US/UK: tits (not the birds)
Christian Weisgerber
than I would have expected (with an American English background).
Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
tinwhistler
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Is "tits" more
> colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
In BrE there is a low slang meaning of "tit," not referring to a
breast, and the cross-over of this common slang probably makes the
breast sense less offensive than in the US; excerpt from OED2's entry
for "tit, n.3":
2. a. A girl or young woman: often qualified as little: cf. chit; also
applied indiscriminately to women of any age (? dial.). (a) Usually in
depreciation or disapproval: esp. one of loose character, a hussy, a
minx. (b) Sometimes in affection or admiration, or playful meiosis.
(Common in 17th and 18th c.; now low slang.)
1599 Middleton Micro-Cynicon Wks. (Bullen) VIII. 122 He hath his
tit, and she likewise her gull; Gull he, trull she. 1606 Sir G.
Goosecappe iv. ii. in Bullen O. Pl. III. 69 Hang am Tytts! ile pommell
my selfe into am. 1606 Choice, Chance, etc. (1881) 66 His Dad a
Tinker, and his Dam a Tit. 1693 Humours Town 11 My little Tit..loves
the Town, as well as my self. 1787 Beckford Italy (1834) II. 363 A
bevy of young tits dressed out in a fantastic, blowzy style..drew their
chairs round us [at an assembly in Madrid]. 1837 T. Creevey Papers,
etc. (1904) II. 324, I am sure from Lady Tavistock that she thinks the
Queen a resolute little tit. 1886 Fenn Master Cerem. vii, She's a
pretty little tit. 1922 E. R. Eddison Worm Ouroboros xxxi. 397 The
Demons,..since they had a strong loathing for such ugly tits and stale
old trots, would no doubt hang her up or disembowel her. 1932 S.
O'Faolain Midsummer Night Madness 62 I'm sorry for his two tits of
sisters, though. 1969 H. E. Bates Vanished World ix. 87 'The old
tit' doddered forth... I see her as a kind of..diminutive nun,
untouched and unprotected.
the Omrud
>
> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > Is "tits" more
> > colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
>
> In BrE there is a low slang meaning of "tit," not referring to a
> breast, and the cross-over of this common slang probably makes the
> breast sense less offensive than in the US; excerpt from OED2's entry
> for "tit, n.3":
>
> 2. a. A girl or young woman: often qualified as little: cf. chit; also
> applied indiscriminately to women of any age (? dial.). (a) Usually in
> depreciation or disapproval: esp. one of loose character, a hussy, a
> minx. (b) Sometimes in affection or admiration, or playful meiosis.
> (Common in 17th and 18th c.; now low slang.)
I'm not familiar with that so I presume it must have died out.
"tit" does have the alternative meaning of "idiot" (men or women), of
course.
Then there's the expression "it gets on my tits" which means it
annoys me, which can also be used by both sexes although it's usually
only employed by uncouth men.
--
David
=====
tinwhistler
the Omrud wrote:
> I'm not familiar with that so I presume it must have died out.
> "tit" does have the alternative meaning of "idiot" (men or women), of
> course.
Why presume it's died out if OED2 provides a 1969 usage? But I agree
with that other slang sense of "tit" providing cover for the word --
that sense of "tit" is rare to the point of being nonexistent in AmE
but very close to "twit" in US slang.
HVS
>
> the Omrud wrote:
>
>> I'm not familiar with that so I presume it must have died
>> out. "tit" does have the alternative meaning of "idiot" (men
>> or women), of course.
>
> Why presume it's died out if OED2 provides a 1969 usage?
That's almost 40 years ago, though -- long enough for a colloquial
usage to die out.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
tinwhistler
Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
> than I would have expected (with an American English background).
> Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
> colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
The offensiveness of "tit" in the US was recently intensified with
the addition of the word "sugar:"
http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2006/08/07/sugar-titted-actresses-condemn-gibson/
Hollywood - A group of sugar-titted actresses, including Renee
Zellweger, Halle Berry, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, held a press
conference Sunday where they called on Hollywood to shun "sugar tit
hater" Mel Gibson." If he thinks he can continue to work in this
town without the help of sugar tits, he is sadly mistaken," said
Louis-Dreyfus.
"His true colors have finally come out," said Berry. "He's an
anti-sugar tit! He should be shunned for that kind of hatred. Doesn't
he know what kind of suffering my type of people have gone through?"
Louis-Dreyfus noted that a majority of Americans are related to, work
with, or are women with sugar tits, and called on them all to boycott
Gibson's next movie, "Apocalypto." "Let the world know that
we're here, we have sugar tits, and we demand respect!"
Louis-Dreyfus proclaimed.
Zellweger read a list of several famous American women who were sugar
tits, including Betsy Ross, Amelia Earhart, and Jacqueline Kennedy
Onassis.
"When Mel Gibson insults sugar titted women, he is insulting
America," said Zellweger. "And I have to say, it's particularly
insulting that he would compare us to Jews."
Zellwegger's comment caused organizers to cut off her microphone and
end the press conference early, before journalists could ask questions.
Not all women with sugar tits agree with calls to condemn Gibson. In an
interview, actress Jodie Foster said she had always found her
"Maverick" co-star to be equally respectful of women, whether they
had sugar in their tits or not.
"When Mel found realized that I had sugar tits, he didn't treat me
any differently at all," Foster recalled. "Alcoholism is a terrible
disease, and it is causing Mel to say terrible things about women's
breasts that I know he does not believe."
But even some men are condemning Gibson for his anti-sugar tits
outburst. Actor Rob Schneider took out a two-page ad in Daily Variety
in which he wrote, ""I, Rob Schneider, son of a woman with sugar
tits, pledge from this day forth to never work with Mel
Gibson-actor-director-producer-and sugar titted-woman hater."
A spokesman for Gibson said the star is eager to make amends: "As
soon as he has got the Jews to calm down, trust me, he'll move onto
the chicks with sugar tits. Is there like some National Association for
Sugar Tits or something that he can write a check to, do you know?"
Django Cat
And 'Ripped to the tits' which means pissed (UK) as a fart.
DC
Django Cat
>
> the Omrud wrote:
>
> > I'm not familiar with that so I presume it must have died out.
> > "tit" does have the alternative meaning of "idiot" (men or women),
> > of course.
>
> Why presume it's died out if OED2 provides a 1969 usage?
Because he's a BrE native speaker and never encountered it? Seems
reasonable - me neither.
DC
Percival P. Cassidy
Shouldn't that be "sugar-titted-woman-hater"? Or "sugar-titted-woman hater"?
Perce
Vinny Burgoo
Yes.
Although I'd prefer "Mel Gibson, actor-director-producer-whatever".
--
V
Martin Ambuhl
> I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
> than I would have expected (with an American English background).
> Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
> colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
Birding is a national obsession in Britain; it is not in the US.
mUs1Ka
news:4k6rg4F...@individual.net...
Birding is not a national obsession in Britain.
--
Ray
UK
the Omrud
That was the reason. Just because some (possibly elderly) person
used it in print in 1969 doesn't make it current UK English. I was a
teenager by that time but I have never heard it.
--
David
=====
the Omrud
>
> Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
> > than I would have expected (with an American English background).
> > Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
> > colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
>
> The offensiveness of "tit" in the US was recently intensified with
> the addition of the word "sugar:"
>
> http://datelinehollywood.com/archives/2006/08/07/sugar-titted-actresses-condemn-gibson/
> Hollywood - A group of sugar-titted actresses, including Renee
> Zellweger, Halle Berry, and Julia Louis-Dreyfus, held a press
> conference Sunday where they called on Hollywood to shun "sugar tit
> hater" Mel Gibson." If he thinks he can continue to work in this
> town without the help of sugar tits, he is sadly mistaken," said
> Louis-Dreyfus.
I don't know what it's supposed to mean, but that's a parody site.
It includes an article which claims
"AL GORE ACCUSED OF MANIPULATING WEATHER TO PROMOTE DOCUMENTARY"
--
David
=====
the Omrud
It is not a national obsession. I do not believe I've ever met a
bird spotter, so they can't be all that common.
--
David
=====
Jacqui
> Martin Ambuhl had it:
> > Birding is a national obsession in Britain; it is not in the US.
>
> It is not a national obsession. I do not believe I've ever met a
> bird spotter, so they can't be all that common.
I have, but he's an Oddie - definitely not common.
(Isn't 'twitcher' the preferred term?)
Jac
Jacqui
> Django Cat had it:
> > tinwhistler wrote:
> > > Why presume it's died out if OED2 provides a 1969 usage?
> >
> > Because he's a BrE native speaker and never encountered it? Seems
> > reasonable - me neither.
>
> That was the reason. Just because some (possibly elderly) person
> used it in print in 1969 doesn't make it current UK English. I was a
> teenager by that time but I have never heard it.
H.E. Bates (1905-1974) was 64 years old at the time.
I do know that usage, but from fiction written before 1969.
[Sugar-tits, ignoring the 'article' quoted elsewhere in the thread,
does mean something to me. I can't find it in a slang dictionary at
present, though.]
Jac
Graeme Thomas
Jacqui <bopee...@gmail.com> writes
>the Omrud wrote:
>> Martin Ambuhl had it:
>
>> > Birding is a national obsession in Britain; it is not in the US.
>>
>> It is not a national obsession. I do not believe I've ever met a
>> bird spotter, so they can't be all that common.
A former colleague occasionally went "birding". But I agree that they
are not numerous.
>(Isn't 'twitcher' the preferred term?)
As I understand matters, "twitcher" is common way of referring to
amateur ornithologists, but it is a term not beloved by those to whom it
is addressed. They prefer "birder", I believe.
--
Graeme Thomas
me
> Jacqui <bopee...@gmail.com> writes
>>the Omrud wrote:
>>> Martin Ambuhl had it:
>>
>>> > Birding is a national obsession in Britain; it is not in the US.
>>>
>>> It is not a national obsession. I do not believe I've ever met a
>>> bird spotter, so they can't be all that common.
>
> A former colleague occasionally went "birding". But I agree that they
> are not numerous.
>
>>(Isn't 'twitcher' the preferred term?)
>
> As I understand matters, "twitcher" is common way of referring to
> amateur ornithologists, but it is a term not beloved by those to whom it
> is addressed. They prefer "birder", I believe.
That might peg them for punters:-)
mUs1Ka
news:1155421123.2...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
As I understand it, twitchers go round collecting bird sightings rather like
some trains potters.*
--
Ray
UK
* deliberate
Adrian Bailey
news:ebkm7i$gd5$1...@kemoauc.mips.inka.de...
> I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
> than I would have expected (with an American English background).
> Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
> colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
Low language has become acceptable on British TV. It doesn't seem like five
minutes since "fuck" was taboo; now it's commonplace.
Adrian
Robert Lieblich
No shit?
Over here in the land of the free (etc.), network censors are bleeping
"tits" (but not "boobs"). Go figure.
--
Bob (Foulmouth) Lieblich
Jonathan Morton
A similar approach applies in the UK. "Boobs" is considered a bit of a
joke word, so publications such as "The Sun" can get away with it where
they would consider the words "tits" off-side. Photographs of them are
fine, of course.
In the UK, the birds are "tits" and we have "titbits" too - but not
"sugar-tits". I was once lectured on birds by a man who couldn't bring
himself to refer to them as "tits" - always "titmice" - but I would say
that was unusual in BrE.
Regards
Jonathan
the Omrud
I believe that the serious ones hate being called twitchers.
--
David
=====
Ian Noble
(Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
>than I would have expected (with an American English background).
>Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
>colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
I'd say that it's merely tasetless or slightly vulgar. But then I
don't believe that, on the whole, Brits find that portion of the
anatomy offensive.
Cheers - Ian
HVS
ObAUE. The implication here is that Americans find breasts
"offensive", but is that the right word? From the Janet Jackson
episode, I'd say that some Americans -- with political pull -- find
that part of the anatomy lewd rather than offensive.
the Omrud
> On 13 Aug 2006, Ian Noble wrote
>
> > On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:48:34 +0000 (UTC), na...@mips.inka.de
> > (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
> >
> >> I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more
> >> liberally than I would have expected (with an American
> >> English background). Is this a transatlantic difference in
> >> register? Is "tits" more colloquial and less offensive in
> >> British English, more like "boobs"?
> >
> > I'd say that it's merely tasetless or slightly vulgar. But
> > then I don't believe that, on the whole, Brits find that
> > portion of the anatomy offensive.
>
> ObAUE. The implication here is that Americans find breasts
> "offensive", but is that the right word? From the Janet Jackson
> episode, I'd say that some Americans -- with political pull -- find
> that part of the anatomy lewd rather than offensive.
I wouldn't use "lewd" about an object - I'd tend to reserve it for
behaviour. Or possibly about an object which depicts behaviour, such
as a painting or statue.
--
David
=====
Graeme Thomas
nathanmortonbutignorethisbit.co.uk> writes
>I was once lectured on birds by a man who couldn't bring
>himself to refer to them as "tits" - always "titmice" - but I would say
>that was unusual in BrE.
According to rumour the BBC once received a letter complaining of the
language used on one of its wireless programmes. The listener had
switched on the radio and heard the phrase "great tits like coconuts",
and had switched off in disgust. The producer of the programme wrote
back to explain that the programme was about ornithology, and the
offending phrase came fro a discussion of the dietary preferences of one
of our British birds.
A quarter century or so ago there was a road in Oxford named "Tidmarsh
Lane". Some interfering busybodies claimed that the road had once been
named "Titmarsh Lane", and that the change had been made to avoid
offending Victorian prudes. A request, therefore, was made to the local
council requesting that the name be changed back.
At this point, of course, opposition arose to the scheme. Some of
these, no doubt, came from still-living Victorian prudes or their
successors. Others noted that the "Tidmarsh" name had had a century or
so of existence, and that *this* tradition ought to be maintained.
The last I heard was that some antiquarians had discovered that the name
"Titmarsh" was itself a relatively recent one, the name having been
changed from "Tidmarsh" in the 16th century. I hae no idea of the
current name of the road.
--
Graeme Thomas
Jacqui
> A quarter century or so ago there was a road in Oxford named "Tidmarsh
> Lane". Some interfering busybodies claimed that the road had once been
> named "Titmarsh Lane", and that the change had been made to avoid
> offending Victorian prudes. A request, therefore, was made to the local
> council requesting that the name be changed back.
>
> At this point, of course, opposition arose to the scheme. Some of
> these, no doubt, came from still-living Victorian prudes or their
> successors. Others noted that the "Tidmarsh" name had had a century or
> so of existence, and that *this* tradition ought to be maintained.
>
> The last I heard was that some antiquarians had discovered that the name
> "Titmarsh" was itself a relatively recent one, the name having been
> changed from "Tidmarsh" in the 16th century. I hae no idea of the
> current name of the road.
Tidmarsh. The University Estates buildings are down there.
"Tidmarsh Lane (by 1956): Titmouse Lane (1751, 1850), but Titmarsh's
Lane (1772). Richard Tidmarsh lived there in the later 17th century.
(fn. 34)". So it's not entirely clear, but it probably went "Tidmarsh
(person)->Tidmarsh (lane)->Titmouse->Titmarsh->Tidmarsh again" as
various people decided it had been misnamed and changed it...
Jac
Vinny Burgoo
>On 13 Aug 2006, Ian Noble wrote
>> I'd say that it's merely tasetless or slightly vulgar. But
>> then I don't believe that, on the whole, Brits find that
>> portion of the anatomy offensive.
>
>ObAUE. The implication here is that Americans find breasts
>"offensive", but is that the right word? From the Janet Jackson
>episode, I'd say that some Americans -- with political pull -- find
>that part of the anatomy lewd rather than offensive.
But only the teats are unacceptably scortatory. Tits are fine, even on
"family" shows, which are often awobble with barely covered breasts (or
"breasts": bizarre spherical objects that have been surgically attached
to the actress's neck), while even the most grown-up shows on American
TV are petrified of nipples. Most peculiar.
--
V
Nick Spalding
on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:49:07 +0100:
I thought a twitcher was an extreme form of a birder, one who would drop
everything and dash off to some remote place at even a hint of something
really uncommon having been seen.
--
Nick Spalding
John Holmes
> Graeme Thomas wrote, in <eAxMHKAj...@graemet.demon.co.uk>
> on Sat, 12 Aug 2006 23:49:07 +0100:
>
>> In article <1155421123.2...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jacqui <bopee...@gmail.com> writes
>>
>>
>> As I understand matters, "twitcher" is common way of referring to
>> amateur ornithologists, but it is a term not beloved by those to
>> whom it is addressed. They prefer "birder", I believe.
>
> I thought a twitcher was an extreme form of a birder, one who would
> drop everything and dash off to some remote place at even a hint of
> something really uncommon having been seen.
As it was explained to me, 'twitcher' is a put-down of those birders who
are merely out to score in terms of numbers of species or sightings of
very rare ones; those who do it as a competition rather than from a
genuine interest in the birds. All they are interested in is spotting or
photographing the bird for long enough that they can put another tick
against the species list.
The more serious birders spend time observing the birds' habit and diet,
making notes about how many young in the nest this year, etc.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:35:58 +1000:
Yes, that is a better definition than mine.
--
Nick Spalding
J. J. Lodder
> X-No-Archive: yes
[complete quote for the gods of google]
> In message <MPG.1f485dd9c...@news.ntlworld.com>, the Omrud
> <usenet...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >It is not a national obsession. I do not believe I've ever met a
> >bird spotter, so they can't be all that common.
>
> Mention seeing a hoopoe around here (they visit England during mad
> moments) and you're knee-deep in twitchers.
Seems they are going north mare often,
with the summers getting warmer.
The bird isn't rare in southern France,
where it breeds,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
There is a newsgroup uk.rec.birdwatching,
and it does have flow,
Jan
Paul Wolff
Jacqui <bopee...@gmail.com> writes
Richard's family were from thence.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
the Omrud
Well, there are uk.rec groups on caving and sewing, but neither of
these is a national obsession.
--
David
=====
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>>
>> There is a newsgroup uk.rec.birdwatching,
>> and it does have flow,
>
>Well, there are uk.rec groups on caving and sewing, but neither of
>these is a national obsession.
How many UK groups are there on caving and sewing? Are there tips on
how to thread a needle in the dark?
--
Tony Cooper
Blustering from Orlando, Florida
Dick Chambers
> A similar approach applies in the UK. "Boobs" is considered a bit of a
> joke word, so publications such as "The Sun" can get away with it where
> they would consider the words "tits" off-side. Photographs of them are
> fine, of course.
>
> [ ... ]
My experience in Leeds is the opposite. "Tits" is used more commonly in
joke or raunchy mood, while "boobs" is used more commonly in what I call
"anxiety" mood.
Examples of "tits" being used in raunchy mood are:-
"Get your tits out, love!", shouted unexpectedly by a member of the
audience early on in the performance of a striptease that I attended a few
years ago. She did eventually comply with his request, and in the end gave
him a bit more than he had bargained for. But all in her own good time.
"Look at her! What a fucking nice pair of tits! I could just ..." An
opinion affirmed by one of my colleagues at the power station where I
worked, as he perused a girlie magazine in the mess room during a short tea
break.
"The film was rubbish, but at least it wasn't too bad as a bum and tit
show". My own dismissive critical assessment of a film I had just been to
see a few years ago.
Examples of "boobs" being used in anxiety mood are:-
"I am going to have a silicone implant for my boobs". This information was
imparted to me by a rather drunk lady, a complete stranger, at a party a
couple of years ago.
"Her dress was so low-cut that, at one point, one of her boobs fell out".
The description of a concert performance by a soprano soloist in Leeds Town
Hall some five years ago, related to me by my shocked next-door neighbour, a
female.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Father Ignatius
"Jacqui" <bopee...@gmail.com>,
in <1155462560.5...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, a écrit:
> "Tidmarsh Lane (by 1956): Titmouse Lane (1751, 1850), but Titmarsh's
> Lane (1772). Richard Tidmarsh lived there in the later 17th century.
> (fn. 34)". So it's not entirely clear, but it probably went "Tidmarsh
> (person)->Tidmarsh (lane)->Titmouse->Titmarsh->Tidmarsh again" as
> various people decided it had been misnamed and changed it...
Busybodies being the only constant for 250+ years.
Isabelle Cecchini
> Jonathan Morton wrote
>
>> A similar approach applies in the UK. "Boobs" is considered a bit of a
>> joke word, so publications such as "The Sun" can get away with it where
>> they would consider the words "tits" off-side. Photographs of them are
>> fine, of course.
>>
>> [ ... ]
>
> My experience in Leeds is the opposite. "Tits" is used more commonly in
> joke or raunchy mood, while "boobs" is used more commonly in what I call
> "anxiety" mood.
Speaking as a foreigner, I can't help but noticing that in your
examples, "tits" was used by men, whereas "boobs" was used by women,
which of course ties in nicely with the "raunchy mood" on the one hand,
and the "anxiety mood" on the other, but that might also explain why The
Sun would use "boobs", and not "tits": they have their female readership
to consider --that's assuming they do have a female readership, but I
don't see why they shouldn't.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
Hatunen
<hnN...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>But only the teats are unacceptably scortatory. Tits are fine, even on
>"family" shows, which are often awobble with barely covered breasts (or
>"breasts": bizarre spherical objects that have been surgically attached
>to the actress's neck), while even the most grown-up shows on American
>TV are petrified of nipples. Most peculiar.
That's rather misleading. It is not the grown-up shows that are
petrified, it is the advertisers, and therefore the networks. The
shows would cheerfully show all that if the networks weren't
afraid of loss of advertising revenue. Some
commercially-sponsored programs have skirted the line rather
closely, crossing it a bit, most notably "NYPD".
Back in the 1950s an acclaimed dramatic series on television had
a play about the Holocaust, but had to eliminate all mention of
"gas" because the advertiser was the American Natural Gas
Association (or something very similar).
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Maria
> HVS wrote:
>> Ian Noble wrote
>
>>> I'd say that it's merely tasetless or slightly vulgar. But
>>> then I don't believe that, on the whole, Brits find that
>>> portion of the anatomy offensive.
>>
>> ObAUE. The implication here is that Americans find breasts
>> "offensive", but is that the right word? From the Janet Jackson
>> episode, I'd say that some Americans -- with political pull -- find
>> that part of the anatomy lewd rather than offensive.
This American says that a woman's breasts are not lewd and are not
offensive. They are a natural part of a woman. What might be lewd and/or
offensive (but is really just stupid) is the adolescent tittering that
goes on by those who are long past adolescence.
Next: I dislike the term "boobs" more than other terms for female
breasts. If one cannot say "breasts" or "bosom" or even "tits" with a
straight face, then one should not resort to the silliness of the term
"boobs," but should instead stay out of the conversation.
> But only the teats are unacceptably scortatory. Tits are fine, even on
> "family" shows, which are often awobble with barely covered breasts
> (or "breasts": bizarre spherical objects that have been surgically
> attached to the actress's neck), while even the most grown-up shows
> on American TV are petrified of nipples. Most peculiar.
Petrified? Maybe the people who could lose their jobs over adverse
viewer reaction, but many of the viewers themselves are just rather
disgusted with those who make sure that their nipples are prominent (and
practically in your face). We even have prominent nipples on store
mannequins. Many bras are designed to make nipples obvious. Yes, nipples
exist, but for certain purposes -- not for the general slavering of
people who cannot control themselves at the sight.
The human body is not bad. Allure is not bad. Sex is not bad. What is
bad is cheapening them all by using them for *public* titillation.
Note to anchorwomen and others on tv: Do you really need to show off
your cleavage, or wear super short skirts, in order to present the day's
news? Is modesty now thoroughly out of style? (/Hussies/.)
Them's my views. Really. And I'm wondering what the reaction will be, if
any.
--
Maria
There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name.
Jitze Couperus
Reminds me of the joke about the 3 wrens who went to take a dip
in the ocean (which was apparently very cold) and out came six blue
tits.
Obaue (translating English into American) Nevil Shute wrote a book
with the title "Requiem for a Wren" which I thought was rather
cleverly translated for the American market as "The Last Wave".
That is assuming you realize the approx. equivalence of Wrens
and Waves in transpondial context.
Jitze
Jitze Couperus
wrote:
>
>The human body is not bad. Allure is not bad. Sex is not bad. What is
>bad is cheapening them all by using them for *public* titillation.
>
But this titillation is culturally induced in the first place - that's
where the problem lies - teaching everybody that mammaries are
naughty in the first place, and then turning blue when one is
displayed in public.
Never had that problem growing up midst the Masai, Gikuyu, Luo,
or a bunch of other folks. But then the missionaries got to them
and they too succumbed. On the other hand, we westerners
have no compunctions at all about displaying the soles of our
feet in public...
Jitze
Peter Duncanson
In some times and places it is not necessary to display skin to
cause trouble.
In the early 1930s my father was a research student working towards
a PhD at the Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge. One of
his fellow researchers and friends was Rafi Mahomet Chaudhri from
India (later Pakistan). Dad's diary entry for 7th August, 1931,
includes:
Chaudhri astounded the lab. by coming in in his Indian dress
this morning. He had a pair of trousers on, very light brown,
which fitted tightly on his legs below the knees - something
like riding breeches - but he had no stockings [1] on, but most
amazing still was that he had an ordinary silk shirt but it was
out over his trousers and not pushed inside. He was getting
about the lab. like this much to the embarrassment of one of the
women who fled when she saw him.
At that time shirts were *always* tucked in to the trousers (AmE:
pants). With his shirt not tucked in he would have seemed to have
been partly undressed.
[1] socks.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Moylan
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> Over here in the land of the free (etc.), network censors are
>> bleeping "tits" (but not "boobs"). Go figure.
>
> A similar approach applies in the UK. "Boobs" is considered a bit of
> a joke word, so publications such as "The Sun" can get away with it
> where they would consider the words "tits" off-side. Photographs of
> them are fine, of course.
It might be generational. In my youth "tits" was rude but not offensive,
if you know what I mean, whereas "boobs" could not be said within the
hearing of a woman without making an enemy for life. These days I hear
plenty of young women refer to their boobs, but I think they would be
shocked if anyone called them tits.
The distinction, as I understand it, is that tits are sexually
provocative whereas boobs are merely bits of flesh which happen to hang
from the chest.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Peter Moylan
But it's rare indeed to see a public display of boko-maru. Some people
remain afraid of the hook.
Donna Richoux
> Graeme Thomas wrote:
>
> > A quarter century or so ago there was a road in Oxford named "Tidmarsh
> > Lane". Some interfering busybodies claimed that the road had once been
> > named "Titmarsh Lane", and that the change had been made to avoid
> > offending Victorian prudes. A request, therefore, was made to the local
> > council requesting that the name be changed back.
> >
> > At this point, of course, opposition arose to the scheme. Some of
> > these, no doubt, came from still-living Victorian prudes or their
> > successors. Others noted that the "Tidmarsh" name had had a century or
> > so of existence, and that *this* tradition ought to be maintained.
> >
> > The last I heard was that some antiquarians had discovered that the name
> > "Titmarsh" was itself a relatively recent one, the name having been
> > changed from "Tidmarsh" in the 16th century. I hae no idea of the
> > current name of the road.
As a surname, the spelling with a T goes way back, says the Oxford
Dictionary of English Surnames. They cite records of a Tytemers 1279,
and de Tytemersshe 1339. They agree it comes from Tidmarsh in Berkshire.
Under "Tidmarsh," the historical record goes to de Thedmers 1297 and de
Tydemersh 1315, and it's from the same Berkshire locality.
There's a different surname Titchmarsh, going back to de Tichemers 1178,
from Titchmarsh, Northamptonshire.
>
> Tidmarsh. The University Estates buildings are down there.
>
> "Tidmarsh Lane (by 1956): Titmouse Lane (1751, 1850), but Titmarsh's
> Lane (1772). Richard Tidmarsh lived there in the later 17th century.
> (fn. 34)". So it's not entirely clear, but it probably went "Tidmarsh
> (person)->Tidmarsh (lane)->Titmouse->Titmarsh->Tidmarsh again" as
> various people decided it had been misnamed and changed it...
Switching to the Oxford Dictionary of English Placenames:
They have no entry for any Titmarsh.
They say Tidmarsh, Berkshire, meant "people's or common marsh," from OE
theod + mersc. It was spelled Tedmerse in 1196.
That's more interesting than most of the Tid- and Tit- placenames,
which, as I've come to expect, mean land belonging to a man named:
Tyccea, Titta, Titel, Titten, Tyttel, Tida, Tytta, Tidi, Tidhelm, Tuda,
or Didda.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Stephen Calder
>
> Them's my views. Really. And I'm wondering what the reaction will be, if
> any.
>
It's perfectly clear that clothes, and in particular those that cover
the reproductive and related organs, are the only thing preventing a
wholesale orgy of more or less constant duration in our public streets.
We are SO lucky the Jackson Incident did not have the dire consequences
it easily could have.
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Hatunen
Wrens don't have tits, but WRENs do.
>Obaue (translating English into American) Nevil Shute wrote a book
>with the title "Requiem for a Wren" which I thought was rather
>cleverly translated for the American market as "The Last Wave".
>That is assuming you realize the approx. equivalence of Wrens
>and Waves in transpondial context.
Waves don't have tits either, but WAVEs do.
When I was in the US Army we had GI parties every Friday evening,
when we laid WACs on the floors.
Hatunen
(Jitze Couperus) wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:59:33 GMT, "Maria" <maria...@sbcglobal.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>The human body is not bad. Allure is not bad. Sex is not bad. What is
>>bad is cheapening them all by using them for *public* titillation.
>>
>
>But this titillation is culturally induced in the first place - that's
>where the problem lies - teaching everybody that mammaries are
>naughty in the first place, and then turning blue when one is
>displayed in public.
What's wrong with titillation?
Hatunen
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>>> Over here in the land of the free (etc.), network censors are
>>> bleeping "tits" (but not "boobs"). Go figure.
>>
>> A similar approach applies in the UK. "Boobs" is considered a bit of
>> a joke word, so publications such as "The Sun" can get away with it
>> where they would consider the words "tits" off-side. Photographs of
>> them are fine, of course.
>
>It might be generational. In my youth "tits" was rude but not offensive,
>if you know what I mean, whereas "boobs" could not be said within the
>hearing of a woman without making an enemy for life. These days I hear
>plenty of young women refer to their boobs, but I think they would be
>shocked if anyone called them tits.
>
>The distinction, as I understand it, is that tits are sexually
>provocative whereas boobs are merely bits of flesh which happen to hang
>from the chest.
Surely women don't get boob jobs just to increase the size of the
bits of flesh hanging from their chests.
The language is always in flux, and meanings, and especially
connotations, are always changing. Frankly, I don't think tits
are especially provative since, after all, even goats have tits
(or teats). How turned on are you by Tetakawi mountain:
http://www.sancarlosbay.com/tetakawigolf.jpg, which is in the bay
at San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico, and means in Yaqui "Tits of Goat".
JF
<hat...@cox.net> writes
>Wrens don't have tits, but WRENs do.
So do WRNS.
Robert Bannister
>
> In some times and places it is not necessary to display skin to
> cause trouble.
All the same, I read in this morning's paper a report about a (British?)
passport photo being rejected because it showed bare shoulders. The
subject of the photo was a little girl.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Maria wrote:
>
>>
>> Them's my views. Really. And I'm wondering what the reaction will be,
>> if any.
>>
>
> It's perfectly clear that clothes, and in particular those that cover
> the reproductive and related organs, are the only thing preventing a
> wholesale orgy of more or less constant duration in our public streets.
It is regrettably true that certain males, particularly those belonging
to fanatically religious sects, and even more so, muslim males from
certain countries, believe that any display of flesh gives them the
right to rape.
--
Rob Bannister
Skitt
Bare shoulders? That's outrageous, egregious, preposterous.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
Richard Bollard
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>Jonathan Morton wrote:
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>>> Over here in the land of the free (etc.), network censors are
>>> bleeping "tits" (but not "boobs"). Go figure.
>>
>> A similar approach applies in the UK. "Boobs" is considered a bit of
>> a joke word, so publications such as "The Sun" can get away with it
>> where they would consider the words "tits" off-side. Photographs of
>> them are fine, of course.
>
>It might be generational. In my youth "tits" was rude but not offensive,
>if you know what I mean, whereas "boobs" could not be said within the
>hearing of a woman without making an enemy for life. These days I hear
>plenty of young women refer to their boobs, but I think they would be
>shocked if anyone called them tits.
>
>The distinction, as I understand it, is that tits are sexually
>provocative whereas boobs are merely bits of flesh which happen to hang
>from the chest.
Cue Aunty Jack circa 1972:
Fol da Ra
Fol da Re
Poor big tit in a tree
Lonely big tit
Needs another tit
So there can be three.
When up came the farmer with a big big gun
Said "hear those little tits
Give me the shittle bits".
And the gun went "bang!"
And the tits went "clang!"
And he shot the tree in the tits
<interj> What!
Shot the tits in the tree
Fol da re
Fol da TIT!
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Richard Bollard
>The language is always in flux, and meanings, and especially
>connotations, are always changing. Frankly, I don't think tits
>are especially provative since, after all, even goats have tits
>(or teats). How turned on are you by Tetakawi mountain:
>http://www.sancarlosbay.com/tetakawigolf.jpg, which is in the bay
>at San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico, and means in Yaqui "Tits of Goat".
>
>
Phwoah!
In southern Canberra there is rounded bit of landscape known as "Tit
Hill". It is a nice breast shape with a large tree where a nipple
would be.
Peter Moylan
> When up came the farmer with a big big gun
> Said "hear those little tits
> Give me the shittle bits".
> And the gun went "bang!"
> And the tits went "clang!"
> And he shot the tree in the tits
>
> <interj> What!
>
> Shot the tits in the tree
>
> Fol da re
> Fol da TIT!
You say naughty stuff like that and I'll come down and rip your bloody
arms off.
Did you know that Google can't find a single instance of "the most
powerful typist on Earth", or even "Tarzan sure tastes good"? It's a
shame that such artistry can be lost forever. In my search of Aunty Jack
fan sites I did, however, find the theme song for something that never
made it to air:
http://home.aanet.com.au/dag_fest/Sounds/Jesus.mp3
and even a memorable piece of Shakespeare:
http://home.aanet.com.au/dag_fest/Sounds/Spot.mp3
Farewell, Aunty Jack, we know you'll be back ...
Peter Duncanson
Partly correct!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/15/nbaby15.xml
Baby's bare-chest picture 'too offensive' for passport
By Helen Johnstone
A mother was told she could not use a photograph of her
bare-chested baby son for a passport because it was "offensive".
Tracey Barnes, 36, from Claverham, Somerset, said nine-month-old
Lewis had his top removed after being sick down it, but passport
officials told her a topless picture would offend people in
"fanatical religious countries".
...
Mrs Barnes and her husband Steve, 44, a printer, who have a
daughter, Alice, four, sent the passport application via the
Post Office Send and Check Service and were shocked to receive a
reply that the pictures were unsuitable because the baby was
undressed.
Mrs Barnes said she was told by an official that the picture
would be seen as offensive in some parts of the world. "We are
going to Greece. It's hardly a hotbed of fundamentalism. I
couldn't believe it," she said.
"We followed the passport photo guidelines and they never
mentioned that pictures would be unacceptable if the baby wasn't
wearing a top. This sort of political correctness will only
serve to stir up racial tensions." A new set of pictures have
been taken.
A Home Office spokesman said an error was made by the official
dealing with the application. "There is no official passport
policy relating to displaying bare chests on passport
photographs as UK Passport Service require a photograph to show
head and shoulders only."
...
Islamic leaders said it was absurd to suggest a passport
photograph of a semi-naked baby could upset Muslims and the Home
Office was ill informed on Islamic culture.
Tahmina Saleem, from the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "The
Home Office is increasingly imposing ridiculous morality on us
without consulting us.
"I suggest that they consult us in future before making such
sweeping statements."
Jacqui
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> >All the same, I read in this morning's paper a report about a (British?)
> >passport photo being rejected because it showed bare shoulders. The
> >subject of the photo was a little girl.
>
> Partly correct!
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/15/nbaby15.xml
That's not the same story - the other is about a small girl in a
halter-neck top... one moment... ah, here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400528&in_page_id=1770
(It came up in another forum; I do not read the Daily Mail!)
Jac
Vinny Burgoo
>Vinny Burgoo wrote:
[snip]
>> But only the teats are unacceptably scortatory. Tits are fine, even on
>> "family" shows, which are often awobble with barely covered breasts
>> (or "breasts": bizarre spherical objects that have been surgically
>> attached to the actress's neck), while even the most grown-up shows
>> on American TV are petrified of nipples. Most peculiar.
>
>Petrified? Maybe the people who could lose their jobs over adverse
>viewer reaction, but many of the viewers themselves are just rather
>disgusted with those who make sure that their nipples are prominent
>(and practically in your face). We even have prominent nipples on store
>mannequins. Many bras are designed to make nipples obvious. Yes,
>nipples exist, but for certain purposes -- not for the general
>slavering of people who cannot control themselves at the sight.
>
>The human body is not bad. Allure is not bad. Sex is not bad. What is
>bad is cheapening them all by using them for *public* titillation.
I agree (though my channel-hopping thumb sometimes doesn't, the
disreputable drooling digit). But I don't understand why, if your views
are widespread enough to keep exposed nipples off grown-up American
telly, there are so many barely-covered bosoms in family shows.* They're
only there to keep the dads happy. That too is public titillation.
A question of degree? Sure. But it's odd that those last few square
inches of thin cloth (complete with nipple bumps) should be thought to
be so significant. The networks can get away with exposing three
quarters of a bosom at any time of the day but everyone baulks at
exposing the rest, even on after-the-watershed shows.**
It sometimes seems as though American films and TV shows have so many
bikini-clad breasts precisely because there are so few exposed nipples.
"We know what you want but we can't give it to you so here's acres and
acres of the next-best thing." And the result is that American shows
seem as lewd as everyone else's, only weirder.
>Note to anchorwomen and others on tv: Do you really need to show off
>your cleavage, or wear super short skirts, in order to present the
>day's news? Is modesty now thoroughly out of style? (/Hussies/.)
Not for the men. Dan Rather in shorts? I'd rather not. (Geddit?)
>Them's my views. Really. And I'm wondering what the reaction will be,
>if any.
Any.
*I can't think of any examples at the moment. I do hope I'm not
imagining these "family" bosoms.
**ObAUE: Do you have a TV watershed over there? And if you do is it
called a watershed? I understand that "watershed" usually means "basin"
rather than "ridge". No nipples before the basin. That doesn't sound
like a very useful guideline. (Unless you're particularly worried about
nipples chipping the porcelain.)
--
V
Mmmm. Pencil skirts.
Vinny Burgoo
>Back in the 1950s an acclaimed dramatic series on television had
>a play about the Holocaust, but had to eliminate all mention of
>"gas" because the advertiser was the American Natural Gas
>Association (or something very similar).
The Ice Marketing Board presents ...
*A Night to Forget*
It is surely one of the GREATEST MYSTERIES OF ALL TIME. She was the
MARVEL OF THE AGE, the world's largest, fastest, most luxurious and most
TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED ocean liner - but the Titanic sank on her
maiden voyage and NOBODY KNOWS WHY!
Starring Justin Timberlake and Paris Hilton.
Special guest appearance by the voice of William Shatner (as "The
Saboteur").
--
V
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Good grief! Two cases.
There is one point worth commenting on: this matter has nothing to
do with political correctness as claimed in one of the reports. It
is to do with the severely practical matter of having a passport
photo will not cause offence, and possible refusal of entry, in the
the strictest country in the world (whichever that might be).
The question of whether or not British muslims would be offended is
utterly irrelevant -- they are not immigration officials in foreign
countries.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> **ObAUE: Do you have a TV watershed over there?
Kinda. The FCC professes to allow things on broadcast shows after 10
p.m. that are verboten prior thereto. I can't say as I've seen enough
of a difference to merit comment. Part of the problem may be that
network shows are seen an hour earlier in the Central Time Zone. But
even Leno and Letterman bleep dirty words.
Cable, on the other hand, is not subject to FCC regulation of that
sort, and any censorship is self-imposed. Most cable netrworks that
seek "family" audiences adhere to approximately the same restrictions
as the broadcast networks, but there are variations. *Comedy Central*
is an interesting case study, and the way they[1] handle "South Park"
is particularly noteworthy. As a general matter, they bleep "shit",
"fuck" and "cunt" routinely, but almost anything else goes through.
When they showed the episode in which the whole point was that you
could now say "shit" on TV, they let it through unbleeped --
approximately 200 times. It ran originally at 10 p.m. but was rerun
at least once at 9:30. Occasionally they'll show the "South Park"
movie -- you know, the one in which one of the songs is "Fuck You,
Uncle Fucker" and another is "Blame Canada") -- with no bleeps, but
they do it around 1:00 a.m. and with plenty of warning.
As I think has been reported here before, *Comedy Central* blacked out
a few frames of "South Park" that contained an image of Muhammed.
That's a different sort of censorship. To my knowledge, the FCC has
not weighed in on that one.
[1] Yeah, singular verb but subsequent plural pronoun. Wanna make
something of it?
--
Bob Lieblich
Who really doesn't give a shit
R H Draney
Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
> There is one point worth commenting on: this matter has nothing to
> do with political correctness as claimed in one of the reports. It
> is to do with the severely practical matter of having a passport
> photo will not cause offence, and possible refusal of entry, in the
> the strictest country in the world (whichever that might be).
Doesn't "the strictest country in the world" also feature a sizeable
contingent of people who believe that *any* sort of "graven image",
such as a passport photograph, is an offense against the sensibilities
of the Creator?...r
Robert Bannister
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 07:38:20 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Duncanson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In some times and places it is not necessary to display skin to
>>>cause trouble.
>>
>>All the same, I read in this morning's paper a report about a (British?)
>>passport photo being rejected because it showed bare shoulders. The
>>subject of the photo was a little girl.
>
>
> Partly correct!
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/02/15/nbaby15.xml
>
> Baby's bare-chest picture 'too offensive' for passport
> By Helen Johnstone
>
> A mother was told she could not use a photograph of her
> bare-chested baby son for a passport because it was "offensive".
Interesting, because it sounds like the same report, but my paper
printed a photo of a girl aged 3-5 with just bare shoulders. Of course,
it's nothing unusual for the paper to print a photo that is totally
unrelated to the accompanying article.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Aha, that's the photo I saw. And there I was almost accusing my paper of
having the facts wrong. As if!
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
But it does tell us something about the country in which these
immigration officials live.
--
Rob Bannister
Percival P. Cassidy
> Kinda. The FCC professes to allow things on broadcast shows after 10
> p.m. that are verboten prior thereto. I can't say as I've seen enough
> of a difference to merit comment. Part of the problem may be that
> network shows are seen an hour earlier in the Central Time Zone. But
> even Leno and Letterman bleep dirty words.
>
> Cable, on the other hand, is not subject to FCC regulation of that
> sort, and any censorship is self-imposed. Most cable netrworks that
> seek "family" audiences adhere to approximately the same restrictions
> as the broadcast networks, but there are variations. *Comedy Central*
> is an interesting case study, and the way they[1] handle "South Park"
> is particularly noteworthy. As a general matter, they bleep "shit",
> "fuck" and "cunt" routinely, but almost anything else goes through.
> When they showed the episode in which the whole point was that you
> could now say "shit" on TV, they let it through unbleeped --
> approximately 200 times. It ran originally at 10 p.m. but was rerun
> at least once at 9:30. Occasionally they'll show the "South Park"
> movie -- you know, the one in which one of the songs is "Fuck You,
> Uncle Fucker" and another is "Blame Canada") -- with no bleeps, but
> they do it around 1:00 a.m. and with plenty of warning.
<snip>
We have satellite rather than cable, but of course the same thing
applies. We do not subscribe to the "Adult programming" package, yet I
am amazed at some of the stuff that is shown on HBO late at night:
"Cathouse" is filmed in a [Oxymoron alert] "high-class brothel" and
reports such things as new brides sending their husbands there to learn
how to please them -- and even shows the women enjoying some romps with
each other when they have no paying clients; "The Sex Inspectors"
(originating in the UK, but whether it is broadcast there over the air
or only by cable or satellite I have no idea) deals rather graphically
with the "experts'" attempts to solve couples' various sex problems.
These are all described as "documentaries."
Perce
Steve Hayes
Weisgerber) wrote:
>I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
>than I would have expected (with an American English background).
>Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
>colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
In some circles "tits" might cause titters, but less so than in the past.
How do you titillate an ocelot?
You oscillate its tit a lot.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
>On 12 Aug 2006, tinwhistler wrote
>
>>
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not familiar with that so I presume it must have died
>>> out. "tit" does have the alternative meaning of "idiot" (men
>>> or women), of course.
>>
>> Why presume it's died out if OED2 provides a 1969 usage?
>
>That's almost 40 years ago, though -- long enough for a colloquial
>usage to die out.
Cool!
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
>> than I would have expected (with an American English background).
>> Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
>> colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
>
>Birding is a national obsession in Britain; it is not in the US.
If they're all gay, where's the next generation coming from?
HVS
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:53:02 GMT, HVS
> <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12 Aug 2006, tinwhistler wrote
>>
>>>
>>> the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not familiar with that so I presume it must have died
>>>> out. "tit" does have the alternative meaning of "idiot"
>>>> (men or women), of course.
>>>
>>> Why presume it's died out if OED2 provides a 1969 usage?
>>
>> That's almost 40 years ago, though -- long enough for a
>> colloquial usage to die out.
>
> Cool!
Like, long enough that it could, not that it would, man.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Steve Hayes
>On 16 Aug 2006, Steve Hayes wrote
>
>> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:53:02 GMT, HVS
>> <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> That's almost 40 years ago, though -- long enough for a
>>> colloquial usage to die out.
>>
>> Cool!
>
>Like, long enough that it could, not that it would, man.
Hey, I dig that?
Peter Duncanson
<rob...@it.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> There is one point worth commenting on: this matter has nothing to
>> do with political correctness as claimed in one of the reports. It
>> is to do with the severely practical matter of having a passport
>> photo will not cause offence, and possible refusal of entry, in the
>> the strictest country in the world (whichever that might be).
>>
>> The question of whether or not British muslims would be offended is
>> utterly irrelevant -- they are not immigration officials in foreign
>> countries.
>
>But it does tell us something about the country in which these
>immigration officials live.
Yes. But it does not necessarily tell us what we need to know about
the attitudes of immigration officials in different Muslim
countries. There is a very wide range of attitudes and practices
within Islam.
Peter Moylan
> There is one point worth commenting on: this matter has nothing to do
> with political correctness as claimed in one of the reports. It is to
> do with the severely practical matter of having a passport photo will
> not cause offence, and possible refusal of entry, in the the
> strictest country in the world (whichever that might be).
It cuts both ways. Would your country or mine accept a passport
photograph of a woman with a completely covered face? I don't know, but
I suspect not.
Tony Cooper
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>It cuts both ways. Would your country or mine accept a passport
>photograph of a woman with a completely covered face? I don't know, but
>I suspect not.
On the same general issue...A Muslim woman in this area declined to
remove her niqab for her drivers license photo, so the DL people
revoked her license. The case has been in and out of the courts. I
don't know which way it was resolved. The following article may not
be the most current report.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16218prs20030527.html
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Stephen Calder
Muslim women aren't supposed to be driving anyway are they?
--
Stephen
Lennox Head, Australia
Vinny Burgoo
>Vinny Burgoo wrote:
>> **ObAUE: Do you have a TV watershed over there?
>
>Kinda. The FCC professes to allow things on broadcast shows after 10
>p.m. that are verboten prior thereto. I can't say as I've seen enough
>of a difference to merit comment. Part of the problem may be that
>network shows are seen an hour earlier in the Central Time Zone. But
>even Leno and Letterman bleep dirty words.
[interesting shit snipped]
Is it known as "the watershed" or something else or is it just a
nameless is?
--
V
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:20:17 -0400, Martin Ambuhl <mam...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> >> I've noticed that on British TV shows "tits" is used more liberally
> >> than I would have expected (with an American English background).
> >> Is this a transatlantic difference in register? Is "tits" more
> >> colloquial and less offensive in British English, more like "boobs"?
> >
> >Birding is a national obsession in Britain; it is not in the US.
>
> If they're all gay, where's the next generation coming from?
The Middle East.
--
Bob Lieblich
The Muslims are The Borg
Robert Lieblich
A drives license is regarded in the US as a privilege, not a right,
and reasonable conditions can be imposed on the acquisition of one.
It seems reasonble to require a photo of the face of the
license-holder, so an official examining the license can verify that
the person in possession of the license is indeed the person to whom
the license was granted. The US requires governments to make
reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs, but I would argue
that anyone asking for a photo-less license (or one with a photo of a
veiled face) is asking for something more than just a reasonable
accommodation. I write this without having done any research to see
if any American court has decided the question, and I could be wrong.
For many years Virginia used the license holder's social security
number as the ID number of the license. <Short pause to allow rjv to
regain consciousness.> No applicant could be forced to surrender the
number, but if you didn't give the DMV your SSN you didn't get a
license. There was enough backlash that Virginia now offers you the
choice of using your SSN or getting another nine-character "number"
(which includes some letters, so as not to be confused with an SSN)
for your license. I chose the latter.
It's issues like this that reassure me when I start to think there
isn't enough legal business to keep a million American lawyers living
in luxury.
--
Bob Lieblich
From Luxury, VA
Robert Lieblich
I don't know of any name, and if there is one "the watershed"
definitely isn't it. Once upon the time we had the "family hour," 8-9
p.m., but that died an unmourned death a couple of decades ago. I
half-watched a *House* rerun last night on Fox from 8-9, and if that
show qualifies for the "family hour," Rey Aman is really Goody
Two-Shoes.
--
Bob Lieblich
Or maybe it's just that I have a dirty mind
Tony Cooper
I'm flying to Chicago in September. I will be required to show a
picture ID prior to boarding. I will be required to prove that I am
the person who booked the flight and whose name is on the ticket.
If Sultaana Freeman is booked on that same flight, will she be allowed
to board if she shows her driver's license as a picture ID, and if
that picture shows only her eyes because her face is covered by her
niqab?
Probably so, since Sultaana will show up with a phalanx of ACLU
lawyers in tow. However, maybe Sultaana will show her mug shot as
proof-of-identity:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html
"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is
equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists
are Muslims...". Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, General Manager of the
al-Arabiya news channel writing in the "Arab News".
Richard Bollard
<pe...@DIESPAMMERSozebelg.org> wrote:
>Richard Bollard wrote:
>
>> When up came the farmer with a big big gun
>> Said "hear those little tits
>> Give me the shittle bits".
>> And the gun went "bang!"
>> And the tits went "clang!"
>> And he shot the tree in the tits
>>
>> <interj> What!
>>
>> Shot the tits in the tree
>>
>> Fol da re
>> Fol da TIT!
>
>You say naughty stuff like that and I'll come down and rip your bloody
>arms off.
>
>Did you know that Google can't find a single instance of "the most
>powerful typist on Earth", or even "Tarzan sure tastes good"? It's a
>shame that such artistry can be lost forever. In my search of Aunty Jack
>fan sites I did, however, find the theme song for something that never
>made it to air:
> http://home.aanet.com.au/dag_fest/Sounds/Jesus.mp3
That and the typist's tale are both on the Auntyology that accompanied
the Aunty Jack sings Wollongong CD. It seems to be a miscellanous
collection of stuff, much of it post-AJ. "Away in A-Major" is a Status
Quo-like rendering of Away in a Manger. Triffic.
>and even a memorable piece of Shakespeare:
> http://home.aanet.com.au/dag_fest/Sounds/Spot.mp3
Haven't got that one but it rings a faint bell from the distant past.
>
>Farewell, Aunty Jack, we know you'll be back ...
She will too, don't forget it.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
I thought it was Mexico, but I suppose anything will do to fill a vacuum.
Hatunen
Hmm. My first few drivers licenses, Ohio and Kentucky, had no
photos on them, and I don't believe my first Arizona license in
1966 did either. They still functioned just fine.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
the Omrud
> If Sultaana Freeman is booked on that same flight, will she be allowed
> to board if she shows her driver's license as a picture ID, and if
> that picture shows only her eyes because her face is covered by her
> niqab?
>
> Probably so, since Sultaana will show up with a phalanx of ACLU
> lawyers in tow. However, maybe Sultaana will show her mug shot as
> proof-of-identity:
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/sultaana1.html
Why does that page say "sans headdress"?
--
David
=====
the Omrud
> >A drives license is regarded in the US as a privilege, not a right,
> >and reasonable conditions can be imposed on the acquisition of one.
> >It seems reasonble to require a photo of the face of the
> >license-holder, so an official examining the license can verify that
> >the person in possession of the license is indeed the person to whom
> >the license was granted. The US requires governments to make
> >reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs, but I would argue
> >that anyone asking for a photo-less license (or one with a photo of a
> >veiled face) is asking for something more than just a reasonable
> >accommodation. I write this without having done any research to see
> >if any American court has decided the question, and I could be wrong.
>
> Hmm. My first few drivers licenses, Ohio and Kentucky, had no
> photos on them, and I don't believe my first Arizona license in
> 1966 did either. They still functioned just fine.
UK driving licences only gained photos about eight years ago. There
is no compulsion on anybody to turn in their old licence for a new
one, although they do have to get a new photo licence if they change
details such as address. But the old licences last until you are 70
so there will be some legally in use for another 40 years or more.
I have a photo licence, but only because I voluntary switched,
specifically to make my life easier when in the US - passports are
too bulky and too valuable to cart around.
--
David
=====
dcw
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>UK driving licences only gained photos about eight years ago. There
>is no compulsion on anybody to turn in their old licence for a new
>one ...
Unless they have 3-year licences for medical reasons.
David
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
>UK driving licences only gained photos about eight years ago.
Aha! A rare opportunity to correct "UK" to "GB". Driving licences
issued in Northern Ireland have had photos for decades. They were
standard when I moved to NI in 1972. Photo licences appeared to be
well established and not recently introduced. All the people I spoke
to about this asked how was it possible to know that a licence
belonged to the person holding it without a photo on it. They
thought that the absence of a photo on GB licences was ridiculous. I
used one of those "ridiculous" licences for a few years until an
police officer pointed out, in a helpful, friendly and completely
non-threatening manner, that it should have been traded in for an NI
licence after I had been resident for one year.
> There
>is no compulsion on anybody to turn in their old licence for a new
>one, although they do have to get a new photo licence if they change
>details such as address. But the old licences last until you are 70
>so there will be some legally in use for another 40 years or more.
>
>I have a photo licence, but only because I voluntary switched,
>specifically to make my life easier when in the US - passports are
>too bulky and too valuable to cart around.
>
--
the Omrud
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:07:13 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >UK driving licences only gained photos about eight years ago.
>
> Aha! A rare opportunity to correct "UK" to "GB". Driving licences
> issued in Northern Ireland have had photos for decades.
Thanks, I did not know that (I've never set foot in NI).
--
David
=====
Tony Cooper
>Hmm. My first few drivers licenses, Ohio and Kentucky, had no
>photos on them, and I don't believe my first Arizona license in
>1966 did either. They still functioned just fine.
Indiana licenses in the 50s were on photostat-type paper with white
printing on a black background. Like a negative.
Peter Moylan
> UK driving licences only gained photos about eight years ago. There
> is no compulsion on anybody to turn in their old licence for a new
> one, although they do have to get a new photo licence if they change
> details such as address. But the old licences last until you are 70
> so there will be some legally in use for another 40 years or more.
You have it easy. My licence lasts for five years, but only because I
have a clean driving record. People with a less good record have to
renew their licence more often.
The five-year licence was introduced about ten years ago (which must
mean that mine will soon be due for renewal). Before that, everyone had
to renew the licence once a year.