Member |
I used to go out with someone who had similar respiratory problems to yours Morgan and a similar background (life-long non-smoker but parents who smoked heavily) so I have some idea of your feelings. My understanding on the recent 3 billion dollar award though is that the crux of the cancer victim's case is that the tobacco companies didn't tell her that smoking was dangerous. Now while I accept that that was once the case it certainly can't have escaped anyone's notice over the last thirty years or so that the mass of scientific opinion is that cigarettes are dangerous. The packets carry health warnings, government sponsored campaigns inform the public of the danger and (in Britain anyway) the amount of advertising has been severely curtailed. It would have required an ignorance of what is happening on a colossal scale to have been unaware of the dangers. The victim here cannot with any credibility claim that she was completely unaware of the potential harm from her smoking. At any time in the last thirty years she could have stopped smoking. At best she is culpable and to my mind that makes an award of 3 billion dollars more than a little disproportionate. If a government wants to reduce smoking and related illnesses then I say that they should go about it whole heartedly and either ban it or load tobacco with such massive taxes that people stop for financial reasons when they won't stop for health ones. (I'm not proposing that you understand - just saying that any government that actually meant it would do something like that) This half hearted hitting the producers with punitive damages which never get payed anyway as they have lawyers which can keep the cases in court for twenty years with appeals just seems a pretty damned ineffective way to go about it. Mmmm. Maybe it's time to go back and talk about some language related issues now, it's getting cold up here on this soapbox. si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
Member |
Scrolling down, I was sorry to read our Asa Lovejoy misjump on the "Aren't-lawsuits-ridiculous,-look-what-happened-to-McDonald's" bandwagon but then greatly heartened when two (Count 'em, TWO!) other posters knew the whole story. That poor old woman truly did have every penny coming to her from that particular McDonald's who, in my opinion, could be seen as having been gotten off too lightly. There are far more Americans who can afford a cheap handgun than an expensive lawyer and many irate citizens prefer more direct solutions to problems than ones offered by the court system. Having said that, however, there are countless examples of ridiculous lawsuits involving millions of dollars that cause this American more than a bit of shame and embarassment for his country. One of the worst was a case involving a woman who sued a store she was shopping in because the the manager failed to control an unruly child who somehow caused this woman to injure herself. The kicker is that it was HER KID (!!!) and that (wait for it) she won the lawsuit and a huge monetary judgement! Elect me dictator (sic) and I'll bring back public flogging!! | |||
|
| Member |
quote: If that's the case I'm thinking of it's this one quote: Along with several others it's to be found all over the internet usually under the heading 'The Stella Awards'. The good news is that it ain't true. There's a thorough debunking of the whole document at the ever more impressive www.snopes.com. As ever you can't link directly to a specific page on snopes but to read all about it look in Legal aAffairs at the item called 'Six Real Lawsuits". si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
Member |
There is an adjective for legislation of moralistic goal, prompted by a smugly superior attitude that the "poor ignorant unwashed" should be compelled to do what is best for them. (The "noble experiment" of Prohibition, in the United States, would be an example.) Unfortunately, that word is locked away in some odd gray cell of my brain, to which I seem to have lost the passkey. Can anyone help me find it? | |||
|
Member |
No, Shufitz, I don't know the term, but I would love to know what it is. CJ and Bob, that case is unbelievable! As one who has done lots of research into tobacco related health problems, there are 2 sides to the tobacco industry's propaganda. While I agree that people read the warnings on the packages & know the health implications of smoking by now, there has not been nearly enough publicity about the addictiveness of nicotine (BTW, there are more than 1,000 carcinogens in cigarettes). Studies show that it is more addicting than cocaine. Also, some of these cases were successful because the tobacco companies lied about the amount of nicotine in cigarettes. Further, in the past, many cigarette advertisements were particularly marketed to children. I am not defending the ludicrous award in this particular case. However, I am saying that the tobacco companies deserve some of this. I have always told my classes that it won't be legislation that will put the tobacco companies out of business, it will be private lawsuits. I knew as soon as they lost one, there would be an onslaught. This is just the beginning..... | |||
|
| Member |
quote: As I said, it's unbelievable because it isn't true. si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Originally posted by BobHale: quote: I take exception to that statement. Tabacco is extremely addictive, more so than hard drugs, such as cocaine, heroin and opium. Some people seem to break the habit easily; others can't (http://no-smoking.org/april01/04-24-01-1.html). Why isn't readily understood. There is a genetic component that makes some people more susceptible to addiction than others (http://no-smoking.org/april01/04-24-01-1.html). There is also a social and psychological component. Much of cigarette advertising is aimed at teens and pre-teens, and this age group is extremely sensitive to peer pressure. Rebellion is a part of teen life today, as it was in our day. It is "cool" to buck authority, to break rules. One of the "cool" things is to smoke. Parents don't like it, the government says it's dangerous (what do they know). Besides, one cigarette won't kill you. And you can always quit. Well, one cigarette can cause hurt you (http://no-smoking.org/july01/07-03-01-1.html). And you can't always quit (http://no-smoking.org/april01/04-10-01-2.html). I read somewhere that a teen can become addicted on less than a pack of cigarettes. Smokers get to the point where they cough violently, and the only thing that will stop their cough is to light up. People in the emphysema ward of hospitals with SOB (shortness of breath) wander down the halls, pushing their oxygen tanks with them, begging everyone they meet for a cigarette. They can't even breath, yet they still crave a cigarette. I haven't followed this particular case and I can't speak about it in particular. But I know the tobacco companies have systematically lied about the harmful affects of smoking. They have put their profits ahead of the people's health. I have no sympathy for them. I do sympathize with the smoker's plight. I am very anti-smoking and I can't even stand the smell of cigarettes. I have never smoked, though I have had my share of second-hand smoke. I am sensitive to cigarette smoke. Sometimes if someone lights up twenty feet away I start coughing. I've known several people whose life has been shortened by cigarette smoking. And I know others now who are headed for an early grave because of their tobacco habit. Although I've focused on cigarettes, tobacco in any form is harmful. Tobacco use contributes to many more health problems, including heart disease and depression. For more information, see Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), Wash., DC, USA, (http://ash.org/) Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
quote: | |||
|
| Member |
Tinman you have taken a (possibly badly chosen) remark out of context. The thrust of my argument was not that she could have stopped smoking but that she couldn't claim not to have been aware of the dangers. I am aware that nicotine is a highly addictive drug and that quitting isn't easy. I may never have smoked but my father has smoked for sixty years and tried on and off over the last thirty years to give up with no success lasting more than a couple of days. It's a triumph for him that he's down to less than twenty a day. I am a passionate anti-smoker and although I chose to distance myself from the opinion in my previous post I believe that the way to reduce smoking IS to load tobacco with massive taxes to the point where financial considerations force people to quit. This isn't a view I'm looking for a fight on and I'm equally well aware of the hardship that this would cause to many addicts. Don't call me on this one I won't be responding. My point was that she could have tried to quit but even if she did try she now can't admit it because the thrust of her action is that she didn't know and wasn't informed of the dangers. To admit that she tried to quit would be to demolish her own case. Apart from that I don't believe it's possible that anyone in the west* is ignorant of the dangers. They may choose to ignore them, they may acknowledge them but find themselves unable to quit but they can't claim to be uninformed about them. This is why I say that there is a degree of culpability and that a $3 billion award is out of place. * (It's different in the far east and in many developing countries because there is little education on the dangers of smoking and virtually no relevant legislation. The tobacco companies therefore target those countries to take advantage of the situation. If someone from, say, rural China were to bring the same type of action and win then I'd say a higher award was justified because the people profiting from the industry have been and still are systematically and deliberately misleading their customers in that part of the world.) P.S. And now I'm definitely putting away my soapbox. As they say, 'no further correspondence will be entered into.' si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Sorry, Bob, I guess I got carried away. That one sentence stuck in my craw. It sounds like we agree more than disagree about this topic. Enough said. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
If you see it in the Snopes, it's so. Thanks B.H. My confidence in the American legal system is (somewhat) restored. Now if O.J. can only locate the "real killers" we'll all be better off. I haven't gotten too heavily into that snopes website (time restraints) but apparently you have so let me ask - Just how reliable are they? I'm not about to launch an investigation myself into newspapers published all over the country looking for, for example, that furniture store lawsuit story but, assuming the snopes people are and have done so unsuccessfully, I'll be happy to list them as a reliable source. | |||
|
| Member |
Well, Tinman, I, too, get passionate about this subject because I have cared for the dying patients--with mutilating head and neck surgery (I have seen the entire tongue removed because of tumors); or tracheotomies (some are so addicted that they put the cigarette up to their tracheotomy and inhale from there!); or open heart surgery; or bladder reconstructions (using their ileum) due to bladder cancer; or pneumonectomies; or laryngectomies, with no hope of ever speaking again; or total esophagectomies, with feeding tubes into their stomachs....all because of smoking. People often don't realize the myriad of diseases associtate with smoking, many of them extremely mutilating. Tinman is correct about the potent addictiveness of cigarettes, a fact that the cigarette companies have covered up for years--thus the successful lawsuits. No, unfortunately, I don't think it will be the taxes that will stop people from smoking--I think it will be the litigation bankrupting the cigarette companies. When patients continue to inhale smoke after they have tracheotomies because of lung disease, paying higher taxes for cigarettes is a minor consideration. Okay--I am off my soapbox, and I do apologize for this long, explicit post! | |||
|
| Member |
quote: Generally they're considered a very reliable source. If you check out any of their pages and scroll to the bottom they always cite their sources which is usually a pretty good sign of good faith. All of the 'legends' that I already knew about from other sources match up perfectly with their versions so I'd say that you can have a high level of confidence in anything you read there. If there are any errors they will probably be sincere and corrected if you point them out. It's also extremely funny. Two other things. There is one section that is intentionally false - with good reason (I'll let you find it for yourself) and there is also a massive and very lively message board where people discuss all sorts of things and are generally as polite and well behaved as the folks here and at FOTA. si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Good point--though I really don't know how it all got started under akimbo! | |||
|
| Member |
A new word about position in this thread--finally! I had to occasion to use the word rampant, meaning widespread. However, it also means "rearing upon the hind legs with forelegs extended" or "standing on one hind foot with one foreleg raised above the other and the head in profile". I haven't often seen it used that way before. [This message was edited by Kalleh on Sun Oct 20th, 2002 at 10:55.] | |||
|
| Member |
Heraldic Terms Rampant used in this way is of a course a heraldic term. Others are dormant - in a sleeping position guardant looking out at the viewer, full face as opposed to in profile rampant guardant a combination of those two terms, i.e. standing on a hind like with head turned to look at the viewer. saliant leaping or springing and lots and lots of others which can be found here. si hoc legere scis nimium eruditiones habes Read all about my travels around the world here. | |||
|
| Member |
Heard two new body position terms last week and it's taken me this long to find this thread. They were in a brief article regarding hospital slang (so feel free to chime in Kalleh, either yea or nay) and dealt with one way hospital workers sometimes adjust to the horrors of death they encounter on a daily basis by making light of them linguistically. The terms were "the O position" and "the Q position." The first describes a cadaver following the onset of rigor mortis whose mouth is open, thereby forming the "O" of the "O position." The "Q position" is the same but with the unfortunate's tongue hanging out. (Insensitive, maybe, but I'm sorry, I think that's hilarious.) | |||
|
| Member |
Oh, CJ, you're just lucky that those of us on this board have good senses of humor!  Insensitive--yes! But funny--yes!No, I've never heard of those terms. | |||
|
| Member |
I mentioned that it took about a week to find this thread about body positions (You know how it is - "I know I remember reading something about specialized words of this sort but where the hell is it?!" - and during this time I misremembered (word?) my material slightly. Went back to look it up again to see if there were other examples and discovered that the correct term (accurately if not politically) is "sign" instead of "position." "A guy came in last night with the Q sign" would be a casual way of referring to a DOA positioned as described above. The stress people in medicine face is far more than I could ever handle and I wouldn't begrudge any of them any little way they might have to reduce the tremendous pressure they are confronted with daily. Hats off to all those in that field. | |||
|
| Member |
Well, sometimes it can be taken too far, though--like talking about the "gomers" in the ICU (those who are brain dead). In a previous post of mine (I tried to copy it using BobHale's suggestion and only got the top of the entire thread--which was very long.), I mentioned a pediatric resident's comments: When the little kids would have brain injuries, I would worriedly ask him how they were going to be. He'd callously say, "They'll be able to sell newspapers on the corner, but they'll never be able to count change". Now that's taking it too far, IMHO. | |||
|
| Member |
quote: I found misremembered on-line in the AHD (2000), the OED (2002), and the M-WCD (2002). The OED gives three quotes dated 1873, 1962, and 1989. The earliest quote for misremember was from 1533. It was defined as to remember incorrectly or to forget. Interestingly, the OED (1989) defines disremember as, Chiefly dial. To fail to remember; to forget. (trans. and absol.) and gives quotes from 1815 to 1938. I have no idea what "trans. and absol." means. Incidentally, on-line dates to 1950 (OED and M-WCD). Another bunch of worthless, though interesting, information form your friendly neighborhood Tinman. Or should that be cyber-neighborhood? Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
Well, I love your information, Tinman, so keep it coming! | |||
|
| Member |
I checking my recall that Shakespeare used the word misremember, (apparently I misremembered), I found that Dorothy Parker used it. quote: | |||
|
| Member |
Since misremember can mean either to remember inaccurately or to forget entirely, how are you to know which the speaker means? Sometimes you can figure it out by the context, but not always. It seems to me it would be best to use misremember for remember inaccurately, since there is no other concise term for that, as far as I know, and forget for forget entirely. Why not use simple and unambiguous English when you can? Tinman | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
Why not use simple and unambiguous English when you can? ***************************************** As the bumper sticker says, "Eschew obfuscation!" To my somewhat addled mind, misremember sounds like the condition that would have existed had John Wayne Bobbitt's plastic surgeon failed. | ||
|
| Member |
quote: Odd you should mention gomers. In that same article I mentioned, the term is listed as medical slang for a hypocondriac as an acronym for "Get Out of My Emergency Room!" It's the #1 entry on the Acronym Finder site just above the only other entry "Grand Old Man/Matron of the Emergency Room." So Kalleh, if a co-worker should call you a gomer, you might take it as a measure of respect. Extremely outdated yet original joke: Q: What do you call a heap of hypocondriacs? A: A gomer pile. And regarding "misremember" (which I had thought was my original; Dorothy Parker steals all my best stuff!) along similar lines is the term "diseducated." I use this when someone doubts something I'm saying and I don't happen to have an encyclopedia in my back pocket. I just say, "Do I look like a diseducated guy?!" | |||
|
| Member |
Asa, Bobbit's operation gave a new meaning to remember. Tinman | |||
|
| Member |
With all these jokes about misremembering and remember, I do hope you guys remember you are Members of this board, with members of your own! Now, don't forget, as Kalleh would say!  | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
I do hope you guys remember you are Members of this board, *********************************** Weren't there songs called, Remember, and Memberies are Made of This? | ||
|
| Member |
I should perhaps point out that our software officially proclaims Asa to be a full member, rather than a junior member. | |||
|
| Member |
And Asa, how about that classic: "Memories light the corner of my mind. Misty water color memories Of the way we were." Although, I once heard it sung as: "Mammories...", but that is another part of the body!  | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
I once heard it sung as: "Mammories...", ************************************** And then there was the silicone implant specialist's song, "Mammaries are Made of This." | ||
|
Member |
(Dare I?) Then there is the brassiere song, Tanks, for the Mammaries. ("Dare I?" Need you ask?) | |||
|
| <Asa Lovejoy> |
Tanks, for the Mammaries. ********************************* And which old comedian used it as his theme song? I do need to keep a breast of these things, you know... | ||
|
| Member |
quote: I do Hope you don't think that was a hard one! I think I'll just keep Bobbing along though.... | |||
|
| Member |
Reviving a thread... While this thread got waaay off track, it was one of the first threads I started here, about the word "akimbo." I had a question about that word today and just had to revive this great thread. I had thought that "akimbo" was a position with the hands on the hips and the elbows extended outward, such that one stands "akimbo." Today, I read a columnist talking about basketball players leaping with "legs all akimbo." I thought he was nuts, but when I looked up the word in MW, it does say: "set in a bent position <a tailor sitting with legs akimbo>." So apparently it can be used for legs, too?  | |||
|
| Member |
I've never heard that definition before. The definition involving the arms is very specific, so you know exactly what the author means. But the legs definition is not so clear. What does it mean? The AHD Online says, "Being in a bent, bowed, or arched position: 'There he remained, dead to the world, limbs akimbo, until we left' (Alex Shoumatoff)." What are "limbs akimbo"? Spread-eagled? The OED Online gives just one definition: "Of the arms: In a position in which the hands rest on the hips and the elbows are turned outwards. Now usu. hyphenless. Also transf. and fig. (see quots.), and as adj." and gives the following citations: quote: I wouldn't normally post all the citations, but I wanted to show you the different spellings. And I had a few questions and comments. In the 1644 quote, what does a-prank mean? I can't find it in any dictionary and when I google it (without the hyphen) I get mostly sites in foreign languages. What does the 1922 quote mean, "The Fan (folded akimbo against her waist)"? Does it mean her arms were folded akimbo and the fan was in her hand, resting against her waist? I like the 1943 slang definition! Akimbo in the 1959 quote seems to mean either "all over the place," or "alternately high and low." Perhaps "all over the place" is what is meant in the legs definition. Wikipedia lists a slang meaning in computer gaming: "identical weapons are held in each hand." It sounds like a word with a very specific meaning involving the arms has taken on less specific and clear meanings. That's progress. TinmanThis message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman, | |||
|
Member |
I've always heard it used to mean either arms or legs "all over the place." ******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama | |||
|
| Member |
Legs Akimbo? Wasn't he a famous American gangster? "No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson. | |||
|
| Member |
 Bob, that is great!Thanks, Tinman, for that wonderful citation. The article I read was about a basketball player whose arms and legs were akimbo...much like CW's definition. I had always thought "akimbo" was a very specific position of the arms, period. [No, jheem, I am not complaining about the evolution of this word.  ] | |||
|
| Member |
Bob? I think Legs Akimbo was that showgirl in Vegas who was arrested for turning tricks . . . ******* "Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions. ~Dalai Lama | |||
|
| Member |
Bob? You knew her well... she bought you shots of Guinness Stout... | |||
|
Member |
While I've never before seen legs described as "akimbo", it makes a certain sense. The root meaning is "bowed". It takes no great stretch of imagination to think of someone with bow-legs as having their legs akimbo. Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life. | |||
|
Copyright © 2002-12