Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

This group chooses BUSH

1 view
Skip to first unread message

ORIGINA...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/23/00
to

A. M. Hawk Widner

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
But so far the only thing anybody seems to be choosing Bush for is planting and severely pruning.
 
Hawk
 
Of course,..... it's a garden group.


NEW TOOL IN TOWN !!!!

Priscilla H Ballou

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
A. M. Hawk Widner (amhw...@home.net) wrote:
: But so far the only thing anybody seems to be choosing Bush for is =
: planting and severely pruning.

Oh, I don't know about that. Personally I think composting would be an
appropriate choice.

Priscilla
--
Zone 6 urban gardener, backyard birder and adoptive mom to:
Caley (little polydactyl calico sweetie, loves to hunt bugs or groom anyone)
Benjamin (skittish MH tuxedo boy with a big plumy tail, my Prince Charming)

G.W. Bush

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
Ha-ha! That's a good one. I needed after
losing Arizona. Nice tool , also.
Californiaaaaaaa!! Wait for meeeeeee!!!

G.W.Bush

Zhanataya

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:29:18 GMT, p...@world.std.com
(Priscilla H Ballou) wrote:

>Oh, I don't know about that. Personally I think composting would be an
>appropriate choice.
>
>Priscilla

Not me. I'm getting fertilizer and am anticipating good
strong growth. Zhan

John

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
Actually, the old man was bush, in Texas we called this one shrub.
"Priscilla H Ballou" <p...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:FqG0G...@world.std.com...

> A. M. Hawk Widner (amhw...@home.net) wrote:
> : But so far the only thing anybody seems to be choosing Bush for is =
> : planting and severely pruning.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. Personally I think composting would be an
> appropriate choice.
>
> Priscilla

John

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

ORIGINA...@webtv.net

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to

Speak of the shrub, he appears.

Granny still set to fry tonight?

Bob Kirk

unread,
Feb 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/24/00
to
>Granny still set to fry tonight?

Too bad, I'm tempted to say - without knowing the details, she sure
sounds like a Hero of the Revolution. But I'd think Texians would know
about the Fully Informed Jury concept, so maybe there was more here
than meets the eye.
Hey, I'm not saying >I'd< want to marry her.

bk---

Oh. I forget. This is Texas we're talking about here.
Too bad she wasn't a high school football hero....


Victoria

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
You lost all but S. Carolina Gov. Bush.

Bahahahaha.

Victoria

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:24:17 -0800, "Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA" <cd...@erols.com>
wrote:

>
>Granny still set to fry tonight?

Far as I know she is. Judge turned down a stay of execution this morning. One
thing about Texas, if you get the death penalty, you eventually fry.

Victoria

A. M. Hawk Widner

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
In fact, in Texas a judge can say "Proof of innocence is not sufficient
reason to overturn a legally obtained verdict of guilty." The state of
Texas has, to my knowledge, deliberately murdered at least one man, using
this reasoning. Fortunately, the death row convicts in Illinois who have
later been proven innocent have had, at least, their sentences vacated.

Hawk

Victoria <ani...@austin.rr.com0> wrote in message
news:4qnbbscfvqqjrhi96...@4ax.com...

BeeCrofter

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
I keep waiting for Anne Richards to say that George Jr was born with a silver
spoon up his nose.


Tom

There is an extra Bee in the Email address after the AOL.com

Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Trust us, we're as revolted as anyone. Morbid humor is sometimes the only
way to deal with things you can't change.

smw wrote:
>
> Funny how people can get so upset about killing trees while having such
> a nice time talking about "frying" people.
>
> smw

ZDBop

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
My mother said a long time ago that if the voters didn't want him, they'd keep
him.

I think we have a deal.

:)

Wayne


**The problem with making things idiot proof is the idiots are so ingenious.**

Bill Morgan

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
In article <38B5E537...@umich.edu>, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

> Funny how people can get so upset about killing trees while having such
> a nice time talking about "frying" people.
>

I don't know if Victoria was having a "good time" talking about frying
someone. I wouldn't take her for a death penalty advocate. I mean, she's
always seemed like a "librul" to me.

Nobody recently has been upset about the idea of killing a tree in and of
itself. The idea of destroying someone else's personal property has,
however been roundly trashed.

Funny how some people can't see the distinction.

BTW, next to "nucular", "librul" is the most annoying mispronunciation in
current political debate.

Of course, I am sure that I will give the death penalty to some weeds this
summer.

Regards,
Bill

--
Bill Morgan <wtmo...@pilot.msu.edu>
"Those who do not learn the lessons of science fiction are condemned to
live them."

Victoria

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Who said I had a nice time talking about frying people? Who are you to read
into my post. I merely said that, if you get the death penalty in Texas, you
eventually fry. They do not f@#k around in Texas, that's all. That woman shot
three of her husbands, and killed two of them. She was convicted of murder. She
buried her men in her backyard, and continued to live in the house for many
years. I still don't know how you read that I was having such fun.

Geesh.


On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:13:11 -0500, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

>Funny how people can get so upset about killing trees while having such
>a nice time talking about "frying" people.
>

Victoria

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Thank you Bill. I really don't have a stance on the death penalty. I know it
is there and I avoid having to be victim to it because I don't commit murder.
That is how I deal with the death penalty. It really is that easy! And no, I
was not having fun talking about it. I am liberal (not librul, that irritates
me too!) about certain things, moderate on others, and conservative on yet
others. I am not locked into any particular thing. I am pro choice, not pro
abortion. I am pro justice, not pro death penalty. However, I do believe that,
if you kill anyone and live in a state where they IS the death penalty, be
prepared to die eventually. Like I said, if you live in Texas and are given the
death penalty, you will eventually fry. Granny did last night. Sammy the Bull
is back in jail. Oh the terror of it all.

Thank you,
Victoria

Harrisons

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Did anybody else notice that Hawk is green? Eugenia, zone 6, etc.
"A. M. Hawk Widner" <amhw...@home.net> wrote in message news:nq9t4.33522$2C1.9...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...

Dale Tilson

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
BeeCrofter wrote:

> I keep waiting for Anne Richards to say that George Jr was born with a silver
> spoon up his nose.

LOL! Good one!

Dale
(vote for anybody but Shrub!)

Victoria

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Hey honey, take it somewhere else. I don't bite. Sorry.


On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 11:04:50 -0500, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

>
>
>Victoria wrote:
>>
>> Who said I had a nice time talking about frying people? Who are you to read
>> into my post. I merely said that, if you get the death penalty in Texas, you
>> eventually fry.
>

>You do not "fry" -- you die.

>
>> They do not f@#k around in Texas, that's all.
>

>To be sure -- to the point where proof of innocence isn't enough to
>overturn a death sentence.

>
>> That woman shot
>> three of her husbands, and killed two of them.
>

>You don't know that; she was never tried for the murder of her fourth
>husband.


>
>> She was convicted of murder.
>

>In wrongful death, one of the most important distinctions is between
>manslaughter and murder, and one of the most important aspects of
>sentencing is motive. At the trial, the impression arose that she had
>killed her fifth husband for the insurance money -- that would
>constitute base motive. It appears as if she hadn't even known about the
>insurance. The lawyer who represented her at the trial was the one who
>directed her attention to it. If he hadn't represented her, he could
>have been a witness to the fact. That would have meant that had to
>withdraw from the case. That would have cost him a lucrative contract to
>the rights of the story.
> Note that this is _not_ a 'quibble' as some people think. It is crucial
>when it comes to a) the conviction of murder and b) the death sentence.
> It would have been equally important to establish whether she was
>indeed battered on a regular basis. Note again that I'm not saying that
>this is an excuse to kill, but again it can make all the difference
>between death or life in prison.


>
>She
>> buried her men in her backyard, and continued to live in the house for many
>> years. I still don't know how you read that I was having such fun.
>>
>> Geesh.
>

>I was commenting on the humorous lackadaisical wording: "granny," "fry."
>I am sorry if I came across suggesting that you were 'having fun' --
>that was clearly an overstatement, and I'd like you to accept my
>apologies.
>
> silke

Zaphod & Trillian

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Ahh! Nucular annoys the bejabbers out of me. It is right up there
with authors who use disinterested when they mean uninterested.

Jeff

unread,
Feb 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/25/00
to
Don't sweat it buddy, I just took it to be part of the style of humor you
bring to bear.

Jeff


A. M. Hawk Widner <amhw...@home.net> wrote in message

news:VMEt4.35333$2C1.9...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
>
> If I reply to a message posted in rich text format rather than the
preferred
> plain text, sometimes my "document" color gets attached to the message.
My
> desktop is done in shades of green; this gregg green is the color for
> documents which do not have a default color of their own (on my computer
in
> this desktop".
>
> My apologies - I did not realize the post to which I responded was an HTML
> post - I try to catch those and reformat to plain text, but often miss
them.
>
> Hawk
>
> Harrisons <harriso...@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:896lgn$qt6$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...


> Did anybody else notice that Hawk is green? Eugenia, zone 6, etc.
>
> "A. M. Hawk Widner" <amhw...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:nq9t4.33522$2C1.9...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> But so far the only thing anybody seems to be choosing Bush for is
planting
> and severely pruning.
>
> Hawk
>
> <ORIGINA...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:24341-38...@storefull-176.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Of course,..... it's a garden group.
>
>
>
>
>

A. M. Hawk Widner

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to

Compuhorsy

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Yah, and when people are speaking to a group and use aggravated for
irritated! Or say orientated for oriented. Arrrggghhhhh!!!!!! Thank
you . I feel much better now.

Zaphod & Trillian <he...@gold.net> wrote in message
news:38B74F...@gold.net...

Bill Morgan

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
In article <38B6A25...@umich.edu>, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

> Bill Morgan wrote:

> > I don't know if Victoria was having a "good time" talking about frying
> > someone. I wouldn't take her for a death penalty advocate. I mean, she's
> > always seemed like a "librul" to me.
>

> Yah, I know -- sorry for flying off the handle. I do detest casual use
> of cooking metaphors when human life is at stake, but I know I'm more
> sensitive to language than most.

Well, yeah. People can get too casual about that. Even pro-execution folk
should
acknowledge the seriousness of it all. Notice that in the vigils of
drunken, screaming idiots that attend many executions, the family of the
victim is usually not present. They find little joy in this, you know.



> > Nobody recently has been upset about the idea of killing a tree in and of
> > itself. The idea of destroying someone else's personal property has,
> > however been roundly trashed.
> >
> > Funny how some people can't see the distinction.
>

> Nuh, what's at stake here is the distinction between destroying somebody
> else's tree vs. destroying somebody else's life. But I'm sure there's a
> point hidden in your paragraph above somewhere.

The points of my posting were:

1) I thought that you had misinterpreted what Victoria said. I was giving a
different perspective: she was not making light of such things. It is just
that her choice of words said something different to you.

2) The distinction was between "killing a tree" and "destroying someone
else's property", not the distinction between "killing a tree" and "killing
a human." I think that if you re-read the original in the entirety, you
will see that.

Mesas

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
And when people say, "Yah" for "Yeah," unless you're from Wiscahnsin...
;-> <VBG>

Or "irregardless" for "regardless."

Or "between you and I" for "between you and me."

Or "nu-kyu-ler" for "nu-clee-ar."

Or "ek cetera" for "et cetera."

Or "defuse" for "diffuse," and vice versa (which can be pronounced
either "vi-sih-versuh" or "vise versuh").

Or "Feb-yoo-ar-y" for "Feb-roo-ar-y."

BTW, *aggravate* has been used in the sense of rousing to displeasure or
anger by usu. persistent and often petty goading since the 17th century,
but it's only been the object of disapproval since about 1870...it is
used in expository prose, but seems to be more common in speech and
casual writing." Compliments of Merriam Webster, 10th edition, also
known as "MW10" by editors and proofreaders.

I feel *much* better. LOL!

Theresa (former proofreader and copyeditor)

Compuhorsy <compu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:


--
Tourette Spectrum Disorder Association
www.tourettesyndrome.org

Compuhorsy

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
JSYK, Minnesotan's say "Yah" and "Ya" like in "Ya, you betcha". I think
its the Norwegian influence.


I was taught that aggravate means to make worse and irritate is to make
angry (not mad ;) )

Mesas

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Wiscahnsin, Minnesohtah, North Duhkohtah--same difference! LOL! My drama
daughter, after seeing "Fargo" just once, loves to speak to us in that
accent. Coming from her Southern California lips, it's pretty funny.
When she sees movies and TV shows about Australia, she speaks to us with
an Australian accent, having spent 3 weeks in Australia this past
summer.

I pretty much plagiarized Webster for the definition and history of the
word "aggravate," so what you were taught was incorrect. One of the
definitions of "mad" is "carried away by intense anger; furious." It
doesn't just mean insanity or hilarity. I'm not makin' this up. Webster
says so....My dad gets on us girls about this, too, and this is first
time I've looked it up..."Hey, Dad! We need to talk..."

You'd be surprised how incorrect or inappropriate some of the stuff we
were taught is. For example, the idea of not ending a sentence with a
preposition comes from taking grammar rules for Latin and imposing them
on the English language, which is so much more than Latin. I don't
remember much more of the discussion from the copyediting mailing list
than this (it was a while ago), so I'm not up to going into more detail.
;-)

Theresa

Compuhorsy <compu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

A. M. Hawk Widner

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Winston Churchill anecdote:

Someone once corrected him for ending a sentence with a preposition, so the
story goes, and he replied without missing a beat: "Now, this is the sort of
impertinence up with which I shall not put!"

I heard it about Churchill, but I think there is a version of this story
floating around about every famous orator.

OTH - I am appalled at the quality of writing these days. I just read a
newspaper article that could have been better written by a third-grader.
One sentence used 3 different tenses where one was intended. Some sentences
were, literally, incomplete. How this presumably educated journalist could,
in good conscience, write this article is beyond me; and how the article got
by the editors is as incomprehensible as the article itself.

Rules for casual communication are one thing - more formal writing is
another. I don't mind when people sprinkle their conversations with
"ain't". I don't react to errors of grammar in everyday conversation.
(Regulars here might recall one or two exceptions to that statement -
homophobia comes to mind.) I expect better of a journalist.

Hawk

Mesas <mesa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message

Compuhorsy

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to

Mesas <mesa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1e6lpen.d77...@pool0097.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net.
..

> Wiscahnsin, Minnesohtah, North Duhkohtah--same difference! LOL! My
drama
> daughter, after seeing "Fargo" just once, loves to speak to us in that
accent. Coming from her Southern >California lips, it's pretty funny.

Gawd! Don't say that to native Nort Dakotans! They get down right
belligerent about that movie. LOL! Being a transplant from Iowa and
having lived in Fargo and various places in MN for 15 years, I can tell
you that MANY of them sound JUST like the people in the movie. They
just don't believe they do. ;-) Of course, they view Iowa as a
southern state like Georgia or something, too. Go figure.

Bill Morgan

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
In article <6GUt4.35996$2C1.1...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com>, "A. M. Hawk
Widner" <amhw...@home.net> wrote:

> Winston Churchill anecdote:
>
> Someone once corrected him for ending a sentence with a preposition, so the
> story goes, and he replied without missing a beat: "Now, this is the sort of
> impertinence up with which I shall not put!"
>
> I heard it about Churchill, but I think there is a version of this story
> floating around about every famous orator.

It was WSC, alright. The exact quote:

"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."

Like many "famous" quotations, it got bent from the original. To use the
same speaker, his more famous "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" lost the
"toil" and was rearranged to "Blood, sweat and tears".

An there are several incorrect versions of his famous reference to the RAF:
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."

Bill Morgan

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
In article <38B7F6E3...@umich.edu>, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

> Bill Morgan wrote:
> >
> > In article <38B6A25...@umich.edu>, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >

> > > Yah, I know -- sorry for flying off the handle. I do detest casual use
> > > of cooking metaphors when human life is at stake, but I know I'm more
> > > sensitive to language than most.

> I know -- which, to me, throws considerable doubt on the
> "revenge/retribution" logic that's often brought up in support of the
> death penalty. It seems that those who have the most cause to feel
> vengeful are not always and not even often there to take pleasure in it.

A point I have not considered. But my point was that even if they want
revenge or retribution, they take it seriously. They're not happy about it
-- how could they be, when the very event reminds them of the death of
their kinsman?

But my point was not to debate the death penalty at all.

> >
> > 2) The distinction was between "killing a tree" and "destroying someone
> > else's property", not the distinction between "killing a tree" and "killing
> > a human." I think that if you re-read the original in the entirety, you
> > will see that.
>

> I still think that destroying somebody else's tree, as reprehensible as
> it is, doesn't come close to taking somebody else's life -- that was the
> point of _my_ analogy. Now I know that passions don't follow logic, even
> ethical logic, and I can get upset about trifles any day, too, but every
> once in a while I think it's good to step back and see where the big
> issues are -- and it's life over property, people over trees and pets,
> death penalty over organic fertilizers...

I see that, but I thought you were perhaps knocking people because they had
a "pro-tree" outlook. And where the "big" issues are is a matter of
opinion, really. And a matter of political will, and of economics. That's
all too far off topic to get into, of course.

>
> I don't think we disagree over any of this, really.

No, probably not.

And still, we don't want the original author to do something stupid (kill
his neighbor's tree) which might result in a homicide [his own]...

Bill Morgan

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
In article
<1e6lpen.d77...@pool0097.cvx31-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net>,
mesa...@earthlink.net (Mesas) wrote:

> Wiscahnsin, Minnesohtah, North Duhkohtah--same difference!

Don't forget da Yoop, eh? That's more insular (or more correctly,
peninsular) than any of the places you mention. And there are lots of
Nordo/Finnic accents up there, for sure.

It's an empty (and pretty) place. Probably a real pain to garden up there,
though: Nine months of winter, 2 months of black flies, and 30 days of
rain.

A. M. Hawk Widner

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Thank you for the clarification. I usually have quotes all wrong anyhow.
:)

S'ppose any of us will ever be famous enough to be widely misquoted? Hehe.

Hawk

Bill Morgan <wtmo...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message news:wtmorgan->


> It was WSC, alright. The exact quote:
>
> "This is the sort of English up with which I will not put."
>
> Like many "famous" quotations, it got bent from the original. To use the
> same speaker, his more famous "Blood, toil, tears and sweat" lost the
> "toil" and was rearranged to "Blood, sweat and tears".
>
> An there are several incorrect versions of his famous reference to the
RAF:
> "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so
few."
>

Paul Onstad

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
smw wrote:

> I still think that destroying somebody else's tree, as reprehensible as
> it is, doesn't come close to taking somebody else's life -- that was the
> point of _my_ analogy. Now I know that passions don't follow logic, even
> ethical logic, and I can get upset about trifles any day, too, but every
> once in a while I think it's good to step back and see where the big
> issues are -- and it's life over property, people over trees and pets,
> death penalty over organic fertilizers...

It might have something to do with either/or thinking....as if being
anti-tree/animal somehow makes one more human. Plus, this is a garden group
so (normally) we deal with plants instead of the taking of human life.

I hope that support of organic fertilizers is not unethical :)

-Paul

Victoria

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 19:44:37 -0500, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

>
>
>Victoria wrote:
>>
>> Hey honey, take it somewhere else. I don't bite. Sorry.
>

>a) as far as I remember, you started it
>b) I apologized to you -- I find the failure to acknowlege an apology
>disturbing
>c) sorry for confusing you with facts (I did mark it OT, unless other
>contributors to this thread)
>d) I'm all vinegar on these issues
>
>smw

To be honest, I never got the the end of your very long post.

Sorry I didn't see your apology. I really didn't.

Victoria

Victoria

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:53:07 -0500, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:


>
>I still think that destroying somebody else's tree, as reprehensible as
>it is, doesn't come close to taking somebody else's life -- that was the
>point of _my_ analogy. Now I know that passions don't follow logic, even
>ethical logic, and I can get upset about trifles any day, too, but every
>once in a while I think it's good to step back and see where the big
>issues are -- and it's life over property, people over trees and pets,
>death penalty over organic fertilizers...
>

> I don't think we disagree over any of this, really.
>

> Silke

What I have the problem with is that, you think I should have the same order of
priorities. Since I don't, you slammed me for it. That was what I had the
problem with. I know we've said "I'm sorry" but this is not fair. Not fair to
almost insist that because you take life over property (I agree BTW) people over
trees and pets? No. I don't always agree with this statement, and I never,
ever will. I'm sorry, but these are your priorities, not mine, necessarily.
That is something you have to accept, not me.

Victoria

Mesas

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Yes, considering a phobia is an "exaggerated usu. inexplicable and
illogical fear of...," and I don't see too many people wildly screaming
through the streets when they encounter a homosexual. They need to come
up with some sort of suffix that indicates "dislike" or "disagree with,"
not "fear of."

Theresa

A. M. Hawk Widner <amhw...@home.net> wrote:

> Winston Churchill anecdote:
>
> Someone once corrected him for ending a sentence with a preposition, so the
> story goes, and he replied without missing a beat: "Now, this is the sort of
> impertinence up with which I shall not put!"
>
> I heard it about Churchill, but I think there is a version of this story
> floating around about every famous orator.
>

> OTH - I am appalled at the quality of writing these days. I just read a
> newspaper article that could have been better written by a third-grader.
> One sentence used 3 different tenses where one was intended. Some sentences
> were, literally, incomplete. How this presumably educated journalist could,
> in good conscience, write this article is beyond me; and how the article got
> by the editors is as incomprehensible as the article itself.
>
> Rules for casual communication are one thing - more formal writing is
> another. I don't mind when people sprinkle their conversations with
> "ain't". I don't react to errors of grammar in everyday conversation.
> (Regulars here might recall one or two exceptions to that statement -
> homophobia comes to mind.) I expect better of a journalist.
>
> Hawk
>

Lou Minatti™

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA wrote:
>
> G.W. Bush wrote:
> >
> > Ha-ha! That's a good one. I needed after
> > losing Arizona. Nice tool , also.
> > Californiaaaaaaa!! Wait for meeeeeee!!!
> >
> > G.W.Bush
>
> Speak of the shrub, he appears.

>
> Granny still set to fry tonight?

You mean the woman who murdered three men? She was finally
rehabilitated.

--
Fortified with brand-new kooktrails!
http://www.watchingyou.com

Zaphod & Trillian

unread,
Feb 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/26/00
to
Sir Winston was one of the great wits. Love the story about
the woman who said, "If you were my husband, I should put poison
in your tea", to which he replied, "Madam, if I were your
husband, I should drink it." :-)

A. M. Hawk Widner

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
In fact, my objection to the word is based upon the misuse of the root
"homos", (I believe that is the root). The "homo" in "homosexual" is from a
root meaning "alike", "of same kind". As in homogenize, - or homogamy,
homogeny, homomorphic. Homophobic is even in my dictionary. That is funny;
since, whatever the dictionary says, the word homophobic is literally an
unreasonable fear of people like oneself.

Hawk

smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:38B85F62...@umich.edu...


>
>
> Mesas wrote:
> >
> > Yes, considering a phobia is an "exaggerated usu. inexplicable and
> > illogical fear of...,"
>

> Actually, the use of 'phobos' in Greek text varies considerably -- it
> can mean sudden terror, it can also mean a simple fear. In any case,
> conglomerates often take on their own meaning -- hence, the -philia in
> anglophilia and in pedophilia do not carry the same meaning, and I think
> that everybody is well aware that 'homophobia' does not necessarily
> convey blind terror but in general a dislike tinged with fear. The
> problem is, of course, not the -phobia but the homo- which only means
> 'same.' The fact that you aren't complaining of the more egregious
> distortion seems to imply that usage overrules etymology.


>
>
> and I don't see too many people wildly screaming
> > through the streets when they encounter a homosexual. They need to come
> > up with some sort of suffix that indicates "dislike" or "disagree with,"
> > not "fear of."
>

> would you like mis-, as in misantrophe, misogyny? It's usually a prefix,
> though, but I suppose homomisy would serve your purposes.
>
> s.

Mesas

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
A. M. Hawk Widner <amhw...@home.net> wrote:
>
> smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:38B85F62...@umich.edu...
> >
> >
> > Mesas wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, considering a phobia is an "exaggerated usu. inexplicable and
> > > illogical fear of...,"
> >
> > Actually, the use of 'phobos' in Greek text varies considerably -- it
> > can mean sudden terror, it can also mean a simple fear. In any case,
> > conglomerates often take on their own meaning -- hence, the -philia in
> > anglophilia and in pedophilia do not carry the same meaning, and I think
> > that everybody is well aware that 'homophobia' does not necessarily
> > convey blind terror but in general a dislike tinged with fear. The
> > problem is, of course, not the -phobia but the homo- which only means
> > 'same.' The fact that you aren't complaining of the more egregious
> > distortion seems to imply that usage overrules etymology.
> >
That fact that I'm not complaining of the more egregious distortion
means that I'm tired, my neck is spasming, my heart meds are making me
more tired, and my shingles (I'm not talking about the roof kind,
either) hurt. Don't jump to conclusions, sweetie.

And homosexuals should not jump to the conclusion that just because
people dislike AND/OR disagree with them doesn't mean there's *any*
element of fear. That's a huge and inaccurate leap that's good for
propoganda and sweeping generalizations.

As for "homomisy," I'll let Hawk speak to the inaccurate use of the
prefix "homo."

Theresa

Stephen Jankalski

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to

Oh yeah?

George senior doesn't like broccoli.

George junior doesn't like cheese.

Let them both choke on broccoli with cheese sauce!

....and then vomit on some ambassador!

"Lou MinattiT" <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38B891...@yahoo.com...

Dan

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 00:01:17 -0500, "Stephen Jankalski"
<CER...@prodigy.net> wrote:

>George junior doesn't like cheese.
>

I havent heard much about him campaigning in Wisconsin,
heheheh

Dan

Starr Cash

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
my peeve is when people say irregardless when they mean irrespective
or simply regardless. But some can be more amusing. I used to work
with a woman who constantly remarked that something was a "mute"
point. I was always having to hold back from saying - "what? I
couldn't hear that point". Another fellow (salesman) had mixed up
majestically and magically. He was frequently excited that an order
had just majestically appeared. I always expected to hear a fanfare
of trumpets when that happened.

Starr


A. M. Hawk Widner

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
LOL!

Hawk
Starr Cash <st...@starrcash.com> wrote in message
news:38b95d75...@news.earthlink.net...

Bill Morgan

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
In article <38B85B2A...@umich.edu>, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

> Victoria wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 10:53:07 -0500, smw <sm...@umich.edu> wrote:

> > What I have the problem with is that, you think I should have the same
order of
> > priorities.
>

> Yes, I do.


>
> > Since I don't, you slammed me for it.
>

> If you seriously think that the death of a tree is more important than
> the death of a human, I will leave this newsgroup. Please clarify.

Well, don't leave the ng just because somebody disagrees with you.
Especially if it's about something as irrelevant (i.e., off-topic) as this.
And I don't think Victoria is making that particular point. (I could be
wrong.)

We all want everyone to agree with us, of course. I mean I put up with it
all the time. There are people everywhere who don't agree with me on this
or that. I guess that means that they haven't thought it through enough.
Given time (and the effort that thinking things through takes), they'll all
come 'round to my point of view. Unless they're stupid, evil, or just plain
stubborn. And Lard knows, there are plenty of that kind of people around.

Actually, Lard doesn't know anything: it's just rendered fat.

Eating too much lard can render you fat.

But I tigress. Er, I mean digress. Probably because the people on this ng
like digressions, whether theirs or mine. Or someone else's.

The point is that you and Victoria agree on most of these issues, so why
quibble over a few minor points which (when you trace it all back) are
rooted (gardening reference) in mutual misunderstanding?

Hey, I misunderstood some of that conversation, too. I even added to the
problem by making comments which were themselves misunderstood. Such is the
nature of UseNet. I guess that makes me part of the problem, not part of
the solution. Perhaps, someday I will be part of the solution: I *will*
dissolve...but not when I "percipitate" in this way.

(Ok, Hawk, you can groan if you wish. That pun deserves it...)

If you mostly agree, why does it matter which issue takes priority? Maybe
in the larger world, it does, but even there, you don't choose your friends
based on a list of priorities. ("Hey, I listed that as #7, and you put it
at #8...I guess *we* won't be friends.)

And no, that characterization is not fair to you, Victoria, or me. It's an
extreme (and hypothetical) thing.

The point is, that we shouldn't turn this into a flamewar. Especially when
(as a number of people have suggested), the whole thing may have been the
result of a trol.l I'm reserving judgement on that point, but if it is
true, then creating a flamewar means success for that troll, and is
problematic for the group.

I could go on and on, but hey, I've finally got real gardening to do. I
sifted potting soil today for use in starting the peppers and tomatoes
indoors. We were out yesterday, buying seeds. Found out we were still too
early for seed potatoes and onion sets.

Regards to all,

Victoria

unread,
Feb 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/27/00
to
On 26 Feb 2000 21:46:23 EST, Lou Minatti™ <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Dr. Rev Chuck, MD, PA wrote:
>>
>> G.W. Bush wrote:
>> >
>> > Ha-ha! That's a good one. I needed after
>> > losing Arizona. Nice tool , also.
>> > Californiaaaaaaa!! Wait for meeeeeee!!!
>> >
>> > G.W.Bush
>>
>> Speak of the shrub, he appears.
>>
>> Granny still set to fry tonight?
>
>You mean the woman who murdered three men? She was finally
>rehabilitated.


Oh don't say that around here. They only found two dead bodies of two of her x
husbands in the yard, burried and shot. A week ago, suddenly she is a victim
of abuse. When she testified, she raved about how wonderful her husband was.
This is a seriously sick person. Was a sick person. Now she can't kill anyone
else.

Victoria