"Slaving away" Ooops!
Peter Duncanson
From The Times (of London):
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html
...
Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the
European Parliamentary Labour Party's equalities reception in
Portcullis House on Monday. We're told that Phillips, the
chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said
that he and his team had been "slaving away" on the equalities
brief. Then he went very quiet. Then he apologised.
...
Trevor Phillips is English-born of Guyanese parents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Phillips
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
sage
Why did he apologize?
Cheers, Sage
Peter Duncanson
I can only speculate. It seems that for some people any use of
slave, slavery, etc. metaphorically or figuratively is "bad".
In general I have no objection to such use of "slaving away",
"slavish", etc.
People can be enslaved by circumstances. Phillips and his team were
presumably slaving away, er, working very hard, coerced by a need to
get the work completed as soon as possible. If circumstances had
been different they might have preferred to proceed at a more
measured pace.
Matthew Huntbach
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:28:01 -0500, sage <sa...@allstream.net> wrote:
>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>>> From The Times (of London):
>>> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html
>>>
>>> ...
>>> Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the
>>> European Parliamentary Labour Party's equalities reception in
>>> Portcullis House on Monday. We're told that Phillips, the
>>> chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said
>>> that he and his team had been "slaving away" on the equalities
>>> brief. Then he went very quiet. Then he apologised.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Trevor Phillips is English-born of Guyanese parents:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Phillips
>> Why did he apologize?
> I can only speculate. It seems that for some people any use of
> slave, slavery, etc. metaphorically or figuratively is "bad".
Perhaps particularly so for those whose recent ancestors were slaves,
from someone who is one such person and whose job it is to encourage
people not to say and do things which might cause racial offence.
Just as well he didn't use another phrase which until quite recently
was sometimes heard to mean "worked very hard", and not intended to be
offensive (but would be seen as such now), i.e. said that he and his team
had "worked like niggers".
Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud
> Perhaps particularly so for those whose recent ancestors were slaves,
> from someone who is one such person and whose job it is to encourage
> people not to say and do things which might cause racial offence.
> Just as well he didn't use another phrase which until quite recently
> was sometimes heard to mean "worked very hard", and not intended to be
> offensive (but would be seen as such now), i.e. said that he and his team
> had "worked like niggers".
The common phrase when I was young was "worked like blacks" or "like
a black". But I didn't know any black people, of course. I don't
know if I ever saw a black person before I was 11. Sikhs, sure, they
drove the buses in Coventry in the 60s, but not African/Caribbean
people.
--
David
=====
Archie Valparaiso
<m...@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrought:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Peter Duncanson wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 10:28:01 -0500, sage <sa...@allstream.net> wrote:
>>> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>>>> From The Times (of London):
>>>> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>> Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the
>>>> European Parliamentary Labour Party's equalities reception in
>>>> Portcullis House on Monday. We're told that Phillips, the
>>>> chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said
>>>> that he and his team had been "slaving away" on the equalities
>>>> brief. Then he went very quiet. Then he apologised.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Trevor Phillips is English-born of Guyanese parents:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Phillips
>
>>> Why did he apologize?
>>
>> I can only speculate. It seems that for some people any use of
>> slave, slavery, etc. metaphorically or figuratively is "bad".
>
>Perhaps particularly so for those whose recent ancestors were slaves,
>from someone who is one such person and whose job it is to encourage
>people not to say and do things which might cause racial offence.
Slavery was abolished in Guyana (as it was throughout the then-Empire)
in 1834. Allowing for four generations per century, and noting that he
was born in 1953, we find that the last of his ancestors to be slaves
were probably his great-great-great-grandparents. How "recent" is
that?
--
Archie Valparaiso
Matthew Huntbach
Google gives slightly more eamples of the phrase as I've put it than as you
have, but a surprisingly recent example of yours it throws up is:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/01/09/story238621.html
In fact it counts for a good proportion of the Google hits.
Surprised by what you said, as I always thought there was quite a big
West Indian population in the West Midlands back in the 1960s.
Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud
In the cities, perhaps, but I lived in a small town which we rarely
left, except to go on holiday to Norfolk. We had no car until 1965.
A shopping trip into Coventry on a Saturday (about eight miles) on
the bus was something of an adventure. I think I was taken to
Birmingham once or twice before I was 11.
--
David
=====
Mark Brader
> Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the
> European Parliamentary Labour Party's equalities reception in
> Portcullis House on Monday. We're told that Phillips, the
> chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said
> that he and his team had been "slaving away" on the equalities
> brief. Then he went very quiet. Then he apologised.
> ...
Apparently he needs to be more niggardly with his use of metaphors.
--
Mark Brader "Look, sir, we can't just do nothing."
Toronto "Why not? It's usually best."
m...@vex.net -- Lawrence of Arabia
John Dean
Well, assuming his ancestry is traced exclusively through Guyana. I dunno
how far back he can trace his ancestors, but it must be a possibility that
some of them came from other South American countries or perhaps from the
Caribbean islands and there were places outwith the British Empire that took
a lot longer to outlaw slavery. Not to mention a few that were quicker
about it.
And I think 4 generations a century is going it. I'd say nearer three and a
bit.
But soft, what light from yonder website breaks ...?
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/news/Awardspeeches050101.htm
Where Mr Phillips says:
"My own connection with the issue of slavery is clearly pretty obvious, my
great-great grandmother was a slave and her name was Happy. We belong to one
of the relatively few Caribbean families who can say something as certain as
that because, of course, one of the great crimes of slavery, whenever and
wherever it has been practiced, is that it goes beyond servitude, it goes to
the point of eliminating the identity of the individual."
So you were within one "great", which is pretty accurate guesswork.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Archie Valparaiso
<john...@fraglineone.net> wrought:
My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than
me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my
family ever mentioned anybody further back than my two great-
grandfathers, and even they didn't exist beyond a couple of anecdotes
in each case (one was a cotton carter, the other a bookie, and, er,
that's it -- no photographs or documents at all). The "identity of the
individual" in the case of my great-grandparents is a total blank --
not even a name for any of them. So, they've been "eliminated" from
history just as much as Phillips's forebears, yet no slavery was
involved -- just the passage of time.
--
Archie Valparaiso
Jacqui
> My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than
> me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my
> family ever mentioned anybody further back than my two great-
> grandfathers, and even they didn't exist beyond a couple of anecdotes
> in each case (one was a cotton carter, the other a bookie, and, er,
> that's it -- no photographs or documents at all). The "identity of the
> individual" in the case of my great-grandparents is a total blank --
> not even a name for any of them. So, they've been "eliminated" from
> history just as much as Phillips's forebears, yet no slavery was
> involved -- just the passage of time.
He's 19 years older than me and I knew two of my great-grandmothers when
I was a child - they both died (outside the UK) when I was in my teens.
Their parents are part of common family knowledge - I can name all my
great-great-grandparents and I have known what they did for a living,
where they lived, that sort of thing, since I was young. If my great-
great-grandmother had been a slave it would feel quite personal and
recent to me.
Jac
Vinny Burgoo
What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would
feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you
wouldn't like to be reminded of her dirty deeds in the middle of an
unrelated conversation. Would you be entitled to take offence at any
word that reminded you of slavery? Or do the descendants of victims have
the monopoly on this sort of thing?
--
V
the Omrud
I am about 15 years older than you but my own own gg-grandparents
were born between 1815 and 1836. I had never heard any of their
names - I only know of them through genealogical research. In most
cases they were between 30 and 45 when the child who is my direct
ancestor was born.
--
David
=====
Jacqui
I don't remember making any judgement at all about how that 'personal
and recent' feeling would strike me, as it happens. The point is not
what they did for a living*, but that they are close enough to feel
'personal and recent' to me. The fact that one family has forgotten its
great-grandparents has no bearing on how close another family feels to
its great-great-grandparents. There isn't a handy rule.
--
Jac
* Since you ask: a factory-owner & wife; diplomat & wife; an ostler and
a cook (with genetic/financial contribution from their employer (!)); a
doctor & wife; a printer & a seamstress; a dockworker & wife; a
mill-worker & pottery painter; a carpenter/housebuilder & factory
worker. 'Slaves and slavers', from some perspectives, but the facts are
more complicated than that. Does this tell you anything useful about
what I take offence to? How I feel about their positions in life? I
doubt it.
Vinny Burgoo
>Vinny Burgoo wibbled:
>> What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would
>> feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you
>> wouldn't like to be reminded of her dirty deeds in the middle of an
>> unrelated conversation. Would you be entitled to take offence at any
>> word that reminded you of slavery? Or do the descendants of victims
>> have the monopoly on this sort of thing?
>
>I don't remember making any judgement at all about how that 'personal
>and recent' feeling would strike me, as it happens. The point is not
>what they did for a living*, but that they are close enough to feel
>'personal and recent' to me. The fact that one family has forgotten its
>great-grandparents has no bearing on how close another family feels to
>its great-great-grandparents. There isn't a handy rule.
>* Since you ask: a factory-owner & wife; diplomat & wife; an ostler and
>a cook (with genetic/financial contribution from their employer (!)); a
>doctor & wife; a printer & a seamstress; a dockworker & wife; a
>mill-worker & pottery painter; a carpenter/housebuilder & factory
>worker. 'Slaves and slavers', from some perspectives, but the facts are
>more complicated than that. Does this tell you anything useful about
>what I take offence to? How I feel about their positions in life? I
>doubt it.
Sorry. I dropped that question into the thread rather carelessly. I had
been meaning to post something like that for a while and your post was
the most recent in the thread when I got around to it, that's all. I
didn't mean to pass judgement on you in any way.
--
V
Nick Spalding
on Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:58:41 +0100:
> My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than
> me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my
> family ever mentioned anybody further back than my two great-
> grandfathers, and even they didn't exist beyond a couple of anecdotes
> in each case (one was a cotton carter, the other a bookie, and, er,
> that's it -- no photographs or documents at all). The "identity of the
> individual" in the case of my great-grandparents is a total blank --
> not even a name for any of them. So, they've been "eliminated" from
> history just as much as Phillips's forebears, yet no slavery was
> involved -- just the passage of time.
I've always known about my great-grandparents on my mother's side. I have
a picture painted by my great-grandfather within sight as I type and there
were plenty more of them around my grandmother's house. I also have a
photograph of my mother taken in around 1903 sitting on the lap of her
great-grandmother Sarah Montgomery who was born in c.1812.
I have since discovered quite a lot about my father's side thanks to
discovering the existence of an unknown cousin who had inherited the
family bible and much more on both sides by poking around in the archives
available on the web.
--
Nick Spalding
Archie Valparaiso
wrought:
>In alt.usage.english, Jacqui wrote:
>>Archie Valparaiso wibbled:
>
>>> My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than
>>> me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my
>>> family ever mentioned anybody further back than my two great-
>>> grandfathers, and even they didn't exist beyond a couple of anecdotes
>>> in each case (one was a cotton carter, the other a bookie, and, er,
>>> that's it -- no photographs or documents at all). The "identity of the
>>> individual" in the case of my great-grandparents is a total blank --
>>> not even a name for any of them. So, they've been "eliminated" from
>>> history just as much as Phillips's forebears, yet no slavery was
>>> involved -- just the passage of time.
>>
>>He's 19 years older than me and I knew two of my great-grandmothers when
>>I was a child - they both died (outside the UK) when I was in my teens.
>>Their parents are part of common family knowledge - I can name all my
>>great-great-grandparents and I have known what they did for a living,
>>where they lived, that sort of thing, since I was young. If my great-
>>great-grandmother had been a slave it would feel quite personal and
>>recent to me.
That's fine, but my still-holding point still holds. That point was
that there are many families -- mine included -- where five
generations back is a big zero, so claiming that slavery alone was
responsible for eliminating someone's great-great-grandparents from
history is rather too pat and colourful (oops!) an explanation for
happening to know little or nothing about them.
>What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would
>feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you
>wouldn't like to be reminded of her dirty deeds in the middle of an
>unrelated conversation. Would you be entitled to take offence at any
>word that reminded you of slavery? Or do the descendants of victims have
>the monopoly on this sort of thing?
Of course they do. Do you think Ken "Have Newt Will Travel (By Tube)"
Livingstone would have got into such deep shit if he'd claimed a pushy
*Standard* reporter of German descent was behaving like a
concentration-camp guard? I doubt anyone would even have heard of the
incident.
--
Archie Valparaiso
Robert Bannister
> I don't remember making any judgement at all about how that 'personal
> and recent' feeling would strike me, as it happens. The point is not
> what they did for a living*, but that they are close enough to feel
> 'personal and recent' to me. The fact that one family has forgotten its
> great-grandparents has no bearing on how close another family feels to
> its great-great-grandparents. There isn't a handy rule.
>
>
I'd have thought a rule of thumb would be if you had known the people
personally. I only knew 3 of my grandparents, so stories about my
great-grandparents don't have a great deal of impact on me. In fact, my
mother only ever mentions her grandfather, so the remaining seven will
remain a mystery.
--
Rob Bannister
Vinny Burgoo
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:55:17 +0000, Vinny Burgoo <hnN...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would
>>feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you
>>wouldn't like to be reminded of her dirty deeds in the middle of an
>>unrelated conversation. Would you be entitled to take offence at any
>>word that reminded you of slavery? Or do the descendants of victims have
>>the monopoly on this sort of thing?
>
>Of course they do. Do you think Ken "Have Newt Will Travel (By Tube)"
>Livingstone would have got into such deep shit if he'd claimed a pushy
>*Standard* reporter of German descent was behaving like a
>concentration-camp guard? I doubt anyone would even have heard of the
>incident.
Why did you say "newt"?
--
V
John Dean
Because if he'd said "rare" it would have triggered a Daniel post.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Bob Cunningham
<john...@fraglineone.net> said:
> Vinny Burgoo wrote:
[...]
> > Why did you say "newt"?
> Because if he'd said "rare" it would have triggered a Daniel post.
Rare?
tinwhistler
Mark Brader wrote:
> Peter Duncanson quotes the Times:
> > Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the
> > European Parliamentary Labour Party's equalities reception in
> > Portcullis House on Monday. We're told that Phillips, the
> > chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said
> > that he and his team had been "slaving away" on the equalities
> > brief. Then he went very quiet. Then he apologised.
> > ...
>
> Apparently he needs to be more niggardly with his use of metaphors.
I thought of posting this almost exactly, before I read Mark's pip. I
would have added a reasoning like this: if feminists argue that
referring to the Deity (higher power or whatever) as a "He" is sexist,
then maybe we should get rid of all the masculine pronouns altogether,
along with the racist terms "niggardly" and "slaving away," etc. But
to me all that is bullshit, and "niggardly" and "slaving away" should
be accepted just as we accept the use of masculine pronouns. OTH, some
political correctness is a good thing -- all things in moderation is my
motto.
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
John Dean
Don't make me come over there.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Bob Cunningham
<john...@fraglineone.net> said:
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:19:54 -0000, "John Dean"
> > <john...@fraglineone.net> said:
[...]
> >> Because if he'd said "rare" it would have triggered a Daniel post.
> > Rare?
> Don't make me come over there.
:-)
Steve Hayes
wrote:
Sans newt.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Archie Valparaiso
wrought:
A very good question indeed. I was about to say that I probably did it
because while editing I decided it was slightly punchier than "Have a
Sort of Missing Link Between a Frog and a Gecko Will Travel (By
Tube)". But then my whole world was turned upside down when I came
across this in yesterday's Observer:
[Sir David Attenborough] thinks the only reason the British
are so keen on birds is because they're our predominant
wildlife. "If you were somewhere with elephants, you'd be
watching elephants." He prefers watching spiders or the great
crested newts that he has a permit to keep in his garden pond.
Does this mean there are newt-permit detector vans prowling the
suburban streets ("Good evening sir, I have reason to believe that
small amphibians are being kept on these premises....") ? Feral newts
roaming the moors and savaging sheep? Urban newts with names like
Prince or Tyson, unleashed by irresponsible chavs to terrify nannies
and their charges in Kensington Gardens?
Britain is so notoriously fauna-poor (as Dear Old Atters as good as
admits above)[1] that I can see why swiping great crested newts
(hereinafter, "GCNs") from their natural habitat is a Bad Thing that
requires some kind of official control to hold in check. But once a
newt (or several -- hey, let's have a party!) has been acquired by
strictly legal means (rather, that is, than by iffy means, such as
downloading over the Internewt), why can't you do with your newt as
you damn well please? Train it to sing the Internationale, dress it up
in a lacy undies and call it Lulu, or braise it slowly in a sherry
sauce to be served on a bed of shallots -- whatever rocks your boat.
Or your newt. But, no, you can't do that. This isn't some frogspawn in
a bleedin' milk bottle, matey. No, them's newts what you're messing
about with here -- and they'll be legal, licensed newts or no newts at
all, are we clear?
Hmm. This clearly called for some further research, so I jolly well
further researched.
It turns out that the Obbo journo was -- surprise-o, surprise-o --
imprecise in his nomenclature. Dear Old Atters doesn't have a mere
"permit" to keep his newts; what he must have, under Regulation
44(2)(e), (f) or (g), as the case may be, of the Conservation (Natural
Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, is a DEFRA Great Crested Newt
Licence. Here's the application form (a PDF):
www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/cons_man/wlf1.pdf
For those without PDF kuhpazzdy (or -- resigned sigh -- with better
things to do than download the paperwork for a newt licence), the
application form (LFA1 -- you know the one) begins by putting the fear
of God into any potential newt-keeper. These critters are not to be
taken lightly:
Licences can be granted under Regulation 44(2)(e) or (f) of
the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &C.) Regulations 1994, for
the purpose of preserving public health or public safety or
other imperative reasons of overriding public interest
including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial
consequences of primary importance for the environment, or
Regulation 44(2)(f) for the purpose of preventing the spread
of disease; or Regulation 44(2)(g) for the purpose of
preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for
livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any
other forms of property or to fisheries; to allow people to
carry out activities that would otherwise be illegal.
Applicants must also be able to demonstrate that they have a
suitable amount of expertise to achieve the objectives of the
proposed work.
Gulp. If you haven't been put off for life by that, they casually go
on to remind you that the eight-page form must be accompanied by a
"Method Statement" and "Reasoned Statement of Application", including
maps, plans and diagrams of your proposed newt-keeping facility and
all associated works (with reference to the corresponding planning-
permission application, if applicable).
Hmm. Maybe I'd best stick to gerbils. Unless, of course, I were to set
up an clandestine newt facility at an undisclosed location....
Bad idea. According to English Nature, who process all GCN
applications, there are "significant penalties for breaches of the
law". How significant? Let's jolly well find out.
Re-gulp. It turns out that if you keep a GCN in unlicensed conditions,
you risk getting clobbered for 5,000 quid and sent down for six
months. Yeah, but how will they ever know if I don't shout from the
rooftops that I'm a newt nut, I hear you muse. Oh, they'll know, all
right. The police can "obtain search warrants to gather evidence and
arrest persons under suspicion of offences involving species included
on the Schedules".
I knew it -- the bastards have got detector vans!
Anyway, this led me to wonder whether Red Ken had gone through all
this. I suspect not -- doesn't he live in a flat in Hendon or
something? So that leaves two possibilities: (1) he's an outlaw, or
(2) he keeps newts that belong to one of the two common species
(palmates or smooths, for those in the know) rather than GCNs. Since
the first possibility is utterly unconceivable, this suggests that
there are exclusive toff newts for the likes of Dear Old Atters
(Wyggeston Grammar School/Clare College, Cambridge), while only
cheapo-cheapo newts are to be placed in the care of the likes of Red
Ken (Tulse Hill Comprehensive/Phillipa Fawcett Teacher Training
College).
Ha! And they say Britain is no longer a class-bound society.
[1. This only dawned on me after I ran away screami...er, I mean
emigrated and realised that "wildlife" on the Continong tends to
feature stuff like wolves and wild boar and brown bears and lynxes and
vultures with wingspans wider than the Firth of Forth, while Britain
can boast little more than the odd vole, mole, stoat or newt -- all
dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and
all with particularly silly names. This epiphany could explain a hell
of a lot.]
--
Archie Valparaiso
Alec McKenzie
> But then my whole world was turned upside down when I came
> across this in yesterday's Observer:
>
> [Sir David Attenborough] thinks the only reason the British
> are so keen on birds is because they're our predominant
> wildlife. "If you were somewhere with elephants, you'd be
> watching elephants." He prefers watching spiders or the great
> crested newts that he has a permit to keep in his garden pond.
I have seen great crested newts in my garden pond. I have made
no efforts to keep them there, but even if I had I don't think I
would need a permit. Why should he?
The permit is required "to capture, disturb and/or relocate
Great Crested Newts or destroy their breeding site or resting
place".
--
Alec McKenzie
usenet@<surname>.me.uk
Archie Valparaiso
wrought:
Perhaps he keeps them under duress, tied to the gnomes.
--
Archie Valparaiso
Vinny Burgoo
[...]
>Dear Old Atters doesn't have a mere "permit" to keep his newts; what he
>must have, under Regulation 44(2)(e), (f) or (g), as the case may be,
>of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, is a
>DEFRA Great Crested Newt Licence. Here's the application form (a PDF):
>www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/cons_man/wlf1.pdf
[...]
>Gulp. If you haven't been put off for life by that, they casually go
>on to remind you that the eight-page form must be accompanied by a
>"Method Statement" and "Reasoned Statement of Application", including
>maps, plans and diagrams of your proposed newt-keeping facility and
>all associated works (with reference to the corresponding planning-
>permission application, if applicable).
The world of Great Crested Newt-fancying also appears to be very much a
closed shop. If you haven't previously held a Great Crested Newt Licence
then you can't get one without a reference from someone who has held a
Great Crested Newt Licence.
[...]
>Re-gulp. It turns out that if you keep a GCN in unlicensed conditions,
>you risk getting clobbered for 5,000 quid and sent down for six
>months.
I know someone - someone whose anonymity I shall protect for the time
being - who keeps a Great Crested Newt in his basement. It's not chained
up or anything. It roams the flagstones at will, as free as a newt.
(It's very damp down there.) A copper-bottomed blackmail opportunity and
no mistake.
[...]
>Anyway, this led me to wonder whether Red Ken had gone through all
>this. I suspect not -- doesn't he live in a flat in Hendon or
>something? So that leaves two possibilities: (1) he's an outlaw, or
>(2) he keeps newts that belong to one of the two common species
>(palmates or smooths, for those in the know) rather than GCNs. Since
>the first possibility is utterly unconceivable, this suggests that
>there are exclusive toff newts for the likes of Dear Old Atters
>(Wyggeston Grammar School/Clare College, Cambridge), while only
>cheapo-cheapo newts are to be placed in the care of the likes of Red
>Ken (Tulse Hill Comprehensive/Phillipa Fawcett Teacher Training
>College).
>
>Ha! And they say Britain is no longer a class-bound society.
Not 'alf!
>[1. This only dawned on me after I ran away screami...er, I mean
>emigrated and realised that "wildlife" on the Continong tends to
>feature stuff like wolves and wild boar and brown bears and lynxes and
>vultures with wingspans wider than the Firth of Forth, while Britain
>can boast little more than the odd vole, mole, stoat or newt -- all
>dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and
>all with particularly silly names.
Hey! There are wild boars in Kent, wallabies in Derbyshire and
ring-necked parakeets in Richmond. There might even be a lone coypu
still holding out in the marshes of East Anglia - Hereward the
Beaver-Rat, last of his kind, whiskers aquiver in his plashy fen
fastness. And what is so silly about the fullimart, the urchin or the
moap?
But on the whole it's true, alas. There is very little point in being a
lynx-fancier in Britain, so we all chase after birds - or, in my case,
voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the
land of the noble peccary, chases after birds.)
>This epiphany could explain a hell of a lot.]
Yes. (What?)
--
V
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
"That he has a permit to keep in his garden pond" may be a figure of
speech for "that he captured and relocated by permit and now encourages
in his garden pond", or something more complicated involving
purchasing.
--
Jerry Friedman
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote:
...
> >[1. This only dawned on me after I ran away screami...er, I mean
> >emigrated and realised that "wildlife" on the Continong tends to
> >feature stuff like wolves and wild boar and brown bears and lynxes and
> >vultures with wingspans wider than the Firth of Forth, while Britain
> >can boast little more than the odd vole, mole, stoat or newt -- all
> >dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and
> >all with particularly silly names.
...
> But on the whole it's true, alas. There is very little point in being a
> lynx-fancier in Britain,
Assuming your graphics card works.
> so we all chase after birds - or, in my case,
> voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the
> land of the noble peccary, chases after birds.)
...
I live [Googles briefly for range descriptions, considers figuring out
exact distances] maybe 250 miles from the land of the noble peccary,
which would probably be called a javelina here. (Ron Draney lives in
the LotNP and probably has a story.) I've spent about a week of my
life within its range, and I admit I've never chased it. I feel some
guilt over that. Have I sinned? How do guinea pigs figure into this?
If I may be serious for a moment, I think there's more to this that
Attenborough said. True, most Americans are more interested in seeing
mammals than birds. I certainly enjoy seeing wild mammals, hearing elk
(=BrE "red deer, only the Yanks /will/ make things bigger") bugling,
and so forth. However, many birds are more musical than almost all
mammals and more colorful than all. And if what you're interested in
is variety and even compiling lists, birds work a lot better. There
are almost twice as many species of birds as mammals. Many birds are
bold; mammals are mostly shy, subterranean, nocturnal.
Of course, there are ways to see more interesting mammals than I'm
likely to see around here.
--
Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June.
Mike Lyle
jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Vinny Burgoo wrote:
> > In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote:
> ...
>
> > >[1. This only dawned on me after I ran away screami...er, I mean
> > >emigrated and realised that "wildlife" on the Continong tends to
> > >feature stuff like wolves and wild boar and brown bears and lynxes and
> > >vultures with wingspans wider than the Firth of Forth, while Britain
> > >can boast little more than the odd vole, mole, stoat or newt -- all
> > >dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and
> > >all with particularly silly names.
> Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June.
Worth mentioning somewhere in the thread that what Red Ken, formerly
restaurant critic to the Red Braces (Am Suspenders) of the City, had
were, IIRC, not honest British newts, but wet-back axolotls. It was
Private Eye which dubbed them newts.
"Stop knocking Neasden!"
--
Mike.
Vinny Burgoo
>Vinny Burgoo wrote:
>> But on the whole it's true, alas. There is very little point in being a
>> lynx-fancier in Britain,
>
>Assuming your graphics card works.
?
>> so we all chase after birds - or, in my case,
>> voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the
>> land of the noble peccary, chases after birds.)
>I live [Googles briefly for range descriptions, considers figuring out
>exact distances] maybe 250 miles from the land of the noble peccary,
>which would probably be called a javelina here. (Ron Draney lives in
>the LotNP and probably has a story.) I've spent about a week of my
>life within its range, and I admit I've never chased it. I feel some
>guilt over that. Have I sinned? How do guinea pigs figure into this?
I imagine that the accepted form is to chase it with a gun. If you don't
have a gun, you're out of the guilt loop even if you wished you had a
gun that lusts after dead peccaries. There's no point in beating
yourself up about that sort of thing. Just kill yourself a few
guinea-pigs and relax. Sixteen guinea-pigs = one peccary, kudos-wise.
Bird-lime should do it if smeared copiously on the right sort of rock.
(Jess kiddin. I bought an air rifle last year because I was fed up with
squirrels eating chicklets and chasing the adult birds off the
peanut-dispenser. But I can't do it. I have yet to aim at one, let alone
hit one. Frickin rats. They're just too beautiful.)
>If I may be serious for a moment, I think there's more to this that
>Attenborough said. True, most Americans are more interested in seeing
>mammals than birds. I certainly enjoy seeing wild mammals, hearing elk
>(=BrE "red deer, only the Yanks /will/ make things bigger") bugling,
>and so forth. However, many birds are more musical than almost all
>mammals and more colorful than all. And if what you're interested in
>is variety and even compiling lists, birds work a lot better. There
>are almost twice as many species of birds as mammals. Many birds are
>bold; mammals are mostly shy, subterranean, nocturnal.
Total agreement. Even in Britain, we have common birds that are either
astonishingly beautiful or behaviourally interesting or both. (I
currently have a soft spot for the Long-Tailed Tit, which is both. Their
gangs seem to have been dispersed by the recent storms. Will they meet
up again? If not, then what?) The wild mammals you're likely to see,
though beautiful, are dull dull dull antics-wise. And even in more
exotic places, it's the little critters that provide the most interest.
(I was in Tanzania in October. We saw nine of the Big Ten but for me by
far the most enjoyable beasties were hyraxes, genets and various - very
various - birds.)
>Of course, there are ways to see more interesting mammals than I'm
>likely to see around here.
>Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June.
Bon voyage! Stuff the Big Ten: turacos!
--
V
Vinny Burgoo
>Worth mentioning somewhere in the thread that what Red Ken, formerly
>restaurant critic to the Red Braces (Am Suspenders) of the City, had
>were, IIRC, not honest British newts, but wet-back axolotls. It was
>Private Eye which dubbed them newts.
I knew a London GP who kept axolotls. He also collected glass fish and
cocaine. Do you think this is significant?*
>"Stop knocking Neasden!"
Tooting, axolotly.
--
V
*No, probably not. Just a leaky thalamus or something.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> In alt.usage.english, jerry_f...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Vinny Burgoo wrote:
>
> >> But on the whole it's true, alas. There is very little point in being a
> >> lynx-fancier in Britain,
> >
> >Assuming your graphics card works.
>
> ?
Lynx is or was the name of a text-only Web browser. I was shooting for
a "peccavi" joke below, by the way, but either I missed it or I missed
your even subtler hint that you got it.
> >> so we all chase after birds - or, in my case,
> >> voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the
> >> land of the noble peccary, chases after birds.)
>
> >I live [Googles briefly for range descriptions, considers figuring out
> >exact distances] maybe 250 miles from the land of the noble peccary,
> >which would probably be called a javelina here. (Ron Draney lives in
> >the LotNP and probably has a story.) I've spent about a week of my
> >life within its range, and I admit I've never chased it. I feel some
> >guilt over that. Have I sinned? How do guinea pigs figure into this?
>
> I imagine that the accepted form is to chase it with a gun. If you don't
> have a gun, you're out of the guilt loop even if you wished you had a
> gun that lusts after dead peccaries. There's no point in beating
> yourself up about that sort of thing. Just kill yourself a few
> guinea-pigs and relax. Sixteen guinea-pigs = one peccary, kudos-wise.
> Bird-lime should do it if smeared copiously on the right sort of rock.
> (Jess kiddin. I bought an air rifle last year because I was fed up with
> squirrels eating chicklets and chasing the adult birds off the
> peanut-dispenser. But I can't do it. I have yet to aim at one, let alone
> hit one. Frickin rats. They're just too beautiful.)
Being serious again, I have my doubts about the people who think, "What
a magnificent animal! I want to see it dead." Thinking "I could eat
it if it were dead" is a whole different thing.
> >If I may be serious for a moment, I think there's more to this that
or "than"
> >Attenborough said. True, most Americans are more interested in seeing
> >mammals than birds. I certainly enjoy seeing wild mammals, hearing elk
> >(=BrE "red deer, only the Yanks /will/ make things bigger") bugling,
> >and so forth. However, many birds are more musical than almost all
> >mammals and more colorful than all. And if what you're interested in
> >is variety and even compiling lists, birds work a lot better. There
> >are almost twice as many species of birds as mammals. Many birds are
> >bold; mammals are mostly shy, subterranean, nocturnal.
>
> Total agreement. Even in Britain, we have common birds that are either
> astonishingly beautiful or behaviourally interesting or both. (I
> currently have a soft spot for the Long-Tailed Tit, which is both.
I'd love to see one, or some. Its only American relative is the
Bushtit, which isn't as striking. It reminds me, though, that a woman
of my acquaintance once asked, "Shouldn't there be a yellow belly
between the bush and the tit?"
(That made a later revelation on her part less surprising.)
> Their
> gangs seem to have been dispersed by the recent storms. Will they meet
> up again? If not, then what?) The wild mammals you're likely to see,
> though beautiful, are dull dull dull antics-wise. And even in more
> exotic places, it's the little critters that provide the most interest.
> (I was in Tanzania in October. We saw nine of the Big Ten but for me by
> far the most enjoyable beasties were hyraxes, genets and various - very
> various - birds.)
Did you have the guide to the behavior of African mammals? If so, do
you recommend it?
> >Of course, there are ways to see more interesting mammals than I'm
> >likely to see around here.
>
> >Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June.
>
> Bon voyage! Stuff the Big Ten: turacos!
You know, it's not true that the feather pigment is water-soluble.
--
Jerry Friedman wants to see turacos. Several species. Many.
Vinny Burgoo
>Vinny Burgoo wrote:
[...]
>I'd love to see one, or some. Its only American relative is the
>Bushtit, which isn't as striking. It reminds me, though, that a woman
>of my acquaintance once asked, "Shouldn't there be a yellow belly
>between the bush and the tit?"
>
>(That made a later revelation on her part less surprising.)
(She could suck sap?)
[...]
>Did you have the guide to the behavior of African mammals? If so, do
>you recommend it?
Yes. My brother took it. I only managed to grab a few quick reads but it
was totally fascinating. For example, warthogs (aka radio-controlled
buttocks): their tunnels always dive down and back just inside the
entrance, so that if you stand by the entrance at night you're probably
standing right on top of the beastie.
Actually, I think he took two or even three mammal behaviour guides. We
had an enormous library with us (which I generally ended up carrying
when we were sans vehicle, for some reason). He's a keen mammalophile
and a very keen birdwatcher and, for a non-indigenous mzungu, he's quite
an expert on East Africa in general so I'll ask him for a list of
recommended books. But for now a quick Yahoo suggests that this might
have been the best of the mammal behaviour guides:
<http://www.amazon.com/Behavior-Guide-African-Mammals-Carnivores/dp/05200
80858>
This was the best bird book:
<http://www.amazon.com/Field-Northern-Tanzania-Identification-Guides/dp/0
713650796/sr=1-16/qid=1169300222/ref=sr_1_16/104-1257592-9079950?ie=UTF8&
s=books>
(Had to have been with a turaco on the cover, innit.)
>> Bon voyage! Stuff the Big Ten: turacos!
>
>You know, it's not true that the feather pigment is water-soluble.
I now know it wasn't before I even knew it was. And here's more proof:
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/4306/1/V55N06_339.pdf
>Jerry Friedman wants to see turacos. Several species. Many.
--
V
Only two species of turaco (not counting go-away birds) but I did see a yellow
bat. During the day, too. Oh! And a finfoot! Ha!
the Omrud
> I imagine that the accepted form is to chase it with a gun. If you don't
> have a gun, you're out of the guilt loop even if you wished you had a
> gun that lusts after dead peccaries. There's no point in beating
> yourself up about that sort of thing. Just kill yourself a few
> guinea-pigs and relax. Sixteen guinea-pigs = one peccary, kudos-wise.
> Bird-lime should do it if smeared copiously on the right sort of rock.
> (Jess kiddin. I bought an air rifle last year because I was fed up with
> squirrels eating chicklets and chasing the adult birds off the
> peanut-dispenser. But I can't do it. I have yet to aim at one, let alone
> hit one. Frickin rats. They're just too beautiful.)
According to the Road Kill Vegetarian (*) bloke on BBC 4 last week,
grey squirrel tastes like lamb.
> Total agreement. Even in Britain, we have common birds that are either
> astonishingly beautiful or behaviourally interesting or both. (I
> currently have a soft spot for the Long-Tailed Tit, which is both. Their
> gangs seem to have been dispersed by the recent storms. Will they meet
> up again? If not, then what?)
Our long-tailed tits emerge from the woods in a gang and descend on
the house, stripping it of anything which might suit them as a
nesting material, and the bird feeders where they find it difficult
to all fit at the same time. Then, just as they arrived, they
disappear back into the woods not to be seen again for 11 months.
Although, unusually, I saw a pair up the back lane last week. I
don't think I've ever seen just two.
* He's a vegetarian but he will eat any food which he can pick up
without doing it any harm. This means wild vegetation plus any
animals and birds which are already dead.
--
David
=====
Sara Lorimer
> * He's a vegetarian but he will eat any food which he can pick up
> without doing it any harm. This means wild vegetation plus any
> animals and birds which are already dead.
Ah! A freegan.
--
SML
Archie Valparaiso
(Sara Lorimer) wrought:
AKA scavengetarian.
--
Archie Valparaiso
(Me? I blame the weather.)
Blinky the Shark
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 15:45:50 -0800,
> que.sara....@gmail.com (Sara Lorimer) wrought:
>
>>the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> * He's a vegetarian but he will eat any food which he can pick
>>> up without doing it any harm. This means wild vegetation plus
>>> any animals and birds which are already dead.
>>
>>Ah! A freegan.
>
> AKA scavengetarian.
And perhaps a roadkilletarian.
--
Blinky