Cunt
Sula
Brian Yeoh
> There is speculation that the word Cunt has a universal (worldwide)
> prehistoric origin lingering from what was the "first language" spoken by
> hominids. The original root seems to have been "Kun" or "Kuna." This
<snip>
> Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
I will _not_ turn this into a food thread.
Brian "and in no way shall my constitution or my eating habits be
discussed" Yeoh
Clear, unscaleable, ahead |
Rise the Mountains of Instead | -- WH Auden, "Autumn Song"
From whose cold cascading streams |
None may drink except in dreams. |
paghat
prehistoric origin lingering from what was the "first language" spoken by
hominids. The original root seems to have been "Kun" or "Kuna." This
Native languages in North and South America, "kunya" means "female" in
Guarani, Surya, and Kamayura, while "kunakunam" means "adult female" in
Cuica. The same root can be detected in the Australian aboriginal
Gamilarray langauge as gunijarr, "mother." It occurs in the Turkic
language of Kirghiz or Altaic as kunu, "wife." In the Adaman Islands it
occurs as "chana" (woman) and in Tasmanian as "kwani." In Afro-Asian
languages such as Kushitic Oromo it occurs as Kena, "Lady." Kuna occurs in
Indo-European languages meaning "Queen" & "Queen" is itself a corruption
of Kun.
Cunt thus means "Woman" in the most positive sense of "Great Woman" (i.e.
"Lady" or "Queen") and it was probably so widespread because it was a
Mesolithic title of a universal Great Mother known on all continents.
Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
-paghat the ratgirl
Anopheles
Carcat, I'm no cunnus!
Anopheles
Neale Talbot
paghat wrote:
> Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
If you have an active sex life, can I call you a "fucking cunt"?
-Neale
mark...@my-deja.com
>Kuna occurs in Indo-European languages meaning "Queen" & "Queen" is
itself a corruption
> of Kun.
"queen" is the Normanised spelling of the older, Briton (Welsh?) word
"cwen", which meant merely "woman" (not female monarch). Is "cwen" a
corruption of "kun"?? I leave the question open ...
BTW, the Welsh girl's name "Gwen" shares the same root (keep it
clean!).
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
mvin...@bankmed.co.za
paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
<snip>
> Cunt thus means "Woman" in the most positive sense of "Great Woman"
(i.e.
> "Lady" or "Queen") and it was probably so widespread because it was a
> Mesolithic title of a universal Great Mother known on all continents.
<snip>
Nervous lurker over here: can you give me some cites/sites which give
strong evidence for the existence of the universal Great Mother cult? I
have read opinions by several modern archaeologists (albeit on
http://patriarchy.com/~sheaffer/texts/goddess.html, which obviously has
an anti-feminist agenda), which make a case against the notion of this
universal Great Mother.
Thanks
Miranda
Rhiannon
news:7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2...
> Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
>
> -paghat the ratgirl
The word cunt has never bothered me, regardless of what it means or where
it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-depth
thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal favourite is a
line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?", in which
she says..."she's got a barbed wire pussy"...by any definition, I guess
that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and dance naked
in a pagan ritual in the woods?
Rhiannon
HWM
> There is speculation that the word Cunt has a universal (worldwide)
> prehistoric origin lingering from what was the "first language"
> spoken by hominids
There has been a speculation that a part of the proto-europeans after
the last ice age were Fenno-Ugrics. Give or take.
Anyhow the Finnish word 'vittu' i.e. 'cunt' ( Vittu is a popular
surname in France) has been traced to be one of the oldest words
integrated into the Proto-Finnic language. Remarkably, as the Anglo
would yell out "oh fuck, you fucking fuckhead, get the fuck out of
here" a Finn aroused in a similar manner would yell directly translated
" oh cunt, you cunthead of a cunt, ski into the fir tree of a cunt"
So I think we're more cuntish than y'all.
Cheers,| The conformity of purpose will be achieved |
HWM | through the mutual satisfaction of requirements.|
hen...@GNWmail.com & http://www.softavenue.fi/u/henry.w
Pat
Hindu word for life giving energy or something (the word was like Kunti
or close to that)...
But the word vagina comes from an old latin word which literally means
"sheath for a sword"...
;-)
Colin Rosenthal
mark...@my-deja.com <mark...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>Kuna occurs in Indo-European languages meaning "Queen" & "Queen" is
>itself a corruption
>> of Kun.
>
>"queen" is the Normanised spelling of the older, Briton (Welsh?) word
>"cwen", which meant merely "woman" (not female monarch). Is "cwen" a
>corruption of "kun"?? I leave the question open ...
>
>BTW, the Welsh girl's name "Gwen" shares the same root (keep it
>clean!).
Undoubtedly good advice, whatever word you use for it.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Skitt
> prehistoric origin lingering from what was the "first language" spoken by
> occurs without regard for geography in several throughout the world. In
> Native languages in North and South America, "kunya" means "female" in
> Guarani, Surya, and Kamayura, while "kunakunam" means "adult female" in
> Cuica.
The word "kuna" (with a comma under the "n"), pronounced "kunya", in Latvian
means "bitch" in the female dog sense.
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://skitt.i.am/
CAUTION: My veracity is under a limited warranty
Prince Richard Kaminski
Rhiannon wrote:
> paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2...
>
> > Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
> >
> > -paghat the ratgirl
>
> The word cunt has never bothered me, regardless of what it means or where
> it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-depth
> thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal favourite is a
> line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?", in which
> she says..."she's got a barbed wire pussy"...by any definition, I guess
> that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and dance naked
> in a pagan ritual in the woods?
I don't know how commonly this is known, but in the UK, "cunt" is most
frequently used as an insult against males rather than females. You can see
this in alt.writing, in the usage of Mr Maughan. The word also has its literal
meaning of "vagina", of course, but I don't think it is used as a disparaging
remark against women. When used as an insult against males, it doesn't really
carry a meaning, it's just an insulting remark made by someone in anger. It
implies that you hate someone, and that they have perhaps done something bad to
you or to your friends. Whereas "wanker", on the other hand, is just a term of
contempt. So if you're in an argument, for instance, and someone calls you a
cunt, you can tell they regard you with at least some grudging respect even if
they hate you, whereas if they call you a wanker, they have only contempt for
you. "Prick" is a similar word to "wanker" in this regard, whereas "bastard" is
more like "cunt" in that it indicates anger rather than contempt.
paghat
> paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2...
>
> > Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
> >
> > -paghat the ratgirl
>
> The word cunt has never bothered me, regardless of what it means or where
> it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-depth
> thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal favourite is a
> line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?", in which
> she says..."she's got a barbed wire pussy"...by any definition, I guess
> that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and dance naked
> in a pagan ritual in the woods?
>
> Rhiannon
Who'da thunk that sweet "There's a Little Bird" teenage singer with the
girlish sweet voice would turn into a female Tom Waits. Marianne singing
Kurt Weil is beyond great.
-paghat
paghat
> In article <7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2>,
> paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Cunt thus means "Woman" in the most positive sense of "Great Woman"
> (i.e.
> > "Lady" or "Queen") and it was probably so widespread because it was a
> > Mesolithic title of a universal Great Mother known on all continents.
> <snip>
>
> Nervous lurker over here: can you give me some cites/sites which give
> strong evidence for the existence of the universal Great Mother cult? I
> have read opinions by several modern archaeologists (albeit on
> http://patriarchy.com/~sheaffer/texts/goddess.html, which obviously has
> an anti-feminist agenda), which make a case against the notion of this
> universal Great Mother.
>
> Thanks
> Miranda
There are scores of books about the Stone Age Mother Goddess, most of them
a bit cranky & new agey, but there's a book of relatively recent vintage
already recognized as THE classic on the subject by a respected
archeologist, M. Gimbutas' THE CIVILAZATION OF THE GODDESS, and a
follow-up volume THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODDESS. Gimbatus spent her whole
life being a little "quiet" about her theories & discoveries because she
had to make a living & what she was finding to be true (in her estimation)
was a bit too close to such Victorian and Neo-Victorian Romantics like
Bachofen, Briffault, or Robert Graves. The anti-feminist agenda of many
old-guard archeolgists is certainly powerful today & vastly more political
than scientific in its rantings; they were even stronger in past decades
as when Gimbatus was beginning a career whose PAID and TENURED
practitioners were all male, though women did very much of the key
fieldwork as volunteers. But near the end of her life she summed up a
lifetime of research in two big fat volumes & then croaked before she
could be ostracized from an "industry" that has as many superstitious
taboos & faddish beliefs as any group of baseball players or astrologists,
including the superstitious belief that men & women never lived on this
earth as equals & no one waged war (though most do accept that Stone Age
peoples worshipped exclusively a Goddess -- the figurine evidence strikes
even the most rabidly anti-female archeologist as definitive on that
score). Gimbatis's two books have inspired a new Bachofenian uprush in the
present decade, of feminist archeological popular crankism & new age
religious hoohoo on the one side, and a backlash against her ideas on the
other side. Still, her work stands pretty strongly without regard for what
it inspired left & right.
The universal stone age Great Mother is discussed in P. Bahn's IMAGES OF
THE ICE AGE, 1899, and a large number of Bahn's essays in scientific trade
journals such as as in EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY and THE PROCEEDINGS OF
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY &c; and a just-released "populist" but very
readable overview of current thinking on the topic is embodied in R.
Rudgley's THE LOST CIVILIZATIONS OF THE STONE AGE, 1999.
A large number of books (and book chapters) about the Stone Age mother
Goddess invariably take as their central evidence the thousands of
prehistoric Goddess figurines recovered from every continent except
Antarctica, vs the nearly complete lack of any male equivalent figurines.
This does seem to indicate most powerfully that the Mother Goddess long
predates any concept of a male God. Though my own cleverly rattish mind
some while ago thunked up an alternate explanation which I've never seen
scientificly explored:
By the Bronze Age there was a very wide religious & spiritual concept of
the "absent father" -- Asherah dwelt on the Earth, at sea, & in groves, &
cared immediately for her people, but El dwelt on a high mountain & had no
direct contact with people except that which might be brought to him by
his bride Asherah or his daughter Anath. Zeus lived on a high mountain
while his mother Cybele ruled the Earth. Sekhmet and Hathor strode the
earth but Ra was incapable of descending to Earth & had news of the Earth
except what was revealed to him by his "Eye" which was a title of the
mother goddess who in various eras was Neth aka Anath, Sekhmet, Ubastet,
Hathor, Isis. A very common, very old & widespread idea this is. The
Absent Father survives in Judaism where Queen Malkhuth the Lower Shekhinah
dwells among people but Tiphereth (or Yahweh) has no direct contact with
the world except through Malkhuth; in Hinduism wherein Parvati interacts
with the world while her husband Siva sleeps eternal in a cave; &
Catholicism that requires Mary as mediatrix between humanity & her
Melcart-like son (who in turn is a representative of an imperceivable
Father who cannot be represented as a human idol in the same way that Mary
and Jesus can be).
It's usually assumed Stone Age people were too culturally & even
psychologically simple to have anything so complex in mind. But I suspect
they were AT LEAST as complicated as ourselves & perhaps more so since
modern "man" consists primarily of dunderheads who have more trivia in our
heads than spiritual thoughts. And Stone Age goddess figurines may have
represented a Mediatrix whose sexy body attracted the power of an absent,
imperceivable God whose semen was the rain, who was beyond representation
as a figurine (just as Yahweh, Allah, & Dio are prophibited from being
represented as idols though idols certainly persist in the forms of
menorah, sephiroth tree, jesus-on-cross, & sundry saints). And since in
greater antiquity the Moon was regarded as male (albeit the male regulator
of the womb & through the womb could become a mortal king or savior) it
could well be that a huge amount of "God" evidence would be detected if it
was understood that God was represented exclusively in the form of bulls'
horns (crescent moons) or as discs representing a male moon or sun. As
indeed the great number of bulls' horns represented in Prehistoric art --
occasionally grasped sensually by a Goddess figure who is a tamer of bulls
-- could be, though presently never is, construed as indicating a God who
though phyusically absent was known to have a kind of parity with a
Goddess even though only Earthmothers were capable of a physical
manifestation.
Now I'm deeply interested in the Mother Goddess and certainly wouldn't
mind if the concensus opinion were true -- that God is a late-occurring
idea and the Goddess has been with us for at least 40,000 years. But my
own idea seemingly not attested to in the scientific literature I actually
believe is more likely. But who'd listen to li'l ol' me. No laywoman &
amateur scholar is ever going to be heard by the scientific community
though I'll probably eventually be responsible for a "popular" monograph
that gets published among New Age trade paperbacks despised by scientists
who've made archeology a career & would risk never getting tenure if they
listened to anyone outside their rarified rooms.
Relatively recent speculations on a Proto-Global language I believe will
soon provide a better-than-figurines way of assessing what Stone Age
people "believed". I wish someone would write a good computer program to
search the biggest possible lexiconical data bank to find the maximum
number of these universal words that persist beneath the rootwords of all
the supposedly "separate" language groups. I think that would result in a
genuine grammar book of the very first human language. And it would be a
fascinating experiment making up sentences to see what could & could not
be stated with just that vocabulary. A good article on Proto-Global is
Bengtson & Ruhlen's "Global Etymologies" in Ruhlen's ON THE ORIGINS OF
LANGUAGES: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. 1994.
-paghat the ratscholar
Robert Maughan
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net>
>I don't know how commonly this is known, but in the UK, "cunt" is most
>frequently used as an insult against males rather than females. You can see
>this in alt.writing, in the usage of Mr Maughan. The word also has its literal
>meaning of "vagina", of course, but I don't think it is used as a disparaging
>remark against women. When used as an insult against males, it doesn't really
>carry a meaning, it's just an insulting remark made by someone in anger. It
>implies that you hate someone, and that they have perhaps done something bad to
>you or to your friends. Whereas "wanker", on the other hand, is just a term of
>contempt. So if you're in an argument, for instance, and someone calls you a
>cunt, you can tell they regard you with at least some grudging respect even if
>they hate you, whereas if they call you a wanker, they have only contempt for
>you. "Prick" is a similar word to "wanker" in this regard, whereas "bastard" is
>more like "cunt" in that it indicates anger rather than contempt.
You don't get out much, do you, wanker? The word cunt is used as a casual
insult in the UK by various social groups with none of the angst apparent
in your explanation. What the fuck has anger to do with it? It may be used
in anger, sure, but it isn't saved up to use in anger. When I call you a
cunt, I'm putting you in a category. When I call my pal Seamus a cunt I'm
putting him in another category. When my bro calls me a broken down old
cunt he's on the phone, the little ratbag, or I'd give him a slap. You're
one of those lonely shitwipes that walks into a pub and gets a smack in
the gob simply because the likelihood is that you will turn out to be a
really boring arsehole because you wear plastic shoes and nylon shirts.
Know what I'm saying? To say that using the word cunt, "implies that you
hate someone, and that they have perhaps done something bad to you or your
friends" is a statement so embarrassingly pathetic from a grown man, in
1999, in the UK, that it begs the question: what on earth kind of social
life do you lead? It's certain you don't hang out with blokes, or even
chaps. It's apparent from your twee exchanges that you don't hang out of
women. It's absolutely fucking definite that you don't hang your dick out
of your pants when you take a piss. I can quite understand you leaching a
personality out of multiple connexions in Usenet but I can't work out why
you blow the gaff every few posts with these ludicrous opinions about the
real world.
RJM.
Crash Johnson
<>
>Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
>-paghat the ratgirl
Nope, just you. But we knew that.
Crash 'thanks for asking' Johnson
Crash Johnson
>> Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
>>
>> -paghat the ratgirl
>
>it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-depth
>thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal favourite is a
>line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?", in which
>she says..."she's got a barbed wire pussy"...by any definition, I guess
>that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and dance naked
>in a pagan ritual in the woods?
it is not really necessary to go that far. You are welcome to meet out back
of my place.
Crash 'can keep a ritual secret' Johnson
Rhiannon
news:37BABBCB...@lineone.net...
>
> Rhiannon wrote:
> ...by any definition, I guess that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet
secretly, chant, and dance
> naked in a pagan ritual in the woods?
>
> I don't know how commonly this is known, but in the UK, "cunt" is most
> frequently used as an insult against males rather than females. You can
see
> this in alt.writing, in the usage of Mr Maughan. The word also has its
literal
> meaning of "vagina", of course, but I don't think it is used as a
disparaging
> remark against women. When used as an insult against males, it doesn't
really
> carry a meaning, it's just an insulting remark made by someone in anger.
It
> implies that you hate someone, and that they have perhaps done something
bad to
> you or to your friends. Whereas "wanker", on the other hand, is just a
term of
> contempt. So if you're in an argument, for instance, and someone calls
you a
> cunt, you can tell they regard you with at least some grudging respect
even if
> they hate you, whereas if they call you a wanker, they have only contempt
for
> you. "Prick" is a similar word to "wanker" in this regard, whereas
"bastard" is
> more like "cunt" in that it indicates anger rather than contempt.
I admit I was expecting yet another sarcastic swipe at meself and was
surprised to find none. Thank you Richard. Must give credit where credit
is due.
Rhiannon
Terry W. Croslow
"Rhiannon" <rhia...@idirect.com> wrote:
> paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2...
>
> >
> > -paghat the ratgirl
>
> The word cunt has never bothered me, regardless of what it means or
where
> it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-depth
> thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal
favourite is a
> line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?", in
which
guess
> that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and dance
naked
> in a pagan ritual in the woods?
>
>
>
My place is wooded.
Terry W. Croslow
Prince Richard Kaminski <richard....@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
> Rhiannon wrote:
>
> > paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2...
> >
> > > Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
> > >
> > > -paghat the ratgirl
> >
> > The word cunt has never bothered me, regardless of what it means or
where
> > it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-
depth
> > thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal
favourite is a
> > line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?",
in which
> > she says..."she's got a barbed wire pussy"...by any definition, I
guess
> > that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and
dance naked
> > in a pagan ritual in the woods?
>
> frequently used as an insult against males rather than females. You
can see
> this in alt.writing, in the usage of Mr Maughan. The word also has
its literal
> meaning of "vagina", of course, but I don't think it is used as a
disparaging
> remark against women. When used as an insult against males, it
doesn't really
> carry a meaning, it's just an insulting remark made by someone in
anger. It
> implies that you hate someone, and that they have perhaps done
something bad to
> you or to your friends. Whereas "wanker", on the other hand, is just
a term of
> contempt. So if you're in an argument, for instance, and someone
calls you a
> cunt, you can tell they regard you with at least some grudging
respect even if
> they hate you, whereas if they call you a wanker, they have only
contempt for
> you. "Prick" is a similar word to "wanker" in this regard, whereas
"bastard" is
> more like "cunt" in that it indicates anger rather than contempt.
>
>
You might want to check. I think Robert just called you a prick wanker.
Rhiannon
>
> > paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2...
> >
> > > Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
> > >
> > > -paghat the ratgirl
> >
> > The word cunt has never bothered me, regardless of what it means or
where
> > it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-depth
> > thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal favourite
is a
> > line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?", in
which
> > she says..."she's got a barbed wire pussy"...by any definition, I guess
> > that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and dance
naked
> > in a pagan ritual in the woods?
> >
>
> Who'da thunk that sweet "There's a Little Bird" teenage singer with the
> girlish sweet voice would turn into a female Tom Waits. Marianne singing
> Kurt Weil is beyond great.
>
> -paghat
Yeeup. One of the most incredible metamorphosis of person or musician in
the history of both. Are you by any chance a fan of Dennis Leary as well?
Rhiannon
Terry W. Croslow
That does pretty well cover the topic. Your theory concerning an
underlying mother of all language and its potential use as a research
tool is truly fascinating. My esteem for you grows with each and every
post. (Seriously.) Your learned essay did, however, fail to mention
the as yet unstudied origins of the Pig Latin term, untcay. Or, are
you one of those pigots who hate that poor cousin to the better loved
issues of Babel? (Not seriously.)
If I had a hat, I would be tipping it to you now. Would that I had a
paghat.
paghat
Not familiar enough to judge. Suggest something by him & I'll watch for it
at the CD shops I visit.
-paghat
Prince Richard Kaminski
"Terry W. Croslow" wrote:
> In article <37ba...@nemo.idirect.com>,
> "Rhiannon" <rhia...@idirect.com> wrote:
> > paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2...
> >
> > > Therefore: I'm a cunt. How 'bout y'all?
> > >
> > > -paghat the ratgirl
> >
> > The word cunt has never bothered me, regardless of what it means or
> where
> > it comes from, and quite frankly have not given it this much in-depth
> > thought or consideration. I simply don't care. My personal
> favourite is a
> > line from the Marianne Faithful song, "Why'd ya do what ya did?", in
> which
> > she says..."she's got a barbed wire pussy"...by any definition, I
> guess
> > that makes me a cunt as well. Do we meet secretly, chant, and dance
> naked
> > in a pagan ritual in the woods?
> >
> > Rhiannon
> >
> >
>
> My place is wooded.
So is your head.
Jacqui McKernan
HWM wrote in message <7pdoh4$fbh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Remarkably, as the Anglo
>would yell out "oh fuck, you fucking fuckhead, get the fuck out of
>here" a Finn aroused in a similar manner would yell directly translated
>" oh cunt, you cunthead of a cunt, ski into the fir tree of a cunt"
>
>So I think we're more cuntish than y'all.
>
Whereas on the west coast of Scotland cries along the lines of "fuck off, ya
cunting bastard" are not unheard of. No skiing involved though, so not
quite as impressive.
I've often heard through the years, although I can't remember any convincing
proof, that the C word in English derives from a word in Celtic (or some
other rilly, rilly old language) meaning 'source of power'. Which is nice.
Jacqui "when does the dancing in the woods start, and can I join" McKernan
Edwin J. Noonan
paghat wrote...
> Relatively recent speculations on a Proto-Global language I believe will
> soon provide a better-than-figurines way of assessing what Stone Age
> people "believed". I wish someone would write a good computer program to
> search the biggest possible lexiconical data bank to find the maximum
> number of these universal words that persist beneath the rootwords of all
> the supposedly "separate" language groups. I think that would result in a
> genuine grammar book of the very first human language. And it would be a
> fascinating experiment making up sentences to see what could & could not
> be stated with just that vocabulary. A good article on Proto-Global is
> Bengtson & Ruhlen's "Global Etymologies" in Ruhlen's ON THE ORIGINS OF
> LANGUAGES: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. 1994.
Love it when you get on a roll. Spurs my curiosity.
Alternate theory: It wasn't a goddess trip at all. Those stone age figurines
were an early form of erotica.
EJN
Anandashankar Mazumdar
> The original root seems to have been "Kun" or "Kuna." ... "kunya"
> means "female" in Guarani, Surya, and Kamayura, while "kunakunam"
> means "adult female" in Cuica. The same root can be detected in the
> Australian aboriginal Gamilarray langauge as gunijarr, "mother." It
> occurs in the Turkic language of Kirghiz or Altaic as kunu, "wife." In
> the Adaman Islands it occurs as "chana" (woman) and in Tasmanian as
> "kwani." In Afro-Asian languages such as Kushitic Oromo it occurs as
> Kena, "Lady." Kuna occurs in Indo-European languages meaning "Queen" &
> "Queen" is itself a corruption of Kun.
In Indo-Aryan languages, such as Bengali, "kanya" is a formal word
for "daughter" and "rajkanya" means "princess."
Ananda
Anopheles
Are you seriously saying we should use cunts as a vessel for gladioli? What
a waste.
Anopheles
paghat
<amaz...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Great it goes on my list!
-paghat
Larry Phillips
<several paragraphs of meledicta melded into one>
Well done, sir! You could give Reihhole a lesson or three.
--
I want to die quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> It's apparent from your twee exchanges
> that you don't hang out of women.
As a philologist & free-lance gynecologist, I wish to inform Mr. Maughan
that, as a rule, men don't hang out of women. The only objects I can
think of at the sperm of the moment that commonly hang out of women are
tampon strings, used condoms, soft dildos, and prolapsed uteri.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Editor
MALEDICTA: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Robert Maughan
Larry Phillips <lar...@home.com>
><several paragraphs of meledicta melded into one>
There's me thinking it was melodrama. I feel so usaged.
RJM.
Robert Maughan
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
>Robert Maughan wrote to Prince Richard Kaminski:
>
>> It's apparent from your twee exchanges
>> that you don't hang out of women.
>
>As a philologist & free-lance gynecologist, I wish to inform Mr. Maughan
>that, as a rule, men don't hang out of women. The only objects I can
>think of at the sperm of the moment that commonly hang out of women are
>tampon strings, used condoms, soft dildos, and prolapsed uteri.
Pal, as a usagist you're a parochial gynecomastian. Or you have a small
dick. As a philologist you're a bust. Or you live a sheltered life. As a
wit you're a bat. Or your signal is weak. As a contributer in this place
you're a prolapsed uterus. But still, you mean well, so pull up a chaise
longueur. I have a feeling you will run and run.
RJM.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Robert Maughan wrote:
>
> <several paragraphs of meledicta melded into one>
That's "maledicta," you sniping schmuck. You've seen this word for
almost two years now. It's high time that you learn how to spell it.
> Well done, sir! You could give Reihhole a lesson or three.
That's "Reinhold" or, if you're an easily-entertained moron, cretin or
imbecile, "Reinhole."
> --
> I want to die quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather,
> not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
You'll never die quietly in your sleep. Some fellow Canadian annoyed by
your brutish loutness will make sure of that. Now go bugger a loon.
Peter Deutsch
. . .
> your brutish loutness will make sure of that. Now go bugger a loon.
Well, *that* explains the sound they make...
-Peter (been here years and just figured it out) Deutsch
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Suddenly, nothing happened..."
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cissy . Thorpe
...og gladioli???
Simon Slavin
> There is speculation that the word
Discussion of word origins is rarely on-charter for alt.folklore.urban.
I see nothing in this thread so far that has anything to do with
either alt.folklore.urban or alt.writing.
This thread looks more suited to alt.usage.english but I don't read
that group so I don't know for certain. Could I ask people to trim
their 'Newsgroups' headers to just those groups they read ? Thanks
for your help.
Simon.
--
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | ... you start off with a typical message,
No junk email please. | let's say a 2.5MB Word document containing
ET may've phoned /us/. | three lines of text and a macro virus ...
Help play the tape: SETI@home. | -- Peter Gutmann
Aaron J. Dinkin
<snip>
> > > Kuna occurs in Indo-European languages meaning "Queen" & "Queen" is itself
> > > a corruption of Kun.
Just thought I'd mention that the AHD indicates no relation at all, tracing
one to PIE *"gwen-", 'woman' (whence Greek "gyne") and the other to a
hypothetical Germanic *"ku-", 'lump' (whence also "cudgel" and "cog", among
others).
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
>
> >Robert Maughan wrote to Prince Richard Kaminski:
> >
> >> It's apparent from your twee exchanges
> >> that you don't hang out of women.
> >As a philologist & free-lance gynecologist, I wish to inform Mr. Maughan
> >that, as a rule, men don't hang out of women. The only objects I can
> >think of at the sperm of the moment that commonly hang out of women
> >are tampon strings, used condoms, soft dildos, and prolapsed uteri.
Judging by your incoherent paragraph below, Mr. Maughan, you must
have used random snippets from several of your INSULTS boilerplates in
order to produce your astounding collection of evasive non sequiturs.
Nonetheless, I'll humo(u)r you with a few *witty* replies. (Note
that I emphasized "witty," as the esoteric nature of my wit escapes far
too many dull-minded Usenet readers. Armed with a good dictionary and
an intellectual friend to explain the more subtle nuances, even you may
be able to appreciate one or two of my verbal drolleries.)
> Pal,
That's unwanted familiarity, sir, and you know what that breeds.
I'm a doctor, you know, and thus don't appreciate being addressed as
"pal" by (the) hoi polloi.
> as a usagist you're a parochial gynecomastian.
That's better than being a gynemasticator like you, sir. I've
heard complaints about you from tender Irish lasses who abhor your
troglodytic approach to cunnilingus. May I suggest that you remove your
pain-inflicting dentures before eating at the Y?
> Or you have a small dick.
Haven't we all? Not everyone is Negroid, my good man. Regardless,
I fail to see any connection between my gentle correction of your
subliterate misuse of the idiom "to hang out with" and the length of my
Bavarian bratwurst (for which scores of women have pined and are still
pining. Eat your heart out, sir.)
> As a philologist you're a bust.
Not yet; I'm far too modest. But soon after my death, you'll find
bronze busts featuring my manly chest and handsome face (blush, blush)
in most renowned libraries, benevolently looking down on the readers.
> Or you live a sheltered life.
Another non sequitur, mon cher chou-chou. 'Tis true, I do work as
a volunteer at an animal rescue shelter, but I don't live there. The
only time I lived in a (bomb) shelter was in 1944 and 1945, to escape
the barbaric bombings by uncouth RAF gits, who dropped their goodies on
us harmless Bavarian peasants.
> As a wit you're a bat.
My, where *do* you come up with such brilliant bon mots? May I add
this to my collection of "Senseless Blatherskite"?
> Or your signal is weak.
As long as you're getting technical, and based on my experience
with shortwave radio, I suspect that your mental receiver is an ancient
vacuum-tube model missing an amplifier and an external antenna. In
other words, I'm beaming a strong signal all right, but you lack the
intellectual agility to receive my ethereal pearls.
> As a contributer in this place you're a prolapsed uterus.
Being a teacher, I'm thrilled that you've learned this new phrase,
"prolapsed uterus"; however, I'm also dismayed that you're making the
same error most neophytes make: you fail to grasp its meaning and use it
haphazardly in your attempt to impress the masses.
> But still, you mean well, so pull up a chaise
> longueur. I have a feeling you will run and run.
Thanks, but I'd rather stand and quietly walk away with a
victorious expression of superiority. You see, my good man, I'm not
given to mingling with _la canaille_, as the Walloons say.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Editor
Ian
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:59:34 -0700, paghat wrote
(in message <7piqs6$li2$0...@199.201.191.2>):
>
> The search for Proto-Global is a recent science. Most of the studies are to
> be found only in professional journals rather than standard reference works
> or popular books, & most of these articles are from the 1990s. Even if it is
> eventually widely accepted that this First Human Language existed, it won't
> change the way later languages are separated by the "elaborate lie" that
> there are easily divided unrelated groupings. The scientific separation of
> languages is a justifiable framework or game that permits analysis &
> speculation about root origins, ancient or prehistoric population movements,
> & so on, yet few linguists hold rigidly to any idea that these divers
> groupings were never in any way connected.The linguists pursuing a genuinely
> prehistoric "mother tongue" are not finding it difficult to accumulate the
> evidence that beneath the perceivable rootwords of modern and ancient
> languages there is yet another "sub" root & that'd be the vocabulary from
> which even the seemingly unrelated language groupings find commonality. I
> find the work compelling. There are certainly other explanations for why a
> large number of words (like Kun/t/a) occur in languages of all eras &
> continents. "Mah" for instance is another Proto-Global word that means
> "mother" in a number of seemingly unrelated languages going back to greatest
> antiquity. The theory is this is because babies make the smacking sound "muh
> muh muh muh" when struggling for a nipple; thus every mother through time
> heard their baby calling them muh-muh. But the more words like Mah that are
> uncovered -- same sounds with same meanings -- the less likely sees any
> explanation but that of a Lower Stone Age mothertongue underlyng ALL
> language.
>
> -paghat
Paggers? Any chance you could you break yor posts down into easily digestible
paras for the hard of reading among us? i.e. me, et al. Cheers, love. x
Noah Claypole
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:37BC92...@sonic.net...
Robert Maughan
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
>> >Robert Maughan wrote to Prince Richard Kaminski:
>> >
>> >> It's apparent from your twee exchanges
>> >> that you don't hang out of women.
>
>> >As a philologist & free-lance gynecologist, I wish to inform Mr. Maughan
>> >that, as a rule, men don't hang out of women. The only objects I can
>> >think of at the sperm of the moment that commonly hang out of women
>> >are tampon strings, used condoms, soft dildos, and prolapsed uteri.
>
> Judging by your incoherent paragraph below, Mr. Maughan, you must
>have used random snippets from several of your INSULTS boilerplates in
>order to produce your astounding collection of evasive non sequiturs.
You have no idea what incoherent or non sequitur mean: do you? You're a
semiliterate wanker with delusions of grandeur which you express in an
idiotic effete stylistic turmoil of turgid mots.
> Nonetheless, I'll humo(u)r you with a few *witty* replies.
I recommend in future you leave evaluation of your replies to readers.
> (Note
>that I emphasized "witty," as the esoteric nature of my wit escapes far
>too many dull-minded Usenet readers.
You emphasize "witty" because your auto-critical function is much like
your sexual experience, perfectly suited to the task in hand. You blow
your own trumpet.
>Armed with a good dictionary and
>an intellectual friend to explain the more subtle nuances, even you may
>be able to appreciate one or two of my verbal drolleries.)
Your drolleries are like camel dung. Flat because dropped from a height
but nevertheless useful as fuel. You would not recognize subtle nuances
if they crossed your path in train wearing sandwich boards all reading
SUBTLE NUANCES'R'US.
>> Pal,
>
> That's unwanted familiarity, sir, and you know what that breeds.
>I'm a doctor, you know, and thus don't appreciate being addressed as
>"pal" by (the) hoi polloi.
As I say, you have no idea what these expressions imply. Familiarity
breeds contempt only if familiarity has occurred. You will not be here
long enough to familiarise yourself with me and I have treated you with
contempt from the outset. My son is writing his doctorate and I'll be
sure to warn him about cunts like you. I think he is too modest, though.
He believes that academe will broaden his mind.
>> as a usagist you're a parochial gynecomastian.
>
> That's better than being a gynemasticator like you, sir.
I disagree, since I like nothing better than eating pussy at every opp-
ortunity. I adore the silky pillow of a woman's inner thigh and I could
lie there, content forever. I think you're missing something, doc, and
I'm bound to say it has had an adverse affect on your day to day social
intercourse. Still, with tits of your own, you'll get some satisfaction,
one can only hope.
> I've
>heard complaints about you from tender Irish lasses who abhor your
>troglodytic approach to cunnilingus. May I suggest that you remove your
>pain-inflicting dentures before eating at the Y?
Herself is a tender Italianate babe and she would kill me dead if I so
much as sniffed at Irish lasses, but your point is valid, if slightly
worrying. Perhaps your discipline is pre-history. Certainly you know fuck
all about contemporary mores. I do have a crown that I can remove. Comes
in useful. So difficult to breathe through one's ears.
>> Or you have a small dick.
>
> Haven't we all? Not everyone is Negroid, my good man. Regardless,
>I fail to see any connection between my gentle correction of your
>subliterate misuse of the idiom "to hang out with" and the length of my
>Bavarian bratwurst (for which scores of women have pined and are still
>pining. Eat your heart out, sir.)
I'll be as gentle as I can, considering. Your correction of my prose is
at least impertinent, and in reality a display of the parochialism I have
already mentioned. I quote the passage -
>>It's certain you don't hang out with blokes, or even chaps. It's
>>apparent from your twee exchanges that you don't hang out of women.
>>It's absolutely fucking definite that you don't hang your dick out
>>of your pants when you take a piss.
Note the variations on the theme, only one of which is the idiomatic "to
hang out with". The British idiom "to hang out of women" sailed over your
head then and it requires this lesson to hammer it into your thick skull.
I suppose that your Bratwurst, or 'little sausage' would be hard pressed
to hang out of a dormouse, so it is no surprise that scores of women pine
for it. I pine for it too. I'm absolutely grief stricken, you poor chap.
>> As a philologist you're a bust.
>
> Not yet; I'm far too modest. But soon after my death, you'll find
>bronze busts featuring my manly chest and handsome face (blush, blush)
>in most renowned libraries, benevolently looking down on the readers.
Jesus. Is this what you call "the esoteric nature of your wit"?
>> Or you live a sheltered life.
>
> Another non sequitur, mon cher chou-chou. 'Tis true, I do work as
>a volunteer at an animal rescue shelter, but I don't live there. The
>only time I lived in a (bomb) shelter was in 1944 and 1945, to escape
>the barbaric bombings by uncouth RAF gits, who dropped their goodies on
>us harmless Bavarian peasants.
It gets worse. First, a non sequitur is a conclusion that doesn't follow
logically from a foregoing premise. In established usage, a comment or
event that has no relation to what has gone before. I say, my premise,
that as a philologist, student of literary form, you are a bust (failure)
and I conclude that you must live a sheltered life. I have demonstrated
above how you have failed as a philologist since you have no idea about
how the language works in any mileu except your own. My conclusion, then,
is perfectly reasonable, that you have lived a sheltered life. One that
so lacked in sophistication and intellectual rigour that you delude your-
self, in public, that you are a man of letters, when manifestly you are
a man of straw. I refer readers to your paragraph above and I ask, 'Is
this pillock talking out of his arse, or what?'
>> As a wit you're a bat.
>
> My, where *do* you come up with such brilliant bon mots?
From thirty years of writing them for money, doc. Get a clue. You're
crossposted in a writing newsgroup where English usage is happening on
a daily basis. You can't write for shit, and you're getting shit on in
writing. You're in the wrong place. But don't let me stop you. I slept
all day to be in touch with a colleague down under. You're a welcome
diversion in the small hours. I have coffee brewing and you stewing,
and you'll be mewling and puking soon enough, I'll be bound.
> May I add
>this to my collection of "Senseless Blatherskite"?
>
Add it to anything you wish - no charge.
>> Or your signal is weak.
>
> As long as you're getting technical, and based on my experience
>with shortwave radio, I suspect that your mental receiver is an ancient
>vacuum-tube model missing an amplifier and an external antenna. In
>other words, I'm beaming a strong signal all right, but you lack the
>intellectual agility to receive my ethereal pearls.
Ethereal pearls, right. The wisdom of a donkey blowing it out of his
arse. Idiomatic that, you pathetic ignoramus.
>> As a contributer in this place you're a prolapsed uterus.
>
> Being a teacher, I'm thrilled that you've learned this new phrase,
>"prolapsed uterus"; however, I'm also dismayed that you're making the
>same error most neophytes make: you fail to grasp its meaning and use it
>haphazardly in your attempt to impress the masses.
Being a teacher you're a pedant on show in this environment. You're a
falling down focken eedjit, pops. Calling you a prolapsed uterus is a
kindness.
>> But still, you mean well, so pull up a chaise
>> longueur. I have a feeling you will run and run.
>
> Thanks, but I'd rather stand and quietly walk away with a
>victorious expression of superiority. You see, my good man, I'm not
>given to mingling with _la canaille_, as the Walloons say.
Sure, what you mean is, you'd better head for the exit while the heading
is good. Where have I heard that before? This is the stamping ground of
la canaille, pal, you are given to mingling with the rabble by default.
You are more inclined to give yourself airs, but sadly, only utter your
own petards. Now fuck off while you are only a laughing stock in these
three amicable groups.
RJM.
paghat
<ejno...@earthlink.net> wrote:
A vast number of Stone Age Goddess figurines are armless with very rounded
heads & not too large to insert in the vagina. Few archeologists discuss
this in papers -- I've found only two or three who addressed it & even
then only in passing or as footnotes -- but when you meet anyone working
with prehistoric artifacts, all you need to do is HINT that some of the
goddess figurines might be dildos and their eyes glow with delight.
Because there's really no question about it.
The real puzzle then becomes why dildoes shaped like the male member
appear so much later than round-headed dildoes with dull rounded breasts &
wide hips. It does seem a belief in the Goddess as source of fertility
ranked well above the physical reality that doing it with a pecker, not
with a tiny female dolly, induced pregnancy. Otherwise the pecker-shaped
olisbos that appeared late in the Upper Stone Age would've been seen
BEFORE these goddess-dildoes appeared.
-paghat
-paghat
paghat
The search for Proto-Global is a recent science. Most of the studies are
paghat
<i...@lastime.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 22:59:34 -0700, paghat wrote
> (in message <7piqs6$li2$0...@199.201.191.2>):
>
>
> >
> Paggers? Any chance you could you break yor posts down into easily digestible
> paras for the hard of reading among us? i.e. me, et al. Cheers, love. x
Most my urban posts, they be one-liners just for the slow-witted.
-paghat
Edwin J. Noonan
paghat wrote...
> Edwin J. Noonan wrote:
> > Alternate theory: It wasn't a goddess trip at all. Those stone age
figurines
> > were an early form of erotica.
>
> heads & not too large to insert in the vagina. Few archeologists discuss
> this in papers -- I've found only two or three who addressed it & even
> then only in passing or as footnotes -- but when you meet anyone working
> with prehistoric artifacts, all you need to do is HINT that some of the
> goddess figurines might be dildos and their eyes glow with delight.
> Because there's really no question about it.
>
> The real puzzle then becomes why dildoes shaped like the male member
> appear so much later than round-headed dildoes with dull rounded breasts &
> wide hips. It does seem a belief in the Goddess as source of fertility
> ranked well above the physical reality that doing it with a pecker, not
> with a tiny female dolly, induced pregnancy. Otherwise the pecker-shaped
> olisbos that appeared late in the Upper Stone Age would've been seen
> BEFORE these goddess-dildoes appeared.
Alternate theory: it wasn't spirituality, it was irony. All these people had
to do was hang around the fire, camping out all the time. With nothing
better to do, it was a continuous orgy. Somebody thought it would spice
things up to fashion a dildo in the image of a woman. This was the first
identifiable attempt at humor, which is interesting in itself, but the
unintended consequences were dramatic. This bit of sexual
frolic spawned the next significant era of human evolution. The true nature
of the Iron Age has been lost. It was actually the Age of Irony. This is
well documented by the appearance of iron dildos, which proved impractical.
The rust caused calluses in the vagina producing a sensation similar to that
of a male hand. The thoroughly dissatisfying experience led to the invention
of stainless steel. This durable substance produced satisfactory results
until some drunk started bouncing off trees and discovered rubber.
EJN
Michael Cargal
In the late 1960s, Carl Lamberg-Karlovsky found a male figure at Tepe
Yaya, in Iran. It was torpedo-shaped with a hole in the tip. It looked
like a carved dildo.
--
Michael Cargal car...@cts.com
Aaron J. Dinkin
(paghat) wrote:
> In article <dinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
> din...@fas.harvard.edu (Aaron J. Dinkin) wrote:
>
> > > > In article <7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2>,
> > > > paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The original root seems to have been "Kun" or "Kuna."
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Kuna occurs in Indo-European languages meaning "Queen" & "Queen"
> > > > > is itself a corruption of Kun.
> >
> > Just thought I'd mention that the AHD indicates no relation at all, tracing
> > one to PIE *"gwen-", 'woman' (whence Greek "gyne") and the other to a
> > hypothetical Germanic *"ku-", 'lump' (whence also "cudgel" and "cog", among
> > others).
>
> The search for Proto-Global is a recent science.
<snip>
> There are certainly other explanations for why a large number of words (like
> Kun/t/a) occur in languages of all eras & continents.
But the point is, you have claimed that two words in the _same_ language
(not to mention era and continent) are related that have already been
reliably traced back to quite dissimilar PIE roots. Their modern similarity
is a coincidence. Whether or not Proto-World existed or can be
reconstructed, these two words are unrelated.
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: mark...@my-deja.com <mark...@my-deja.com> wrote:
: >"queen" is the Normanised spelling of the older, Briton (Welsh?) word
Old English.
: >"cwen", which meant merely "woman" (not female monarch). Is "cwen" a
: >corruption of "kun"?? I leave the question open ...
: >
: >BTW, the Welsh girl's name "Gwen" shares the same root (keep it
: >clean!).
Not true. The Welsh personal name derives from the common adjective
"gwen" meaning "white", which in turn derives from a suffixed form of
proto-Indo-European *weid-. The coincidence that the PIE root from which
English "queen" derives is reconstructed as *gwen- is irrelevant. PIE
*gwen != Welsh 'gwen'.
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Larry Palletti
[...]
>
> The real puzzle then becomes why dildoes shaped like the male member
> appear so much later than round-headed dildoes with dull rounded breasts &
> wide hips. It does seem a belief in the Goddess as source of fertility
> ranked well above the physical reality that doing it with a pecker, not
> with a tiny female dolly, induced pregnancy. Otherwise the pecker-shaped
> olisbos that appeared late in the Upper Stone Age would've been seen
> BEFORE these goddess-dildoes appeared.
Nah. It just proves that women can be pricks, too.
Larry Palletti
East Point/Atlanta, Georgia
www.palletti.com la...@palletti.com
--
Opinionated, but lovable
Speaking tongue-in-chick^H^H^Heek
Skitt
Larry Palletti <la...@palletti.com> wrote in message
news:37be30f4...@news.atl.bellsouth.net...
> >paghat wrote...
>
> [...]
> >
> > The real puzzle then becomes why dildoes shaped like the male member
> > appear so much later than round-headed dildoes with dull rounded breasts
&
> > wide hips. It does seem a belief in the Goddess as source of fertility
> > ranked well above the physical reality that doing it with a pecker, not
> > with a tiny female dolly, induced pregnancy. Otherwise the pecker-shaped
> > olisbos that appeared late in the Upper Stone Age would've been seen
> > BEFORE these goddess-dildoes appeared.
>
> Nah. It just proves that women can be pricks, too.
You don't know the half of it.
(Confined to AUE.)
--
Skitt (on Florida's Space Coast) http://i.am/skitt/
... information is gushing toward your brain like a fire hose aimed
at a teacup. -- Dogbert
Yvaqryy O. Wbarf, We.
-0700, "Reihhole (Meledicta) Amen" <am...@sonic.net> shat:
>Larry "The Lout" Phillips sniped from behind his cowardly killfile:
>
>> Robert Maughan wrote:
>>
>> <several paragraphs of meledicta melded into one>
>
>That's "maledicta," you sniping schmuck. You've seen this word for
>almost two years now. It's high time that you learn how to spell it.
"Meledicta," "maledicta," or "maledickta," it's still nothing more
than a waste of perfectly good paper. God, to think how hard it must
suck to be one of the trees that gave its life so your pathetic books
can be published! The only way life could suck harder is if one of
these poor trees was reincarnated as you.
Meledickta usually finds a use as toilet paper, so it's not totally
worthless. However, it doesn't soak up shit the way real toilet paper
does. It also tends to clog up pipes and cause problems with septic
systems.
>> Well done, sir! You could give Reihhole a lesson or three.
>
>That's "Reinhold" or, if you're an easily-entertained moron, cretin or
>imbecile, "Reinhole."
Heh! Here Reihholed shows us plainly that he is badly pissed off by
people misspelling his dipshit name. Perhaps *everybody* should start
misspelling his name like this. <eg>
>> --
>> I want to die quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather,
>> not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
>
>You'll never die quietly in your sleep. Some fellow Canadian annoyed by
>your brutish loutness will make sure of that. Now go bugger a loon.
This is at least the third time that I've seen Reihholed hint that he
dislikes Canadians. For this I am glad, because I always enjoy
visiting Canada, and I'd hate to see a loser like Amen fuck it up
anymore than he did while he lived there.
See the Uuuugly & Utterly Stupid "Reinhold Aman":
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/images/aman_head.jpg
--
Everything You Never Wanted To Know About Grandpa Reinholed
And The Toilet Paper Known As "Male*dick*ta" --->
Yvaqryy O. Wbarf, We.
-0700, "Reinholio (Prison Sex) Aman" <am...@sonic.net> whined...
>Robert Maughan wrote:
>
>> Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
>>
>> >Robert Maughan wrote to Prince Richard Kaminski:
>> >
>> >> It's apparent from your twee exchanges
>> >> that you don't hang out of women.
>
>> >As a philologist & free-lance gynecologist, I wish to inform Mr. Maughan
>> >that, as a rule, men don't hang out of women. The only objects I can
>> >think of at the sperm of the moment that commonly hang out of women
>> >are tampon strings, used condoms, soft dildos, and prolapsed uteri.
>
> Judging by your incoherent paragraph below, Mr. Maughan, you must
>have used random snippets from several of your INSULTS boilerplates in
>order to produce your astounding collection of evasive non sequiturs.
>
Congratulations (or perhaps condolences) to Mr. Maughan. The above
paragraph would seem to be Reinholed's way of saying that he will be
plagiarizing your flames in the next edition of "Maledickta." Anybody
with a brain can figure out that he'll probably be plagiarizing all of
the flames against him from me, Mimi, RQ, Polar, Clark Johnson, and
others in the next edition. Now he has another source.
> Nonetheless, I'll humo(u)r you with a few *witty* replies. (Note
>that I emphasized "witty," as the esoteric nature of my wit escapes far
>too many dull-minded Usenet readers.
Here Reinholed's conceit shows through once again. It isn't that his
wit is beyond most Usenet readers, it's that his wit isn't funny to
anybody but himself. Most of us get your attempts at humor, Aman. It's
just that they're about as funny as an all-out nuclear war.
> Armed with a good dictionary and
>an intellectual friend to explain the more subtle nuances, even you may
>be able to appreciate one or two of my verbal drolleries.)
>
>> Pal,
>
> That's unwanted familiarity, sir, and you know what that breeds.
>I'm a doctor, you know, and thus don't appreciate being addressed as
>"pal" by (the) hoi polloi.
Actually, you should be very grateful to be addressed as "Pal." It's
about as close to having a real friend as you're ever going to get.
Loser.
>> as a usagist you're a parochial gynecomastian.
>
> That's better than being a gynemasticator like you, sir. I've
>heard complaints about you from tender Irish lasses who abhor your
>troglodytic approach to cunnilingus. May I suggest that you remove your
>pain-inflicting dentures before eating at the Y?
The only thing Reinholed knows about cunnilingus is what he reads
about it in his collection of books, as no woman would let him within
a country mile of her. Of course, he does know better than to perform
it with dentures. Last time he tried it with his dentures on, his
girlfriend "hissed" at him and rapidly deflated. <eg>
>> Or you have a small dick.
>
> Haven't we all? Not everyone is Negroid, my good man. Regardless,
>I fail to see any connection between my gentle correction of your
>subliterate misuse of the idiom "to hang out with" and the length of my
>Bavarian bratwurst (for which scores of women have pined and are still
>pining. Eat your heart out, sir.)
I'm sorry, but I don't think anybody's going to be eating their hearts
out over this. Your "Bavarian bratwurst" never was any bigger than one
of those "little smokies," and it's now so shrivelled up and limp that
you can't even use it to take a piss.
In fact, this explains why you think your piss doesn't stink. You piss
your pants all the time, and thus you always live with the odor of
your urine. Olfactory fatigue has long since set in, so you simply
don't notice the smell of your urine.
In any case, the only time "scores of women have pined" for your
dicklet was when you called that 1-900 sex line. If they only could
have seen a picture of your face or of your dicklet when they were
talking dirty to you, they would have been frigid for the rest of
their lives. Ugh!
>
>> As a philologist you're a bust.
>
> Not yet; I'm far too modest.
Christ! You're about as modest as the Pope is Jewish.
> But soon after my death, you'll find
>bronze busts featuring my manly chest and handsome face (blush, blush)
>in most renowned libraries, benevolently looking down on the readers.
Yeah, right. You'll probably make sure that you spend all your money
having these bronze busts sent to every library in the world. Most
libraries will simply melt them down to sell the bronze for a few
cents. If you're lucky, some pissy-assed library in Hickville,
Arkansas might place your bronze bust in the mens' room looking down
on all the people as they try to take a shit. Of course, one look at
your face is sure to cause a nasty case of constipation...
>> Or you live a sheltered life.
>
> Another non sequitur, mon cher chou-chou. 'Tis true, I do work as
>a volunteer at an animal rescue shelter, but I don't live there. The
>only time I lived in a (bomb) shelter was in 1944 and 1945, to escape
>the barbaric bombings by uncouth RAF gits, who dropped their goodies on
>us harmless Bavarian peasants.
Here goes Reinholed once again trying to make the Allies look like the
bad guys. It's hardly a surprise considering his fascist ways of
performing his mental masturbation.
<snip remainder, as Reinholio's disgusting and overwhelming conceit
has already given me indigestion. Feh!>
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
reply to him here.]
[snipped most]
Robert Maughan wrote:
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
>> Judging by your incoherent paragraph below, Mr. Maughan, you must
>>have used random snippets from several of your INSULTS boilerplates in
>>order to produce your astounding collection of evasive non sequiturs.
>You have no idea what incoherent or non sequitur mean: do you? You're a
>semiliterate wanker with delusions of grandeur which you express in an
>idiotic effete stylistic turmoil of turgid mots.
Before posting my witty replies to your incoherent mishmash, sir, I
read circa 30 of your posts in the Deja.com archives to familiarize
myself with your style and degree of hubris. What you call my
"delusions of grandeur" and "an idiotic effete stylistic turmoil of
turgid mots" (Lord!) are actually a parody of Your Highness, Sir Bob;
but you were too full of it to notice my tongue-in-cheek mockery of the
self-impressed RJM. Having been able to successfully send you up caused
me near-orgasmic satisfaction.
On a more pragmatic level, sir, I do appreciate your explaining to
me the meaning of "non sequitur" and the polysemous senses of "bust."
> Now fuck off while you are only a laughing stock in these three amicable groups.
There's a curiously high correlation between those who make fools
of themselves and those who call their intellectually superior
adversaries "a laughing stock." Thank you, my amicable pal Bob, for
providing more evidence.
Speaking of "laughing stock," there is a demented & illiterate fool
in AUE, "Mad Mongo," who calls me "a laughing stalk" [sic]. I don't
really consider you a fool, Bob, because that word is reserved for the
likes of "Mad Mongo."
And speaking of that non-clinical cretin Mongo, I wish to apologize
in advance to AFU and AW readers for that soon-to-appear Beast from
Hell. You see, on weekends, the staff psychiatrists at The Sisters of
Mercy Asylum for the Criminally Insane in Missouri (USA) allow "Mad
Mongo" access to the Internet as part of his therapy. During those few
hours, that madman feverishly searches newsgroups for my postings and
then taps out his repetitious insane rants. And I mean insane. Not
just foolish; *insane*.
That maniac Mongo, despite being pumped full of Thorazine, posts
madly as "Yvaqryy O. Wbarf, We." to disguise his legal name Lindelllll
Ben Jones, Junior. You'll recognize his posts not only by his wacky
name but also by their unbearable fecal stench.
Picture yourself and me as urbane, cosmopolitan gentlemen sitting
in your elegant salon, chatting about the etymology of "non sequitur"
and your career as a successful writer and poet. Suddenly the door
crashes to the floor and a morbidly obese, beastly-looking,
foul-smelling creature stomps in, covered with feces up to its
nostrils. It waddles towards us, dripping its cloacal effluvia onto
your fine Persian carpets, and starts screaming its standard litany of
madness.
This periodic invasion by a most foul & brutish monster is a
graphic representation of "Mad Mongo's" postings to such amicable
newsgroups as alt.folklore.urban, alt.writing, and alt.usage.english. I
know you're too much of a gentleman to sully yourself by chasing that
beast Mongo from your literary salon, Bob, but if you want to have some
fun toying with a *genuine* fool, "Mad Mongo" is your ideal target. To
see what he looks like, click here:
<http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/mongo.html>.
P.S. For God's sake, Bob, don't ever hint or mention that you're
smarter and better-looking than "Mad Mongo." This will drive him even
crazier than he already is and he'll dump barrels of his foulest filth
on you.
Pax,
Reinhold ("Doc") Aman
Robert Maughan
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
> Before posting my witty replies to your incoherent mishmash, sir, I
>read circa 30 of your posts in the Deja.com archives to familiarize
>myself with your style and degree of hubris. What you call my
>"delusions of grandeur" and "an idiotic effete stylistic turmoil of
>turgid mots" (Lord!) are actually a parody of Your Highness, Sir Bob;
>but you were too full of it to notice my tongue-in-cheek mockery of the
>self-impressed RJM. Having been able to successfully send you up caused
>me near-orgasmic satisfaction.
Sure ... your witty replies, your parody, your send-up. Right. You call
me self-impressed. Observe your paragraph above. You're a near-orgasmic
bratwurst waving midget bravely squeaking from your soapbox about the
size of your mouth.
> On a more pragmatic level, sir, I do appreciate your explaining to
>me the meaning of "non sequitur" and the polysemous senses of "bust."
I used only one meaning of bust - failure. You. 'Polysemous senses' is
oxymoronic. You are a singular fuckwit.
>> Now fuck off while you are only a laughing stock in these three amicable
>groups.
>
> There's a curiously high correlation between those who make fools
>of themselves and those who call their intellectually superior
>adversaries "a laughing stock." Thank you, my amicable pal Bob, for
>providing more evidence.
There is no correlation between these two here that I can see. I can
see that you're making a display of yourself with blind determination
and I gather that you do so with some regularity in a.u.e.
I've no idea what the rest of your post is about, and I have a feeling
you don't.
RJM.
Michael
paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> In article <7pdj53$b0a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mvin...@bankmed.co.za
wrote:
>
> > In article <7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2>,
> > paggersSP...@my-deja.com (paghat) wrote:
> >
> > > Cunt thus means "Woman" in the most positive sense of "Great
Woman"
> > (i.e.
> > > "Lady" or "Queen") and it was probably so widespread because it
was a
> > > Mesolithic title of a universal Great Mother known on all
continents.
> > <snip>
> >
> > Nervous lurker over here: can you give me some cites/sites which
give
> > strong evidence for the existence of the universal Great Mother
cult? I
> > have read opinions by several modern archaeologists (albeit on
> > http://patriarchy.com/~sheaffer/texts/goddess.html, which obviously
has
> > an anti-feminist agenda), which make a case against the notion of
this
> > universal Great Mother.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Miranda
>
> There are scores of books about the Stone Age Mother Goddess, most of
them
> a bit cranky & new agey, but there's a book of relatively recent
vintage
> already recognized as THE classic on the subject by a respected
> archeologist, M. Gimbutas' THE CIVILAZATION OF THE GODDESS, and a
> follow-up volume THE LANGUAGE OF THE GODDESS. Gimbatus spent her whole
> life being a little "quiet" about her theories & discoveries because
she
> had to make a living & what she was finding to be true (in her
estimation)
> was a bit too close to such Victorian and Neo-Victorian Romantics like
> Bachofen, Briffault, or Robert Graves. The anti-feminist agenda of
many
> old-guard archeolgists is certainly powerful today & vastly more
political
> than scientific in its rantings; they were even stronger in past
decades
> as when Gimbatus was beginning a career whose PAID and TENURED
> practitioners were all male, though women did very much of the key
> fieldwork as volunteers. But near the end of her life she summed up a
> lifetime of research in two big fat volumes & then croaked before she
> could be ostracized from an "industry" that has as many superstitious
> taboos & faddish beliefs as any group of baseball players or
astrologists,
> including the superstitious belief that men & women never lived on
this
> earth as equals & no one waged war (though most do accept that Stone
Age
> peoples worshipped exclusively a Goddess -- the figurine evidence
strikes
> even the most rabidly anti-female archeologist as definitive on that
> score). Gimbatis's two books have inspired a new Bachofenian uprush in
the
> present decade, of feminist archeological popular crankism & new age
> religious hoohoo on the one side, and a backlash against her ideas on
the
> other side. Still, her work stands pretty strongly without regard for
what
> it inspired left & right.
>
> The universal stone age Great Mother is discussed in P. Bahn's IMAGES
OF
> THE ICE AGE, 1899, and a large number of Bahn's essays in scientific
trade
> journals such as as in EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY and THE PROCEEDINGS
OF
> THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY &c; and a just-released "populist" but very
> readable overview of current thinking on the topic is embodied in R.
> Rudgley's THE LOST CIVILIZATIONS OF THE STONE AGE, 1999.
>
> A large number of books (and book chapters) about the Stone Age mother
> Goddess invariably take as their central evidence the thousands of
> prehistoric Goddess figurines recovered from every continent except
> Antarctica, vs the nearly complete lack of any male equivalent
figurines.
> This does seem to indicate most powerfully that the Mother Goddess
long
> predates any concept of a male God. Though my own cleverly rattish
mind
> some while ago thunked up an alternate explanation which I've never
seen
> scientificly explored:
> <<snip>>
> The
> Absent Father survives in Judaism where Queen Malkhuth the Lower
Shekhinah
> dwells among people but Tiphereth (or Yahweh) has no direct contact
with
> the world except through Malkhuth; in Hinduism wherein Parvati
interacts
> with the world while her husband Siva sleeps eternal in a cave; &
> Catholicism that requires Mary as mediatrix between humanity & her
> Melcart-like son (who in turn is a representative of an imperceivable
> Father who cannot be represented as a human idol in the same way that
Mary
> and Jesus can be).
> <<snip>>
> I
suspect
> they were AT LEAST as complicated as ourselves & perhaps more so since
> modern "man" consists primarily of dunderheads who have more trivia in
our
> heads than spiritual thoughts. And Stone Age goddess figurines may
have
> represented a Mediatrix whose sexy body attracted the power of an
absent,
> imperceivable God whose semen was the rain, who was beyond
representation
> as a figurine (just as Yahweh, Allah, & Dio are prophibited from being
> represented as idols though idols certainly persist in the forms of
> menorah, sephiroth tree, jesus-on-cross, & sundry saints). And since
in
> greater antiquity the Moon was regarded as male (albeit the male
regulator
> of the womb & through the womb could become a mortal king or savior)
it
> could well be that a huge amount of "God" evidence would be detected
if it
> was understood that God was represented exclusively in the form of
bulls'
> horns (crescent moons) or as discs representing a male moon or sun. As
> indeed the great number of bulls' horns represented in Prehistoric art
--
> occasionally grasped sensually by a Goddess figure who is a tamer of
bulls
> -- could be, though presently never is, construed as indicating a God
who
> though phyusically absent was known to have a kind of parity with a
> Goddess even though only Earthmothers were capable of a physical
> manifestation.
>
> Now I'm deeply interested in the Mother Goddess and certainly wouldn't
> mind if the concensus opinion were true -- that God is a
late-occurring
> idea and the Goddess has been with us for at least 40,000 years. But
my
> own idea seemingly not attested to in the scientific literature I
actually
> believe is more likely. But who'd listen to li'l ol' me. No laywoman &
> amateur scholar is ever going to be heard by the scientific community
> though I'll probably eventually be responsible for a "popular"
monograph
> that gets published among New Age trade paperbacks despised by
scientists
> who've made archeology a career & would risk never getting tenure if
they
> listened to anyone outside their rarified rooms.
>
> Relatively recent speculations on a Proto-Global language I believe
will
> soon provide a better-than-figurines way of assessing what Stone Age
> people "believed". I wish someone would write a good computer program
to
> search the biggest possible lexiconical data bank to find the maximum
> number of these universal words that persist beneath the rootwords of
all
> the supposedly "separate" language groups. I think that would result
in a
> genuine grammar book of the very first human language. And it would be
a
> fascinating experiment making up sentences to see what could & could
not
> be stated with just that vocabulary. A good article on Proto-Global is
> Bengtson & Ruhlen's "Global Etymologies" in Ruhlen's ON THE ORIGINS OF
> LANGUAGES: Studies in Linguistic Taxonomy. 1994.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> You may have the best new ideas in anthropology and
archeaology. However, if you mis-quote a source or say something wrong
that should have been researched more carefully, your proffessional
standing will be eroded.
For instance, the menorah is not and has never been an idol. Whether
you are talking about one or two sabath candle sticks, the seven-candle
menorah seen in synagogues, or the hanukiah which has 9 candles in it on
the last day of Hanukah, none of them are worshipped, nor are they
representations of God. They are just religious implements, and are
afforded less respect than a prayer book.
I was raised in conservative Jewish tradition and have never heard of
"Queen Malkuth the Lower Shekhinah" or that "Tipereth (Yahweh) has no
direct contact with the world except through Malkuth". Could this be
from kabalah, the jewish mysticism, which is very distinct from Judaism,
the religeon. Jews pray dirctly to God, not to an absent father, but to
the creator of the universe.
Occasionally, competent amateurs make contributions to various sciences.
The trouble with "new age" things is that the proponents rarely put
their propositions to the test of the scientific method.
If you want a specialized computer program to search the biggest
lexiconical data bank to find the maximum number of these universal
words ... , then you may have to write it yourself, because I'm sure MS
and other software companies won't. You may even have to create the
data base you need.
Remember - - the burden of proof is on the proposer of the new idea.
Your hypothesis will be subjected to experimental scrutiny and must be
verifiable by other researchers - - you can not prove your ideas by
accusing your detractors of prejudice against you as a woman or an
amateur - - and you can't claim to be right because "nobody's proven me
wrong".
Good luck,
Michael
--
* do the math : The 21st century (and the 3rd millenium) really
does start on 1 January 2001. *
--
* The 21st century (and the 3rd millenium) really
does start on 1 January 2001. *
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Michael
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
> > On a more pragmatic level, sir, I do appreciate your explaining to
> >me the meaning of "non sequitur" and the polysemous senses of "bust."
> I used only one meaning of bust - failure. You. 'Polysemous senses' is
> oxymoronic. You are a singular fuckwit.
Your attention span and comprehension skills are deteriorating, my
good pal Bob. You did indeed broaden my verbal skills by pointing out
the additional meaning (i.e., sense) of bust ("failure"), which you so
touchingly explained to me.
I'm alarmed by your lacking acquaintance with your mother tongue.
"Oxymoronic" is a nice word with which to impress the masses, but as I
pointed out regarding your earlier faux pas ("prolapsed uterus"), you
simply must first learn the meaning(s) of newly-acquired words and
phrases before using them, Bob. The adjective you were searching for is
"tautological," even though it's not quite kosher either.
Your standard modus operandi of whipping out snappy or
intelligent-sounding retorts, topped off with "fuckwit," "shitwipe" and
similar epithets, provides chuckles to the average moron, but to us who
have a high regard for language and logic, it makes you look like a
pretentious fraud.
[RJM:]
> >> Now fuck off while you are only a laughing stock in these
> >> three amicable groups.
> > There's a curiously high correlation between those who make
> >fools of themselves and those who call their intellectually superior
> >adversaries "a laughing stock." Thank you, my amicable pal Bob,
> >for providing more evidence.
> There is no correlation between these two here that I can see.
Of course you can't see the obvious correlation, my good man,
because you're in denial.
> I can see that you're making a
> display of yourself with blind determination
Au contraire, mon petit chou-chou. My eyes are wide open; to wit:
there's another high correlation between those who make a display of
themselves and those who accuse others of engaging in the same. Despite
your 5,500-plus posts to Usenet you'll also deny this fact.
> and I gather that you do so with some regularity in a.u.e.
And how did you gather this?
> I've no idea what the rest of your post is about,
> and I have a feeling you don't.
This is another proof of your lacking attention span, Bob, and of
your failure to understand concrete information and vivid imagery.
Frankly, I'm beginning to worry about you. Thirty years of toiling as a
paid hack-writer can wear anyone down. (N.B.: "paid" is used for
emphasis; it's neither oxymoronic nor tautological.)
I'm sorry I had to urinate on your plastic shoes and shred your
nylon shirt. It's a dirty job, but someone had to do it. Now, Bob, do
you still want me to pull up a chaise longueur, or would you prefer it
if I "fucked off," as you earlier suggested?
--
Reinhold ("Doc") Aman
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
Malcolm McLean
--
Prose should be architecture, not interior decorating.
-Ernest Hemingway, in 'Death in the Afternoon'-
-
Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote in message <37BF49...@sonic.net>...
Geez, and here I was, thinking that the purpose of writing was
communication.
Ten dollar words and a nickels' worth of syntax won't pay for a cup of
coffee here, laddybuck. You'd best be putting down the OED, and picking up
the 'Elements of Style'. Uh, you do know where you left it, don't you?
Malcolm
paghat
<paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> [clips] the menorah is not and has never been an idol.
Oh-ho! Never say never, it's a sure trap.
An "Idol" is any fashioned object representing a deity. For (let us call
it) "normative" Judaism the menorah does not qualify because it has no
"god" form. But in many teachings the Menorah is identified with the
Sephiroth tree, specifically the seven lower sephiroth culminating in the
Lower Shekhinah. course Jews who do sephirotic meditations are early
taught what mental tricks to play on oneself so as to never regard the
Sephiroth as deities. But any analysis outside the boundaries of faith
alone would have trouble detecting any difference between a Jewish
sephirah, a Christian Gnostic aeon, & a pagan divinity. Therefore the
menorah is an idol representing seven deities, the centermost being Queen
Malkhuth herself, otherwise known as the Lower Shekhinah, Matronit the
Great Lady, Kavod the Glory, or Kallah the Bride.
Hassidim and Kabbalists support this teaching (of the Menorah as
Shekhinah) with such verses as "These seven are the eyes of the Lord who
range throughout the world" [Zech 4:10] because God, as absent father,
requires the Lower Skekhinah through whom he can observe the distant world
in exactly the same way that the Sun-god Ra required Hathor to bring him
any news of the world (and the Zohar is explicit in teaching how God knows
his children exclusively through the agency of the Bride). The number
"Seven" is throughout mystical Judaism symbolic of Kallah the Bride. The
menorah is just one of her physical forms -- specifically a Goddess idol
in a submerged form that can be "ignored" by worshippers if they really
want to swallow that fishhook that has "monotheism" written on it. What is
more remarkable to me is that the Sabbath Bride is honored by some of the
greatest modern Hebrew poetry, & by "normative" observant Jews (Orthodox
especially but also Conservative and sometimes quite wildly to the point
of paganly by Reform) & though you seem to be saying you were never
exposed to it, that would be rare for most Jews unless they never read
anything Jewish, & it IS rather basic to bid farewell to the Sabbath by
reading the closing Proverbs to the Perfect Bride. Lamentations Rabbah
(proem 25) includes one of the earliest verses in which the Shekhinah or
"presence" of God is shown to be a woman who dwells in the Temple in days
of Israel's fortune, and dwells in exile with her children when Israel is
distressed. "When the Shekhinah left the Sanctuary, she returned to caress
and kiss its walls and columns, and cried and said, 'Be in peace, O my
Sanctuary, be in peace, O my royal palace, be in peace, O my precious
house, be in peace, from now on, be in peace'" I find that quite moving.
There is medieval teaching that the Shekhinah dwells in the Western Wall
of the Temple ruins; and many visit Her there today, to address the Bride
at the Wailing Wall.
Of course one of the definitions of "idol" is any representation of "a"
god other than the "God" -- their gods are idols, ours are not is pretty
standard thinking -- & since Kallah the Bride (or the Skekhinah) is
regarded as an aspect of God who cannot be perceived in totality, then by
pleasant reasoning any idol that represents God is not an idol, since it
is only an idol if it represents someone ELSE's god.
But just as among idol-worshipping Christians the Cross (even sans Jesus)
is still a idol evocative of the spirit of Jesus even when lacking the
"god" form upon it, so too the menorah is an idol evocative of the spirit
of an imperceivable God. Or Goddess, since it represents the Shekhinah, &
that's in part because the Menorah is in the linear descent from the Tree
of Life which belonged to Inanna, in whose branches dwelt Lilith (=
Gevurah the Maid of Judgement among the sephiroth, represented by the
far-left hand candle). The menorah is envisioned in the Bible as flanked
by two trees [Zech 4:2-3], reminiscent of Ishtar plaques wherein the
Goddess is flanked by two trees. Indeed Zechariah's "Seven Eyes of the
Lord" has spectacular resonence with the Seven Hathors of Dendaira, Hathor
being called "The Eye of Ra" represented by seven flames. So too
scripture's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" have been identified (in religious
allegory) both with the Menorah and with the Divine Sophia (or Chokhmah,
"Mother Wisdom" of the Proverbs, a fully personified Goddess-like figure
ultimately indistinguishable from Ishtar); and Sophia/Chokhmah is the
possessor of the Seven Pillars [Pr 9:1] in the same way that Inanna was
the possessor of the Tree of Life.
The Seven Pillars of Wisdom were caryatids which were Goddess-shaped
columns. Wisdom (Sophia), as queen over the seven pillars, was called the
Good Wife whose beautiful face is the light of the sacred candlestick, and
her stately figure IS the golden pillar of the menorah [Sir 26:17-18],
that which sustains the Tree of Life or the entirety of the Sephiroth
Tree. Oh yes, this is an Idol par excellence! It don't see taht it can be
reasonably argued that it is not an idol. Though it can be argued that
Jews do not worship it. I could certainly be convinced that being an
object of profound religious veneration is different from worship per se,
though I think both sides of that argument could be equally sustained.
> I was raised in conservative Jewish tradition and have never heard of
> "Queen Malkuth the Lower Shekhinah" or that "Tipereth (Yahweh) has no
> direct contact with the world except through Malkuth". Could this be
> from kabalah, the jewish mysticism, which is very distinct from Judaism,
> the religeon. Jews pray dirctly to God, not to an absent father, but to
> the creator of the universe.
Never heard of the Sabbath Bride or the Shekhinah? Never having
understood their meaning or importance when encountering them I can
imagine, but never having heard of them at all presupposes complete
ignorance of Jewish literature including Torah, the Midrash Rabbah, and
the Zohar. Rabbi Zalmon, the renegade hassid who became a leader of the
Kallah movement among Reform Jews, has even prepared a prayer book where
all the traditional prayers appear in two acceptable forms: on the right
in gender-neutral translations because God is not male, on the left in
translation with female gender pronouns exclusively because God is only
perceivable in the form of the Bride (God is never perceivable in totality
but his Presence -- Shekhinah -- is everywhere).
If you know your way through the Prophets I suggest you read Jeremiah
taking note of what Jewish women tell him is true of Jewish worship of the
Queen of Heaven (and remained true in the Jewish colony at Elephantine
well after the fall of the Temple), then compare that to what Jeremiah
writes about God's two brides Oholah and Oholibamah (these twin sisters
appear in Ugartic literature as the twins Anath and Ishtar who grip their
brother Baal one by his left arm one by his right). Jeremiah makes of them
harlots but he doesn't say they're not real; he takes for granted Yahweh
had two brides, just as Abraham had two brides. If God has a second bride
in modern mystical Judaism, it is Lilith. When the community of Israel is
strong & its people moral, the Skekhinah sits on the Throne of Glory with
God; but when Israel is cruel & wicked & impure, the Shekhinah goes into
exile, and Lilith sits upon the Throne of Glory. A related teaching
(talmudic in origin) has it that the two cherubim in the Holy of holies
face each other when God and the Shekhinah are in harmony and Israel is at
peace; but the two cherubim face back to back when God and the Shekhinah
are at odds & through their childrens' acts of impurity. In essence, the
acts of humanity cleanse or soil the Shekhinah, and she in turn preserves
the sanctity of God or pollutes God depending on her own state of purity
or impurity. By our behavior, therefore, we affect the mood and the acts
of God.
There is a tradition that at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple at
the close of the Babylonian enslavement, while deciding which books of the
Bible would be suppressed forever, it was argued first that the Song of
Solomon must be suppressed because it is pornographic & pagan. But the
eventual concensus was that it was the MOST divine of all the sacred books
& must be preserved at all cost with neither a tiddle nor a jot altered.
Because it celebrated the romance of God and His Bride, who is our
collective soul, us, his Sabbath Bride.
Some Jews do dislike these teachings in part because someone like myself
can so happily use the word Goddess which of course is not used in any
official teaching about the Bride or Queen Malkhuth or the Divine
Shekhinah. She is Lover, Mistress, Queen, Sister, Daughter, Bride, Mother,
Holy, Glorious, Divine -- but she is never Goddess. Catholics play that
same game with Mary but mariolators nevertheless abound in Catholicism,
just as many Jews get weepy & sentimental about God only when pondering
the Sabbath Bride and couldn't care less otherwise.
She is called Great Lady (Matronith) in the Zohar as in many midrashim,
but never Goddess. Yet she is described (in the Zohar) as being so
enormous as she strides the earth that her head is in heaven with the Moon
her crown, & her feet go down to Sheol, & her son is born from between her
legs, Metatron (an archangel most closely identified with Yahweh or with
Tiphereth the Beauty of Adonai); and though Metatron is a giant whose
sword carves through entire armies at one swipe, he is no bigger than one
of his Mother's toes. The Great Lady is a great warrior who received all
God's weapons & armies of angels & his rule of the world when he said to
Her, "My Bride, all this I give you, for these people I would destroy in a
moment of careless anger. From now on, therefore, if ever they are to come
to me, they must do so through you." This Zoharic teaching has become
central to sephardic mysticism. It has a parallel in the Devi Mahatmya, a
Sakta work written in 12th Century Inda, contemporary to the composition
of the Zohar (despite it's own claims of having been composed by a 2nd
century rabbi), and in which the Devi (the Goddess Durgha) is met by all
the gods one by one who turn over all their weapons to Her.
Another midrashic teaching has it that when Moses was in the Tabernacle,
the Shekhinah was with him. They became man and wife, which is why he sent
Zipporah away, in order that he would be faithful exclusively to the
Divine Shekhinah who spoke to him alone, of all mortals. And yet their
marriage was unconsumated until the day of his death. She went with him to
the top of a mountain to gaze across the land he could not see, & then she
embraced him sexually, she kissed him, & with that kiss drew out his life.
The Shekhinah then personally buried him in a secret place known only to
Her.
I recommend you read the Zohar if you wish to aquaint yourself with
Malkhuth the Great Lady of mystical Judaism. I also recommend Raphael
Pattai's THE HEBREW GODDESS as a simple-to-understand overview of the
entire issue from ancient to modern. Every Jew should know this stuff
whether or not many Jews can embrace the full implications.
> Good luck,
You too.
-paghat
> Michael
Nina Neudorfer
> Robert Maughan wrote:
<shit>
Would you two take your dick circumference contest to email, and away from
AFU?
--
Nina "furrfu "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I am trolling for wankers. Not good behaviour,
but it seems to come naturally to me."
-----Brian Yeoh, fighting for freedom on alt.folklore.urban
Timothy A. McDaniel
paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>There is speculation that the word Cunt has a universal (worldwide)
>prehistoric origin lingering from what was the "first language"
>spoken by hominids.
Unfortunately, the speculation is utterly false. As one linguistic
expert put it, "A prime example of 18th century antiquarian philology"
concatenated with late 20th century wishful thinking. It's all too
easy to find similar-sounding words in any two languages, however
unrelated, or (as in this case) search for and find several languages
(some obscure) that have similar-sounding words for the same general
concept. It's similar to how false etymologies are all too easy to
assemble (e.g., the false "FUCK" and "POSH" stories).
--
*** NEW PERSONAL ADDRESS ***
Tim McDaniel is tm...@jump.net; if that fail,
tm...@austin.ibm.com and tm...@us.ibm.com are my work accounts.
tm...@crl.com is old and will go away.
Larry Phillips
> * The 21st century (and the 3rd millenium) really
> does start on 1 January 2001. *
I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000. You probably think
it started a year after it actually did.
--
I want to die quietly in my sleep, like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> * The 21st century (and the 3rd millenium) really
>> does start on 1 January 2001. *
>
>I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000. You probably think
>it started a year after it actually did.
So what happened in the year 0? When you are counting to ten, which
finger do you start with? When you are counting to 100, what number
do you start with?
Asbestos Dust
wrote:
>Michael wrote:
>> * The 21st century (and the 3rd millenium) really
>> does start on 1 January 2001. *
>
>I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000.
Wrong. Nice try, though. Those whacky Gregorians pulled a little
frat stunt on the Church by never getting around to designating a
"year zero" A.D. It's been "off" a year since. Seems like Pope
Gregory would have used a little dab of that infallibility thing that
they're all supposed to be sloshing around in to remember that logical
numbering systems start with zero.
Anyhow, as a result, anything happening in "Year 2," for example, was
actually happening at "Year 1 plus some". Two years hadn't passed
until Jan 1, 3 A.D.. 1900 years hadn't passed until Jan 1, 1901 A.D.
And, 2000 years won't have passed until Jan 1, 2001 A.D.
On the up side, nobody gives a shit, it has no practical effect
whatsoever either way, and is of considerably less importance than
whether I decide to just sit here and scratch my ass or go get another
beer. Or both.
AD
paghat
> In article <7pd1kt$6vb$0...@199.201.191.2>,
> paghat <paggersSP...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >There is speculation that the word Cunt has a universal (worldwide)
> >prehistoric origin lingering from what was the "first language"
> >spoken by hominids.
>
> Unfortunately, the speculation is utterly false. As one linguistic
> expert put it, "A prime example of 18th century antiquarian philology"
> concatenated with late 20th century wishful thinking. It's all too
> easy to find similar-sounding words in any two languages, however
> unrelated, or (as in this case) search for and find several languages
> (some obscure) that have similar-sounding words for the same general
> concept. It's similar to how false etymologies are all too easy to
> assemble (e.g., the false "FUCK" and "POSH" stories).
I can cite scientific articles on Proto-Global in peer-reviewed journals &
credible university linguistic archeological studies. It is certainly
being argued whether there is some alternate explanation for the
"coincidence" of the same word meaning the same thing in all language
groups. Work on Proto-Global is continuing apace & certainly will continue
to rattle the cages of rival academics caught in their own narrow (& wholy
theoretical) categorizations of perhaps 17 language groups purportedly
having no relationship whatsoever to each other. Yet the number of words
that both sound alike and mean the same thing is not small. And the people
who will eventually do the most sensible work in this area will have to be
expert in several fields, social anthoropology, archeology, paleontology,
linguistics ancient and modern. It will not be refuted by the "one
linguistic expert" who you've chosen to quote without naming. In the
meantime YOU might acquaint yourself with some of the scientific
literature on this -- then if you can argue against it rationally, fine.
Seems you can't do that so far.
I recommend these for starters (and their reference sections will lead you
to more):
T. Bynon: "Can there ever be a Prehistoric Linguistics?" in Cambridge
Archeological Journal 5:2, 1995
A. Dolgopolsky: "Linguistic Prehistory" in CAJ 5/2, 1995
J. D. Bengtson & M. Ruhlen: "Global Etymologies" in ON THE ORIGINS OF
LANGUAGES: Studies in Linguistics (Stanford University Press, 1994)
It is from Bengston & Ruhlen I borrowed (with whimsical amendments) the
information on "Kun" or "Kuna" -- they give many similar examples of
IDENTICAL words with IDENTICAL meaning that transcend the classic method
of recovering root words by assuming unrelated groupings.
If you are familiar enough with linguistics that you're not just blowing
wind out your arse, I'm sure you can access these articles quickly. They
may not convince you, but you'll have to resort to thought rather than
simplistic retorts if you're gonna come anywhere close to defeating
credible, peer-reviewed science.
-paghat the ratgirl
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[snipped long post]
> Geez, and here I was, thinking that the purpose of writing was
> communication.
Well, Malcolm, if you have any problems understanding what Bob or I
wrote, I'd be happy to dumb it down to your level, so that we can
communicate real good. Incidentally, other purposes of writing are to
persuade, to deceive, etc., something you may wish to look into.
> Ten dollar words and a nickels' worth of syntax won't pay for a cup of
> coffee here, laddybuck.
Considering the value of the Canadian dollar, shouldn't you inflate
U.S. "twenty-dollar-words" to "thirty-dollar-words"? (Humour!) BTW,
are "ten dollar words" and "a nickels' worth" Canadianisms, or are you
currently enrolled in a Remedial Writing class and have not yet learned
the proper use of hyphens and apostrophes?
> You'd best be putting down the OED,
Malcolm, Malcolm, I wouldn't consult the _OED_ for what you
consider fancy-shmancy $20-words. Too much etymology and too many
citations, you know. My polyglot active vocabularies are quite well
stocked, thank you, but when I do need a near-synonym, I check one of my
thesauri. (Be sure to ask your teacher about the difference between a
"dictionary" and a "thesaurus" and when to use either.)
> and picking up the 'Elements of Style'.
> Uh, you do know where you left it, don't you?
Certainly. It's on the dust-covered shelf of books I rarely use
nowadays. When I was young and insecure about my command of English, as
you are, Malcolm, I consulted my dog-eared _Elements_ almost daily. But
now I can write in virtually any style, including the bombastic one I
employed to tease Bob, without having to look for examples.
If there's anything I can do to help you with stylistic or
vocabulary questions, don't be a stranger.
--
Reinhold ("Doc") Aman, Editor
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:37BF49...@sonic.net...
> > Robert Maughan wrote:
> <shit>
> Would you two take your dick circumference contest
> to email, and away fromAFU?
>
> --
> Nina "furrfu "
You must be leading a lonely life, dear Nina, to be unaware of the
relative unimportance of the penile diameter and circumference. Except
in the case of multiparous and cow-cunted females, a thick dick doesn't
do dick for the dicked.
Even more shocking is your ignorance of the fact that males compare
and brag about the *length* of their penes, not the circumference.
Considering your lacking sophistication concerning dicks, dear
Nina, would it not be more beneficial for your social development if you
skipped a few urban legends and instead tried to get laid?
Just wondering.
Dr. Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Free-lance Gynecologist
Sean Holland
> Michael wrote:
> > * The 21st century (and the 3rd millenium) really
> > does start on 1 January 2001. *
>
> I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000. You probably think
> it started a year after it actually did.
>
Oh good. Let's have this one again. Larry, what was the year
immediately prior to 1 AD? (Yes, I know they didn't use those years
back then, but we use them now.) I'm curious as to how your
arithmetic works.
HWM
> Oh good. Let's have this one again. Larry, what was the year
> immediately prior to 1 AD? (Yes, I know they didn't use those years
> back then, but we use them now.) I'm curious as to how your
> arithmetic works.
Maybe in Kansas they have their own count as well?
--
Cheers, | The conformity of purpose will be achieved |
HWM | through the mutual satisfaction of requirements.|
==> hen...@iobox.fi & http://www.softavenue.fi/u/henry.w
Robert Maughan
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
>> > On a more pragmatic level, sir, I do appreciate your explaining to
>> >me the meaning of "non sequitur" and the polysemous senses of "bust."
>
>> I used only one meaning of bust - failure. You. 'Polysemous senses' is
>> oxymoronic. You are a singular fuckwit.
>
> Your attention span and comprehension skills are deteriorating, my
>good pal Bob. You did indeed broaden my verbal skills by pointing out
>the additional meaning (i.e., sense) of bust ("failure"), which you so
>touchingly explained to me.
I pointed out the meaning I intended, subsequently emphasising that
meaning since it is apparent that you are entirely dependant on your
dictionaries and I wanted to save you a trip.
> I'm alarmed by your lacking acquaintance with your mother tongue.
>"Oxymoronic" is a nice word with which to impress the masses, but as I
>pointed out regarding your earlier faux pas ("prolapsed uterus"),
"Oxymoronic" is an everyday adjective. Here I use it to describe the
incongruity of your choice of words. I do not, as you are ignorantly,
and coyly implying, mistakenly use it to mean they are contradictory
terms in an epithet. If I had intended that I would have used the noun.
You see how that works, Kaplan? Describe again my faux pas regarding
"prolapsed uterus".
>you
>simply must first learn the meaning(s) of newly-acquired words and
>phrases before using them, Bob. The adjective you were searching for is
>"tautological," even though it's not quite kosher either.
I appreciate your act, apart from the mortarboard which is plain silly,
but it's rather like your failed attempts at literary devices. You know
what they mean but you don't know how they work in live exchanges. You
think irony is what you use to make buckshot (take your time).
Tautological is definitely not kosher. It's the wrong word. A tautology
might be, simplistically, 'He immediately put down his dictionary forth-
with.' Or, 'He used a polysemous word full of different meanings.' See
how that works, you decrepit pedant?
> Your standard modus operandi of whipping out snappy or
>intelligent-sounding retorts, topped off with "fuckwit," "shitwipe" and
>similar epithets, provides chuckles to the average moron, but to us who
>have a high regard for language and logic, it makes you look like a
>pretentious fraud.
Oh. Well, I don't have a high regard for language and logic. I sit down
I write. Money comes. My degree is in history - what the fuck do I know
from logical language? "Average moron" is an oxymoron. As I say, you are
a singular fuckwit. And please, don't explain that an average moron is
an average moron among morons. I can see that you are a superior moron
and I must accept your moronic logic.
>> There is no correlation between these two here that I can see.
>
> Of course you can't see the obvious correlation, my good man,
>because you're in denial.
Oh.
>> I can see that you're making a
>> display of yourself with blind determination
>
> Au contraire, mon petit chou-chou. My eyes are wide open; to wit:
>there's another high correlation between those who make a display of
>themselves and those who accuse others of engaging in the same. Despite
>your 5,500-plus posts to Usenet you'll also deny this fact.
Jesus. What a singular fuckwit. Correlate this - I've been online for
six years and I have no idea how many posts I have made. How can I deny
your ludicrous 'fact'? It's ludicrous.
>
>> and I gather that you do so with some regularity in a.u.e.
>
> And how did you gather this?
From your references such as to 'us who have a high regard etc.' You're
(I'll leave that in just to give you a hard on) implication is that a.u.
e contributers concern themselves with the mechanics of English language
usage. Why would they not? It's why you are there and I am here. I like
the language as she is spoke. Also, I don't subscribe to censored news-
groups. And I have a couple of emails in one of which you are described
as a pompous windbag. The other was less polite.
>> I've no idea what the rest of your post is about,
>> and I have a feeling you don't.
>
> This is another proof of your lacking attention span, Bob, and of
>your failure to understand concrete information and vivid imagery.
>Frankly, I'm beginning to worry about you. Thirty years of toiling as a
>paid hack-writer can wear anyone down. (N.B.: "paid" is used for
>emphasis; it's neither oxymoronic nor tautological.)
>
> I'm sorry I had to urinate on your plastic shoes and shred your
>nylon shirt. It's a dirty job, but someone had to do it. Now, Bob, do
>you still want me to pull up a chaise longueur, or would you prefer it
>if I "fucked off," as you earlier suggested?
I'd prefer it if your heart stopped in the middle of a shit and you
fell into your own faeces but that's a personal fantasy. No, I don't
care what you do, though it would be nice if you could write worth a
fuck. Otherwise, you must do as you like, including serving up your
own head on a platter. You could desist from empty boasting and get
on with it, but that would be too much to ask of an empty vassal.
RJM.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Sean Holland wrote:
> Larry Phillips wrote:
>
> > Michael wrote:
> > > * The 21st century (and the 3rd millenium) really
> > > does start on 1 January 2001. *
> >
> > I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000. You probably think
> > it started a year after it actually did.
> >
>
> Oh good. Let's have this one again. Larry, what was the year
> immediately prior to 1 AD? (Yes, I know they didn't use those years
> back then, but we use them now.) I'm curious as to how your
> arithmetic works.
Holland, what the hell are you doing in these groups? Baka yarou!
Sean Holland
> Holland, what the hell are you doing in these groups? Baka yarou!
Zutto mae kara a.u.e. ni sanka shiteiru yo. Omae no henna kao wo miru
hazu ja nakatte yo.
Prince Richard Kaminski
Sean Holland wrote:
Ee? Sou ka? Shiranakatta. Ore tte sa, ima a.w. ni sunderu yo. Mae wa
a.u.e dattan dakedo, saikin sanka shite nai. Ma ne ...
Randy Poe
> Even more shocking is your ignorance of the fact that males compare
> and brag about the *length* of their penes, not the circumference.
But the diameter is the dimension that would be most
correlated to female pleasure, if any dimension is.
Unless "pleasure" includes "force of knocking against
the cervix".
- Randy
K. D.
Knocking against the cervix is generally uncomfortable, if not painful.
I've always held (no pun intended) that any male who depends on the
dimension(s) (length, circumference, whatever) of his manhood obviously
doesn't know what it takes to please a woman. I would counsel women to
avoid such a man at all costs.
Steve MacGregor
<<I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000. You probably think it
started a year after it actually did.>>
You didn't do any math; if you had, you'd come up with 1 Jan 2001, like
anyone else who has done the math.
--
God grant me the senility to forget the people I don't like,
The good fortune to run into the ones I do,
And the eyesight to tell the difference.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" wrote [to Nina]:
> > Even more shocking is your ignorance of the fact that males compare
> > and brag about the *length* of their penes, not the circumference.
> But the diameter is the dimension that would be most
> correlated to female pleasure, if any dimension is.
Not being equipped with a vagina, I must rely on medical handbooks,
second-hand information, and first-finger experience: the walls of the
vagina are not particularly sensitive. You could compare the vagina to
a slimy, flexible and stretchable rubber hose (that gets drier as the
woman ages).
Therefore, whether the dick has a diameter of one inch or two makes
little difference to the average woman and has little effect on
producing an orgasm. Those females blessed with a sensitive G-spot,
however, would notice a difference, friction- and pleasure-wise.
> Unless "pleasure" includes "force of knocking against the cervix".
Well, you know how unfathomable and unpredictable females are.
Some women no doubt enjoy having Long-Dong-Silver types ram their swords
into the sheath until they bleed....
I have never been with a woman who claimed that "size counts." The
size of a man's peter (length, diameter) is the very last concern of a
loving woman, just as a woman's breast size is irrelevant to a loving
man. (Mammophilic Merkins will disagree, naturally.)
--
Reinhold ("Doc") Aman
Free-lance Gynecologist & Mammologist
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[most snipped]
> "Average moron" is an oxymoron.
Not if you bear in mind that the majority of humans are morons.
Then there are moronic morons, imbecilic morons, and cretinous morons.
Read AUE for a week or two and you will agree with me.
> > Despite your 5,500-plus posts to Usenet
> Jesus. What a singular fuckwit. Correlate this - I've been online for
> six years and I have no idea how many posts I have made. How can
> I deny your ludicrous 'fact'? It's ludicrous.
Bob, Bob, it's becoming clearer and clearer that *you* are the
fuckwit, not I. It's not ludicrous, my dear Bob, just a plain *fact*.
Click on this URL to see your posting history:
<http://www.deja.com/=dnc/profile.xp?author=Robert%20Maughan%20%3c...@etymon.demon.co.uk%3e&ST=PS>
Don't you feel a tad fuckwittish now?
> >> and I gather that you do so with some regularity in a.u.e.
> > And how did you gather this?
> From your references such as to 'us who have a high regard etc.'
Well, this is the definitive proof that *you* are the fuckwit who
has been had, and who has been *told* he has been had, but who *still*
refuses to accept the fact that he has been had. Bob, I've been using
my bombastic, pedantic and supercilious persona to string you along and
send you up, but you were too bloody blind to see the obvious.
Don't feel too bad, though; AUE is teeming with fuckwits and
assorted morons who also can't tell when I'm serious and when I'm
implanting my tongue in my facial cheek. They go apeshit when I
mockingly brag about my accomplishments and good looks. The most stupid
of these simple-minded dipshits is Lindelllll "Mad Mongo" Jones, who
stutters and sputters and splatters like a shit-flinging wind-up toy
gone mad.
> And I have a couple of emails in one of which you are described
> as a pompous windbag. The other was less polite.
That was to be expected, Bob. You see, AUE is known as a vicious,
back-stabbing, double-standard, two-faced, secret-email-sending
incestuous group, where the so-called Respected Regulars e-mail poison-
and hate-dripping messages to one another about the targets on their
shit-list.
I've enjoyed teasing and mocking AUE's envious & jealous little
cretins and exposing the pompous & pious frauds. Naturally, I'm Número
Uno on their hate-list for having ripped off their clothes and for
having shown what miserable & ignorant naked nobodies they are.
Basing your opinion of me on the hateful e-mails of sodding swine
like MeMe Kahn, "Mad Mongo" or similar slimy nitwits does not suggest
that you are an objective man, Bob. I can live with their idiotic &
jealous gossip, but your integrity is shot if you form your opinion of
others by blindly accepting claims of hate-oozing imbeciles and cretins.
> > Now, Bob, do you still want me to pull up a chaise longueur,
> > or would you prefer it if I "fucked off," as you earlier suggested?
> I'd prefer it if your heart stopped in the middle of a shit and you
> fell into your own faeces but that's a personal fantasy.
This may well be your personal fantasy, but it's really a rip-off
of an infamous event in history which you, a trained historian, swiped
from the textbooks. The average moron will be impressed by your
"clever" verbal aggression, but to learnèd chaps like me it's old hat.
You do remember that famous fellow, way back, who died while taking a
shit, don't you, Bob?
I also see that you are the British Doppelgänger of "Mad Mongo."
That Monsieur Merde (a.k.a. "Pooperman") also is heavily into feces and
even hallucinates that he's rubbing my face in shit, while *he* is
actually up to his nostrils stuck in his own caca. I was under the
impression that you Brits are more into arse-birching than scatophilia.
Your parents aren't from Missouri by any chance and related to Mongo?
--
Reinhold ("Doc") Aman
Anopheles
Hey, Paggers, my bet is that the Proto-Global will win out and we will end
up with a well defined dictionary of proto-chimpanzee. While we're off the
subject, can you use your well of experience to answer me this?
In circa 1450 BC, a smoking crack on Santorini preceded the largest natural
disaster to hit the known world and yet a smoking crack was responsible for
the golden age of Lesbos. How do you equate this with smoking crack today?
I know you're up to it, babe.
Anopheles
Larry Phillips
>
> So what happened in the year 0?
No ide. I wasn't there.
> When you are counting to ten, which finger do you start with?
I don't use my fingers to count.
> When you are counting to 100, what number do you start with?
1, of course.
But there is no relevance to the current discussion in that fact.
Larry Phillips
>
> You didn't do any math; if you had, you'd come up with 1 Jan 2001,
> like anyone else who has done the math.
Nope. I did tha math, and I can only assume that we started counting at
a different point, or at a different number.
Larry Phillips
>
> Oh good. Let's have this one again.
OK, though this time I will not bother with it quite so long.
> Larry, what was the year immediately prior to 1 AD?
No idea. I don't recognize AD as being any special demarcation.
The first year of the current millenium was 1000, the previous millenium
started with 0000.
> (Yes, I know they didn't use those years back then, but we use them
> now.) I'm curious as to how your arithmetic works.
Quite well, actually. Once you figure that decades change with the
change in the tens position, and centuries change with the change in the
hundreds position, and millenia change with the change in the thousands
position, it all becomes dead simple. Sorry if it doesn't fit with your
theology.
paghat
> > It is from Bengston & Ruhlen I borrowed (with whimsical amendments) the
> > information on "Kun" or "Kuna" -- they give many similar examples of
> > IDENTICAL words with IDENTICAL meaning that transcend the classic method
> > of recovering root words by assuming unrelated groupings.
> >
> > If you are familiar enough with linguistics that you're not just blowing
> > wind out your arse, I'm sure you can access these articles quickly. They
> > may not convince you, but you'll have to resort to thought rather than
> > simplistic retorts if you're gonna come anywhere close to defeating
> > credible, peer-reviewed science.
>
> Hey, Paggers, my bet is that the Proto-Global will win out and we will end
> up with a well defined dictionary of proto-chimpanzee. While we're off the
> subject, can you use your well of experience to answer me this?
Proto-Global might be restricted to what Neanderthal was capable of
vocalizing, rather than chimpanzee.
> In circa 1450 BC, a smoking crack on Santorini preceded the largest natural
> disaster to hit the known world and yet a smoking crack was responsible for
> the golden age of Lesbos. How do you equate this with smoking crack today?
The Santorini crack is also known as "the sphincter of the world" because
the smoke smelled like farts. Now I'd say there's no difference at all
between that & smoking crack, but only if you smoke it from your ass.
Neale Talbot
Larry Phillips wrote:
> Steve MacGregor wrote:
> >
> > You didn't do any math; if you had, you'd come up with 1 Jan 2001,
> > like anyone else who has done the math.
>
> Nope. I did tha math, and I can only assume that we started counting at
> a different point, or at a different number.
How do you start counting at 0000, if that year did not exist?
You can't include a non-existent year when counting towards the millennium.
You have to start at 1 AD, the first year of the first millennium
Add 1000.
You get 1001 AD, the first year of the second millennium
Add another 1000
You get 2001 AD, the first year of the third millennium.
Geddit?
-Neale
Neale Talbot
Larry Phillips wrote:
> Sean Holland wrote:
> >
> > Oh good. Let's have this one again.
>
> OK, though this time I will not bother with it quite so long.
>
> > Larry, what was the year immediately prior to 1 AD?
>
> No idea. I don't recognize AD as being any special demarcation.
> The first year of the current millenium was 1000, the previous millenium
> started with 0000.
>
> > (Yes, I know they didn't use those years back then, but we use them
> > now.) I'm curious as to how your arithmetic works.
>
> Quite well, actually. Once you figure that decades change with the
> change in the tens position, and centuries change with the change in the
> hundreds position, and millenia change with the change in the thousands
> position, it all becomes dead simple. Sorry if it doesn't fit with your
> theology.
Looks like you've tripped over your own dick. In another post you said:
"I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000."
So if you're gonna quote a Christian calendar, try getting it right.
Unless, of course, you believe that the planet is only 1999 years old.
-Neale
Larry Phillips
>
> How do you start counting at 0000, if that year did not exist?
But it did exist.
> You can't include a non-existent year when counting towards the millennium.
Of course not, and I don't.
> You have to start at 1 AD, the first year of the first millennium
No, I don't have to start at 1 AD. I start at 0, which is the
(arbitrary) start of _A_ millenium. This is in contrast with your
starting at 1 AD, the arbitrary start of _A_ millenium.
> Add 1000.
Yup
> You get 1001 AD, the first year of the second millennium
I get 1000.
> Add another 1000
Yup
> You get 2001 AD, the first year of the third millennium.
I get 2000, the first year of _A_ millenium.
> Geddit?
I sure do.
Larry Phillips
>
> Larry Phillips wrote:
>
>> Sean Holland wrote:
>>> Larry, what was the year immediately prior to 1 AD?
>>
>> No idea. I don't recognize AD as being any special demarcation.
>> The first year of the current millenium was 1000, the previous millenium
>> started with 0000.
>>
>>> (Yes, I know they didn't use those years back then, but we use them
>>> now.) I'm curious as to how your arithmetic works.
>>
>> Quite well, actually. Once you figure that decades change with the
>> change in the tens position, and centuries change with the change in the
>> hundreds position, and millenia change with the change in the thousands
>> position, it all becomes dead simple. Sorry if it doesn't fit with your
>> theology.
>
> Looks like you've tripped over your own dick. In another post you said:
>
> "I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000."
And your contention that I "tripped over my dick" is in referenc to
what?
It does start on 1 Jan 2000.
> So if you're gonna quote a Christian calendar, try getting it right.
I'm not quoting a Christian calendar. I am quoting a calendar that
happens to have an amazingly coincidental one-to-one correspondence
to the Christian calendar, back to at least the 1600's.
> Unless, of course, you believe that the planet is only 1999 years old.
Nope. You appear to, though, with your talk of "the third millenium".
Robert Alston
Larry Phillips <lar...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37C0D8B5...@home.com...
> Sean Holland wrote:
> >
> > Oh good. Let's have this one again.
>
> OK, though this time I will not bother with it quite so long.
>
>
> No idea. I don't recognize AD as being any special demarcation.
> The first year of the current millenium was 1000, the previous
millenium
> started with 0000.
But there wasn't a year zero. As far as the current calendar(1) is
concerned the year 1BC ended on Dec.31 and started with Jan. 1st 1AD
without a year zero. Your method of counting presumes a zero point of
year zero. The actual zero point of the count is the year 1.
>
>
> > (Yes, I know they didn't use those years back then, but we use
them
> > now.) I'm curious as to how your arithmetic works.
>
> Quite well, actually. Once you figure that decades change with the
> change in the tens position, and centuries change with the change in
the
> hundreds position, and millenia change with the change in the
thousands
> position, it all becomes dead simple. Sorry if it doesn't fit with
your
> theology.
His theology has nothing to do with the calendar. The theology of
Gregory (the reason it is called a gregorian calendar) had everything
to do with the calendar. A decade is merely a period of 10 years. A
millenia is merely a period of 1000 years. A century is merely a
period of 100 years. None of those have to start with a particular
zero year that ends with a zero. When I turned 30 I had lived 3
decades even tho I was not born in a year that ended in zero. You have
to adjust the zero point for the count to the numbers involved. If the
calendar was an ideal one then 2000 would indeed be the beginning of
the new millenium. Since the calendar is not an ideal one it isn't.
Robert
(followups set)
Neale Talbot
Larry Phillips wrote:
> > Looks like you've tripped over your own dick. In another post you said:
> >
> > "I did the math, bucko. It starts on 1 Jan 2000."
>
> And your contention that I "tripped over my dick" is in referenc to
> what?
>
The fact you think the planet is only up to 2000, yet disregard a common
calendar that states exactly the same thing. Wee bit hypocritical. Remember,
you're using terms like "January" & 2000. There aren't many calendars that have
a Jan 2000. Christian. Old system Roman. Asian cultures have been counting a
lot longer, but don't have a January. It narrows down the calendars you're
using. And if you believe we're heading towards 2000, than you're probably
using one that acknowledges the birth of Christ.
>
> It does start on 1 Jan 2000.
No, it does not. There is no year "0". I was born on the first day of my life,
day no 1. The world exist in the first year of it's existence, year no. 1.
There is never a year 0. Year 0 cannot exist. Do the maths of previous post and
you end up with 2001, whatever calendar you use.
> > So if you're gonna quote a Christian calendar, try getting it right.
>
> I'm not quoting a Christian calendar. I am quoting a calendar that
> happens to have an amazingly coincidental one-to-one correspondence
> to the Christian calendar, back to at least the 1600's.
Which one, and did it restart counting at one point? If so, why? Small
god-child birthday perhaps? And if you really want to get smart arse about it,
then think about the fact that there are claims that Jesus was born in 4 BC (by
the current Christian calendar). Which means that the millennium (get the
spelling right, pleaaase) was three years ago.
> > Unless, of course, you believe that the planet is only 1999 years old.
>
> Nope. You appear to, though, with your talk of "the third millenium".
I should keep time by a calendar with a few more years than 2000. I live in a
country that happens to have a Christian population base, and also happens to
use a largely agreed upon calendar, so I use that one instead. One which is
going to move into their 3rd millennium in 2001.
-Neale
Robert Maughan
Reinhold (Rey) Aman <am...@sonic.net>
>[most snipped]
So noted.
>
>> "Average moron" is an oxymoron.
> Not if you bear in mind that the majority of humans are morons.
>Then there are moronic morons, imbecilic morons, and cretinous morons.
There are the superior morons, of course, like you. Not quite so many
of you, the Nietzschian breed of supermoron. The morons who - see every
where only the the awfulness and loathing siezes them - yeah right sure.
I suppose we are to infer that your condemnation is but tongue in cheek
drollery, the witty prose that you insist you are going to provide, any
minute now, when really it's the wishful thinking of a senile braggart,
pathetic bratwurst waving bragadoccio. Put it away, pal, your little
sausage is hidden by your fist.
>Read AUE for a week or two and you will agree with me.
I think not. I'll stay here and wait for you to persuade me that the
majority of humans are morons.
>> > Despite your 5,500-plus posts to Usenet
>
>> Jesus. What a singular fuckwit. Correlate this - I've been online for
>> six years and I have no idea how many posts I have made. How can
>> I deny your ludicrous 'fact'? It's ludicrous.
>
> Bob, Bob, it's becoming clearer and clearer that *you* are the
>fuckwit, not I. It's not ludicrous, my dear Bob, just a plain *fact*.
>Click on this URL to see your posting history:
><http://www.deja.com/=dnc/profile.xp?author=Robert%20Maughan%20%3c...@etymon.dem
>on.co.uk%3e&ST=PS>
*What* is a *fact*? My posts are archived. Oh. You argue that my posts
to Usenet prove ... what exactly? That there is a number that describes
them? Or do 5,500 posts prove your ludicrous contention that - "there's
another high correlation between those who make a display of themselves
and those who accuse others of engaging in the same." I have proof that
you're a fucking idiot in every post in this exchange. But I don't care.
This is alt.writing. You're a live resource. Bingo.
> Don't you feel a tad fuckwittish now?
Pal, I feel a little pity, but not enough to put down the bat.
>> >> and I gather that you do so with some regularity in a.u.e.
>
>> > And how did you gather this?
>
>> From your references such as to 'us who have a high regard etc.'
>
> Well, this is the definitive proof that *you* are the fuckwit who
>has been had, and who has been *told* he has been had, but who *still*
>refuses to accept the fact that he has been had. Bob, I've been using
>my bombastic, pedantic and supercilious persona to string you along and
>send you up, but you were too bloody blind to see the obvious.
Jesus. Listen, you ridiculous squirting clown, you've been using your
bombastic, pedantic and supercilious persona to provide me with target
practice. Which of my personas do you think you've been stringing along?
You insist that you will at some time in the future be regaling us with
your witticisms and drolleries yet you feel the need to excuse your lack
of wit and drollery with these expedient supermoronic boasts about how
you've overcome me with your maledictory sallies. It's about writing in
this place, and you write like a moron. A superior moron, I admit, but
nevertheless, a moron. You just don't write well enough to have anybody,
pal. You kid yourself, sure, but you're harmless. Malefactor manqué.
> Don't feel too bad, though; AUE is teeming with fuckwits and
>assorted morons who also can't tell when I'm serious and when I'm
>implanting my tongue in my facial cheek. They go apeshit when I
>mockingly brag about my accomplishments and good looks. The most stupid
>of these simple-minded dipshits is Lindelllll "Mad Mongo" Jones, who
>stutters and sputters and splatters like a shit-flinging wind-up toy
>gone mad.
Oh. Who the fuck cares? Let me tell you again - this is alt.writing. It
doesn't matter a jot to me what anyone else anywhere else can tell about
you. I can tell about you that you are a plodding bore with a mission.
To bore where no man has bored before, and I think you will succeed.
>> And I have a couple of emails in one of which you are described
>> as a pompous windbag. The other was less polite.
>
> That was to be expected, Bob. You see, AUE is known as a vicious,
>back-stabbing, double-standard, two-faced, secret-email-sending
>incestuous group, where the so-called Respected Regulars e-mail poison-
>and hate-dripping messages to one another about the targets on their
>shit-list.
Oh. How ... unique.
> I've enjoyed teasing and mocking AUE's envious & jealous little
>cretins and exposing the pompous & pious frauds. Naturally, I'm Número
>Uno on their hate-list for having ripped off their clothes and for
>having shown what miserable & ignorant naked nobodies they are.
Oh. How ... interesting.
> Basing your opinion of me on the hateful e-mails of sodding swine
>like MeMe Kahn, "Mad Mongo" or similar slimy nitwits does not suggest
>that you are an objective man, Bob. I can live with their idiotic &
>jealous gossip, but your integrity is shot if you form your opinion of
>others by blindly accepting claims of hate-oozing imbeciles and cretins.
Please, give yourself a break, pal. You're a little man with a big red
nose and I'm sure you're enjoying your retirement, but don't come to me
for sympathy.
>> > Now, Bob, do you still want me to pull up a chaise longueur,
>> > or would you prefer it if I "fucked off," as you earlier suggested?
>
>> I'd prefer it if your heart stopped in the middle of a shit and you
>> fell into your own faeces but that's a personal fantasy.
>
> This may well be your personal fantasy, but it's really a rip-off
>of an infamous event in history which you, a trained historian, swiped
>from the textbooks. The average moron will be impressed by your
>"clever" verbal aggression, but to learnèd chaps like me it's old hat.
>You do remember that famous fellow, way back, who died while taking a
>shit, don't you, Bob?
Trained historian? Where the fuck do you get that idea? A learned chap
like you ought to know better. I remember nothing about history. What is
Santanaya talking about? What past? Who knows? There's an essay of mine
in the archive, coincidentally, about history and shit.
> I also see that you are the British Doppelgänger of "Mad Mongo."
>That Monsieur Merde (a.k.a. "Pooperman") also is heavily into feces and
>even hallucinates that he's rubbing my face in shit, while *he* is
>actually up to his nostrils stuck in his own caca. I was under the
>impression that you Brits are more into arse-birching than scatophilia.
Amazing extrapolation - what a stringing along. I feel so had.
>Your parents aren't from Missouri by any chance and related to Mongo?
No.
RJM.
Jack Bagley
The flaw in your reasoning is this: Dionysius Exiguus, the Catholic monk
who created the form of calendar we use in 337 A.D., based his calcuations
on the assumed date of Jesus' birth -- which *he* placed in the year 1 A.D.,
thus the year before Jesus' birth was counted as 1 B.C. There WAS no year 0
in his calendar -- which, with modifications for the fact that the year is
just a tad shorter than 365 real days, is the calendar we still use today.
A.D. stands for Anno Domini, which I'm sure you know means "In the year of
our Lord," in Latin.
The man who invented our system of dating events did not include a year 0.
His reverse calculations had the calendar switching from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.,
without a year zero.
Now, you may wish to assume a year 0 existed, and no one can tell you that
you can't. But it didn't. Your calcuations do indeed include a year that
never was.
--Jack
Jack Bagley
> change in the tens position, and centuries change with the change in the
> hundreds position, and millenia change with the change in the thousands
> position, it all becomes dead simple. Sorry if it doesn't fit with your
> theology.
>
It's not a question of mathematics in this case. The calendar itself is
based on theology. (See previous post to you about Dionysius Exiguus.)
You're right that the decades change in the tens position. It all falls
apart after that, though -- not mathematically, but in reality. According
to your reasoning, we're still in the 19th century, because our years begin
with 19--. No one else anywhere calls this the 19th century, because 1900
was recognized as the LAST year of the 19th century, and 1901 the FIRST year
of the 20th century. If you accept this (as everyone else apparently has),
then the year 2000 will be the LAST year of the 20th century and 2001 the
FIRST year of the 21st century -- and the third millenium.
Your math is right, Larry. But because the calendar we use is indeed based
in theology, your conclusions are wrong.
--Jack
Jack Bagley
One thing to keep in mind: Many cultures of our world do not embrace
Chistianity, but the majority of cultures do. To be able to do business,
etc., they all use the same calendar system, though within their culture
they'll have other systems (i.e., the Islamic calendar dating from
Muhammad's hegira, the Jewish calendar, etc.).
To make them all agree, those in non-Christian cultures don't call it B.C.
and A.D., though they agree on the numbers used. They'll call them B.C.E.
(Before Common Era) and C.E. (Common Era), which correspond to the B.C. and
A.D. used in our system.
Just a bit of info FYI...
--Jack
Noah Claypole
paghat <pag...@my-deja.SPAMMERS-DIE.com> wrote in message
news:7pnib4$jfr$0...@199.201.191.2...
> can so happily use the word Goddess which of course is not used in any
> official teaching about the Bride or Queen Malkhuth or the Divine
Official is one thing. "Totally Official" is quite another.
Alastair Rae
wrote:
> [...]
> The anti-feminist agenda of many
> old-guard archeolgists is certainly powerful today & vastly more political
> than scientific in its rantings;
And, of course, feminist archeologists are entirely scientific and
apolitical.
--
Alastair Rae, London, Europe.
Remove NOSPAM from my email address to reply.
My opinions are not necessarily those of my employers.
Neale Talbot
Jack Bagley wrote:
Christianity isn't my shtick, but I didn't know about the BCE/CE distinction.
Must remember...
Cheers,
-Neale
Brian J Goggin
<jba...@charter.net> wrote:
>Larry...
>
>The flaw in your reasoning is this: Dionysius Exiguus, the Catholic monk
>who created the form of calendar we use in 337 A.D., [...]
"Catholic" may not have been the mot juste in 337. Perhaps
"Christian"?
bjg
Mark Barratt
Jack Bagley <jba...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:rs27rk...@corp.supernews.com...
But the logic is at least, consistent. Larry claims that a logical
counting system must begin with zero, and that it is irrelevant that
year zero did not actually exist. Very well. So this purely
hypothetical first year, year zero, was the first year of the first
century of the first millennium; in other words, year zero, century
zero, millennium zero. By this system, we are in year nine of decade
nine of century nine of millennium 1, which is written 1999, but is
actually the tenth year of the tenth decade of the tenth century of
the second millennium. The *twentieth* century, in fact. I've never
heard people speak of "the /n/th decade of the century". Would you say
it was the ninth or the tenth?
So year zero began with day zero of month zero. This would be a
non-existent day of the week, say, noneday the zeroth of gonunder. The
starting time was 00:00:00 (certainly not 24:00:00).
It all holds together apart from the fact that year zero didn't exist.
Pity.
Natural counting systems begin with one. This may not be logical to
some, but for me it helps if "first" corresponds with the number one,
and so on.
Outside of mathematics and computing, does zero even constitute
counting?
"How many cats do you have?
None.
Are you sure? Did you count them?"
Oh, by the way. The millennium celebrations will occur this year-end,
whether we like it or not. I suspect, however, that we may see the
other argument begin to hold sway afterwards. After all, that means we
can do it all again next year!
Happy new whatever.
Mark Barratt