| Author |
Message |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:42:56 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:07:42 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
In SAfE "cherry" is part of the male pudendum.
Yeah? Which part?
The only one that looks like a cherry - the glans.
Thanks. I trust CypherCypher's ego will now -- having been popped --
return to whatever its normal size is.
(It thought you were refusing to answer my question because it had a
fight with you over the weekend.)
|
Perhaps one can be charitable and say he made a mistaken assumption because of
a time zone difference. The question and the allegation that I was refusing to
answer it arrived on my computer in the same mail packet.
It's 7:15 am here, while he's probably having afternoon tea, and expected me
to stay awake all night to answer his question.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:44:46 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:43:36 -0800, Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Which part? Tell us!
Already answered twice... but guess if you haven't already seen the answers.
Since you posted all three replies at the same moment (2:18 PM EST), how
could he have seen your answers by the time he asked?
|
Same way as Cybercypher expected me to answer his question before I'd seen it.
But I thought he might have seen my answers to the others by the time he saw
my answer to his.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
"Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:2v9taeF2h2b8gU3@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: | Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[snip MWCD11-says-this/MWCD11-says-that]
Didn't we already determine MWCD11 was invalid [or, at least, too
overly
eager to follow bad usage even before such usage is established] back
when someone discovered it legitimized "nucular"?
Dictionaries are not in the "legitimizing" business.
They report facts.
If more people say "nucular" than noo-clee-ar, the dictionary had better
recognize that fact.
But if it recognizes it prematurely [before such a usage has become
accepted/commonly used/whatever], it's no better than if it stays
perpetually behind the times.
|
At one point, based upon the comments which the editors of MWCD11 made in
the introductory pages to their dictionary, I was under the impression that
those editors considered the pronunciations marked with an obelus (for which
they use the division sign, <÷>) to be standard, if controversial. However,
as a result of the controversy concerning the /'n(j)ukj@l@r/ pronunciation,
which is one of those marked with an obelus in MWCD11--especially given the
contents of a letter which the editors send out to those inquiring about the
matter--I've come to the conclusion that the most one can say is that (1)
the editors believe educated people use these pronunciations and (2) they
remain controversial pronunciations. The conclusion that the editors of
MWCD11 have "legitimized" the /'n(j)ukj@l@r/ pronunciation does not appear
to be justified.
See the Google Groups archived version of part of a discussion which took
place in alt.usage.english on the subject of pronunciations preceded by an
obelus in MWCD11, in which is mentioned the letter from the editors, and a
Merriam-Webster FAQ entry on the subject:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_umsgid=415DBEE3.E2231540@midway.uchicago.edu&lr=&hl=en
or
http://tinyurl.com/64hq5
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
"Jordan Abel" <jmabel@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:2v9taeF2h2b8gU3@uni-berlin.de...
| Quote: | Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Jordan Abel wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[snip MWCD11-says-this/MWCD11-says-that]
Didn't we already determine MWCD11 was invalid [or, at least, too
overly
eager to follow bad usage even before such usage is established] back
when someone discovered it legitimized "nucular"?
Dictionaries are not in the "legitimizing" business.
They report facts.
If more people say "nucular" than noo-clee-ar, the dictionary had better
recognize that fact.
But if it recognizes it prematurely [before such a usage has become
accepted/commonly used/whatever], it's no better than if it stays
perpetually behind the times.
|
At one point, based upon the comments which the editors of MWCD11 made in
the introductory pages to their dictionary, I was under the impression that
those editors considered the pronunciations marked with an obelus (for which
they use the division sign, <÷>) to be standard, if controversial. However,
as a result of the controversy concerning the /'n(j)ukj@l@r/ pronunciation,
which is one of those marked with an obelus in MWCD11--especially given the
contents of a letter which the editors send out to those inquiring about the
matter--I've come to the conclusion that the most one can say is that (1)
the editors believe educated people use these pronunciations and (2) they
remain controversial pronunciations. The conclusion that the editors of
MWCD11 have "legitimized" the /'n(j)ukj@l@r/ pronunciation does not appear
to be justified.
See the Google Groups archived version of part of a discussion which took
place in alt.usage.english on the subject of pronunciations preceded by an
obelus in MWCD11, in which is mentioned the letter from the editors, and a
Merriam-Webster FAQ entry on the subject:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_umsgid=415DBEE3.E2231540@midway.uchicago.edu&lr=&hl=en
or
http://tinyurl.com/64hq5
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote on 09 Nov 2004:
| Quote: | On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:44:46 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:43:36 -0800, Jacques Guy
jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Which part? Tell us!
Already answered twice... but guess if you haven't already seen
the answers.
Since you posted all three replies at the same moment (2:18 PM
EST), how could he have seen your answers by the time he asked?
Same way as Cybercypher expected me to answer his question before
I'd seen it.
|
I think I remember now that you have an expensive dial-up Internet
service and not 24/7 broadband.
I didn't ask you any question, Steve. I posted an answer that read as
if it were a guess. I knew the answer to Peter's question, though. I
just can't understand why Peter T. Daniels didn't. Maybe he was playing
functional illiterate by claiming ignorance.
| Quote: | But I thought he might have seen my answers to the others by the
time he saw my answer to his.
|
No, I didn't see your affirmation until I'd already told Peter to
consider my "guess" a datum, as he insisted he wanted.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels kirjoitti:
| Quote: | Jordan Abel wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
No, since I've seen lots and lots of porn boxes and spam ads urging me
to watch "barely legal" "backdoor virgins" lose their "anal cherry."
That it must be specified acts as evidence _against_ it being the
default case, not _for_.
No one suggested it was the default case. The self-appointed expert
claimed:
|
Hi, Petey! What's with that "self-appointed" shit? Aren't *you* a
self-appointed expert on writing systems (together with our mutual
buddy, Bill Bright)? And a self-appointed expert on ASSyrian etymology?
Not to mention sci.lang's self-appointed Snippy Little Bitch?
| Quote: | And, to be specific, "cherry" refers to a female's vaginal virginity
as well as to a male's anal virginity (in gay lingo).
I.e., he excluded female anal virginity, and he was simply wrong.
|
When regular (i.e., other than you) people talk about virginity, they
mean the *female* and the condition of her *vaginal* channel of lust;
thus it becomes the default. Other subtypes of virginity, such as oral,
aural and your preferred one, anal, exist but are of relatively little
significance in the life of regular (i.e., other than you) folks.
"Excluding" *female* anal virginity from my casual mention above is not
wrong or indicative of overt or covert misogyny. When regular (i.e.,
other than you) men think of women sexually, they think of pussy or
mouth, not of anus.
I merely tried to broaden the knowledge of our sheltered friends by
alerting them to the gay caballeros' usage of "cherry" for an unpierced
poop chute.
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Quasi-dogmatic Philologist
and
President, The László Löwenstein Fan Club |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Murray Arnow kirjoitti:
| Quote: | [Trimmed to AUE]
Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
Jacques Guy kirjoitti:
Steve Hayes wrote:
I believe in AmE "cherry" is part of the female pudendum.
It means virginity, that's all.
[...]
And, to be specific, "cherry" refers to a female's vaginal virginity
as well as to a male's anal virginity (in gay lingo).
In my youth, the phrase "bust her cherry" meant rupturing the hymen.
|
It still does, as does "pop her cherry" (which is also the title of a
fictitious book by Buster Hyman).
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Philologist
AUEer Emeritus & Eremitus
Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Reinhold (Rey) Aman wrote:
| Quote: | "Excluding" *female* anal virginity from my casual mention above is not
wrong or indicative of overt or covert misogyny. When regular (i.e.,
other than you) men think of women sexually, they think of pussy or
mouth, not of anus.
|
Despite your self-vaunted expertise in such matters, it's obvious that
you haven't observed the array of pornography offered up for your, or
their, delectation.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:44:46 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:43:36 -0800, Jacques Guy <jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Which part? Tell us!
Already answered twice... but guess if you haven't already seen the answers.
Since you posted all three replies at the same moment (2:18 PM EST), how
could he have seen your answers by the time he asked?
Same way as Cybercypher expected me to answer his question before I'd seen it.
But I thought he might have seen my answers to the others by the time he saw
my answer to his.
|
But not before he posted his question! (Not that one can tell when
Jacques is posting; there's some weird interaction among his systems
that throws his time zone off. Someone recently posted yet another set
of suggestions for fixing it -- maybe they worked.)
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
CyberCypher wrote:
| Quote: |
Steve Hayes wrote on 09 Nov 2004:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:44:46 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:43:36 -0800, Jacques Guy
jguy@alphalink.com.au> wrote:
Which part? Tell us!
Already answered twice... but guess if you haven't already seen
the answers.
Since you posted all three replies at the same moment (2:18 PM
EST), how could he have seen your answers by the time he asked?
Same way as Cybercypher expected me to answer his question before
I'd seen it.
I think I remember now that you have an expensive dial-up Internet
service and not 24/7 broadband.
|
Curious -- I have an inexpensive dial-up service, about 1/3 the cost of
the various 24/7 services constantly being pressed on me.
| Quote: | I didn't ask you any question, Steve. I posted an answer that read as
if it were a guess. I knew the answer to Peter's question, though. I
just can't understand why Peter T. Daniels didn't.
|
Because Steve said it was a South Africanism. Indeed, I haven't
encountered it before, in the US or in UK pornography.
| Quote: | Maybe he was playing
functional illiterate by claiming ignorance.
But I thought he might have seen my answers to the others by the
time he saw my answer to his.
No, I didn't see your affirmation until I'd already told Peter to
consider my "guess" a datum, as he insisted he wanted.
|
The "he" there is Jacques, not you. More ego-popping needed?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Paul J Kriha wrote:
| Quote: |
CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959BE2C5482A4cctxt2002@130.133.1.4...
Peter T. Daniels wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
CyberCypher wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
Steve Hayes wrote:
In SAfE "cherry" is part of the male pudendum.
Yeah? Which part?
I'd bet that it refers to that cute little bald-headed mouse I used
hear about in dirty junior high school jokes. IOW, the glans penis.
I'd prefer a datum to a guess.
Consider it a datum, Peter.
It has been already suggested here that "cherry" has one important
attribute in common with "blood" and that is being of "red colour".
On the European Continent that is usually regarded as the main
reason for this term "cherry".
|
It has already been enquired what the popping of a cherry, literally,
would be.
| Quote: | I am beginning to suspect that most of the people in this thread
have never been with a virgin. 
|
One refrains from comment.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
CyberCypher wrote:
| Quote: |
Paul J Kriha wrote on 09 Nov 2004:
CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959BE2C5482A4cctxt2002@130.133.1.4...
Peter T. Daniels wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
CyberCypher wrote:
Peter T. Daniels wrote on 08 Nov 2004:
Steve Hayes wrote:
In SAfE "cherry" is part of the male pudendum.
Yeah? Which part?
I'd bet that it refers to that cute little bald-headed mouse I
used hear about in dirty junior high school jokes. IOW, the
glans penis.
I'd prefer a datum to a guess.
Consider it a datum, Peter.
It has been already suggested here that "cherry" has one important
attribute in common with "blood" and that is being of "red
colour". On the European Continent that is usually regarded as the
main reason for this term "cherry".
Same is true in the USA --- or at least it was when I was a boy
there. Nobody believed that the hymen resembled a cherry.
I am beginning to suspect that most of the people in this thread
have never been with a virgin. :-)
That's probably true. They're hard to find. I have been with two, my
first wife and a former Japanese girlfriend. That means that the
percentage of virgins I've been with is in single digits, and I
haven't been with all that many women, especially compared with an
old grad school classmate who had reached the 1000 mark before his
21st birthday.
|
Boy, are you gullible. Let's say (for ease of calculation) that he
started at 11. That's two different girls every week for ten years.
| Quote: | I have no idea how many virgins he'd been with by
then, but 30 years ago there were even fewer than there are today.
|
Because of population growth, you mean?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | At one point, based upon the comments which the editors of MWCD11 made in
the introductory pages to their dictionary, I was under the impression that
those editors considered the pronunciations marked with an obelus (for which
they use the division sign, <÷>)
|
Since they use a division sign, why are you calling it an obelus (dagger
Ŭ)? Traditionally, though not in this dictionary, a dagger markes
obsolete words or senses.
"Nucular" is in fact the example given for the use of the division sign.
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@att.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels wrote on 09 Nov 2004:
| Quote: | CyberCypher wrote:
[...]
No, I didn't see your affirmation until I'd already told Peter to
consider my "guess" a datum, as he insisted he wanted.
The "he" there is Jacques, not you. More ego-popping needed?
|
Oh. Perfectly obvious. Yes, perfectly obvious. Why didn't I see it?
Maybe because Jacques's name isn't anywhere to be found in the post.
But, no, Peter, you didn't pop my ego. It doesn't need popping, and if
it did, you wouldn't be the one to pop it. Christ, you are an
unpleasant sonofabitch, aren't you.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Cherry picking (Was: Re: flaunt/flout redux) |
|
|
Peter T. Daniels filted:
| Quote: |
Paul J Kriha wrote:
I am beginning to suspect that most of the people in this thread
have never been with a virgin. :-)
One refrains from comment.
|
They're a sort of fabulous monster, right?...like a unicorn?...leastwise,
they're rare and seldom seen these days, and it's not hard to imagine going
one's whole life without ever running across one....
Refrains?...r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in