About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 140

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 1:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Corny, Scott, but since I like that song:

" I'm the post modern man/
Who hides behind the mask/
so no one else can see/
My true Identity!"

(Not getting in the fray, I just wanted to rhyme.)


Post 141

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 1:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not sure which one is a more fetching beacon for potential SOLO members- the title of this thread, or what's inside, especially near the tail. They both look like the shit you find on AOL.

rde
Wow, intellectual forums kick ASS, Beavis.


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 142

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 1:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
O' Great Slithery One!


You said,

"Womanish" does not mean "like a woman". 

OED says, (Words in parenthesis are mine.)

 1. Of or belonging to a woman or women; a woman's; used or done by women. Now rare. (Definition)
.
    2. Characteristic of or proper to a woman or women; womanly, feminine. (Definition)  
    b. In derogatory use. (Connotation)
      3. Resembling a woman, womanlike:(Definition) in later use chiefly derogatory;(Connotation) also of a girl, Like a grown woman in her ways. (Non-negative connotation)
   
 {dag}4. Having a great inclination or liking for women. (Me!)
   

You also said,

Of course, that would mean finding a usage of "womanish" that lacks a negative connotation to make your point.

To repeat OED,

also of a girl, Like a grown woman in her ways.
I see nothing negative with that. Subjective yes, but all connotation is subjective.



Meaning and connotation have different definitions. Different meanings.

So when you say,
"Womanish" does not mean "like a woman". 
but mean connote, it might be best to say what you mean instead of trying to change the definition of the word mean. 


This nit pickin' is fun! (I learnt it from Sarah!) ;-)

Do you have any more dictionaries you would like to recommend?


Oh, well. I'm done!

Yer up, little lady!


gw


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 143

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 1:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gary,

LOLOLOLOL...

Andy seems like he don't like to be wrong. At all. I think you're irritating him.

Michael


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 144

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 2:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Amigo,
 I think you're irritating him.

We all have our talents! ;-)


gw


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 145

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 2:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Good score with that OED post Gary.  You picked that gauntlet up and tossed it right back.

Post 146

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Listen, if I can't have the occasional "AOL CRAP" for a little light-hearted fun, then what's the point, Mr. Cranky-Pants?

Are you....


KILROY?

KILROY?

KILROY?

KILROY?

Post 147

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 2:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jody,
Good score with that OED post Gary.  You picked that gauntlet up and tossed it right back.
In your glee you overlooked the fact that my challenge to Gary was not to find further definitions of "womanish" but examples of usage that were not negative in connotation.  I suggested the Oxford English Dictionary because it very thorough in that regard.  In my next post, you'll see what Gary didn't report from the OED entry for "womanish".

If you had paid attention to how I conduct myself in this forum, your best bet was to figure I know what I'm talking about.

Andy


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 148

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 3:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here's the entire entry from OED on womanish -

1. Of or belonging to a woman or women; a woman's; used or done by women. Now rare.
1390 GOWER Conf. I. 58 With so swete a stevene Lik to the melodie of hevene In wommanysshe vois thei singe. 1555 LADY VANE in Foxe A. & M. (1563) 1445/1, I..doe prepare..my womanishe backe to their burthens of reproufe. 1610 A. COOKE Pope Joan 100 They might haue pretended that they would not be subiect to a womanish and an whorish gouernment. 1624 HEYWOOD Gunaik. III. 130 Spinning, weaving, and the like womanish chares. a1661 B. HOLYDAY Juvenal II. Notes (1673) 25 That this was a Womanish wear may be seen by the same Authors 97. Ep. of his I. L. 1678 CUDWORTH Intell. Syst. I. iv. 342 Peplum is properly a womanish Pall or Veil. 1896 F. HARRISON in 19th Cent. Mar. 501 A separate degree-conferring and exclusively womanish university.
    2. Characteristic of or proper to a woman or women; womanly, feminine.
c1374 CHAUCER Troylus IV. 694 Tho wordes and {th}o wommannyssh [v.r. womanliche] {th}ynges. 1390 GOWER Conf. I. 72 Wherof in wommanysshe drede Sche wok and nyste what to rede. Ibid. III. 304 Sche wolde hire goode name kepe For feere of wommanysshe schame. 1513 MORE Rich. III Wks. 46/1 The mothers drede and womannishe feare. a1568 R. ASCHAM Scholem. I. (Arb.) 39 A voice, not softe, weake, piping, womannishe, but audible, stronge, and manlike. 1606 G. WOODCOCK Lives Emperors in Hist. Ivstine Kk4, Her priuat matters she had beene able to gouerne easily by her owne womannish wisedome. 1611 BEAUM. & FL. Maid's Trag. I, She has a brother..Like her, a face as womanish as hers. 1706 KENNETT Hist. Eng. III. 784 He had a particular Averseness to Dancing, and all Womanish Exercises. 1712 ADDISON Spect. No. 363 {page}9 Eve's Complaint..is wonderfully beautiful: The sentiments..have something in them particularly soft and womanish. 1740 RICHARDSON Pamela I. 203 Nothing, said she, but Womanish Curiosity. 1844 KINGLAKE Eothen xvii, To love her [sc. the camel] for the sake of her gentle and womanish ways. 1866 MRS. H. WOOD St. Martin's Eve xix, The pale features, regular to a fault, were of almost womanish beauty.
    b. In derogatory use.
1390 GOWER Conf. II. 229 As he which hath himself restreigned..Out of the manere of a man, And tok his wommannysshe chiere. 1532 MORE Confut. Barnes VIII. Wks. 760/2 Her questions..wer like to be but friuolous & womannish. 1534 {emem} Comf. agst. Trib. II. vi. (1553) Gj, Weping for our sinnes..they reckyn shame almost and womanyshe peuishnes. 1592 A. DAY Engl. Secretorie II. (1625) 46 Womanish encountrings, vnseemely lyings and childish threatenings. 1685 DRYDEN Thren. August. viii, So weak, so womanish a woe. 1771 GOLDSM. Hist. Eng. II. 207 She betrayed neither weakness, nor womanish submission. 1813 E. S. BARRETT Heroine x. (1909) 57, I do not like..his pencilled eyebrows and curled locks, they look so womanish. 1889 Sat. Rev. 6 Apr. 402/2 He must have been under the influence of fears which it would be an excess of flattery to call womanish.
    3. Resembling a woman, womanlike: in later use chiefly derogatory; also of a girl, Like a grown woman in her ways.
1390 GOWER Conf. I. 93 He syh wher sat a creature, A lothly wommannysch figure. c1470 HARDING Chron. LX. ii, Elyne..was..More Angelyke then womannyshe of hewe. 1604 T. WRIGHT Passions v. ß2. 167 If musicke can make warriers womanish. 1788 WESLEY Jrnl. 10 June, This girl..being then between fourteen and fifteen years old. But she was then quite a womanish girl. 1891 FARRAR Darkn. & Dawn lxv, Lascivious Otho, gluttonous Vitellius, savage Domitian, womanish Elagabalus.
    {dag}4. Having a great inclination or liking for women. Obs. rare.
1529 MORE Dyaloge I. xii. 18/1 A freer wylbe womanysh loke the holy horeson neuer so sayntly. 1579-80 [implied in WOMANISHNESS].
    5. Comb.
1382 WYCLIF 1 Kings xv. 12 He took awey the wommannysh maad men [effeminatos] of the loond. a1623 FLETCHER Love's Cure III. ii, One so full of childish fear, And womanish-hearted.
    Hence {dag}{sm}womanish v. trans., to render womanish, to womanize.
1561 T. HOBY tr. Castiglione's Courtyer I. Iij, Men..who ought not with suche delicacies [as music] to womannishe their mindes. a1586 SIDNEY Arcadia I. xii. ß5 This effeminate love of a woman, doth so womanish [so ed. 1590; edd. 1593-1674 womanize] a man, that (if he yeeld to it) it will..make him..a launder, a distaff-spinner.

Ha, Ha beat ya to it!


gw


Post 149

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Gary,
Do you have any more dictionaries you would like to recommend?
No, the OED is fine.  I have Volume XX sitting on the desk next to me which has the entry for "womanish".  The entry is almost a column and list meanings.  Most of the text cites examples of usage, which you did not show anyone.  I wonder why?  Let's see ...

Under the first meaning you reported ...

"They might not have pretended that they would not be subject to a womanish and an whorish government."

Under the second meaning (not noted as explicitly derogatory) ...

"She would hire good name keep for fear of womanish shame."
"The mothers dread and womanish fear."
"A voice, not soft, weak, piping, womanish, but audible, strong, and manlike."
"He had a particular Averseness to Dancing, and all Womanish Exercises."

I won't bother to list the examples of the derogatory uses of the second meaning, because they are obviously negative.

Under the third meaning ...

"If music can make warriors womanish."
"Lascivious Otho, gluttonous Vitellius, savage Domitian, womanish Elagabalus."  (Anyone familiar with third-century Roman emperors will know that is not a compliment to Elagabulus.)

Under the fourth meaning (which includes a curious use of the word as a verb) ...

"He took away the womanish mad men of the land."
"One so full of childish fear, And womanish-hearted."
"Men ... who ought not with such delicacies [as music] to womanish their minds."
"This effeminate love of a woman, doth so womanish."

Of the thirty-four examples of usage cited by the OED, only five have a positive connotation and all are obsolete.  The rest are at best neutral or plainly negative.

Andy


Post 150

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 3:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Good comments on the car from Tim, Jeff and Scott. Thanks.

I too often walk away at the first hint at scumbagedness. However, as Jeff points out, sometimes weíre stuck with dealing.

This case of a near-commodity Honda would appear to be easy to walk from, but I had already shown it to my wife during one of the test drives and she wanted *that* one. I couldnít tell her that Mikhail was too treacherous for meósheíd lose sexual interest in me for two weeks. However, when I got home with that car Friday night, she was quite pleased. Less than impressed that it took me a week, but pleased. Then I told her what I paid and how I got the last 5% out of himóand wow. I mean, wow, wow, WOW! Suffice to say she doesnít share any concerns with the pomo, limp-dick, grandmotherly-adherence-to-honesty/integrity-no-matter-what-crowd.

Temperament (for lack of a better term) plays a big role in choosing to walk or not, too. I think it was Jeff who said some people are happy to pay more and get it over with. I live for negotiation. I get discounts on the 30-50%-off rack at Target. (No one thinks of that oneóbut come on! Theyíre trying hard to get rid of it! Thatís precisely where you find the good opportunities!) I ask for discounts about four times a day. Try it. Youíll be surprised how many managers dislike saying no.


Interesting side note: Mikhail wasnít mad. He was taken aback a bit and he was annoyed when he swiped the check back from me, but he came around and seemed perfectly happy that we reached a deal. I ran into him about six months later on another lot. (He must not be very good because with the Honda, he was working at an upscale used lot, if thatís possible, whereas six months later he was at a very lousy lot.) He remembered my name, didnít mention the incident, asked if the Honda was working out well for us, and showed me what he had. I would have loved to go at it with him again, but the lot was bad, he had nothing I wanted.

Jon

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 151

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 3:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ha, Ha beat ya to it!
Good for you, Gary.  Maybe next time it won't take a "heads up" from me to keep you honest.

Andy


Post 152

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 3:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Lilliputians among you can carry on, but I'm finished with this thread.  I've had my fun and have no use for your sourness.

Andy


Post 153

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 4:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy said:
The Lilliputians among you can carry on, but I'm finished with this thread.  I've had my fun and have no use for your sourness.
Given the title of this thread, I think we've come full circle.
Glenn


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 154

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 4:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I swear this is true. I just found that my friend in Maryland left me a phone message earlier today. (He used to live in Colorado, too, and may again, soon):

ďJon. Iím thinking about a dog from Russ. He wants a *lot.* Says itís outstandingly trained and all that. Itís three years old, I was hoping for more like one. Maybe you could use that. You think this weekend you could go take a look? I know itís hot, but maybe get him around some birds and see what you think? And then, if you think itís a good dog, you could, you know, do that magic you do, hypnotize Russ or whatever the hell it is you do. No way Iím paying what he wants.Ē

Jon

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 155

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 5:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andy,

You're leaving this thread and calling the other posters names?

LOLOLOLOL...

Sorry, I can't resist this one.

According to the logic that was generally shown on the price-gouging thread, and the fact that you not only have been completely contradicted by the very dictionary you requested, and the fact that you took recourse to splitting hairs and then left this thread a womanish huff (in your sense of womanish, of course), I would say that you have been thoroughly trounced in practically all aspects - at least on the womanish issue. (I even see others, but let's keep it to womanish.)

Would you say that being thoroughly trounced is a fair appraisal? Sure looks that way to me.

Or do you prefer double standards?

It's more fun to be on the dishing it out end, ain't it?

btw - Your apology was accepted unconditionally by both myself and Kat in the same spirit it was given, i.e. according to the words you used. Except we said, "Apology accepted."

Period.

And it was, really. No qualifications or rationalizations. No malice at all and I even took back the nasty things I said in response to the nasty things you said. All that still stands on my end.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/09, 5:24pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 156

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 5:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Darth Twig,

I noted in your post # 149 that you changed the words. Hmm, Could you not type them as they were? Can you not leave words alone? You can't help yourself can you!
 
In my next post, you'll see what Gary didn't report from the OED entry for "womanish".
What was not reported and what is not true?



You wanted an example of a positive usage of womanish.

Here goes. -

Say, there was a little wienie name Andy. Andy loved Helen Reddy music. He loved it so much he would dance in a pink tutu singing "I am womanish, hear me roar!"

I would have to say that this is very positive for lil' Andy. He is what he is. And, I say to him...."You go girl!"


Quitter!


It was one single word in the English language. And you could not rise to meet it. And now you have quit.


Stars do not fall or quit. They either shine...or they collapse and become holes.

(Of course some holes are bigger than others!) ;-)


And, just so you know, I prefer the company of Lilliputians!



You quit.


"Victory is mine!"
 
 
Stewie


Post 157

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 2:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"If you had paid attention to how I conduct myself in this forum, your best bet was to figure I know what I'm talking about."

LOL

JR

Post 158

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 7:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
   Wow!

    If ever there was not only a perfect example of how disagreements, and defensive-'explanations' thereof, turn into emotional 'debates' which then segue into mild-then-snide condescensions, and then into severe insultings followed by 'apologies' which are backhandedly inclusive of the previous, or post-responded as conditional, thence followed by re-fanning the flames (subtley or blatantly)...this thread is the best place to study how (and induce 'why') subject-criticisms/disagreements/debates turn into personal bashing/'attacking'/flaming/insulting: most disagreers show a  real deeply-felt need to 'have the last word', until they either get exhausted and leave (the thread, or forum), or they get a 2nd wind to later continue therein or elsewhere.

    The fascinating thing about this thread is that, ironically, it's subject is All About 'flaming' (or, 'bashing'). It appears that no one can discuss/disagree about even it without ending up indulging in it.

    If I may suggest something to learn from this: when 'defending' one's position requires that one 'attack' another's position (the latter may, or may not be an 'attack' on one's 'defense'), if one's tempted to include in one's 'defense' a personal attack or a generalized attack on a certain 'type' of person (innuending "Hey, if the shoe fits, man...") then one's no longer really interested in rational discussion of the subject with that other, since one's clearly looking for a 'hot button' of theirs by adding some needle into one's otherwise objective argument. --- Really, no point in pretending one wants continued 'discussion' once one adds in actual or innuended invective.

     This is not to say that personal attacks are a no-no. But, they should always be handled as a separate subject (such as the Brandens' view of Rand, or Valliant's view of them), wherever relevent. They should not be a 'mixed-in' element of a supposed debate on Subject-'X' (even if the subject is 'criticism: when is it worth doing or not, and how to/not-to do it')...if one's supposedly interested in 'mutual' discussion to learn-from/explain-to others about.

    O-t-other-hand, if one perceives an 'insult' (which might not really be intended, yet there, or not even there), then decide: 1st) if the 'insulter' is worth responding to...at all. 2nd) If so, then ignore the 'insult' ['till another arrives, then see "1)"] and stay focused on the subject...or...ignore the subject and respond to the insult. --- If the latter, keep in mind that you are now risking a 'flame war'. If you like that, fine, but, is it really worth chronically monitoring their responses and spending your energy thinking up new ways to verbally '1-up' them? If you don't like that, ok, but keep clear 'how' you're going to respond to perceived insults without instigating new ones; this may take more energy than mere 'flaming back.'

    To paraphrase Tramp: "When condescension moves in, respect...and the original subject...moves out." --- then, the 'discussion' devolves according to: angry-deuces wild.

    That's my $20 observation on all this.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: But then, I've commented on this kind of thing before (AND, gotten 'flamed' over it...sigh). NTL, this thread is a kind of very ironic, self-referring, text-lesson about the whole subject itself.

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/25, 8:02am)

(Edited by John Dailey on 1/25, 8:16am)


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 159

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 10:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

I'm glad you enjoyed all that. As one of the participants, allow me to fill you in on the context. At that time, there was a notion being highly promoted by the former site owner that the proper and best way to put an idea across is to be as rude and nasty as possible to a person with whom you disagree. He justified this by calling it "passionate" and invented colorful words and acronyms for it.

As we all like to bitch and bicker at times, getting a sanction from the owner of a discussion forum to do it, especially a sanction that calls bitching and bickering a virtue, it is heady stuff.

So off you go, fighting the good fight and all that...

In the end, none of this made a damn bit of difference to the world - and it never will. Even the fun wears thin after awhile.

Michael


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.