Home > Archive > Cobol > August 2005 > OT: History of manners WAS Re: VSAM doubt
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: History of manners WAS Re: VSAM doubt
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-20, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61r7$itp$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3mn23tF17obvsU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Even when it goes to a married woman or a man?
>
ESPECIALLY when it goes to a married woman or a man...
(In both those cases it is NOT going (to) a miss...)
While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
continuing as to what 'maketh' the Women...
Hard cash and precious stones have been successful in some cases, but no
universal formula seems to work...
Hitting them on the head with a club and dragging them off by the hair was
effective for thousands of years; then some of the girls who weren't getting
clubbed decided to get together and protest. (It started as a small group,
so they called it a 'club' because that's what they were missing....) They
decided that the existing procedure, although successful and simple,
favoured the males because the prettier girls got consistently clubbed every
Saturday night, and the plainer ones didn't.
If each man could only have ONE partner (for life) there'd be more chance of
the less desirable girls getting into the gene pool also (the centerfold
chicks would all soon be 'allocated'...), but how to 'sell' this idea to a
population of men who were used to just clubbing a mate whenever they felt
the urge?
It had to have authority so it was presented as the will of God. The priests
wanted a cut for their co-operation, so a more elaborate, failure prone
ritual, that could involve revenue generation for the Church, had to be
implemented. Before we knew it people were writing books on 'etiquette', and
getting 'married' with great pomp and circumstance. 'Politeness' and
'manners' were the 'in' thing; blokes who didn't go for it, didn't get to do
any clubbing.... This was confusing for the males, who realised they'd been
had, but, as it was Divine Requirement, couldn't do anything about it. The
Church became the richest organization in the history of the world, the
priests went clubbing whenever they wanted to, the girls all had a great
time, and the new etiquette involved them receiving items of value, dressing
up in white and getting made a big fuss of. So the female descendants of the
original club took control of everything, and the world has been going to
Hell in a hand cart ever since...
Pete.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-20, 6:55 pm |
| In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61r7$itp$1@panix5.panix.com...
>ESPECIALLY when it goes to a married woman or a man...
>(In both those cases it is NOT going (to) a miss...)
Glad to have that one cleared up, thanks.
>
>While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
>continuing as to what 'maketh' the Women...
Gah... I've known some Very Polite People who were otherwise 'empty suits'
and some folks of rather... rough-hewn demeanor with whom I would march
into Hell.
>
>Hard cash and precious stones have been successful in some cases, but no
>universal formula seems to work...
>
>Hitting them on the head with a club and dragging them off by the hair was
>effective for thousands of years; then some of the girls who weren't getting
>clubbed decided to get together and protest.
Ummmmm... my studies into anthropology are limited, Mr Dashwood, but I
*have* run across research done into several societies which appear to
have survived with a goodly amount of continuity attributable to the late
Neolithic period... the Inuit, the Yanomamo, the Ta ay and similar
folks. I believe that the club-whacking-hair-dragging stereotype
developed in the United States some time in the 1950s; I believe that it
is similar to Hobbes' 'state of nature' in that neither can be found in
any human society.
(damnation... am I taking humorous things seriously again?)
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-20, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de7k0e$g0$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Glad to have that one cleared up, thanks.
>
>
> Gah... I've known some Very Polite People who were otherwise 'empty suits'
> and some folks of rather... rough-hewn demeanor with whom I would march
> into Hell.
>
>
> Ummmmm... my studies into anthropology are limited, Mr Dashwood, but I
> *have* run across research done into several societies which appear to
> have survived with a goodly amount of continuity attributable to the late
> Neolithic period... the Inuit, the Yanomamo, the Taay and similar
> folks. I believe that the club-whacking-hair-dragging stereotype
> developed in the United States some time in the 1950s; I believe that it
> is similar to Hobbes' 'state of nature' in that neither can be found in
> any human society.
>
> (damnation... am I taking humorous things seriously again?)
>
Perish the thought...:-)
Pete.
>
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-20, 9:55 pm |
| In article <3mpqdaF17iqlsU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de7k0e$g0$1@panix5.panix.com...
[snip]
>Perish the thought...:-)
Some might rather wish the perishing upon the action, aye.
DD
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
> continuing as to what 'maketh' the Women...
Well, "making" the woman is much like making the bed - it'll last about
14-18 hours before getting messed up and having to be done again...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-21, 9:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:5d0fa$4308f6bb$45491c57$29304@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Well, "making" the woman is much like making the bed - it'll last about
> 14-18 hours before getting messed up and having to be done again...
>
Hahaha! Ever considered a hammock, Daniel? :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:5d0fa$4308f6bb$45491c57$29304@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>
>
> Hahaha! Ever considered a hammock, Daniel? :-)
I'll probably need one if she saw that post... ;)
I did sleep in a hammock one night, when I was much younger and staying
with my grandparents over the summer. They asked me "are you sure"
about 3 or 4 times, and asked if I was sure I wouldn't be cold. (Highs
were in the mid-nineties (F), so I thought they were crazy.) Turns out,
I was the crazy one - I hadn't counted on the dew. When I woke up the
next morning, the hammock (which was a cloth one, that could be flipped
up to make sort of a cocoon) and I were both covered in dew, and it was
in the lower seventies. Brrrrrr!
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-08-25, 3:55 am |
| In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61r7$itp$1@panix5.panix.com...
> ESPECIALLY when it goes to a married woman or a man...
> (In both those cases it is NOT going (to) a miss...)
>
> While it may be true that "Manners maketh the Man", research is still
> continuing as to what 'maketh' the Women...
>
> Hard cash and precious stones have been successful in some cases, but no
> universal formula seems to work...
>
> Hitting them on the head with a club and dragging them off by the hair was
> effective for thousands of years; then some of the girls who weren't getting
> clubbed decided to get together and protest. (It started as a small group,
> so they called it a 'club' because that's what they were missing....) They
> decided that the existing procedure, although successful and simple,
> favoured the males because the prettier girls got consistently clubbed every
> Saturday night, and the plainer ones didn't.
>
> If each man could only have ONE partner (for life) there'd be more chance of
> the less desirable girls getting into the gene pool also (the centerfold
> chicks would all soon be 'allocated'...), but how to 'sell' this idea to a
> population of men who were used to just clubbing a mate whenever they felt
> the urge?
>
> It had to have authority so it was presented as the will of God. The priests
> wanted a cut for their co-operation, so a more elaborate, failure prone
> ritual, that could involve revenue generation for the Church, had to be
> implemented. Before we knew it people were writing books on 'etiquette', and
> getting 'married' with great pomp and circumstance. 'Politeness' and
> 'manners' were the 'in' thing; blokes who didn't go for it, didn't get to do
> any clubbing.... This was confusing for the males, who realised they'd been
> had, but, as it was Divine Requirement, couldn't do anything about it. The
> Church became the richest organization in the history of the world, the
> priests went clubbing whenever they wanted to, the girls all had a great
> time, and the new etiquette involved them receiving items of value, dressing
> up in white and getting made a big fuss of. So the female descendants of the
> original club took control of everything, and the world has been going to
> Hell in a hand cart ever since...
>
> Pete.
ROFL!
That reminds me of one of the collected sayings of our greatest icon of
punditry here in the US:
"Feminism was established to enable unattractive women easy access to
the mainstream of dating."
Or something like that.
ROFLMAO!
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-25, 7:56 am |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-E8686B.23594024082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
[snip]
[color=darkred]
>That reminds me of one of the collected sayings of our greatest icon of
>punditry here in the US:
>
> "Feminism was established to enable unattractive women easy access to
>the mainstream of dating."
>
>Or something like that.
Hmmmmmm... is that like 'Talk Radio was established to give men a forum to
whine about the priveleges they saw themselves losing in an increasingly
egalitarian society'?
DD
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-25, 6:55 pm |
|
Thanks Joe,
glad you enjoyed... :-)
Pete.
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-E8686B.23594024082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>
> In article <3movi0F16o6hpU1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> ROFL!
>
> That reminds me of one of the collected sayings of our greatest icon of
> punditry here in the US:
>
> "Feminism was established to enable unattractive women easy access to
> the mainstream of dating."
>
> Or something like that.
>
> ROFLMAO!
>
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-25, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dek9sp$gm9$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article
> <joe_zitzelberger-E8686B.23594024082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Hmmmmmm... is that like 'Talk Radio was established to give men a forum to
> whine about the priveleges they saw themselves losing in an increasingly
> egalitarian society'?
>
It is my belief that talk radio was established so that people who never had
an original idea in their lives, could express their agreement (or
disagreement) with someone else's thought, deluding themselves that this is
profound and important political commentary and debate, when really it is
just background noise that helps elderly folk with a transistor radio under
their pillow, go to sleep...
Pete.
| |
| Ian Dalziel 2005-08-25, 6:55 pm |
| On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:37:37 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dek9sp$gm9$1@panix5.panix.com...
>It is my belief that talk radio was established so that people who never had
>an original idea in their lives, could express their agreement (or
>disagreement) with someone else's thought, deluding themselves that this is
>profound and important political commentary and debate, when really it is
>just background noise that helps elderly folk with a transistor radio under
>their pillow, go to sleep...
>
I agree.
--
Ian
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-25, 6:55 pm |
| In article <3n5vt7F13rjU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dek9sp$gm9$1@panix5.panix.com...
>It is my belief that talk radio was established so that people who never had
>an original idea in their lives, could express their agreement (or
>disagreement) with someone else's thought, deluding themselves that this is
>profound and important political commentary and debate, when really it is
>just background noise that helps elderly folk with a transistor radio under
>their pillow, go to sleep...
I see... they want to be individuals, just like everybody else!
DD
| |
|
| Ian Dalziel wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 01:37:37 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I agree.
And I don't - ain't Usenet great? :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-25, 6:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3b318$430e3f04$45491c57$18673@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Ian Dalziel wrote:
>
> And I don't - ain't Usenet great? :)
>
Leaving aside the greatness of Usenet (which I'm sure we agree on :-)) are
you seriously saying you find talk radio useful for something other than
helping the Grandparents get to sleep? :-)
C'mon Dan, s'plain me... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Ian Dalziel 2005-08-25, 9:55 pm |
| On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:35:16 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:3b318$430e3f04$45491c57$18673@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>Leaving aside the greatness of Usenet (which I'm sure we agree on :-)) are
>you seriously saying you find talk radio useful for something other than
>helping the Grandparents get to sleep? :-)
>
>C'mon Dan, s'plain me... :-)
>
I assume he was expressing his disagreement with someone else's
thought, deluding himself that this was profound and important
political commentary and debate.
--
Ian
| |
|
| Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:3b318$430e3f04$45491c57$18673@KNOLO
GY.NET...
>
>
> Leaving aside the greatness of Usenet (which I'm sure we agree on :-)) are
> you seriously saying you find talk radio useful for something other than
> helping the Grandparents get to sleep? :-)
Oh yeah. :) There's lots of good stuff over here in the States. I'll
admit to not being familiar with the non-music radio offerings in NZ.
We've got sports stations, both local and national, with commentators,
guest athletes, and callers. Those can be pretty interesting,
especially when your favorite sport's busy season is (college football
bowl season, NFL playoffs, NBA playoffs, etc.).
We've got political shows, of course - from Rush Limbaugh on the right
to Al Franken on the left. Politics doesn't rev everyone's engine the
same way, and granted, very few things are actually *changed* due to
discussions on these shows (although they have gotten some results over
the last few years, mostly from attracting publicity for stories that
were unknown or would have otherwise been buried). (Our debates here
don't change things either, but no one says they're only good for
putting granny to sleep... ;> )
We've got consumer-oriented shows. Two of the most popular are hosted
by Clark Howard and Dave Ramsey, respectively. Clark focuses on being
savvy in the marketplace, avoiding scams, that sort of thing. Dave is a
financial adviser who advocates living with less (ideally *no*) debt,
and shares different ways to accomplish that. Both take calls and give
advice on a whole range of issues.
There are also entertainment shows - these range from nice
safe-for-the-whole-family humor from Rick & Bubba, to
even-too-obscene-for-e-channel Howard Stern. They've each got their
followings, and don't seem to be hurting for listeners.
Finally, there are niche shows for various topics, put on by our local
talk stations. Computers, cars, legal advice, local politics - you name
it, it's probably there somewhere.
> C'mon Dan, s'plain me... :-)
Hope that helped. :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
|
| Ian Dalziel wrote:
> I assume he was expressing his disagreement with someone else's
> thought, deluding himself that this was profound and important
> political commentary and debate.
Sounds like you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Or are you
just comparing, say, Sean Hannity's ratings to Randi Rhodes' ratings? :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-25, 9:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:79b01$430e6780$45491c57$18343@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Oh yeah. :) There's lots of good stuff over here in the States. I'll
> admit to not being familiar with the non-music radio offerings in NZ.
>
> We've got sports stations, both local and national, with commentators,
> guest athletes, and callers. Those can be pretty interesting, especially
> when your favorite sport's busy season is (college football bowl season,
> NFL playoffs, NBA playoffs, etc.).
>
> We've got political shows, of course - from Rush Limbaugh on the right to
> Al Franken on the left. Politics doesn't rev everyone's engine the same
> way, and granted, very few things are actually *changed* due to
> discussions on these shows (although they have gotten some results over
> the last few years, mostly from attracting publicity for stories that were
> unknown or would have otherwise been buried). (Our debates here don't
> change things either, but no one says they're only good for putting granny
> to sleep... ;> )
>
> We've got consumer-oriented shows. Two of the most popular are hosted by
> Clark Howard and Dave Ramsey, respectively. Clark focuses on being savvy
> in the marketplace, avoiding scams, that sort of thing. Dave is a
> financial adviser who advocates living with less (ideally *no*) debt, and
> shares different ways to accomplish that. Both take calls and give advice
> on a whole range of issues.
>
> There are also entertainment shows - these range from nice
> safe-for-the-whole-family humor from Rick & Bubba, to
> even-too-obscene-for-e-channel Howard Stern. They've each got their
> followings, and don't seem to be hurting for listeners.
>
> Finally, there are niche shows for various topics, put on by our local
> talk stations. Computers, cars, legal advice, local politics - you name
> it, it's probably there somewhere.
>
>
> Hope that helped. :)
>
Well, it certainly did and thanks for your time.
You obviously have a much greater richness in your radio bandwith than we do
here. (Mind you Kiwis tend to be outdoors a lot and everyone is into taking
their music with them now, on iPods and similar. I honestly can't remember
the last time I listened to a radio that wasn't in a car, and then it is
quickly replaced by a CD, iPod, or tape...)
I makes me ponder this: If there was a better selection of non-music radio,
would people listen to it?...or, is there NOT a better selection because
no-one listens to it anyway? :-) (Maybe there's a market here I should be
exploring... :-))
Food for thought...
Pete.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-25, 9:55 pm |
|
"Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:s0nsg1lsjenn5t25b4ut64qbj8k28q9v60@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:35:16 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> I assume he was expressing his disagreement with someone else's
> thought, deluding himself that this was profound and important
> political commentary and debate.
> --
>
ROFL! Nice one Ian.... :-)
Pete.
| |
|
| "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3b318$430e3f04$45491c57$18673@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Ian Dalziel wrote:
>
> And I don't - ain't Usenet great? :)
One of the greatest radio shows in the world is the Shipping Forecast. It
has a surprisingly large audience - no indication on whether you have to be
awake to be counted or not. It used to work wonders for me.
The band Blur on their album featured the following Shipping forecast
inspired lyric
On the Tyne, Forth and Cromarty There's a low in the high Forties
Even the band Radiohead feature inspired by Shipping Forecast lyrics.
Lundy, Fastnet, Irish Sea I've got a message I can't read
The SF is a part of popular culture
JCE
| |
| Lawrence Greenwald 2005-08-26, 3:55 am |
| Can we lay this topic to rest?
The question was answered, but the whole thread of this got skewed
because the poor person said "doubt", when the/she meant "question".
--LG
| |
|
| "Lawrence Greenwald" <lgreenwa@cts.com> wrote in message
news:lgreenwa-A30CB3.22583725082005@chiapp18.algx.net...
> Can we lay this topic to rest?
>
> The question was answered, but the whole thread of this got skewed
> because the poor person said "doubt", when the/she meant "question".
>
> --LG
Perhaps it escaped your notice but the subject of this thread is "history of
manners". The topic will be laid to rest when the participants feel that
they have nothing more to contribute or Godwin's law is fulfilled ...what
are you, a usenet nazi ? ;-)
JCE
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-08-26, 7:55 am |
| In article <3n6vd9F6801U1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:3b318$430e3f04$45491c57$18673@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Leaving aside the greatness of Usenet (which I'm sure we agree on :-)) are
> you seriously saying you find talk radio useful for something other than
> helping the Grandparents get to sleep? :-)
>
> C'mon Dan, s'plain me... :-)
>
> Pete.
It is very useful for keeping the 'real' media honest. Some quick
examples from the top of my head:
- When the Boston Globe sending star reporter Michael Kranish to do
the hard-hitting coverage of the John Kerry campaign -- various talk
radio outlets revealed that Kranish was also on the Kerry campaign
payroll...oops.
- When Newsw shelved stories relating to the obstruction of the
investigation of Paula Jones sexual harassment charges by President
Clinton -- a blogger and talk radioist were responsible for actually
breaking the story of presidential purjury and coverup.
- When Mary Mapes and Dan Rather used obvious forgeries of documents
to try and prove that President Bush was derelict in his performance of
duty as a young pilot -- talk radio was the only media arm willing to
discuss it. After ws of talk radio only coverage, the 'mainstream'
media grudgingly picked up the story that these two 40-year each veteran
reporters cannot tell the difference between a page from a manual
typewriter and a MicroSoft Word memo-wizard from a laser printer.
What is so terrible about having other voices? The traditional media is
as monolithic in its view as you suggest talk radio is. Why not throw
all the ideas on the public table and let the truth shake itself out?
One obvious benefit is that huge, world changing lies, ala Walter
Cronkite's "The war in Vietnam is now unwinnable" cannot be passed off
without review as they were 35 years ago. Then constantly repeated by
like-minded lefties in the monolithic media without concern for accuracy.
Contrast Cronkite and his successor, Rather, and you will see what use
talk radio has. (I would include all of the 'new' media outlets, not
just radio)
It certainly has more utility than just a geriatric sleep aid.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-26, 7:55 am |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-5F68AA.06375526082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>
> In article <3n6vd9F6801U1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> It is very useful for keeping the 'real' media honest. Some quick
> examples from the top of my head:
>
> - When the Boston Globe sending star reporter Michael Kranish to do
> the hard-hitting coverage of the John Kerry campaign -- various talk
> radio outlets revealed that Kranish was also on the Kerry campaign
> payroll...oops.
>
> - When Newsw shelved stories relating to the obstruction of the
> investigation of Paula Jones sexual harassment charges by President
> Clinton -- a blogger and talk radioist were responsible for actually
> breaking the story of presidential purjury and coverup.
>
> - When Mary Mapes and Dan Rather used obvious forgeries of documents
> to try and prove that President Bush was derelict in his performance of
> duty as a young pilot -- talk radio was the only media arm willing to
> discuss it. After ws of talk radio only coverage, the 'mainstream'
> media grudgingly picked up the story that these two 40-year each veteran
> reporters cannot tell the difference between a page from a manual
> typewriter and a MicroSoft Word memo-wizard from a laser printer.
>
> What is so terrible about having other voices? The traditional media is
> as monolithic in its view as you suggest talk radio is. Why not throw
> all the ideas on the public table and let the truth shake itself out?
>
> One obvious benefit is that huge, world changing lies, ala Walter
> Cronkite's "The war in Vietnam is now unwinnable" cannot be passed off
> without review as they were 35 years ago. Then constantly repeated by
> like-minded lefties in the monolithic media without concern for accuracy.
>
> Contrast Cronkite and his successor, Rather, and you will see what use
> talk radio has. (I would include all of the 'new' media outlets, not
> just radio)
>
> It certainly has more utility than just a geriatric sleep aid.
>
OK, Joe. I take the points above. As always, my comment was based on my
experience. We do not have the diversity of talk radio here that you
obviously do have in the US.
Besides, my original post was tongue-in-ch (I can't believe you didn't
know that...?)
If I touched a nerve, I never meant to... Now we're getting serious so I'm
outta here :-)
Pete.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-26, 7:55 am |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-5F68AA.06375526082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <3n6vd9F6801U1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>
>It is very useful for keeping the 'real' media honest.
'Real' media... you mean the folks who broke the Watergate scandal?
DD
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-08-26, 7:55 am |
|
"Lawrence Greenwald" <lgreenwa@cts.com> wrote in message
news:lgreenwa-A30CB3.22583725082005@chiapp18.algx.net...
> Can we lay this topic to rest?
Seems doubtful. <g>
> The question was answered, but the whole thread of this got skewed
> because the poor person said "doubt", when the/she meant "question".
It is more likely it got skewed because of the seemingly
unusual use of doubt as a noun; but consider the following.
A: I question whether that is true.
B: A question is something you ask. You meant you doubt
whether that is true.
Did A mean question because that is what A used, or did
A mean doubt because that is what B finds acceptable?
To me, it seems more likely that A meant what A used
and that, in the earlier case where 'doubt' was used, it was
'doubt' that was meant.
| |
| Howard Brazee 2005-08-26, 6:55 pm |
|
On 25-Aug-2005, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
> Oh yeah. :) There's lots of good stuff over here in the States. I'll
> admit to not being familiar with the non-music radio offerings in NZ.
>
> We've got sports stations, both local and national, with commentators,
> guest athletes, and callers. Those can be pretty interesting,
> especially when your favorite sport's busy season is (college football
> bowl season, NFL playoffs, NBA playoffs, etc.).
Recently a Maori New Zealander got transformed into a chubby white guy from the
USA.
http://www.supergolf.co.za/default....ergolf/golfglob
talks about U.S.Open winner Michael Campbell, but the photo is of Chad Campbell!
| |
|
| "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote in message
news:11gu1r0l4r0i666@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Lawrence Greenwald" <lgreenwa@cts.com> wrote in message
> news:lgreenwa-A30CB3.22583725082005@chiapp18.algx.net...
>
> Seems doubtful. <g>
>
>
> It is more likely it got skewed because of the seemingly
> unusual use of doubt as a noun; but consider the following.
>
> A: I question whether that is true.
> B: A question is something you ask. You meant you doubt
> whether that is true.
>
> Did A mean question because that is what A used, or did
> A mean doubt because that is what B finds acceptable?
>
> To me, it seems more likely that A meant what A used
> and that, in the earlier case where 'doubt' was used, it was
> 'doubt' that was meant.
If you're going to go back ON topic, don't you have to change the subject
back? It's such an unusual phenomenon that I'd have doubts about what the
protocol in this instance.
JCE
| |
|
| Rick Smith wrote:
> "Lawrence Greenwald" <lgreenwa@cts.com> wrote in message
> news:lgreenwa-A30CB3.22583725082005@chiapp18.algx.net...
>
>
>
> Seems doubtful. <g>
>
>
>
> It is more likely it got skewed because of the seemingly
> unusual use of doubt as a noun; but consider the following.
>
> A: I question whether that is true.
> B: A question is something you ask. You meant you doubt
> whether that is true.
>
> Did A mean question because that is what A used, or did
> A mean doubt because that is what B finds acceptable?
>
> To me, it seems more likely that A meant what A used
> and that, in the earlier case where 'doubt' was used, it was
> 'doubt' that was meant.
I question this will ever be resolved...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-08-26, 9:55 pm |
|
"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C0KPe.66280$Oy2.13040@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
[snip]
> If you're going to go back ON topic, don't you have to change the subject
> back? It's such an unusual phenomenon that I'd have doubts about what the
> protocol in this instance.
I am fairly certain that I only 'have to' do what my mind
compels me to do; though I could assign blame as in
"The Devil made me do it!" [Off topic: psychology]
I am unaware of any protocol, except that which may
be considered common courtesy. I have observed that
new subject headings occur when a poster intends a
new subject heading; otherwise, the response, whatever
it is, is merely a response and is done seemingly without
regard to the subject heading. But these are just my
observations. [On topic: newsgroup discussion]
I don't feel compelled to start a new subject because
this is merely a response and I wouldn't know what
to use for the subject heading because this response
has mixed topics.
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-27, 3:55 am |
| In article <11gvhlh60u7c58d@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
>"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:C0KPe.66280$Oy2.13040@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>[snip]
>
>I am fairly certain that I only 'have to' do what my mind
>compels me to do; though I could assign blame as in
>"The Devil made me do it!" [Off topic: psychology]
Well... so much for obeying the Law of Gravity, I guess.
DD
| |
| Rick Smith 2005-08-27, 6:55 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dep7qi$gsi$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <11gvhlh60u7c58d@corp.supernews.com>,
> Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> Well... so much for obeying the Law of Gravity, I guess.
do [3] : to accomplish; finish; complete [RHCD]
usage [3] : DO, ACCOMPLISH, ACHIEVE mean to
bring some action to a conclusion. DO is the general
word, carrying no implication of success or failure.
I see no necessary relation to gravity since its action is not
being brought to a conclusion. Mr Dwarf, what led you to
your guess?
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-27, 6:55 pm |
| In article <11h1e0hnggepvb0@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dep7qi$gsi$1@panix5.panix.com...
>[snip]
>
>do [3] : to accomplish; finish; complete [RHCD]
> usage [3] : DO, ACCOMPLISH, ACHIEVE mean to
> bring some action to a conclusion. DO is the general
> word, carrying no implication of success or failure.
>
>I see no necessary relation to gravity since its action is not
>being brought to a conclusion. Mr Dwarf, what led you to
>your guess?
The law of gravity, Mr Plinston, is something to which folks, at times,
'adhere to the terms of'; since
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b...perform&x=0&y=0 shows
this as 1: for 'perform' and perform, according to
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b...y&va=do&x=0&y=0 , is 3:
for 'do' the connection seemed ready enough. Thanks for your
clarification, though.
DD
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-08-27, 6:55 pm |
| In article <3n8c7dFb4v5U1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> "Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:joe_zitzelberger-5F68AA.06375526082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
> OK, Joe. I take the points above. As always, my comment was based on my
> experience. We do not have the diversity of talk radio here that you
> obviously do have in the US.
>
> Besides, my original post was tongue-in-ch (I can't believe you didn't
> know that...?)
>
> If I touched a nerve, I never meant to... Now we're getting serious so I'm
> outta here :-)
>
> Pete.
You haven't touched a nerve. I was just throwing out one useful thing
about talk radio. Did I sound irate?
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-08-27, 6:55 pm |
| In article <den07q$b1l$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <joe_zitzelberger-5F68AA.06375526082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
> Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> 'Real' media... you mean the folks who broke the Watergate scandal?
>
> DD
The same folks that decry the use of illegal leaks and insider
information when the wrong side uses them?
Yes. That was the 'real' media of which I typed.
I'll leave the comparing and contrasting Karl Rove or Linda Tripp with
Mark Felt as an exercise for the reader.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-27, 9:56 pm |
|
"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-F36B10.19141427082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>
> In article <3n8c7dFb4v5U1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> You haven't touched a nerve. I was just throwing out one useful thing
> about talk radio. Did I sound irate?
>
Well, it seemed that way to me. I'm glad I was mistaken (there is enough
unnecessary heat generated in this forum...)
I guess this reinforces Howard's point that it is often difficult to tell
from this medium what the mood of posters is.
I saw "It certainly has more utility than just a geriatric sleep aid.",
coming after a full defence, as indicating a degree of annoyance. On
reflection, I can see that that was just an observation with nothing else
implicit... I read something into your post that was not intended. Easy to
do here... :-)
Pete.
| |
| Joe Zitzelberger 2005-08-28, 3:55 am |
| In article <3nci51FsmvbU1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> I saw "It certainly has more utility than just a geriatric sleep aid.",
> coming after a full defence, as indicating a degree of annoyance. On
> reflection, I can see that that was just an observation with nothing else
> implicit... I read something into your post that was not intended. Easy to
> do here... :-)
>
> Pete.
Some talk radio here is really well done. My personal favorites are the
Rush Limbaugh parody tunes -- they make David Letterman's producers look
bush league.
Nothing like Algore doing gangsta rap...
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-28, 3:55 am |
| In article <joe_zitzelberger-76B906.19172727082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <den07q$b1l$1@panix5.panix.com>, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>The same folks that decry the use of illegal leaks and insider
>information when the wrong side uses them?
Answering a question with a question is no answer at all, Mr
Zitzelberger.
>
>Yes. That was the 'real' media of which I typed.
>
>I'll leave the comparing and contrasting Karl Rove or Linda Tripp with
>Mark Felt as an exercise for the reader.
I'm not sure what you're saying here, Mr Zitzelberger. The attention paid
to each of these seems to be rather similar... depending on what one
considers 'the wrong side'.
DD
| |
| docdwarf@panix.com 2005-08-28, 7:55 am |
| In article <11h1e0hnggepvb0@corp.supernews.com>,
Rick Smith <ricksmith@mfi.net> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dep7qi$gsi$1@panix5.panix.com...
>[snip]
>
>do [3] : to accomplish; finish; complete [RHCD]
> usage [3] : DO, ACCOMPLISH, ACHIEVE mean to
> bring some action to a conclusion. DO is the general
> word, carrying no implication of success or failure.
>
>I see no necessary relation to gravity since its action is not
>being brought to a conclusion. Mr Dwarf, what led you to
>your guess?
[what follows is issued as a correction, having originally been posted as
incorrectly addressed to individual other than the Original Poster]
The law of gravity, Mr Smith, is something to which folks, at times,
'adhere to the terms of'; since
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b...perform&x=0&y=0 shows
this as 1: for 'perform' and perform, according to
http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?b...y&va=do&x=0&y=0 , is 3:
for 'do' the connection seemed ready enough. Thanks for your
clarification, though.
DD
|
|
|
|
|