God bless
Arcadian Rises
I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
explanation for my assertion.
But I still cannot answer the question of usage. Or is it a question
of usage, or of mere preference?
And what is preferable to say when you here about someone's death,
"may he rest in peace", or "God bless his soul"? Of course, if the
bereaved is an avowed atheist I would adjust my condoleances
appropriately, but I am comfortable to utter anything that is
appropriate to the occasion, regardless of any religious sentiments,
or lack thereof.
Fred
"Arcadian Rises" <Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9ac3aede-6d41-4f45...@z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
whether you believed in souls? Assuming you believed in both, then it would
be perfectly appropriate to say 'God bless his soul' if he is alive.
Eric Walker
> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
Yes. It is unexceptionable and unexceptional.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Steve Hayes
Have you ever read Gogol's novel "Dead souls"?
The plot is based on the idea that landowners, for the purposes of financial
chicanery, claim that serfs who have died are living on their land.
By implication, those who haven't died are "living souls".
In the past, it might have been said, whan a disaster occurred, such as a ship
sinking, that "145 souls perished".
So "soul" is another word for a person, dead or alive.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Page
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:31:16 -0800, Arcadian Rises wrote:
>
>> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>
> Yes. It is unexceptionable and unexceptional.
>
>
is sometimes used to imply that the soul concerned is in need of succour
and comfort. In particular, the soul concerned might not have been
blessed with a normal intellect, so using the phrase can be a way of
implying that someone is 'not all there'. It thus becomes exceptionable
when it used about someone who is under the impression (for example,
because they are a head of department or vice-chancellor) that they are
in full possession of their wits. It can be used as a gentle and amusing
put-down when someone has said something which someone else has
disagreed with (at least in British/Irish usage, in my experience).
'God bless my soul', on the other hand, is a mild expression of surprise
or an acknowledgement that one one has done something mildly silly.
--
Mike Page
Google me at port.ac.uk if you need to send an email.
Cheryl
Yes, you can say "God bless his soul" about a living or a dead person.
There are also other variations - you can address someone directly
"Bless your soul!" (although of course it's probably best not to say
this to someone who doesn't believe he or she has a soul).
The standard phrase around here to say to the family and close friends
when someone dies is 'Sorry for your loss', or some variation on that.
"I was very sorry to hear about... " etc. You may, of course, say "He's
at peace now", or "He's safe/at peace with God". To my ear "May he rest
in peace" almost implies that you think he may not rest in peace
(because of the mess he made of his life) but you hope he will anyway,
but I'm not sure how widely that view would be held.
--
Cheryl
the Omrud
> Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>>
>> I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
>> bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
>> explanation for my assertion.
>>
>> But I still cannot answer the question of usage. Or is it a question
>> of usage, or of mere preference?
>> And what is preferable to say when you here about someone's death,
>> "may he rest in peace", or "God bless his soul"? Of course, if the
>> bereaved is an avowed atheist I would adjust my condoleances
>> appropriately, but I am comfortable to utter anything that is
>> appropriate to the occasion, regardless of any religious sentiments,
>> or lack thereof.
>
> Yes, you can say "God bless his soul" about a living or a dead person.
> There are also other variations - you can address someone directly
> "Bless your soul!" (although of course it's probably best not to say
> this to someone who doesn't believe he or she has a soul).
Then there's the modern BrE "Ah, bless", which means something like "Ah,
how cute".
--
David
Cheryl
I don't think I've heard that usage in this part of Canada. By far the
most common usage (outside religious circles) would be 'Bless you!' said
to someone who has just sneezed, and I think even that is becoming less
common. You might say "Bless his (or your) soul" if someone was in
danger or had had a miraculous escape or had done something special or
unusual (but probably not if he had died) or if a baby was particularly
cute, but you wouldn't just say "Ah, bless", not around here.
--
Cheryl
Don Phillipson
news:9ac3aede-6d41-4f45...@z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>
> I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
> bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
> explanation for my assertion.
1. Well, some (old-fashioned) living people express surprise
by saying "God bless my soul."
2. Coherence seems by far to out rank logic among the
possible explanations of patterns in the language, and
neither idea is supreme.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
John Dean
> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>
> I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
> bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
> explanation for my assertion.
>
Don't forget the little cotton socks.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Arcadian Rises
IMO is better than "I'm sure he's already resting in peace with God",
which sounds more like an observation than an offer to condoleate.
"May he rest in peace" is a time worn (greeting?) phrase that one
utters automatically without thinking too much of its existential
consequences.
May God bless the souls of everyone who contributed to this holy
brainstorm, except, of course, the ones' who may get offendend by such
(?) greeting.
>
> --
> Cheryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ke...@cam.ac.uk
>Arcadian Rises wrote:
>> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>>
>> I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
>> bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
The commonest version, if someone is dead, is "God rest his soul". My
impression is that people would be more likely to say this about someone whose
life had not been particularly restful, but I'm not certain of that.
I don't think I've ever heard "God bless his heart" - though it's very common
with "God" missed out - it has a slightly patronising effect. "The Minister,
bless his heart, wants us to devise a way of increasing public expenditure and
decreasing taxes at the same time".
"Bless his little cotton socks" has much the same effect.
Katy
Arcadian Rises
> In article <7tq986F3c...@mid.individual.net>, Cheryl �<cperk...@mun.ca> wrote:
> >Arcadian Rises wrote:
> >> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>
> >> I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
> >> bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
>
Thank you very much, this is what I was looking for.
[...]
> I don't think I've ever heard "God bless his heart" - though it's very common
> with "God" missed out - it has a slightly patronising effect.
Patronizing in which way?�
>"The Minister,
> bless his heart, wants us to devise a way of increasing public expenditure and
> decreasing taxes at the same time".
I believe that here "bless his heart" could be replaced with "God help
him" [with his impossible project] and in this particular instance I
understand the patronizing tone.
Skitt
... and I thought this thread would be about Red Skelton.
--
Skitt (AmE)
tony cooper
wrote:
And I thought it was going to be a review of a Jack Higgins novel
about "Sean Dillon" and his trademark "God Bless All Here".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Frank ess
That was my first thought, as well.
My grandmother used to say to us kids, "Bless your soul" and "Bless
your heart" when we had shown some unexpected thoughtfulness or
kindness to her or someone else.
--
Frank ess
Robert Bannister
Serious question: is it totally new, or is it just eliding "his little
cotton socks"? Or does it denote a move away from sock wearing?
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> May God bless the souls of everyone who contributed to this holy
> brainstorm, except, of course, the ones' who may get offendend by such
> (?) greeting.
I'm never offended by such well-meaning sentiments, and it's fine if
preceded by "May God", but when people just say "Bless you", I am often
tempted to ask them what their qualifications are for dishing out blessings.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> "Arcadian Rises" <Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9ac3aede-6d41-4f45...@z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>>
>> I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
>> bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
>> explanation for my assertion.
>
> 1. Well, some (old-fashioned) living people express surprise
> by saying "God bless my soul."
I don't think I've actually heard the phrase since I was a teenager when
we sang a naughty ditty about the woodpecker's hole. It's one of those
expressions that would cause me no surprise at all if I read it, but
would cause severe double-taking and eyebrow-lifting were I to hear it
spoken.
--
Rob Bannister
R H Draney
>
>Skitt wrote:
>>
>> ... and I thought this thread would be about Red Skelton.
>
>That was my first thought, as well.
>
>My grandmother used to say to us kids, "Bless your soul" and "Bless
>your heart" when we had shown some unexpected thoughtfulness or
>kindness to her or someone else.
More emphatically: "Bless your little ol' pea-pickin' heart" -- Tennessee Ernie
Ford....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
the Omrud
> the Omrud wrote:
>
>> Then there's the modern BrE "Ah, bless", which means something like
>> "Ah, how cute".
>
> Serious question: is it totally new, or is it just eliding "his little
> cotton socks"? Or does it denote a move away from sock wearing?
I am sure that the speaker does not imagine the little cotton socks
following on behind, but I don't know if that's its genesis.
--
David
Chuck Riggs
<snip>
>The standard phrase around here to say to the family and close friends
>when someone dies is 'Sorry for your loss', or some variation on that.
I prefer the variation where the subject is intact.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
Chuck Riggs
Then your sense of humour is as wicked as mine.
Amethyst Deceiver
Or, indeed, "ah, how naive".
Peter Moylan
> In the past, it might have been said, whan a disaster occurred, such as a ship
> sinking, that "145 souls perished".
>
... but their bodies continued to live.
This reflects a very different meaning of the word "soul" from the
meaning Sister Mary tried to teach us in primary school.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Moylan
I have a vague memory that "Bless you" after a sneeze arose from a
belief that you could accidentally sneeze your soul out. In such a case
there's no time to run for a priest. You have to perform the warding
rite for your neighbour as quickly as possible.
On a related note, comments like "He's in heaven now" leave me most
uncomfortable. Surely it's the height of arrogance, perhaps even
blasphemy, to claim that you know the direction a departed person went.
Even the Vatican can take centuries to decide whether a proposed saint
successfully made the crossing to the other side.
Arcadian Rises
> Steve Hayes wrote:
> > In the past, it might have been said, whan a disaster occurred, such as a ship
> > sinking, that "145 souls perished".
>
> ... but their bodies continued to live.
Does it mean they became cynical and unscrupulous?
Peter Moylan
god in the song. Actually, I doubt that any self-respecting god would
want to be in that song.
Jerry Friedman
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> > Don Phillipson wrote:
> >>news:9ac3aede-6d41-4f45...@z26g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Can you say about a living person "God bless his soul"?
>
> >>> I think you can say "God bless his heart" if he is alive, and "God
> >>> bless his soul" if he is dead, I can even give a coherent and logical
> >>> explanation for my assertion.
>
> >> 1. Well, some (old-fashioned) living people express surprise
> >> by saying "God bless my soul."
>
> > I don't think I've actually heard the phrase since I was a teenager when
> > we sang a naughty ditty about the woodpecker's hole. It's one of those
> > expressions that would cause me no surprise at all if I read it, but
> > would cause severe double-taking and eyebrow-lifting were I to hear it
> > spoken.
>
> The woodpecker said "Well, bless my soul". I don't think there was any
> god in the song. Actually, I doubt that any self-respecting god would
> want to be in that song.
You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
Maybe I should check that. Is this the same as the wholesome ditty I
know about the little skunk's hole, which is sung to the verse of
"Dixie"?
Take it out.
Take it out.
Take it out.
Reeemove it.
--
Jerry Friedman
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:30:28 +1100:
> Robert Bannister wrote:
> I don't think I've actually heard the phrase since I was a teenager when
> > we sang a naughty ditty about the woodpecker's hole. It's one of those
> > expressions that would cause me no surprise at all if I read it, but
> > would cause severe double-taking and eyebrow-lifting were I to hear it
> > spoken.
> >
> The woodpecker said "Well, bless my soul". I don't think there was any
> god in the song. Actually, I doubt that any self-respecting god would
> want to be in that song.
He said "God bless my soul" in the version I know.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Cheryl
And what's all this stuff in the media about the Vatican 'making'
saints, as in that Australian nun? Last I heard, even the Vatican didn't
claim to make saints. All they're doing is saying 'we're pretty sure
this person is a saint' and replacing the do-it-yourself process with
something less likely to replace local and temporary enthusiasms and a
method of honouring local dignatories, like naming a bridge after them.
There have probably been billions of saints, the great majority known to
no human being. Especially since a lot of the people recognized as
saints seem to have been so strong-minded that they really annoyed the
people around them.
--
Cheryl
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>> In the past, it might have been said, whan a disaster occurred, such as a ship
>> sinking, that "145 souls perished".
>>
>... but their bodies continued to live.
>
>This reflects a very different meaning of the word "soul" from the
>meaning Sister Mary tried to teach us in primary school.
Once they are thoroughly waterlogged, perhaps souls lose their
immortality.
Arcadian Rises
I fully agree, sainthood is overrated. Not unlike the Noble price.
Wood Avens
wrote:
Mine too. Along with lots of verbs beginning with "re-".
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Robin Bignall
<Arcadi...@aol.com> wrote:
With a wife, dog and Lexus to support I can't afford the price of
sainthood, noble or not.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Arcadian Rises
Oops, I meant Noleb, of course (just kidding)
Robert Bannister
I am still mentally reeling thinking about Australia's new saint. She
died about 100 years ago. Did her soul automatically go into a "saints
pending" bin or did she have a happy harp playing time in heaven first
before suddenly finding herself before the Board? Do they often get
"Hey, hang about. I prefer harping to sainting"?
Regarding sneezes etc., I was taught that every bodily orifice was a
possible entrance for the Devil and that is why one tries to keep them
closed or covered at all times. If you cough, sneeze or hic, you've left
Him an opening, so your friend throws a blessing at you in the hope it
will hit the right part. They ought to do aerosol blessings (with added
whatever, of course).
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
You have it. Replace it.
--
Rob Bannister
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On a related note, comments like "He's in heaven now" leave me most
>> uncomfortable. Surely it's the height of arrogance, perhaps even
>> blasphemy, to claim that you know the direction a departed person
>> went. Even the Vatican can take centuries to decide whether a
>> proposed saint successfully made the crossing to the other side.
>
> I am still mentally reeling thinking about Australia's new
> saint. She died about 100 years ago. Did her soul automatically go
> into a "saints pending" bin or did she have a happy harp playing
> time in heaven first before suddenly finding herself before the
> Board? Do they often get "Hey, hang about. I prefer harping to
> sainting"?
As I understand it (which is almost certainly wrong), anybody who is,
in fact, in heaven, is a saint. If somebody's been beatified, the
faithful are allowed to treat them as though they're in heaven, and if
they've been canonized, the faithful are required to do so. For
anybody else, strictly speaking, you're supposed to assume that
they're probably still in purgatory[1] (at best), although they may
indeed be in heaven.
So it's not a title bestowed on them so much as a recognition of
status. I *think* that even saints are supposed to spend some time in
purgatory, but at some point between the time she died and the time
she started answering prayers by convincing the big guy to perform
the miracles that resulted in her canonization[2], she became a
saint. Had she just preferred the harping, there wouldn't have been
the required evidence.
[1] AKA a "'saints pending' bin".
[2] AKA "sainting".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Oh, forget it: I can't write about
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |this anymore until I find a much
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |more sarcastic typeface.
| Bill Bickel
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Feb 20, 5:30 pm, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
> >> The woodpecker said "Well, bless my soul". I don't think there was any
> >> god in the song. Actually, I doubt that any self-respecting god would
> >> want to be in that song.
...
> > Is this the same as the wholesome ditty I
> > know about the little skunk's hole, which is sung to the verse of
> > "Dixie"?
>
> > Take it out.
> > Take it out.
> > Take it out.
> > Reeemove it.
>
> You have it. Replace it.
Actually, the one I know is about the advisability of complying with a
skunk's requests rather than words that begin with "re-" and different
meanings of "hole". There's an anal stink theme in both, though.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
Well argued. I think I had read somewhere about that "she was one all
along, but we've only just become certain" part. Of course, the fact
that the recognition involves ecclesiastic-political debate* is unimportant.
* Not Italian?
They've never had one before down there;
Our one should come first;
What about Pope what's-his-name?
Real saints get to be tortured.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Thus spake Nick Spalding (spal...@iol.ie) unto the assembled multitudes:
>
>>> The woodpecker said "Well, bless my soul". I don't think there was any
>>> god in the song. Actually, I doubt that any self-respecting god would
>>> want to be in that song.
>
>> He said "God bless my soul" in the version I know.
>
> version of "God bless my soul", in the manner of the phrase "gorblimey" which
> is a corruption of "God blind me".
>
Could be the John Norman version.
--
Rob Bannister
Arcadian Rises
But it's all speculative. He did not substantiate his assertions with
any relevant evidence.
Only God knows what's going on in heavens, the politics of sainthood,
time spent in purgatory and the like.
I think I had read somewhere about that "she was one all
> along, but we've only just become certain" part. Of course, the fact
> that the recognition involves ecclesiastic-political debate* is unimportant.
>
> * � � � Not Italian?
> � � � � They've never had one before down there;
> � � � � Our one should come first;
> � � � � What about Pope what's-his-name?
> � � � � Real saints get to be tortured.
>
> --
>
> Rob Bannister- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Feb 22, 7:26�pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> > As I understand it (which is almost certainly wrong), anybody who
>> > is, in fact, in heaven, is a saint. �If somebody's been
>> > beatified, the faithful are allowed to treat them as though
>> > they're in heaven, and if they've been canonized, the faithful
>> > are required to do so. �For anybody else, strictly speaking,
>> > you're supposed to assume that they're probably still in
>> > purgatory[1] (at best), although they may indeed be in heaven.
>>
>> > So it's not a title bestowed on them so much as a recognition of
>> > status. �I *think* that even saints are supposed to spend some
>> > time in purgatory, but at some point between the time she died
>> > and the time she started answering prayers by convincing the big
>> > guy to perform the miracles that resulted in her canonization[2],
>> > she became a saint. �Had she just preferred the harping, there
>> > wouldn't have been the required evidence. �
>>
>> > [1] AKA a "'saints pending' bin".
>>
>> > [2] AKA "sainting".
>>
>> Well argued.
>
> But it's all speculative. He did not substantiate his assertions
> with any relevant evidence.
For a couple of the main points, the _Catholic Encyclopedia_ seems to
agree with me, unless I'm reading it wrong:
The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds
together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the
saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body
under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of
supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are
called saints by reason of their destination and of their
partaking of the fruits of the Redemption
"The Communion of Saints", _Catholic Encyclopedia_,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm
Canonization, generally speaking, is a decree regarding the public
ecclesiastical veneration of an individual. Such veneration,
however, may be permissive or preceptive, may be universal or
local. If the decree contains a precept, and is universal in the
sense that it binds the whole Church, it is a decree of
canonization; if it only permits such worship, or if it binds
under precept, but not with regard to the whole Church, it is a
decree of beatification.
... Canonization, therefore, creates a cultus which is universal
and obligatory.
"Beatification and Canonization", _Catholic
Encyclopedia_,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
I don't, however, find support for the notion that saints necessarily
spend time in Purgatory. Rather,
Augustine (City of God XXI.13, 16) declares that the punishment of
purgatory is temporary and will cease, at least with the Last
Judgment. "But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this
life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but
all of them before that last and strictest judgment."
"Purgatory", _Catholic Encyclopedia_,
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
implies that they may well be among those who suffer punishments (if
at all) "in this life only".
>
> Only God knows what's going on in heavens, the politics of sainthood,
> time spent in purgatory and the like.
Well, the pope is apparently typically believed to be infallible in
the decree of canonization ("Beatification and Canonization", op cit),
but that article says that it's an open (and undiscussed) question of
just what that means, the author giving as his opinion "that nothing
else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It is a popular delusion that the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |government wastes vast amounts of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |money through inefficiency and sloth.
|Enormous effort and elaborate
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |planning are required to waste this
(650)857-7572 |much money
| P.J. O'Rourke
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Robert Bannister
>
>
> For a couple of the main points, the _Catholic Encyclopedia_ seems to
> agree with me, unless I'm reading it wrong:
>
> The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds
> together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the
> saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body
> under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of
> supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are
> called saints by reason of their destination and of their
> partaking of the fruits of the Redemption
>
> "The Communion of Saints", _Catholic Encyclopedia_,
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm
The other paragraphs aren't too bad, but the above shows that Catholics
are right up there with the business world. I haven't read a whole
paragraph that was quite so difficult to understand (or meaningless)
since I retired.
--
Rob Bannister
Richard Bollard
I like the verse:
Slow it down
Slow it down
Slow it down
Retard it.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Evan Kirshenbaum
And the impressive thing is that it was written at the beginning of
the twentieth century (1908).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard
(650)857-7572
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
I liked the bit about the interchange of supernatural offices.
There's a whole lot of desk clearing going on.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:10:01 +0800, Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> For a couple of the main points, the _Catholic Encyclopedia_ seems to
>>> agree with me, unless I'm reading it wrong:
>>>
>>> The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds
>>> together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the
>>> saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body
>>> under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of
>>> supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are
>>> called saints by reason of their destination and of their
>>> partaking of the fruits of the Redemption
>>>
>>> "The Communion of Saints", _Catholic Encyclopedia_,
>>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm
>>
>>The other paragraphs aren't too bad, but the above shows that Catholics
>>are right up there with the business world. I haven't read a whole
>>paragraph that was quite so difficult to understand (or meaningless)
>>since I retired.
>
>I liked the bit about the interchange of supernatural offices.
>
It's your turn to be God next week.
>There's a whole lot of desk clearing going on.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mark Brader
>> I liked the bit about the interchange of supernatural offices.
Peter Duncanson:
> It's your turn to be God next week.
ObFilm: Bruce Almighty (2003).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved,
m...@vex.net | not by faith, but by the want of it. --Franklin
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> For a couple of the main points, the _Catholic Encyclopedia_ seems to
>>> agree with me, unless I'm reading it wrong:
>>> The communion of saints is the spiritual solidarity which binds
>>> together the faithful on earth, the souls in purgatory, and the
>>> saints in heaven in the organic unity of the same mystical body
>>> under Christ its head, and in a constant interchange of
>>> supernatural offices. The participants in that solidarity are
>>> called saints by reason of their destination and of their
>>> partaking of the fruits of the Redemption
>>> "The Communion of Saints", _Catholic Encyclopedia_,
>>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm
>> The other paragraphs aren't too bad, but the above shows that
>> Catholics are right up there with the business world. I haven't read a
>> whole paragraph that was quite so difficult to understand (or
>> meaningless) since I retired.
>
> And the impressive thing is that it was written at the beginning of
> the twentieth century (1908).
>
Cutting edge.
--
Rob Bannister
Chuck Riggs
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
<snip>
>> And the impressive thing is that it was written at the beginning of
>> the twentieth century (1908).
>>
>
>Cutting edge.
That term is usually applied to the latest in technology, I believe.
Another term for essentially the same thing is "state of the art", as
overused as it is.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:24:14 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> And the impressive thing is that it was written at the beginning of
>>> the twentieth century (1908).
>>>
>>
>>Cutting edge.
>
> That term is usually applied to the latest in technology, I believe.
> Another term for essentially the same thing is "state of the art", as
> overused as it is.
As someone who's supposed to be working there, I'd say that "cutting
edge" is just a bit ahead of "state-of-the-art". State-of-the-art is
what we're trying to improve on, the best that's publicly known and
that our competitors could use (at least unless they have their own
cutting-edge research). Cutting-edge techniques become state-of-the-
art when they're published and accepted as the best known. I'm not
sure when they stop also being cutting-edge, but I'd guess that if
you're the only one who does it it's reasonable to continue calling it
"cutting-edge" for a while, until others catch up. But largely,
"cutting-edge" has a feel of "still under development" (or else
"better than state-of-the-art and super-secret") to me.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden
(650)857-7572 |usurpations.
| James Madison
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Chuck Riggs
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:24:14 +0800, Robert Bannister
<snip>
>>>Cutting edge.
>>
>> That term is usually applied to the latest in technology, I believe.
>> Another term for essentially the same thing is "state of the art", as
>> overused as it is.
<snip>
>But largely,
>"cutting-edge" has a feel of "still under development" (or else
>"better than state-of-the-art and super-secret") to me.
I agree, with the caveat that only private industry, not the U.S.
government or the military, recognizes the term "super-secret".
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:02:40 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>But largely, "cutting-edge" has a feel of "still under development"
>>(or else "better than state-of-the-art and super-secret") to me.
>
> I agree, with the caveat that only private industry, not the U.S.
> government or the military, recognizes the term "super-secret".
Oh, I'm sure that they recognize it. I don't know of anybody who uses
it officially.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When all else fails, give the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |customer what they ask for. This
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
rzed
news:7ue1di...@mid.individual.net:
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
[...]
>> You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
>>
>> Maybe I should check that. Is this the same as the wholesome
>> ditty I know about the little skunk's hole, which is sung to the
>> verse of "Dixie"?
I always heard it sung to "The Arkansas Traveler", at least the first
lines. By the time it reached "take it out", it had evidently traveled
on, but never to Dixie when I were a lad.
>> Take it out.
>> Take it out.
>> Take it out.
>> Reeemove it.
>
> You have it. Replace it.
--
rzed
Jerry Friedman
> Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote innews:7ue1di...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > Jerry Friedman wrote:
> [...]
> >> You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
>
> >> Maybe I should check that. Is this the same as the wholesome
> >> ditty I know about the little skunk's hole, which is sung to the
> >> verse of "Dixie"?
>
> I always heard it sung to "The Arkansas Traveler", at least the first
> lines.
In my childhood, that was a different animal misadventure: "I'm
Bringing Home a Baby Bumblebee"
> By the time it reached "take it out", it had evidently traveled
> on, but never to Dixie when I were a lad.
...
"Take it out" goes very nicely to "Look away". Or maybe that was
obvious.
--
Jerry Friedman, not in Dixieland.
Chuck Riggs
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:02:40 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>But largely, "cutting-edge" has a feel of "still under development"
>>>(or else "better than state-of-the-art and super-secret") to me.
>>
>> I agree, with the caveat that only private industry, not the U.S.
>> government or the military, recognizes the term "super-secret".
>
>Oh, I'm sure that they recognize it. I don't know of anybody who uses
>it officially.
To my knowledge, it is not one of the classification levels, which in
the general service world, run from Confidential to Top Secret.
Instead, it sounds like something children might say when playing a
game about spies and FBI men, which makes only a little sense, but you
have to give children a break.
Peter Moylan
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:46:12 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:02:40 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But largely, "cutting-edge" has a feel of "still under development"
>>>> (or else "better than state-of-the-art and super-secret") to me.
>>> I agree, with the caveat that only private industry, not the U.S.
>>> government or the military, recognizes the term "super-secret".
>> Oh, I'm sure that they recognize it. I don't know of anybody who uses
>> it officially.
>
> To my knowledge, it is not one of the classification levels, which in
> the general service world, run from Confidential to Top Secret.
Have you considered the possibility that there is a level you haven't
been told about?
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:46:12 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:02:40 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But largely, "cutting-edge" has a feel of "still under development"
>>>>> (or else "better than state-of-the-art and super-secret") to me.
>>>> I agree, with the caveat that only private industry, not the U.S.
>>>> government or the military, recognizes the term "super-secret".
>>> Oh, I'm sure that they recognize it. I don't know of anybody who uses
>>> it officially.
>>
>> To my knowledge, it is not one of the classification levels, which in
>> the general service world, run from Confidential to Top Secret.
>
>Have you considered the possibility that there is a level you haven't
>been told about?
I thought that, but Chuck did qualify his statement with "in the general
service world".
sjde...@yahoo.com
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
> > the general service world, run from Confidential to Top Secret.
>
> Have you considered the possibility that there is a level you haven't
> been told about?
Double-secret probation!
Skitt
> Chuck Riggs wrote:
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> Chuck Riggs writes:
>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>> But largely, "cutting-edge" has a feel of "still under
>>>>> development" (or else "better than state-of-the-art and
>>>>> super-secret") to me.
>>>>
>>>> I agree, with the caveat that only private industry, not the U.S.
>>>> government or the military, recognizes the term "super-secret".
>>>
>>> Oh, I'm sure that they recognize it. I don't know of anybody who
>>> uses it officially.
>>
>> To my knowledge, it is not one of the classification levels, which in
>> the general service world, run from Confidential to Top Secret.
>
> Have you considered the possibility that there is a level you haven't
> been told about?
I'm sure that Chuck is referring to the US Department of Defense
classification levels. Those are Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret.
There are additional distinctions for nuclear material (like Restricted
Data, and Formerly Restricted Data), but those apply within the main three
levels.
Long ago, I used to be an alternate classifier for our department at my
defense industry employer.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Chuck Riggs
Yes, I was being careful. General Service is also known as GENSER, if
anyone wants to save some typing.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
I don't know from Restricted, but another I have run across is NATO
Secret, for material approved for dissemination to NATO allies.