Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Concept of God in Islam

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
abdo911 - 12 Nov 2007 07:34 GMT
WAMY Series: On Islam No.9.Introduction
God's Attributes
The Oneness of God
The Believer's Attitude
Introduction
It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are
used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not
the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God.
Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender.
This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word "god," which can
be made plural, as in "gods," or made feminine, as in "goddess." It is
interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in
Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.The One
true God is a reflection of the unique concept that Islam associates
with God. To a Muslim, Allah is the Almighty Creator and Sustainer of
the universe, Who is similar to nothing, and nothing is comparable to
Him. The Prophet Muhammad was asked by his contemporaries about Allah;
the answer came directly from God Himself in the form of a short
chapter of the Qur'an, which is considered to be the essence of the
unity or the motto of monotheism. This is chapter 112, which reads:"
In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O
Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not
begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone".Some
non-Muslims allege that God in Islam is a stern and cruel God who
demands to be obeyed fully and is not loving and kind. Nothing could
be farther from the truth than this allegation. It is enough to know
that, with the exception of one, each of the 114 chapters of the
Qur'an begins with the verse " In the name of God, the Merciful, the
Compassionate". In one of the sayings of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), we
are told that " God is more loving and kind than a mother to her dear
child".On the other hand, God is also Just. Hence, evildoers and
sinners must have their share of punishment, and the virtuous must
have God's bounties and favors. Actually, God's attribute of Mercy has
full manifestation in His attribute of Justice. People suffering
throughout their lives for His sake should not receive similar
treatment from their Lord as people who oppress and exploit others
their whole lives. Expecting similar treatment for them would amount
to negating the very belief in the accountability of man in the
Hereafter and thereby negate all the incentives for a moral and
virtuous life in this world. The following Qur'anic verses are very
clear and straightforward in this respect.
Verily, for the Righteous are gardens of Delight, in the Presence of
their Lord. Shall We then treat the people of Faith like the people of
Sin? What is the matter with you? How judge you?
Islam rejects characterizing God in any human form or depicting Him as
favoring certain individuals or nations on the basis of wealth, power
or race. He created the human-beings as equals. They may distinguish
themselves and get His favor through virtue and piety only.
The concepts that God rested on the seventh day of creation, that God
wrestled with one of His soldiers, that God is an envious plotter
against mankind, and that God is incarnate in any human being are
considered blasphemy from the Islamic point of view.
The unique usage of Allah as a personal name of God is a reflection of
Islam's emphasis on the purity of the belief in God that is the
essence of the message of all God's messengers. Because of this, Islam
considers associating any deity or personality with God as a deadly
sin that God will never forgive, despite the fact that He may forgive
all other sins.
The Creator must be of a different nature from the things created
because if He is of the same nature as they are, He will be temporal
and will therefore need a maker. It follows that nothing is like Him.
If the maker is not temporal, then he must be eternal. But if he is
eternal, he cannot be caused, and if nothing caused Him to come into
existence, nothing outside Him causes Him to continue to exist, which
means that he must be self-sufficient. And if He does not depend on
anything for the continuance of His own existence, then this existence
can have no end. The Creator is therefore eternal and everlasting: "He
is the First and the Last".
He is Self-sufficient or Self-subsistent, or, to use a Qur'anic term,
Al-Qayyum The Creator does not create only in the sense of bringing
things into being, He. also preserves them and takes them out of
existence and is the ultimate cause of whatever happens to them.
" God is the Creator of everything. He is the guardian over
everything. Unto Him belong the keys of the heavens and the
earth" (39:62-63).
" No creature is there crawling on the earth, but its provision rests
on God. He knows its lodging place and its repository" (11:16).
God's Attributes
If the Creator is Eternal and Everlasting, then His attributes must
also be eternal and everlasting. He should not lose any of His
attributes nor acquire new ones. If this is so, then his attributes
are absolute. Can there be more than one Creator with such absolute
attributes? Can there be, for example, two absolutely powerful
Creators? A moment's thought shows that this is not feasible.
The Qur'an summarizes this argument in the following verses:" God has
not taken to Himself any son, nor is there any god with Him: for then
each god would have taken of that which he created and some of them
would have risen up over others" (23:91).
" And why, were there gods in earth and heaven other than God, they
(heaven and earth) would surely go to ruin" (21:22).
The Oneness of God
The Qur'an reminds us of the falsity of all alleged gods. To the
worshippers of man-made objects it asks:" Do you worship what you have
carved yourself" (37:95). " Or have you taken unto yourself others
beside Him to be your protectors, even such as have no power either
for good or for harm to themselves" (13:16).
To the worshippers of heavenly bodies it cites the story of Abraham:"
When night outspread over him, he saw a star and said: This is my
Lord. But when it set, he said: I love not the setters. When he saw
the moon rising, he said: This is my Lord. But when it set, he said:
If my Lord does not guide me, I shall surely be of the people gone
astray. When he saw the sun rising, he said: This is my Lord; this is
greater. But when it set, he said: O my people, surely I quit that
which you associate, I have turned my face to Him who originated the
heavens and the earth; a man of pure faith, I am not one of the
idolators" (6:76-79).
The Believer's Attitude
In order to be a Muslim, that is, to surrender oneself to God, it is
necessary to believe in the oneness of God, in the sense of His being
the only Creator, Preserver, Nourisher, etc. But this belief, later
called Tawhid Ar-Rububiyyah, is not enough. Many of the idolators knew
and believed that only the Supreme God could do all this. But this was
not enough to make them Muslims. To tawhid ar-rububiyyah, one must add
tawhid al-'uluhiyyah. That is, one acknowledges the fact that it is
God alone who deserves to be worshipped, and thus abstains from
worshipping any other thing or being.
Having achieved this knowledge of the one true God, man should
constantly have faith in Him, and should allow nothing to induce him
to deny truth.
When faith enters a person's heart, it causes certain mental states
that result in certain actions. Taken together, these mental states
and actions are the proof for the true faith. The Prophet said:" Faith
is that which resides firmly in the heart and which is proved by
deeds".
Foremost among those mental stated is the feeling of gratitude towards
God, which could be said to be the essence of ibada (worship).
The feeling of gratitude is so important that a non-believer is called
'kafir', which means 'one who denies a truth' and also 'one who is
ungrateful'.
A believer loves, and is grateful to God for the bounties He bestowed
upon him, but being aware of the fact that his good deeds, whether
mental or physical, are far from being commensurate with Divine
favors, he is always anxious lest God should punish him, here or in
the Hereafter. He, therefore, fears Him, surrenders himself to Him and
serves Him with great humility. One cannot be in such a mental state
without being almost all the time mindful of God. Remembering God is
thus the life force of faith, without which it fades and withers
away.
The Qur'an tries to promote this feeling of gratitude by repeating the
attributes of God very frequently. We find most of these attributes
mentioned together in the following verses of the Qur'an:" He is God;
there is no god but He. He is the Knower of the unseen and the
visible; He is the All-Merciful, the All-Compassionate. He is God;
there is no god but He. He is the King, the All-Holy, the All-Peace,
the Guardian of the Faith, the All-Preserver, the All-Mighty, the All-
Compeller, the All-Sublime. Glory be to God, above that they
associate! He is God, the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him
belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the
earth magnifies Him; He is the Almighty, the All-Wise" (59:22-24).
" There is no god but He, the Living, the Everlasting. Slumber seizes
Him not, nor sleep. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the
earth. Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave?
He knows what lies before them, and what is after them, and they
comprehend not anything of His knowledge save such as He wills. His
throne comprises the heavens and earth. The preserving of them
oppresses Him not; He is the All-High, the All-Glorious" (2:255).
People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say
not as to God but the truth.
" The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and
His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe
in God and His Messengers, and say not "Three". Refrain; better it is
for you. God is only one God. Glory be to Him - (He is) above having a
son" (4:171).
Earle Jones - 19 Nov 2007 06:04 GMT
> WAMY Series: On Islam No.9.Introduction
> God's Attributes
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are
> used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities....

*
Are you insulting my God?  My God is Babalu aye, brought to the Cubans
by the Bantu African.

Your God is false.  Only Babalu aye is the true God.

earle
*
Peter Moylan - 19 Nov 2007 14:03 GMT
> Your God is false.  Only Babalu aye is the true God.

Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.

To get at the truth, you have to ask "which god (if any) has ever shown
an interest in human affairs?"

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Peter Duncanson - 19 Nov 2007 17:10 GMT
>> Your God is false.  Only Babalu aye is the true God.
>
>Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.
>
>To get at the truth, you have to ask "which god (if any) has ever shown
>an interest in human affairs?"

All those gods which need to be appeased by sacrifices.

Of course the devotees might have misunderstood the nature of
things.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Lieblich - 20 Nov 2007 01:45 GMT
> > Your God is false.  Only Babalu aye is the true God.
>
> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.
>
> To get at the truth, you have to ask "which god (if any) has ever shown
> an interest in human affairs?"

I can think of one, if you believe the Hebrew Scriptures (aka Old
Testament).  Of course, the fact of belief is prerequisite to the
determination of intervention. And yet many people say that the
intervention is what led them to believe.

Chicken? Egg?
Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 07:41 GMT
>> > Your God is false.  Only Babalu aye is the true God.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Testament).  Of course, the fact of belief is prerequisite
> to the

Covered very readably, and in detail, by Joseph ("Catch-22")
Heller in _God Knows_ , starting with Abishag the
Shunammite.

> determination of intervention. And yet many people say
> that the
> intervention is what led them to believe.
>
> Chicken? Egg?
Mark Brader - 20 Nov 2007 11:32 GMT
> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.

Those featuring many gods, like in classical Rome, would seem more likely
to admit the existence of others.
Signature

Mark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved,
msb@vex.net          | not by faith, but by the want of it.  --Franklin

Peter Moylan - 20 Nov 2007 12:00 GMT
>> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.
>
> Those featuring many gods, like in classical Rome, would seem more
> likely to admit the existence of others.

Point taken. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the Roman Empire was
that, as it expanded, it allowed the absorbed people to keep their own gods.

Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded in
the Bible, clearly accepted that there were different gods for different
tribes. There's plenty of "our god is better than your god" in the
stories, but I can't recall any examples of claims that "your god
doesn't exist".

Faced with this evidence, I'd better withdraw my original statement. I
wasn't thinking clearly enough.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

The Grammer Genious - 20 Nov 2007 13:40 GMT
> <...>
> Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded in
> the Bible, clearly accepted that there were different gods for different
> tribes. There's plenty of "our god is better than your god" in the
> stories, but I can't recall any examples of claims that "your god
> doesn't exist". <...>

Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her
husband's ex-wives.
Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 14:05 GMT
> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to
> command that there be no other gods before Him. He might
> have shown a little graciousness and at least have been
> civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her
> husband's ex-wives.

Are we talking Jehovah, here, or the
gentle-Jesus-meek-and-mild, loving, forgiving brand, which
allus seemed to me to be[have like] a different entity.
That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in a sort of
pre-modern example of Personal Growth?
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 20 Nov 2007 18:12 GMT
> > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to
> > command that there be no other gods before Him. He might
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in a sort of
> pre-modern example of Personal Growth?

It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, but
Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal torment.

--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff - 20 Nov 2007 20:07 GMT
>On Nov 20, 7:05 am, "Father Ignatius"
><FatherIgnat...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, but
>Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal torment.

But both parties can accept Usenet, and the Eternally Unanswered
Questions of past SDCs.

I don't think that Judaism can quite wash its hands of notions of
eternal distress.  How about the Book of Enoch? I'm only going on
secondary sources here, but it is reported that it was written by
members of the Hasidim between 100 and 200 years before Christianity,
and contained visions of Heaven and Hell where the prayers of the
righteous for vengeance upon sinners would be granted with a dishing-out
of eternal damnation:  "Ye sinners shall be cursed for ever, and ye
shall have no peace."  I realise that this text can't be mainstream, not
least because it disappeared until its resurrection two hundred years
ago, but Judaic it must be.
Signature

Paul

Skitt - 20 Nov 2007 21:08 GMT
>> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody, but
>> Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal torment.
>>
> But both parties can accept Usenet, and the Eternally Unanswered
> Questions of past SDCs.

Speaking of that, aren't there enough Eternally Unanswered Questions of past
SDCs to put together the next SDC?

There is, of course, the "Eternally" part ...
Signature

Skitt
now feeling skittish about that

Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 02:54 GMT
[ ... ]

> I don't think that Judaism can quite wash its hands of notions of
> eternal distress.  How about the Book of Enoch? I'm only going on
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> least because it disappeared until its resurrection two hundred years
> ago, but Judaic it must be.

Hasidism originated with the Baal Shem Tov in Eastern Europe in the
18th Century.  It's clear you're thinking of some other name for
whichever group you mean, but I can't get the right synapses to fire.

In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1]
I am about as far from being a Bible scholar as can be imagined, but I
have heard that many fundamentalist Christians get around some of the
apparent barbarity of the Hebrew Scriptures (which they call the Old
Testament) by declaring that the Christian Scriptures (which they call
the New Testament) supersede them.  That's how they exempt themselves
from all that tough stuff in Leviticus about not eating pork and
marrying brothers' widows.  Why that also doesn't exempt them from
enforcing the ban on homosexuality I have never quite understood,
although, as I said, I'm quite ignorant of most of this, and they
probably have a reason that satisfies them.

[1]  Yeah, "matures."  Look it up if you can't figure it out.
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 21 Nov 2007 06:20 GMT
> [ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> 18th Century.  It's clear you're thinking of some other name for
> whichever group you mean, but I can't get the right synapses to fire.
...

If you believe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Essene#Scholarly_discussion>, the Talmud mentions a sect called
Hasidim.  It was connected or not connected with the Essenes, who were
or were not the people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, which include
(really) excerpts from the /Book of Enoch/.  Modern Hasidim do or do
not believe that they are a revival or continuation of the ancient
group with the same name.

--
Jerry Friedman is leaving the Christian theology to the Christians,
for today.
Roland Hutchinson - 21 Nov 2007 08:01 GMT
> If you believe <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Essene#Scholarly_discussion>, the Talmud mentions a sect called
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> not believe that they are a revival or continuation of the ancient
> group with the same name.

I believe http://en.wikipedia.org because it testifies to its own inerrancy.

Signature

Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 07:46 GMT
> I am about as far from being a Bible scholar as can be
> imagined, but I
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> and they
> probably have a reason that satisfies them.

As it happens, only last night I was listening to a
diatribe[1] by an Englishman on the nature of The Red-State
Voter, who seems daily to be taking the US as a whole
further to the RR.  He asserted confidently that, although
"these people" let on to be guided by scripture, their
actual Bible knowledge, upon examination, turns out to be
nugatory[4], suggesting that a tranche of voters too big to
shake a stick at has delegated the task of forming opinion
to monotribal shamans.  If he is as correct as he is
self-righteous, this would be an explanation of your
observation.

[1]  Cognate with "diadem", hence "The Six Lost Diatribes of
Israel"[3].

[2]  "Religious Right".  What else?

[3]  One of which, I understand, was the Black Jews and the
Boers, and the other five of which don't matter, being
Foreign.  WMO.

[4]  Sweet and sticky and rapped in wrice paper.
Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 07:51 GMT
> In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people
> matures.[1]

"People" is the singular of "peoples"?!  Oh, dear Lord, I
hope Mr. Cunningham doesn't see that one!

> [1]  Yeah, "matures."  Look it up if you can't figure it
> out.
Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 08:36 GMT
> <snip>

> the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1]

> <snip>

> [1]  Yeah, "matures."  Look it up if you can't figure it out.

Okay I looked it up.  I found that 'people' with the meaning
'tribe' is singular just as 'family' is singular.  But, like
'family,' 'people' can be used in a plural sense in which
case it works better with a plural verb.

The tribe that is being referred to as a people does not
mature as a monolithic entity.  Its members mature, some at
a different rate than others.  That is why even though
'mature' or 'matures' would be all right in theory,
'matures' is better.

That is good because the singular verb with 'people' seems
so strange that it is a distraction for the reader and it
begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done,
thereby compounding the distraction.
Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 10:09 GMT
> > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> 'mature' or 'matures' would be all right in theory,
> 'matures' is better.

I meant to say 'mature' is better.

> That is good because the singular verb with 'people' seems
> so strange that it is a distraction for the reader and it
> begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done,
> thereby compounding the distraction.
Mike Lyle - 21 Nov 2007 13:35 GMT
>>> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> I meant to say 'mature' is better.
[...]

Well, you were wrong, then. You aren't required to /believe/ the
original statement.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 16:14 GMT
> >>> <snip>
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Well, you were wrong, then. You aren't required to /believe/ the
> original statement.

To let me understand your position better, please comment on
the sentence

| The family are in good health.

Do you insist on a singular verb with any nouns that is
formally singular regardless of whether or not the result
makes sense?

Do you not believe that a collective noun can take either a
singular or plural verb depending upon the sense?

I would say 'The geographic community are convinced that the
earth is flat.'  Would you insist on 'community is'?  How
would that choice depend upon whether or not I believe some
people think the earth is flat?  The essential point is that
the belief in a flat earth is a matter for an individual to
decide upon.

Whether a tribe matures or mature has nothing whatever to do
with what I believe about a Hebrew god and the maturity of a
people.
Some Buddy - 21 Nov 2007 16:26 GMT
> > >>> <snip>
> > >>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> Do you insist on a singular verb with any
> nouns
noun
> that is
> formally singular regardless of whether or not the result
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> with what I believe about a Hebrew god and the maturity of a
> people.
Mike Lyle - 21 Nov 2007 19:45 GMT
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> formally singular regardless of whether or not the result
> makes sense?

No.

> Do you not believe that a collective noun can take either a
> singular or plural verb depending upon the sense?

I do so believe.

> I would say 'The geographic community are convinced that the
> earth is flat.'  Would you insist on 'community is'?  How
> would that choice depend upon whether or not I believe some
> people think the earth is flat?  The essential point is that
> the belief in a flat earth is a matter for an individual to
> decide upon.

Irrelevant. Well, not irrelevant: I should have said "not analogous". In
our case, Bob has made it clear that he means what the sentence means
when you use a singular verb, not what it means when you use a plural
one.

> Whether a tribe matures or mature has nothing whatever to do
> with what I believe about a Hebrew god and the maturity of a
> people.

I was covering the possibility, which was real, that you might, by no
means unreasonably, think it did.

I think that's a wrap.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 23:25 GMT
> > <snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done,
> thereby compounding the distraction.

You're new here, right?
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 00:46 GMT
> > > <snip>
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> > 'mature' or 'matures' would be all right in theory,
> > 'matures' is better.

I followed up almost immediately ( See
http://tinyurl.com/384nfg ) to correct my erroneous
'"matures" is better" to "'mature' is better.'

> > That is good because the singular verb with 'people' seems
> > so strange that it is a distraction for the reader and it
> > begs to be defended as Robert Lieblich has defiantly done,
> > thereby compounding the distraction.
>
> You're new here, right?

Let's say I am; then what?
Robert Lieblich - 22 Nov 2007 04:06 GMT
> > > > <snip>
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Let's say I am; then what?

Then it helps explain why you look so clueless.

Cluelessness is no stigma, however.  We all started out more or less
clueless here.  I was a lot further out in left field when I started
posting to AUE than you appear to be now.  You'll either catch up or
give up.  I managed the former.  If I could, you can.

As for "people matures," that's exactly what I meant to convey -- and
yes, defiantly (mostly mock defiantly, ackcherly; regulars know that
tone of voice).  If you disagree with the notion as I expressed it,
feel free.  I hold no patent on the truth.  If, however, you disagree
with the means I chose to express it, you're off-base.  I knew exactly
what I meant to say and I said it.  That you have a different idea and
necessarily use different words does not at all reflect on how well I
conveyed my idea.

On the issue of whose idea is right, we disagree.  Life will go on.
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 13:09 GMT
> > > > > <snip>
> > > >
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> necessarily use different words does not at all reflect on how well I
> conveyed my idea.

Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that is
not necessarily fatal but is damaging.  You said "Look it
up."  Here again, for convenient reference, is what you
said:

| the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1]
|
| ...
| [1]  Yeah, "matures."  Look it up if you can't figure it out.

At that point I could only understand that I was being
advised to look up the rules for agreement between subject
and verb.  I had to assume that you were using a singular
verb because you had a subject that could be construed to be
singular.  That was the simplest interpretation of your
remarks and someone's principle says that the simplest
interpretation is most often right.  What did you expect
people to think when you wrote "Look it up"?  What did you
want them to look up?  

Now if you had written something more like

| [1] Yeah, "matures."  I know there are times when a
| collective noun takes a singular verb and other times a
| plural, but I have a good reason to choose the singular
| in this case.

then people would have known that you weren't blindly
insisting on agreement between an apparently singular noun
and its verb.

But then the remark "Look it up" would have made no sense.
What could we look up to learn more about your motivation?

> On the issue of whose idea is right, we disagree.  Life will go on.

And tempus keeps on fugiting.
Father Ignatius - 22 Nov 2007 13:55 GMT
> Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that
> is
> not necessarily fatal but is damaging.  You said "Look it
> up."

Okay, spelling it out for you: what you picked up was a
throw-away remark loaded with connotations for the
long-timers here (and there are people posting in this group
who have been hanging around here, on and off and in one
guise or another, for the better part of twenty years[1,2])
that refers to mega-threads this group has suffered in the
past that are testimony to the stubbornness of a prominent
and opinionated long-time poster in this group who has some
strong - nay, rigid - ideas in this area.  These things are
not spelled out, because LITS.

If you want to know more exactly what I'm talking about, and
feel some sort of masochistic impulse, you might refer (_for
example_!) to the archives of this group and check out the
thread '"people" is not the plural of "person" [was: Re:
African American]' that got started on Sep 21 2002 and
continued for 1314 posts.

While we are here, you might also get similar tics if you
mention (_for example_!) "rifle", "sandwiches", "rare" and
"redd" (sic).  There's a lot of history in this group.

[1]  I nearly said "morn tenures" but, on reflection,
decided that wouldn't be clear.

[2]  and I suddenly realise that I yam one
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 17:52 GMT
> > Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that
> > is
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> strong - nay, rigid - ideas in this area.  These things are
> not spelled out, because LITS.

An Internet Acronyms glossary at
http://www.gaarde.org/acronyms/?lookup=L doesn't tell me
what LITS means.  I assume this is another manifestation of
the attitude of your hangers-around who want to keep a
Usenet group like it is a select clique.  'To hell with a
general readership; we few know what we mean.'

> If you want to know more exactly what I'm talking about, and
> feel some sort of masochistic impulse, you might refer (_for
> example_!) to the archives of this group and check out the
> thread '"people" is not the plural of "person" [was: Re:
> African American]' that got started on Sep 21 2002 and
> continued for 1314 posts.

Okay I have looked at that 'thread' (and I still do not know
what is the point of your posting except that it appears you
have taken the opportunity to vent some sort of personal
grudge).  

Here's the entire text of a typical posting in the thread by
Mike Lyle dated October 4th:

| It's kind of you to stick up for me, but I meant my
| ignorantish use of the word "weight" for things outside
| the Earth's gravitational field.  I don't know these
| things, but isn't there some kind of parallel between
| weight/mass and accident/essence or something rather
| like that? The same mass can have different weights?

I suspect that if I counted the number of posts in that
thread that had anything to do with the relationship of
people to person those posts would be in a substantial
minority.

As for stubbornness and opionionatedness, there were 106
posters in the thread.  Was only one of them stubborn and
opinionated?  I suspect not.  Stubbornness has to meet
stubbornness to stay alive, and I doubt that there are many
of us who are not opinionated to some extent.
the Omrud - 22 Nov 2007 18:03 GMT
sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...

> > > Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that
> > > is
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Usenet group like it is a select clique.  'To hell with a
> general readership; we few know what we mean.'

In this case, it's not.  I have never seen this acronym before, but I
can figure out that it probably means Life Is Too Short.

Signature

David

Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 18:20 GMT
> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...

<snip>

> > > These things are
> > > not spelled out, because LITS.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> In this case, it's not.  I have never seen this acronym before, but I
> can figure out that it probably means Life Is Too Short.

That seems possible but what is supposed to be gained by
making people try to figure out what an abbreviation stands
for instead of simply writing out what you want to say? Does
it make sense to make a thousand people take say ten seconds
apiece (total about 3 hours) to puzzle out an abbreviation
in order to save the poster the few seconds he would need to
write the meaning in the first place?  Would I have to be
one of the select few in order to understand that way of
thinking?
Skitt - 22 Nov 2007 18:24 GMT
> the Omrud said:
>> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
>>> "Father Ignatius" said:

>>>> These things are
>>>> not spelled out, because LITS.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> one of the select few in order to understand that way of
> thinking?

No, but being a quick wit helps.
Signature

Skitt
not as quick as some

Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 18:33 GMT
> > the Omrud said:
> >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> No, but being a quick wit helps.

That does not address my question.  Quick wit or not why
should I be required to exercise whatever wit I have to
puzzle out an abbreviation that could just as well have been
written out to begin with?

And is there something witty about writing LITS in place of
life is too short?

Are you sure?  Would it be a hit on Comedy Central?
Skitt - 22 Nov 2007 18:40 GMT
> "Skitt" said:
>>> the Omrud said:
>>>> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
>>>>> "Father Ignatius" said:

>>>>>> These things are
>>>>>> not spelled out, because LITS.
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> puzzle out an abbreviation that could just as well have been
> written out to begin with?

There was no such requirement.  Puzzling it out was entirely voluntary.

> And is there something witty about writing LITS in place of
> life is too short?

I didn't say that it is.

> Are you sure?

Sure of what?  I think you missed the point of my remark.  You were expected
to be the one with the quick wit.  Oh, well ...

> Would it be a hit on Comedy Central?

Why would it?

Signature

Skitt
I may not understand what you say, but
I'll defend to your death my right to deny it.
                          --Albert Alligator

the Omrud - 22 Nov 2007 18:25 GMT
sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...

> > sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> making people try to figure out what an abbreviation stands
> for instead of simply writing out what you want to say?

I suspect it was done because life is too short.

> Does
> it make sense to make a thousand people take say ten seconds
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> one of the select few in order to understand that way of
> thinking?

I thought Usenet was a voluntary, nay, volunteer, activity.

Signature

David

Nick Atty - 23 Nov 2007 07:18 GMT
>> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>one of the select few in order to understand that way of
>thinking?

Silly question.   Where do you think the Internet Acronyms in that list
came from in the first place?
Signature

On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk

(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though likely to die soon

Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 08:19 GMT
> >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Silly question.   Where do you think the Internet Acronyms in that list
> came from in the first place?

Sillier question and completely irrelevant to my point.
Whether or not an unnecessary abbreviation is in the list
has nothing to do with the fact that the abbreviation can be
a minor inconvenience to thousands of readers adding up to a
substantial amount of total lost time.  The difference
between finding the abbreviation in a glossary and puzzling
it out is only quantitative.  Both ways the time in some
amount is unnecessarily wasted.

I can see an abbreviation being somewhat justified if the
poster is a hunt-and-peck typist whose every character
entered is an ordeal to be endured.  But if the poster has
never learned to type, he is probably not of an intelligence
level to make him worthwhile to read.
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 13:34 GMT
[...]
> Sillier question and completely irrelevant to my point.
> Whether or not an unnecessary abbreviation is in the list
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> it out is only quantitative.  Both ways the time in some
> amount is unnecessarily wasted.
[...]

You're taking it all far too seriously. Those who enjoy working out
crossword puzzle clues get a moment's amusement, while others can either
ask or ignore. The purport of the message was clear enough without the
"LITS" bit.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CDB - 23 Nov 2007 15:13 GMT
[internet abbreviations]

> I can see an abbreviation being somewhat justified if the
> poster is a hunt-and-peck typist whose every character
> entered is an ordeal to be endured.  But if the poster has
> never learned to type, he is probably not of an intelligence
> level to make him worthwhile to read.

<raises hand> (NTTAWWNBOAILTMOWTR)  When I'm not in the mood to puzzle
a new one out, or google for it, or ask about it, I ignore it and pass
on.  Saves no end of time.
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 19:53 GMT
>> >> sumbuddy@earthlink.net had it ...
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>it out is only quantitative.  Both ways the time in some
>amount is unnecessarily wasted.

Your choice. Waste the time or waste the time not.

>I can see an abbreviation being somewhat justified if the
>poster is a hunt-and-peck typist whose every character
>entered is an ordeal to be endured.  But if the poster has
>never learned to type, he is probably not of an intelligence
>level to make him worthwhile to read.

Intelligence has nothing at all to do with typing skills.
Middle Saxon - 22 Nov 2007 23:08 GMT
>Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that is
>not necessarily fatal but is damaging.  You said "Look it
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>But then the remark "Look it up" would have made no sense.
>What could we look up to learn more about your motivation?

Maybe the excellent, urbane and learned Mr Lieblich was referring to
the FAQ of this newsgroup. I snipped this from one of the regularly
posted mini-FAQs:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Group nouns: singular or plural? "company is" -v- "company are"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Use of a plural verb after a singular noun denoting a group of persons
(known as a noun of multitude) is commoner in the U.K. than in the
U.S.

American usage is normally to treat such nouns as singular, unless
there are other influences involved:

"The team plays well."
"The Giants play well."

In the U.K. the context often indicates whether the group or the
individuals within it are being referred to:

"My family is on holiday."
"My family are arguing."

The U.K. assumption is that the group went away on vacation, but that
the individuals are having a heated debate. Where there is no obvious
clue from the context, U.K. English speakers may use either singular
or plural constructions. You may find this discussed in style guides
under "notional agreement."
___________________________________________________________

Although the E, U & L Mr Lieblich is an American, I believe, it is
likely that long exposure to the cosmopolitan membership of AUE has
made him more accepting of British practice.
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 00:20 GMT
> >Your otherwise persuasive remarks have one weak spot that is
> >not necessarily fatal but is damaging.  You said "Look it
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> the FAQ of this newsgroup. I snipped this from one of the regularly
> posted mini-FAQs:

I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that
is in that mini-FAQ entry.  The question to be answered from
what Mr Lieblich said was not to be answered there.  It was
safe to assume that he knew everything in the mini-FAQ entry
as well as I do.  The question was given those guidelines
why did he think they pointed to a singular verb in his
particular example.  Whether you are American or British the
choice needs to be made.  He seemed to be saying we could
answer the question of why he made his choice by looking it
up somewhere.  We could not.  

<snip unnecessary quotation from mini-FAQ>

Anyway I think a better discussion of the subject including
the US UK difference is in the FAQ Supplement at
<http://www.alt-usage-english.org/groupnames.html> where
there are words from both the highly respected erstwhile AUE
regular Markus Laker and B. and C. Evans's Dictionary of
Contemporary American Usage.

> Although the E, U & L Mr Lieblich is an American, I believe, it is
> likely that long exposure to the cosmopolitan membership of AUE has
> made him more accepting of British practice.

But if you want to think strictly of UK vs US style which I
think is not the right thing to do Mr. Lieblich's choice was
not British but American.  So you have it backwards.
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 13:50 GMT
[...]
> I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that
> is in that mini-FAQ entry.  The question to be answered from
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> answer the question of why he made his choice by looking it
> up somewhere.  We could not.
[...]

You surprise me. (Well, you don't; but you would have a day or two ago.)
The distinct meanings of "people", which is the crux here, are easy
enough to look up all over the place --though I don't really believe you
needed to.

Anyhow, you've introduced yourself. Now enjoy the other discussions.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 16:15 GMT
> [...]
> > I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> enough to look up all over the place --though I don't really believe you
> needed to.

I did not think that was the crux.  I thought the crux was
given the well-known fact that people can and first did mean
tribe or nation and could with that meaning be used with
either a singular or a plural verb which of the two was
better in Robert Lieblich's assertion?

I choose to believe that a tribe's members mature
individually not the tribe itself.

I understand it was historically the fact that people while
a singular noun referring to a group could be used with a
plural verb that led to its being used as a substitute for
the formal plural of person.

> Anyhow, you've introduced yourself. Now enjoy the other discussions.

I have about decided that this newsgroup is not a friendly
one and that I should look elsewhere for enjoyment.  I do
not doubt that there are those here who will not be saddened
by that news.
tony cooper - 23 Nov 2007 17:31 GMT
>I have about decided that this newsgroup is not a friendly
>one and that I should look elsewhere for enjoyment.  I do
>not doubt that there are those here who will not be saddened
>by that news.

That's not at all correct.  There's a certain amount of fitting in
required, but - overall - the group is quite friendly.  That's not to
say that certain regulars in the group will not bite your head off,
but the group itself is almost warm and fuzzy at times.

Unless you start off on the wrong foot, and continue to use that foot
as your lead foot, responses to your post will be based on the post
itself; content over contributor.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

CDB - 23 Nov 2007 17:53 GMT
[consolation of the unappreciated]

> Unless you start off on the wrong foot, and continue to use that
> foot as your lead foot, responses to your post will be based on the
> post itself; content over contributor.

Was that "leed foot" or "ledd foot"?  (One extra point will be awarded
for "Both".)
Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 19:43 GMT
> [consolation of the unappreciated]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Was that "leed foot" or "ledd foot"?  (One extra point
> will be awarded for "Both".)

Shees, dude.  Enough with the invoking, awready; you're
making me nervous.  We need one o' them regulars to bite
your head off, I think.
Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 21:37 GMT
>> [consolation of the unappreciated]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> making me nervous.  We need one o' them regulars to bite
> your head off, I think.

But that's a rare occurrence.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

CDB - 24 Nov 2007 00:25 GMT
>>>> [your lead foot]

>>> Was that "leed foot" or "ledd foot"?  (One extra point
>>> will be awarded for "Both".)

>> Shees, dude.  Enough with the invoking, awready; you're
>> making me nervous.  We need one o' them regulars to bite
>> your head off, I think.

One o' them just didn't?  But I really wanted to know.  And did you
realise that the buddy is posting as more than one person?  I say,
'voke 'im.

> But that's a rare occurrence.

OK I go way long time kindle BBQ come back when head cooked to point.
Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 16:41 GMT
CDB <bellemarec@sympatico.ca> het geskryf:

>>>>> [your lead foot]
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> One o' them just didn't?  But I really wanted to know.

I yust realised that no-one answered you.  I believe Mr.
Cooper meant leed foot, and that certainly was its surface
meaning, leaving it up to the the rest of us to surmise that
ledd was what was in his heart.

> And did you realise that the buddy is posting as more
> than one person?

No.  Hadn't thought about it.

Signature

Nat

-----

"I share Americans' nostalgia for an era when you not only
could tell a man by the cut of his jib, but the jib industry
hadn't yet fled to Guangdong."

    ---Stephen Colbert, /I Am America/ (/And So Can You!/)

Bob Cunningham - 24 Nov 2007 01:10 GMT
[...]

> >  We need one o' them regulars to bite
> > your head off, I think.
>
> But that's a rare occurrence.

What's a rare occurrence?  That he thinks?
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 20:05 GMT
>> [...]
>> > I suspect that nearly everyone here knows very well all that
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>not doubt that there are those here who will not be saddened
>by that news.

Tell you what. You wander into a meeting of bird watchers, proclaim
loudly that you think the Black Capped Chickadee ought to be called a
Grey Breasted Dweezil, and when you are met with objections, insist
that you are right, pretend that you don't understand any of the
arguments used by the objectors, and finally, proclaim that You just
wanted to state your objection to the Black Capped Chickadee.

Then tell me if bird watchers are an unfriendly bunch.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:36 GMT
> In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.

I'm inclined to believe that this is true for all gods. When man creates
gods in his own image, he uses the current model of human society. In
times long gone, the nobility consisted of real bastards; basically,
they were the neighbourhood bullies who succeeded in taking over the
neighbourhood. It was therefore assumed that the gods would have similar
characteristics. It's pretty clear that the Greek gods were frivolous
and amoral, and that the Norse gods were mostly interested in rape and
pillage. As humans have become more civilised, we have better role
models like George^W ... well, I can't think of a good example for now,
but the concept of "noblesse oblige" seems to apply to newly invented gods.

If ever intelligent life appears on Earth, we can expect to find gods
with a more reasonable sense of morality and ethics.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Paul Wolff - 21 Nov 2007 19:59 GMT
>Paul Wolff wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>18th Century.  It's clear you're thinking of some other name for
>whichever group you mean, but I can't get the right synapses to fire.

This has been answered by Jerry Friedman downstream.  I was thinking
exactly of the name Hasidim (said to be precursors, or possibly
forerunners, of the Pharisees).

>In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his people matures.[1]
>I am about as far from being a Bible scholar as can be imagined,

Shame.  You could perhaps have helped with Sheol.  Since this sentence
occurs in the Wikipedia article on Sheol (only consulted in perversity)
it can't possibly be true:
       "By the second century BC, Oral Torah observant Jews had come to
       believe that those in sheol awaited the resurrection either in
       comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment."
Waiting for the resurrection may never turn out to have been eternal,
but for those still waiting ... you just can't be sure, can you?

>but I
>have heard that many fundamentalist Christians get around some of the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
>[1]  Yeah, "matures."  Look it up if you can't figure it out.

Me?
Signature

Paul

Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 23:27 GMT
[ ... ]

> >Hasidism originated with the Baal Shem Tov in Eastern Europe in the
> >18th Century.  It's clear you're thinking of some other name for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> exactly of the name Hasidim (said to be precursors, or possibly
> forerunners, of the Pharisees).

I confess to surprise.  I confess also to having erred.  Thanks to you
and Jerry for the correction.

[ ... ]
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 24 Nov 2007 05:12 GMT
> >[ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> it can't possibly be true:
>         "By the second century BC, Oral Torah observant Jews

Tsk tsk tsk.

> had come to believe that those in sheol

Tsk tsk tsk.  Maybe I should fix those.

> awaited the resurrection either in
>         comfort (in the bosom of Abraham) or in torment."
> Waiting for the resurrection may never turn out to have been eternal,
> but for those still waiting ... you just can't be sure, can you?
...

Maybe you can be sure if someone tells you.  "Welcome to Gehenna.  You
will be tormented here until the Resurrection, at which point you will
be purified, annihilated, or tormented eternally, depending on which
interpretation is correct."

Perhaps even more reliably, the Jewish Encyclopedia
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com
has substantial and confusing articles on Sheol, Gehenna, and
Resurrection.  I was wrong: among the contradictory opinions given in
the Talmud is that the wicked will be punished eternally.

--
Jerry Friedman
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 21 Nov 2007 06:09 GMT
> "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> least because it disappeared until its resurrection two hundred years
> ago, but Judaic it must be.

Okay, for at least a couple centuries, at least one group of Jews
believed in eternal punishment--but the idea that God underwent some
"personal growth" between Judaism and Christianity still won't work.

--
Jerry Friedman
Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 07:56 GMT
> Okay, for at least a couple centuries, at least one group
> of Jews
> believed in eternal punishment--but the idea that God
> underwent some
> "personal growth" between Judaism and Christianity still
> won't work.

[intrigued] Because?
Mike Lyle - 21 Nov 2007 13:23 GMT
> <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4ce7ed34-8747-484c-9a63-9757a2200bf5@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

>> Okay, for at least a couple centuries, at least one group
>> of Jews
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> [intrigued] Because?

Because the doctrine of the Atonement looks like some kind of nervous
collapse, not growth.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Paul Wolff - 21 Nov 2007 20:08 GMT
>On Nov 20, 1:07 pm, Paul Wolff <bounc...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>> "jerry_fried...@yahoo.com" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> >> That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in a sort of
>> >> pre-modern example of Personal Growth?

[...]

>> I don't think that Judaism can quite wash its hands of notions of
>> eternal distress.  How about the Book of Enoch? I'm only going on
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>believed in eternal punishment--but the idea that God underwent some
>"personal growth" between Judaism and Christianity still won't work.

I have no interest in defending or upholding the 'personal growth' idea
- only that the eternal punishment concept was pre-Christian in origin,
and found in strands of Jewish thought that seem to have anticipated or
even inspired other Christian teachings too.

       Robert Henry Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of
       the Old Testament in English: with Introductions and Critical
       and Explanatory Notes to the Several Books. 2 vols. (Oxford:
       Clarendon Press, 1913). Volume 1 contains the Apocrypha, and
       volume 2 the Pseudepigrapha. This has been the standard
       scholarly edition of these books for many years, and it is still
       not superseded. It contains extensive introductions, critical
       and explanatory notes, and a detailed topical index.

(Comment from http://www.bible-researcher.com/versbib12.html)

Charles says, about Enoch:  "The Sermon on the Mount reflects in several
instances the spirit and even reproduces the very phrases of our text:
many passages in the Gospels exhibit traces of the same, and St Paul
seems to have used the book as a vade mecum."
Signature

Paul

Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 21:15 GMT
> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody,
> but
> Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal
> torment.

mutter mutter Jewish Mothers mutter
Skitt - 20 Nov 2007 21:51 GMT

>> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody,
>> but Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal
>> torment.
>
> mutter mutter Jewish Mothers mutter

Naah, that's German.
Signature

Skitt

Peter Duncanson - 20 Nov 2007 21:52 GMT
>> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody,
>> but
>> Christianity, not Judaism, has the idea of eternal
>> torment.
>
>mutter mutter Jewish Mothers mutter

I hope that you are not suggesting that mumble mumble when Jesus
of Nazareth mumble mumble accepted mumble mumble crucifixion
mumble mumble He was relieved <stop mumbling> to be away from
his Jewish Mother?

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 21:58 GMT
>>> It's true that Jesus is not depicted as killing anybody,
>>> but
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> from
> his Jewish Mother?

Werl, swings and roundabouts, innit?

Anywaze, such a pathetically inadequate ploy was always
doomed to fail: three days later, she was back.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:23 GMT
>> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command
>> that there be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> different entity. That is, did we change gods, or did God change, in
> a sort of pre-modern example of Personal Growth?

The accepted theory seems to be that the Jewish god is one-third of the
Christian god. Yet another example of "our god is better than your god".

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Mike Lyle - 20 Nov 2007 19:58 GMT
>> <...>
>> Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> graciousness and at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of
> like a wife toward her husband's ex-wives.

I think he'd have been a bit more relaxed if they hadn't kept luring his
subjects away with irresistibly lewd parties on hilltops. That kind of
thing can play havoc with a deity's capacity for tolerance, you know.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Paul Wolff - 20 Nov 2007 20:49 GMT
>The Grammer Genious wrote:
>>> <...>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>I think he'd have been a bit more relaxed if they hadn't kept luring his
>subjects away with irresistibly lewd parties on hilltops.

That was just an unfortunate misunderstanding of the phrase "Mount
Moriah".

>That kind of
>thing can play havoc with a deity's capacity for tolerance, you know.

Havoc?  Merry Hell, I think you'll find.
Signature

Paul

Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:23 GMT
> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
> be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
> at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her
> husband's ex-wives.

There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives?

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Wood Avens - 21 Nov 2007 09:40 GMT
>There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives?

Oh, lots.  Sometimes out of heartfelt sympathy.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 09:50 GMT
>>There are wives who are civil towards their husband's
>>ex-wives?
>
> Oh, lots.  Sometimes out of heartfelt sympathy.

And there's orso the consideration of prezackly _how_ they
go about being civil, some of which methods are downright
scary.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 11:32 GMT
>> There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives?
>
> Oh, lots.  Sometimes out of heartfelt sympathy.

That makes sense. I can empathise with my ex's ex, even though I've
never met him.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Father Ignatius - 21 Nov 2007 11:53 GMT
>>> There are wives who are civil towards their husband's
>>> ex-wives?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> though I've
> never met him.

This was arguably your first mistake.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 13:11 GMT
>>>> There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> This was arguably your first mistake.

In future, I'll ask for references.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Robert Lieblich - 21 Nov 2007 23:30 GMT
> > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
> > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
> > at least have been civil to the other gods, sort of like a wife toward her
> > husband's ex-wives.
>
> There are wives who are civil towards their husband's ex-wives?

Mrs. Bob reports that it can be done.  I've even seen some examples in
my personal acquaintance.  It's usually catalyzed by the need to share
the care of dependent children.

Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once.
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 18:25 GMT
> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> my personal acquaintance.  It's usually catalyzed by the need to share
> the care of dependent children.

According to a source I do not remember, Bill Lear the
famous inventor and aviation pioneer once (maybe more than
once) had guests at his home with a number of his ex-wives
in the kitchen congenially working together to get dinner
ready.

> Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once.

If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting.
"Great grandmother"?  "Giggly girl"?
Skitt - 22 Nov 2007 18:35 GMT
> Robert Lieblich said:

>>>> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command
>>>> that there be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting.
> "Great grandmother"?  "Giggly girl"?

It's not all that obscure -- look at the attributions at the top of this
post.

Signature

Skitt
Give a man a fish, and he will know where to come for fish.
Teach a man to fish, and he will kill your market base.

Oleg Lego - 22 Nov 2007 22:13 GMT
>> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
>> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting.
>"Great grandmother"?  "Giggly girl"?

Perhaps you'd be happier reading alt.comments.obvious
Some Buddy - 22 Nov 2007 23:50 GMT
> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> >If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting.
> >"Great grandmother"?  "Giggly girl"?

"Golden girl"?

> Perhaps you'd be happier reading alt.comments.obvious

After Robert said "Mrs. Bob reports that it can be done" and
followed with "Even so, I suspect the GG was being tongue in
cheek just this once" it seemed obvious to me that the GG
was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob.  Why would I look further to
define the puzzle?
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 02:44 GMT


>> >> Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob.  Why would I look further to
>define the puzzle?

Indeed. Why bother being right when you can be just as happy
being wrong?

But to repeat:

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 08:26 GMT
>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> Indeed. Why bother being right when you can be just as happy
> being wrong?

That's flawed logic.  How could I have been happy being
wrong when I did not know I was wrong?

> But to repeat:

After all the times that has been commented on in this
thread it seems somewhat dimwitted of you to think it
appropriate to repeat it.
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 18:29 GMT
>>  
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>That's flawed logic.  How could I have been happy being
>wrong when I did not know I was wrong?

Quote: "Ignorance is bliss."

>> But to repeat:
>
>After all the times that has been commented on in this
>thread it seems somewhat dimwitted of you to think it
>appropriate to repeat it.

Up to this point you seemed not to have seen it despite so many
hints.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 19:49 GMT
> Quote: "Ignorance is bliss."

I know!  I know!  Noël Coward, _Hay Fever_.
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 22:35 GMT
>> Quote: "Ignorance is bliss."
>
>I know!  I know!  Noël Coward, _Hay Fever_.

Thomas Gray: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 22:53 GMT
>>> Quote: "Ignorance is bliss."
>>
>> I know!  I know!  Noël Coward, _Hay Fever_.
>
> Thomas Gray: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."

"'Twere folly", no?

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 23:11 GMT
>>>> Quote: "Ignorance is bliss."
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>"'Twere folly", no?

Now ya got me. I cut and pasted that from a web site.

I checked a few more sites and it seems to be "'Tis folly"

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 23:17 GMT
[...]
>>> Thomas Gray: "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise."
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I checked a few more sites and it seems to be "'Tis folly"

Yes, you're right: I'm sorry. I wonder how the "'twere" got as firmly
fixed in my mind as it was.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 23:42 GMT
<snip>

> >> But to repeat:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Up to this point you seemed not to have seen it despite so many
> hints.

I of course understood what was being hinted the first time
it happened but as I've explained it was irrelevant because
I did not care what GG meant.  I only wanted to take a jab
at the use of abbreviations.  What GG meant was unimportant
to that end.  

It seems somewhat dimwitted of you not to understand that
after I had so clearly and carefully explained it.  You seem
to be one of the fools who leap to the keyboard to respond
based on a half-assed idea of what the poster is saying
rather than trying to understand what he really is saying.  

I generally speaking do not want to know what abbreviations
stand for.  Being curious about their meaning would be a
step in the direction of honoring them.
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 07:14 GMT
><snip>
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>based on a half-assed idea of what the poster is saying
>rather than trying to understand what he really is saying.  

This is alt.usage .english, not alt.usage.vague.hints.and.telepathy

>I generally speaking do not want to know what abbreviations
>stand for.  Being curious about their meaning would be a
>step in the direction of honoring them.
Some Buddy - 24 Nov 2007 16:00 GMT
> ><snip>
> >
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> This is alt.usage .english, not alt.usage.vague.hints.and.telepathy

Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG
stood for when I never even came close to asking a question?
He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.  Can it be
that he does not know that this is not
alt.usage.vague.hints.and.telepathy?

I think I have heard that Englishmen do not understand
irony.  Maybe Hatunen is an Englishman.

By the way are we still talking about the concept of God in
Islam?  How long will this 'thread' go on?  Will it last as
long as the 1314-post 'thread' that dealt with nothing but
'people' and 'persons'?  (Note for irony-perception-deprived
readers:  Each of those questions is both rhetorical and
ironic.)

> >I generally speaking do not want to know what abbreviations
> >stand for.  Being curious about their meaning would be a
> >step in the direction of honoring them.

Are we having fun yet?
tony cooper - 24 Nov 2007 16:13 GMT
>He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
>jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.

Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here:  Is
"jibe" acceptable for this meaning?  I would use "gibe", but
dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".  
Signature


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 16:23 GMT
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> het geskryf:

>> He could only have done so by taking my somewhat
>> sarcastic jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
>
> Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the
> others here:  Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?  I
> would use "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".

Yeah, it's fine.  Left to myself, I would have written
"jibe" and not thought about it, but I see Chambers, while
accepting both, prefers "gibe".  "Gybe" (alternatively
"jibe") is different, of course.

Signature

Nat

-----

"...the masculine shall embrace the feminine and the
feminine shall embrace the masculine..."

    ---The British Parliament's Interpretation Act

Bob Cunningham - 24 Nov 2007 18:58 GMT
> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
>
> Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here:  Is
> "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?  I would use "gibe", but
> dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".  

Do not concern yourself with this Mr. Cooper but for the
others here the Collegiate dictionary gives 'jibe' as an
alternative spelling for 'gibe':

| Main Entry: gibe
| Variant:or jibe

with the meaning:

| intransitive verb   : to utter taunting sarcastic words :
| express scorn : SNEER

Mr. Cooper could have found an answer to his question by
simply reading what it says in dictionaries.  Is there not a
newsgroup FAQ or something that advises posters to avoid
asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary
lookup?
tony cooper - 24 Nov 2007 20:31 GMT
>> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
>> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>| Main Entry: gibe
>| Variant:or jibe

In tribute to JF:  Golly!

>with the meaning:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary
>lookup?

Perhaps your eyes are getting a bit rheumy and you missed reading that
I acknowledged that dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".

My question, addressed to the readers of this group, had to do with
preference rather than acceptability of a variant.

BTW, I was addressing the peoples in this group who view and
understand what is written in this group.  I was not referring to
people who do basketwork or make vertical grooves on the edge of
coins.  I trust that I need not come up with a special spelling of the
word to make this clear to you à la the Cunninghamfisted "reed/redd"
proposed convention.

BTW II, why are you withholding commas?  Are you anticipating a
shortage in the future?

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 21:05 GMT
>> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
>> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>others here the Collegiate dictionary gives 'jibe' as an
>alternative spelling for 'gibe':

Geez, Bob, do you even read the posts you respond to? Have a look at
what Tony wrote; you know, the part you included, just up there, where
it says:

>> Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here:  Is
>> "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?  I would use "gibe", but
>> dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".  

Yeah, that's the one. See where he said 'I would use "gibe", but
dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".'.

>| Main Entry: gibe
>| Variant:or jibe
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary
>lookup?
Bob Cunningham - 24 Nov 2007 21:25 GMT
> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> >> "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?  I would use "gibe", but
> >> dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".  

Geez, Oleg, do you even read the posts you respond to?  Have
a look at what Tony wrote:

    Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?   I would use
    "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".  

Yeah, that's the one.  See where he asked the question and
then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that
'gibe' and 'jibe' are equally acceptable.

> Yeah, that's the one. See where he said 'I would use "gibe", but
> dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".'.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> >asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary
> >lookup?

That is, he looked the matter up in the dictionary where he
should have understood that the two are equally acceptable;
then he posted for the specific purpose of asking the
alt.usage.english readership if 'jibe' is 'acceptable for
this meaning'.  Maybe the FAQ doesn't say anything about
people who do indeed consult the dictionary but can't
understand what it says.
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 21:43 GMT
>> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
>> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that
>'gibe' and 'jibe' are equally acceptable.

Geez, Bob, can you not understand the difference between claiming that
a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them?

>> Yeah, that's the one. See where he said 'I would use "gibe", but
>> dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".'.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>people who do indeed consult the dictionary but can't
>understand what it says.
Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 00:12 GMT
> >> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
> >> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Geez, Bob, can you not understand the difference between claiming that
> a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them?

You are so confused that I'm not sure where to start.  But I
guess we can start with "claiming that a word is
unacceptable".  How did that get into the discussion?  Did
somebody assert or even hint that someone had claimed that
"jibe" was unacceptable?  You seem to be implying that
that's what has happened.  It didn't happen while I was
present.

As for "asking a group if it [is] acceptable to them", is
the arrogance level so high in this group that standard
dictionaries are not to be accepted unless the group first
approves?  Thanks anyway, but I will continue to accept the
judgment of works like the _New Shorter Oxford_ for the
British point of view and the _11th Collegiate_ for the
American, in preference to what a bunch of strangers with
unknown credentials may decide to tell me.

Anyway, Cooper didn't ask "is it acceptable to you people?"
He just asked if it was acceptable.  The way to answer that
question is to look it up in a respected dictionary.  I
won't give much weight to what a member of the group thinks
about it unless he or she backs it up with an authoritative
source or maybe provides credentials to show that he or she
is himorherself an authoritative source.

[...]

Anyway, this 'jibe'/'gibe' thing brings to mind an amusing
error that used to creep into a report now and then at the
place where I used to work.  Like, 'the results of the two
tests don't jive'.  I could imagine someone's wanting those
results to leap off the page and truck on down the avenue.
Oleg Lego - 25 Nov 2007 06:04 GMT
>> >> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
>> >> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>that's what has happened.  It didn't happen while I was
>present.

If one asks "Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?", one is also
asking if it is unacceptable. Nicht whar?

>As for "asking a group if it [is] acceptable to them", is
>the arrogance level so high in this group that standard
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>tests don't jive'.  I could imagine someone's wanting those
>results to leap off the page and truck on down the avenue.

<yawn>
Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 10:30 GMT
[...]

> >> Geez, Bob, can you not understand the difference between claiming that
> >> a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable to them?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> If one asks "Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?", one is also
> asking if it is unacceptable. Nicht whar?

I asked readers to note how Oleg has deviously switched from
his false implication that someone had *claimed* that a word
was unacceptable to the red herring "asking if it is
unacceptable".  

I think Oleg is probably smart enough to know that there's a
big difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable
and asking if it's unacceptable.  But he's apparently not
smart enough to know that not many people will be fooled by
his sneaky tactic.
Oleg Lego - 26 Nov 2007 06:17 GMT
>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>was unacceptable to the red herring "asking if it is
>unacceptable".  

You really are a piece of work, Bob. At no time did I imply that
someone had claimed that the word was unacceptable. In fact, I asked
you if you understood the difference between claiming that a word is
unacceptable, and asking if it is acceptable.

>I think Oleg is probably smart enough to know that there's a
>big difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable
>and asking if it's unacceptable.  But he's apparently not
>smart enough to know that not many people will be fooled by
>his sneaky tactic.

Well, since you don't appear to understand the difference, it's easy
to see how you might think I've been devious.
Bob Cunningham - 26 Nov 2007 17:11 GMT
> >[...]
> >
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> you if you understood the difference between claiming that a word is
> unacceptable, and asking if it is acceptable.

You really are a piece of work, Oleg.  Cooper asked if the
word was acceptable.  I commented on that question.  There
was no doubt that he had asked it.  I certainly gave no hint
at any point that I thought anyone had claimed that the word
was unacceptable.  By asking "can you not understand the
difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable, and
asking a group if it acceptable to them?" you strongly
implied that somehow the question of someone's claiming a
word is unacceptable had arisen.  Since I clearly assumed no
such claim, and I wasn't aware that anyone else had, we were
left with no choice but to conclude that you mistakenly
assumed that someone else had.

Bottom line is that anyway you slice it the question "can
you not understand the difference between claiming that
a word is unacceptable, and asking a group if it acceptable
to them?" had no basis for being asked, so it was a stupid,
pointless question.  Your question "If one asks 'Is "jibe"
acceptable for this meaning?', one is also asking if it is
unacceptable <incomprehensible jumble of letters omitted>?"
deviously sidestepped your previous pointless question and
replaced it with another, equally inappropriate and
unrelated to previous remarks..

Do you ever read over what you've written to see if it makes
sense before pushing the send button?  

> >I think Oleg is probably smart enough to know that there's a
> >big difference between claiming that a word is unacceptable
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Well, since you don't appear to understand the difference, it's easy
> to see how you might think I've been devious.

There you go again.  You're saying that I don't appear to
understand the difference while you have no earthly reason
for assuming that I don't.  You seem to be hallucinating.
tony cooper - 26 Nov 2007 17:51 GMT
>You really are a piece of work, Oleg.  Cooper asked if the
>word was acceptable.

No, what Cooper asked was " Is "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?  I
would use "gibe", but dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".  

Surely, you can understand what "for this meaning" imparts to the
question.

Your teacup runneth over.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Oleg Lego - 26 Nov 2007 18:25 GMT
>> >[...]
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>understand the difference while you have no earthly reason
>for assuming that I don't.  You seem to be hallucinating.

Of course you don't appear to understand the difference.

Please feel free to rant away. I won't be responding further.
Bob Cunningham - 26 Nov 2007 18:37 GMT
[...]

> I won't be responding further.

That's the best news I've had all day.
tony cooper - 24 Nov 2007 22:04 GMT
>> >> >He could only have done so by taking my somewhat sarcastic
>> >> >jibe to be a vague hint that I wanted to know.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that
>'gibe' and 'jibe' are equally acceptable.

Well, see, Bob, variants are not always equally acceptable.  To me,
"gibe" is used in context where a sarcastic poke in the eye is
intended,  and "jibe" is used in context where the meaning is about
course or agreement.

Dictionaries offer "jibe" for "gibe" and "gibe" for "jibe", but the
definitions are not the same.  Not equal at all.

Fascinating things, words.  "Jibe"  is defined as "to shift from one
side to another when running before the wind" and "to alter course".
It's also defined as "to be in accord:  agree".  The definition of
"gibe" offers no such meanings.  Do we really reed them as the same?

What's with that?  If your statement jibes with what I've read, is
your statement on a different course than what I've redd or is it in
agreement with what I've redd?  

>> >Mr. Cooper could have found an answer to his question by
>> >simply reading what it says in dictionaries.  Is there not a
>> >newsgroup FAQ or something that advises posters to avoid
>> >asking questions that can be answered by a simple dictionary
>> >lookup?

See what happens when we do a simple dictionary lookup?  The
definitions don't jibe.  Your gibe is undeserved.

I am, by the way, using simple dictionaries.  I don't have access to
the OED where the simple may be complexly extended.

I hope you set me straight here, Mr Cunningham.   How acceptable are
variant spellings when the definitions and usage varies?

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 01:09 GMT
[...]

> >Yeah, that's the one.  See where he asked the question and
> >then let it stand even though the dictionary told him that
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Dictionaries offer "jibe" for "gibe" and "gibe" for "jibe", but the
> definitions are not the same.  Not equal at all.

That is very simply not true.  Dictionaries say things like
"gibe or jibe" and then give a set of definitions with no
suggestion that any of the meanings pertain to one and not
the other.  Here for example is what the _11th Collegiate_
says:

   Main Entry:gibe
   Variant: or  jibe  [...]
   Function:verb
   Inflected Form:gibed or jibed ; gib£ing or jib£ing
   Etymology:perhaps from Middle French giber to
       shake, handle roughly
   Date:1567

   intransitive verb : to utter taunting words
   transitive verb : to deride or tease with taunting words
   synonyms see SCOFF
   –gibe or     jibe noun  
   –gib.er or     jib.er noun

Clearly there's no suggestion there that the definitions
don't apply to both spellings equally.

It's true that 'jibe' has homographs, but the question here
is whether "jibe" is acceptable in the sense of "gibe".  The
homographs have nothing to do with the answer to that
question, which is simply yes.

It's as if someone had asked "Is 'saw' acceptable as the
past tense of 'see'? and someone had answered "Not
necessarily, because 'saw' can also be a tool used to cut
wood".

[...]

> What's with that?  If your statement jibes with what I've read, is
> your statement on a different course than what I've redd or is it in
> agreement with what I've redd?  

I thought Tony Cooper was the only one who didn't understand
the reason for the spelling "redd" and the places where it
would be properly used.  Now here you've misused it twice in
the same sentence.  That seems to rule out its being a typo,
so there seem to be more than one of you after all.  

> >> >Mr. Cooper could have found an answer to his question by
> >> >simply reading what it says in dictionaries.  Is there not a
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> See what happens when we do a simple dictionary lookup?  The
> definitions don't jibe.  Your gibe is undeserved.

In the entries where the two spellings are given as simple
alternatives, the definitions are the same for the two
spellings.  The definitions you want to bring in are in
other entries for homographs of "jibe" where the two aren't
given as alternative spellings.  They are completely
irrelevant to Cooper's question.

> I am, by the way, using simple dictionaries.  I don't have access to
> the OED where the simple may be complexly extended.

Here's the heading for the relevant entry in the online
_Oxford English Dictionary_:

    gibe, jibe, n.1

and the single definition, which applies equally to the two,
is

    A scoffing or sneering speech; a taunt, flout,
    or jeer.

The examples range from 1573 to 1885, with the oldest having
the spelling "iybes"; the latest, "jibes"; and a mixture
running predominantly to "gibe" in between; a notable
exception being from Hamlet, 1602,

    Alas poore Yorick..Where be your Jibes now?

I won't bother to look at homographs of "jibe" in the _OED_,
because there's no point in doing so.

> I hope you set me straight here, Mr Cunningham.   How acceptable are
> variant spellings when the definitions and usage varies?

I'll wait to comment on that until someone shows me a
dictionary entry with the alternative spellings "jibe" and
"gibe" whose meanings don't coincide.  All you've brought up
is that the "jibe" that's an alternative spelling of "gibe"
has homographs with quite different meanings.  

Cooper didn't ask about those homographs.  He just asked if
"jibe" is acceptable with the same meaning as "gibe".  A
good dictionary would have given him the simple answer yes.
There was no need to clutter up Usenet with a question about
it.
Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 01:43 GMT
I really screwed up.

I somehow lost track of whose posting I was replying to
below.  I thought for some strange reason it was someone
other than Tony Cooper.  That explains paragraphs where I'm
using both "you" and "Cooper".  I thought the "you" was the
someone.

If I had realized it was Cooper's posting, I wouldn't have
responded at all.  I normally don't pay much attention to
anything he posts.

> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 109 lines]
> There was no need to clutter up Usenet with a question about
> it.
tony cooper - 25 Nov 2007 06:47 GMT
>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>the other.  Here for example is what the _11th Collegiate_
>says:

I am, of course, deeply honored that you should reply to me and not to
someone else with allusions to "Cooper" as is your usual style.
However, I have read ahead in the thread and see that your reply was
in error and the honor was fleeting.

What you are saying is that the presence of a variant *spelling* means
that the word  has the same definition in both cases.  Yet, the
dictionary does not bear this out.  For example, the word "fulfill" is
listed with a set of definitions and then shows "Also:  fulfil".
Skipping to "fulfil", the same definitions are offered as are offered
with "fulfill".

Try "flier" and "flyer" or "veranda" and "verandah" or "adviser" and
"advisor".  Each lists the same definitions for each spelling.
"Artifact" and "artefact" have the same definitions, but "artefact" is
a variant of "artifact".

Progressing, then, when we *don't* see the same definition in the
listing of two variants could we assume that while we'll accept one
variant for the other as a spelling, we don't necessarily accept both
variants to have the same definition?  As is the case with "gibe" and
"jibe"?

>Clearly there's no suggestion there that the definitions
>don't apply to both spellings equally.

Oh, but there is.  The omission of the same definitions is much more
than a mere suggestion.

>It's true that 'jibe' has homographs, but the question here
>is whether "jibe" is acceptable in the sense of "gibe".  The
>homographs have nothing to do with the answer to that
>question, which is simply yes.

I sense that smoke is billowing up from somewhere around my hip
pockets.   Homographs are an entirely different thing.   You've veered
off-course to bring them into this.

>> What's with that?  If your statement jibes with what I've read, is
>> your statement on a different course than what I've redd or is it in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>the reason for the spelling "redd" and the places where it
>would be properly used.  

Name one.

>> See what happens when we do a simple dictionary lookup?  The
>> definitions don't jibe.  Your gibe is undeserved.
>
>In the entries where the two spellings are given as simple
>alternatives, the definitions are the same for the two
>spellings.

>> I hope you set me straight here, Mr Cunningham.   How acceptable are
>> variant spellings when the definitions and usage varies?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>is that the "jibe" that's an alternative spelling of "gibe"
>has homographs with quite different meanings.  

American Heritage:

gibe also jibe       (ji-b)  Pronunciation Key
v.   gibed also jibed, gib·ing also jib·ing, gibes also jibes

v.   intr.
To make taunting, heckling, or jeering remarks.

v.   tr.
To deride with taunting remarks.

n.   A derisive remark.

[Possibly from obsolete French giber, to handle roughly, play, from
Old French.]

gib'er n., gib'ing·ly adv.
(Download Now or Buy the Book)

and:

jibe 1 also gybe       (ji-b)  Pronunciation Key
v.   jibed also gybed, jib·ing also gyb·ing, jibes also gybes

v.   intr.
To shift a fore-and-aft sail from one side of a vessel to the other
while sailing before the wind so as to sail on the opposite tack.

v.   tr.
To cause (a sail) to jibe.

n.   The act of jibing.

>Cooper didn't ask

There we go.   Back to normal.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Bob Cunningham - 25 Nov 2007 12:32 GMT
[...]

> > Clearly there's no suggestion [in the entry for 'gibe, also jibe'
> > there that the definitions don't apply to both spellings equally.
>
> Oh, but there is.  The omission of the same definitions is much more
> than a mere suggestion.

> >It's true that 'jibe' has homographs, but the question here
> >is whether "jibe" is acceptable in the sense of "gibe".  The
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> [...] Homographs are an entirely different thing.   You've veered
> off-course to bring them into this.

Nonsense.  Homographs have everything to do with it.  "Gibe"
with its alternative spelling "jibe" has only one set of
meanings that aren't differentiated between the two
spellings.  There are other words spelled "jibe", but
they're merely homographs of the one that's alternative to
"gibe".  They have completely different meanings and
different etymologies.  They're true homographs.

This thread started with a question by Cooper about "jibe"
as shown by dictionaries to be an alternative spelling of
"gibe".  Cooper has attempted to veer off-course by bringing
up homographs of that "jibe".

Knowing Cooper, I know that he'll try to find some verbose
way to weasel out of the truth he's confronted with.  I also
know that, as ever, I don't want to waste any more time
communicating with him.

Have fun, Cooper, weasel away.  The floor is yours alone
from now on.  Your weaseling will not be responded to from
this corner.
tony cooper - 25 Nov 2007 13:25 GMT
>Knowing Cooper, I know that he'll try to find some verbose
>way to weasel out of the truth he's confronted with.  I also
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>from now on.  Your weaseling will not be responded to from
>this corner.

Good choice.  A trick you've borrowed from defense lawyers.  Never put
your client on the stand when their testimony can only hurt the case.
 

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 15:00 GMT
[ ... ]

> > [...] Homographs are an entirely different thing.   You've veered
> > off-course to bring them into this.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> "gibe".  They have completely different meanings and
> different etymologies.  They're true homographs.

Um, Tony, on the narrow point of homographs:  Bob C. has you there.
There's more than one word spelled "jibe," as there is more word
spelled "ounce" and more than one word spelled "stern." (There are
hundreds if not thousands of such situations in English).  We have a
tendency to refer to a given spelling as a given "word", as if
one-sixteenth of a pound and a snow leopard (or the adjective
pertaining to discipline and the noun designating the backside of a
ship) are the same "word."  But in fact they are different words, with
different etymologies and different meanings, that happen to have the
same spelling.  Such words are called "homographs."

So, okay, "j-i-b-e" is the spelling of three different words.  It's
possible that some dictionaries lump them all under their shared
spelling as if they're all the same word, but this is sloppy practice,
and good dictionaries are careful to give each word a separate
listing.  Check the likes of M-W, AHD, and Oxford.

I'm not all that clear on what exactly is in dispute between you and
Bob C., but let's at least get our terminology straight.  On the issue
of how many words are spelled "jibe," he's right.  And when Bob C. is
right, he's right.
tony cooper - 25 Nov 2007 17:08 GMT
>[ ... ]
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>of how many words are spelled "jibe," he's right.  And when Bob C. is
>right, he's right.

But Mr Cunningham has labeled me as a slippery weasel, and - as such -
I am entitled to exercise the prerogative of saying that this is not
about homographs.  It is about choosing the right variant spelling to
convey the meaning intended.  IMO, "jibe" does not convey the same
meaning as "gibe".   Mr Cunningham's jibe to homographs is not what
this is about.

Lost in this shuffle is that my original question had to do with
questioning the preferences of the assembled-on-screen body here.  My
preference is to use "gibe" for the sarcastic poke, and I'm curious if
this preference is shared by others.  

It seems not right to me to use "jibe" for this meaning.  I'm avoiding
"wrong" because "wrong" would be wrong.  Allowable is not wrong, but
it's not entirely right, either.   If you get my drift.

Speaking of drift, as often the case with Mr Cunningham's spit bubbles
when I'm involved, one of his criticisms of my post was that I
needlessly cluttered up usenet with my question.  He also suggested
that I would offer a verbose rebuttal.

He then proceeded to clutter up usenet with a series of verbose
rantings.

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Mike Lyle - 25 Nov 2007 22:29 GMT
[...]
> Lost in this shuffle is that my original question had to do with
> questioning the preferences of the assembled-on-screen body here.  My
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "wrong" because "wrong" would be wrong.  Allowable is not wrong, but
> it's not entirely right, either.   If you get my drift.
[...]

Eh? What? Is there something going on? ... Yes, on the whole I agree
with Tony on this, as do Collins and OED. "Gibe" is given first for
"jeer" etc, while "jibe" is the only one for the "correspond" sense
(which I never use anyhow). There doesn't seem to be any particularly
good /reason/, though, unless one takes the "jeer" one as a derivative
of Old French /giber/, which is offered merely as a "perhaps".

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Pat Durkin - 25 Nov 2007 15:55 GMT
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
> from now on.  Your weaseling will not be responded to from
> this corner.

Say, in your researches, did youse find the "jive" spelling?  I hear the
non-nautical word pronounced that way quite a bit.  (If it doesn't fit
you must not jive it.)
Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 16:16 GMT
[ ... ]

> Say, in your researches, did youse find the "jive" spelling?  I hear the
> non-nautical word pronounced that way quite a bit.  (If it doesn't fit
> you must not jive it.)

The use of "jive" in place of "jibe" in the meaning "correspond" or
"agree" is common in my experience but hasn't yet found its way into
M-W or AHD online.  It's in the Eggcorn Database:
<http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/english/420/jive/>.
Oleg Lego - 26 Nov 2007 06:17 GMT
>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>from now on.  Your weaseling will not be responded to from
>this corner.

Include me in that too, please. There's a good lad.
Bob Cunningham - 26 Nov 2007 16:45 GMT
[...]

> >Have fun, Cooper, weasel away.  The floor is yours alone
> >from now on.  Your weaseling will not be responded to from
> >this corner.

> Include me in that too, please. There's a good lad.

English usage dilettantes may find it intriguing to try to
fathom what antecedent Oleg intends for his "that".

Does he want to be included in those who are advised to
weasel away?

Does he want to be included in those who will not respond to
Cooper's weaseling?

It can't be that he wants to be included in a group having
the floor alone, because "alone" requires that only one
weaseler have the floor.

I doubt that he means he wants to be included in those whose
weaseling I won't respond to, because that would be
tantamount to recognizing that he, too, is a weaseler.

Are there other possibilities?
Mike Lyle - 26 Nov 2007 18:36 GMT
> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Are there other possibilities?

I'm distressed to note that nobody has yet spoken up for the humble
weasel. If you've ever watched one wiggling through a hedgerow doing its
mustelid stuff, or dashing in its undulating, almost fluid, way across
the road in front of your car, you'll know what delightful little
creatures they are.

They're clean, excellent parents, and have never to my knowledge
displayed the slightest tendency to duplicity. Why, they don't even
change colour in the winter to disguise themselves amid the frost and
snow --that's a stoatally different animal.

So let's have a bit less of this speciesist libel, you blokes.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Father Ignatius - 26 Nov 2007 21:54 GMT
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> het geskryf:

> I'm distressed to note that nobody has yet spoken up for
> the humble weasel. If you've ever watched one wiggling
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> disguise themselves amid the frost and snow --that's a
> stoatally different animal.

And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two
species that fuffs to warn of their intention to attack.

Signature

Nat

-----

"We know that more than 70 to 80% of women masturbate, and
90% of men masturbate, and the rest lie."

    ---Joycelyn Elders

Oleg Lego - 27 Nov 2007 04:08 GMT
>Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> het geskryf:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two
>species that fuffs to warn of their intention to attack.

Interesting word, and a new one to me. What other species does this?
Father Ignatius - 27 Nov 2007 05:35 GMT
Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:

>> Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> het
>> geskryf:
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Interesting word, and a new one to me. What other species
> does this?

The tiger.

Signature

Nat

-----

"She had a Mount Rushmore T-shirt on, and those guys never
looked so good. Especially Jefferson and Lincoln. Kind of
bloated, but happy."

    ---/A Prairie Home Companion/

Oleg Lego - 27 Nov 2007 17:18 GMT
>Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>The tiger.

Thanks, padre. I had no idea any animal did that.
Robin Bignall - 27 Nov 2007 22:11 GMT
>>Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>Thanks, padre. I had no idea any animal did that.

What the fuff is a fuff?
Signature

Robin
Herts, England

Mike Lyle - 27 Nov 2007 23:30 GMT
>>> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>
> What the fuff is a fuff?

You've heard of "Tyger, tyger, burning bright"? Well, reflect on what
inflammable the animal might produce. How they ignite it is a mystery to
me ...

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Father Ignatius - 28 Nov 2007 05:37 GMT
Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> het geskryf:

>>> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>
> What the fuff is a fuff?

An onomatopoeic name for a noise warning of impending
attack.

<Insert witty remark about fuffers in the porn industry.>
Father Ignatius - 28 Nov 2007 04:53 GMT
Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:

>> Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat.com> het geskryf:

>>>> And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two
>>>> species that fuffs to warn of their intention to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Thanks, padre. I had no idea any animal did that.

I also learn that "fuffing" is a name given to the
photographic technique of bounce-flashing (flash-bouncing?)
but I dunno how general this is.
Skitt - 28 Nov 2007 17:24 GMT
> Oleg Lego het geskryf:
>> Father Ignatius posted:
>>> Oleg Lego het geskryf:
>>>> Father Ignatius posted:

>>>>> And, I yam charmed to learn, they are one of only two
>>>>> species that fuffs to warn of their intention to
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> photographic technique of bounce-flashing (flash-bouncing?)
> but I dunno how general this is.

Fuff
v. t. & i.
[Of imitative origin. Cf. Puff.]
To puff. [Prov. Eng. A Local, U. S.] Halliwel.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Signature

Skitt

Mark Brader - 25 Nov 2007 00:31 GMT
Tony Cooper:
> Don't concern yourself with this, Buddy, but for the others here:  Is
> "jibe" acceptable for this meaning?  I would use "gibe", but
> dictionary.com says "Also:  jibe".  

I'm surprised.  "Jibe" is the only spelling I knew for it until now.
Signature

Mark Brader, Toronto          "Where do you want Microsoft to go today?"
msb@vex.net                                               -- Rick Ross

Mike Lyle - 24 Nov 2007 17:42 GMT
[...]

> Are we having fun yet?

Well, /something's/ keeping you going. I assume it isn't displeasure.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Some Buddy - 24 Nov 2007 19:04 GMT
> [...]
> >
> > Are we having fun yet?
>
> Well, /something's/ keeping you going. I assume it isn't displeasure.

Try cantankerousness or meanness.  It is fun to be ornery
sometimes.
Mike Lyle - 24 Nov 2007 22:13 GMT
>> [...]
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Try cantankerousness or meanness.  It is fun to be ornery
> sometimes.

Even better if you can spice it with a bit of wit. Or even a point. I
confess I'm not holding my breath.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Hatunen - 24 Nov 2007 22:30 GMT
>Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG
>stood for when I never even came close to asking a question?

Of course you asked a question, to wit:

- If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting.
"Great grandmother"?  "Giggly girl"? -

[...]

>Are we having fun yet?

I suspect some of us are.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Some Buddy - 25 Nov 2007 01:17 GMT
> >Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG
> >stood for when I never even came close to asking a question?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> - If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting.
> "Great grandmother"?  "Giggly girl"? -

Those aren't questions.  They're intentionally silly
suggestions to mock the use of abbreviations.  Someone with
a sense of humor might find them amusing.
Hatunen - 25 Nov 2007 02:43 GMT
>> >Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG
>> >stood for when I never even came close to asking a question?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>suggestions to mock the use of abbreviations.  Someone with
>a sense of humor might find them amusing.

I have no idea why you would want to mock thm.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 04:04 GMT
> >> >Then why did Hatunen assume that I wanted to know what GG
> >> >stood for when I never even came close to asking a question?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> I have no idea why you would want to mock thm.

Persons.  Persons.  I can't leave youse guys alone for even a couple
of days, even for a turkey-free Thanksgiving (long story that only the
likes of the late Graeme Thomas could make amusing).  We need Garry
Vass to return and deliver his "Welcome to AUE" Speec^H^H^H^H^HPost to
all the newbies, so they will know that the natives are friendly.  We
are, aren't we?

In retrospect, I'm sorry I said anything at all about "people."
Henceforth I shall eschew the word, limiting myself exclusively to
"persons," at least until I forget that I made that promise.  Here,
for starters, is the sentence that triggered so much of what has been
going on in my absence, duly amended (footnote omitted):

"In general, the Hebrew God seems to mature as his persons matures."

I'd like to add that some of you seem not to have understood precisely
what I intended by the original sentence cum footnote.  Let's get
cracking on those reading skills, gang.

And now, as Rodney King so eloquently put it, "Can't we all get
along?"

[PS for Some Buddy only: there is some sarcasm, or perhaps it's irony,
in what I posted.  This is not uncommon in postings to AUE.  I see
that you yourself have attempted some of the same.  Good for you.  And
shame on all you non-Buddys who read this anyway.]
tony cooper - 23 Nov 2007 03:58 GMT
>> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
>> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob.  Why would I look further to
>define the puzzle?

SB is no genious.
Signature


Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Skitt - 23 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT
> Some Buddy wrote:
>> Oleg Lego said:
>>> Some Buddy posted:
>>>> Robert Lieblich said:
>>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:

>>>>>>> Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to
>>>>>>> command that there be no other gods before Him. He might have
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> SB is no genious.

Yeah, and there are some pretty sharp knives in this drawer.

Signature

Skitt
Ouch!

Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 04:17 GMT
> After Robert said "Mrs. Bob reports that it can be done"
> and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> to
> define the puzzle?

YAPGAICMFP
CDB - 23 Nov 2007 15:24 GMT
[buddying up]

> YAPGAICMFP

Oh, please.  Hers was a kind of performance art.  Illustrated.
Sometimes I even miss her (not that I'm not grateful to Vinnie:
somebody had to do it, and the cut was quick).
Maria - 24 Nov 2007 05:15 GMT
> [buddying up]
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Vinnie:
> somebody had to do it, and the cut was quick).

You mean Vinnie was responsible? I missed that. (Thank you
very much, V.)

And to the good Fr.: I was trying to come up with a clever,
Fontana-like initialism, but yours is perfect... well, as
close to perfect as anything really is.

Having left perfection behind somewhere,
Maria
Vinny Burgoo - 27 Nov 2007 21:47 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Maria wrote:

>> Oh, please.  Hers was a kind of performance art.  Illustrated.
>> Sometimes I even miss her (not that I'm not grateful to  Vinnie:
>> somebody had to do it, and the cut was quick).
>
>You mean Vinnie was responsible? I missed that. (Thank you very much,
>V.)

My pleasure. (I was?)

Signature

V

CDB - 28 Nov 2007 00:50 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Maria wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> My pleasure. (I was?)

I have preserved a copy against future need (from July 13; she
disappeared suddenly, soon after):

"In alt.usage.english, Purl Gurl wrote:

[some crap or other]

Say, Kira!

You still here?

Did you ever get around to answering this question?

       do you consider the taking of indian land as well as stories,
by
       non indians, to be cultural misappropriation?

<http://board.e-chahta.com/ikonboard.cgi?act=Print;f=1;t=546>

--
Vinny Burgoyne"
Vinny Burgoo - 30 Nov 2007 17:05 GMT
In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote:

>> My pleasure. (I was?)
>
>I have preserved a copy against future need (from July 13; she
>disappeared suddenly, soon after):

[snip Chatha chat]

I'm sure she was around for a while after that. (Where "that" = "weird
stalking unkindness".)

Signature

V

CDB - 30 Nov 2007 19:04 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I'm sure she was around for a while after that. (Where "that" =
> "weird stalking unkindness".)

Hard now for me to remember the timeline.  All I remember is what I
thought at the time: that I had seen few or no new posts of hers after
reading the discussion at that URL.  The contrast between the manners
of those undoubted Chathas (to perpetuate an assumed deliberate munge)
and those of Her Holbaness was pretty striking.

"Unkindness" could only be justified by assuming that she was
sincerely deluded.  Maybe; I could never be sure*, so I tried as much
as possible to encourage the posts I liked (and there were some) while
ignoring the disagreeable ones, or commenting on them only as much as
necessary to protect the unprotected -- similar techniques have always
worked a treat on my dogs.  I'm sure she's happily visiting her
extraversions on somebody, somewhere; I suspect she'll be back
eventually, I hope in a persona somewhat closer to her real self.

*Though I seem to recall noticing a post or two of hers that was
written in impeccable academic prose.
Vinny Burgoo - 30 Nov 2007 20:01 GMT
In alt.usage.english, CDB wrote:

>> [snip Chatha chat]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>reading the discussion at that URL.  The contrast between the manners
>of those undoubted Chathas (to perpetuate an assumed deliberate munge)

No, 'twas an innocent error.

>and those of Her Holbaness was pretty striking.

Indeedy doody.

>"Unkindness" could only be justified by assuming that she was
>sincerely deluded.

Well, she's certainly damaged. Whole people don't behave like that.

>Maybe; I could never be sure*, so I tried as much as possible to
>encourage the posts I liked (and there were some) while ignoring the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>somebody, somewhere; I suspect she'll be back eventually, I hope in a
>persona somewhat closer to her real self.

That'd be nice.

>*Though I seem to recall noticing a post or two of hers that was
>written in impeccable academic prose.

Signature

V

Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 04:25 GMT
>> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
>> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>was meant to refer to Mrs. Bob.  Why would I look further to
>define the puzzle?

No idea. Your motives are your own. However, he was answering posts
from various people, including several layers of quoting, so perhaps
you might look back through the quotes to see if anyone forms a
probable candidate matching "being tongue in cheek" and "The GG".
Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 08:48 GMT
> >> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
> >> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> you might look back through the quotes to see if anyone forms a
> probable candidate matching "being tongue in cheek" and "The GG".

Thank you.  That is a reasonable suggestion that is
refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been
posted in responses to my remarks.  However my motivation
was not to understand what GG stood for but to signal an
objection to the use of abbreviations.

Please look again at the exchange in question and consider
it from the standpoint that I did not really care what GG
stood for but I did want to register contempt for the use of
the abbreviation.  Here is the exchange again for convenient
reference:

> >> >> Even so, I suspect The GG was being tongue in cheek just this once.
> >> >
> >> >If I knew what a GG was, maybe I'd find that interesting.
> >> >"Great grandmother"?  "Giggly girl"?

Contempt registered.  When properly interpreted, no reason
to think that I cared what GG stood for.
tony cooper - 23 Nov 2007 13:32 GMT
>Thank you.  That is a reasonable suggestion that is
>refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been
>posted in responses to my remarks.  However my motivation
>was not to understand what GG stood for but to signal an
>objection to the use of abbreviations.

Your objection is noted.  Of equal importance to this group, I do not
like anchovies.  

Signature

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Leslie Danks - 23 Nov 2007 13:32 GMT
>>Thank you.  That is a reasonable suggestion that is
>>refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Your objection is noted.  Of equal importance to this group, I do not
> like anchovies.

AOL

Signature

Les

mUs1Ka - 23 Nov 2007 15:11 GMT
>>>Thank you.  That is a reasonable suggestion that is
>>>refreshing to see amidst all the foolishness that has been
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> AOL

Anchovies over-looked?

Signature

Ray
UK

I choose Polesoft Lockspam to fight spam, and you?
http://www.polesoft.com/refer.html

Some Buddy - 23 Nov 2007 15:51 GMT
[...]

> > AOL

> Anchovies over-looked?

Any old lurker.
Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 19:58 GMT
>[...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Any old lurker.

AOL = "Me too". I leave the reason as an exercise for the student.
Peter Moylan - 23 Nov 2007 16:45 GMT
>> Your objection is noted.  Of equal importance to this group, I do
>> not like anchovies.
>
> AOL

Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite
understood how they came to be classified as a food.

Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches [1] for
a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the phrase
"everything except the jalapeños".

[1] Except that their "six inchers" are only four inches long. One of
these days I'm going to march in there with my ancient pre-metric ruler.
They're taking advantage of the fact that most people have never learnt
how long an inch is.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 17:04 GMT
> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never
> quite
> understood how they came to be classified as a food.

Yes, in a specifically defined way.  I picked up a tip a
while back that adding a chopped anchovy fillet to "almost
anything" (yeah, well...  It didn't do much for the broccoli
ice-cream, I can tell you) gives it a [desirable] certain
something.

Examples of dishes where this is true include meaningful
lasagnes al forno and spaghettis bolognaise (not that
school-lunch stuff, but the Real Thing) when one prepares a
boat-load the day before and leaves it overnight in the
fridge to gain flavour.  Also slow-cooked lamb-shanks.
Peter Moylan - 23 Nov 2007 18:10 GMT
>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite
>> understood how they came to be classified as a food.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> it overnight in the fridge to gain flavour.  Also slow-cooked
> lamb-shanks.

OK, I'll take the risk and throw some anchovies into my next sauce
bolognaise. One never knows. I do agree with your implied comment that a
bolognaise sauce shouldn't be consumed on the same day that it was
cooked. Except, perhaps, in the case where the cooking time exceeded
four hours.

I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up carbohydrates.
I'd welcome any suggestions as to what else it could be poured over. A
Kaiser salad might just qualify, but I'm not totally sure.

Lamb shanks bring back memories of the Sunday night meals of my
childhood, where the evening soup was made from the leftovers of the
midday roast. I'm not sure how to replicate that experience. A roast
joint is a rarity when one is cooking for a single person.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 19:43 GMT
>> Yes, in a specifically defined way.  I picked up a tip a
>> while back
>> that adding a chopped anchovy fillet to "almost anything"
>> (yeah,
              ^

> OK, I'll take the risk and throw some anchovies into my
> next sauce

Not some.  One fillet - chopped fine enough so it completely
disappear into the main body of the dish - is an elegant
sufficiency, I believe.  If your guests say, "Hmmmm,
anchovy", as opposed to non-specific gushing, you've
overdone it.

> bolognaise. One never knows. I do agree with your implied
> comment that a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> time exceeded
> four hours.

Perhaps.  But, even then, next day is better.  [Thinks:
"Gotta have _some_ principles."]

> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up
> carbohydrates.

[curious^Winquisitive] Um...  Why?

And good luck with that one: bolognaise sauce was put on
earth to be poured over carbohydrate.

> I'd welcome any suggestions as to what else it could be
> poured over. A
> Kaiser salad might just qualify, but I'm not totally sure.

[After googling] Lettuce, chicken, croutons and parmesan
cheese?  Chicken?

> Lamb shanks bring back memories of the Sunday night meals
> of my
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> experience. A roast
> joint is a rarity when one is cooking for a single person.

There are ways around this.  Lamb shanks would be one of
them, and eisbeins another.  Cook 'em all together; freeze,
thaw and reheat them individually;[1] and add the left-over
bones privatim et seriatim to a stash in the freezer until
you have a full set[2].  Proceed with the soup.

Or you could roast a chicken, or get one from the deli, and
have one hot chicken meal followed on successive days by
cold chicken meals, followed by chicken soup.  If you want
to make a proper pea soup (and who doesn't?), you can get a
nice bone by living on, for example, cold gammon for
breakfast for two weeks (there are worse fates).

Another approach is to buy bones from the supermarket.  Folk
will tell you "No-one makes their own stock any more" but
don't you believe 'em.  A gently bubbling stock-pot is a
trific thing to have in the background.

[1]  Is that an Oxford semi-colon?

[2]  Kinda like that old bachelor's trick of storing the
washing-up in the freezer.
Peter Moylan - 24 Nov 2007 00:27 GMT
>> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up
>> carbohydrates.
>
> [curious^Winquisitive] Um...  Why?

Just recently I spent a couple of weeks at my father's home. I slept in
my stepmother's room. Dad never goes in there, so it's been left
unchanged since she died. In particular, it's full of mirrors.

That meant that each time I undressed I got a view of myself in
profile. That was enough to make me decide "I don't want to look like
that". A side view of yourself can be shocking if you're not used to
seeing it.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 05:45 GMT
>>> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give
>>> up carbohydrates.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> not used to
> seeing it.

Ah.  But that doesn't point the finger at carbohydrates so
much as fats, I would say.

I infer that you may be of a nappropriate wintage to be
'fluenced by the now-deprecated "Drinking Man's Diet", which
works on limiting carbohydrates.  It's not the spaghetti in
spaghetti bolognaise that your waistline needs to worry
about so much, alas, as the cheese (and how fatty the beef
mince was).
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 07:09 GMT
>>>> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give
>>>> up carbohydrates.
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>Ah.  But that doesn't point the finger at carbohydrates so
>much as fats, I would say.

Most people eat a truly prodigious amount of carbs, compared to the
amount of fat consumed. While it's true that fats have a higher
caloric content, carbs tend to be eaten in larger amounts.

I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago. Since then,
I have cut down considerably  on the total amount of food I eat, and
in doing so, I have drastically cut starchy foods (pasta, potatoes,
corn, rice), and grains. If anything, I have increased fats and
protein, and one of the effects of those is to satisfy the appetite.

Since Aug 24, I have gone from 237 lb. to 207 lb.

>I infer that you may be of a nappropriate wintage to be
>'fluenced by the now-deprecated "Drinking Man's Diet", which
>works on limiting carbohydrates.  It's not the spaghetti in
>spaghetti bolognaise that your waistline needs to worry
>about so much, alas, as the cheese (and how fatty the beef
>mince was).
Maria - 24 Nov 2007 07:21 GMT
Oleg Lego wrote, in part:

> I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago.

Welcome to the club.

....Since then,
> I have cut down considerably  on the total amount of food
> I eat, and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Since Aug 24, I have gone from 237 lb. to 207 lb.

You are doing well, I'd say. Good on'ya.

Signature

Maria

Pat Durkin - 24 Nov 2007 18:17 GMT
> Oleg Lego wrote, in part:
>>
>> I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago.
>
> Welcome to the club.

Ditto.

(on the diabetes support groups they say "...to the club nobody wants to
belong to."
Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 21:08 GMT
>Oleg Lego wrote, in part:
>>
>> I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes exactly 3 months ago.
>
>Welcome to the club.

Reluctant participant though I may be, thanks, I think.

> ....Since then,
>> I have cut down considerably  on the total amount of food
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>You are doing well, I'd say. Good on'ya.

Thanks. My first A1C was 8.1%, the next test is on Nov 30. Got me
fingers crossed.
Robert Lieblich - 25 Nov 2007 04:21 GMT
> >Oleg Lego wrote, in part:
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Thanks. My first A1C was 8.1%, the next test is on Nov 30. Got me
> fingers crossed.

I wonder if this is a candidate for Post Whose Content is Farthest
From Subject Line.
Oleg Lego - 25 Nov 2007 06:04 GMT
>> >Oleg Lego wrote, in part:
>> >>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>I wonder if this is a candidate for Post Whose Content is Farthest
>From Subject Line.

Possible. Is there a prize?
Peter Moylan - 24 Nov 2007 10:11 GMT
>>>> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up
>>>> carbohydrates.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> the now-deprecated "Drinking Man's Diet", which works on limiting
> carbohydrates.

Controversial, yes. Disputed, yes. But not deprecated by everyone,
because the jury is still out. For the moment, my GP is very much in
favour of the Atkins diet. I'm not following that in its pure form,
because I find it difficult to be that fanatical, but I'm trying to
limit total food intake, and especially those foods such as potatoes
that my experience shows are very quickly metabolised into lard. (And
even more so for alcohol, despite the contrary opinions that abound.
Whenever I lapse and have a few drinks I start swelling up again.) I'm
eating small amounts of bread because I need the roughage. For the same
reason I also eat small amounts of brown rice (but not white rice, which
doesn't have much taste anyway.) In summary, I'm not following anyone's
pet theory; I'm simply being careful about
those foods that in *my* experience cause me trouble.

> It's not the spaghetti in spaghetti bolognaise that your waistline
> needs to worry about so much, alas, as the cheese (and how fatty the
> beef mince was).

I'm eating very little cheese these days - it's mainly when needed to
subdue chocolate cravings - and I never took up the habit of putting
cheese on spaghetti. As for fatty beef: the butchers and supermarkets
are really pushing so-called "heart-safe" lean meat these days, to the
point where it would be hard to buy fatty meat if you wanted to. My
knowledge of American meat must be well out of date by now, but back
when I lived in the USA the meat was all very fatty, much of it was
noticeably marbled, and to my Australian-trained palate it always tasted
a bit greasy. No doubt a difference in national tastes led to a
difference in the ways of feeding and raising meat animals. By now, I
presume, the practice of overfeeding animals has been moderated by the
recognition of an obesity crisis among the diners, but I strongly
suspect that much Australian meat would still be judged as "not fatty
enough" in the US market.

In brief, there never was a lot of fat in my diet. The things I need to
watch are the sugars and related items, which get metabolised into fat
once they go down the hatch. We need some carbohydrates, of course, but
the quantity needs to governed by the amount we're going to burn by
exercise.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 15:20 GMT
Peter Moylan <peter@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> het geskryf:

> I'm trying to limit
> total food intake, and especially those foods such as
> potatoes that my experience shows are very quickly
> metabolised into lard. (And even more so for alcohol,
> despite the contrary opinions that abound. Whenever I
> lapse and have a few drinks I start swelling up again.)

Hmmmm.  I Simply Do Not Wish To Hear This.  Yes, I can see,
in my mine sigh, sausage and bacon fat and chocolate and
butter - even bread - being turned into blubber.  I see no
such vision in a healthful glass of red wine, however.  I
simply don't get it.  (Truth to tell, my mind is not open to
it.)

> I'm eating very little cheese these days - it's mainly

Tsk.

> when needed to subdue chocolate cravings - and I never
> took up the habit of putting cheese on spaghetti.

Nonono.  To be Proper, bolognaise sauce should have a
healthy dollop of at least one kind of tangy cheese as an
ingredient.  The garnish is a nindependent matter.

A good, strong mature Cheddar is an acceptable ingredient,
even if arguably not canonically Italian.  But, without it,
you're on the slippery slope that leads to school-lunch
spag. bol., and that's a nabyss you don't wanna look into.

> As for
> fatty beef: the butchers and supermarkets are really
> pushing so-called "heart-safe" lean meat these days, to
> the point where it would be hard to buy fatty meat if you
> wanted to. My knowledge of American meat must be well out

This is sadly true, meaning that it's difficult to get a
roll of beef with the Proper exterior coating of fat that is
so crucial for a Proper roast.  Fortunately, as with so much
else in Life, this can be overcome by sheer
bloody-[1]mindedness.

> of date by now, but back when I lived in the USA the meat
> was all very fatty, much of it was noticeably marbled,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> animals has been moderated by the recognition of an
> obesity crisis among the diners, but I strongly suspect

I had the impression that straight portion-size was emerging
as the leading culprit.  Does anyone know?

> that much Australian meat would still be judged as "not
> fatty enough" in the US market.
> In brief, there never was a lot of fat in my diet. The
> things I need to watch are the sugars and related items,
> which get metabolised into fat once they go down the
> hatch.

You're doing it again. <shudders> <reaches for the red wine>

> We need some carbohydrates, of course, but the
> quantity needs to governed by the amount we're going to
> burn by exercise.

[nervously] Okay, that does it - if you're gratuitously
going to bring up the topic of <twitch> <whisper> exercise,
I think I'll take my ball and go home.

[1] The hyphen is kosher because "bloody" is a nadjective
and knotter nadwerb.

Signature

Nat

"...a light scattering of snarky pedants, and a great many
helpful people who occasionally descend into jackassery, a
couple of saints, and a few wingnuts."
 --Matthew Shepherd, on and of alt.usage.english

jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 23 Nov 2007 21:32 GMT
On Nov 23, 11:10 am, Peter Moylan <pe...@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org>
wrote:

> >> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies?

I think I do, though it's been something like 20 years since I knew
anyone who'd share an anchovy pizza with me.

By the way, possibly my best effort ever at real cooking was a turkey
breast tonnato with, among other things, anchovies.  About as long
ago.

[spaghetti bolognese and stuff]

> I haven't had a bolognaise sauce since I vowed to give up carbohydrates.
> I'd welcome any suggestions as to what else it could be poured over. A
> Kaiser salad might just qualify, but I'm not totally sure.
...

Tofu?

Take it easy!  You said you'd welcome suggestions!

How about mushrooms?  Eggplant?  Zucchini?  Choko/chayote?  Canned
tuna is another possibility, with peas if you allow them to yourself.
(There are of course carbohydrates in tomatoes too, and for that
matter in 'chovies.)

Come to think of it, I can't see any objection to putting your
favorite pasta sauce on most kinds of meat, starting with chicken
breast and veal.

Obaue: /'&n,tSoUvi/?  /'&ntS@,vi/?  /&n'tSoUvi/?

--
Jerry Friedman
Skitt - 23 Nov 2007 22:45 GMT
>>>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies?
>
> I think I do, though it's been something like 20 years since I knew
> anyone who'd share an anchovy pizza with me.

Yeah, about 40 years ago I did my table tennis coach the favor of sharing an
anchovy pizza with him, after a night's practice.  That is the only time I
have eaten one.
Signature

Skitt
sometimes too nice for his own good

Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 05:22 GMT
>>>>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> favor of sharing an anchovy pizza with him, after a
> night's practice.  That is the only time I have eaten one.

This suggests, in more ways than one, that you were at
diplomacy school.
Skitt - 24 Nov 2007 17:21 GMT
>>>>>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This suggests, in more ways than one, that you were at
> diplomacy school.

Naah, he was a really nice guy.  He had built the table tennis club building
on his big apricot farm property.  Aside from being an apricot grower, he
was a reserve driver for the fire department.  And he coached table tennis.
And loved anchovy pizza.  RIP, SL.
Signature

Skitt

Wood Avens - 23 Nov 2007 17:20 GMT
>Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite
>understood how they came to be classified as a food.

I like them, in limited quantities and under appropriate conditions.
On a pizza, among other ingredients, for instance.  In a Caesar salad
(though this would not, it seems, be an Original Caesar salad).  And
in the form of the incomparable Patum Peperium, The Gentleman's
Relish.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Mike Lyle - 23 Nov 2007 18:49 GMT
>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite
>> understood how they came to be classified as a food.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> in the form of the incomparable Patum Peperium, The Gentleman's
> Relish.

And salade nicoise: mm! I think they're terrific, to the extent that
every now and then I have to eat a few of them neat. They're in
Worcestershire sauce.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Paul Wolff - 23 Nov 2007 19:57 GMT
>Wood Avens wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>every now and then I have to eat a few of them neat. They're in
>Worcestershire sauce.

Hard-boil some hens' eggs, shell then cut them in half lengthways, take
out the yolks and pound them with anchovies; mix to a  cream with
mayonnaise, and pipe and pile back into the yolk-sockets in the half
whites. Maybe add a caper on top of every alternate one.

And with a six-shilling bottle of moules du pape*: a feast fit for a
king.

I haven't tried this (yet).

*I'm sure this ain't so, but it's all that memory offers.  Moules du
pape? I ask you.  Kenneth Williams would do better.
Signature

Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 20:08 GMT
> Hard-boil some hens' eggs, shell then cut them in half
> lengthways, take out the yolks and pound them with
> anchovies; mix to a  cream with mayonnaise, and pipe and
> pile back into the yolk-sockets in the half whites. Maybe
> add a caper on top of every alternate one.

Danger, Will Robinson!  1960s throwback!

> And with a six-shilling bottle of moules du pape*: a feast
> fit for a king.

Châteauneuf-du-Pape, my dear fellow.

> *I'm sure this ain't so, but it's all that memory offers.
> Moules du pape? I ask you.  Kenneth Williams would do
> better.
Paul Wolff - 30 Nov 2007 22:50 GMT
>> Hard-boil some hens' eggs, shell then cut them in half
>> lengthways, take out the yolks and pound them with
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>> Moules du pape? I ask you.  Kenneth Williams would do
>> better.

The circle is closing.  When researching the specific Times Furnishing
Company line in response to another Fr. Nat post, I found an answer:
Mule du Pape, at least in this transcription:

http://www.iankitching.me.uk/humour/hippo/design.html

"...with a six-shilling bottle of Mule du Pape, a feast fit for a King."

My ears can't tell mule from moules.  Crikey, what risks!

See the footnote:

       Mule du Pape

       Thanks to Frank Young for this explanation:

       Flanders is using a triple integrated pun and allusion here. The
       title "La Mule du Pape" is that of a short story by, I think,
       Alphonse Daudet. In the story, which takes place in the
       fourteenth century at Avignon, the pope's mule is, indeed, well
       treated when it appears in public carrying the pope. But when it
       is returned to the care of its keeper, it is mistreated badly.
       Eventually, the mule has its revenge.

       Daudet lived for many years in Provence, very near the town of
       Chateauneuf-du-Pape, which is famous for its wine. Indeed, in
       the town today there is a restaurant called "La Mule du Pape" in
       commemoration of the story - I found it on the WWW with a
       "Dogpile" search.

       Hence, the bad wine "Mule du Pape" embodies an allusion to
       Chateauneuf-du-Pape and its wine, to Alphone Daudet, and to the
       animal story, "La Mule du Pape."

Signature

Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

the Omrud - 24 Nov 2007 10:09 GMT
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk had it ...

> >> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite
> >> understood how they came to be classified as a food.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> every now and then I have to eat a few of them neat. They're in
> Worcestershire sauce.

Ditto to both of those.  Some of the anchovies sold in England are
unspeakable.  The real thing can be had along the Costa Brava, where
the coast is dotted with anchovy bottling plants.  Delicious.

Signature

David

Father Ignatius - 23 Nov 2007 20:15 GMT
> In a Caesar salad
> (though this would not, it seems, be an Original Caesar
> salad).

A Tuscan salad, then.
Hatunen - 23 Nov 2007 18:33 GMT
>Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches [1] for
>a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the phrase
>"everything except the jalapeños".
>
>[1] Except that their "six inchers" are only four inches long.

Obviously run by men.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Skitt - 23 Nov 2007 18:56 GMT
> Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches
> [1] for a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> ruler. They're taking advantage of the fact that most people have
> never learnt how long an inch is.

Well, around here, a six-incher costs $2.99, I believe.  Presenting $2 for
the four-inch sandwich should be deemed adequate.  Plus tax, of course.
Signature

Skitt
prefers Quizno's

Amethyst Deceiver - 29 Nov 2007 15:02 GMT
>>> Your objection is noted.  Of equal importance to this group, I do
>>> not like anchovies.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite
> understood how they came to be classified as a food.

Me. Don't get me started on the subject of "extra anchovies".

> Related comment: at Subway, which sells surprisingly good sandwiches
> [1] for a junk food shop, a great many customers have memorised the
> phrase "everything except the jalapeños".

When I could eat there, I used to ask for extra.
Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

Richard Bollard - 29 Nov 2007 21:50 GMT
>>>> Your objection is noted.  Of equal importance to this group, I do
>>>> not like anchovies.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> Is there anyone here who _does_ like anchovies? I've never quite
>> understood how they came to be classified as a food.

Missed this one. <waves hand> I quite like them (now).

They add a hard-to-define background note to pasta sauces like
bolognese. Dissolve one or two when you sweat off the onions and
garlic before adding the meat and other bits.

Quite like them on pizza with black olives (stone in pleeease) and
pepperoni.

Easy snack with good cocktail party wow factor: get a sheet of puff
pastry. Every two inches or so put a line of anchovy across sheet.
Place second sheet over to create two-ply pastry with occasional
anchovy filling, press to seal plypastry. Cut sheet into strips
perpendicular to anchovy lines. Twist strips coupla times, sprinkle
with a bit of parmesan and bake at 200 degrees Celsius. Serve as if
they were breadsticks but sexier.

Alternative, vary the filling lines. Alternate anchovy, olive paste
and sundried (or even sun-dried) tomato strips. Even sexier.
Signature

Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

Oleg Lego - 23 Nov 2007 19:57 GMT
>> >> >> > > Also, it seems to me that it was kind of snippy of God to command that there
>> >> >> > > be no other gods before Him. He might have shown a little graciousness and
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>was not to understand what GG stood for but to signal an
>objection to the use of abbreviations.

In that case, please consider this response to be an objection to your
objection to the use of abbreviations.

>Please look again at the exchange in question and consider
>it from the standpoint that I did not really care what GG
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>Contempt registered.  When properly interpreted, no reason
>to think that I cared what GG stood for.

Contempt registered back at ya.

ANHAC. TOINE.
|'o'..'o'| - 20 Nov 2007 13:44 GMT
> >> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Point taken. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the Roman Empire was
> that, as it expanded, it allowed the absorbed people to keep their own gods.

In contrast with that were the Jews and Christians.  The
story of Androcles and the Lion has a bunch of Christians
who are to be fed to wild beasts because they won't accept
the Roman gods.

> Now that I think of it, the theology of the early Jews, as expounded in
> the Bible, clearly accepted that there were different gods for different
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Faced with this evidence, I'd better withdraw my original statement. I
> wasn't thinking clearly enough.
Father Ignatius - 20 Nov 2007 14:07 GMT
>> Point taken. Indeed, one of the great strengths of the
>> Roman Empire was
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> who are to be fed to wild beasts because they won't accept
> the Roman gods.

My understanding of that is that Christians weren't
persecuted so much for having their own god as for being a
political pain in the butt.
Peter Moylan - 21 Nov 2007 09:40 GMT
> My understanding of that is that Christians weren't persecuted so
> much for having their own god as for being a political pain in the
> butt.

So it shouldn't be surprising that there are Christians today who are
determined to continue that tradition.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Hatunen - 20 Nov 2007 19:39 GMT
>> >> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false" clause.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>who are to be fed to wild beasts because they won't accept
>the Roman gods.

The Romans didn't give a damn about your personal religion with
one proviso: you had to pay at least lip service to the Roman
gods, especially since one of them was the emperor. The Jews
refused to pay minimal respect to the Roman gods.

Signature

  ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
  *       Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow         *
  * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Evan Kirshenbaum - 26 Nov 2007 23:13 GMT
>>> Every religion I've ever heard of has a "your god is false"
>>> clause.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> god" in the stories, but I can't recall any examples of claims that
> "your god doesn't exist".

My understanding is that that view lagely shows up with Deutero-Isaiah
(the guy who wrote verses 40-66 of the Book of Isaiah) who wrote near
the end of the Babylonian Exile, so mid sixth century BC, probably
about a century after the Torah (along with some of the rest) was
completed.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Society in every state is a blessing,
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |but government, even in its best
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |state is but a necessary evil; in its
                                      |worst state, an intolerable one.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                  Thomas Paine
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Richard Maurer - 21 Nov 2007 05:14 GMT
anonymous wrote or quoted:
   It is enough to know that, with the exception of one,
   each of the 114 chapters of the Qur'an begins with
   the verse " In the name of God, the Merciful,
   the Compassionate".

I would like to know if there are three or ten stories
illustrating Mercy and Compassion, or are the concepts
just dogmatically announced (113 times)?

Are any of the stories about situation where Allah
did not cause the trouble in the first place?

--                       ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer              To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California       of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.