"Slaving away" Ooops!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Peter Duncanson - 11 Jan 2007 13:07 GMT From The Times (of London): http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html
... Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the European Parliamentary Labour Party's equalities reception in Portcullis House on Monday. We're told that Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, said that he and his team had been "slaving away" on the equalities brief. Then he went very quiet. Then he apologised. ...
Trevor Phillips is English-born of Guyanese parents: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Phillips
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
sage - 11 Jan 2007 15:28 GMT > From The Times (of London): > http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Trevor Phillips is English-born of Guyanese parents: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Phillips Why did he apologize?
Cheers, Sage
Peter Duncanson - 11 Jan 2007 15:52 GMT >> From The Times (of London): >> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Why did he apologize? I can only speculate. It seems that for some people any use of slave, slavery, etc. metaphorically or figuratively is "bad".
In general I have no objection to such use of "slaving away", "slavish", etc.
People can be enslaved by circumstances. Phillips and his team were presumably slaving away, er, working very hard, coerced by a need to get the work completed as soon as possible. If circumstances had been different they might have preferred to proceed at a more measured pace.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Matthew Huntbach - 11 Jan 2007 16:09 GMT >>> From The Times (of London): >>> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >>> Trevor Phillips is English-born of Guyanese parents: >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trevor_Phillips
>> Why did he apologize?
> I can only speculate. It seems that for some people any use of > slave, slavery, etc. metaphorically or figuratively is "bad". Perhaps particularly so for those whose recent ancestors were slaves, from someone who is one such person and whose job it is to encourage people not to say and do things which might cause racial offence. Just as well he didn't use another phrase which until quite recently was sometimes heard to mean "worked very hard", and not intended to be offensive (but would be seen as such now), i.e. said that he and his team had "worked like niggers".
Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2007 16:11 GMT mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
> Perhaps particularly so for those whose recent ancestors were slaves, > from someone who is one such person and whose job it is to encourage [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > offensive (but would be seen as such now), i.e. said that he and his team > had "worked like niggers". The common phrase when I was young was "worked like blacks" or "like a black". But I didn't know any black people, of course. I don't know if I ever saw a black person before I was 11. Sikhs, sure, they drove the buses in Coventry in the 60s, but not African/Caribbean people.
 Signature David =====
Matthew Huntbach - 11 Jan 2007 16:28 GMT > mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
>> Perhaps particularly so for those whose recent ancestors were slaves, >> from someone who is one such person and whose job it is to encourage [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> offensive (but would be seen as such now), i.e. said that he and his team >> had "worked like niggers".
> The common phrase when I was young was "worked like blacks" or "like > a black". But I didn't know any black people, of course. I don't > know if I ever saw a black person before I was 11. Sikhs, sure, they > drove the buses in Coventry in the 60s, but not African/Caribbean > people. Google gives slightly more eamples of the phrase as I've put it than as you have, but a surprisingly recent example of yours it throws up is:
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/01/09/story238621.html
In fact it counts for a good proportion of the Google hits.
Surprised by what you said, as I always thought there was quite a big West Indian population in the West Midlands back in the 1960s.
Matthew Huntbach
the Omrud - 11 Jan 2007 16:54 GMT mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it:
> > mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Surprised by what you said, as I always thought there was quite a big > West Indian population in the West Midlands back in the 1960s. In the cities, perhaps, but I lived in a small town which we rarely left, except to go on holiday to Norfolk. We had no car until 1965. A shopping trip into Coventry on a Saturday (about eight miles) on the bus was something of an adventure. I think I was taken to Birmingham once or twice before I was 11.
 Signature David =====
Archie Valparaiso - 11 Jan 2007 16:27 GMT >>>> From The Times (of London): >>>> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >from someone who is one such person and whose job it is to encourage >people not to say and do things which might cause racial offence. Slavery was abolished in Guyana (as it was throughout the then-Empire) in 1834. Allowing for four generations per century, and noting that he was born in 1953, we find that the last of his ancestors to be slaves were probably his great-great-great-grandparents. How "recent" is that?
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
John Dean - 12 Jan 2007 00:35 GMT >>>>> From The Times (of London): >>>>> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > was born in 1953, we find that the last of his ancestors to be slaves > were probably his great-great-great-grandparents. Well, assuming his ancestry is traced exclusively through Guyana. I dunno how far back he can trace his ancestors, but it must be a possibility that some of them came from other South American countries or perhaps from the Caribbean islands and there were places outwith the British Empire that took a lot longer to outlaw slavery. Not to mention a few that were quicker about it. And I think 4 generations a century is going it. I'd say nearer three and a bit. But soft, what light from yonder website breaks ...?
http://www.antislavery.org/homepage/news/Awardspeeches050101.htm
Where Mr Phillips says:
"My own connection with the issue of slavery is clearly pretty obvious, my great-great grandmother was a slave and her name was Happy. We belong to one of the relatively few Caribbean families who can say something as certain as that because, of course, one of the great crimes of slavery, whenever and wherever it has been practiced, is that it goes beyond servitude, it goes to the point of eliminating the identity of the individual."
So you were within one "great", which is pretty accurate guesswork.
 Signature John Dean Oxford
Archie Valparaiso - 12 Jan 2007 08:58 GMT >>>>>> From The Times (of London): >>>>>> http://women.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,27870-2539301.html [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >So you were within one "great", which is pretty accurate guesswork. My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my family ever mentioned anybody further back than my two great- grandfathers, and even they didn't exist beyond a couple of anecdotes in each case (one was a cotton carter, the other a bookie, and, er, that's it -- no photographs or documents at all). The "identity of the individual" in the case of my great-grandparents is a total blank -- not even a name for any of them. So, they've been "eliminated" from history just as much as Phillips's forebears, yet no slavery was involved -- just the passage of time.
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
Jacqui - 12 Jan 2007 13:43 GMT Archie Valparaiso wibbled:
> My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than > me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > history just as much as Phillips's forebears, yet no slavery was > involved -- just the passage of time. He's 19 years older than me and I knew two of my great-grandmothers when I was a child - they both died (outside the UK) when I was in my teens. Their parents are part of common family knowledge - I can name all my great-great-grandparents and I have known what they did for a living, where they lived, that sort of thing, since I was young. If my great- great-grandmother had been a slave it would feel quite personal and recent to me.
Jac
Vinny Burgoo - 12 Jan 2007 13:55 GMT In alt.usage.english, Jacqui wrote:
>Archie Valparaiso wibbled:
>> My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than >> me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >great-grandmother had been a slave it would feel quite personal and >recent to me. What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you wouldn't like to be reminded of her dirty deeds in the middle of an unrelated conversation. Would you be entitled to take offence at any word that reminded you of slavery? Or do the descendants of victims have the monopoly on this sort of thing?
 Signature V
Jacqui - 12 Jan 2007 14:20 GMT Vinny Burgoo wibbled:
> In alt.usage.english, Jacqui wrote: >>Archie Valparaiso wibbled: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > word that reminded you of slavery? Or do the descendants of victims > have the monopoly on this sort of thing? I don't remember making any judgement at all about how that 'personal and recent' feeling would strike me, as it happens. The point is not what they did for a living*, but that they are close enough to feel 'personal and recent' to me. The fact that one family has forgotten its great-grandparents has no bearing on how close another family feels to its great-great-grandparents. There isn't a handy rule.
 Signature Jac
* Since you ask: a factory-owner & wife; diplomat & wife; an ostler and a cook (with genetic/financial contribution from their employer (!)); a doctor & wife; a printer & a seamstress; a dockworker & wife; a mill-worker & pottery painter; a carpenter/housebuilder & factory worker. 'Slaves and slavers', from some perspectives, but the facts are more complicated than that. Does this tell you anything useful about what I take offence to? How I feel about their positions in life? I doubt it.
Vinny Burgoo - 12 Jan 2007 15:03 GMT In alt.usage.english, Jacqui wrote:
>Vinny Burgoo wibbled:
>> What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would >> feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >great-grandparents has no bearing on how close another family feels to >its great-great-grandparents. There isn't a handy rule.
>* Since you ask: a factory-owner & wife; diplomat & wife; an ostler and >a cook (with genetic/financial contribution from their employer (!)); a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >what I take offence to? How I feel about their positions in life? I >doubt it. Sorry. I dropped that question into the thread rather carelessly. I had been meaning to post something like that for a while and your post was the most recent in the thread when I got around to it, that's all. I didn't mean to pass judgement on you in any way.
 Signature V
Robert Bannister - 13 Jan 2007 00:42 GMT > I don't remember making any judgement at all about how that 'personal > and recent' feeling would strike me, as it happens. The point is not > what they did for a living*, but that they are close enough to feel > 'personal and recent' to me. The fact that one family has forgotten its > great-grandparents has no bearing on how close another family feels to > its great-great-grandparents. There isn't a handy rule. I'd have thought a rule of thumb would be if you had known the people personally. I only knew 3 of my grandparents, so stories about my great-grandparents don't have a great deal of impact on me. In fact, my mother only ever mentions her grandfather, so the remaining seven will remain a mystery.
 Signature Rob Bannister
Archie Valparaiso - 12 Jan 2007 17:40 GMT >In alt.usage.english, Jacqui wrote: >>Archie Valparaiso wibbled: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>great-grandmother had been a slave it would feel quite personal and >>recent to me. That's fine, but my still-holding point still holds. That point was that there are many families -- mine included -- where five generations back is a big zero, so claiming that slavery alone was responsible for eliminating someone's great-great-grandparents from history is rather too pat and colourful (oops!) an explanation for happening to know little or nothing about them.
>What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would >feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you >wouldn't like to be reminded of her dirty deeds in the middle of an >unrelated conversation. Would you be entitled to take offence at any >word that reminded you of slavery? Or do the descendants of victims have >the monopoly on this sort of thing? Of course they do. Do you think Ken "Have Newt Will Travel (By Tube)" Livingstone would have got into such deep sh.t if he'd claimed a pushy *Standard* reporter of German descent was behaving like a concentration-camp guard? I doubt anyone would even have heard of the incident.
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
Vinny Burgoo - 13 Jan 2007 00:55 GMT In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:55:17 +0000, Vinny Burgoo <hnNULh@yahoo.co.uk>
>>What if your great-great-grandmother had been a slaver? That too would >>feel quite personal and recent, I imagine, and I imagine that you [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >concentration-camp guard? I doubt anyone would even have heard of the >incident. Why did you say "newt"?
 Signature V
John Dean - 13 Jan 2007 01:19 GMT > In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 13:55:17 +0000, Vinny Burgoo <hnNULh@yahoo.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Why did you say "newt"? Because if he'd said "rare" it would have triggered a Daniel post.
 Signature John Dean Oxford
Bob Cunningham - 13 Jan 2007 01:35 GMT [...]
> > Why did you say "newt"?
> Because if he'd said "rare" it would have triggered a Daniel post. Rare?
John Dean - 13 Jan 2007 05:04 GMT > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Rare? Don't make me come over there.
 Signature John Dean Oxford
Bob Cunningham - 13 Jan 2007 07:04 GMT [...]
> >> Because if he'd said "rare" it would have triggered a Daniel post.
> > Rare?
> Don't make me come over there.
:-) Steve Hayes - 13 Jan 2007 07:20 GMT >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Rare? Sans newt.
 Signature Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Archie Valparaiso - 15 Jan 2007 10:47 GMT >In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote:
>>Do you think Ken "Have Newt Will Travel (By Tube)" >>Livingstone would have got into such deep sh.t if he'd claimed a pushy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Why did you say "newt"? A very good question indeed. I was about to say that I probably did it because while editing I decided it was slightly punchier than "Have a Sort of Missing Link Between a Frog and a Gecko Will Travel (By Tube)". But then my whole world was turned upside down when I came across this in yesterday's Observer:
[Sir David Attenborough] thinks the only reason the British are so keen on birds is because they're our predominant wildlife. "If you were somewhere with elephants, you'd be watching elephants." He prefers watching spiders or the great crested newts that he has a permit to keep in his garden pond.
Does this mean there are newt-permit detector vans prowling the suburban streets ("Good evening sir, I have reason to believe that small amphibians are being kept on these premises....") ? Feral newts roaming the moors and savaging sheep? Urban newts with names like Prince or Tyson, unleashed by irresponsible chavs to terrify nannies and their charges in Kensington Gardens?
Britain is so notoriously fauna-poor (as Dear Old Atters as good as admits above)[1] that I can see why swiping great crested newts (hereinafter, "GCNs") from their natural habitat is a Bad Thing that requires some kind of official control to hold in check. But once a newt (or several -- hey, let's have a party!) has been acquired by strictly legal means (rather, that is, than by iffy means, such as downloading over the Internewt), why can't you do with your newt as you damn well please? Train it to sing the Internationale, dress it up in a lacy undies and call it Lulu, or braise it slowly in a sherry sauce to be served on a bed of shallots -- whatever rocks your boat. Or your newt. But, no, you can't do that. This isn't some frogspawn in a bleedin' milk bottle, matey. No, them's newts what you're messing about with here -- and they'll be legal, licensed newts or no newts at all, are we clear?
Hmm. This clearly called for some further research, so I jolly well further researched.
It turns out that the Obbo journo was -- surprise-o, surprise-o -- imprecise in his nomenclature. Dear Old Atters doesn't have a mere "permit" to keep his newts; what he must have, under Regulation 44(2)(e), (f) or (g), as the case may be, of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, is a DEFRA Great Crested Newt Licence. Here's the application form (a PDF): www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/cons_man/wlf1.pdf
For those without PDF kuhpazzdy (or -- resigned sigh -- with better things to do than download the paperwork for a newt licence), the application form (LFA1 -- you know the one) begins by putting the fear of God into any potential newt-keeper. These critters are not to be taken lightly:
Licences can be granted under Regulation 44(2)(e) or (f) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &C.) Regulations 1994, for the purpose of preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment, or Regulation 44(2)(f) for the purpose of preventing the spread of disease; or Regulation 44(2)(g) for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables, fruit, growing timber or any other forms of property or to fisheries; to allow people to carry out activities that would otherwise be illegal. Applicants must also be able to demonstrate that they have a suitable amount of expertise to achieve the objectives of the proposed work.
Gulp. If you haven't been put off for life by that, they casually go on to remind you that the eight-page form must be accompanied by a "Method Statement" and "Reasoned Statement of Application", including maps, plans and diagrams of your proposed newt-keeping facility and all associated works (with reference to the corresponding planning- permission application, if applicable).
Hmm. Maybe I'd best stick to gerbils. Unless, of course, I were to set up an clandestine newt facility at an undisclosed location....
Bad idea. According to English Nature, who process all GCN applications, there are "significant penalties for breaches of the law". How significant? Let's jolly well find out.
Re-gulp. It turns out that if you keep a GCN in unlicensed conditions, you risk getting clobbered for 5,000 quid and sent down for six months. Yeah, but how will they ever know if I don't shout from the rooftops that I'm a newt nut, I hear you muse. Oh, they'll know, all right. The police can "obtain search warrants to gather evidence and arrest persons under suspicion of offences involving species included on the Schedules".
I knew it -- the bastards have got detector vans!
Anyway, this led me to wonder whether Red Ken had gone through all this. I suspect not -- doesn't he live in a flat in Hendon or something? So that leaves two possibilities: (1) he's an outlaw, or (2) he keeps newts that belong to one of the two common species (palmates or smooths, for those in the know) rather than GCNs. Since the first possibility is utterly unconceivable, this suggests that there are exclusive toff newts for the likes of Dear Old Atters (Wyggeston Grammar School/Clare College, Cambridge), while only cheapo-cheapo newts are to be placed in the care of the likes of Red Ken (Tulse Hill Comprehensive/Phillipa Fawcett Teacher Training College).
Ha! And they say Britain is no longer a class-bound society.
[1. This only dawned on me after I ran away screami...er, I mean emigrated and realised that "wildlife" on the Continong tends to feature stuff like wolves and wild boar and brown bears and lynxes and vultures with wingspans wider than the Firth of Forth, while Britain can boast little more than the odd vole, mole, stoat or newt -- all dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and all with particularly silly names. This epiphany could explain a hell of a lot.]
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
Alec McKenzie - 15 Jan 2007 11:11 GMT > But then my whole world was turned upside down when I came > across this in yesterday's Observer: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > watching elephants." He prefers watching spiders or the great > crested newts that he has a permit to keep in his garden pond. I have seen great crested newts in my garden pond. I have made no efforts to keep them there, but even if I had I don't think I would need a permit. Why should he?
The permit is required "to capture, disturb and/or relocate Great Crested Newts or destroy their breeding site or resting place".
 Signature Alec McKenzie usenet@<surname>.me.uk
Archie Valparaiso - 15 Jan 2007 11:35 GMT >> But then my whole world was turned upside down when I came >> across this in yesterday's Observer: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Great Crested Newts or destroy their breeding site or resting >place". Perhaps he keeps them under duress, tied to the gnomes.
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 19 Jan 2007 18:02 GMT > > But then my whole world was turned upside down when I came > > across this in yesterday's Observer: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Great Crested Newts or destroy their breeding site or resting > place". "That he has a permit to keep in his garden pond" may be a figure of speech for "that he captured and relocated by permit and now encourages in his garden pond", or something more complicated involving purchasing.
 Signature Jerry Friedman
Vinny Burgoo - 15 Jan 2007 19:57 GMT In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote:
[...]
>Dear Old Atters doesn't have a mere "permit" to keep his newts; what he >must have, under Regulation 44(2)(e), (f) or (g), as the case may be, >of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, is a >DEFRA Great Crested Newt Licence. Here's the application form (a PDF): >www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/cons_man/wlf1.pdf [...]
>Gulp. If you haven't been put off for life by that, they casually go >on to remind you that the eight-page form must be accompanied by a >"Method Statement" and "Reasoned Statement of Application", including >maps, plans and diagrams of your proposed newt-keeping facility and >all associated works (with reference to the corresponding planning- >permission application, if applicable). The world of Great Crested Newt-fancying also appears to be very much a closed shop. If you haven't previously held a Great Crested Newt Licence then you can't get one without a reference from someone who has held a Great Crested Newt Licence.
[...]
>Re-gulp. It turns out that if you keep a GCN in unlicensed conditions, >you risk getting clobbered for 5,000 quid and sent down for six >months. I know someone - someone whose anonymity I shall protect for the time being - who keeps a Great Crested Newt in his basement. It's not chained up or anything. It roams the flagstones at will, as free as a newt. (It's very damp down there.) A copper-bottomed blackmail opportunity and no mistake.
[...]
>Anyway, this led me to wonder whether Red Ken had gone through all >this. I suspect not -- doesn't he live in a flat in Hendon or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ha! And they say Britain is no longer a class-bound society. Not 'alf!
>[1. This only dawned on me after I ran away screami...er, I mean >emigrated and realised that "wildlife" on the Continong tends to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and >all with particularly silly names. Hey! There are wild boars in Kent, wallabies in Derbyshire and ring-necked parakeets in Richmond. There might even be a lone coypu still holding out in the marshes of East Anglia - Hereward the Beaver-Rat, last of his kind, whiskers aquiver in his plashy fen fastness. And what is so silly about the fullimart, the urchin or the moap?
But on the whole it's true, alas. There is very little point in being a lynx-fancier in Britain, so we all chase after birds - or, in my case, voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the land of the noble peccary, chases after birds.)
>This epiphany could explain a hell of a lot.] Yes. (What?)
 Signature V
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 19 Jan 2007 18:27 GMT > In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote: ...
> >[1. This only dawned on me after I ran away screami...er, I mean > >emigrated and realised that "wildlife" on the Continong tends to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and > >all with particularly silly names. ...
> But on the whole it's true, alas. There is very little point in being a > lynx-fancier in Britain, Assuming your graphics card works.
> so we all chase after birds - or, in my case, > voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the > land of the noble peccary, chases after birds.) ...
I live [Googles briefly for range descriptions, considers figuring out exact distances] maybe 250 miles from the land of the noble peccary, which would probably be called a javelina here. (Ron Draney lives in the LotNP and probably has a story.) I've spent about a week of my life within its range, and I admit I've never chased it. I feel some guilt over that. Have I sinned? How do guinea pigs figure into this?
If I may be serious for a moment, I think there's more to this that Attenborough said. True, most Americans are more interested in seeing mammals than birds. I certainly enjoy seeing wild mammals, hearing elk (=BrE "red deer, only the Yanks /will/ make things bigger") bugling, and so forth. However, many birds are more musical than almost all mammals and more colorful than all. And if what you're interested in is variety and even compiling lists, birds work a lot better. There are almost twice as many species of birds as mammals. Many birds are bold; mammals are mostly shy, subterranean, nocturnal.
Of course, there are ways to see more interesting mammals than I'm likely to see around here.
 Signature Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June.
Mike Lyle - 19 Jan 2007 19:43 GMT > > In alt.usage.english, Archie Valparaiso wrote: > ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > >dull as dust, all so small you could inadvertently tread on one, and > > >all with particularly silly names. [...]
> Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June. Worth mentioning somewhere in the thread that what Red Ken, formerly restaurant critic to the Red Braces (Am Suspenders) of the City, had were, IIRC, not honest British newts, but wet-back axolotls. It was Private Eye which dubbed them newts.
"Stop knocking Neasden!"
 Signature Mike.
Vinny Burgoo - 19 Jan 2007 23:34 GMT In alt.usage.english, Mike Lyle wrote:
>Worth mentioning somewhere in the thread that what Red Ken, formerly >restaurant critic to the Red Braces (Am Suspenders) of the City, had >were, IIRC, not honest British newts, but wet-back axolotls. It was >Private Eye which dubbed them newts. I knew a London GP who kept axolotls. He also collected glass fish and cocaine. Do you think this is significant?*
>"Stop knocking Neasden!" Tooting, axolotly.
 Signature V *No, probably not. Just a leaky thalamus or something.
Vinny Burgoo - 19 Jan 2007 23:34 GMT In alt.usage.english, jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
>> But on the whole it's true, alas. There is very little point in being a >> lynx-fancier in Britain, > >Assuming your graphics card works. ?
>> so we all chase after birds - or, in my case, >> voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the >> land of the noble peccary, chases after birds.)
>I live [Googles briefly for range descriptions, considers figuring out >exact distances] maybe 250 miles from the land of the noble peccary, >which would probably be called a javelina here. (Ron Draney lives in >the LotNP and probably has a story.) I've spent about a week of my >life within its range, and I admit I've never chased it. I feel some >guilt over that. Have I sinned? How do guinea pigs figure into this? I imagine that the accepted form is to chase it with a gun. If you don't have a gun, you're out of the guilt loop even if you wished you had a gun that lusts after dead peccaries. There's no point in beating yourself up about that sort of thing. Just kill yourself a few guinea-pigs and relax. Sixteen guinea-pigs = one peccary, kudos-wise. Bird-lime should do it if smeared copiously on the right sort of rock. (Jess kiddin. I bought an air rifle last year because I was fed up with squirrels eating chicklets and chasing the adult birds off the peanut-dispenser. But I can't do it. I have yet to aim at one, let alone hit one. Frickin rats. They're just too beautiful.)
>If I may be serious for a moment, I think there's more to this that >Attenborough said. True, most Americans are more interested in seeing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >are almost twice as many species of birds as mammals. Many birds are >bold; mammals are mostly shy, subterranean, nocturnal. Total agreement. Even in Britain, we have common birds that are either astonishingly beautiful or behaviourally interesting or both. (I currently have a soft spot for the Long-Tailed Tit, which is both. Their gangs seem to have been dispersed by the recent storms. Will they meet up again? If not, then what?) The wild mammals you're likely to see, though beautiful, are dull dull dull antics-wise. And even in more exotic places, it's the little critters that provide the most interest. (I was in Tanzania in October. We saw nine of the Big Ten but for me by far the most enjoyable beasties were hyraxes, genets and various - very various - birds.)
>Of course, there are ways to see more interesting mammals than I'm >likely to see around here.
>Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June. Bon voyage! Stuff the Big Ten: turacos!
 Signature V
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 20 Jan 2007 00:20 GMT > In alt.usage.english, jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > ? Lynx is or was the name of a text-only Web browser. I was shooting for a "peccavi" joke below, by the way, but either I missed it or I missed your even subtler hint that you got it.
> >> so we all chase after birds - or, in my case, > >> voles. (But this doesn't explain why Jerry Friedman, who lives in the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > peanut-dispenser. But I can't do it. I have yet to aim at one, let alone > hit one. Frickin rats. They're just too beautiful.) Being serious again, I have my doubts about the people who think, "What a magnificent animal! I want to see it dead." Thinking "I could eat it if it were dead" is a whole different thing.
> >If I may be serious for a moment, I think there's more to this that or "than"
> >Attenborough said. True, most Americans are more interested in seeing > >mammals than birds. I certainly enjoy seeing wild mammals, hearing elk [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > astonishingly beautiful or behaviourally interesting or both. (I > currently have a soft spot for the Long-Tailed Tit, which is both. I'd love to see one, or some. Its only American relative is the Bushtit, which isn't as striking. It reminds me, though, that a woman of my acquaintance once asked, "Shouldn't there be a yellow belly between the bush and the tit?"
(That made a later revelation on her part less surprising.)
> Their > gangs seem to have been dispersed by the recent storms. Will they meet [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > far the most enjoyable beasties were hyraxes, genets and various - very > various - birds.) Did you have the guide to the behavior of African mammals? If so, do you recommend it?
> >Of course, there are ways to see more interesting mammals than I'm > >likely to see around here. > > >Jerry Friedman is going to Kenya in June. > > Bon voyage! Stuff the Big Ten: turacos! You know, it's not true that the feather pigment is water-soluble.
 Signature Jerry Friedman wants to see turacos. Several species. Many.
Vinny Burgoo - 20 Jan 2007 13:41 GMT In alt.usage.english, jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]
>I'd love to see one, or some. Its only American relative is the >Bushtit, which isn't as striking. It reminds me, though, that a woman >of my acquaintance once asked, "Shouldn't there be a yellow belly >between the bush and the tit?" > >(That made a later revelation on her part less surprising.) (She could suck sap?)
[...]
>Did you have the guide to the behavior of African mammals? If so, do >you recommend it? Yes. My brother took it. I only managed to grab a few quick reads but it was totally fascinating. For example, warthogs (aka radio-controlled buttocks): their tunnels always dive down and back just inside the entrance, so that if you stand by the entrance at night you're probably standing right on top of the beastie.
Actually, I think he took two or even three mammal behaviour guides. We had an enormous library with us (which I generally ended up carrying when we were sans vehicle, for some reason). He's a keen mammalophile and a very keen birdwatcher and, for a non-indigenous mzungu, he's quite an expert on East Africa in general so I'll ask him for a list of recommended books. But for now a quick Yahoo suggests that this might have been the best of the mammal behaviour guides:
<http://www.amazon.com/Behavior-Guide-African-Mammals-Carnivores/dp/05200 80858>
This was the best bird book:
<http://www.amazon.com/Field-Northern-Tanzania-Identification-Guides/dp/0 713650796/sr=1-16/qid=1169300222/ref=sr_1_16/104-1257592-9079950?ie=UTF8& s=books>
(Had to have been with a turaco on the cover, innit.)
>> Bon voyage! Stuff the Big Ten: turacos! > >You know, it's not true that the feather pigment is water-soluble. I now know it wasn't before I even knew it was. And here's more proof:
https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/1811/4306/1/V55N06_339.pdf
>Jerry Friedman wants to see turacos. Several species. Many.
 Signature V Only two species of turaco (not counting go-away birds) but I did see a yellow bat. During the day, too. Oh! And a finfoot! Ha!
the Omrud - 20 Jan 2007 18:03 GMT hnNULh@yahoo.co.uk had it:
> I imagine that the accepted form is to chase it with a gun. If you don't > have a gun, you're out of the guilt loop even if you wished you had a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > peanut-dispenser. But I can't do it. I have yet to aim at one, let alone > hit one. Frickin rats. They're just too beautiful.) According to the Road Kill Vegetarian (*) bloke on BBC 4 last week, grey squirrel tastes like lamb.
> Total agreement. Even in Britain, we have common birds that are either > astonishingly beautiful or behaviourally interesting or both. (I > currently have a soft spot for the Long-Tailed Tit, which is both. Their > gangs seem to have been dispersed by the recent storms. Will they meet > up again? If not, then what?) Our long-tailed tits emerge from the woods in a gang and descend on the house, stripping it of anything which might suit them as a nesting material, and the bird feeders where they find it difficult to all fit at the same time. Then, just as they arrived, they disappear back into the woods not to be seen again for 11 months. Although, unusually, I saw a pair up the back lane last week. I don't think I've ever seen just two.
* He's a vegetarian but he will eat any food which he can pick up without doing it any harm. This means wild vegetation plus any animals and birds which are already dead.
 Signature David =====
Sara Lorimer - 20 Jan 2007 23:45 GMT > * He's a vegetarian but he will eat any food which he can pick up > without doing it any harm. This means wild vegetation plus any > animals and birds which are already dead. Ah! A freegan.
 Signature SML
Archie Valparaiso - 21 Jan 2007 10:08 GMT >> * He's a vegetarian but he will eat any food which he can pick up >> without doing it any harm. This means wild vegetation plus any >> animals and birds which are already dead. > >Ah! A freegan. AKA scavengetarian.
 Signature Archie Valparaiso
(Me? I blame the weather.)
Blinky the Shark - 21 Jan 2007 11:32 GMT >>> * He's a vegetarian but he will eat any food which he can pick >>> up without doing it any harm. This means wild vegetation plus [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > AKA scavengetarian. And perhaps a roadkilletarian.
 Signature Blinky
the Omrud - 12 Jan 2007 14:10 GMT bopeepsheep@g.mail.com had it:
> Archie Valparaiso wibbled: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > great-grandmother had been a slave it would feel quite personal and > recent to me. I am about 15 years older than you but my own own gg-grandparents were born between 1815 and 1836. I had never heard any of their names - I only know of them through genealogical research. In most cases they were between 30 and 45 when the child who is my direct ancestor was born.
 Signature David =====
Nick Spalding - 12 Jan 2007 16:08 GMT Archie Valparaiso wrote, in <uuieq2hrc55knp7ptf5d16o5ucc09t126i@4ax.com> on Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:58:41 +0100:
> My point still holds, though. Phillips is only four years older than > me so our family generations are pretty much in step, yet nobody in my [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > history just as much as Phillips's forebears, yet no slavery was > involved -- just the passage of time. I've always known about my great-grandparents on my mother's side. I have a picture painted by my great-grandfather within sight as I type and there were plenty more of them around my grandmother's house. I also have a photograph of my mother taken in around 1903 sitting on the lap of her great-grandmother Sarah Montgomery who was born in c.1812.
I have since discovered quite a lot about my father's side thanks to discovering the existence of an unknown cousin who had inherited the family bible and much more on both sides by poking around in the archives available on the web.
 Signature Nick Spalding
Mark Brader - 11 Jan 2007 23:37 GMT Peter Duncanson quotes the Times:
> Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the > European Parliamentary Labour Party's equalities reception in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > brief. Then he went very quiet. Then he apologised. > ... Apparently he needs to be more niggardly with his use of metaphors.
 Signature Mark Brader "Look, sir, we can't just do nothing." Toronto "Why not? It's usually best." msb@vex.net -- Lawrence of Arabia
tinwhistler - 13 Jan 2007 01:43 GMT > Peter Duncanson quotes the Times: > > Inopportune phraseology from Trevor Phillips, addressing the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Apparently he needs to be more niggardly with his use of metaphors. [snip]
I thought of posting this almost exactly, before I read Mark's pip. I would have added a reasoning like this: if feminists argue that referring to the Deity (higher power or whatever) as a "He" is sexist, then maybe we should get rid of all the masculine pronouns altogether, along with the racist terms "niggardly" and "slaving away," etc. But to me all that is bullshit, and "niggardly" and "slaving away" should be accepted just as we accept the use of masculine pronouns. OTH, some political correctness is a good thing -- all things in moderation is my motto.
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
|
|
|