More English Excrement

HER...@auvm.american.edu

unread,

Dec 20, 1992, 9:20:38 PM12/20/92

to

By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite understood,
and maybe someone with more reference materials or a deeper understanding
of slang than I have can enlighten me. The expression is "shit-eating
grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

H.

Herschel Browne
"The" American University

Joseph C Fineman

unread,

Dec 22, 1992, 12:01:42 AM12/22/92

to

<HER...@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite understood,
>and maybe someone with more reference materials or a deeper understanding
>of slang than I have can enlighten me. The expression is "shit-eating
>grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
>is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

Two interpretations are possible:

(1) An embarrassed grin, a grin grinned rather than lose one's temper
-- hence, a grin accompanying the eating of shit in the metaphorical
sense of being discomfited.

(2) An obnoxious grin grinned in the face of one whom one has just
defeated or otherwise annoyed: a grin that adds insult to injury &
therefore deserves the epithet "shit-eating" in the generalized
derogatory sense = "damned".

I believe that (2) is the more common acceptation, as in the
admonition "Wipe that shit-eating grin off your face", which was
common in my undergraduate days (mid '50s).

The abbreviation SEG was widely used at Caltech in those days. "Here
comes --- with his bright-eyed SEG."
--
Joe Fineman j...@world.std.com
239 Clinton Road (617) 731-9190
Brookline, MA 02146

Tye McQueen, E.

unread,

Dec 21, 1992, 10:40:34 PM12/21/92

to

In <92355.212...@auvm.american.edu>, <HER...@auvm.american.edu> writes:
> By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite understood,
> and maybe someone with more reference materials or a deeper understanding
> of slang than I have can enlighten me. The expression is "shit-eating
> grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
> is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

Akin to "You look like the cat that just swallowed the canary."

An extreme form of grin of someone (suspected of or) caught in the middle
of doing something they didn't want to be caught doing. I guess eating
shit could fall under that category.

Hearing it explained doesn't make much sense. But it made a lot of sense
to me the first time I heard it used in context.

Tye

Ad absurdum per aspera

unread,

Dec 22, 1992, 10:14:00 AM12/22/92

to

> "shit-eating grin". I've never really understood what particular sort
> of grin this is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

A big fatuous egg-sucking Carl Sagan kind of grin that says "everything
is going just ducky in my world at the moment, and for a reason you'd
never guess and might not approve of." I think it has to have elements
of a smirk in it.

When a picture was being taken of people, my father, who grew up on a farm
in Illinois, used to say, "Grin like a possum eatin' s. out of a dead horse."
Believe me, it worked a lot better, or at least more dramatically, than the
usual "Say cheese."

Happy holidays,
Joe
"Broken English is the official language of science"
Francois Kourilsky, CRNS

HER...@auvm.american.edu

unread,

Dec 22, 1992, 12:16:47 PM12/22/92

to

Gee, four totally different definitions for "shit-eating grin".
Maybe it doesn't really mean anything in particular? Effective
communication with this expression would seem dicey at best.

Brian D Diehm

unread,

Dec 22, 1992, 1:34:32 PM12/22/92

to

>Gee, four totally different definitions for "shit-eating grin".
>Maybe it doesn't really mean anything in particular? Effective
>communication with this expression would seem dicey at best.
>

>Herschel Browne
>"The" American University

This is really pretty interesting. As "linguists" we want to think that the
words carry the meaning. But the existence of such expressions, expressions
that mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean, belie that theory.

Shakespeare used this tool a lot (we think): coined expressions that convey
their meaning by usage and implication alone. Being coined and thus never
before heard, they cannot convey meaning precisely.

It's akin to that satisfying "thunk" you feel when you first hear an expression
that you'd never think up yourself, but you just *know* what it means because
you wish you *had* thought it up yourself.

So, perhaps, Herschel's worry that effective communication is at risk isn't
such a worry after all; the expression carries its own meaning so well that
the listener understands the intended concept precisely.

The science of onomatopoetics?
--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 bri...@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR 97077

Chris Malcolm

unread,

Dec 23, 1992, 10:38:23 AM12/23/92

to

In article <92355.212...@auvm.american.edu> HER...@auvm.american.edu writes:

>The expression is "shit-eating
>grin". I've never really understood what particular sort of grin this
>is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

Someone (like a kid eating shit) grinning the huge shameless grin of
thoroughly enjoying doing something naughty, and carrying the
implication that (as is often the case) the enjoyable activity is not
only proscribed but dirty, childish, and definitely not grown-up.

Biological note for non-parents: there is an age below which many
things adults regard as repulsive, such as shit and soap, are not
perceived as repulsive by the child, who can happily eat the stuff,
grinning with a shit-eating grin which the (uneducated) adult finds
not just inexplicable but outrageously improper. Hence the term.

I think the other "suggestions" about the meaning of this term were
guesses by Americans rather than alternative opinions :-)

--
Chris Malcolm c...@uk.ac.ed.aifh +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205

David A. Johns

unread,

Dec 25, 1992, 10:17:53 PM12/25/92

to

In article <92355.212...@auvm.american.edu> HER...@auvm.american.edu writes:

# By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite
# understood, and maybe someone with more reference materials or a
# deeper understanding of slang than I have can enlighten me. The
# expression is "shit-eating grin". I've never really understood what
# particular sort of grin this is, nor why someone eating shit would
# be grinning. Any thoughts?

My guess is that it comes from the expression "happier than a possum
eating shit".

By the way, a couple of more animal shit expressions:

Lower than whale shit at the bottom of the ocean.
The eagle shits today (it's payday -- military).

and as an answer to a silly question:

Does a bear shit in the woods?

David Johns

alisonh...@gmail.com

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 11:46:56 AM7/1/14

to

From what I understand, the word "shit" is an acronym. Back in the day, when manure was shipped over seas, one had to be careful on how the manure was put down. It was sent dried and you can understand what would happen if ocean water would make contact with dry manure. The word SHIT...S- ship H-high I-in T- transport . Maybe one of the sailors on one of these boats got a mouthful and not by choice!

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 11:53:46 AM7/1/14

to

alisonh...@gmail.com wrote in message
news:47d8002d-43fa-4bb9...@googlegroups.com...

Like many etymologies of words as acronyms (e.g. "For Unlawful Carnal
Knowledge"), this is an urban myth. See:

http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp

--
Guy Barry

Derek Turner

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 12:21:20 PM7/1/14

to

On Tue, 01 Jul 2014 08:46:56 -0700, alisonhollywood wrote:

> I've never really understood what particular sort of
>> grin this is, nor why someone eating shit would be grinning. Any
>> thoughts?

On this side of the pond 'shit' is slang for cannabis resin. Might that
explain it. Mind you, the expression is American, not native to these
shores.

James Silverton

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 12:39:59 PM7/1/14

to

Among the functionally illiterate in the US, "shit" can be used as
equivalent to "stuff" or "property". "I've got your shit" does not
necessarily denote an accident.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

Charles Bishop

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 1:20:07 PM7/1/14

to

In article <dQAsv.1282$st....@fx29.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> alisonh...@gmail.com wrote in message
> news:47d8002d-43fa-4bb9...@googlegroups.com...

[snip]

> >From what I understand, the word "shit" is an acronym. Back in the day,
> >when manure was shipped over seas,
> >one had to be careful on how the manure was put down. It was sent dried
> >and you can understand what would happen
> > if ocean water would make contact with dry manure. The word SHIT...S-
> > ship H-high I-in T- transport . Maybe one of
> > the sailors on one of these boats got a mouthful and not by choice!
>
> Like many etymologies of words as acronyms (e.g. "For Unlawful Carnal
> Knowledge"), this is an urban myth. See:
>
> http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp

I wouldn't classify this as an urban legend (or myth), and I doubt
snopes would either. While it's on their site, it's under the language
section. In general an urban legend. From the snopes site:
<quote>
Urban legend

Urban legends are a specific class of legend, differentiated from
"ordinary" legends by their being provided and believed as accounts of
actual incidents that befell or were witnessed by someone the teller
almost knows (e.g., his sister's hairdresser's mechanic). These tales
are told as true, local, and recent occurrences, and often contain names
of places or entities located within the teller's neighborhood or
surrounding region.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp#AEj2FJobTci6frcg.99

<endquote>

--
charles, afu is moribund, mourned by many

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 1:34:40 PM7/1/14

to

"Charles Bishop" wrote in message
news:ctbishop-9F606A...@news.individual.net...

Well OK, a commonly believed untruth. Is there a term other than "urban
myth" that encompasses such things?

--
Guy Barry

Mack A. Damia

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 2:10:42 PM7/1/14

to

Urban legends are a bit outlandish - unlike ordinary legends. Some of
the exploits of, say, Davy Crockett are ordinary legends. Paul Bunyan
and his ox are another one. More like "folklore".

The Hook or Hookman is a classic urban legend. The basic premise
involves a young couple parking at a lovers' lane. The radio plays
while they make out. Suddenly, a news bulletin reports that a serial
killer has just escaped from a nearby institution. The killer has a
hook for one of his hands. They hear scratching noises on the
passenger-side of the car, and they decide to leave quickly. In the
end, the killer's hook is found hanging from the door handle.

--

CDB

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 5:36:49 PM7/1/14

to

On 01/07/2014 11:53 AM, Guy Barry wrote:

> alisonh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> HER...@auvm.american.edu wrote:

>>> By the way, here's a "shit" expression that I've never quite
>>> understood, and maybe someone with more reference materials or a
>>> deeper understanding of slang than I have can enlighten me. The
>>> expression is "shit-eating grin". I've never really understood
>>> what particular sort of grin this is, nor why someone eating
>>> shit would be grinning. Any thoughts?

>>> Herschel Browne "The" American University

[>> urban myth]
[> rebutted]

I have always understood "shit-eating" in that context to approximate
"sheepish", not "smug", so I was glad to see this in Wiktionary:

"A broad smile indicating self-awareness that may suggest
self-satisfaction, smugness, discomfort, or embarrassment."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shit-eating_grin

Maybe the qualifier is used mainly for disparagement, "a grin I
disapprove of", with the reason for disapproving left up to context.

R H Draney

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 6:04:03 PM7/1/14

to

Guy Barry filted:

>
>"Charles Bishop" wrote in message
>news:ctbishop-9F606A...@news.individual.net...
>>

>>I wouldn't classify this as an urban legend (or myth), and I doubt
>>snopes would either. While it's on their site, it's under the language
>>section. In general an urban legend. From the snopes site:
>><quote>
>>Urban legend
>>
>>Urban legends are a specific class of legend, differentiated from
>>"ordinary" legends by their being provided and believed as accounts of
>>actual incidents that befell or were witnessed by someone the teller
>>almost knows (e.g., his sister's hairdresser's mechanic). These tales
>>are told as true, local, and recent occurrences, and often contain names
>>of places or entities located within the teller's neighborhood or
>>surrounding region.
>>Read more at http://www.snopes.com/info/glossary.asp#AEj2FJobTci6frcg.99
>
>Well OK, a commonly believed untruth. Is there a term other than "urban
>myth" that encompasses such things?

"Old wives' tale":

http://assets.amuniversal.com/2641d130dc1f01316f64005056a9545d

....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Ross

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 7:02:49 PM7/1/14

to

Well, us 'linguists' have "folk etymology". We could call this type "acronymic
folk etymology".

mrucb...@att.net

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 8:23:40 PM7/1/14

to

Seems incredible that there was a 22 year hiatus in the shit discussion. Makes
you wonder what occasion would have brought it up again? My view of the
expression is along the lines of what Chris Malcolm said so long ago... if not
a step more toward what a raving maniac eating shit would be grinning like, instead of a child.

Jerry Friedman

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 8:55:58 PM7/1/14

to

On 7/1/14 3:36 PM, CDB wrote:

[grin]

> I have always understood "shit-eating" in that context to approximate
> "sheepish", not "smug", so I was glad to see this in Wiktionary:
>
> "A broad smile indicating self-awareness that may suggest
> self-satisfaction, smugness, discomfort, or embarrassment."
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shit-eating_grin
>
> Maybe the qualifier is used mainly for disparagement, "a grin I
> disapprove of", with the reason for disapproving left up to context.

When we did this a few weeks ago, I tried to tell whether early examples
at GB were sheepish or smug, but they were all snippets.

When the grin is smug, I don't think the expression is necessarily
disparaging. It could belong to oneself or one's friend as something
satisfying happens.

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter Moylan

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 9:19:03 PM7/1/14

to

Guy, it's a joke. Nobody would seriously suggest that this is a true story.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reinhold {Rey} Aman

unread,

Jul 1, 2014, 10:36:39 PM7/1/14

to

Peter Moylan wrote:

>
> Guy Barry wrote:
>>
>> Like many etymologies of words as acronyms (e.g. "For Unlawful
>> Carnal Knowledge"), this is an urban myth.
>>

It's not an "urban myth" but "folk etymology."

>
> Guy, it's a joke. Nobody would seriously suggest that this is
> a true story.
>

Peter, you won't believe how many thousands of morons -- including
educated people, teachers, and professors -- *seriously* believe and
spread the idiotic folk etymologies of FUCK, WOG, WOP, POSH, etc.

(This post is disregarded and considered worthless by F. Wayne Brown.)

--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

Message has been deleted

Richard Bollard

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 1:56:49 AM7/2/14

to

Folk etymology. False etymology.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

Dr Nick

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 2:30:07 AM7/2/14

to

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> writes:

> On 02/07/14 01:53, Guy Barry wrote:
>> alisonh...@gmail.com wrote in message
>> news:47d8002d-43fa-4bb9...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 21, 1992 11:58:06 AM UTC-5,
>>> HER...@auvm.american.edu wrote:
>
>>> From what I understand, the word "shit" is an acronym. Back in
>>> the day, when manure was shipped over seas, one had to be careful
>>> on how the manure was put down. It was sent dried and you can
>>> understand what would happen if ocean water would make contact with
>>> dry manure. The word SHIT...S- ship H-high I-in T- transport .
>>> Maybe one of the sailors on one of these boats got a mouthful and
>>> not by choice!
>>
>> Like many etymologies of words as acronyms (e.g. "For Unlawful
>> Carnal Knowledge"), this is an urban myth.
>
> Guy, it's a joke. Nobody would seriously suggest that this is a true story.

I'm not sure it was. This was a name I don't recognise replying to an
ancient post. That's the sign of someone wandering through GG and reply
to something that takes their fancy.

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 2:37:59 AM7/2/14

to

"Peter Moylan" wrote in message news:53b3...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

>
>On 02/07/14 01:53, Guy Barry wrote:
>> alisonh...@gmail.com wrote in message
>> news:47d8002d-43fa-4bb9...@googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Monday, December 21, 1992 11:58:06 AM UTC-5,
>>> HER...@auvm.american.edu wrote:
>
>>> From what I understand, the word "shit" is an acronym. Back in
>>> the day, when manure was shipped over seas, one had to be careful
>>> on how the manure was put down. It was sent dried and you can
>>> understand what would happen if ocean water would make contact with
>>> dry manure. The word SHIT...S- ship H-high I-in T- transport .
>>> Maybe one of the sailors on one of these boats got a mouthful and
>>> not by choice!
>>
>> Like many etymologies of words as acronyms (e.g. "For Unlawful
>> Carnal Knowledge"), this is an urban myth.
>
>Guy, it's a joke. Nobody would seriously suggest that this is a true story.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I've had it reported to me as the true
etymology on several occasions. These acronymic folk-etymologies are
surprisingly well established. Cf. also "Port Out, Starboard Home" and "To
Insure Promptness" (the last one doesn't even work as it should be
"ensure").

--
Guy Barry

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 2:43:39 AM7/2/14

to

"Reinhold {Rey} Aman" wrote in message news:53B3701F...@sonic.net...

>
>Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> Guy Barry wrote:
>>>
>>> Like many etymologies of words as acronyms (e.g. "For Unlawful
>>> Carnal Knowledge"), this is an urban myth.
>>>
>It's not an "urban myth" but "folk etymology."

Yes, you're correct. Thanks.

>> Guy, it's a joke. Nobody would seriously suggest that this is
>> a true story.
>>
>Peter, you won't believe how many thousands of morons -- including
>educated people, teachers, and professors -- *seriously* believe and
>spread the idiotic folk etymologies of FUCK, WOG, WOP, POSH, etc.

I agree with you.

>(This post is disregarded and considered worthless by F. Wayne Brown.)

This post is mainly to indicate that I don't think that all your posts are
drivel. If you stuck with sensible posts like this one I'd have no
objection to you.

--
Guy Barry

David D S

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 2:50:51 AM7/2/14

to

Lewis wrote:

> Okay, so one time? In band camp? alisonh...@gmail.com
> <alisonh...@gmail.com> was all, like: --> Tue, 1 Jul 2014
> 08:46:56 -0700 (PDT)
> <47d8002d-43fa-4bb9...@googlegroups.com>

> No. Just, no.

I suspect, given the poster, it has a higher probability of meaning:
Seems Herschel Is Trolling.
--
David D S: UK and PR China. (Native BrEng speaker)
Use Reply-To header for email. This email address will be
valid for at least 2 weeks from 2014/7/2 14:49:35

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 3:34:15 AM7/2/14

to

"Ross" wrote in message
news:1d41ebca-746c-454e...@googlegroups.com...

That'll do nicely in this particular case, but my question was a more
general one; is there an all-encompassing term for "commonly believed
untruth"? I tend to use "urban myth" that way, even if it's not completely
accurate.

--
Guy Barry

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 3:44:14 AM7/2/14

to

mrucb...@att.net wrote in message
news:c3ffe9de-47c1-49da...@googlegroups.com...

>
>Seems incredible that there was a 22 year hiatus in the shit discussion.
>Makes
> you wonder what occasion would have brought it up again?

This seems to happen from time to time. A reply appears to a post from
about 20 years ago from an unknown poster. It always comes from Google
Groups. Does Google Groups have some special portal for replying to
20-year-old posts, or are these replies actually 20 years old themselves and
appearing on the group by some technical glitch?

--
Guy Barry

Peter T. Daniels

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 10:22:02 AM7/2/14

to

On Wednesday, July 2, 2014 2:37:59 AM UTC-4, Guy Barry wrote:

> I'm afraid you're mistaken. I've had it reported to me as the true
> etymology on several occasions.

I'd never seen that one!

> These acronymic folk-etymologies are
> surprisingly well established. Cf. also "Port Out, Starboard Home" and "To
> Insure Promptness" (the last one doesn't even work as it should be
> "ensure").

It's "To Insure Prompt Service." Obviously, Brits don't tip.

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 12:36:05 PM7/2/14

to

I'm quite sure that many people in the US use the words interchangeably
and are not aware of a difference.

Charles Bishop

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 12:44:41 PM7/2/14

to

In article <PGUsv.19085$Kg7....@fx01.am4>,

Deja News did a good job archiving USENET. Google bought (or just took
over) Deja. However, Google discovered that USENET wasn't a profit
center and it didn't get the resources necessary to have it work right.
To be fair the number of posts was increasing and it may be that even
Deja, who seemed to take its remit seriously, would have had a hard time
keeping up.

In any event, Google News, (is that what its called?) isn't as good as
it should be, but it is a useful (FCVO) resource.

--
charles

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 12:50:58 PM7/2/14

to

"Charles Bishop" wrote in message

news:ctbishop-471702...@news.individual.net...

Google News isn't the same thing as Google Groups. Google News is a
resource that aggregates news (i.e. current affairs) stories from across the
world:

https://news.google.co.uk/

--
Guy Barry

John Dawkins

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 1:15:52 PM7/2/14

to

In article <PGUsv.19085$Kg7....@fx01.am4>,
"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

Deja News was an archive of Usenet messages dating from 1995, complete
with a fantastic search engine. The archive was bought up by Google in
2001, rechristened Google Groups, and promptly ruined.
--
J.

Charles Bishop

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 5:10:41 PM7/2/14

to

In article <PLWsv.1929$F23...@fx22.am4>,

"Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

> "Charles Bishop" wrote in message
> news:ctbishop-471702...@news.individual.net...
> >
> >In article <PGUsv.19085$Kg7....@fx01.am4>,
> > "Guy Barry" <guy....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Well no, of course not. The whole point of Google Groups was that it
> >> provided access to the Usenet archive. (I think it was originally
> >> provided
> >> by an organization called Deja News, which Google Groups then bought up,
> >> but
> >> I'm not sure of the details.)
> >
> >Deja News did a good job archiving USENET. Google bought (or just took
> >over) Deja. However, Google discovered that USENET wasn't a profit
> >center and it didn't get the resources necessary to have it work right.
> >To be fair the number of posts was increasing and it may be that even
> >Deja, who seemed to take its remit seriously, would have had a hard time
> >keeping up.
> >
> >In any event, Google News, (is that what its called?) isn't as good as
> >it should be, but it is a useful (FCVO) resource.
>
> Google News isn't the same thing as Google Groups. Google News is a
> resource that aggregates news (i.e. current affairs) stories from across the
> world:
>
> https://news.google.co.uk/

Thanks, I was trying to distinguish between the Google Groups that are
set up by individuals(? I don't understand how they are set up) and the
groups of USENET which are archives.

--
charles

R H Draney

unread,

Jul 2, 2014, 8:15:08 PM7/2/14

to

Tony Cooper filted:

>
>That happened to me just recently. Instead of no tip, I left a very
>small tip. No tip can be construed as a forgetfulness or theft of the
>tip by some other wait person. A small tip is a message.

Story told to me by my mother, who at the time was employed as a waitress:

Man eats meal at restaurant, leaves three cents on the table, calls the waitress
over and says "I want you to know why I'm only leaving you three cents as a
tip...each penny has a meaning: this first penny is for your indifferent
treatment, the second penny is for your slow and sloppy service, and the third
is for getting part of my order wrong *twice*"....

The waitress replies "Did you know I can tell your fortune by the tip you leave?
This first penny, for instance, tells me that you're very particular...from the
second penny, I can see that you're a bachelor...and the third penny, that says
your father was a bachelor too"....r

Message has been deleted

Dr Nick

unread,

Jul 3, 2014, 2:18:45 AM7/3/14

to

Newsgroups exist outside Google - they are a "cloud" service from
decades before clouds were conceived, let alone became fashionable.

Google provides (a) a web interface to that cloud, (b) a long-term
archive of it and (c) an ever poorer and less reliable way to search it.

Web forums exist on a single server or server farm. Google also
provides some web forums. It gives them the same interface as it gives
to Usenet. But they remain inside Google and only resemble newsgroups
because of using the same web interface.

Guy Barry

unread,

Jul 3, 2014, 3:17:08 AM7/3/14

to

"Charles Bishop" wrote in message

news:ctbishop-1AE97B...@news.individual.net...

Google itself makes it difficult to distinguish, because they're all
included under the heading of Google Groups. The interface to groups set up
on the Google site is identical to the one used for Usenet groups, so at a
cursory glance you can't tell which type of group you're taking part in.
Only the Usenet naming conventions give you a clue. And it's not entirely
correct to say "the groups of Usenet which are archives"; Google Groups
provides an interface for reading and posting to Usenet groups as well as
access to the archive.

--
Guy Barry

CDB

unread,

Jul 3, 2014, 7:31:45 AM7/3/14

to

On 01/07/2014 8:55 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> CDB wrote:

> [grin]

>> I have always understood "shit-eating" in that context to
>> approximate "sheepish", not "smug", so I was glad to see this in
>> Wiktionary:

>> "A broad smile indicating self-awareness that may suggest
>> self-satisfaction, smugness, discomfort, or embarrassment."

>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shit-eating_grin

>> Maybe the qualifier is used mainly for disparagement, "a grin I
>> disapprove of", with the reason for disapproving left up to
>> context.

> When we did this a few weeks ago, I tried to tell whether early
> examples at GB were sheepish or smug, but they were all snippets.

> When the grin is smug, I don't think the expression is necessarily
> disparaging. It could belong to oneself or one's friend as something
> satisfying happens.

I agree, but I think it's possible to disapprove of something you or
your friend has done. Maybe I should have written "disparagement,
possibly mild,".

I thought the phrase "indicating self-awareness" made a good point. The
grin is in a sense conspiratorial, sharing an attitude towards the cause
of the grin, or the emotion conveyed, with an audience.

David Kleinecke

unread,

Jul 3, 2014, 7:41:05 PM7/3/14

to

On Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:17:08 AM UTC-7, Guy Barry wrote:

> Google itself makes it difficult to distinguish, because they're all
> included under the heading of Google Groups. The interface to groups set up
> on the Google site is identical to the one used for Usenet groups, so at a
> cursory glance you can't tell which type of group you're taking part in.
> Only the Usenet naming conventions give you a clue. And it's not entirely
> correct to say "the groups of Usenet which are archives"; Google Groups
> provides an interface for reading and posting to Usenet groups as well as
> access to the archive.

I think Google originally thought of Google Groups as a news
reader - just like all the others. They may still think that
but I suspect they would like to close it down but can't
because they promised to maintain the archive.

I don't know how a new usenet group might be created other
than as a Google Group. But that, fortunately, is very easy.

Dr Nick

unread,

Jul 4, 2014, 2:15:58 AM7/4/14

to

No, if you create a Google Group you /don't/ create a Usenet group. You
create something that remains on Google's servers. Those of us who
access Usenet through a different server will be unable to access it,
indeed will be unaware of its very existence.

unread,

Jul 4, 2014, 10:10:40 PM7/4/14

to

On Friday, July 4, 2014 4:39:11 AM UTC-7, PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
> <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't know how a new usenet group might be created other
> >than as a Google Group.
>
> There are committees.

You should have referred me to the big-8.org website.

I observe other links that claim to give the same
information.

Peter Duncanson [BrE]

unread,

Jul 5, 2014, 8:24:18 AM7/5/14

to

On Fri, 4 Jul 2014 19:10:40 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke

<dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, July 4, 2014 4:39:11 AM UTC-7, PeterWD wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:41:05 -0700 (PDT), David Kleinecke
>> <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't know how a new usenet group might be created other
>> >than as a Google Group.
>>
>> There are committees.
>
>You should have referred me to the big-8.org website.
>

I couldn't remember its name!

I know about the management of the uk Usenet hierarchy because I have
joined in discusssions and voted on proposals.

>I observe other links that claim to give the same
>information.