| Author |
Message |
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 10:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | Not at all. I'd support a government proposal that would demand the
construction of private box cars for their travel when in any sort of
unfortunate condition. You know: pregnancy, menstruating, or caring
for a baby. Once they are free from these predicaments, I am most
happy to welcome them back into our polite company.
|
Ah. You were trolling. Thank you for the explanation. I will disregard
your posts.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 11:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | "Tedfriet" <friet@quicknet.nl> writes:
I wonder why Americans have this double standard. They make quite
a
fuss about ms Jackson showing one (only one) breast on television,
[...]
but have no problems with showing a murder live on it, as happened
a
few years ago.
Cite please. I'm not aware of any such incident. [...]
|
Er, Evan...this is the "political correctness gone mad, I read it on
the Internet" bloke!
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:06 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
My news server didn't get any of the posts earlier than this one in
this thread, but I don't think they're essential here.
In alt.english.usage on 30 Sep 2004 18:31:26 GMT Areff
<me@privacy.net> posted:
| Quote: | Richard Chambers wrote:
One thing the British and the US Americans have in common is this unnatural
attitude towards breasts. The highest-selling tabloid newspapers in Britain
are those that display topless photographs on page 3.
[...]
There is something wrong with the psychological state of an entire
nationality (and this applies, unfortunately, to both the British and the
American nationality) which
(a) has an insatiable appetite for topless photographs
and:-
|
See Areff's reply.
| Quote: | (b) finds it reprehensible or embarassing to show breasts in public, even
for feeding a baby.
|
Those are probably accurate adjectives, but they are second level
adjectives. Have you asked yourself what about showing breasts in
public is considered by one person or another as reprehensible or
embarrassing? Until you ask that, and learn some valid answers,
you're not in a position to judge whether there is something wrong
with unwillingness to show breasts in public.
With one exception perhaps. If you are just relying on a faith
position that it's ok to show breasts in public, then the reason why
some don't want to would be unimportant. It is a matter of faith to
you that it's ok? (Of course I'm not limiting faith either to the an
established religion, or to faith in God or any god(s).)
I'm curious how you feel about people showing their genitals or
buttocks in public? Is that ok? Is there something wrong with those
people who don't want to do so? If it were warm enough, would you
walk around downtown wearing nothing but shoes (and maybe socks, which
are valuable to avoid blisters, and I think they greatly delay the
time at which the shoes smell like feet.)? Do you think there is
anything wrong with boys, girls, men, women, old men, old women
walking around downtown a) with their full buttocks not covered? b)
with their full genitals not covered? If there were no chance of
getting arrested, would you do so? (the police are on strike, or
they're all out of town)
If you have one rule for breasts and a different one for these other
areas, why? Is it a matter of faith?
| Quote: | Somewhere we have got our values upside-down. We, both British and US
|
Since you use the plural, are you referring to more than one value? If
so, what? Even if you only mean one value, somehow "upside down"
seems the wrong term for this situation. Aren't you saying that the
proper reaction to breasts in public would be neutrality? That
doesn't really have an upside down.
BTW, do you know what some/most/all? anthropologists say about
women's breasts? They say roughly that in 4-legged mammals, the
buttocks of the female was a prime or the prime area of her body that
attracted the attention of the male. But that when humans walked
upright, the buttocks became less obvious (because people were no
longer bent at the hips) and the breasts became more obvious, And
since most people meet face-to-face, and since before the breasts (or
udder) couldn't be seen from the front or back, only the side, and
because now they were higher than the buttocks, closer to eye level.
Consequently, they've surpassed buttocks as the area that attracts the
attention of a male.
(I think they are now the most significant area of a female in
attracting a male, but I believe that as is typical, humans are more
complicated than other mammals. Maybe I underestimate the varied
appearances of other primates and other mammals, but I think humans
have more variety, and some women have better hair than others, or
better figures not counting the breasts, or better noses or cheeks or
eyebrows or lashes or complections, or apply makeup better -- not too
much, not to little -- to make these things appear better. So all
these things may tend to squeeze out breasts, but I still think the
evidence is that in most populations, it may not be more than 50% but
it's still more than anything else.)
| Quote: | American, are (as a gross generalisation) uptight beyond all reason.
I won't deny that in Lamerica there's a continuing taboo wrt public
female breast display, but where's your evidence that Americans have an
"insatiable appetite for topless photographs"? We certainly have no "Page
3"-type tabloids. Bwaha! I'm afraid that's something that only the
BrE have to answer for.
|
True. There are sex magazines in the US but no newspaper or news
magazine, no paper daily or weekly that attempts to cover current
news, that includes photos or sketches of topless women. The true
tabloids, like the Star, and the Globe, and the National Enquirer have
women in some skimpy dresses, but only those they wore out of the
house, in public, and they aren't real newspapers anyhow. They have
entertaining human interest stories which may be very old, and
celebrity stories, many of which are false.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 7:07 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:12:20 +0200 "Tedfriet"
<friet@quicknet.nl> posted:
| Quote: |
I've seen more than one Dutch adult make a horrible face at the
thought of eating porridge/oatmeal/hot cereal ("That's for babies!
Peasants!") Even in English, to call something "pap" is to degrade
it, to call it worthless nonsense. From Merriam-Webster:
Well, I know a lot of adults who like porridge in the morning, but of course
there are also people who agree with dictionary Johnson about oats: "Eaten
by horses and the Scots." and make a face about it.
Pap in Dutch is also 'dad' in English.
|
Cheerios, one of my favorite breakfast cereals, was originally called
Cheerioats or Cheery-Oats (I've never seen it written.) I think it's
name was changed when too many people pronounced it wrong, iirc.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 8:55 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In article <b7kul0tpujk0ou0ivbkiokc9o1mnv8f54o@4ax.com>,
meirman@invalid.com wrote...
| Quote: | In alt.english.usage on Fri, 1 Oct 2004 16:12:20 +0200 "Tedfriet"
friet@quicknet.nl> posted:
I've seen more than one Dutch adult make a horrible face at the
thought of eating porridge/oatmeal/hot cereal ("That's for babies!
Peasants!") Even in English, to call something "pap" is to degrade
it, to call it worthless nonsense. From Merriam-Webster:
Well, I know a lot of adults who like porridge in the morning, but of course
there are also people who agree with dictionary Johnson about oats: "Eaten
by horses and the Scots." and make a face about it.
Pap in Dutch is also 'dad' in English.
Cheerios, one of my favorite breakfast cereals, was originally called
Cheerioats or Cheery-Oats (I've never seen it written.) I think it's
name was changed when too many people pronounced it wrong, iirc.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
|
Probably about the time "Mairsy Doats" came along.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:42:08 GMT, "Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@peoplepc.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in message
news:lrgtl01khf2qh5ctarlv211j9sfn2totl8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:43:21 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:07:54 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
I am a firm supporter in the practice of breast feeding. Why, you
know, I was breast fed myself, or so I've been told. I do hope my
mother, and I am sure she did, had the good sense not to practice
this
openly in public, just as most of us don't practice those things
normally done in a bathroom in our living rooms.
I am puzzled by how you're supporting breastfeeding by comparing it to
taking a crap.
I fully support both practices, but don't support talk of either at
the dinner table. That shouldn't be too complicated to understand.
I guess it is too complicated; what you're saying makes no sense to me.
Do you think mothers who are out-and-about should let their babies go
hungry instead of nursing them? You'd rather sit on a train with a
crying baby than with a nursing one, I take it. Or do you think mothers
of young children should just stay home so they don't offend your
sensibilities?
Not at all. I'd support a government proposal that would demand the
construction of private box cars for their travel when in any sort of
unfortunate condition. You know: pregnancy, menstruating, or caring
for a baby. Once they are free from these predicaments, I am most
happy to welcome them back into our polite company.
How about you join a lamasery, Charles? Wouldn't cost the taxpayers
anything, and would place you safely away from disturbing and arousing
sights and sounds. (Lacking a lamasery to cater to your Buddhist
inclinations, perhaps you could become a Trappist, or arrange for permanent
male-oriented retreat--if you can find one that will enable longterm
residence.) You were talking about moving to France, I believe. I would
advise against that. Those people are a bit too earthy for the likes of
your aesthetic predilections.
|
Being the purist I am, I think you may be offering me good advice. I'm
not too old, I think, to begin a new life as a Buddhist monk, or at
least a trainee for the station: in Ireland, in Japan, in the US,
wherever, one's location being something not held important to a
Buddhist.
--
Charles Riggs
Actually, there isn't an accented
letter in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:14:43 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
Not at all. I'd support a government proposal that would demand the
construction of private box cars for their travel when in any sort of
unfortunate condition. You know: pregnancy, menstruating, or caring
for a baby. Once they are free from these predicaments, I am most
happy to welcome them back into our polite company.
Ah. You were trolling. Thank you for the explanation. I will disregard
your posts.
|
If I start putting headers at the top of my posts labeling them as
serious, sarcastic, meant to be amusing, of a trolling nature, or
whatever other category I can think up, will you read them
selectively?
--
Charles Riggs
Actually, there isn't an accented
letter in my email address |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 12:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In article <c17vl0pe2n6srfv7fve5aic61enrhp3g7v@4ax.com>,
chriggs@éircom.net wrote...
| Quote: | On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:42:08 GMT, "Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@peoplepc.com
wrote:
"Charles Riggs" <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in message
news:lrgtl01khf2qh5ctarlv211j9sfn2totl8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:43:21 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:07:54 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
I am a firm supporter in the practice of breast feeding. Why, you
know, I was breast fed myself, or so I've been told. I do hope my
mother, and I am sure she did, had the good sense not to practice
this
openly in public, just as most of us don't practice those things
normally done in a bathroom in our living rooms.
I am puzzled by how you're supporting breastfeeding by comparing it to
taking a crap.
I fully support both practices, but don't support talk of either at
the dinner table. That shouldn't be too complicated to understand.
I guess it is too complicated; what you're saying makes no sense to me.
Do you think mothers who are out-and-about should let their babies go
hungry instead of nursing them? You'd rather sit on a train with a
crying baby than with a nursing one, I take it. Or do you think mothers
of young children should just stay home so they don't offend your
sensibilities?
Not at all. I'd support a government proposal that would demand the
construction of private box cars for their travel when in any sort of
unfortunate condition. You know: pregnancy, menstruating, or caring
for a baby. Once they are free from these predicaments, I am most
happy to welcome them back into our polite company.
How about you join a lamasery, Charles? Wouldn't cost the taxpayers
anything, and would place you safely away from disturbing and arousing
sights and sounds. (Lacking a lamasery to cater to your Buddhist
inclinations, perhaps you could become a Trappist, or arrange for permanent
male-oriented retreat--if you can find one that will enable longterm
residence.) You were talking about moving to France, I believe. I would
advise against that. Those people are a bit too earthy for the likes of
your aesthetic predilections.
Being the purist I am, I think you may be offering me good advice. I'm
not too old, I think, to begin a new life as a Buddhist monk, or at
least a trainee for the station: in Ireland, in Japan, in the US,
wherever, one's location being something not held important to a
Buddhist.
|
When here is all there is, it's hard to be someplace else.
There's an active Buddhist community here in Portland (we're a
haven for "that sort of thing"). Also, in SW Washington is a
Vipassana Meditation Center. I'd like to do one of their programs
some day.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 2:07 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | There's an active Buddhist community here in Portland (we're a
haven for "that sort of thing").
|
Ah, Portland!
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 4:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Charles Riggs <chriggs@Èircom.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 12:14:43 -0400, que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara
Lorimer) wrote:
Charles Riggs wrote:
Not at all. I'd support a government proposal that would demand the
construction of private box cars for their travel when in any sort of
unfortunate condition. You know: pregnancy, menstruating, or caring
for a baby. Once they are free from these predicaments, I am most
happy to welcome them back into our polite company.
Ah. You were trolling. Thank you for the explanation. I will disregard
your posts.
If I start putting headers at the top of my posts labeling them as
serious, sarcastic, meant to be amusing, of a trolling nature, or
whatever other category I can think up, will you read them
selectively?
|
That would be very helpful. Thank you.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In article news:<b0132$415e7bbc$d47fd446$452@news.multikabel.nl>,
Tedfriet wrote:
| Quote: | The WNT is published in fascicles.
|
"Fascicles"? Fascinating.
I confess I'd never heard the word before, but my small knowledge
of Latin led me to guess (correctly, as it turns out) that the word
means "little bundle".
In the context of serial publication I would guess that a fascicle
was less than a volume, and probably published unbound (or in soft
covers) -- possibly with the intention that once sufficient
fascicles had been published they could be bound into a volume.
It does sound as though that's what's being discussed here but a
spot of confirmation wouldn't go amiss.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedfriet
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:31 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Daniel James wrote:
| Quote: | In article news:<b0132$415e7bbc$d47fd446$452@news.multikabel.nl>,
Tedfriet wrote:
The WNT is published in fascicles.
"Fascicles"? Fascinating.
I confess I'd never heard the word before, but my small knowledge
of Latin led me to guess (correctly, as it turns out) that the word
means "little bundle".
In the context of serial publication I would guess that a fascicle
was less than a volume, and probably published unbound (or in soft
covers) -- possibly with the intention that once sufficient
fascicles had been published they could be bound into a volume.
It does sound as though that's what's being discussed here but a
spot of confirmation wouldn't go amiss.
Cheers,
Daniel.
|
You're right. The WNT was first published in instalments (fascicles) and
later on in volumes. 29 of them plus one supplement.
--
Cheers
Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find out that money cannot be eaten.
Cree Indian prophecy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Barratt
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 6:09 am
Post subject: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for manua |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | There's an active Buddhist community here in Portland (we're a
haven for "that sort of thing").
|
My mind is boggling as to what else falls into the "that sort of
thing" category alongside Buddhism.
Suggestions?
--
Mark Barratt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:10 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for m |
|
|
In article <2sbilqF1jl33iU1@uni-berlin.de>,
mark.barratt@enternet.hu wrote...
| Quote: | don groves wrote:
There's an active Buddhist community here in Portland (we're a
haven for "that sort of thing").
My mind is boggling as to what else falls into the "that sort of
thing" category alongside Buddhism.
Suggestions?
|
Support for the gay and lesbian communities.
Support for a woman's right to choose abortion.
Support for a person's right to end his/her life with dignity.
Support for diverse political views.
Support for diverse religious views, including none.
Support for many environmental causes.
Suppot for the medical use of marijuana.
Support for the legalization of commercial hemp.
Support for our state's bottle bill in spite of massive industry
opposition.
Opposition to old growth logging.
Opposition to killing off the remaining salmon runs.
Opposition to the WalMartization of the region.
....
In short, contrary to many places, we celebrate the differences
in people equally with the similarities and we care more about
our environment and our local economy.
The reason "that sort of thing" was in quotes is that a many in
the US today, including our current administration, consider
these humanistic sorts of things abhorent.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Ward
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:07 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In alt.usage.english meirman <meirman@invalid.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Cheerios, one of my favorite breakfast cereals, was originally called
Cheerioats or Cheery-Oats (I've never seen it written.) I think it's
name was changed when too many people pronounced it wrong, iirc.
|
The General Mills site says:
1941. General Mills introduces Cheerioats as "The Breakfast Food You've
Always Wanted".
1945. Cheerioats name is changed to Cheerios, with the slogan: "Cheerios - the
first ready-to-eat oat cereal". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in