Why do we call extortion “blackmail”?

Do you tip your mailman at Christmas? You don't have to. But would you want your neighbor to "mistakenly" receive your Frederick's of Hollywood catalog? Accidents happen. How about those "toys" you ordered from that torrid website? Actually, blackmail has nothing to do with the Post Office, which screws up as a matter of principle. It comes from "mal," Old English for tribute or rent. Warlords in ancient Scotland used to force farmers to pay mal as protection. Pay it and you plant your crops in peace; don't pay it and we plant you and you rest in peace. Blackmail took on its modern meaning of general extortion for money in the 19th century.Why black? The color was often used to suggest evil, but it may also have been to distinguish the payment, made in crops or livestock, from what was called "white" money -- coins and currency.

And why do we call it a "toast"?

I have heard the story that a piece of toasted bread was thrown into your glass of wine to act like a filter, attracting all the unwanted gunk from the glass.

In any event, my favorite toast, for your enjoyment, which I shared with all last night:

"Dance as if no one were watching.
Sing as if no one were listening.
And live every day as if it were your last."

Oh what a wonderful toast, Morgan. And, I love to do just that! Sometimes (when no one else is home) I close my draperies in the family room, turn on the stereo, and dance as if I were in the Joffrey Ballet! Then, when I am alone in the car, I sing loudly, to my heart's content! I am sure neither are these situations are pretty pictures!

Dance as if no one were watching
***********************************
I did just that, and I steped on my own damned toes!

Asa the klutz

Why do we sometimes call chopped meat Salisbury Steak?

Since a hamburger contains no ham--and hopefully, no horse--I suppose we could label any other version of chopped meat in any way we wish. This particular nom de hash, however, has a specific historical origin.

Hamburgers were named for the Germany city of Hamburg, where they supposedly originated. Salisbury Steak also has a German connection. But it was named not after anything German but rather to make it sound as un-German as possible.

Feelings against Germany ran so high during and after World War I that efforts were made to rid English of German names. Sauerkraut, for example, became "victory cabbage." And hamburger steak was renamed Salisbury Steak, after Dr. James Salisbury, who had extolled the health benefits from eating chopped meat. When feelings cooled off, victory cabbage went kaput. But Salisbury Steak is still on the menu.


Source: EVER WONDER WHY? By Douglas B. Smith

I'm amused by the term, "ground beef." Who's ever eaten sea cow instead, or cowbird, for that matter? Yes, the beef we eat - assuming that we're not vegetarians - is the terrestrial variety, the ground type.

LadyBeth reports:

quote:

---

Hamburgers were named for the Germany city of Hamburg, where they supposedly originated.

---

May I add that this is a disputed fact. According to History and Legends of Hamburgers, Germany's claim is from 1891, while both Seymour, Wisconsin and Hamburg, New York claim the origin in 1885.

Since I live about five miles from the site in New York that claims the fame, my heart is with them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Morgan:
May I add that this is a disputed fact.

---

I am among those who say that a "fact" is, by definition, true. Therefore, a "true fact" is a redundancy and a "false fact" is a contradiction. A "disputed fact" also sounds redidulous to me. I would say a "disputed claim' or "disputed allegation". The less enlightened disagree with me.

One of the definitions given by the AHD
is, "Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts. The AHD Usage Note says,

"Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis."

Any comments?

Tinman

Ah! Tinman! You are absolutely right. I should have said disputed claim not disputed fact. Don't know where my mind was!

Ah, Tinman, that is exactly why I like this board. Thanks for making us think and for waking us up to the facts! I agree with you that a fact is true. This is another one of those words that has changed through the years (like moot point--arnie's favorite!) I am becoming a word purist, I think--perhaps related to my being a literalist.
Morgan, I am from Wisconsin so I favor Seymour, Wisconsin!

"The less enlightened disagree with me."
================================================
I was being facetious when I said that. I then went on to quote one of the AHD's definitions of fact: "Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts". I was hoping someone would call me on that.

A fact is, as far as I am concerned, something that is true and often verifiable. But the AHD, certainly not "less enlightened" than I, gives a definition that doesn't agree with mine. True, their other definitions do agree with mine, but this one doesn't. Does that make this definition wrong?

No, it doesn't. In an ideal world, a fact would always be true. But we live in the real world, and in the real world enough people agree that a fact is not necessarily true that the AHD has listed that as one of their definitions. We can smugly laugh at their "ignorance" and piously maintain our superiority (and I often do), but that will not keep fact from meaning "something believed to be true or real" in some cases. As much as we may want to freeze the meanings of words, we can't. They will change, with or without our approval.

There has been much agreement on this board that language and language "rules" should be logical. Why? The English language is not logical. The "rules" are sometimes contradictory, often arbitrary and capricious (a nice redundancy), and hotly contested. One person says the plural of "CD" should be "CD's"; another says no, that is illogical, it should be "CDs". Both have valid arguments, but neither will admit the other's. The debate is based more on emotion than logic.

And that, I believe, is the crux of the matter. Language is emotional, not logical. No matter how much we try to make it logical, it will remain emotional. Our spelling and pronunciation is not logical; our idioms are not logical; our meanings are not always logical. And everything is subject to change.

Tinman

One person says the plural of "CD" should be "CD's"; another says no, that
is illogical, it should be "CDs".
***************************************

I see no logic in using the apostrophe; I think it makes it a possessive. Please enlighten me as to how it could be otherwise.

This has been much discussed on the FOTA board.

The concensus seems to be that it is permissable to use an apostrophe in plurals when it is needed for clarity. There are very few such instances and "CDs" is not one such.

The most freqently cited is the plural of single-letter words such as "U". Does "US" mean two or more letters "U"; does it mean the personal pronoun "us" or is it an abbreviation for United States? The use of the apostrophe in the sentence "...how many u's can you see?..." does help remove that ambiguity.

That special and rare exception aside I can see no need for the apostrophe in plurals.

Richard English

Tinman, you should be a politician. You keep swaying my view! I see what you mean. Certainly what we considered "facts" once ("the world is flat") change on a daily basis. I see your point. Yet, I would like to see people using the word "fact" in a more appropriate way. It is a "fact" that we need oxygen to live, but many of the other medical "facts" are really "theories". Of course, we could get into a wonderful discussion of "concepts", "theories", "paradigms", etc.! I have found Thos. Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" exceptional for discussing the real evolution of science--though, as in all science, his views are controversial.

Asa, I agree that CDs should not have an apostrophe. As I have said in various threads here--I am dying for one authority on grammar for the use of English. Everyone would be taught the same way, and we wouldn't see multiple apostrophes being used incorrectly, as well as other grammatical errors. And the world would be perfect!

The most freqently cited is the plural of single-letter words such as "U". Does "US"
mean two or more letters "U"; does it mean the personal pronoun "us" or is it an
abbreviation for United States? The use of the apostrophe in the sentence "...how
many u's can you see?..." does help remove that ambiguity.
********************************************
I would be inclined to place the "u" in quotations, and add the "s". How many "U"s do you usually use? An apostrophe looks like a suppository; unless a person is constipated grammatically or intestinally it is rare that either one needs to be inserted. :eek

Re the above, I tried four times to insert the "eek" icon to no avail. What am I doing wrong?

I'd go quite a long way further than anyone else has so far gone on the subject of "facts".
If we accept the definition that a fact is per se true then I would say that we cannot ever identify anything as a fact.
The most I'd be willing to concede is that "facts" in some kind of abstract theoretical form might exist but they would be forever unknown and unknowable.

Any of the things we think of as facts - even such things as "we need oxygen to live" - aren't really facts in this sense. They are theories supported by a great deal of empirical observation but no matter how much theory or observation supports something it simply isn't a fact in the sense of being definitely and absolutely true because something else might one day come along and contradict it.

Take the Earth.

For centuries it was, as you say, a fact that it was flat. Then it was a fact that though it was round the sun orbited the Earth. Then it was a fact that the Earth orbited the sun.
But is that a fact ? Technically, according to the theories the Earth and the Sun exert gravitational forces on each other and they both orbit the point which is their common centre of mass. But is that a fact. It might be (though it's debatable) if they were the only bodies in the system. The trouble is they aren't and the motions of all the planets, moons, asteroids and so on are determined by forces far too complex for us to work out. But even if we could would the knowledge that we then had be a fact ?
No because there are expanding/contracting/steady state/etc Universe theories to take into account.

None of that is really relevant. It's just an example. I could equally well have chosen "how the body works" or "evolution" as my example.

We can never know anything - we can only produce theories and test them against observations. This is the scientific method. We keep on testing a theory until we prove it wrong, then we try another theory.
We can by definition never prove that anything is true only that it is false.
I could give my arguments on why we can never prove that anything is false either but that would keep me typing all night.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I think this is posssibly taking things a little too far. Unless we take the concept into rather esoteric arguments about perception, I think we could eaily prove such fairly basic things as the truth that my car is presently sitting in the garage. Greater truths about universal concepts are, I agree, more difficult.

What I would suggest, though, is that it is impossible to prove a "negative truth".

Thus, the present threat of war with Iraq seems to be based on the premise that Saddam Hussein has not "proved" that he has no weapons of mass distruction. But how can he? Neither he, not the UN inspectors can prove he has no weapons; they can only prove he has such weapons. If they are found, they exist; if they are not found, they might exist.

I fear we will eventually go to war over the impossibility of proving a negative.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
I think we could eaily prove such fairly basic things as the truth that my car is presently sitting in the garage.
Richard English

---

Go on then. Prove now, to my satisfaction that at 21:10 on Sunday 19th January 2002, your car is sitting in the garage.
In fact prove to me that you, Richard English, exist as anything other than a collection of message board postings.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

The above seems to lead to a somewhat scientific premise, i.e. that the best we can do is to arrive at hypotheses that are consistent with our observations. In other words, we live in a collection of metaphors, not in the truth. Who was the French poet who wrote, "La vie est un foret des symboles?" I've forgotten.

I am not sure, Asa.

I, also, think Bob has gone too far. LOOK in the garage at the car; take a picture of it as you hold up a calibrated watch.

As far as oxygen being needed to sustain life, that is a fact also. It isn't a theory.....preponderance of evidence makes it a fact. There is no scientist in the world who wouldn't agree with that. Doesn't that make it a truth...and a fact? I have to believe that there are some facts. Otherwise, I feel as though I am in La La Land!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Re the above, I tried four times to insert the "eek" icon to no avail. What am I doing wrong?

---

I see your problem, Asa. You posted " :eek " . It needs another colon at the end. is : eek : without the spaces, or you can just click on the little purple face below and it will insert it for you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Tinman, you should be a politician.

---

Ow! That hurts! I've spent most of my life trying to avoid politics. Politicians seem to do their best to confuse people, which apparently is what I've done.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. I wasn't talking about the established "facts" (the world is flat) that are generally accepted and later are disproved. I was speaking of the "fact" that the loose way we use the word fact (he's an idiot, and that's a fact!) has expanded the definition so that it now means "believed to be true" as well as "true".

I'll try to be clearer so I can shed my "politician" label.

An aside: I was a member of a group that was considering a particular action. All the other members were in favor of the action; I was opposed. The president emailed me, asking me to agree with the majority "for the good of the group". I replied, "you sound like a politician!" She indignantly sent me an email saying, "I am a politician!" End of conversation.

Tinman

If you put enough conditions around the exercise of proof then it is impossible to prove anything.

I can prove that my car is in my garage in a number of ways, but you will need to accept that certain conditions must apply in order for the proof to be established.

For example, one of the conditions that I might impose is that you are prepared to come down to have a look at the car.

Those who seek to deny facts are often those who refuse to consider evidence. For example, the Jehovah's Winesses who visit me to try to persuade me of the truth of their beliefs deny the theory of creation. Now, whereas they have every right to use the Bible as source material for their belief, they also refuse to consider the evidence of any source material that does not support their belief. Thuse, none of those I've met have ever read Darwin; they simply deny his theories as blasphemous without having considered them.

No fact can be proved to those who refuse to consider the evidence for its existence.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
If you put enough conditions around the exercise of proof then it is impossible to prove anything.

---

OK. No conditions, but I am about to go all existential on you !

Prove that I'm not asleep and dreaming all of this. Because if I am then nothing, not even these words have any actual existance outside my mind.
I stand by my assertion that we can believe something, we can test our belief against accepted parameters but we cannot ever actually "know" anything.

In order to function, however we have to treat the things we believe as if we know them because it would be impossible to be continuosly testing every belief philosophically to establish a basis for that belief.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I have no problem with this. We either form our beliefs on the basis of our observations, or we have them instilled into us.

What I do not agree with is the position, that so many take, of acting in accordance with beliefs that they have not even tried to test. Indeed, it has been my experience that the fewer the facts, the stronger the belief.

All religions come into this category - as do the beliefs that many hold about their favourite football or other sports team. Selecting or rejecting what facts there are, on the basis of whether or not they support your belief, is the typical action of the fanatical believer. Much strife and agony has been thus caused, I fear.

Richard English

you can just click on the little purple face below and it
will insert it for you!
****************************************
Precisely what I did. It didn't work! EEK! Grumble, fuss, cuss, gripe...

Asa the computer-illiterate curmudgeon

quote:

---

Indeed, it has been my experience that the fewer the facts, the stronger the belief.

---

I agree completely, Richard. In fact, as many here have probably noticed, the more you learn about something, the less you know about it. A recent example for me is my knowledge of apostrophes. Six months ago I would have said that I know all the apostrophe rules. Having been on this board and having read the FOTA board, I realize how very little I really knew. However, because I hadn't specifically studied them for a number of years, I was unfamiliar about their correct usage. Now, I don't take apostrophes lightly at all as I did before.

Along these lines, I have always wondered: Does everyone really see the same color (blue, for example). Or do we all see different colors, but we learn those colors as blue? We'll never know.

Although it is never possible to be sure, there are tests that can give experts an idea of how a person's colour perception is.

This is important since people with colour perception problems (so-called colour-blindness) may not know they they have it. To them the colour that we know of as green might be a kind of grey - but they have always seen it that way and so the thme that's green.

As you in your job will know, colour recognition tests can identify many such perceptual differences

Richard English

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BobHale:

In fact prove to me that you, Richard English, exist as anything other than a collection of message board postings.[QUOTE]

OK, I confess! I've let this go on for far too long and I'm glad that it was you, B.H., who finally stumbled upon the truth.

Richard English DOES NOT exist as anything other than a collection of message board postings! I've been sock-puppeteering this character for more than a year and, if I do say so myself, a damn fine job I've been doing with it! True, I did occasionally go a bit over the top with his harrumphy stuffiness and yet I believe that this trait, in R.E.'s case, is an endearing quality.

I think I'll have him bang out an angry rebuttal to my confession here but pay it no mind. R.E. is all in my head!

BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAA!!!

I leave it to the rest of you to decide why my photograph (and that of my Rolls-Royce) appears on the gallery page - whereas CJ's does not.

Richard English

As B.H. might well ask, who says C.J.'s picture doesn't appear in the gallery?! That could well be him standing next to the Rolls Royce!

I repeat: BWAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAA!!!

Since this is a rather pointless and childish thread I am not going to encourage its continuation. There are many ways in which the proof of my existence can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of most - just checking the details of the registration number (license plate) to start with. It would be, of course, quite possible for somebody else to register a car in my name and then have his picture taken alongside it - it's just rather unlikely.

However, since it is readily possible to prove the positive fact of my existence, I'll leave it to CJ to play his little game and to try to prove that I do not exist. As I have already stated, it is not possible to prove a negative. Maybe he would care to start by telling us where this "faked" photograph was taken?

Richard English

quote:

---

As you in your job will know, colour recognition tests can identify many such perceptual differences

---

I am just saying (and I am not trying to be argumentative, really!) that I have always wondered how we know what color people are actually seeing. For example, maybe the red I see (but learned as blue) is really the yellow you see (but learned as blue). Is there really a test that can get into our minds and see the actual color we are seeing? Truly, I don't want to perpetuate the absurd, but I have thought about that for a number of years.

OK, Richard! I think your portrayal of the absurd CJ has been wonderful. You really had us going with your dual personality!

Hey Kalleh? Remember when CJ said you and I were one in the same? He has thought of everything! Gotta hand it to Richard!

Is there really a test that can get into our minds and see the actual color we are
seeing?
**************************************
Go get some test subjects and have MRIs done on you all while viewing various colors. If the active points in the brain match, you'll have your answer. If not, you've opened a real cognitive can of vermicelli!

Oh, but, Asa, there are soooo very many things that can affect an MRI.

Now you probably all can see why I was never a philosophy major. I always took those questions "Who am I" waaay too seriously!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
I see no logic in using the apostrophe; I think it makes it a possessive. Please enlighten me as to how it could be otherwise.

---

Asa, I didn’t say “CD’s” rather than “CDs” was logical: I said there were valid arguments for either usage. Whether they are logical or justified is for each person to decide for himself (or herself). I also said, in my last post, that language is emotional, not logical. That is not completely true; it’s a combination of both.

Apostrophes have been used since the 17th century to indicate plurals of nouns. Tom McArthur (The Oxford Companion to the English Language, 1992) says this “was formerly a respectable tradition (17 – 19c)”. He goes on to say “this practice is rare in 20 c standard usage, but the aostrophe of plurality continues in at least five areas: With abbreviations such as V.I.P.’s or VIP’s, although forms such as VIPs are now widespread”. He passes no judgement on this usage; thus, it is logical to infer that it is acceptable.The Oxford Companion to the English Language, Tom McArthur, 1992 (http://w1.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=441020)



Fowler says the apostrophe was “once commonly used in the plural of abbreviations and numerals (QC's, the 1960's), the apostrophe is now best omitted in such circumstances: MAs, MPs, the 1980s, the three Rs, in twos and threes, Except that it is normally used in contexts where its omission might possibly lead to confusion, e.g. dot your i's and cross your t's; there are three i's in inimical; the class of '61 (= 1961).” Again, he does not condemn this usage, though he discourages it.

The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, © Oxford University Press 1968
(http://w1.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=591370&secid=.-)


Jack Lynch, Assistant Professor of English, Rutgers University, Newark, N.J campus, acknowledges this usage, and says it’s a matter of house style. His personal preference is to omit the apostrophe. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/a.html

The American Heritage Book of English Usage, 1996. says the usage varies and is optional in some cases: “ three As or three A’s; the ABCs or the ABC’s; the 1900s or the 1900’s; PhDs or PhD’s; several IOUs or several IOU’s.” It concludes: “Mainly your goal is to be as clear as possible and avoid confusion”. I think we can all agree with that last sentence.

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company (http://www.bartleby.com/64/81.html)

None of these sources favor the use of apostrophes to form plurals of initialisms and acronyms, though exceptions exist. Neither do they condemn this usage. They recognize that this was a commonly accepted usage that is now losing favor. When a usage changes, it does not change from “correct” one day to “incorrect” the next day. These sources realize that change takes time, and that a person who was taught to use an apostrophe to form the plural of an initialism is not likely to change overnight simply because someone says, “Oh, we changed that rule”. There is a transition period, and during that transition period both usages must be considered acceptable.

Language is emotional, as I said. Words have an emotional, or psychological, affect. We form emotional attachments to certain words, whether spoken or written. Most of us know of someone who uses a particular phrase over and over, often incorrectly. Sometimes it drives us crazy. I have a friend who uses the phrase “in other words” all the time. For some reason he has formed an emotional attachment to the phrase and habitually uses it, even when it’s not appropriate.

Our words are separated by spaces so we know when one word ends and another begins. Likewise we sometimes use an apostrophe between the end of an initialism and an “s” to show the “s” is not part of the initialism. This was once a common and acceptable practice (at least in the U.S.). Now it is generally falling out of favor. The argument is that the apostrophe indicates possession and that it is incorrect to use it to form a plural. But why? The above authorities seem to accept it, though they discourage it.

I see no reason why the apostrophe can’t be used to pluralize initialisms as well as indicate possession. To say that using it both ways is confusing is specious. It is usually obvious from the context what is meant. We use the apostrophe to indicate contractions as well as possession, yet we don’t claim that is confusing. We generally know what is meant by context. If we don’t, the sentence probably needs to be recast. It is the writer’s responsibility to write clearly. The purpose of writing is, after all, communication. At least for most of us. Some deliberately write obtusely to mislead and confuse.

If I say “CJ’s”, you don’t know whether that is a contraction of “CJ is” or a possessive. You don’t really know what “CJ” stands for, though you would probably assume it meant “C J Strolin”, unless something indicated to the contrary. The very next word would most likely tell you which it is. If the next word was a noun, such as “book”, you would know the apostrophe indicated possession. “C J is book” wouldn’t make much sense. If the next word was an article, such as “a”, “an”, or “the”, you would know the apostrophe indicated contraction. Thus, you would have no trouble in understanding “CJ’s a bum”, “CJ’s an ornery…” or “CJ’s the ‘man’” (take your pick).

Likewise, if I said “I got some CD’s yesterday”, you would understand that the apostrophe indicated the plural of an initialism. (You might not like it, but you would understand it.) The apostrophe in that case couldn’t possibly indicate a contraction or possession. If there was any confusion, it would probably be over the meaning of “CD”. Did I get some compact discs, cable ducts, or certificates of deposit?

Some people prefer the look of “CD’s”, “1960’s”, “A’s”, “3’s”, and so on to their non-apostrophized versions. It does no harm, it is seldom confusing and it is acceptable to many authorities. If your preference is “CDs, “1960s”, etc., fine. But don’t berate those who choose “CD’s” and “1960’s”.

Language and the “rules” of language are constantly changing. But they don’t change overnight. It may take years, generations or even centuries for a change to become universally accepted. There is a transition phase, and “CD’s” vs. “CDs” is in that phase. When I was in high school, “CD’s” was considered “correct”. (Certificates of deposit, that is. Compact discs didn’t exist.) Sometime in the last forty years there has been a shift to “CDs” being preferred. In time it may be considered “correct” and “CD’s” incorrect. Right now, they are both “correct”.

As I’ve said before, don’t count on me or anyone else on this board as the ultimate authority. Listen to what people have to say, consult reference materials, and make up your own mind.

Tinman

PS. I picked on C J in this post because he has a good sense of humor and is not likely to be offended by my remarks. At least, that’s my impression. There are others who take things far too seriously and would get bent out of shape if I made fun of them. Nothing I write is meant to be disrespectful to anyone on this board.

[This message was edited by tinman on Tue Jan 21st, 2003 at 19:43.]

Wow, Tinman, you are our official professor on this board! Great discussion, and there is hardly a response to it!

[QUOTE] Thus, you would have no trouble in understanding “CJ’s a bum”, “CJ’s an ornery…” or “CJ’s the ‘man’” (take your pick). [QUOTE]

The correct answer is: "D," All of the above.


[QUOTE] I picked on C J in this post because he has a good sense of humor and is not likely to be offended by my remarks. At least, that’s my impression.[QUOTE]

My, my! Besides being an English scholar, you also do impressions. I'm impressed!


[QUOTE] There are others who take things far too seriously and would get bent out of shape if I made fun of them. Nothing I write is meant to be disrespectful to anyone on this board.[QUOTE]

Although that probably could have gone without saying, thanks for saying it anyway. I'm definitely not the thin-skinned type so no one needs to feel they need to hold back in this regard on my account.


Now, while it's on my mind, I have a confession to share: I am not actually sock-puppeting R.E. Foolja, didn't I?! That was just the logical (there's that word again) extension of B.H.'s existentialist rant about what is real vs. what is perceived to be real vs. whatever else that may lie in-between.

Relax, R.E., and have a beer, maybe. I officially restore your reality to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:
Now, while it's on my mind, I have a confession to share: I am not actually sock-puppeting R.E. Foolja, didn't I?!

---

I don't think you fooled anyone, C J. There was never any doubt of Richard's existence. Why he takes you seriously, I'll never know.

In my last post I said that no one really knew what I meant by "CJ", though they would assume I was referring to C J Strolin. But I still don't know what "C J" stands for. I assumed it stood for "Crazy Jackass", but I could be wrong. A search of acronyms yielded these results:

Acronym Definition
CJ Civilian Jeep (first civilian models of the post WWII Willys Jeep)
CJ Criminal Justice
CJ Cable Jack
CJ Cafejam
CJ Capital Justification
CJ Cayman Islands
CJ Chief Justice
CJ Cold Junction (thermocouple circuitry)
CJ Combined Joint (DoD)
CJ Commodity Jurisdiction (State Department)
CJ Compass Jade
CJ Consumption Junction
CJ Contact Juggling
CJ County Jail
CJ Cumulative Jitter
CJ Josephite Fathers (religious order)

(www.acronymfinder.com)

Shall we call you "Chief Justice" or "Civilian Jeep". You're definitely not "Josephite Fathers".

Tinman

[This message was edited by tinman on Wed Jan 22nd, 2003 at 17:37.]

No, I don't suppose I did fool anyone. Still, it's an interesting concept.

I've forgotten how to post a link to another section of this website so let me just add that your last post inspired something I'll add to the Cast(s)Away thread.

And while I may personally feel "Chief Justice" to be appropriate, B.H. undoubtedly argue so I just settle for "Cumulative Jitter," whatever that is.

(But CJ = Cayman Islands???)

posted Sun Jan 19, 2003 07:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Tinman, you should be a politician.

---

posted Wed Jan 22, 2003 14:55

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
Wow, Tinman, you are our official professor on this board! Great discussion, and there is hardly a response to it!

---

I must be coming up in the world! From politician to professor in four days! Thanks for the compliment, Kalleh, but I'm just a postal worker. I have to do something when I'm supposed to be working.

Tinman

quote:

---

Originally posted by C J Strolin:
(But CJ = Cayman Islands???)

---

I can't figure that one out, either. Maybe simeone else can. I also don't understand CJ =Josephite Fathers. How about "Cracker Jack"? It fits. Cracker Jack is kinda corny and kinda nutty.

www.crackerjack.com

Tinman

Contact Juggling ?

I've just had this vision of strange new form of martial art "Full Contact Juggling".

Incidentally, while I'm in this thread I sincerely hope that I'm not considered to be someone who takes things far too seriously. I freely own up to pedant - but lacking a sense of humour ?
Never !
I'll sue every last one of you who says otherwise.

(P.S. - for all self-confessed literalists and just in case the rumours about Americans are true - very little of this post was intended to be taken seriously - don't go calling your lawyers yet.)

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

How about "Cracker Jack"? It fits.

---

Actually, for most of my life you're half right. Throughout my illustrious Air Force career (21 years) my nickname was "Smilin' Jack" based on
1.) a comic strip character of the same name, now long out of print, and
2.) an annoying tendancy to be cheerful and optimistic. I once lost a town pass for smiling at attention.

To this day, my ex-in-laws still know me as "Jack." If someone questions me on this, I simply say that it's short for "Chris" and then let them puzzle it out.

BobHale said, "I've just had this vision of strange new form of martial art 'Full Contact Juggling'." In the context of the football theme this week, that brought to mind an old saying by somebody-or-other.

quote:

---

Football isn't a contact sport. Dancing is a contact sport; football is a collision sport.

---

OK, sorry to be off-topic, if I could only figure out what the topic is.

Yes, this is one of those "runaway threads"!

I am going back to something Richard said a loooooong time ago in this thread that we all ignored...probably purposely. I am in a rather serious mood tonight so thought I would tackle (a football word!) a response:

quote:

---

Thus, the present threat of war with Iraq seems to be based on the premise that Saddam Hussein has not "proved" that he has no weapons of mass distruction. But how can he? Neither he, not the UN inspectors can prove he has no weapons; they can only prove he has such weapons. If they are found, they exist; if they are not found, they might exist.

---

I don't think any of us here in the states wants to go to war. There are protests every weekend against a war in Iraq--quite similar to the Viet Nam days. I truly don't think we will get that far. However, as I read in the Tribune today about Germany's and France's nonsupport of the U.S. and of England's steadfast support, I thought about my English friends on this board. A year ago I probably would have thought--"England is our ally--so what." Now, I think of all of you, and I am so glad we're allies. It all seems much more real, for some reason. I am not sure, however, that I really captured my thoughts in this post.

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Thu Jan 23rd, 2003 at 20:29.]

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Thu Jan 23rd, 2003 at 20:31.]

In any situation when there is a threat of conflict the majority will not want to be involved; they have their livces to live. However, the majority will also, in extremis, agree that there are times when it must happen.

Whether or not this is the case with Iraq I am not competent to say and my post was only to make the point that nobody can prove that Iraq does not have weapons of mass distruction.

Having said which I suspect that the US intelligence services know very well that he has and this whole escalation will continue until he holds up has hands and say, "OK folks, I give in" and reveals them.

It is an undeniable fact that, throughout history, millions have been dragged into conflict and died through the megalomania of one person and it is arguable that Saddam Hussein is just the most recent in a series of megalomaniacs. Unfortunately, just as was the case with Hitler, ther world will probably not know until a war has been fought and decided.

I wish that weren't true; I just feel sure it is.

Richard English