Origin of Description of Americans as "Fat, lazy and stupid"
|
|
Thread rating:  |
TOF - 23 Jan 2009 01:59 GMT Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first uttered in print (or perhaps electronically)?
I was moved to inquire about this after reading some material from Prof. David Deming, who, amongst other things asserted in 2008, that Americans were "fat, lazy and stupid" in an article in the Edmonton Sun in October of 2008.
The United States was founded by people who wanted nothing more than freedom and the opportunity to work toward a better life for their children. But within a few generations, the progeny of the pioneers have turned into dolts who can’t take responsibility for anything. . .So long as Americans look to other people for the solution of their problems, they will invariably be disappointed. The American people need to stop whining like spoiled children and take charge of their lives.
This seems to be something of a conservative hobby horse. While not all the references are from conservatives -- for example:
Some Kerry supporters were fairly bursting with anger yesterday. Jessica Johnson, 59, of Cambridge, who said she had volunteered for Kerry, said she was filled with optimism on Election Day, telling herself: ''When Kerry gets into the White House, this stone, this weight on my chest, will be lifted.
He could have made a great president," Johnson said. ''Many Americans have nothing between their ears. Americans are fat, lazy, and stupid. I don't like this country anymore.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/11/04/bay_staters_grappling_with_ legacy_of_rejection?pg=2
Most touch bases with the theme of intellectual and moral collapse from the individualistic and pioneering spirit of America in the indefinite past. This offering from the right wing "world net daily" is typical:
What this socialist bottom-feeder produces are, pardon the expression, crap-umentaries that could only be swallowed – enthusiastically, judging from the early box-office results – by a gullible American public conditioned to be immoral, fat, lazy and stupid.
Does America's health care system have problems? Yes it does. Many, if not most, of those problems are caused by too much meddling by government, too little accountability to consumers. Dr. Michael "Sicko" Moore's prescription? Let government make more decisions regarding America's health care needs.
Take that medicine for what it's worth. But before you swallow it, have one more long look at that picture – and decide for yourself whether this man appears to be an expert on health.
WorldNetDaily.com P.O. Box 1627 Medford, OR 97501
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=35c42c39c6f397 22f5d761dfe0080378
And in similar vein from the same source in 2002 ...
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg87697.html
In which the writer sees this as some sort of conspiracy to create a compliant population which even Sam Adams all those years ago saw as the road to ruin.
And at The Slate (11/08 post Obama's election):
My take on this is that the American public has become so fat, lazy and stupid they can't see beyond their wish for a "free" government handout, knowing the only handouts are going to come from democrats, becasue republicans believe you should work and earn what you get.
http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2120630.aspx
And
http://www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-75119.html
There is this reference in a book from 1994 by Clemmer, J & Sheehy, B "Firing on All Cylinders ..." a book on service quality which discusses "our North American 'fat,lazy and stupid' days of plenty"
http://tinyurl.com/d5zkp7
but even here the key phrase is in quotes implying earlier provenance.
Any suggestions?
TOF
jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 23 Jan 2009 05:03 GMT > Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first uttered > in print (or perhaps electronically)? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Americans were "fat, lazy and stupid" in an article in the Edmonton > Sun in October of 2008. ...
Earliest hit I found at Google Books assigning this quality to America:
"France was rotting away in chronic disorder, and America was too fat, lazy, and stupid ever to become a soldier nation."
/The New Germany and the Old Nazis/ by Tete Harens Tetens, 1961
http://books.google.com/books?id=Gg8wAAAAIAAJ&q=%22fat+lazy+and+stupid%22+date:0 -1994&dq=%22fat+lazy+and+stupid%22+date:0-1994&ei=Yk15SZLIJJHEMf7HnaQF&pgis=1
http://tinyurl.com/cd2gmn
Earliest hit:
"... but as the whale of these seas is fat, lazy, and stupid, and therefore easier to catch, it has become gradually rarer..."
/A Summer in Iceland/ by Carl Wilhelm Paijkull Translated by Mordaunt Roger Barnard Published by Chapman and Hall, 1868
http://books.google.com/books?id=6ZRJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA205
There aren't many hits, and probably the majority refer to animals.
It would be funny if this phrase started as a translation.
-- Jerry Friedman Thin, lazy, and... let's leave it at that.
Chuck Riggs - 23 Jan 2009 16:50 GMT <snip>
>Any suggestions? Yes. Quit trying to create trouble.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
J. J. Lodder - 23 Jan 2009 20:47 GMT > <snip> > > >Any suggestions? > > Yes. Quit trying to create trouble. Let me guess: you are fat, lazy, and stupid?
Jan
TOF - 24 Jan 2009 05:28 GMT > <snip> > > >Any suggestions? > > Yes. Quit trying to create trouble. > -- Now Charles ...
If it wasn't clear from my post and what you know of my posting pattern that I abhor sweeping generalisations in general and about whole communities in particular on both intellectual and ethical grounds, let me clarify. I find them careless, unenlightening and offensive. Certainly, the description of Americans here is not one I have ever held. I would urge anyone reading this to refrain from proposing this idea or anything similar.
I merely wanted to know how this particular one arose, and what factors lent it its enduring currency.
I'm sorry that you regard this as trouble-making and apologise for any offence you have taken at this, but I do believe the matter can be discussed sensibly without endorsing the sentiment lying behind it.
TOF
Purl Gurl - 24 Jan 2009 06:09 GMT (snipped)
>>> Any suggestions?
>> Yes. Quit trying to create trouble.
> If it wasn't clear from my post and what you know of my posting > pattern that I abhor sweeping generalisations in general and about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have ever held. I would urge anyone reading this to refrain from > proposing this idea or anything similar. Relax, you are dealing with a boy. All boys are alike; fat, lazy and stupid.
 Signature Purl Gurl -- This is to the native American poster who I believe to be a woman, but for some reason is gotten up like Groucho Marx: Excuse me? -- Margo Howard, 11/19/2008
Murray Arnow - 24 Jan 2009 18:00 GMT >Relax, you are dealing with a boy. All boys are >alike; fat, lazy and stupid. And don't leave out horny.
Chuck Riggs - 24 Jan 2009 15:50 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >TOF Since I found it highly unlikely than the opening statement in your post, "I was moved to inquire about this after reading some material from Prof. David Deming, who, amongst other things asserted in 2008, that Americans were "fat, lazy and stupid" in an article in the Edmonton Sun in October of 2008" was designed to elicit intelligent, reasoned discussion, I didn't read on. Instead, I wrote "Quit trying to create trouble". If there was material I failed to read that is worth discussing, it is for me to apologize, not you.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
TOF - 27 Jan 2009 04:47 GMT > >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > worth discussing, it is for me to apologize, not you. > -- I accept your apology, and yet, I'm still curious. What was it about the sentence:
"I was moved to inquire about this after reading some material from Prof. David Deming, who, amongst other things asserted in 2008, that Americans were 'fat, lazy and stupid' in an article in the Edmonton Sun in October of 2008. "
that inclined you to infer that I had something other than intelligent reasoned discussion in mind?
TOF
Chuck Riggs - 27 Jan 2009 13:50 GMT >> >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >that inclined you to infer that I had something other than intelligent >reasoned discussion in mind? I didn't apologize. I still find the inference that Americans are fat, lazy and stupid to be gratuitous, ignorant nonsense meant to stir the flames of an argument.
 Signature
Regards,
Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland
Don Aitken - 27 Jan 2009 18:06 GMT >>> >> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >lazy and stupid to be gratuitous, ignorant nonsense meant to stir the >flames of an argument. Chuck, you have recently developed an unpleasant habit of not only seeing other people's posts as offensive when they are clearly not intended to be so, but responding to denials from the posters and/or contradiction from third parties by repeating your original assertion ad nauseam. You are wrong about this one, just as you were wrong about Mike's comments on Martin Luther King. If you keep this up, people are just going to stop reading what you post, which I think would be a pity, but there is nothing more obnoxious than a person who shows themselves totally determined to take offence. When you respond to the acceptance of an apology which you freely volunteered, and the words of which are still right there for anyone to see, by denying that you have apologized at all, that is just beyond the pale.
 Signature Don Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Frank ess - 27 Jan 2009 19:33 GMT >>>>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > anyone to see, by denying that you have apologized at all, that is > just beyond the pale. Chuck who?
 Signature Frank ess
TOF - 28 Jan 2009 06:32 GMT > >> >> <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > I didn't apologize. It seemed that you did, perhaps for rushing to judgement..
> I still find the inference that Americans are fat, > lazy and stupid to be gratuitous, ignorant nonsense meant to stir the > flames of an argument. So do I, and if I'd avowed such a thing, your comment would have been apt. With this in mind though, why do you think that the right so often makes such avowals and does so in ways that seem not to anticipate controversy? How is it that this observation can be repeated so blythely by so many who see themselves as patriotic?
TOF
Chuck Riggs - 28 Jan 2009 10:46 GMT <snip>
>> I didn't apologize. > >It seemed that you did, perhaps for rushing to judgement.. I see now where my "If there was material I failed to read that is worth discussing, it is for me to apologize, not you" could easily be read as an apology. I was using a formal style of English I did not execute well, since at least two members have misinterpreted my sentence.
>> I still find the inference that Americans are fat, >> lazy and stupid to be gratuitous, ignorant nonsense meant to stir the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >often makes such avowals and does so in ways that seem not to >anticipate controversy? To understand what you're talking about, I will probably need to know who "the right" is.
>How is it that this observation can be >repeated so blythely by so many who see themselves as patriotic? Do you mean some Americans are calling themselves fat, etcetera? Frankly, your writing style does not make your meanings straightforward or clear, at least not to me.
TOF - 28 Jan 2009 11:46 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > execute well, since at least two members have misinterpreted my > sentence. Your form of words granted the apology conditionally -- the condition specified if the "if" statement. Since you acknowledged that you hadn't read the material, you left open the possibility that such material did indeed exist, and one may infer that I thought it met the standard of "worth discussing" since I posted it.
> >> I still find the inference that Americans are fat, > >> lazy and stupid to be gratuitous, ignorant nonsense meant to stir the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > To understand what you're talking about, I will probably need to know > who "the right" is. You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have read my original post to start your journey to insight.
> >How is it that this observation can be > >repeated so blythely by so many who see themselves as patriotic?
> Do you mean some Americans are calling themselves fat, etcetera? It seems so, as my quotes attest. Had you read that far, it might have been clearer to you. I also hinted at what 'the left' or at any rate, the non-right might have been.
> Frankly, your writing style does not make your meanings > straightforward or clear, at least not to me. That is a shame, as others seem not to be confused about it. People here tend to be pretty quick to jump on ambiguity. That they have not done so suggests there was none, and even you have not outlined what ambiguity, if any, existed.
TOF
John Varela - 28 Jan 2009 18:47 GMT > You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have > read my original post to start your journey to insight. This is an international group and you are posting from a gmail address so we don't know where you are. The "right" is different in different places.
 Signature John Varela Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email
tony cooper - 28 Jan 2009 19:55 GMT >> You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have >> read my original post to start your journey to insight. > >This is an international group and you are posting from a gmail >address so we don't know where you are. The "right" is different in >different places. I'm wichoo. I think that gmail and posters with addys that don't show country of origin should add sig lines identifying their location.
I was told, rather snarkily, that I should know which side of the pond Mr Hogg is from (but not by Mr Hogg). Spelling is an indication of which side of the pond some people learned how to spell words like "color/colour", but people do move.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Default User - 28 Jan 2009 22:24 GMT > > This is an international group and you are posting from a gmail > > address so we don't know where you are. The "right" is different in > > different places. > > I'm wichoo. I think that gmail and posters with addys that don't show > country of origin should add sig lines identifying their location. Interesting.
Brian - Dark side of the Moon
 Signature If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Mike Lyle - 28 Jan 2009 22:31 GMT >>> This is an international group and you are posting from a gmail >>> address so we don't know where you are. The "right" is different in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Interesting. Brian - Dark side of the Moon
Yep.
Mike - Far Side of the Hill, Behind the Green Door.
J. J. Lodder - 29 Jan 2009 13:03 GMT > >> You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have > >> read my original post to start your journey to insight. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm wichoo. I think that gmail and posters with addys that don't show > country of origin should add sig lines identifying their location. What makes you think you have a right to know? And what makes you think that the national suffix on an e-mail address tells you where a poster is or where he is from?
It only tells you how posters prefer to route their mail, and often not even that,
Jan
tony cooper - 29 Jan 2009 13:17 GMT >> >> You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have >> >> read my original post to start your journey to insight. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What makes you think you have a right to know? Right? I don't know that there is a right involved, but there is certainly a benefit involved. It gives us some insight about the poster's perspective on certain subjects where the perspective is influenced by the country in which the poster lives. It sheds light on the "we" and "here" references that occasionally pop up.
>And what makes you think that the national suffix >on an e-mail address tells you where a poster is >or where he is from? It's a better clue than none.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 28 Jan 2009 19:57 GMT >> You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have >> read my original post to start your journey to insight. > >This is an international group and you are posting from a gmail >address so we don't know where you are. The "right" is different in >different places. If my memory is working and she hasn't moved, TOF is in Australia, (Sydney, NSW).
She was a regular in AUE, was absent, and has returned.
She chose the name "TOF": "The Other Fran", to distinguish her from Fran Kemmish.
 Signature Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
Frank ess - 28 Jan 2009 20:37 GMT >>> You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could >>> have read my original post to start your journey to insight. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > She chose the name "TOF": "The Other Fran", to distinguish her from > Fran Kemmish. If I had an underlying, perhaps unconscious, low opinion of (name cohort here), I might naively start a thread on "Isn't obnoxious, smug thoughtlessness a universal characteristic of (nickname of cohort here)?"
It might be very satisfying to my unexplained, perhaps unacknowledged hunger for long, punishing lists of posts with that theme spelt out in front of bog and everyone.
Any nominations for the "cohort"?
OK; any /other/ nominations?
 Signature Frank ess
TOF - 29 Jan 2009 06:09 GMT On Jan 29, 6:57 am, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >> You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have > >> read my original post to start your journey to insight. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > She chose the name "TOF": "The Other Fran", to distinguish her from Fran > Kemmish. Exactly
TOF
TOF - 29 Jan 2009 06:08 GMT > > You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have > > read my original post to start your journey to insight. > > This is an international group and you are posting from a gmail > address so we don't know where you are. The "right" is different in > different places. Firstly, given that all of my references were from North America, where I'm posting from shouldn't have been pertinent.
In any event, while those qualifying as "the right" may fly slightly different flags, the same basic ideas and predispositions apply in most of the world.
While it would be wrong to say that all "rightists" agree on everything -- and at times they sharply disagree, in emphasis and sometimes even on matters of substance one can identify a core around which most rightists would concur.
They tend to agree that this is the best of all possible worlds, and that the existing arrangements over the division of property ought to be largely sacrosanct. They almost always declare their patriotism, typically in strident terms and point the finger accusingly at those who seem ambivalent about it, or rather too willing to cozy up to "foreigners". Most of them see an intrinsic virtue in private property and are leary of communal property, favour the ideas of Friedman and Hayek over Keynes and think that social inequality is rather a good thing, if not inevitable.
Many of them look backwards to a past "golden age" and mourn virtue lost (which may hint at their fascination with the descriptors that are the subject of this topic). Whether secular or religious, most avow traditional mores on the role of marriage, the family, sexual identity and so forth.
Isn't this all well attested?
TOF
John Varela - 29 Jan 2009 21:38 GMT > > > You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have > > > read my original post to start your journey to insight. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Isn't this all well attested? I strongly disagree with the above but am disinclined to get into a debate about it.
 Signature John Varela Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email
TOF - 29 Jan 2009 22:05 GMT > > > > You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have > > > > read my original post to start your journey to insight. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I strongly disagree with the above but am disinclined to get into a > debate about it. This is a language usage group rather than one aimed at debating politics. It's not my intent to provoke a discussion on the worthiness or coherence of the ideas of "the right". Yet I wonder how one can avoid a discussion on what one could mean by "the right" if one claims that there is sufficient imprecision in the term to render its use in this group or elsewhere problematic.
TOF
Nick - 29 Jan 2009 23:06 GMT >> > You don't know who "the right" is? Really? I suppose you could have >> > read my original post to start your journey to insight. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > different flags, the same basic ideas and predispositions apply in > most of the world. Well I consider myself - and am considered by others - to be on the right-hand side of UK politics. And while I can see a sweeping parody of the views of a few nutters who are perhaps on the side side of the spectrum, that's all I can see in the what follows.
> While it would be wrong to say that all "rightists" agree on > everything -- and at times they sharply disagree, in emphasis and > sometimes even on matters of substance one can identify a core around > which most rightists would concur. > > They tend to agree that this is the best of all possible worlds Clearly there is a lot that could be done to make the world a better place
>, and > that the existing arrangements over the division of property ought to > be largely sacrosanct. Sacrosanct
>They almost always declare their patriotism, > typically in strident terms and point the finger accusingly at those > who seem ambivalent about it, or rather too willing to cozy up to > "foreigners". H
Most of them see an intrinsic virtue in private property
> and are leary of communal property, favour the ideas of Friedman and > Hayek over Keynes and think that social inequality is rather a good [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > avow traditional mores on the role of marriage, the family, sexual > identity and so forth.
> Isn't this all well attested? It doesn't feel like it.
 Signature Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu
Nick - 29 Jan 2009 23:18 GMT Sorry - I decided I couldn't be bothered to finish the rely, but managed to send it instead of killing it.
 Signature Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu
John Varela - 30 Jan 2009 01:12 GMT > Sorry - I decided I couldn't be bothered to finish the rely, but managed > to send it instead of killing it. Similarly I couldn't be bothered to respond to TOF. I could have come up with an exaggerated stereotype of lefties to match hers of righties, but why bother? It would just lead to a flame war.
 Signature John Varela Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email
Frank ess - 30 Jan 2009 01:53 GMT >> Sorry - I decided I couldn't be bothered to finish the rely, but >> managed to send it instead of killing it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > righties, but why bother? It would just lead to a flame war.A troll > is a troll, however -toity the language.
 Signature Frank ess
Frank ess - 30 Jan 2009 02:07 GMT >>> Sorry - I decided I couldn't be bothered to finish the rely, but >>> managed to send it instead of killing it. >> >> Similarly I couldn't be bothered to respond to TOF. I could have >> come up with an exaggerated stereotype of lefties to match hers of >> righties, but why bother? It would just lead to a flame war. Echh. I apologize, Mr Varela. Need a nap.
"A troll is a troll, however -toity the language." <-- all mine.
 Signature Frank ess
Reinhold [Rey] Aman - 30 Jan 2009 03:21 GMT >> Sorry - I decided I couldn't be bothered to finish the rely, >> but managed to send it instead of killing it. > > Similarly I couldn't be bothered to respond to TOF. I could have > come up with an exaggerated stereotype of lefties to match hers of > righties, but why bother? It would just lead to a flame war. Smart move, John.
TOF is not merely one of those brainless lefties but an argumentative, vicious, and obsolete Maoist c.nt. Really.
 Signature ~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~
TOF - 30 Jan 2009 04:12 GMT > >> Sorry - I decided I couldn't be bothered to finish the rely, > >> but managed to send it instead of killing it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > TOF is not merely one of those brainless lefties but an argumentative, > vicious, and obsolete Maoist c.nt. Really. I see that you remain afflicted. How dreadful for you!
Poor chap ...
TOF
TOF - 30 Jan 2009 04:10 GMT > On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:21:28 UTC, Nick > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > come up with an exaggerated stereotype of lefties to match hers of > righties, but why bother? It would just lead to a flame war. An astonishing response ...
You imply that my summary of the key attributes of the right is "exaggerated" but offer no substantive critique of it, and deduce that I'm seeking some sort of flame war. The respondent "nick" actually endorsed some of it and removed one of my qualifications to declare current arrangements on private property to be not *largely* sacrosanct, but sacrosanct.
I chose my description of the right with care, describing them in terms with which they ought to be comfortable or at worst think arguable as a matter of usage. If you really believe I've gone beyond what a consensual view of "the right" would be why not specify where I've exceeded the bounds? I assure you, I don't seek an argument about which side has the better claims to defencible politics in this place.
Perhaps Charles had a point after all.
TOF
J. J. Lodder - 27 Jan 2009 22:16 GMT > > >> <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > that inclined you to infer that I had something other than intelligent > reasoned discussion in mind? He seems to be an American,
Jan
J. J. Lodder - 27 Jan 2009 09:45 GMT > Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first uttered > in print (or perhaps electronically)? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Americans were "fat, lazy and stupid" in an article in the Edmonton > Sun in October of 2008. It must be relatively recent. The traditional European image of Americans is just the opposite: active, energetic, resourceful, more men of deeds than words.
Jan
Murray Arnow - 27 Jan 2009 15:34 GMT >> Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first uttered >> in print (or perhaps electronically)? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Jan Who are you and what have youe done with Jan?
tony cooper - 27 Jan 2009 16:28 GMT >>> Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first uttered >>> in print (or perhaps electronically)? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Who are you and what have youe done with Jan? !!!!!!!!!!
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Frank ess - 27 Jan 2009 19:32 GMT >>> Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first >>> uttered in print (or perhaps electronically)? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Who are you and what have youe done with Jan? Jan who?
 Signature Frank ess
Lars Enderin - 27 Jan 2009 19:35 GMT >>>> Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first >>>> uttered in print (or perhaps electronically)? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Jan who? J. J. Lodder. He is not known for praising Americans, so his latest post looks like it was written by an impostor.
Paul Wolff - 27 Jan 2009 19:53 GMT >Frank ess wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >J. J. Lodder. He is not known for praising Americans, so his latest >post looks like it was written by an impostor. The real Lodder insists on ending his final sentence with a comma,
 Signature Paul
J. J. Lodder - 27 Jan 2009 22:16 GMT > >Frank ess wrote: > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > The real Lodder insists on ending his final sentence with a comma, Depends on what precedes it,
Jan
Richard Bollard - 27 Jan 2009 22:44 GMT >>Frank ess wrote: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >The real Lodder insists on ending his final sentence with a comma, That's a lodder rubbish.
 Signature Richard Bollard Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
J. J. Lodder - 29 Jan 2009 13:03 GMT > >>Frank ess wrote: > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That's a lodder rubbish. Lodder to you,
Jan
J. J. Lodder - 27 Jan 2009 22:16 GMT > >> Can anyone shed any light on the time this trilogy was first uttered > >> in print (or perhaps electronically)? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Who are you and what have youe done with Jan? Youe have blinded youreselfe to reality by insisting on seeing anti-Americanism everywhere,
Jan
|
|
|