| Author |
Message |
R J Valentine
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:03:42 +0000 Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> wrote:
....
} My understanding is that "burqa" refers specifically to a garment which
} goes right from the top of the head to the ground, and has the mesh over
} the eyes. A head covering which is separate from the garment covering the
} rest of the body is not the same thing.
My impression at the time was that the garment was all one garment, but
with a slot for the eyes, rather than a screen covering them, which I
assure you I could have seen through. What it wasn't was a scarf that
wrapped around and could be brought up to cover the face below the eyes.
I don't know from burqas, but it seemed to me to be what Mr. Kirshenbaum
had been talking about.
} Regarding the eyes being the envy of a fashion model, I think this may be
} an illusion. As has already been mentioned there is a phenomenon whereby
} if a woman is modestly dressed, those parts which are exposed seem more
} attractive than they would if the woman was less modestly dressed.
I'm a sexagenarian, but I'm not that easily fooled. These were long, long
eyelashes all lined up like the Third Infantry at Arlington. I'll grant
you the point in general, because I've got the evidence of that teacher
who mentioned his thing for ankles, which baffled me at the time. I've
seen other eyes gracing similar garments, and this pair was exceptional.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@theWorld.com>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:10 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Salvatore Volatile <me@privacy.net> spake thusly:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
You have driven me to laughter.
|
Sorry to be dense, but could somebody explain this? Nazis?
--
Jerry Friedman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F. Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:18 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
Salvatore Volatile <me@privacy.net> spake thusly:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
You have driven me to laughter.
Sorry to be dense, but could somebody explain this? Nazis?
|
The Furor, Jerry.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:23 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
Salvatore Volatile <me@privacy.net> spake thusly:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
You have driven me to laughter.
Sorry to be dense, but could somebody explain this? Nazis?
|
Führer is German for "leader" but it also has the sense of "driver".
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:53 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
the Omrud filted:
| Quote: |
Führer is German for "leader" but it also has the sense of "driver".
|
More recent heads of state could be called "leader" in the sense of "clear piece
of tape at the beginning of a cassette that you can't record anything on"....r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
My experience is that people tend to remember the things you've said
that they disagree with far better than the things you've said that
they agree with. Pointing to something many people disapprove of and
suggesting a solution they disapprove of even more is certainly not
a sure way to political success. Unfortunately, most big political
issues tend to fall into the category "things people disapprove of,
but they disapprove of any workable solution even more".
"People" and "they" meaning the same group? I would think that the
people who "disapprove of any workable solution" are not fully the
same people who disapproved of that which was at issue.
Yes, "people" and "they" were meant to refer to the same group.
To put it at its most basic, it's often the case that people will rant
and rave about how the government or council should be doing all
sorts of things (which cost money) while simultaneously believing that
taxes
are far too high. It's also related to the "nimby" issue: people will
happily tell you that more houses or more prisons etc should be built
but
"not in my back yard". People will agree that we should be doing more
to protect the environment, while opposing any measures to reduce car
usage, airplane usage etc.
|
What people will say is often whatever the listener wants to hear. This
helps avoid arguments. How people really feel could well be another
matter.
| Quote: |
That is, more and different people may tend to vote on solutions.
That group will include people who are not only against the proposed
solution, but who didn't see a problem in the first place.
Not to mention all those who didn't vote but still moan about what
results from the consequences of the votes of those who did vote.
|
That supposition is often made, but I haven't seen, first-hand, a lot of
evidence that non-voters complain about the outcome.[1] Except, that is,
for the people who say there was no "real choice" between candidates.
And the question there is why didn't they work to get someone else on
the ballot. (Sometimes it takes repeat tries, but at least the person is
getting involved in the process.)
[1] Who's to know they didn't vote, even if they say they didn't? And
v-v: Who to know that someone *did* vote, just because they say so? Are
specific records checked? And should they be checked? (These questions
probably wouldn't come up in a small town or village. A person's
presence or absence at the polls could be noticed.) Also, getting back
to the ones who do vote, but not the way they said they would: except
for unanimous votes, there's no telling who voted which way, is there?
But all this is really Off Topic. I think I'll shut up now. The last
word is yours (if you want).
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:12 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
| Quote: | Maria Conlon wrote:
Matthew Huntbach wrote, in part:
There does seem to be a tendency recently for "burqa" to be used
more generally to mean any clothing which covers the whole arms,
legs and hair, but this is incorrect. There are other words used to
describe this sort of clothing, which in burqa-wearing circles
would be considered immodest.
Regarding the last sentence there: Wouldn't "that" (not preceded by
a comma) be better than "which"? As it is, the sentence seems to
imply that those "other words" would be considered immodest. (Note
that "this" would have to be changed to "the," also.)
The which->that change doesn't work with me - it's still just as
ambiguous. To me, the meaning where it's the words rather than the
clothing that is immodest only becomes the dominant one when the ",
which ... immodest" is switched to come straight after "words", and
before "used to ...".
|
I think there's a UK-US difference in which/that usage. Or a
Huntbach/Conlon difference.
The matter may not be settled in our lifetime[s].
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Huntbach
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Maria Conlon wrote:
| Quote: | Matthew Huntbach wrote:
Yes, "people" and "they" were meant to refer to the same group.
To put it at its most basic, it's often the case that people will rant
and rave about how the government or council should be doing all
sorts of things (which cost money) while simultaneously believing that
taxes are far too high. It's also related to the "nimby" issue: people will
happily tell you that more houses or more prisons etc should be built but
"not in my back yard". People will agree that we should be doing more
to protect the environment, while opposing any measures to reduce car
usage, airplane usage etc.
What people will say is often whatever the listener wants to hear. This
helps avoid arguments. How people really feel could well be another matter.
|
I'm thinking more of people who've started arguments with me.
Remember I'm the dirty rotten politician who's on their doorstep
asking for their vote. Unfortunately, I'm not the sort of person who'll
give a dishonest answer, so if someone rants and raves "Why can't we
have X, Y and Z?" I'll tend to say "Do you realise how much having X, Y and
Z would put on your council tax?". They will then mention some trivial
thing that could be cut (probably councillors' allowances) and assume
this cut of thousands would balance the hole of several millions their
wants would put into the budget.
The reality is most people don't think deeply about political issue,
don't realise that practical politics is largeky about finding
compromises, and thus are perfectly capable of holding mutually
contradictory views and denouncing all politicians because they are
not able to deliver mutually contradictory outcomes.
| Quote: | That is, more and different people may tend to vote on solutions.
That group will include people who are not only against the proposed
solution, but who didn't see a problem in the first place.
Not to mention all those who didn't vote but still moan about what
results from the consequences of the votes of those who did vote.
That supposition is often made, but I haven't seen, first-hand, a lot of
evidence that non-voters complain about the outcome.[1] Except, that is, for
the people who say there was no "real choice" between candidates. And the
question there is why didn't they work to get someone else on the ballot.
(Sometimes it takes repeat tries, but at least the person is getting
involved in the process.)
[1] Who's to know they didn't vote, even if they say they didn't? And v-v:
Who to know that someone *did* vote, just because they say so? Are specific
records checked? And should they be checked?
|
In the UK, the marked register is public - you can find out *who* voted,
but not how they voted. Sometimes the biggest complainers are those who
proudly declaim "I never vote".
Trivial case - where I live (and represent as a councillor) there's a
railway station, very convenient for travel into central London, people
used to drive from miles round to park in the streets nearby and carry
on their journey by train. People living in the area were finding it hard
to get parking outside their own houses - so they petitioned for a
Controlled Parking Zone, where parking was only allowed for those who had
a permit and those were sold to locals. A questionnaire was circulated
to every house explaining it and inviting people to reply yes/no whether
they wanted it. The majority of the responses were "yes". But when it
was introduced there were huge numbers of angry people complaining about
having to pay to park outside their own house. They assumed it was some
money-making trick introduced by the council (it wasn't - the fee was
only enough to pay the salaries of the traffic wardens to police it).
Nearly all of them admitted, when asked, that they hadn't bothered to
return the questionnaire reply when it was circulated.
Matthew Huntbach |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:11 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
Laura F. Spira wrote:
| Quote: | jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
the Omrud wrote:
Salvatore Volatile <me@privacy.net> spake thusly:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
You have driven me to laughter.
Sorry to be dense, but could somebody explain this? Nazis?
The Furor, Jerry.
|
Oh, God.
--
Jerry Friedman is snickering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:34 am
Post subject: Re: Troublesome t-shirts redux |
|
|
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | Laura F. Spira wrote:
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
the Omrud wrote:
Salvatore Volatile <me@privacy.net> spake thusly:
Tony Cooper wrote:
Abercrombie & Fitch is delighted with the furor.
I invoke Godwin's Law.
You have driven me to laughter.
Sorry to be dense, but could somebody explain this? Nazis?
The Furor, Jerry.
Oh, God.
|
Wonder if George ever said "Ira furor brevis est".
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in