"Play it again, Sam" meaning
raj
I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca, but in
what context is this sentence used?.
John Smith
It doesn't have some specific "meaning". It's a catch-phrase with a
complex cultural resonance, and it is employed in numerous, unrelated
contexts.
\\P. Schultz
Split Jack
On 30-Jun-2003, John Smith <jsm...@company.com> wrote:
> It doesn't have some specific "meaning". It's a catch-phrase with a
> complex cultural resonance, and it is employed in numerous, unrelated
> contexts.
or
it might be one of those stuck in long term memories of people which
eventually gets used somewhere
--
--
Split Jack
Muriel Areno
send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
> can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca, but in
> what context is this sentence used?.
In fact, Ingrid Bergman never says "Play it again, Sam".
The dialogue goes like this:
Ilsa Lund: Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake.
Sam: [lying] I don't know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.
Ilsa Lund: Play it, Sam. Play "As Time Goes By."
She had to insist because Sam had been ordered to never play that song
again.
You should rent Casablanca. It's one of the greatest movies ever. And you'll
probably recognize more famous lines.
Muriel
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.
André Gide
Pat Durkin
"Muriel Areno" <touc...@wizard.com> wrote in message
news:BB264897.5D04%touc...@wizard.com...
> in article 17f08888.03063...@posting.google.com, raj at
> send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
>
> > can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> > I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca, but in
> > what context is this sentence used?.
>
> In fact, Ingrid Bergman never says "Play it again, Sam".
> The dialogue goes like this:
>
> Ilsa Lund: Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake.
> Sam: [lying] I don't know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.
> Ilsa Lund: Play it, Sam. Play "As Time Goes By."
>
> She had to insist because Sam had been ordered to never play that song
> again.
> You should rent Casablanca. It's one of the greatest movies ever. And
you'll
> probably recognize more famous lines.
Round up the usual suspects?
R H Draney
>> Sam: [lying] I don't know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.
>> Ilsa Lund: Play it, Sam. Play "As Time Goes By."
>>
>> She had to insist because Sam had been ordered to never play that song
>> again.
"This day and age we're living in
Gives cause for apprehension
With speed and new invention
And things like third dimension
Yet we get a trifle weary
With Mr. Einstein's theory,
So we must get down to earth at times
Relax relieve the tension
And no matter what the progress
Or what may yet be proved
The simple facts of life are such
They cannot be removed"
I don't think Dooley Wilson does the intro...there's a recording of Fred Astaire
singing the song around 1933 that includes it....
>> You should rent Casablanca. It's one of the greatest movies ever. And
>you'll
>> probably recognize more famous lines.
>
>Round up the usual suspects?
That, and "of all the towns in all the world", "the problems of three little
people don't amount to a hill of beans", "maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow
but soon", and "this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"....
And here I thought *Hamlet* was just a bunch of sayings strung together....r
J. J. Lodder
> can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca,
You were misinformed,
Jan
Mike Oliver
Not so. The line doesn't occur anywhere in the film, but it did
indeed sort of originate from it.
Niall Leonard
wrote:
he gotcha.
"I came to Casablanca for the waters."
"What waters? There are no waters in Casablanca!"
"I was misinformed,"
Let us not forget that Humpty nearly says it too. It goes something
like,
"Play it will ya?"
"I don't know what you - "
"You played it for her you can play it for me, now play it!"
damn that's a great movie... I'm going to go off and watch the DVD
again...
Mike Ellwood
> in article 17f08888.03063...@posting.google.com, raj at
> send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
>
> > can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> > I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca, but in
> > what context is this sentence used?.
>
> In fact, Ingrid Bergman never says "Play it again, Sam".
> The dialogue goes like this:
>
> Ilsa Lund: Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake.
> Sam: [lying] I don't know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.
> Ilsa Lund: Play it, Sam. Play "As Time Goes By."
>
> She had to insist because Sam had been ordered to never play that song
> again.
> You should rent Casablanca. It's one of the greatest movies ever. And you'll
> probably recognize more famous lines.
Then (and only then, and preferably after you've watched it several
times to really let it sink in), you might watch Woody Allen's
tribute/spoof, which, in a deliberate misquote, _is_ called
"Play It Again Sam".
c.f. "Come up and see me sometime", the famous catchphrase of the
wonderful Mae West. (Basically, this is not quite what she
originally said, although it's close, but later she adopted it).
A google should quickly reveal all.
Mike Ellwood
> That, and "of all the towns in all the world",
Doesn't "gin-joints" come in here somewhere...?
Jens Brix Christiansen
No, he was very well informed. Or maybe the two of use have radically
different interpretations of "sort of 'originated'".
Bruce Tober
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
he/she DID say "sort of originated". ie he/she knew it didn't really or
at least not in that form.
--
| Bruce Tober, <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> , <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk> |
| UK, +44-780-374-8255 (Mobile) +44-121-553-4284 (land) |
J. J. Lodder
IIRC Woody Allen's alter ego does say it,
but that's another movie,
Jan
Barney
<ni...@codology.com> writes:
>Let us not forget that Humpty nearly says it too. It goes something
>like,
>
I thought everyone called him "Bogey". Do others call him "Humpty" or is that
only you? Just curious.
>"Play it will ya?"
>"I don't know what you - "
>"You played it for her you can play it for me, now play it!"
>
>damn that's a great movie... I'm going to go off and watch the DVD
>again...
>
Nah, watch "Maltese Falcon" instead. Same cast, better story.
Your pal,
Barney
Eventually, all things are known. And few matter.
--- Aaron Burr
raj
On 1-Jul-2003, je...@alesia.dk (Jens Brix Christiansen) wrote:
> > raj <send...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> > > I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca,
> >
> > You were misinformed,
>
> No, he was very well informed. Or maybe the two of use have radically
> different interpretations of "sort of 'originated'".
Indeed I was informed. I wouldn't post on alt.usage.english without
searching in over 3 billion pages first. (ya google).
---
raj
(you would know what part or my e-mail address to remove If you ain't a
bot.)
Donna Richoux
> in article 17f08888.03063...@posting.google.com, raj at
> send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
>
> > can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> > I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca, but in
> > what context is this sentence used?.
>
> In fact, Ingrid Bergman never says "Play it again, Sam".
> The dialogue goes like this:
>
> Ilsa Lund: Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake.
> Sam: [lying] I don't know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.
> Ilsa Lund: Play it, Sam. Play "As Time Goes By."
>
And as the Wikipedia entry points out, Rick also comes close to saying
it:
Later, Rick (Humphrey Bogart) requested an encore by
saying "You played it for her, you can play it for
me!...If she can stand it, I can! Play it!"
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
R F
Did it originate more proximately from Woody Allen's "Play It Again,
Sam", or was the misreportation of the line well-established by then?
MC
R F <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was well established before the play was written.
Muriel Areno
wrote on 6/30/03 10:12pm:
> That, and "of all the towns in all the world", "the problems of three little
> people don't amount to a hill of beans", "maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow
> but soon", and "this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"....
Not to mention "Here's looking at you, kid!"
Bob Stahl
> R H Draney:
>> That, and "of all the towns in all the world",
> Doesn't "gin-joints" come in here somewhere...?
http://www.vincasa.com/casabla.pdf
Strasser: ...Signor Ugarte is dead.
Ilsa: Oh.
Renault: I am making out the report now.
We haven't quite decided whether he committed
suicide or died trying to escape.
--
Bob Stahl
Eden Smallwood
> Round up the usual suspects?
The origin of this line may be entertaining for this group. The
following is reported "as told to me". No guarantees, express or
implied.
The studio was at that time pumping out a film almost every week.
It must have been a hectic environment, I would think. The ending of
the film was being rewritten up until the time that there was nothing
else left to shoot.
I can't recall the reasons for all the fuss exactly-- something
along the lines of this actor didn't want to die, that ending was too
morose, the other ending too gay, et cetera.
The two writers were driving down Sunset Boulevard, feeling
funkish, when the solution came them in a mutual epiphany. They had
had a running joke between themselves: whenever anything went wrong in
the studio, (which it frequently did), management's answer to the
problem, in the writers' opinions, was to "round up the usual
suspects".
Eden
Rich Ulrich
>
> > in article 17f08888.03063...@posting.google.com, raj at
> > send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
> >
> > > can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> > > I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca, but in
> > > what context is this sentence used?.
> >
Evoking Classic Bogart.
- a famous encapsulation by impersonators,
even though it was never said in a movie.
I found it on the web, too, along with great quotations,
among the "Greatest film misquotations," at
http://www.filmsite.org/moments0.html
James Cagney never said "You dirty rat!" and
Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
--
Rich Ulrich, wpi...@pitt.edu
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." Justice Holmes.
R F
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Muriel Areno wrote:
>
> > in article 17f08888.03063...@posting.google.com, raj at
> > send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
> >
> > > can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> > > I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca, but in
> > > what context is this sentence used?.
> >
> > In fact, Ingrid Bergman never says "Play it again, Sam".
> > The dialogue goes like this:
> >
> > Ilsa Lund: Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake.
> > Sam: [lying] I don't know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.
> > Ilsa Lund: Play it, Sam. Play "As Time Goes By."
> >
> > She had to insist because Sam had been ordered to never play that song
> > again.
> > You should rent Casablanca. It's one of the greatest movies ever. And you'll
> > probably recognize more famous lines.
>
>
> Then (and only then, and preferably after you've watched it several
> times to really let it sink in), you might watch Woody Allen's
> tribute/spoof, which, in a deliberate misquote, _is_ called
> "Play It Again Sam".
It's a tribute, in part, but I don't see how it's a "spoof" of
_Casablanca_.
R F
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003, Muriel Areno wrote:
> in article bdr58...@drn.newsguy.com, R H Draney at dado...@earthlink.net
> wrote on 6/30/03 10:12pm:
>
> > That, and "of all the towns in all the world", "the problems of three little
> > people don't amount to a hill of beans", "maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow
> > but soon", and "this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship"....
>
> Not to mention "Here's looking at you, kid!"
Also "shocked -- *shocked*".
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
Ryan O'Neal did.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Feeling good about government is like
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |looking on the bright side of any
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |catastrophe. When you quit looking
|on the bright side, the catastrophe
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |is still there.
(650)857-7572 | P.J. O'Rourke
John Dean
>>> in article 17f08888.03063...@posting.google.com, raj at
>>> send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
>>>
>>>> can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
>>>> I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca,
>>>> but in what context is this sentence used?.
>>>
>
> Evoking Classic Bogart.
> - a famous encapsulation by impersonators,
> even though it was never said in a movie.
>
> I found it on the web, too, along with great quotations,
> among the "Greatest film misquotations," at
>
> http://www.filmsite.org/moments0.html
>
> James Cagney never said "You dirty rat!" and
> Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
But Michael Caine *did* say 'Not a lot of people know that'
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
MC
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
> > James Cagney never said "You dirty rat!" and
> > Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
>
> But Michael Caine *did* say 'Not a lot of people know that'
Not a lot of people know that.
R H Draney
>
>Rich Ulrich <wpi...@pitt.edu> writes:
>
>> Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
>
>Ryan O'Neal did.
So did George "Goober" Lindsey...I'm not sure what point was just made here....
And to add to the original list, hasn't it been established that William Shatner
never quite said "Beam me up, Scotty"?...r
Aaron J. Dinkin
And "We'll always have Paris."
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Matti Lamprhey
> Rich Ulrich wrote:
> > [...] "Greatest film misquotations," at
> >
> > http://www.filmsite.org/moments0.html
> >
> > James Cagney never said "You dirty rat!" and
> > Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
>
> But Michael Caine *did* say 'Not a lot of people know that'
I've seen several interviews recently in which he denied ever having
said it. He blamed it on Peter Sellers, saying that the latter included
it in an answering-machine message in which he was impersonating Caine.
Matti
Muriel Areno
zeppe...@lafn.org wrote on 7/1/03 9:23am:
>... that ending was too morose, the other ending *too gay*...
Please tell me I didn't just read this.
Or were you perhaps talking about a homosexual ending?
Mike Oliver
>
> in article 9f7e4cd.03070...@posting.google.com, Eden Smallwood at
> zeppe...@lafn.org wrote on 7/1/03 9:23am:
>
> >... that ending was too morose, the other ending *too gay*...
>
> Please tell me I didn't just read this.
> Or were you perhaps talking about a homosexual ending?
Was it "Key Largo" that had Hoagie Carmichael playing himself,
and singing
Was I gay
Till today?
Mike Oliver
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:34:18 -0700, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
> wrote:
>>"J. J. Lodder" wrote:
>>> raj <send...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
>>>> I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca,
>>>
>>> You were misinformed,
>>
>>Not so. The line doesn't occur anywhere in the film, but it did
>>indeed sort of originate from it.
> he gotcha.
>
> "I came to Casablanca for the waters."
>
> "What waters? There are no waters in Casablanca!"
>
> "I was misinformed,"
I do indeed seem to have been gotten.
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <wuf2az...@hpl.hp.com>, Evan says...
> >
> >Rich Ulrich <wpi...@pitt.edu> writes:
> >
> >> Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
> >
> >Ryan O'Neal did.
>
> So did George "Goober" Lindsey...I'm not sure what point was just made here....
Bette Davis never said (a very non-rhotic) "Peter, Peter, Peter."
And Carl Sagan went to his grave insisting he never said "Billions
and billions."
> And to add to the original list, hasn't it been established that William Shatner
> never quite said "Beam me up, Scotty"?
That's as I heard it. His usual was "Three [or other number] to
beam up, Scotty."
--
Bob Lieblich
I never said "My hovercraft is full of eels"
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <wuf2az...@hpl.hp.com>, Evan says...
> >
> >Rich Ulrich <wpi...@pitt.edu> writes:
> >
> >> Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
> >
> >Ryan O'Neal did.
>
> So did George "Goober" Lindsey...I'm not sure what point was just
> made here....
Just that _What's Up Doc?_ is one of my favorite movies. In it,
O'Neal also gets to respond to "Love means never having to say you're
sorry" with "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The vast majority of humans have
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |more than the average number of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |legs.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
R H Draney
>
>Just that _What's Up Doc?_ is one of my favorite movies. In it,
>O'Neal also gets to respond to "Love means never having to say you're
>sorry" with "That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard."
I think that movie's been mentioned here before:
Kenneth Mars: "I am Hugh!"
Liam Dunn: "You are me?"
Kenneth Mars: "No, *I* am Hugh!"
Liam Dunn: "Stop saying that! Make him stop saying that!"
....r
John Dean
That used to be the case, and the Sellers impersonation was the origin
(based on the fact that Caine has always enjoyed bits of trivia)
But in 'Educating Rita', he actually ad-libbed the line as his drunken
character was being dragged off.
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
[ ... ]
> > Bette Davis never said (a very non-rhotic) "Peter, Peter, Peter."
> > And Carl Sagan went to his grave insisting he never said "Billions
> > and billions."
> >
> But Nixon did say "I'm not a crook."
No, Nixon said "Your president is not a crook." YCLIU, as Areff
would say.
--
Bob Lieblich
November Chicago boink -- hey!
Eden Smallwood
> in article 9f7e4cd.03070...@posting.google.com, Eden Smallwood at
> zeppe...@lafn.org wrote on 7/1/03 9:23am:
>
> >... that ending was too morose, the other ending *too gay*...
>
> Please tell me I didn't just read this.
Discounting your own editing *inside* a quote, you did.
> Or were you perhaps talking about a homosexual ending?
No, not homosexual. "Gay" in the antehomo sense; the
meaning was just that none of the endings being considered
quite fit.
Did you have a point you wanted to make? Are you a "bright" ?
Eden
John Smith
> <...>
> Bette Davis never said (a very non-rhotic) "Peter, Peter, Peter."
Actually, she did. I saw her on Carson in the 60s or 70s, and in the
course of denying that she had ever said it, she did a really good
imitation of her imitators, and she said it.
\\P. Schultz
Jack Gavin
> Murray Arnow wrote:
>>
>> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>> Bette Davis never said (a very non-rhotic) "Peter, Peter, Peter."
>>> And Carl Sagan went to his grave insisting he never said "Billions
>>> and billions."
>>>
>> But Nixon did say "I'm not a crook."
>
> No, Nixon said "Your president is not a crook." YCLIU, as Areff
> would say.
<URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/artic
les/111873-1.htm> :
"People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well,
I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."
Audio at about the 1:15 mark of
http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/ra_archive/speech_209.ram
--
Jack Gavin
John Smith
> <...>
> I thought everyone called him "Bogey". Do others call him "Humpty" or is that
> only you? Just curious.
He was a seventh cousin to Princess Diana. The resemblance is
astonishing.
\\P. Schultz
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
[ ... ]
> > No, Nixon said "Your president is not a crook." YCLIU, as Areff
> > would say.
>
> <URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/artic
> les/111873-1.htm> :
>
> "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well,
> I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."
>
> Audio at about the 1:15 mark of
> http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/ra_archive/speech_209.ram
When I make a mistake, it's a beaut.
Thanks, Jack, for straightening me out.
--
Bob Lieblich
Also not a crook (just a lawyer)
Jack Gavin
Only after I posted did I think about adding "ID,IDLIU".
Areff = Casey Stengel?
Not a problem.
--
Jack Gavin
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Areff = Casey Stengel?
Areff = are eff = r.f. = R.F.
I think Tony Cooper started it. I think I'll stop now.
--
Arell
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
> > Murray Arnow wrote:
> > >
> > > Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > > Bette Davis never said (a very non-rhotic) "Peter, Peter, Peter."
> > > > And Carl Sagan went to his grave insisting he never said "Billions
> > > > and billions."
> > > >
> > > But Nixon did say "I'm not a crook."
> >
> > No, Nixon said "Your president is not a crook." YCLIU, as Areff
> > would say.
> >
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/fsps
Jack Gavin already zapped me. I expect to stay zapped for at least
a few more minutes.
Does this mean I have to buy the first round at the November Chicago
Boink, if any?
--
Bob Lieblich
A-bashed
Muriel Areno
> No, not homosexual.
Ah. Thank you.
>"Gay" in the antehomo sense;
I thought that was "joyful", "merry".
> the meaning was just that none of the endings being considered quite fit.
Yeah, the meaning used by 13 year olds: a variation on "stupid".
> Did you have a point you wanted to make?
Just that this particular use of "gay" gets on my last nerve.
> Are you a "bright" ?
A paintbrush?
Muriel Areno
touc...@wizard.com wrote on 7/1/03 8:28pm:
>> Are you a "bright" ?
>
> A paintbrush?
I guess I needed to read a little further, and then past all the eggnog
considerations. Am I a bright? What does that have to do with anything?
J. J. Lodder
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
> > Murray Arnow wrote:
> >>
> >> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >>> Bette Davis never said (a very non-rhotic) "Peter, Peter, Peter."
> >>> And Carl Sagan went to his grave insisting he never said "Billions
> >>> and billions."
> >>>
> >> But Nixon did say "I'm not a crook."
> >
> > No, Nixon said "Your president is not a crook." YCLIU, as Areff
> > would say.
>
> <URL:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/artic
> les/111873-1.htm> :
>
> "People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well,
> I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."
Selling used cars?
Jan
Mike Ellwood
Niall Leonard
wrote:
>In article <qli2gvcpjll61mn5h...@4ax.com>, Niall Leonard
><ni...@codology.com> writes:
>
>>Let us not forget that Humpty nearly says it too. It goes something
>>like,
>>
>
>I thought everyone called him "Bogey". Do others call him "Humpty" or is that
>only you? Just curious.
Na, it's just a dumb affectation I picked up somewhere. Bear i mind
though that "bogey" in the UK is the equivalent of the US "booger".
>
>>"Play it will ya?"
>>"I don't know what you - "
>>"You played it for her you can play it for me, now play it!"
>>
>>damn that's a great movie... I'm going to go off and watch the DVD
>>again...
>>
>
>Nah, watch "Maltese Falcon" instead. Same cast, better story.
Frankly I'd rather watch Ingrid Bergman that Mary Astor any day of the
week. In fact I'd rather watch Sydney Greenstreet than Mary Astor.
And, though I concede these things are (almost) entirely subjective,
Casablanca is by far the superior movie. I could never stand that
three-page exposition speech at the end of MF for a start.
>
nl
Mike Ellwood
> Rich Ulrich wrote:
> >>> in article 17f08888.03063...@posting.google.com, raj at
> >>> send...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/03 5:05pm:
> >>>
> >>>> can anybody tell me meaning of "Play it again, sam".
> >>>> I know that this sentence sort of "originated" from Casablanca,
> >>>> but in what context is this sentence used?.
> >>>
> >
> > Evoking Classic Bogart.
> > - a famous encapsulation by impersonators,
> > even though it was never said in a movie.
> >
> > I found it on the web, too, along with great quotations,
> > among the "Greatest film misquotations," at
> >
> > http://www.filmsite.org/moments0.html
> >
> > James Cagney never said "You dirty rat!" and
> > Cary Grant never said "Judy, Judy, Judy."
>
> But Michael Caine *did* say 'Not a lot of people know that'
As someone else said of someone else, I think I've heard him
on a chat show, denying he said it, in the course of which he
did say it :-)
He did, however, say on film:
"You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!"
Mike Ellwood
> > Then (and only then, and preferably after you've watched it several
> > times to really let it sink in), you might watch Woody Allen's
> > tribute/spoof, which, in a deliberate misquote, _is_ called
> > "Play It Again Sam".
>
> It's a tribute, in part, but I don't see how it's a "spoof" of
> _Casablanca_.
OK, well, "spoof" may not be the best word, but in paying his tribute,
I thought he was also gently and affectionately mocking the original,
or perhaps the cliché that people have made of it.
Mark Browne
<touc...@wizard.com> writes
>in article 9f7e4cd.03070...@posting.google.com, Eden Smallwood at
>zeppe...@lafn.org wrote on 7/1/03 7:04pm:
>
>> No, not homosexual.
>
>Ah. Thank you.
>
>>"Gay" in the antehomo sense;
>
>I thought that was "joyful", "merry".
>
>> the meaning was just that none of the endings being considered quite fit.
>
>Yeah, the meaning used by 13 year olds: a variation on "stupid".
>
>> Did you have a point you wanted to make?
>
>Just that this particular use of "gay" gets on my last nerve.
Which particular use? The one Eden referred to was the "old" one, not
the new teenage one.
--
Mark Browne
If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the
"From" address will be rejected
Barney
<ni...@codology.com> writes:
>>I thought everyone called him "Bogey". Do others call him "Humpty" or is
>that
>>only you? Just curious.
>
>Na, it's just a dumb affectation I picked up somewhere. Bear i mind
>though that "bogey" in the UK is the equivalent of the US "booger".
LOL. I didn't know that. In that case, "Humpty" is definitely preferable
>>Nah, watch "Maltese Falcon" instead. Same cast, better story.
>
>Frankly I'd rather watch Ingrid Bergman that Mary Astor any day of the
>week. In fact I'd rather watch Sydney Greenstreet than Mary Astor.
>And, though I concede these things are (almost) entirely subjective,
>Casablanca is by far the superior movie. I could never stand that
>three-page exposition speech at the end of MF for a start.
Actually, the whole movie is practically nothing but expository dialogue.
Nevertheless, I find MF exciting and Casablanca dull. The latter strikes me as
too much of a "chick flick." At one point during the flashbacks, when the
Germans are occupying Paris, doesn't Ingrid Bergman say something like, "Is
that the rumbling of the tanks? Or is it the beating of my heart?" Oh,
brother.
Your pal,
Barney
Eventually, all things are known. And few matter.
--- Aaron Burr
John Dean
Imagine Mark Wahlberg saying that! Cuh!
Sound files of the Master at work at http://new.wavlist.com/movies/240/
Eden Smallwood
> in article 9f7e4cd.03070...@posting.google.com, Eden Smallwood at
> zeppe...@lafn.org wrote on 7/1/03 7:04pm:
> >"Gay" in the antehomo sense;
>
> I thought that was "joyful", "merry".
I thought so too: closer to "lighthearted". I don't see why you
continue to rebel against that interpretation.
> > the meaning was just that none of the endings being considered quite fit.
>
> Yeah, the meaning used by 13 year olds: a variation on "stupid".
I begin to doubt that you are making every reasonable effort to
understand what you are reading. The remainder of the sentence you
quoted is referring to the discussion as a whole; I don't see how you
could have failed to notice that.
For the record, I don't think "stupid" is an adequate synonym for
"gay" as used by 13 year olds. It's closer to "sissy": it continues
to carry a nuance from its meaning of homosexual, by way of things or
activities deemed effete, effeminate, or weak.
Being taken by ones parents to _Finding Nemo_ might be termed
"gay", not because there is anything overtly homosexual about the
movie, and not because it is merely "stupid", but because such an
afternoon is for "weenies". Cool dudes would go to _Terminator 3_
instead, and without parental supervision, mind you.
> Just that this particular use of "gay" gets on my last nerve.
Ok. The state of your last nerve has been duly noted. May I
suggest a tube of Ben Gay?
Eden
Muriel Areno
ne...@kafana.demon.co.uk wrote on 7/2/03 4:18am:
>> Just that this particular use of "gay" gets on my last nerve.
>
> Which particular use? The one Eden referred to was the "old" one, not
> the new teenage one.
Coulda fooled me.
And did, apparently.
Muriel Areno
zeppe...@lafn.org wrote on 7/2/03 9:18am:
> I thought so too: closer to "lighthearted". I don't see why you
> continue to rebel against that interpretation.
I went back and reread. You did oppose it to "morose" in your sentence, so I
suppose I misinterpreted. I apologize.
> For the record, I don't think "stupid" is an adequate synonym for
> "gay" as used by 13 year olds. It's closer to "sissy": it continues
> to carry a nuance from its meaning of homosexual, by way of things or
> activities deemed effete, effeminate, or weak.
In what I hear from 13-year-old girls, it does indeed mean stupid, or more
accurately, lame. I have no experience with boys (as a caregiver anyway).
In regards to what you call editing inside a quote, I was merely emphasizing
the words I was referring to. That is acceptable in other newsgroups. What
do you suggest instead?
Muriel
(who should have brought her floaties when testing the waters of a new
newsgroup)
(and switched on my brain, too, I know...)
R J Valentine
...
} In regards to what you call editing inside a quote, I was merely emphasizing
} the words I was referring to. That is acceptable in other newsgroups. What
} do you suggest instead?
If you presume to add emphasis inside a quote, you can note outside the
quote that you have added emphasis. You could also add emphasis outside
the quote by underlining the words with something like "^^^^^" characters,
but you'd want to be sure to do it with a fixed-width font in mind and
know that it won't resolve nicely in a variable-width font (doing it vice
versa is just wrong). Quotes are near sacred. If you are saying that
someone said something, you should be pretty sure that they said what you
say they said. Some people left-adjust quotes and some freely reformat
them without changing the wording or emphasis. I generally don't, but I
don't usually mind too much when other people do (unless of course their
software does it both automatically and badly AND they whine about it).
Other problems are referring to non-quoted material, for instance in the
first sentence I quoted above, which I had to track down several messages
upthread to see that you had indeed edited inside a quote. It would've
been better to quote the accusation and the basis for it if it's important
to the understanding of the posting. On the other hand, I snipped further
context above, because it doesn't matter much since you explained
sufficiently (it turns out) what you had done. There is a lot in the
field of English usage that is acceptable on other newsgroups, yet worthy
of comment on this one.
Each posting should quote enough context to pretty much stand on its own,
and not too much more. In-jokes are frosting on the cake, but should be
in proper proportion.
You're doing okay. Keep at it.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:quote...@wicked.smart.net>
Eden Smallwood
> suppose I misinterpreted. I apologize.
Pooh. All are allowed three misinterpretations per month.
> In what I hear from 13-year-old girls, it does indeed mean stupid, or more
> accurately, lame. I have no experience with boys (as a caregiver anyway).
Aha! Girls, eh? Naturally, I was speaking of boys. So
naturally, in fact, that I didn't think it necessary to indicate; it
never occurred to me that girls would use it as I've heard it, of
course. I believe we must find that we are both right. The
explanation clearly is that the word has spilled over from boys to
girls: boys we would expect much more likely to adopt "gay" as
derisive slang, and girls we would expect to drop the effete
association and use it to mean simply "lame".
It's a decently winding road from "cheerfully lighthearted" to
"lame", but I can't expect an etymologist to ever get terribly excited
about ephemeral slang. Notice though, that it raises a nifty
question: suppose the kids took one more step and used "gay" to mean
"unhappy", and suppose that meaning took hold. We would then have the
kewl result of a word having traversed semantic-space until it arrived
at its own antonym. I think I'm going to post a separate thread about
this: "Etymological Self-Antonyms". Words like "dust" don't count:
there must be have been semantic movement over time, preferably
"smooth".
> In regards to what you call editing inside a quote, I was merely emphasizing
> the words I was referring to. That is acceptable in other newsgroups. What
> do you suggest instead?
Well, what defines a quote is, after all, that it hasn't been
changed, eh? I suppose if you were "merely emphasizing" certain
words, you could put them in a quote in your own sentence, as I've
just adequately demonstrated. I can't speak for this group, where
I've been reading only a short while, but I can't conjure for myself a
valid reason to edit a quote, generally speaking.
I suppose there might be some wacko circumstances where it's
reasonable, but referring to this case in point, clearly it would have
been mucho more efficient for us if you had explained in English what
exactly had upset you, rather than merely edit-pointing to something
you assumed to be self-evident. I personally found it stupendously
ambiguous, not just what had set you off, but whether you were truly
angry, just incredulous, tongue-in-cheek, or Allah-knew-what.
Of the style and rules in this group, all I am confident of is
that we are allowed to use an archaic sense of a word, sentence
structure to make merry with, to spell out Latin abbreviations, et
cetera.
Oh-- and you are invited to attack my grammar and spelling... if
you can!
Eden
Bruce Tober
<touc...@wizard.com> writes
>in article 9f7e4cd.0307...@posting.google.com, Eden Smallwood at
>zeppe...@lafn.org wrote on 7/2/03 9:18am:
>
>In regards to what you call editing inside a quote, I was merely emphasizing
>the words I was referring to. That is acceptable in other newsgroups. What
>do you suggest instead?
In many (most?) newsgroups, an asterisk on both sides of the word/s
indicates emphasis. The use of a tilde on both sides indicates an
approximate quote or paraphrase.
--
| Bruce Tober, <t...@star-dot-star.co.uk> , <http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk> |
| UK, +44-780-374-8255 (Mobile) +44-121-553-4284 (land) |
Mike Ellwood
> Muriel Areno <touc...@wizard.com> wrote in message news:<BB28E964.6227%touc...@wizard.com>...
>
> > suppose I misinterpreted. I apologize.
>
> Pooh. All are allowed three misinterpretations per month.
>
> > In what I hear from 13-year-old girls, it does indeed mean stupid, or more
> > accurately, lame. I have no experience with boys (as a caregiver anyway).
>
> Aha! Girls, eh? Naturally, I was speaking of boys. So
> naturally, in fact, that I didn't think it necessary to indicate; it
> never occurred to me that girls would use it as I've heard it, of
> course. I believe we must find that we are both right. The
> explanation clearly is that the word has spilled over from boys to
> girls: boys we would expect much more likely to adopt "gay" as
> derisive slang, and girls we would expect to drop the effete
> association and use it to mean simply "lame".
My two kids (one of each) used this word over a decade ago, when they were
both too young (as I judge) to understand the modern meaning of the word
in an adult sense. I believe that it meant something like "silly",
"soppy", or possibly "sissy". It seemed to go out of fashion, but I note
they are both (as early 20-somethings) using it again, in something like
the same way. I'm not quite sure where it came from, at either time.
I've tried asking them about it, but they don't seem quite sure, either.
They also use it in the other (modern) sense, in (as I judge it) a quite
neutral way.
Muriel Areno
> Pooh. All are allowed three misinterpretations per month.
Phew! What a relief... ;-)
> It's a decently winding road from "cheerfully lighthearted" to
> "lame", but I can't expect an etymologist to ever get terribly excited
> about ephemeral slang. Notice though, that it raises a nifty
> question: suppose the kids took one more step and used "gay" to mean
> "unhappy", and suppose that meaning took hold. We would then have the
> kewl result of a word having traversed semantic-space until it arrived
> at its own antonym. I think I'm going to post a separate thread about
> this: "Etymological Self-Antonyms". Words like "dust" don't count:
> there must be have been semantic movement over time, preferably
> "smooth".
Interesting observation. How about "bad"?
> I can't speak for this group, where I've been reading only a short while, but
> I can't conjure for myself a valid reason to edit a quote, generally speaking.
On some groups, people will correct your typos within the quote.
> I suppose there might be some wacko circumstances where it's
> reasonable, but referring to this case in point, clearly it would have
> been mucho more efficient for us if you had explained in English what
> exactly had upset you, rather than merely edit-pointing to something
> you assumed to be self-evident. I personally found it stupendously
> ambiguous, not just what had set you off, but whether you were truly
> angry, just incredulous, tongue-in-cheek, or Allah-knew-what.
Yes. And I should have read the offending paragraph better. I just get
annoyed at the disparaging use of "gay", and jumped to conclusions.
> Oh-- and you are invited to attack my grammar and spelling... if
> you can!
You're on. You can do the same with mine (if any).
Skitt
> Eden Smallwood wrote:
>> I can't speak for this group, where I've been reading only a short
>> while, but I can't conjure for myself a valid reason to edit a
>> quote, generally speaking.
>
> On some groups, people will correct your typos within the quote.
In this group, what is once written remains written. It is deemed
untouchable. It is much more cruel that way.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Martin Ambuhl
news:be2phi$lrtc$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de / alt.usage.english:
> Muriel Areno wrote:
>> Eden Smallwood wrote:
>
>>> I can't speak for this group, where I've been reading only a
>>> short while, but I can't conjure for myself a valid reason to
>>> edit a quote, generally speaking.
>>
>> On some groups, people will correct your typos within the quote.
>
> In this group, what is once written remains written. It is deemed
> untouchable. It is much more cruel that way.
The guidelines for post in AUE
<URL:http://alt-usage-english.org/posting_quotes.html> tell us,
among other things:
Do not change quoted text.
Misrepresenting the opinions of others is dishonest. The line
lengths of a quoted article can be changed with impunity, but
nothing else. (If the profanity of others offends you to the
extent that you deem it inappropriate even as quoted text in
your reply, either paraphrase the previous article, or forget
about replying.)
--
Martin Ambuhl
Returning soon to the
Fourth Largest City in America
Muriel Areno
at mam...@earthlink.net wrote on 7/3/03 7:53pm:
>> In this group, what is once written remains written. It is deemed
>> untouchable. It is much more cruel that way.
:-))
> The guidelines for post in AUE tell us, among other things:
>
> Do not change quoted text.
[etc.]
Thank you both. If you see your own mistake quoted five times, you probably
won't make the same one again soon!
Mike Ellwood
> Muriel Areno wrote:
> > Eden Smallwood wrote:
>
> >> I can't speak for this group, where I've been reading only a short
> >> while, but I can't conjure for myself a valid reason to edit a
> >> quote, generally speaking.
> >
> > On some groups, people will correct your typos within the quote.
>
> In this group, what is once written remains written. It is deemed
> untouchable. It is much more cruel that way.
Is one allowed to highlight the topys, make them flash and light up, etc?
Mike Ellwood
> http://www.vincasa.com/casabla.pdf
>
> Strasser: ...Signor Ugarte is dead.
>
> Ilsa: Oh.
>
> Renault: I am making out the report now.
> We haven't quite decided whether he committed
> suicide or died trying to escape.
Thanks for that link. An amazing resource!
Ross Howard
<mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The guidelines for post in AUE
><URL:http://alt-usage-english.org/posting_quotes.html> tell us,
>among other things:
>
> Do not change quoted text.
> Misrepresenting the opinions of others is dishonest. The line
> lengths of a quoted article can be changed with impunity, but
> nothing else. (If the profanity of others offends you to the
> extent that you deem it inappropriate even as quoted text in
> your reply, either paraphrase the previous article, or forget
> about replying.)
That's far too stern. Imagine that in a thread about the pronunciation
of "literature", someone has written a 247-liner about sheep winnets.
You only want to comment on one line. That line is
Their colour and consistency depends, of course, on the local
climatic conditions.
Surely it's okay, for the sake of brevity, to delete everything except
the line you want to comment on, changing it, for the sake of clarity,
to
[The] colour and consistency [of sheep winnets] depends on the
local climatic conditions.
In other words, the rules that apply to any sort of quoting in print
should apply when posting to Usenet: deletion, redaction and expansion
are fine as long as they're square-bracketed to make it clear that the
original text has been tampered with.
Ross Howard
--------------------
(Kick ass for e-mail)
Skitt
> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
I agree with the rule, but you violated it. You have left out a part of the
original without indicating that.
In my reply I would have quoted thus (leaving the attribution indicators, of
course):
[Regarding sheep winnets]
"Their colour and consistency depends, of course, on the local climatic
conditions."
Skitt
First of all, HTML or other things that allow tricks such as you mention are
unacceptable in this newsgroup.
It is proper to insert a "[sic]" after the typo. Some people insert an
extra line below, and put some carets under the offending text.
When I comment on a goof, I usually try to make some fun of it, rather than
just point to it.
Ross Howard
wrote:
Got me. I do usually "[snip]" when I snip, though. And at least hardly
anyone here top-posts, so we're better than 97% of Usenet.
Bob Cunningham
<ski...@comcast.net> said:
> Mike Ellwood wrote:
> > Skitt wrote:
> >> Muriel Areno wrote:
> >>> Eden Smallwood wrote:
> >>>> I can't speak for this group, where I've been reading only a short
> >>>> while, but I can't conjure for myself a valid reason to edit a
> >>>> quote, generally speaking.
> >>> On some groups, people will correct your typos within the quote.
> >> In this group, what is once written remains written. It is deemed
> >> untouchable. It is much more cruel that way.
> > Is one allowed to highlight the topys, make them flash and light up,
> > etc?
> First of all, HTML or other things that allow tricks such as you mention are
> unacceptable in this newsgroup.
> It is proper to insert a "[sic]" after the typo. Some people insert an
> extra line below, and put some carets under the offending text.
That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
fond -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
anywhere near where you intended them to be.
> When I comment on a goof, I usually try to make some fun of it, rather than
> just point to it.
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
Information in this posting should not be relied upon until it has
been examined and certified to be satisfactory and correct by the
supreme watchdog of AUE, R J Valentine.
Martin Ambuhl
news:65ncgvkm43656cuk4...@4ax.com / alt.usage.english:
> That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
> proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
> fond -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
> anywhere near where you intended them to be.
Using proportional fonts in newsgroup posting is itself a bad thing to
do.
Bob Cunningham
<mam...@earthlink.net> said:
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote (05 Jul 2003) in
> news:65ncgvkm43656cuk4...@4ax.com / alt.usage.english:
> > That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
> > proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
> > fond -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
> > anywhere near where you intended them to be.
> Using proportional fonts in newsgroup posting is itself a bad thing to
> do.
Why?
How can it be bad, since there's no way for anyone besides
me to know what font I'm using?
Skitt
> "Skitt" said:
>> It is proper to insert a "[sic]" after the typo. Some people insert
>> an extra line below, and put some carets under the offending text.
>
> That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
> proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
> fond -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
> anywhere near where you intended them to be.
Well, I assume a slight bit of intelligence in people. Possibly I am an
optimist. Of course, there'll alway be some who don't have a clue, but with
them it really doesn't matter, does it?
Bob Cunningham
<ski...@comcast.net> said:
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > "Skitt" said:
> >> It is proper to insert a "[sic]" after the typo. Some people insert
> >> an extra line below, and put some carets under the offending text.
> > That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
> > proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
> > font -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
> > anywhere near where you intended them to be.
> Well, I assume a slight bit of intelligence in people. Possibly I am an
> optimist. Of course, there'll alway be some who don't have a clue, but with
> them it really doesn't matter, does it?
^^^^
^^^^^
I don't understand. Either the carets will be pointing at
what you want them to point at, or they won't. What does
intelligence have to do with that?
In the two lines following the last line of the above quote,
I've twice used carets to underline the word "does", first
with fixed-pitch, then with proportional. A reader who
reads this message with fixed pitch will see "does"
underlined in the first line, and will see the carets in the
second line in some quite different place. Readers who use
a proportional font will see the carets of the first line in
various places, depending upon which font they use. If the
reader happens to use the same proportional font I'm using,
the carets in the second line should be under "does". The
carets in the first line will be in some quite different
place.
Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
for that rule?
Mike Oliver
> Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
> Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
> for that rule?
As you said, no one can see what font you're using (assuming
you don't make the horrific blunder of posting in HTML), so
I can't see any justification for such a rule. However,
if you're going to point out words using carets, then
clearly you should do it assuming fixed-pitch, and I think
you yourself have proved that -- fixed-pitch gives a canonical
answer, whereas proportional fonts will give different
answers depending on the font. Moreover, using a proportional
font, there will most likely be *no* way to line the carets
up with the word exactly, whereas using a fixed-pitch font, you can.
Skitt
"Bob Cunningham" wrote:
> "Skitt" said:
> > Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > > "Skitt" said:
> > >> It is proper to insert a "[sic]" after the typo. Some people insert
> > >> an extra line below, and put some carets under the offending text.
>
> > > That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
> > > proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
> > > font -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
> > > anywhere near where you intended them to be.
>
> > Well, I assume a slight bit of intelligence in people. Possibly I am an
> > optimist. Of course, there'll alway be some who don't have a clue, but
with
> > them it really doesn't matter, does it?
> ^^^^
> ^^^^^
> I don't understand. Either the carets will be pointing at
> what you want them to point at, or they won't. What does
> intelligence have to do with that?
You mean, you really don't know? The intelligence comes into play when
someone has enough of it to figure out that when the carets don't point to
the right place, it is the type of font used that causes the misplacement.
Of course, some will never figure that out.
> In the two lines following the last line of the above quote,
> I've twice used carets to underline the word "does", first
> with fixed-pitch, then with proportional. A reader who
> reads this message with fixed pitch will see "does"
> underlined in the first line, and will see the carets in the
> second line in some quite different place. Readers who use
> a proportional font will see the carets of the first line in
> various places, depending upon which font they use. If the
> reader happens to use the same proportional font I'm using,
> the carets in the second line should be under "does". The
> carets in the first line will be in some quite different
> place.
>
> Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
> Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
> for that rule?
I think you just did.
On the other hand, adding strength to *your* argument, I just noticed that
if I allowed QF to take out the extraneous spaces between the attribution
marks on the left side of the quoted text, that threw off the carets also.
This post is not processed by QF.
Anyway, smart people know what to do.
Bob Cunningham
I can switch between fixed and proportional with a single
mouse click. I suspect there are newsreaders that don't
make it that easy. Suppose a highly intelligent reader
knows that the carets don't point to anything that makes
sense, but doesn't have a convenient way to switch fonts.
What good does it do that reader to know why the carets are
not pointing anywhere that's meaningful?
As a matter of fact, I have an editor I like enough that I
sometimes "select all" then copy and paste a posting to that
editor before composing a reply. That editor does a lot of
things I like, but it provides only proportional font.
If it's enough trouble to switch fonts, the HIR will quite
possibly just go on to the next posting, preferring not to
pay any more attention to a posting written by someone who
isn't considerate enough to eschew next-line underlining.
> > In the two lines following the last line of the above
> > quote, I've twice used carets to underline the word
> > "does", first with fixed-pitch, then with proportional.
> > A reader who reads this message with fixed pitch will
> > see "does" underlined in the first line, and will see
> > the carets in the second line in some quite different
> > place. Readers who use a proportional font will see
> > the carets of the first line in various places,
> > depending upon which font they use. If the reader
> > happens to use the same proportional font I'm using,
> > the carets in the second line should be under "does".
> > The carets in the first line will be in some quite
> > different place.
> > Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
> > Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
> > for that rule?
> I think you just did.
Not. The font I use is my business. So long as I'm smart
enough to not use symbols in the next line for underlining,
no one should be affected by what font I use.
In the rare case where I've wanted to tabulate some numbers
in multiple columns, I've noted that the reader should use a
fixed-pitch font. However, I haven't done so without
feeling a little pang of guilt thinking of the reader who
might not find it easy to switch.
> On the other hand, adding strength to *your* argument, I
> just noticed that if I allowed QF to take out the
> extraneous spaces between the attribution marks on the
> left side of the quoted text, that threw off the carets
> also. This post is not processed by QF.
I'll take your word for it. I'm not smart enough to know
what "QF" does.
> Anyway, smart people know what to do.
Yeah. They know to not use symbols in the next line for
underlining.
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
Information in this posting should not be relied upon until it has
been examined and certified to be satisfactory and correct by the
satisfactoriness-and-correctness czar of AUE, R J Valentine.
John Dean
>
> Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
> Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
> for that rule?
You want a left-justification or a right-justification?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
Skitt
You may have noticed that I didn't *recommend* doing it -- I only wrote that
some people do it, and then I made a few allowances for that method (for
smart people only). I don't think we really have an argument here, but to
put this thing to rest I will now clearly state that I agree with you that
the "carets under the affected text" method has its flaws.
Bob Cunningham
<oli...@math.ucla.edu> said:
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
> > Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
> > for that rule?
> As you said, no one can see what font you're using (assuming
> you don't make the horrific blunder of posting in HTML), so
> I can't see any justification for such a rule. However,
> if you're going to point out words using carets, then
> clearly you should do it assuming fixed-pitch, and I think
> you yourself have proved that -- fixed-pitch gives a canonical
> answer, whereas proportional fonts will give different
> answers depending on the font.
A few years ago when this topic was discussed in AUE, I
suggested that a convention for *same-line* stressing of
words in quoted material be adopted.
I offered as one candidate for same-line stressing the use
of asterisks, but with the asterisks enclosed in square
brackets to show they weren't in the original text.
For example: >> [*]Same-line[*] stressing is good.
>> [*]Next-line[*] stressing is bad.
> Moreover, using a proportional
> font, there will most likely be *no* way to line the carets
> up with the word exactly, whereas using a fixed-pitch font, you can.
Not only that, but if you next-line underline with a
proportional font, the underlining won't in general be in
the intended place with a different *proportional* font.
I've just verified that assertion experimentally.
And I just noticed that you already made that point.
Bob Cunningham
<john...@frag.lineone.net> said:
> Bob Cunningham wrote:
> > Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
> > Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
> > for that rule?
> You want a left-justification or a right-justification?
Like GWB, I'm a compassionate conservative, so I want a
radical, far-right justification, one that bleeds the poor
to further fatten the rich.
Bob Cunningham
<ski...@comcast.net> said:
> "Bob Cunningham" wrote:
> > "Skitt" said:
[ . . . about next-line stressing]
> > > Anyway, smart people know what to do.
> > Yeah. They know to not use symbols in the next line for
> > underlining.
> You may have noticed that I didn't *recommend* doing it --
> I only wrote that some people do it, and then I made a few
> allowances for that method (for smart people only). I
> don't think we really have an argument here, but to put
> this thing to rest I will now clearly state that I agree
> with you that the "carets under the affected text" method
> has its flaws.
Before we put this thing to rest, I'd like to bring up
another example of the evils of next-line stressing.
Consider the following situation:
A responder using a fixed-pitch font wants to add stress to
the following quoted sentence:
It's not good to use punctuation in the next line for
^^^^^^^^^
stressing.
The responder wants to stress "next line", but a reader
using a proportional font may find the stress marks under
"punctuation". (I do.)
The reader has no reason to doubt that "punctuation" is what
the responder intended to stress. He or she takes it that
the responder feels it's okay to put stress marks in the
next line so long as they're not punctuation marks. The
intended meaning is that it may be okay to use punctuation
marks for stress, but they shouldn't be in the next line.
A completely wrong message has been conveyed with no way to
expect the reader to guess that the stress marks aren't
where they're intended to be.
Yeah, I know the stress marks in my example fully underline
"next line" in the fixed-pitch case but only partially
underline "punctuation" in the proportional case. I could
devise an example where both the intended and unintended
strings are fully underlined, but I think I've made the
point without going to that trouble.
R H Draney
>
>On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 10:31:29 -0700, "Skitt"
>
>> them it really doesn't matter, does it?
> ^^^^
> ^^^^^
>
>I've twice used carets to underline the word "does", first
>with fixed-pitch, then with proportional. A reader who
>reads this message with fixed pitch will see "does"
>underlined in the first line, and will see the carets in the
>second line in some quite different place. Readers who use
>a proportional font will see the carets of the first line in
>various places, depending upon which font they use. If the
>reader happens to use the same proportional font I'm using,
>the carets in the second line should be under "does". The
>carets in the first line will be in some quite different
>place.
The carets in the first line underlined the middle part of the word
"matter"...those in the second line underlined "it" and a couple of stray
characters surrounding it...not all proportional fonts are proportional in the
same way....
>Someone has said we shouldn't use a proportional font for
>Usenet postings. Can anyone here give us a justification
>for that rule?
See the following message for what happens when one's assumptions about
characters lining up don't match those of another party, in this case the
software designer:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1Kxc8.1$4R5....@news01.buzzardnews.com
....r
Robert Bannister
> Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote (05 Jul 2003) in
> news:65ncgvkm43656cuk4...@4ax.com / alt.usage.english:
>
>
>>That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
>>proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
>>fond -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
>>anywhere near where you intended them to be.
>
>
> Using proportional fonts in newsgroup posting is itself a bad thing to
> do.
Bob didn't say that; he said 'reading'. That's what I do: I post (I
hope) in fixed-pitch, but read in proportional. However, I can usually
guess where the carets were supposed to be.
--
Rob Bannister
Mike Oliver
> Consider the following situation:
>
> A responder using a fixed-pitch font wants to add stress to
> the following quoted sentence:
>
> It's not good to use punctuation in the next line for
> ^^^^^^^^^
> stressing.
>
> The responder wants to stress "next line", but a reader
> using a proportional font may find the stress marks under
> "punctuation". (I do.)
The reader using a proportional font ought to remember that
he's doing something strange and that it can affect next-line
underlining.
It's completely your business if you want to use a proportional
font; not arguing with that at all. But I can't see any good
reason anyone would *want* to.
Mike Oliver
> Bob didn't say that; he said 'reading'. That's what I do: I post (I
> hope) in fixed-pitch, but read in proportional. However, I can usually
> guess where the carets were supposed to be.
You don't post in fixed-pitch; your posts contain no font information
whatsoever.
No one can say you're wrong if you want to read posts in a proportional
font, of course, but I am sort of curious *why*. It seems to
me that they mess up the formatting of lots of things, and offer
no countervailing benefit whatsoever.
Skitt
Oops. I think the train jumped the track here. *We* were not discussing
stressing, just marking an error in quoted text. For stressing words in my
own work I enclose them in asterisks (my software then presents those words
in bold type, but that is of no consequence to others). I do not add stress
indications to someone else's work. As I have said before, I use the
"[sic]" method in its prescribed way (unless I screw up).
Bob Cunningham
At some time in past years, I asserted in AUE that I not
only preferred to use a fixed-pitch font but found it easier
to read. At least one respected regular found it hard to
believe that anyone could find fixed pitch easier to read
than proportional.
If we could take a poll of AUE contributors to see how many
of them regularly use each of the two pitch styles, I
wouldn't be surprised to find that more people use
proportional than use fixed.
But I will continue to use fixed pitch most of the time. I
think an "i" is usually as significant a letter as is "w",
so I see no reason it should be allotted less space.
Bob Cunningham
> [*]guess[*] where the carets were supposed to be.
If everyone used my same-line stressing, we wouldn't have to
guess.
Anyway, we've now effectively taken the poll I referred to
in another posting. Of a total of four responders, two
favor reading in proportional and two favor reading in
fixed. Unless I miscounted.
Skitt
> Robert Bannister said:
>> Martin Ambuhl wrote:
>>>> That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
>>>> proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
>>>> fond -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
>>>> anywhere near where you intended them to be.
>
>>> Using proportional fonts in newsgroup posting is itself a bad thing
>>> to do.
>
>> Bob didn't say that; he said 'reading'. That's what I do: I post (I
>> hope) in fixed-pitch, but read in proportional. However, I can
>> usually [*]guess[*] where the carets were supposed to be.
>
> If everyone used my same-line stressing, we wouldn't have to
> guess.
>
> Anyway, we've now effectively taken the poll I referred to
> in another posting. Of a total of four responders, two
> favor reading in proportional and two favor reading in
> fixed. Unless I miscounted.
I missed the poll. I use a fixed-pitch font.
Mike Oliver
> If you are polling who uses fixed-pitch typefaces when communicating
> through the Internet, I confess to being such a person. But I use
> variable-pitch typefaces regularly when writing non-paperless forms of
> communication.
I've never entirely gotten straight the distinction between "typeface"
and "font". Is it well-defined and standardized?
Martin Ambuhl
news:be7pfn$25tc7$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de / alt.usage.english:
> I missed the poll. I use a fixed-pitch font.
I missed the poll, also. I use a fixed-pitch font.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
> Suppose a highly intelligent reader knows that
> the carets don't point to anything that makes sense,
*Truly* highly intelligent readers (THIRs) know that the carets do
point to something that makes sense, because they use a fixed-pitch
font -- the newsgroup and e-mail standard -- such as Courier. They
don't care about what non-aligned garbage the proportional-font using
deviants see.
> but doesn't have a convenient way to switch fonts.
> What good does it do that reader to know why the carets are
> not pointing anywhere that's meaningful?
Readers who use standard = fixed-pitch fonts avoid such problems.
******** ^^^^^^^^^^^ +++++
[...]
> If it's enough trouble to switch fonts, the HIR will
> quite possibly just go on to the next posting,
In that case s/he's not a "highly intelligent reader."
> preferring not to pay
> any more attention to a posting written by someone who
> isn't considerate enough to eschew next-line underlining.
Using a standard = fixed-pitch font is inconsiderate?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ *************
(That's not expressed but implied.)
THIRs eschew using a deviant = proportional-font.
*******
[...]
> ... The font I use is my business. So long as I'm smart
> enough to not use symbols in the next line for underlining,
^^^^oy^^^^
> no one should be affected by what font I use.
Nobody cares what font you use, but using a proportional font pushes
you out of the "smart" category. You're also insulting us
fixed-pitch-font users again who you insinuate are not as smart as you are.
> In the rare case where I've wanted to tabulate some numbers
> in multiple columns, I've noted that the reader should use a
> fixed-pitch font.
Such notices are unnecessary, as fixed-pitch-font users -- the
overwhelming majority of truly intelligent readers -- need not switch
to, or be told to switch to, a standard = fixed-pitch font.
> However, I haven't done so without feeling a
> little pang of guilt thinking of the reader who
> might not find it easy to switch.
No need to feel pangs; almost all readers use fixed-pitch fonts.
Screw the others.
[Skitt wrote:]
> > Anyway, smart people know what to do.
> Yeah. They know to not use symbols in the next line for
^^^^^^^^^^
> underlining.
Bullshit. And stop insulting us truly intelligent fixed-pitch-font users.
Nota bene: When quoting my underlining symbols, please delete one or
two spaces in front of them to line up the characters under the
specific word.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Maria Conlon
> Skitt wrote
>
>> I missed the poll. I use a fixed-pitch font.
>
> I missed the poll, also. I use a fixed-pitch font.
Ditto about the poll, and after reading this discussion, I've decided to
use a fixed-pitch font.
Actually, I wanted to switch from proportionate to fixed before this,
but hadn't checked out exactly how to do it. Now I have, and now it's
done -- for reading and for composing. I find it easier, and I like it.
As for "underlining" errors with carets or some other symbol, it seldom
works. Even so, one can usually figure out what was intended to be
underlined. But if the error or usage involved is all that important, it
would probably be best to state, simply, what the objections are rather
than use underlines that don't underline or, worse yet, attempt to
highlight or emphasize the poor usage by altering the other person's
post in some way.
And if the error or usage involved is *not* all that important, then my
advice [1] is to leave it be and move on.
[1] "My advice" is advice that even I don't always follow, but not
because the advice isn't good. It generally is, but I am stubborn.
Maria Conlon
R J Valentine
} On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:01:37 -0700, "Skitt"
} <ski...@comcast.net> said:
}
}> Mike Ellwood wrote:
}> > Skitt wrote:
}> >> Muriel Areno wrote:
}> >>> Eden Smallwood wrote:
}
}> >>>> I can't speak for this group, where I've been reading only a short
}> >>>> while, but I can't conjure for myself a valid reason to edit a
}> >>>> quote, generally speaking.
}
}> >>> On some groups, people will correct your typos within the quote.
}
}> >> In this group, what is once written remains written. It is deemed
}> >> untouchable. It is much more cruel that way.
}
}> > Is one allowed to highlight the topys, make them flash and light up,
}> > etc?
}
}> First of all, HTML or other things that allow tricks such as you mention are
}> unacceptable in this newsgroup.
Except in sigs of four lines or less.
}> It is proper to insert a "[sic]" after the typo. Some people insert an
}> extra line below, and put some carets under the offending text.
}
} That's a bad thing to do, because if you do it with a
} proportional font and somebody reads it with a fixed-pitch
} fond -- or vice versa -- the carets probably won't be
} anywhere near where you intended them to be.
}
}> When I comment on a goof, I usually try to make some fun of it, rather than
}> just point to it.
}
} --
} Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
}
} Information in this posting should not be relied upon until it has
} been examined and certified to be satisfactory and correct by the
} supreme watchdog of AUE, R J Valentine.
I deny being "the supreme watchdog of AUE". There are too many THIRs
around for me to pretend to anything like that. I am content to say nice
things about Mr. Cunningham whenever I find it appropriate, regardless of
how much umbrage he may take at the presumption.
The posting quoted above, however, is satisfactory and correct as far as
it goes. In its writer's apparent egalitarian fervor, it seems to miss
that people can reliably fake a fixed-pitch font when reading other
people's next-line highlighting, but they are less likely to be able to
fake a particular variable-pitch font, so posters should always err in the
direction of posting next-line highlighting with a fixed-pitch font
already in use by the THIRs. Even then there are people who insist on
reformatting quoted text, which is going to play hell with even the best
next-line highlighting, as it does with anything but the most
bo-o-o-o-oring of quote-indentation characters (which are notably already
in use for different purposes in headers and in HTML). Same-line
highlighting is also possible in simple cases, but it should be clear who
added the highlighting, and that gets murkier as the lines are requoted
and reformatted. Highlighting by separate repetition (HBSR) may have the
most archival value (so, for instance, one could refer to the "supreme
watchdog" term above [here hypohyphenated by quotation], and the reference
will be obvious enough as long as it and its antecedent survive snipping).
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:supreme...@wicked.smart.net>
"But don't think you'll get a mispelling past Skitt."