quote:

Originally posted by Seanahan:
Is that a possible mondegreen?

I never thought of that. I suppose it's possible, but I don't really think so. Joplin's version is so much different than Tucker's. She changes some of the lyrics from the third person to the first person. For example, where Tucker says "I'm pretty sure you're gonna knock 'em dead," Joplin says "I do believe, I'm really gonna knock 'em dead, oh!"

I've never carefully listened to the lyrics, either, and I don't know if I've heard both versions. I remember very few of the lyrics, and I don't remember them right. What I remember is "Put on your high heel sneakers, we're goin' steppin' out tonight."


Tinman

I was reading an English nursing journal and came across a phrase that brought a smile to my face: they talked about "looking after" the patients.

In the U.S., at least from my experience, that term is never used professionally, and even when used informally, it is a bit old-fashioned. A grandmother might tell her grandson to "look after" his sister, but that's about it. We'd say "care for" or "take care of" here. Is that use common in England?

I don't know about specifically in the nursing community but I'd certainly say that in her later years my father and I looked after my mother. It's common in normal day to day use, more common than care for which here would often mean something like "have an emotional attachment to".

It's still quite common over here and, as Bob says, the term has a less emotional connotation than "care for" while still conveying the idea of meeting all the physical and as many of the emotional needs of patients as is possible under the circumstances while still maintaining vital professional detachment.

A generic term, "carer" has arisen here to cover people who look after the needs of other people. The people being cared-for may be very young, have disabilities, or be elderly. Usually they are relatives, but are sometimes "professional carers" such a nurses and social workers. Rather than referring to a child's "parent or guardian", as in the past, schools now frequently refer to a "carer".

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
A generic term, "carer" has arisen here to cover people who look after the needs of other people.

The clinical phrase over here is "care giver."

Tinman

Yes, Tinman (always great to see you here!) is correct. We also call those people you describe, Arnie (the disabled, very young, and eldely), as "vulnerable populations."

Richard posted this in another thread: "What Christmas Cracker did you find this tale in?"

What does that mean?

"What Christmas Cracker did you find this tale in?"

A Christmas cracker is a party favor, or tube that makes a noise when you pull the ends of the shiny paper it's wrapped in, and it usually has a toy, paper hat, or slip of paper in it. I've seen them for sale in the States.

quote:

it usually has a toy, paper hat, or slip of paper in it.

Usually all three. Usually all three are cheap 'n nasty, particularly the toy.

The slip of paper is usually called the 'motto'. I think earlier versions contained true mottos such as 'Neither a lender nor a borrower be." and so on, but nowadays they usually contain the sort of joke that is aimed at five-year-olds, for example, 'My dog's got no nose.' 'Really? How does he smell?' 'Awful!'

British crackers are cute but mine are more exciting.

Is the text of your article online, neveu? I clicked on various links but they seemed to be self-referential and took me round in circles.

Are you sure you didn't get into a credit card or insurance help site?

quote:

Is the text of your article online

Unfortunately no. You've got to buy the journal. I can send you instructions though.

Thanks, neveu, I don't bother. I'm not particularly interested in making my own crackers, and suspect yours might prove to be too 'exciting'.

Ah, yes. Now I remember seeing them. I think they might be called something else here, as I don't ever recall the name "Christmas Crackers."

Neveu, I didn't know you were a celebrity!

quote:

Neveu, I didn't know you were a celebrity!

Neither did I.

Whenever I see somebody's name on a Web site, I always think of him/her as a celebrity.

In the future we'll all have 15 minutes of anonymity.*



*I stole that from someone, but I forgot who.

That is a great one.

At my organization, a rival organization has requested, via the freedom of information act, all emails that anyone in our organization has ever sent to our members. Whew! Probably the courts won't uphold such a broad request, but it surely will mean that we do things differently.

The FoIA(pronounced foy-uh) is a fairly broad act. It effects almost all public(government) organizations. Most documents that the University of Illinois had could be "FoIA-ed". Daily schedules and meeting minutes of congressmen are similarly "FoIA-able".

If your organization is part of the government, then almost any record you have is fair game. This seems ridiculous, but the alternative is too horrible to think about. Something like all of the emails your organization has sent out would be a legal request, and there is little the courts could do to deny it.

That being said, if someone in your organization sent out an email saying "remember to clean up old emails every couple of months", they could be indicted for something, although I'm not sure if it is fraud, obstruction of justice, or something else.

Fortunately we don't (yet) have such an Act, so people and organisations can still keep most things private.

Although our Government would surely like such an Act so that they could spy on others, they wouldn't like it if that same right were given to the hoi polloi to spy on them - so it seems unlikely that any such legislation will reach the Staute Book.

Richard, I don't think I was very clear. The FoIA only applies to organizations within the government. The act is not applicable to private organizations. The idea is not for the government to spy on us, it is for us to be able to keep track of what the government does. The government itself could get all of these documents anyways.

Yes, Richard, Sean is correct. The freedom of information act has been around for a long time; it isn't a result of the recent reaction to terrorism.

Sean, our company is private. The freedom of information request went to governmental agencies to which we write emails. There are a couple of ways to prevent this, though. One, is that since there have been one hell of a lot of emails sent since our organization formed, the govenmental agencies have a right to charge for each individual sheet. That can add up!

Secondly, the request that is affecting our company is way too general. I know because I once requested some documents of our local school district from the freedom of information act. To do so, I read the Illinios law on it, and it specifically says that you have to request something specific for an acceptable purpose. The purposes are spelled out, and the law was an excellent guide.

The problem, however, is that since the request wasn't made to us, we can't control how it's handled. Most of the agencies that received the requests have handled them by charging for each page or by having their attorneys intervene. There are a few, however, that aren't handling the requests as well; they want to give away the farm, so to speak. In the end, there is nothing we've done wrong, so there is nothing to worry about. Still, having every single email looked at can be unsettling.

The bottom line is, we will have to do business differently, and that has already started.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Yes, Richard, Sean is correct. The freedom of information act has been around for a long time; it isn't a result of the recent reaction to terrorism.

I was aware of this. But we still don't have an equivalent - and I am still pleased that we don't.