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 / January 2009



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Origin of Description of Americans as "Fat, lazy and stupid"

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
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.