it and burns his hand." --- Eric Raymond
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Apr 30, 2013, 8:29:20 PM4/30/13
to
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:34:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
>We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
>references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
>the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
>time.
>
> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
> evening.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>
>Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>"pussy" back to 1699)?
A quick search finds that this has been discussed on various forums. No
one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
wrote:
>We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
>references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
>the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
>time.
>
> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
> evening.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>
>Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>"pussy" back to 1699)?
one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Adam Funk
May 1, 2013, 6:10:25 AM5/1/13
to
On 2013-05-01, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:34:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
...
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:34:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>>Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>>"pussy" back to 1699)?
>
> A quick search finds that this has been discussed on various forums. No
> one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
Aha! I've read some of the Jeeves & Wooster stories, but that's all.
>>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>>"pussy" back to 1699)?
>
> A quick search finds that this has been discussed on various forums. No
> one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."
Whiskers
May 1, 2013, 7:54:43 AM5/1/13
to
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yzmt1/profiles/freddie> and here
<http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/blandings/characters/>, which I find very
surprising. I watched some of the episodes when they were first
broadcast, and I've read most of the books, but I can't remember that name
coming to my attention before. I do have vague memories of the word "cat"
forming part of the name of a place of entertainment in Wodehouse works.
There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant. My
reaction to the TV series was that they'd failed to represent the crispness
of Wodehouse's dialogue and commentary.
Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freddie_Threepwood&oldid=538012270>
makes no mention of such a place, so I suspect it may be one of the
inventions of the scriptwriters of the TV series.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Iain Archer
May 1, 2013, 3:32:53 PM5/1/13
to
Whiskers wrote on Wed, 1 May 2013 at 12:54:43 GMT
I've been on a similar search and have definitely come to that
conclusion. I only watched a couple of minutes of the actual show, butt
it's fairly obvious from the reviews, forums, etc, that it's a loose
adaptation, with anachronisms and added daetail and plot, such as
Freddie Threepwood's inadvertent marriage in Episode 3, which was absent
from the source story.
One forum writer thought, I think credibly, that he hadn't seen any real
sexual innuendo in any Wodehouse.
"Purple Pussy Cat" did come to my mind, and I thought I'd struck gold
when I found, in a (2013) customer's review of Ariadne On Naxos CD:
'Her bright steady crystal coloratura soprano is ideal for the role, and
she acts perfectly as a "Hottie from the Purple Pussycat Club " as
Wodehouse would have no doubt described her.'
But then no purple or pink Wodehouse matches in Google Books, or
elsewhere, other than in pieces about the TV series: it's an invention,
that just possibly might leak into the presumed corpus if enough people
take its lead.
I did find a few innocent "pink pussy" hits in my Google Books search.
But there were certainly plenty of Pink Pussy Cat / Kat establishments
around. The most memorable ones I found were a bar reportedly bought by
a branch of the Billy Graham church, and a club to which Judge Earl
Warren Jr took his court in Sacramento for the part-hearing of a case
about nude dancers in 1969.
--
Iain Archer
conclusion. I only watched a couple of minutes of the actual show, butt
it's fairly obvious from the reviews, forums, etc, that it's a loose
adaptation, with anachronisms and added daetail and plot, such as
Freddie Threepwood's inadvertent marriage in Episode 3, which was absent
from the source story.
One forum writer thought, I think credibly, that he hadn't seen any real
sexual innuendo in any Wodehouse.
"Purple Pussy Cat" did come to my mind, and I thought I'd struck gold
when I found, in a (2013) customer's review of Ariadne On Naxos CD:
'Her bright steady crystal coloratura soprano is ideal for the role, and
she acts perfectly as a "Hottie from the Purple Pussycat Club " as
Wodehouse would have no doubt described her.'
But then no purple or pink Wodehouse matches in Google Books, or
elsewhere, other than in pieces about the TV series: it's an invention,
that just possibly might leak into the presumed corpus if enough people
take its lead.
I did find a few innocent "pink pussy" hits in my Google Books search.
But there were certainly plenty of Pink Pussy Cat / Kat establishments
around. The most memorable ones I found were a bar reportedly bought by
a branch of the Billy Graham church, and a club to which Judge Earl
Warren Jr took his court in Sacramento for the part-hearing of a case
about nude dancers in 1969.
--
Iain Archer
Vinny Burgoo
May 1, 2013, 3:39:27 PM5/1/13
to
In alt.usage.english, Adam Funk wrote:
>We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
>references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
>the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
>time.
>
> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
> evening.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>
>Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>"pussy" back to 1699)?
Well, Lloyd George addressed his wife as 'my darling Pussy'. Then again,
>We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
>references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
>the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
>time.
>
> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
> evening.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>
>Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>"pussy" back to 1699)?
he was a dirty old man.
(_Blandings_ has very little to do with Wodehouse. It's fart jokes in a
country house setting. V. disappointing. Though the bloke who looks like
Jedward is amusing.)
--
VB
Bart Dinnissen
May 1, 2013, 4:43:24 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 1 May 2013 20:39:27 +0100, in alt.usage.english Vinny Burgoo
<hlu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>(_Blandings_ has very little to do with Wodehouse. It's fart jokes in a
>country house setting. V. disappointing. Though the bloke who looks like
>Jedward is amusing.)
I watched the first half of the first episode and that was enough. I
<hlu...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>(_Blandings_ has very little to do with Wodehouse. It's fart jokes in a
>country house setting. V. disappointing. Though the bloke who looks like
>Jedward is amusing.)
liked the Fry and Laurie show much better; they captured the spirit of
the books, in my view.
--
Bart Dinnissen
I hate mysteries. They bug me. They need to be solved.
- Felicity Smoak in 'Arrow'
Mike L
May 1, 2013, 6:47:06 PM5/1/13
to
On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:10:25 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
pigshit. I watched the first five minutes of the opening episode and
was too appalled to carry on, so my own opinion is of limited value.
--
Mike.
wrote:
>On 2013-05-01, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:34:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>...
>>>Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>>>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>>>"pussy" back to 1699)?
>>
>> A quick search finds that this has been discussed on various forums. No
>> one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
>
>
>Aha! I've read some of the Jeeves & Wooster stories, but that's all.
The consensus among connoisseurs is that the TV series is a bucket of
>On 2013-05-01, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:34:47 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>...
>>>Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>>>non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>>>"pussy" back to 1699)?
>>
>> A quick search finds that this has been discussed on various forums. No
>> one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
>
>
>Aha! I've read some of the Jeeves & Wooster stories, but that's all.
pigshit. I watched the first five minutes of the opening episode and
was too appalled to carry on, so my own opinion is of limited value.
--
Mike.
Katy Jennison
May 2, 2013, 6:15:47 AM5/2/13
to
On 01/05/2013 23:47, Mike L wrote:
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:10:25 +0100, Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-01, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:34:47 +0100, Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>>>> non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>>>> "pussy" back to 1699)?
>>>
>>> A quick search finds that this has been discussed on various forums. No
>>> one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
>>
>>
>> Aha! I've read some of the Jeeves& Wooster stories, but that's all.
> On Wed, 01 May 2013 11:10:25 +0100, Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-01, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:34:47 +0100, Adam Funk<a24...@ducksburg.com>
>>> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Was this actually in Wodehouse? Could he possibly have used it
>>>> non-innuendously (given that the OED has "The female genitals" for
>>>> "pussy" back to 1699)?
>>>
>>> A quick search finds that this has been discussed on various forums. No
>>> one who has read Wodehouse's original can recall it from there.
>>
>>
>
> The consensus among connoisseurs is that the TV series is a bucket of
> pigshit. I watched the first five minutes of the opening episode and
> was too appalled to carry on, so my own opinion is of limited value.
>
I watched about twenty minutes before giving up. If you like Lesson 1
> The consensus among connoisseurs is that the TV series is a bucket of
> pigshit. I watched the first five minutes of the opening episode and
> was too appalled to carry on, so my own opinion is of limited value.
>
of Bad Acting A0101, comically-exaggerated caricatures of stock
stereotypes , then you might be mildly entertained, but Wodehouse it
isn't. Any more than the recently-televised (in the UK) travesties of
Father Brown stories were Chesterton.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 2, 2013, 7:45:36 AM5/2/13
to
was enough to get a general impression of the style. I managed to watch
the whole of the TV series but found it disappointing. It didn't match
my, admittedly hazy, memories of the original.
I was rather more interested in the associated documentary about the
making of the series. The series was shot in Northern Ireland, mainly in
Crom Castle. John Crichton, the son of owner of the castle is a
businessman who attended drama school and actually played the part of an
under-butler in the series.
http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/4925/crom-castle-hosts-bbc-production-blandings
That article refers to the company that produced the documentary as
"Green Ink". That is a typo. It is "Green Inc" or, in full, "Green Inc
Film and Television Ltd".
Adam Funk
May 2, 2013, 7:47:25 AM5/2/13
to
On 2013-05-01, Whiskers wrote:
> The name is openly mentioned here
><http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yzmt1/profiles/freddie> and here
><http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/blandings/characters/>, which I find very
> surprising. I watched some of the episodes when they were first
> broadcast, and I've read most of the books, but I can't remember that name
> coming to my attention before. I do have vague memories of the word "cat"
> forming part of the name of a place of entertainment in Wodehouse works.
>
> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant. My
> reaction to the TV series was that they'd failed to represent the crispness
> of Wodehouse's dialogue and commentary.
>
> Wikipedia
><https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freddie_Threepwood&oldid=538012270>
> makes no mention of such a place, so I suspect it may be one of the
> inventions of the scriptwriters of the TV series.
...and the subject of much irritation, it turns out!
> The name is openly mentioned here
><http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00yzmt1/profiles/freddie> and here
><http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/blandings/characters/>, which I find very
> surprising. I watched some of the episodes when they were first
> broadcast, and I've read most of the books, but I can't remember that name
> coming to my attention before. I do have vague memories of the word "cat"
> forming part of the name of a place of entertainment in Wodehouse works.
>
> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant. My
> reaction to the TV series was that they'd failed to represent the crispness
> of Wodehouse's dialogue and commentary.
>
> Wikipedia
><https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freddie_Threepwood&oldid=538012270>
> makes no mention of such a place, so I suspect it may be one of the
> inventions of the scriptwriters of the TV series.
--
The Nixon I remembered was absolutely humorless; I couldn't imagine
him laughing at anything except maybe a paraplegic who wanted to vote
Democratic but couldn't quite reach the lever on the voting machine.
--- Hunter S Thompson
Adam Funk
May 2, 2013, 8:07:27 AM5/2/13
to
On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> I may have read only one of Wodehouse's Blandings Castle stories but it
> was enough to get a general impression of the style. I managed to watch
> the whole of the TV series but found it disappointing. It didn't match
> my, admittedly hazy, memories of the original.
>
> I was rather more interested in the associated documentary about the
> making of the series. The series was shot in Northern Ireland, mainly in
> Crom Castle. John Crichton, the son of owner of the castle is a
> businessman who attended drama school and actually played the part of an
> under-butler in the series.
> http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/4925/crom-castle-hosts-bbc-production-blandings
>
> That article refers to the company that produced the documentary as
> "Green Ink". That is a typo. It is "Green Inc" or, in full, "Green Inc
> Film and Television Ltd".
I am shocked that one is allowed to use "Inc" & "Ltd" in the same
> I may have read only one of Wodehouse's Blandings Castle stories but it
> was enough to get a general impression of the style. I managed to watch
> the whole of the TV series but found it disappointing. It didn't match
> my, admittedly hazy, memories of the original.
>
> I was rather more interested in the associated documentary about the
> making of the series. The series was shot in Northern Ireland, mainly in
> Crom Castle. John Crichton, the son of owner of the castle is a
> businessman who attended drama school and actually played the part of an
> under-butler in the series.
> http://www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/4925/crom-castle-hosts-bbc-production-blandings
>
> That article refers to the company that produced the documentary as
> "Green Ink". That is a typo. It is "Green Inc" or, in full, "Green Inc
> Film and Television Ltd".
name.
--
A book lying idle on a shelf is wasted ammunition.
--- Henry Miller
Iain Archer
May 2, 2013, 8:40:13 AM5/2/13
to
Adam Funk wrote on Thu, 2 May 2013 at 13:07:27 GMT
Presumably because Inc. isn't used in the UK as a specifier of company
status. I've not seen any mention of its prohibition in the Companies
House summary guidance on permitted company names
<http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp1.shtml>, and it's easy
to find other instances of "Inc. Ltd" in real company names..
--
Iain Archer
status. I've not seen any mention of its prohibition in the Companies
House summary guidance on permitted company names
<http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp1.shtml>, and it's easy
to find other instances of "Inc. Ltd" in real company names..
--
Iain Archer
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 2, 2013, 11:43:42 AM5/2/13
to
On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:07:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
Ah but... "Inc" has no special meaning in a company name in the UK.
The logo for Green Inc Film and Television Ltd has the wording "Green
inc.". I wonder what "inc." stands for?
The website for the company gives no clue as to the choice of name.
"Green Inc", in full: Green Inc Film and Television Ltd, is based in the
Belfast region. There appears to be another company nearer the centre of
Belfast named "Green Ink Productions" offering "Audio Visual Services".
Diversion:
I've just been for a haircut. On my way from the carpark to the barber's
I made a 90 second detour to the address given for "Green Ink
Productions". The address is that of a a converted three-storey house on
the corner of a shopping street. The front entrance leades to a pizza
place on the ground floor. The entrance to business offices in the
building is at the side. There are 4 bell-pushes of which only two are
labelled. Green Ink is not mentioned. The reason I bothered to look at
it is that the address seemed familiar. That thought was confirmed. A
couple of my friends used to run a small business from a one or two room
office in that building.
wrote:
The logo for Green Inc Film and Television Ltd has the wording "Green
inc.". I wonder what "inc." stands for?
The website for the company gives no clue as to the choice of name.
"Green Inc", in full: Green Inc Film and Television Ltd, is based in the
Belfast region. There appears to be another company nearer the centre of
Belfast named "Green Ink Productions" offering "Audio Visual Services".
Diversion:
I've just been for a haircut. On my way from the carpark to the barber's
I made a 90 second detour to the address given for "Green Ink
Productions". The address is that of a a converted three-storey house on
the corner of a shopping street. The front entrance leades to a pizza
place on the ground floor. The entrance to business offices in the
building is at the side. There are 4 bell-pushes of which only two are
labelled. Green Ink is not mentioned. The reason I bothered to look at
it is that the address seemed familiar. That thought was confirmed. A
couple of my friends used to run a small business from a one or two room
office in that building.
Mike L
May 2, 2013, 6:33:31 PM5/2/13
to
somebody's bed.
--
Mike.
Adam Funk
May 3, 2013, 7:54:46 AM5/3/13
to
On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:07:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> That article refers to the company that produced the documentary as
>>> "Green Ink". That is a typo. It is "Green Inc" or, in full, "Green Inc
>>> Film and Television Ltd".
>>
>>
>>I am shocked that one is allowed to use "Inc" & "Ltd" in the same
>>name.
>
> Ah but... "Inc" has no special meaning in a company name in the UK.
You can usually assume any post of mine that starts with "I am
> On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:07:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>> That article refers to the company that produced the documentary as
>>> "Green Ink". That is a typo. It is "Green Inc" or, in full, "Green Inc
>>> Film and Television Ltd".
>>
>>
>>I am shocked that one is allowed to use "Inc" & "Ltd" in the same
>>name.
>
> Ah but... "Inc" has no special meaning in a company name in the UK.
shocked" is facetious.
--
When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him
whose? --- Don Marquis
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 3, 2013, 7:18:39 PM5/3/13
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
> On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:07:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>>>> That article refers to the company that produced the documentary
>>>> as "Green Ink". That is a typo. It is "Green Inc" or, in full,
>>>> "Green Inc Film and Television Ltd".
>>>
>>>I am shocked that one is allowed to use "Inc" & "Ltd" in the same
>>>name.
>>
>> Ah but... "Inc" has no special meaning in a company name in the UK.
>
> You can usually assume any post of mine that starts with "I am
> shocked" is facetious.
Your winnings, sir.
> On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 02 May 2013 13:07:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2013-05-02, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>>>> That article refers to the company that produced the documentary
>>>> as "Green Ink". That is a typo. It is "Green Inc" or, in full,
>>>> "Green Inc Film and Television Ltd".
>>>
>>>I am shocked that one is allowed to use "Inc" & "Ltd" in the same
>>>name.
>>
>> Ah but... "Inc" has no special meaning in a company name in the UK.
>
> You can usually assume any post of mine that starts with "I am
> shocked" is facetious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |I'd be far from lying if I neglected
SF Bay Area (1982-) |to deny that I couldn't help but
Chicago (1964-1982) |fail to disagree less.
|
evan.kir...@gmail.com | R H Draney
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Adam Funk
May 4, 2013, 4:37:34 PM5/4/13
to
On 2013-05-03, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>> You can usually assume any post of mine that starts with "I am
>> shocked" is facetious.
>
> Your winnings, sir.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
Yup!
--
A man can't just sit around.
--- Larry Walters
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> writes:
>> You can usually assume any post of mine that starts with "I am
>> shocked" is facetious.
>
> Your winnings, sir.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
--
A man can't just sit around.
--- Larry Walters
woodiewo...@yahoo.com
May 26, 2013, 8:49:54 PM5/26/13
to
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
[...]
> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
[...]
> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
May 27, 2013, 3:19:28 AM5/27/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 17:49:54 -0700 (PDT), woodiewo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I've met it in BrE outside Wodehouse, probably in material of a similar
era.
I think if it were used today my defualt assumption would be that it
referred to the profile of the face.
wrote:
era.
I think if it were used today my defualt assumption would be that it
referred to the profile of the face.
Whiskers
May 27, 2013, 6:37:56 AM5/27/13
to
On 2013-05-27, woodiewo...@yahoo.com <woodiewo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
means of the head or face only.
> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
I don't think it's a meaning I've ever encountered before. Mention of
someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
applicable to describing those.
The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>
> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
> profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
>
> [...]
>
>> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>
> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
> profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
means of the head or face only.
> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
applicable to describing those.
The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
Adam Funk
May 27, 2013, 4:25:54 PM5/27/13
to
--
There's no money in poetry, but there's no poetry in
money either. --- Robert Graves
Iain Archer
May 27, 2013, 6:12:08 PM5/27/13
to
Whiskers wrote on Mon, 27 May 2013 at 11:37:56 GMT
in the first quarter of the the 1900s.
certain. What I'd really like to see, from followers of Wodehouse's
innuendoing, are some other nice in-your-face alleged instances.
testing in the 1920s, to describe the pattern of results obtained when a
person took a battery of tests. That usage contains the ideas of a
two-dimensional representation, and of a personal summary, so not
perhaps a large step to a more general "personal profile" -- assuming
that they occurred in that order.
>and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
>'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
>the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
>
--
Iain Archer
>On 2013-05-27, woodiewo...@yahoo.com <woodiewo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>>
>> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
>> profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
>Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
>
>A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
>thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
>means of the head or face only.
Thiose were the sole physiognomic instances that I found in Google Books
>wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>>
>> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
>> profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
>Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
>
>A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
>thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
>means of the head or face only.
in the first quarter of the the 1900s.
>
>> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
>
>I don't think it's a meaning I've ever encountered before. Mention of
>someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
>intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
>applicable to describing those.
I was doubtful that Wodehouse would use it so, but I'm not wholly
>> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
>
>I don't think it's a meaning I've ever encountered before. Mention of
>someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
>intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
>applicable to describing those.
certain. What I'd really like to see, from followers of Wodehouse's
innuendoing, are some other nice in-your-face alleged instances.
>
>The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
>life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
>writing; before circa 2000,
Well, I did find "profile" used, in the early days of psychometric
>The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
>life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
>writing; before circa 2000,
testing in the 1920s, to describe the pattern of results obtained when a
person took a battery of tests. That usage contains the ideas of a
two-dimensional representation, and of a personal summary, so not
perhaps a large step to a more general "personal profile" -- assuming
that they occurred in that order.
>and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
>'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
>the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
>
--
Mike L
May 27, 2013, 6:24:26 PM5/27/13
to
On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:37:56 +0100, Whiskers
<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>On 2013-05-27, woodiewo...@yahoo.com <woodiewo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>>
>> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
>> profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
>Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
>
>A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
>thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
>means of the head or face only.
That would always be my interpretation unless context suggested
<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>On 2013-05-27, woodiewo...@yahoo.com <woodiewo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>>
>> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
>> profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
>Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
>
>A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
>thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
>means of the head or face only.
otherwise.
>
>> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
>
>I don't think it's a meaning I've ever encountered before. Mention of
>someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
>intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
>applicable to describing those.
>
>The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
>life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
>writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
>'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
>the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
I felt sure I'd seen a regular column in The Observer called "Profile"
>> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
>
>I don't think it's a meaning I've ever encountered before. Mention of
>someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
>intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
>applicable to describing those.
>
>The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
>life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
>writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
>'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
>the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
in the 'fifties or 'sixties; but I was surprised to find that OED has
the "word-picture" use from 1734 onward.
--
Mike.
woodiewo...@yahoo.com
May 27, 2013, 7:19:52 PM5/27/13
to
On Monday, May 27, 2013 3:37:56 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
pro·file
1. a. A side view of an object or structure, especially of the human head.
b. A representation of an object or structure seen from the side.
Note that it says "especially of the human head", not "only of the human head". Any side view can be called a profile and that's what Wodehouse was doing.
The amount the breasts protrude, a good indication of size, is best discernible from a side view. Probably most of us have seen a side-view silhouette of a nude female body. It does a good job of emphasizing the beauty of the female form. See, for example
http://media.photobucket.com/user/ToxicPunk666/media/silhouettes/FotoFlexer_Photo5.jpg.html?
I have little doubt that Plum's family-environmental way of saying a girl had nice big breasts was to say that she had a great profile.
> A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
> thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
> means of the head or face only.
Again, Whiskers's word "often" instead of "always" is highly significant.
> > Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
> I don't think it's a meaning I've ever encountered before. Mention of
> someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
> intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
> applicable to describing those.
In describing a girl's charms, the size of her breasts is often very much the focus of attention. The size and consequent amount of protrusion can best be seen from the side, or profile view.
Sometime in past decades I've seen the following definition of "charm":
Charm is that indefinable something possessed by any girl with a
38-inch bust.
> The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
> life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
> writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
> 'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
> the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
"Breasts"? "Tactile"? Pardon me if my mind wanders.
> On 2013-05-27, woodie...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> > [...]
> >> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
> > Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
> > profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
> Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
Dictionary time (American Heritage):
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
> > [...]
> >> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
> > Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
> > profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
> Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
pro·file
1. a. A side view of an object or structure, especially of the human head.
b. A representation of an object or structure seen from the side.
Note that it says "especially of the human head", not "only of the human head". Any side view can be called a profile and that's what Wodehouse was doing.
The amount the breasts protrude, a good indication of size, is best discernible from a side view. Probably most of us have seen a side-view silhouette of a nude female body. It does a good job of emphasizing the beauty of the female form. See, for example
http://media.photobucket.com/user/ToxicPunk666/media/silhouettes/FotoFlexer_Photo5.jpg.html?
I have little doubt that Plum's family-environmental way of saying a girl had nice big breasts was to say that she had a great profile.
> A profile in this context is a 'view from one side' or 'the outline of a
> thing seen from one side'. When referring to a person, 'profile' often
> means of the head or face only.
> > Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
> I don't think it's a meaning I've ever encountered before. Mention of
> someone's profile is common enough, but mammary glands are seldom the
> intended focus of attention. There are a great many other expressions
> applicable to describing those.
Sometime in past decades I've seen the following definition of "charm":
Charm is that indefinable something possessed by any girl with a
38-inch bust.
> The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
> life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than Wodehouse's
> writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the internet' or
> 'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security services' are
> the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile thing.
Robert Bannister
May 27, 2013, 8:52:48 PM5/27/13
to
and possibly legs. In my mind, I am seeing a silhouette that I can at a
glance is very feminine.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
May 27, 2013, 8:53:26 PM5/27/13
to
On 28/05/13 4:25 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-05-27, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 17:49:54 -0700 (PDT), woodiewo...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>
>>> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>>>
>>> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
>>
>> I've met it in BrE outside Wodehouse, probably in material of a similar
>> era.
>>
>> I think if it were used today my defualt assumption would be that it
>> referred to the profile of the face.
>
> O tempora, o mores.
Let's keep Japanese cuisine out of this, please.
> On 2013-05-27, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013 17:49:54 -0700 (PDT), woodiewo...@yahoo.com
>> wrote:
>
>>> Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>>>
>>> Is that a meaning that's found in British English outside Wodehouse?
>>
>> I've met it in BrE outside Wodehouse, probably in material of a similar
>> era.
>>
>> I think if it were used today my defualt assumption would be that it
>> referred to the profile of the face.
>
> O tempora, o mores.
--
Robert Bannister
Whiskers
May 28, 2013, 10:19:00 AM5/28/13
to
On 2013-05-28, woodiewo...@yahoo.com <woodiewo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> In describing a girl's charms, the size of her breasts is often very much
> the focus of attention. The size and consequent amount of protrusion can
> best be seen from the side, or profile view.
>
> Sometime in past decades I've seen the following definition of "charm":
>
> Charm is that indefinable something possessed by any girl with a
> 38-inch bust.
The distinction between "gourmet" and "gourmand" springs to mind.
>> The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
>> life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than
>> Wodehouse's writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the
>> internet' or 'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security
>> services' are the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile
>> thing.
>
> "Breasts"? "Tactile"? Pardon me if my mind wanders.
You are clutching at straws.
wrote:
> On Monday, May 27, 2013 3:37:56 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>> On 2013-05-27, woodie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
>> > [...]
>
>> >> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>
>> > Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
>> > profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
>> Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
[...]
>> On 2013-05-27, woodie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
>> > [...]
>
>> >> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>
>> > Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
>> > profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
>> Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
> In describing a girl's charms, the size of her breasts is often very much
> the focus of attention. The size and consequent amount of protrusion can
> best be seen from the side, or profile view.
>
> Sometime in past decades I've seen the following definition of "charm":
>
> Charm is that indefinable something possessed by any girl with a
> 38-inch bust.
>> The use of 'profile' to mean a description of a person's character or
>> life-style or biography or social conduct is more recent than
>> Wodehouse's writing; before circa 2000, and subsequently too unless 'the
>> internet' or 'computers' or 'the world-wide web' or 'police and security
>> services' are the context, a 'profile' is a purely visual or tactile
>> thing.
>
> "Breasts"? "Tactile"? Pardon me if my mind wanders.
Mike L
May 28, 2013, 4:25:34 PM5/28/13
to
--
Mike.
Jerry Friedman
May 28, 2013, 5:15:23 PM5/28/13
to
On May 27, 4:37 am, Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-27, woodiewordpec...@yahoo.com <woodiewordpec...@yahoo.com>
I've seen a later citation of a side view as a delicate way of saying
the best view of a woman's figure or specifically breasts, though not
with the word "profile".
"A generation that has seen the polar ice cap from underneath, the
moon from behind, Mars headon and Jayne Mansfield sideways, surely
isn't going to be stumped by even this complex problem."
Dr. W. W. Gillam, referring to the Western [U.S.] regional water
problem, 1966.
By the way, this morning I heard a news report on a meeting to
allocate water from the Colorado River. The meeting is not expected
to go smoothly.
--
Jerry Friedman
> On 2013-05-27, woodiewordpec...@yahoo.com <woodiewordpec...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>
> > Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
> > profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
> Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
...
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 4:54:43 AM UTC-7, Whiskers Catwheezel wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> There's no shortage of innuendo in Wodehouse, but not that blatant.
>
> > Wodehouse sometimes had a character say that a girl had a marvelous
> > profile. I took that to mean that she had very pleasing breasts.
>
> Unlikely, as in profile there isn't much of a lady's bosom to behold.
I've seen a later citation of a side view as a delicate way of saying
the best view of a woman's figure or specifically breasts, though not
with the word "profile".
"A generation that has seen the polar ice cap from underneath, the
moon from behind, Mars headon and Jayne Mansfield sideways, surely
isn't going to be stumped by even this complex problem."
Dr. W. W. Gillam, referring to the Western [U.S.] regional water
problem, 1966.
By the way, this morning I heard a news report on a meeting to
allocate water from the Colorado River. The meeting is not expected
to go smoothly.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
May 28, 2013, 8:50:38 PM5/28/13
to
--
Robert Bannister
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
woodiewo...@yahoo.com
May 29, 2013, 1:56:40 AM5/29/13
to
On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
> In message <d5094c61...@googlegroups.com>
[...]
> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
> stupider than that.
Sorry, I can't let that one pass. It tends to perpetuate a common misunderstanding about the meaning of "average". Half of people would be stupider than the median stupid person, but the word "average" usually refers to the mean, not the median.
For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American Heritage Dictionary:
ar·ith·met·ic mean
n.
The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
Consider the set of numbers [1,2,3,4,5,25]. The mean of the numbers, commonly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only one value is more than that, while five are less. But the median of the numbers is 3.5, because half are less than that and half are more.
True, I've used a lopsided set to emphasize my point, but it's generally to be expected that any real-world distribution will have different median and mean.
You could more truthfully say:
Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
stupider than that.
> In message <d5094c61...@googlegroups.com>
[...]
> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
> stupider than that.
Sorry, I can't let that one pass. It tends to perpetuate a common misunderstanding about the meaning of "average". Half of people would be stupider than the median stupid person, but the word "average" usually refers to the mean, not the median.
For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American Heritage Dictionary:
ar·ith·met·ic mean
n.
The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
Consider the set of numbers [1,2,3,4,5,25]. The mean of the numbers, commonly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only one value is more than that, while five are less. But the median of the numbers is 3.5, because half are less than that and half are more.
True, I've used a lopsided set to emphasize my point, but it's generally to be expected that any real-world distribution will have different median and mean.
You could more truthfully say:
Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
stupider than that.
R H Draney
May 29, 2013, 3:45:39 AM5/29/13
to
woodiewo...@yahoo.com filted:
>standing about the meaning of "average". Half of people would be stupider =
>than the median stupid person, but the word "average" usually refers to the=
> mean, not the median.
>
>For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American He=
>ritage Dictionary:
>
> ar=B7ith=B7met=B7ic mean
>nly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only one value is more th=
>an that, while five are less. But the median of the numbers is 3.5, becaus=
> be expected that any real-world distribution will have different median an=
>d mean. =20
larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
the numbers of observations are small....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <d5094c61...@googlegroups.com>=20
>On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
>Sorry, I can't let that one pass. It tends to perpetuate a common misunder=
>[...]
>
>> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
>standing about the meaning of "average". Half of people would be stupider =
>than the median stupid person, but the word "average" usually refers to the=
> mean, not the median.
>
>For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American He=
>ritage Dictionary:
>
> ar=B7ith=B7met=B7ic mean
> n.
> The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
> number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
>
>Consider the set of numbers [1,2,3,4,5,25]. The mean of the numbers, commo=
> The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
> number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
>
>nly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only one value is more th=
>an that, while five are less. But the median of the numbers is 3.5, becaus=
>e half are less than that and half are more.
>
>True, I've used a lopsided set to emphasize my point, but it's generally to=
>
> be expected that any real-world distribution will have different median an=
>d mean. =20
>
>You could more truthfully say:
>
> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
> stupider than that.
Mean and median are the same for "normal" distributions, as well as for the
>You could more truthfully say:
>
> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
> stupider than that.
larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
the numbers of observations are small....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Adam Funk
May 29, 2013, 5:35:54 AM5/29/13
to
On 2013-05-29, R H Draney wrote:
> woodiewo...@yahoo.com filted:
>>You could more truthfully say:
>>
>> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
> Mean and median are the same for "normal" distributions, as well as for the
> larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
> appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
> deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
> the numbers of observations are small....r
Is stupidity a normal distribution? If it's defined as negative IQ,
it must be; but is that the right definition?
(99.something% of the population have more than the mean number of arms
& legs!)
--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
> woodiewo...@yahoo.com filted:
>>You could more truthfully say:
>>
>> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
> Mean and median are the same for "normal" distributions, as well as for the
> larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
> appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
> deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
> the numbers of observations are small....r
it must be; but is that the right definition?
(99.something% of the population have more than the mean number of arms
& legs!)
--
Nam Sibbyllam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla
pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: beable beable beable; respondebat
illa: doidy doidy doidy. [plorkwort]
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 29, 2013, 6:31:00 AM5/29/13
to
On 2013-05-29 11:35:54 +0200, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> said:
> On 2013-05-29, R H Draney wrote:
>
>> woodiewo...@yahoo.com filted:
>
>>> You could more truthfully say:
>>>
>>> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
>>> stupider than that.
>>
>> Mean and median are the same for "normal" distributions, as well as for the
>> larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
>> appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
>> deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
>> the numbers of observations are small....r
>
>
> Is stupidity a normal distribution? If it's defined as negative IQ,
> it must be; but is that the right definition?
>
> (99.something% of the population have more than the mean number of arms
> & legs!)
Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
> On 2013-05-29, R H Draney wrote:
>
>> woodiewo...@yahoo.com filted:
>
>>> You could more truthfully say:
>>>
>>> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
>>> stupider than that.
>>
>> Mean and median are the same for "normal" distributions, as well as for the
>> larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
>> appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
>> deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
>> the numbers of observations are small....r
>
>
> Is stupidity a normal distribution? If it's defined as negative IQ,
> it must be; but is that the right definition?
>
> (99.something% of the population have more than the mean number of arms
> & legs!)
number of testicles.
--
athel
R H Draney
May 29, 2013, 10:28:21 AM5/29/13
to
Athel Cornish-Bowden filted:
The average Floridian, it is said, is born Hispanic and dies Jewish....r
Whiskers
May 29, 2013, 7:21:22 AM5/29/13
to
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 29, 2013, 8:38:28 PM5/29/13
to
woodiewo...@yahoo.com writes:
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <d5094c61...@googlegroups.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
> Sorry, I can't let that one pass. It tends to perpetuate a common
> misunderstanding about the meaning of "average". Half of people
> would be stupider than the median stupid person, but the word
> "average" usually refers to the mean, not the median.
>
> For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> ar·ith·met·ic mean
> n.
> The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
> number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
>
> Consider the set of numbers [1,2,3,4,5,25]. The mean of the
> numbers, commonly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only
> one value is more than that, while five are less. But the median of
> the numbers is 3.5, because half are less than that and half are
> more.
>
> True, I've used a lopsided set to emphasize my point, but it's
> generally to be expected that any real-world distribution will have
> different median and mean.
Different, but typically not terribly so. A lot of data is normally
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <d5094c61...@googlegroups.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
> Sorry, I can't let that one pass. It tends to perpetuate a common
> misunderstanding about the meaning of "average". Half of people
> would be stupider than the median stupid person, but the word
> "average" usually refers to the mean, not the median.
>
> For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> ar·ith·met·ic mean
> n.
> The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
> number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
>
> Consider the set of numbers [1,2,3,4,5,25]. The mean of the
> numbers, commonly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only
> one value is more than that, while five are less. But the median of
> the numbers is 3.5, because half are less than that and half are
> more.
>
> True, I've used a lopsided set to emphasize my point, but it's
> generally to be expected that any real-world distribution will have
> different median and mean.
distributed, or nearly so, which means that the mean and median will
be very close. Since most of the mass of a normal distribution is
very near the mean, even a reasonably large perturbation isn't going
to move the median all that much. Where things aren't simply normally
distributed, they are often interpretable as the sum of two or more
normal distributions.
For example, looking at the data at
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0209.pdf
the mean height for 30-39-year-old men in the US was 69.5 inches,
while the median was about 69.6. It's only when you average together
populations that you expect to systemmatically differ (such as men and
women or adults and children) that you expect to see large
differences.
> You could more truthfully say:
>
> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of
> them are stupider than that.
by a normal distribution. For the SAT math test last year (for
college-bound seniors), the mean score was 514 and the median was
513. For Critical reading, the mean was 496 and the median was 497.
(To the precision I can tell from their tables.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If to "man" a phone implies handing
SF Bay Area (1982-) |it over to a person of the male
Chicago (1964-1982) |gender, then to "monitor" it
|suggests handing it over to a
evan.kir...@gmail.com |lizard.
| Rohan Oberoi
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister
May 29, 2013, 8:50:12 PM5/29/13
to
On 29/05/13 1:56 PM, woodiewo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <d5094c61...@googlegroups.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
> Sorry, I can't let that one pass. It tends to perpetuate a common misunderstanding about the meaning of "average". Half of people would be stupider than the median stupid person, but the word "average" usually refers to the mean, not the median.
>
> For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> ar�ith�met�ic mean
> n.
> The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
> number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
>
> Consider the set of numbers [1,2,3,4,5,25]. The mean of the numbers, commonly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only one value is more than that, while five are less. But the median of the numbers is 3.5, because half are less than that and half are more.
>
> True, I've used a lopsided set to emphasize my point, but it's generally to be expected that any real-world distribution will have different median and mean.
That is why the "average wage" is so much higher than many people earn
> On Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:45:31 PM UTC-7, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <d5094c61...@googlegroups.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are
>> stupider than that.
>
> Sorry, I can't let that one pass. It tends to perpetuate a common misunderstanding about the meaning of "average". Half of people would be stupider than the median stupid person, but the word "average" usually refers to the mean, not the median.
>
> For example, consider the definition of "arithmetic mean" in an American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> ar�ith�met�ic mean
> n.
> The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the
> number of quantities in the set. Also called _average_.
>
> Consider the set of numbers [1,2,3,4,5,25]. The mean of the numbers, commonly called the average, is approximately 6.6667. Only one value is more than that, while five are less. But the median of the numbers is 3.5, because half are less than that and half are more.
>
> True, I've used a lopsided set to emphasize my point, but it's generally to be expected that any real-world distribution will have different median and mean.
and why governments like publishing it.
--
Robert Bannister
woodiewo...@yahoo.com
May 30, 2013, 1:33:28 AM5/30/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:45:39 AM UTC-7, R H Draney wrote:
> woodie...@yahoo.com filted:
Whether or not intelligence is normally distributed turns out to be a lively subject of debate For example, see
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-4771.html
I find most persuasive the points made by those who don't think intelligence is normally distributed. But just the fact that the matter is vigorously debated makes a normal-distribution defense of the statement that is at issue here questionable.
--
Sparky
> woodie...@yahoo.com filted:
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-4771.html
I find most persuasive the points made by those who don't think intelligence is normally distributed. But just the fact that the matter is vigorously debated makes a normal-distribution defense of the statement that is at issue here questionable.
--
Sparky
Adam Funk
May 30, 2013, 9:00:01 AM5/30/13
to
few things to consider.
1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
gives a mean of 1.0081.
2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
(fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
little over 1.
3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
make a dent in the mean.
--
You're the last hope for vaudeville.
--- Groucho Marx to Alice Cooper
Peter Brooks
May 30, 2013, 9:50:43 AM5/30/13
to
On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> make a dent in the mean.
>
Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>
>
> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> make a dent in the mean.
>
I read, the other day, that, for dogs, you can by prosthetic testicles
that come in three different grades of squishiness. I wonder how the
owners decide, presumably the choice will affect their dog's enjoyment
of his meditative licking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuticles
Peter Young
May 30, 2013, 10:31:53 AM5/30/13
to
On 30 May 2013 Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer;
Or for torsion.
> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_torsion
Incidentally, the mean number of legs in the population is somewhat
less than one also.
Peter
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 30, 2013, 12:00:25 PM5/30/13
to
choir, not to mention as a qualification for working in a harem.
> Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> make a dent in the mean.
--
Athel Cornish-Bowden
May 30, 2013, 12:03:27 PM5/30/13
to
On 2013-05-30 16:31:53 +0200, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> said:
> On 30 May 2013 Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer;
>
> Or for torsion.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_torsion
>
> Incidentally, the mean number of legs in the population is somewhat
> less than one also.
That is not a population that I live in. In your days as as
> On 30 May 2013 Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer;
>
> Or for torsion.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_torsion
>
> Incidentally, the mean number of legs in the population is somewhat
> less than one also.
anaesthetist you must have worked mainly on major-accident victims.
Even then I'd be surprised at a mean less than 1.99.
--
athel
Peter Young
May 30, 2013, 1:07:25 PM5/30/13
to
tobacco industry has on the circulation. I have seen a figure claiming
to be the average number of legs, but I can't remember where or what
it was. Old men forget.
Peter.
Adam Funk
May 30, 2013, 3:23:23 PM5/30/13
to
On 2013-05-30, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2013-05-30 15:00:01 +0200, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> said:
>> On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>> number of testicles.
>>
>> To within ±1? Actually, I wonder what the mean is. I googled up a
>> few things to consider.
>>
>> 1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>
>> 2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>> little over 1.
>>
>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer;
>
> In the past there was aso orchidectomy as a way of staying in the
> choir, not to mention as a qualification for working in a harem.
I don't think that has much of an effect on the current numbers,
> On 2013-05-30 15:00:01 +0200, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> said:
>> On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>> number of testicles.
>>
>> To within ±1? Actually, I wonder what the mean is. I googled up a
>> few things to consider.
>>
>> 1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>
>> 2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>> little over 1.
>>
>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer;
>
> In the past there was aso orchidectomy as a way of staying in the
> choir, not to mention as a qualification for working in a harem.
though.
--
A recent study conducted by Harvard University found that the average
American walks about 900 miles a year. Another study by the AMA found
that Americans drink, on average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. This
means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/average-americans-mpg
Adam Funk
May 30, 2013, 3:22:29 PM5/30/13
to
On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>> make a dent in the mean.
>>
> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>> make a dent in the mean.
>>
> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
> I read, the other day, that, for dogs, you can by prosthetic testicles
> that come in three different grades of squishiness. I wonder how the
> owners decide, presumably the choice will affect their dog's enjoyment
> of his meditative licking.
--
Master Foo once said to a visiting programmer: "There is more
Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in ten
thousand lines of C." --- Eric Raymond
Peter Young
May 30, 2013, 5:21:29 PM5/30/13
to
On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>
>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>
>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
Leslie Danks
May 30, 2013, 5:44:11 PM5/30/13
to
Peter Young wrote:
> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>
>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>
>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>
> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
But could save your life if you fall overboard during an ocean cruise.
> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>
>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>
>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>
> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
--
Les (BrE)
"... be skeptical of government guidelines. The Indians learned not to trust
our government and neither should you." (Fallon & Enig)
Tony Cooper
May 30, 2013, 9:06:05 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:00:01 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-29 11:35:54 +0200, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-29, R H Draney wrote:
>>>
>>>> woodiewo...@yahoo.com filted:
>>>
>>>>> You could more truthfully say:
>>>>>
>>>>> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
>>>>> stupider than that.
>>>>
>>>> Mean and median are the same for "normal" distributions, as well as for the
>>>> larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
>>>> appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
>>>> deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
>>>> the numbers of observations are small....r
>>>
>>>
>>> Is stupidity a normal distribution? If it's defined as negative IQ,
>>> it must be; but is that the right definition?
>>>
>>> (99.something% of the population have more than the mean number of arms
>>> & legs!)
>>
>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>> number of testicles.
>
>To within ą1? Actually, I wonder what the mean is. I googled up a
with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
fairly common situation.
When I was a dealer for Dow Corning, we carried a range of silicone
implants that included testicular implants. They were fairly good
sellers, but hardly comparable to the much more popular mammary
prosthesis.
The primary market for the testicular implants was teenage boys with
an undescended testicle, and usually teenage boys involved in sports.
The condition is quite noticeable in the shower and locker room.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
wrote:
>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-29 11:35:54 +0200, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> said:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-29, R H Draney wrote:
>>>
>>>> woodiewo...@yahoo.com filted:
>>>
>>>>> You could more truthfully say:
>>>>>
>>>>> Think of how stupid the median person is, and realize half of them are
>>>>> stupider than that.
>>>>
>>>> Mean and median are the same for "normal" distributions, as well as for the
>>>> larger class of distributions that are merely "symmetrical"...intelligence
>>>> appears to follow a normal curve for the most part, and what significant
>>>> deviations from that pattern are documented tend to be at both extremes, where
>>>> the numbers of observations are small....r
>>>
>>>
>>> Is stupidity a normal distribution? If it's defined as negative IQ,
>>> it must be; but is that the right definition?
>>>
>>> (99.something% of the population have more than the mean number of arms
>>> & legs!)
>>
>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>> number of testicles.
>
>few things to consider.
>
>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>
>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
> little over 1.
>
>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> make a dent in the mean.
The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
>
>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>
>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
> little over 1.
>
>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> make a dent in the mean.
with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
fairly common situation.
When I was a dealer for Dow Corning, we carried a range of silicone
implants that included testicular implants. They were fairly good
sellers, but hardly comparable to the much more popular mammary
prosthesis.
The primary market for the testicular implants was teenage boys with
an undescended testicle, and usually teenage boys involved in sports.
The condition is quite noticeable in the shower and locker room.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
Tony Cooper
May 30, 2013, 9:07:21 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 18:07:25 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 30 May 2013 Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30 16:31:53 +0200, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> said:
>
>>> On 30 May 2013 Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>>> for testicular cancer;
>>>
>>> Or for torsion.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_torsion
>>>
>>> Incidentally, the mean number of legs in the population is somewhat
>>> less than one also.
>
>> That is not a population that I live in. In your days as as
>> anaesthetist you must have worked mainly on major-accident victims.
>> Even then I'd be surprised at a mean less than 1.99.
>
>More with working with a vascular surgeon, seeing the effects that the
>tobacco industry has on the circulation. I have seen a figure claiming
>to be the average number of legs, but I can't remember where or what
>it was. Old men forget.
>
>Peter.
I thought Diabetes is the primary cause of leg amputation.
wrote:
>On 30 May 2013 Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30 16:31:53 +0200, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> said:
>
>>> On 30 May 2013 Peter Brooks <peter.h....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>>> for testicular cancer;
>>>
>>> Or for torsion.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_torsion
>>>
>>> Incidentally, the mean number of legs in the population is somewhat
>>> less than one also.
>
>> That is not a population that I live in. In your days as as
>> anaesthetist you must have worked mainly on major-accident victims.
>> Even then I'd be surprised at a mean less than 1.99.
>
>More with working with a vascular surgeon, seeing the effects that the
>tobacco industry has on the circulation. I have seen a figure claiming
>to be the average number of legs, but I can't remember where or what
>it was. Old men forget.
>
>Peter.
Tony Cooper
May 30, 2013, 9:14:26 PM5/30/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 22:21:29 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:
>On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>
>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>
>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>
>If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
>make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
Not plastic, silicone. While I never tested the Dow Corning product
for floatibility, I doubt if they would.
wrote:
>On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>
>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>
>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>
>If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
>make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
for floatibility, I doubt if they would.
Peter Brooks
May 31, 2013, 2:05:23 AM5/31/13
to
On May 30, 11:21 pm, Peter Young <pnyo...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
> >> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> >>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> >>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> >>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> >>> make a dent in the mean.
>
> >> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
> > ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>
> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
>
Don't the titanium ones set of airport security machines?
> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
> >> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> >>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> >>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> >>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> >>> make a dent in the mean.
>
> >> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
> > ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>
> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
>
Adam Funk
May 31, 2013, 5:05:09 AM5/31/13
to
On 2013-05-31, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:00:01 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>> number of testicles.
>>
>>To within ±1? Actually, I wonder what the mean is. I googled up a
> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:00:01 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>> number of testicles.
>>
>>few things to consider.
>>
>>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>
>>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>> little over 1.
>>
>>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>> make a dent in the mean.
>
> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
> fairly common situation.
I'd forgotten about that. Do you have any idea of the proportion of
>>
>>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>
>>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>> little over 1.
>>
>>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>> make a dent in the mean.
>
> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
> fairly common situation.
the male population?
--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.
Adam Funk
May 31, 2013, 5:03:44 AM5/31/13
to
[subject header no longer applies]
>> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
>> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
>>
> Don't the titanium ones set of airport security machines?
The metal hardware they use for fixing fractures arms doesn't.
--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]
>> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
>> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
>>
> Don't the titanium ones set of airport security machines?
--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]
Walter P. Zähl
May 31, 2013, 6:07:53 AM5/31/13
to
Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at> wrote:
> Peter Young wrote:
>
>> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>>
>>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>>
>> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
>> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
>
> But could save your life if you fall overboard during an ocean cruise.
Only if you're a wasp and breathe with your abdomen, I'm afraid.
> Peter Young wrote:
>
>> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>>
>>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>>
>> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
>> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
>
> But could save your life if you fall overboard during an ocean cruise.
/Walter
Nick Spalding
May 31, 2013, 6:28:35 AM5/31/13
to
Adam Funk wrote, in <gk5m7ax...@news.ducksburg.com>
on Fri, 31 May 2013 10:03:44 +0100:
> On 2013-05-31, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 11:21 pm, Peter Young <pnyo...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [subject header no longer applies]
>
> >> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
> >> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
> >>
> > Don't the titanium ones set of airport security machines?
>
>
> The metal hardware they use for fixing fractures arms doesn't.
My hip replacement never has either.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
on Fri, 31 May 2013 10:03:44 +0100:
> On 2013-05-31, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
> > On May 30, 11:21 pm, Peter Young <pnyo...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [subject header no longer applies]
>
> >> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a prosthesis,
> >> make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in the bath.
> >>
> > Don't the titanium ones set of airport security machines?
>
>
> The metal hardware they use for fixing fractures arms doesn't.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
John Holmes
May 31, 2013, 6:52:26 AM5/31/13
to
Leslie Danks wrote:
> Peter Young wrote:
>
>> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a
>>>>> treatment for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are
>>>>> 7500--8000
>>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>>
>>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>>
>> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a
>> prosthesis, make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in
>> the bath.
>
> But could save your life if you fall overboard during an ocean cruise.
Does a woman with implants in that situation go tits-up?
> Peter Young wrote:
>
>> On 30 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-30, Peter Brooks wrote:
>>
>>>> On May 30, 3:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a
>>>>> treatment for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are
>>>>> 7500--8000
>>>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>>>>
>>>> Not to mention the mean dent in the trews.
>>
>>> ISTR that they insert a prosthetic filler...
>>
>> If any of the male readers of this thread ever need such a
>> prosthesis, make sure it's a titanium one. The plastic ones float in
>> the bath.
>
> But could save your life if you fall overboard during an ocean cruise.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Peter Young
May 31, 2013, 7:20:11 AM5/31/13
to
Mike L
May 31, 2013, 5:45:07 PM5/31/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 12:20:11 +0100, Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk>
wrote:
Careful! We don't want to stray into the Godwin minefield.
--
Mike.
wrote:
--
Mike.
R H Draney
May 31, 2013, 6:42:28 PM5/31/13
to
Peter Young filted:
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>On 31 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-31, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
>>> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
>>> fairly common situation.
>
>> I'd forgotten about that. Do you have any idea of the proportion of
>> the male population?
>
>No idea, but why have I now got an earworm with "Colonel Bogey"?
I hope this will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GazlqD4mLvw
>On 31 May 2013 Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-31, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
>>> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
>>> fairly common situation.
>
>> I'd forgotten about that. Do you have any idea of the proportion of
>> the male population?
>
>No idea, but why have I now got an earworm with "Colonel Bogey"?
....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 31, 2013, 7:14:07 PM5/31/13
to
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |The look on our faces isn't confusion.
SF Bay Area (1982-) |It's disbelief.
Chicago (1964-1982) |
| Jon Stewart
evan.kir...@gmail.com
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
May 31, 2013, 8:13:25 PM5/31/13
to
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>
BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
>
> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>
abdominal cavity.
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
Evan Kirshenbaum
May 31, 2013, 8:18:03 PM5/31/13
to
Reinhold {Rey} Aman <am...@sonic.net> writes:
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>
> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
> abdominal cavity.
Which hand do they use?
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>
> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
> abdominal cavity.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |We never met anyone who believed in
SF Bay Area (1982-) |fortune cookies. That's astounding.
Chicago (1964-1982) |Belief in the precognitive powers
|of an Asian pastry is really no
evan.kir...@gmail.com |wackier than belief in ESP,
|subluxation, or astrology, but you
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |just don't hear anyone preaching
|Scientific Cookie-ism.
| Penn and Teller
Reinhold {Rey} Aman
May 31, 2013, 10:24:32 PM5/31/13
to
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman writes:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>>
>> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into
>> their abdominal cavity.
>
> Which hand do they use?
>
Neither. They *pull*, not *push*.
> Reinhold {Rey} Aman writes:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>>
>> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into
>> their abdominal cavity.
>
> Which hand do they use?
>
Tony Cooper
Jun 1, 2013, 12:03:11 AM6/1/13
to
On Fri, 31 May 2013 10:05:09 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
have a disinterest in knowing the figure?
I do know that the figure was 33.333% in our house when I was growing
up. I'd provide details, but my brother might read this and get
embarrassed.
wrote:
>On 2013-05-31, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:00:01 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>>> number of testicles.
>>>
>>>To within ą1? Actually, I wonder what the mean is. I googled up a
>On 2013-05-31, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:00:01 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>>> number of testicles.
>>>
>>>few things to consider.
>>>
>>>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>>
>>>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>>> little over 1.
>>>
>>>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>
>> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
>> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
>> fairly common situation.
>
>I'd forgotten about that. Do you have any idea of the proportion of
>the male population?
That's one of the many statistics that I find uninteresting. Or, do I
>>>
>>>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>>
>>>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>>> little over 1.
>>>
>>>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
>>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
>>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
>>> make a dent in the mean.
>>
>> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
>> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
>> fairly common situation.
>
>I'd forgotten about that. Do you have any idea of the proportion of
>the male population?
have a disinterest in knowing the figure?
I do know that the figure was 33.333% in our house when I was growing
up. I'd provide details, but my brother might read this and get
embarrassed.
Peter Brooks
Jun 1, 2013, 1:30:33 AM6/1/13
to
On Jun 1, 6:03 am, Tony Cooper <tonycooper...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 10:05:09 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 2013-05-31, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:00:01 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> >>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
> >>>> number of testicles.
>
> >>>To within 1? Actually, I wonder what the mean is. I googled up a
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 10:05:09 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 2013-05-31, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 30 May 2013 14:00:01 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
> >>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
> >>>> number of testicles.
>
> >>>few things to consider.
>
> >>>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
> >>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>
> >>>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
> >>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
> >>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
> >>> little over 1.
>
> >>>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> >>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> >>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> >>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> >>> make a dent in the mean.
>
> >> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
> >> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
> >> fairly common situation.
>
> >I'd forgotten about that. Do you have any idea of the proportion of
> >the male population?
>
> That's one of the many statistics that I find uninteresting. Or, do I
> have a disinterest in knowing the figure?
>
I wonder. I can't really see how it'd be possible to have 'a
>
> >>>1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
> >>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>
> >>>2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
> >>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
> >>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
> >>> little over 1.
>
> >>>3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
> >>> for testicular cancer; Wikipedia says there are 7500--8000
> >>> diagnoses of that per year in the USA, & I get the impression that
> >>> removal is the most common & successful treatment, so that might
> >>> make a dent in the mean.
>
> >> The "undescended testicle" would affect the count if you count a male
> >> with one undescended testicle as having only one testicle. That's a
> >> fairly common situation.
>
> >I'd forgotten about that. Do you have any idea of the proportion of
> >the male population?
>
> That's one of the many statistics that I find uninteresting. Or, do I
> have a disinterest in knowing the figure?
>
disinterest' - it'd be an interest, of a sort, so you'd not be
disinterested if you had it, so you couldn't have a 'disinterest'.
Leslie Danks
Jun 1, 2013, 4:10:06 AM6/1/13
to
Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>
> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
> abdominal cavity.
>
I heard (or read) once that certain sorts of wrestlers push them in before a
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>
> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
> abdominal cavity.
>
bout, but I can't vouch for the authenticity of that claim.
Peter Moylan
Jun 1, 2013, 8:27:02 AM6/1/13
to
On 01/06/13 10:13, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>
> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
> abdominal cavity.
>
That would be a useful skill for people who frequent the rougher areas
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>
>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>
> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
> abdominal cavity.
>
of town.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
Jun 1, 2013, 8:58:19 AM6/1/13
to
On 2013-05-30 19:23:23 +0000, Adam Funk said:
> On 2013-05-30, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30 15:00:01 +0200, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> said:
>>> On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>>> number of testicles.
>>>
>>> To within ą1? Actually, I wonder what the mean is. I googled up a
> On 2013-05-30, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> On 2013-05-30 15:00:01 +0200, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> said:
>>> On 2013-05-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>>> Yes, but only a very tiny proportion have anything close to the mean
>>>> number of testicles.
>>>
>>> few things to consider.
>>>
>>> 1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>>
>>> 2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>>> little over 1.
>>>
>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer;
>>
>> In the past there was aso orchidectomy as a way of staying in the
>> choir, not to mention as a qualification for working in a harem.
>
> I don't think that has much of an effect on the current numbers,
> though.
That's why I said "in the past".
>>>
>>> 1. The current human population ratio is about 984 F : 1000 M; that
>>> gives a mean of 1.0081.
>>>
>>> 2. Then I thought about polyorchidism, but that's extremely rare
>>> (fewer than 200 cases in the literature) so its effect is probably
>>> negligible. So the mean number *at birth* is probably still a
>>> little over 1.
>>>
>>> 3. The only other thing I can think of is orchidectomy as a treatment
>>> for testicular cancer;
>>
>> In the past there was aso orchidectomy as a way of staying in the
>> choir, not to mention as a qualification for working in a harem.
>
> I don't think that has much of an effect on the current numbers,
> though.
--
athel
Snidely
Jun 2, 2013, 5:16:54 PM6/2/13
to
On Saturday, Peter Moylan queried:
> On 01/06/13 10:13, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>>
>> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
>> abdominal cavity.
>>
> That would be a useful skill for people who frequent the rougher areas
> of town.
Doesn't it interfere with the dick swinging?
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
> On 01/06/13 10:13, Reinhold {Rey} Aman wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>> Wikipedia says that about 1% of males over a year are cryptorchidic.
>>>
>> BTW, when rhesus monkeys fight, they pull their testicles up into their
>> abdominal cavity.
>>
> That would be a useful skill for people who frequent the rougher areas
> of town.
/dps
--
Maybe C282Y is simply one of the hangers-on, a groupie following a
future guitar god of the human genome: an allele with undiscovered
virtuosity, currently soloing in obscurity in Mom's garage.
Bradley Wertheim, theAtlantic.com, Jan 10 2013
Dr Nick
Jun 3, 2013, 6:39:21 AM6/3/13
to
Mark Brader
Jun 7, 2013, 3:43:19 AM6/7/13
to
At the end of April, Adam Funk wrote:
> We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
> references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
> the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
> time.
>
> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
> evening.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>
> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
And the consensus was "No."
I'd just like to note that while Wodehouse may not have used this
particular innuendo, his contemporary W.C. Fields did use something
much like it, in a family film, and in the days of Hays Office
censorship too. The movie was "The Bank Dick" (1940), and in it,
Fields's character is a regular at an establishment called the
Black Pussy Cat Cafe.
And any reading that does not refer to a feline is no doubt entirely
in your mind.
--
Mark Brader | Our censorship system has one inexplicable anomaly.
Toronto | One of the rating codes is M for "mature", but there
m...@vex.net | isn't any corresponding "I" code... --Peter Moylan
My text in this article is in the public domain.
> We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
> references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
> the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
> time.
>
> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
> evening.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>
> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
And the consensus was "No."
I'd just like to note that while Wodehouse may not have used this
particular innuendo, his contemporary W.C. Fields did use something
much like it, in a family film, and in the days of Hays Office
censorship too. The movie was "The Bank Dick" (1940), and in it,
Fields's character is a regular at an establishment called the
Black Pussy Cat Cafe.
And any reading that does not refer to a feline is no doubt entirely
in your mind.
--
Mark Brader | Our censorship system has one inexplicable anomaly.
Toronto | One of the rating codes is M for "mature", but there
m...@vex.net | isn't any corresponding "I" code... --Peter Moylan
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Adam Funk
Jun 7, 2013, 6:38:19 AM6/7/13
to
On 2013-06-07, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
>
> And the consensus was "No."
Right. (I've read a selection of PGW's J&W stories, but none of the
>> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
>
> And the consensus was "No."
Blandings ones yet.)
> I'd just like to note that while Wodehouse may not have used this
> particular innuendo, his contemporary W.C. Fields did use something
> much like it, in a family film, and in the days of Hays Office
> censorship too. The movie was "The Bank Dick" (1940), and in it,
> Fields's character is a regular at an establishment called the
> Black Pussy Cat Cafe.
>
> And any reading that does not refer to a feline is no doubt entirely
> in your mind.
I once passed a pub called "The Black Bitch" (with a black dog on the
sign), but I couldn't remember where. Google strongly suggest
Linlithgow.
Robert Bannister
Jun 7, 2013, 9:21:57 PM6/7/13
to
On 7/06/13 3:43 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> At the end of April, Adam Funk wrote:
>> We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
>> references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
>> the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
>> time.
>>
>> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
>> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
>> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
>> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
>> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
>> evening.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>>
>> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
>
> And the consensus was "No."
>
> I'd just like to note that while Wodehouse may not have used this
> particular innuendo, his contemporary W.C. Fields did use something
> much like it, in a family film, and in the days of Hays Office
> censorship too. The movie was "The Bank Dick" (1940), and in it,
> Fields's character is a regular at an establishment called the
> Black Pussy Cat Cafe.
>
> And any reading that does not refer to a feline is no doubt entirely
> in your mind.
>
On the other paw, "black cat" as the name of a cigarette brand or a café
> At the end of April, Adam Funk wrote:
>> We've been watching _Blandings_ recently, with Freddy's occasional
>> references to the "Pink Pussy" nightclub. Furthermore, I came across
>> the following from an article in The Guardian about children & screen
>> time.
>>
>> Often one form of consumption can inform another; Louis admitted
>> recently that he'd been watching something very funny on the iPad
>> about the Pink Pussy nightclub. Horrified, I demanded to know what
>> it was and he navigated me swiftly to the new series of Blandings on
>> iPlayer. He enjoys it so much that I now read him PG Wodehouse each
>> evening.
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/27/children-apps-fear-inanny
>>
>> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
>
> And the consensus was "No."
>
> I'd just like to note that while Wodehouse may not have used this
> particular innuendo, his contemporary W.C. Fields did use something
> much like it, in a family film, and in the days of Hays Office
> censorship too. The movie was "The Bank Dick" (1940), and in it,
> Fields's character is a regular at an establishment called the
> Black Pussy Cat Cafe.
>
> And any reading that does not refer to a feline is no doubt entirely
> in your mind.
>
or as a symbol of good luck or witchery has been around for a long time.
I don't know how long "pussy" has been around for "vulva", but it
certainly was not used in the UK WIWAL even though it was in our massive
passive vocabulary of dirty words. That was, however, probably different
in the US where I think the word came from.
--
Robert Bannister
Jerry Friedman
Jun 7, 2013, 11:14:53 PM6/7/13
to
On Jun 7, 7:21 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
...
> I don't know how long "pussy" has been around for "vulva", but it
> certainly was not used in the UK WIWAL even though it was in our massive
> passive vocabulary of dirty words. That was, however, probably different
> in the US where I think the word came from.
The first citation in the OED (you knew that was going to happen) is
"1699 T. Durfey Choice Coll. New Songs 7 Johnny..many Times Pussey
had fed."
--
Jerry Friedman
...
> I don't know how long "pussy" has been around for "vulva", but it
> certainly was not used in the UK WIWAL even though it was in our massive
> passive vocabulary of dirty words. That was, however, probably different
> in the US where I think the word came from.
"1699 T. Durfey Choice Coll. New Songs 7 Johnny..many Times Pussey
had fed."
--
Jerry Friedman
Message has been deleted
Peter Brooks
Jun 8, 2013, 9:03:12 AM6/8/13
to
On Jun 8, 10:26 am, Lewis <g.kr...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <rpp88ax6r2....@news.ducksburg.com>
>
There used to be, and may still be, a brand of peanut butter called
'Black cat'. I still have no idea why cats, of whatever hue, should
have anything to do with peanut butter - well, a ginger cat might be
camouflaged in a peanut butter factory...
> In message <rpp88ax6r2....@news.ducksburg.com>
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-06-07, Mark Brader wrote:
> >>> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
>
> >> And the consensus was "No."
> > Right. (I've read a selection of PGW's J&W stories, but none of the
> > Blandings ones yet.)
> >> I'd just like to note that while Wodehouse may not have used this
> >> particular innuendo, his contemporary W.C. Fields did use something
> >> much like it, in a family film, and in the days of Hays Office
> >> censorship too. The movie was "The Bank Dick" (1940), and in it,
> >> Fields's character is a regular at an establishment called the
> >> Black Pussy Cat Cafe.
>
> >> And any reading that does not refer to a feline is no doubt entirely
> >> in your mind.
> > It sounds rather different with "Cat" added than on its own.
>
> And black versus pink.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2013-06-07, Mark Brader wrote:
> >>> Was this actually in Wodehouse?
>
> >> And the consensus was "No."
> > Right. (I've read a selection of PGW's J&W stories, but none of the
> > Blandings ones yet.)
> >> I'd just like to note that while Wodehouse may not have used this
> >> particular innuendo, his contemporary W.C. Fields did use something
> >> much like it, in a family film, and in the days of Hays Office
> >> censorship too. The movie was "The Bank Dick" (1940), and in it,
> >> Fields's character is a regular at an establishment called the
> >> Black Pussy Cat Cafe.
>
> >> And any reading that does not refer to a feline is no doubt entirely
> >> in your mind.
> > It sounds rather different with "Cat" added than on its own.
>
>
There used to be, and may still be, a brand of peanut butter called
'Black cat'. I still have no idea why cats, of whatever hue, should
have anything to do with peanut butter - well, a ginger cat might be
camouflaged in a peanut butter factory...
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Jun 8, 2013, 9:37:10 AM6/8/13
to
Brands Ltd_. Black Cat seems to be one of its brand names.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Brands
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Robert Bannister
Jun 8, 2013, 9:03:38 PM6/8/13
to
may still be an Americanism. <g>
--
Robert Bannister
Mike L
Jun 10, 2013, 3:48:06 PM6/10/13
to
--
Mike.
Peter Moylan
Jun 10, 2013, 9:56:18 PM6/10/13
to
Mike L
Jun 11, 2013, 3:44:34 PM6/11/13
to
On Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:56:18 +1000, Peter Moylan
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 11/06/13 05:48, Mike L wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 09:03:38 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/06/13 11:14 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On Jun 7, 7:21 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how long "pussy" has been around for "vulva", but it
>>>>> certainly was not used in the UK WIWAL even though it was in our massive
>>>>> passive vocabulary of dirty words. That was, however, probably different
>>>>> in the US where I think the word came from.
>>>>
>>>> The first citation in the OED (you knew that was going to happen) is
>>>>
>>>> "1699 T. Durfey Choice Coll. New Songs 7 Johnny..many Times Pussey
>>>> had fed."
>>>
>>> A lot of colonies had been started in North America by that time, so it
>>> may still be an Americanism. <g>
>>
>> "Knick-knack, paddywhack, give the dog a bone..."
>>
>"And they call it puppy love ..."
Even when it isn't doggy-style.
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 11/06/13 05:48, Mike L wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 09:03:38 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/06/13 11:14 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On Jun 7, 7:21 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how long "pussy" has been around for "vulva", but it
>>>>> certainly was not used in the UK WIWAL even though it was in our massive
>>>>> passive vocabulary of dirty words. That was, however, probably different
>>>>> in the US where I think the word came from.
>>>>
>>>> The first citation in the OED (you knew that was going to happen) is
>>>>
>>>> "1699 T. Durfey Choice Coll. New Songs 7 Johnny..many Times Pussey
>>>> had fed."
>>>
>>> A lot of colonies had been started in North America by that time, so it
>>> may still be an Americanism. <g>
>>
>> "Knick-knack, paddywhack, give the dog a bone..."
>>
>"And they call it puppy love ..."
--
Mike.
0 new messages