"Little Malice" > wrote
>> > You really can be a huge asshole, Shelly.
>>
>> He is, but Lou is a bigger asshole for claiming to get rid of the cat.
>
> I agree -- the cat acted like a cat so he got rid of it. Obviously
> he didn't want it there in the first place and this was just an
> excuse...
>

What really kills me is the level of cluelessness/humanity
deficit he has to have in order to not only DO this, but then
brag about it.

"Little Malice" > wrote
>
> I didn't realize you'd been ill, Charlotte -- sinus infections suck,

They really do. The cold I got from one or more of the kids I was
surrounded by Christmas->New Years had my cheekbone hurting
to to the touch, and I thought I was in for it. Happily, it did not
develop into a full blown sinus infection. Mucinex--which I tried for
the first time--did a great job at drying the mess up. I hate the
commercials with the little green talking boogers, but I must say,
this is good stuff for those big joicy colds.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:16:03 -0500, cybercat wrote:
>
>> He is, but Lou is a bigger asshole for claiming to get rid of the cat.
>
> The cat was probably beating up on his poodle.
>

FarmI wrote:

> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> FarmI wrote:
>>
>>> Since you don't appear to own a dictionary the following may help:
>>> OED (the full 20 volume version): "coined; fabricated, deliberately
>>> invented, made up".
>>> Oxfored English Reference Dictionary: "coin; invent or devise (esp.
>>> a new word or phrase)".
>>>
>>> You might not think that you asked about the etymology, but in
>>> asking where the word was "coined" you asked for the origin of the
>>> word. THAT is what "coined" means!
>>
>> Nice try at spinning, bubba, but you'd better re-read your own
>> definitions. It doesn't define 'coined' as the origin from which a
>> word EVOLVED. It defines it as "invent or devise". And that is
>> exactly what I asked. Where was the word 'barbecue' (the quotations
>> mean THAT SPECIFIC WORD) first invented.
>
> But obviously I can't outdo you when it comes to the spin stakes!

You are all alone in that competition.

> Reread what you just wrote. I have given you this response a number
> of times and you refuse to accept it and want to continue playing
> semantics about it.

It must be hard for you to be stuck with the losing end of an argument.

> Where was the word 'barbecue' first invented: Jamaica.

Show me where that specific word, 'barbecue' existed in the Tainto language.
'Barbecue' MAY have evolved (or not) from the word 'barbecoa', but the word
'barbecue' certainly did not.

> Where was it
> first devised: Jamaica.

No. Barbecoa may or may not be the etymological root for the word
'barbecue', but the word 'barbecue' never existed on Jamaica back then.

> But if you now wish to insist on the etymological approach:

Gee, now you're just trying to save face, as that is what I was talking
about and you know it.

> what did
> it 'evolve' from, then see the cite Janet B. provided: either
> "barbacu'd" or "barbicu".

Are you being purposefully obtuse? I already acknowledged that those words
were an evolution of 'barbecoa' or the French word 'barbe a queue' .

> Or a nasty thought just occurred to me. You aren't insisting on
> seeing the word spelled as "barbecue" are you?

No. I'm insisting that the word 'barbecoa' is not the same, in either the
meaning of a specific method of cooking meat, or in the way the word has
been spelled when used in its common form.

> That would be too
> funny for words so I'll assume you aren't as anyone who has done any
> historical research knows that spelling prior to the 19th century was
> notoriously variable,even to the spelling of surnames which one would
> like to think had always been set in stone.

Straw man. The word 'barbecue' or 'barbeque' or whatever, is not the same as
barbecoa. If the etymological beginnings came from 'barbecoa' or 'barbe a
queue', or somewhere else, it evolved in the 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries
into a completely different word form.

>> The America Heritage Dictionary includes this meaning for 'coined: "A
>> mode of expression considered standard". Again, no relationship
>> to your insistence that 'to coin' a word means its etymological
>> beginnings.

> More game playing.

That's what you've been doing all right.

> That definition also bears no relation to your
> insistence that you are asking about "where" the word was first
> invented

The invented word 'barbecue' was derived from an original word form, right?
After all, I don't know anyone who says that they cook 'barbecoa', or that
they're going to a 'barbecoa'. Even in the cites that Janet Googled, they
aren't using the word 'barbecoa', they are using a varied spelling for the
modern word 'barbecue'.

> which is what you say you have been asking. But I'll play
> the game. "Where was the word
>> 'barbecue' (the quotations mean THAT SPECIFIC WORD) first invented.":
>> Jamaica.

Uh, you've got your attributions screwed up. Would you care to complete your
thought. I'll wait.

>>>>> So to recap:
>>>>>> And where the hell did the rest of the world get the specific
>>>>>> word "barbecue" from anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jamaica - historically verifiable source - no contest, no
>>>>> argument. Go to a library and find a halfway decent dictionary.
>>>>
>>>> And you are still wrong. Jamaica never coined the specific word
>>>> 'barbecue'.
>>>
>>> It did. You just refuse to admit that people who write dictionaries
>>> and who have been acknowledged for their expertise know more than
>>> you do.
>>
>> When you find the word 'barbecue' and not 'barbecoa' in the language
>> of the Tainto indians, get back to me.
>
> I'm beginning to suspect that you are quibbling about spelling!

I'm beginning to think that you have finally understood the repeated point I
have been making and are trying to figure a way to save face.

> Barbecoa may have led to the word 'barbecue'
>> (and there is no universal agreement on that)
>
> As I have written before the first use of the word in the sense that
> we understand it today, came from Jamaica

Or it could have come from the French 'barbe a queue'. But regardless, I had
asked about where the term 'barbecue' was first coined, not what word it
evolved from.

> even though the first
> instance of it's use in was in a document published in England.

Correction: the first incidence that we can find of it's WRITTEN use.
Besides, just what was the actual word in that document? Was it 'barbecoa'?
or was it a phonetic variation of the word 'barbecue'?

>>>>> and, >> where the actual word 'barbecue' was coined.
>>>>>
>>>>> England, based on writings about Jamaica.
>>>>
>>>> That may be true.
>>>
>>> It is. It was based on word used in Jamaica.
>>
>> It may or may not have been based on a word used in Jamaica, but it
>> *is not* > the same word.

> It is. The quote uses it in the same sense as we use it today.

'Barbecue' is the same as 'barbecoa'? So, you invite people over for a
barbecoa? Bwahahahahaha.

>>> After all, the early American colonials were English.
>>>> However, the Spanish may have introduced the term barbicoa to the
>>>> very first > colonials, since Spanish settlements were located in
>>>> the American southeast and were active in the caribbean. The
>>>> Spanish introduced pigs into the Southeast shortly after Columbus,
>>>> and pigs flourished.
>>>>> The word 'barbecue' was first coined in early colonial
>>>>>> America.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> Yup.
>>>>
>>>>>>> And btw, the Caribbean theory of its origins is
>>>>>>>> disputed by many linguists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ********.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. In fact linguists have no conclusive proof
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>> What about your comment of "non-evidentiary"?
>>
>> What about it?

> You complain if I make a "non-evidentiary" remark (which I at least
> will admit to doing) but you have not once provided anything to back
> up anything you claim. And when called on it all you can say is
> 'what about it?" Weak.

BTDT. The information is there if you care to do the research, but I'm not
going to spend huge amounts of time reproducing what you can find if you
choose to do so. For example, you don't believe that the French word 'barbe
a queue' may have been the source for the word 'barbecue' feel free to
demonstrate why. You spent a bit of time in Google, gloomed onto what the
first hit said, and have refused to look any further. That, my friend, is
weak.

>>> You go on about what "linguists" say but not once have you give a
>>> person's name or a cite.
>>
>> I've looked at this issue for years. Feel free to do the same. I'm
>> not going to spend a lot of time digging through my files. Do your
>> own research, and try to expand your resources a little further than
>> Google or Wikipedia.
>
> To date you have given no evidence that you have even looked in
> google or wikipedia.

That's because, unlike you, I haven't had to scramble to get up to speed on
the issue.

> Just lots of supposition and now it seems
> ignorance of the history of spelling.

This from someone who has extremely limited knowledge of the entire
controversy surrounding the etymological beginnings of barbecue. As I said,
you went with your first Google hit and just stopped looking.

>>> I gave you a name and a publication and
>>> Janet B gave you a cite - we both mentioned Edmund Hickeringill's
>>> name and the best you can come up with is a name from the quote that
>>> Janet B. provided you with.
>>
>> I've seen those cites long before now, and long before either of you
>> brought them up. And if you actually read what I wrote you would
>> have seen that I didn't reject your cites.

> No, not outright,

Yes, outright.

>you just claimed, and incorrectly at that, that the
> first use of the word was later than the information that Janet and I
> gave.

Go back and re-read what I wrote stating that I was wrong and my followup.
Like a lot of folks on usenet, I first replied with an incomplete response
because I was writting to fast and failed to fully state my thoughts in the
post. I fully explained under what context my post should have included.

> Your research was faulty.

No, my post was faulty, as explained in a previous post. So, why don't you
quit trying to re-paint the issue to cover up for your lack of research?

> But if you expend the time needed for proper
>> research, you will see that there are a lot of factors -- including
>> the influence of The American colonies -- that may very well have
>> passed on the phrase 'barbecue' to England proper.

> Shifting the goalposts now?

Not at all. But, I can see why you need to save face.

> First you claim it was a first used by Bejamin Lynde,

Ya know, that was covered in a previous post. I correct myself, and fully
explained what my post should have stated. I made a mistake because I
mis-stated what I intended to say.

> now you claim the word may have passed from the
> American colonies to England.

Or, vice-versa. Try to be a bit more discerning in how you interpret what
you read.

> You just don't know and can't admit it. Just supposition with no basis
> in fact.

No, I don't know for sure; I am just been re-stating the various arguments
that have been put out there by others. Your problem is that you don't know
enough, aside from Google, to understand the various theories that have been
put into play. The very fact that you rigidly insist there is only one
etymological theory is evidence of that fact.

>>>>> as to how the modern
>>>>>> word 'barbecue' or barbeque' first evolved. Some linguists
>>>>>> believe that it may have evolved from the french word barbe à
>>>>>> queue (beard to tail). Others believe it evolved from the name
>>>>>> given to a framework of wood used for drying fish called a
>>>>>> barbacòa in the caribbean. Other linguists of regional dialects
>>>>>> of the southeast have indicated 'barbecue' may have evolved from
>>>>>> public houses and taverns in the South which sold smoked meat
>>>>>> and advertised "Bar, Beer and Cues" on their buildings. But
>>>>>> whatever the etymology, what is NOT in dispute is that the first
>>>>>> real evidence of the modern word was in a diary entry by Benjamin
>>>>>> Lynde in the early 1700s.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a complet load of old rubbish. You need to do further
>>>>> homework. Try looking up Edmund Hickeringill, specifically his
>>>>> "Jamaica Viewed" published in England. His use of the word in a
>>>>> document in 1661 is the first known use of it in English.
>>>>
>>>> I concede that this may be the first written reference. There are
>>>> several written usages occuring near the same time period,
>>>> including one by Cotton Mather in 1675, who was located in Boston.
>>>
>>> Yes I did read Janet B's cite, so I know that.
>>
>> Yes, you spent a few minutes scrambling on Google to do your
>> 'research'.

> And it seems that you can't even manage to do that with any degree of
> competence.

Thanks for admitting that the basis of your knowledge on this subject is an
unstudied background dependent on Google. This has been an interest of mine
for over 30 years.

>>> And at least you've now changed your tune from a previous post where
>>> you wrote:
>>> " But whatever the etymology, what is NOT in dispute is that the
>>> first real evidence of the modern word was in a diary entry by
>>> Benjamin Lynde in the early 1700s."
>>
>> Yes, I had to backtrack a bit, because I didn't write out correctly
>> what I meant to say. What I did write was incorrect on its face.

> Yes, on it's face, in fact and in essence and based on evidence which
> Janet B. cited.

That was explained below.

>> However, it is apparent, when looking at what Benjamin Lynde
>> recorded was > the first written reference that indicated
>> attendance at what we would today consider barbecue.
>
> So now it must be "attendance" at a barbecue and not reference to a
> barbecue itself?

Nice try at pulling things out of context. You know damned well I was
talking about the use of the word 'barbecue' as it pertains to a
cooking.cooking meat.

> Your thoughts are becoming more bizarre with each
> posting.

Still trying to save face, aren't ya.

>>> I guess that although there is no admission from you that you were
>>> wrong, that is obvioulsy a concession that you were wrong.
>>
>> I was wrong in what I originally wrote.
>
> Yes.
>
>>> However, having read and now quoting to me information you found in
>>> Janet's cite,
>>
>> Again, I had read and have on file the cite that Janet made during
>> her quick Google search. It was part of the research I conducted
>> years ago.
>
> If you had done such research as you claim, how did you get it so
> wrong?

You really are desperate to save face. That's how many times in this post
that you've brought this up now when it was dealt with several postings ago?

>>> you missed out some important elements of that cite
>>> namely that "by 1689 in a play called THE Widdow Ranter OR, The
>>> HISTORY of Bacon in Virginia, "the rabble" fixing to lynch one
>>> Colonel Wellman cry, "Let's barbicu this fat rogue." That the word
>>> could be used casually on the stage shows that by then it must have
>>> been familiar to London audiences".
>>
>> Why are you repeating the cite? It was there for anyone to see the
>> first time.
>
> Sigh! Because of the comment "let's barbicu this fat rogue". THAT is
> indicative of the fact that the use of the word barbecue has not
> changed in concept or usage since it's original usage.

Are you sure you want to make that statement? Since this was referring to
the burning of a person, I don't think it had anything to do with the
concept of cooking of meat for human consumption.

> Or are you
> now going to insist that because they didn't mention charcoal or wood
> and long slow cooking of the rogue or a Weber kettle that it isn't
> applicable?

No, but you seem to indicate that cannabilism is barbecue. :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg wrote:

> Show me where that specific word, 'barbecue' existed in the Tainto
> language. 'Barbecue' MAY have evolved (or not) from the word
> 'barbecoa', but the word 'barbecue' certainly did not.

Big Oops. That should have been written ....'but the word 'barbecue'
certainly did not.' Sorry.

Dave Bugg wrote:
> Dave Bugg wrote:
>
>> Show me where that specific word, 'barbecue' existed in the Tainto
>> language. 'Barbecue' MAY have evolved (or not) from the word
>> 'barbecoa', but the word 'barbecue' certainly did not.
>
> Big Oops. That should have been written ....'but the word 'barbecue'
> certainly did not.' Sorry.

Lets try this again, this time without my parrot hanging onto my shoulder
demanding my attention.

"....but the word 'barbecue' certainly did not exist there"

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article >,
Sheldon > wrote:
>(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
>>
>> My Lucy-cat decided to gnaw on the sliced sourdough - I'm
>> going to cut around her snacky efforts,
>
>Why?!?!?

Why not?!?!

It's a sliced boule, dude, not like it's wonder bread. Big loaf, small
damage.

There were six slices or so in the bag and she only got parts of two of
them. There was half a slice (==normal "small" piece of sliced bread)
gnawed on each of those. I cut the undamaged half off and let the two
damaged half-slices dry out and broke them up for the birds outside.

Personally I think she was fascinated by the plastic bag but I think she
might sense/smell the yeast.

Charlotte
--

We used to have a cat who would always attack the bread if we left it out.
He'd take 2 bites and be done! He always seemed to chew from the bottom end.

Debbie

"Charlotte L. Blackmer" > wrote in message
...
> In article
> >,
> Sheldon > wrote:
>>(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
>>>
>>> My Lucy-cat decided to gnaw on the sliced sourdough - I'm
>>> going to cut around her snacky efforts,
>>
>>Why?!?!?
>
> Why not?!?!
>
> It's a sliced boule, dude, not like it's wonder bread. Big loaf, small
> damage.
>
> There were six slices or so in the bag and she only got parts of two of
> them. There was half a slice (==normal "small" piece of sliced bread)
> gnawed on each of those. I cut the undamaged half off and let the two
> damaged half-slices dry out and broke them up for the birds outside.
>
> Personally I think she was fascinated by the plastic bag but I think she
> might sense/smell the yeast.
>
> Charlotte
> --

In article >,
(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Sheldon > wrote:
> >(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
> >>
> >> My Lucy-cat decided to gnaw on the sliced sourdough - I'm
> >> going to cut around her snacky efforts,
>
> Personally I think she was fascinated by the plastic bag but I think she
> might sense/smell the yeast.

Maybe cats are attracted by the smell of yeast. Cat foods often contain
brewer's yeast, and I think it is supposed to make it more palatable for
them.

--
Julian Vrieslander

"Michael "Dog3"" > wrote in message
6.121...
> Lou Decruss > dropped this
> news >
>>
>> As usual people make assumptions of households they know very little
>> about.
>
> No assumptions here. Just telling you how I would have handled the
> situation. Again, that's just me.
>
>>
>> BTW, Louise seems to be happy with her choice.
>
> I'm glad she doesn't regret her choice.
>
> Michael
>
>
Pussy. You don't even have the courage of your own convictions.

In article >,
Little Malice > wrote:
>One time on Usenet, said:
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:55:31 +0000 (UTC),
>> (Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
>>
>> >Last night's dinner was a chicken pasta thing with garlic sauce from
>> >Trader Joe's. Pretty good for "frozen food" because I disregarded the
>> >instructions to add water when heating in the microwave - so the garlicky
>> >goodness was unabated.
>> >
>> >I'm so ready for this bronchitis/sinus infection to be over.
>>
>> Sounds like you're on the mend if you're eating like that and tasting
>> it!
>
>I didn't realize you'd been ill, Charlotte -- sinus infections suck,
>get better soon!

Thanks. It's why I've had more time to spend on rfc - can't deal
with much, but I can use the laptop and go play whack-a-mole on usenet .

ObFood: Today I ventured out to the Cheese Board and also stocked up on
cake-mix (on special - 12 boxes for $10). I will make lemon bars and
hummus for a church do tomorrow but will probably drop off and stay home
. One of my North Berkeley stores also sells a big can-o-dolma - about
sixty in a can. It is awesome for feeding the multitudes (dead spread or
whatever). Rinse, arrange, watch them disappear.

Tonight's dinner will be chicken-BAT (bacon, avocado, tomato) on cheese
board sourdough with the salad I didn't eat last night. I am craving
veggies after such a long run of chickeny things and toast. (Cheesy
things too, but the chicken and 'cado need using up!)

Charlotte
(still sleeping propped up)
--

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:
>> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>>> FarmI wrote:

>>>> You might not think that you asked about the etymology, but in
>>>> asking where the word was "coined" you asked for the origin of the
>>>> word. THAT is what "coined" means!
>>>
>>> Nice try at spinning, bubba, but you'd better re-read your own
>>> definitions. It doesn't define 'coined' as the origin from which a
>>> word EVOLVED. It defines it as "invent or devise". And that is
>>> exactly what I asked. Where was the word 'barbecue' (the quotations
>>> mean THAT SPECIFIC WORD) first invented.

>> Reread what you just wrote. I have given you this response a number
>> of times and you refuse to accept it and want to continue playing
>> semantics about it.

>> Where was the word 'barbecue' first invented: Jamaica.
>
> Show me where that specific word, 'barbecue' existed in the Tainto
> language.

You ARE looking for specific spelling! How delightful!

> 'Barbecue' MAY have evolved (or not) from the word 'barbecoa', but the
> word 'barbecue' certainly did not. (exist there) [added after your two
> posts to correct your mistake]from your correction

Not once have I mentioned the word "barbecoa:". Not one single time!

Hickeringill didn't mention which word he was reporting on when he wrote his
document. All he did was to use a word current in Jamaica at that time
that is now, and was then, the word that anyone who can read would recognise
is used as we would use the word barbeque today AND he reported it in the
same sense as we use the word today.

>> Where was it
>> first devised: Jamaica.
>
> No. Barbecoa may or may not be the etymological root for the word
> 'barbecue', but the word 'barbecue' never existed on Jamaica back then.

You are the only one mentioning the word barbecoa. Hickeringill used the
word barbacu'd. Barbacu'd existed and was used in Jamaica back then AND it
was used in exactly the same sense it is today when we describe something as
being barbequed.

>> But if you now wish to insist on the etymological approach:
>
> Gee, now you're just trying to save face, as that is what I was talking
> about and you know it.

Oh lovely. Now I really AM beginning to enjoy myself!

These are your exact wrods only a few posts ago:
> " I didn't ask for the etymology of the word, I asked where the actual
> word 'barbecue' was coined."

So which is it Dave, were you correct a few days ago when you said you
DIDN'T ask for the etymology of the word or are you right now that you say
you ARE asking for that?

But since I gave you the etymology in every single one of my posts, it seems
you don't know what you are after or asking or even which way is up.

Are you into substance abuse? That would make some sense of you lack of
memory of what you write from one post to the next.

>> what did
>> it 'evolve' from, then see the cite Janet B. provided: either
>> "barbacu'd" or "barbicu".
>
> Are you being purposefully obtuse? I already acknowledged that those words
> > were an evolution of 'barbecoa' or the French word 'barbe a queue' .

You are the one being obtuse. 'Barbecoa' is not under discussion. I have
not mentioned it once but you cannot get off the subject.

The word 'barbecue' is the same as 'barbacu'd' and the same as 'barbicu'.

>> Or a nasty thought just occurred to me. You aren't insisting on
>> seeing the word spelled as "barbecue" are you?
>
> No. I'm insisting that the word 'barbecoa' is not the same, in either the
> meaning of a specific method of cooking meat, or in the way the word has
> been spelled when used in its common form.

The ONLY person who has ever mentioned 'barbecoa' is you. I have not
mentioned it once.

The word 'barbacu'd' used by Hickeringill and 'barbicu' used by Behn are
the word that we now spell and recognise as barbecue.

>> That would be too
>> funny for words so I'll assume you aren't as anyone who has done any
>> historical research knows that spelling prior to the 19th century was
>> notoriously variable,even to the spelling of surnames which one would
>> like to think had always been set in stone.
>
> Straw man. The word 'barbecue' or 'barbeque' or whatever, is not the same
> as barbecoa.

OK. give me one example of where i have used the word barbecoa? One, just
one!

If the etymological beginnings came from 'barbecoa' or 'barbe a
> queue', or somewhere else, it evolved in the 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries
> into a completely different word form.
>
>>> The America Heritage Dictionary includes this meaning for 'coined: "A
>>> mode of expression considered standard". Again, no relationship
>>> to your insistence that 'to coin' a word means its etymological
>>> beginnings.
>
>> More game playing.
>
> That's what you've been doing all right.

LOL. Say he who still doesn't understand that I have not once mentioned his
favourite word.

>> That definition also bears no relation to your
>> insistence that you are asking about "where" the word was first
>> invented
>
> The invented word 'barbecue' was derived from an original word form,
> right?

YES! One from Jamaica1

> After all, I don't know anyone who says that they cook 'barbecoa', or that
> they're going to a 'barbecoa'.

Neither do I. But then I have not mentioned that word once. You don't seem
to ever read what is written by me. You just answer something you have in
your own head, not what I write.

Even in the cites that Janet Googled, they
> aren't using the word 'barbecoa', they are using a varied spelling for the
> modern word 'barbecue'.

I NEVER ONCE MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE USING THE WORD BARBACOA! NOT ONCE.
IMENTIONED THAT THE WORD BARBECUE WAS COINED IN, EVOLVED IN AND CAME FROM
JAMAICA. GOT THAT?
>
>> which is what you say you have been asking. But I'll play
>> the game. "Where was the word
>>> 'barbecue' (the quotations mean THAT SPECIFIC WORD) first invented.":
>>> Jamaica.
>
> Uh, you've got your attributions screwed up. Would you care to complete
> your thought. I'll wait.

So desperate that you've taken to being an out and out liar? Unfortunately
for yu, google groups says you are a liar:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...30bd026a7d98fc

You can apologise for your lies once you read that.

>>>>>> So to recap:
>>>>>>> And where the hell did the rest of the world get the specific
>>>>>>> word "barbecue" from anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jamaica - historically verifiable source - no contest, no
>>>>>> argument. Go to a library and find a halfway decent dictionary.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you are still wrong. Jamaica never coined the specific word
>>>>> 'barbecue'.
>>>>
>>>> It did. You just refuse to admit that people who write dictionaries
>>>> and who have been acknowledged for their expertise know more than
>>>> you do.
>>>
>>> When you find the word 'barbecue' and not 'barbecoa' in the language
>>> of the Tainto indians, get back to me.
>>
>> I'm beginning to suspect that you are quibbling about spelling!
>
> I'm beginning to think that you have finally understood the repeated point
> I have been making and are trying to figure a way to save face.
>
>> Barbecoa may have led to the word 'barbecue'
>>> (and there is no universal agreement on that)
>>
>> As I have written before the first use of the word in the sense that
>> we understand it today, came from Jamaica
>
> Or it could have come from the French 'barbe a queue'. But regardless, I
> had > asked about where the term 'barbecue' was first coined, not what
> word it evolved from.

And I have told you till I'm blue in the face that it was first coined in
Jamaica and that was later published in Hickeringills work which was
published in London.

Jamaica is where it was coined, evolved used, came into being and was first
recognisable as the word we know today as barbecue.

>> even though the first
>> instance of it's use in was in a document published in England.
>
> Correction: the first incidence that we can find of it's WRITTEN use.

So why the correction? The only proof we have of anything is when it is
written.

> Besides, just what was the actual word in that document? Was it
> 'barbecoa'? or was it a phonetic variation of the word 'barbecue'?

How many times do you have to be told. It was "barbacu". Only you want to
make it anything other than that and for no reason that would make any sense
beyond jingoism.

>>>>>> and, >> where the actual word 'barbecue' was coined.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> England, based on writings about Jamaica.
>>>>>
>>>>> That may be true.
>>>>
>>>> It is. It was based on word used in Jamaica.
>>>
>>> It may or may not have been based on a word used in Jamaica, but it
>>> *is not* > the same word.
>
>> It is. The quote uses it in the same sense as we use it today.
>
> 'Barbecue' is the same as 'barbecoa'? So, you invite people over for a
> barbecoa? Bwahahahahaha.

You fool! The only one who has used the word barbecoa is you because you
cannot think or read for comprehension. You also don't know what you type
from one post to the next. You are either a drunk, a drug addict, suffering
from Alzheimers or a stark raving idiot.

>>>> After all, the early American colonials were English.
>>>>> However, the Spanish may have introduced the term barbicoa to the
>>>>> very first > colonials, since Spanish settlements were located in
>>>>> the American southeast and were active in the caribbean. The
>>>>> Spanish introduced pigs into the Southeast shortly after Columbus,
>>>>> and pigs flourished.
>>>>>> The word 'barbecue' was first coined in early colonial
>>>>>>> America.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And btw, the Caribbean theory of its origins is
>>>>>>>>> disputed by many linguists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ********.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. In fact linguists have no conclusive proof
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>
>>>> What about your comment of "non-evidentiary"?
>>>
>>> What about it?
>
>> You complain if I make a "non-evidentiary" remark (which I at least
>> will admit to doing) but you have not once provided anything to back
>> up anything you claim. And when called on it all you can say is
>> 'what about it?" Weak.
>
> BTDT. The information is there if you care to do the research, but I'm not
> going to spend huge amounts of time reproducing what you can find if you
> choose to do so. For example, you don't believe that the French word
> 'barbe > a queue' may have been the source for the word 'barbecue' feel
> free to demonstrate why. You spent a bit of time in Google, gloomed onto
> what the first hit said, and have refused to look any further. That, my
> friend, is weak.

But I do know that the French 'barbe a queue' (which, by the way is not 'a
word' but several as you would know if you knew anything about language) as
a source has been totally debunked. You don't even know that, as is
evidenced from your wittering on about it.

>>>> You go on about what "linguists" say but not once have you give a
>>>> person's name or a cite.
>>>
>>> I've looked at this issue for years. Feel free to do the same. I'm
>>> not going to spend a lot of time digging through my files. Do your
>>> own research, and try to expand your resources a little further than
>>> Google or Wikipedia.
>>
>> To date you have given no evidence that you have even looked in
>> google or wikipedia.
>
> That's because, unlike you, I haven't had to scramble to get up to speed
> on the issue.

No, you just blunder on making one mistake after another, and keep
droppingyourself in the shit all the time.

>> Just lots of supposition and now it seems
>> ignorance of the history of spelling.
>
> This from someone who has extremely limited knowledge of the entire
> controversy surrounding the etymological beginnings of barbecue. As I
> said, you went with your first Google hit and just stopped looking.

Nope. But keep digging. I'm beginning to enjoy the spectacle you are
making of yourself and await the next howler you will post.
>
>>>> I gave you a name and a publication and
>>>> Janet B gave you a cite - we both mentioned Edmund Hickeringill's
>>>> name and the best you can come up with is a name from the quote that
>>>> Janet B. provided you with.
>>>
>>> I've seen those cites long before now, and long before either of you
>>> brought them up. And if you actually read what I wrote you would
>>> have seen that I didn't reject your cites.
>
>> No, not outright,
>
> Yes, outright.

LOL. More comprehension problems? When I write "no, not outright", that
means that "no, you didn't reject our cites outright". You respond that
"yes you did reject them outright". You are so stupid that you can't even
recognise when I agree with you. What a moron.
>
>>you just claimed, and incorrectly at that, that the
>> first use of the word was later than the information that Janet and I
>> gave.
>
> Go back and re-read what I wrote stating that I was wrong and my followup.
> Like a lot of folks on usenet, I first replied with an incomplete response
> because I was writting to fast and failed to fully state my thoughts in
> the post. I fully explained under what context my post should have
> included.

You keep using tha excuse don't you. Well you've cried wolf too many times.
You have now reached the status of a proven liar.
>
>> Your research was faulty.
>
> No, my post was faulty, as explained in a previous post. So, why don't you
> quit trying to re-paint the issue to cover up for your lack of research?

Pot, Kettle black, and a liar to boot.

>> But if you expend the time needed for proper
>>> research, you will see that there are a lot of factors -- including
>>> the influence of The American colonies -- that may very well have
>>> passed on the phrase 'barbecue' to England proper.
>
>> Shifting the goalposts now?
>
> Not at all. But, I can see why you need to save face.
>
>> First you claim it was a first used by Bejamin Lynde,
>
> Ya know, that was covered in a previous post. I correct myself, and fully
> explained what my post should have stated. I made a mistake because I
> mis-stated what I intended to say.

So now you say that I you will say anythign and then when caught out you
will say that you made a mistake because you mis-stated that. That is the
defence of a lying idiot.

>> now you claim the word may have passed from the
>> American colonies to England.
>
> Or, vice-versa. Try to be a bit more discerning in how you interpret what
> you read.

Try to be a bit discerning in what you write! If you are so stupid or so
slipshod that you can't write what you mean, lie about what you do write and
then have to retract things you write because you "mis-stated" seomthing
then taht is your problem. YOU are in control of what you write! Get it
right or dont' bother posting your lies, inconsistencies, incomprehension
and idiocies
>
>> You just don't know and can't admit it. Just supposition with no basis
>> in fact.
>
> No, I don't know for sure; I am just been re-stating the various arguments
> that have been put out there by others. Your problem is that you don't
> know enough, aside from Google, to understand the various theories that
> have been > put into play. The very fact that you rigidly insist there is
> only one etymological theory is evidence of that fact.

There may be any number of "theories" but there is only one substantiated
one and that has documentary proof behind it. The other theories are jsut
****ing in the wind and one of them (your favourite French one) has been
debunked.

>>>>>> as to how the modern
>>>>>>> word 'barbecue' or barbeque' first evolved. Some linguists
>>>>>>> believe that it may have evolved from the french word barbe à
>>>>>>> queue (beard to tail). Others believe it evolved from the name
>>>>>>> given to a framework of wood used for drying fish called a
>>>>>>> barbacòa in the caribbean. Other linguists of regional dialects
>>>>>>> of the southeast have indicated 'barbecue' may have evolved from
>>>>>>> public houses and taverns in the South which sold smoked meat
>>>>>>> and advertised "Bar, Beer and Cues" on their buildings. But
>>>>>>> whatever the etymology, what is NOT in dispute is that the first
>>>>>>> real evidence of the modern word was in a diary entry by Benjamin
>>>>>>> Lynde in the early 1700s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a complet load of old rubbish. You need to do further
>>>>>> homework. Try looking up Edmund Hickeringill, specifically his
>>>>>> "Jamaica Viewed" published in England. His use of the word in a
>>>>>> document in 1661 is the first known use of it in English.
>>>>>
>>>>> I concede that this may be the first written reference. There are
>>>>> several written usages occuring near the same time period,
>>>>> including one by Cotton Mather in 1675, who was located in Boston.
>>>>
>>>> Yes I did read Janet B's cite, so I know that.
>>>
>>> Yes, you spent a few minutes scrambling on Google to do your
>>> 'research'.
>
>> And it seems that you can't even manage to do that with any degree of
>> competence.
>
> Thanks for admitting that the basis of your knowledge on this subject is
> an unstudied background dependent on Google. This has been an interest of
> mine for over 30 years.

I didn't admit that at all. I noted that you couldn't do a google search
with any competence. Mind you, if you deny that you posted something only
one day ago that I could disprove by giving a google groups cite then you
aren't even competent at lying either.

>>>> And at least you've now changed your tune from a previous post where
>>>> you wrote:
>>>> " But whatever the etymology, what is NOT in dispute is that the
>>>> first real evidence of the modern word was in a diary entry by
>>>> Benjamin Lynde in the early 1700s."
>>>
>>> Yes, I had to backtrack a bit, because I didn't write out correctly
>>> what I meant to say. What I did write was incorrect on its face.
>
>> Yes, on it's face, in fact and in essence and based on evidence which
>> Janet B. cited.
>
> That was explained below.

Yes, I know, excuses excuses.

>>> However, it is apparent, when looking at what Benjamin Lynde
>>> recorded was > the first written reference that indicated
>>> attendance at what we would today consider barbecue.
>>
>> So now it must be "attendance" at a barbecue and not reference to a
>> barbecue itself?
>
> Nice try at pulling things out of context. You know damned well I was
> talking about the use of the word 'barbecue' as it pertains to a
> cooking.cooking meat.

Yes, more excuses. You don't write with competence so it must be my fault.
I should read what you think you wrote rather than what you did write.

But what yu wrote and what yuo meant is still crap. You claimed that "the
first evidence of the modern word" was in a diary entry by Lynde in the
early 1700s. No mention of meat. AND even if there was, then you are plain
wrong because Hickeringill mentioned meat in 1661 - years before Lynde. AND
Hickeringill used it as we do today.


>> Your thoughts are becoming more bizarre with each
>> posting.
>
> Still trying to save face, aren't ya.

I'm beginning to wonder whether you are into substance abuse given the
bizzarreness of your inconsistencies.

>>>> I guess that although there is no admission from you that you were
>>>> wrong, that is obvioulsy a concession that you were wrong.
>>>
>>> I was wrong in what I originally wrote.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>> However, having read and now quoting to me information you found in
>>>> Janet's cite,
>>>
>>> Again, I had read and have on file the cite that Janet made during
>>> her quick Google search. It was part of the research I conducted
>>> years ago.
>>
>> If you had done such research as you claim, how did you get it so
>> wrong?
>
> You really are desperate to save face. That's how many times in this post
> that you've brought this up now when it was dealt with several postings
> ago?

Because I enjoy doing so.

>>>> you missed out some important elements of that cite
>>>> namely that "by 1689 in a play called THE Widdow Ranter OR, The
>>>> HISTORY of Bacon in Virginia, "the rabble" fixing to lynch one
>>>> Colonel Wellman cry, "Let's barbicu this fat rogue." That the word
>>>> could be used casually on the stage shows that by then it must have
>>>> been familiar to London audiences".
>>>
>>> Why are you repeating the cite? It was there for anyone to see the
>>> first time.
>>
>> Sigh! Because of the comment "let's barbicu this fat rogue". THAT is
>> indicative of the fact that the use of the word barbecue has not
>> changed in concept or usage since it's original usage.
>
> Are you sure you want to make that statement? Since this was referring to
> the burning of a person, I don't think it had anything to do with the
> concept of cooking of meat for human consumption.

Good Lord Dave! I had no idea that I was corresponding with someone who had
lead such a dull life! I'd assumed that you were a grown adult.

I thought that you would have been able to recognise a joke when you saw it
even if it was centuries old. But now you've been told that it was a joke,
you can laugh. I certainly have been.

>> Or are you
>> now going to insist that because they didn't mention charcoal or wood
>> and long slow cooking of the rogue or a Weber kettle that it isn't
>> applicable?
>
> No, but you seem to indicate that cannabilism is barbecue. :-)

Nope. I cited a joke.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:02:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>
>> if your reading skills are such that the lack of caps throws you so
>> badly, i suggest the problem is yours, not mine.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>
>If a kid said that to a grammar teacher, the parent would get a phonecall,
>and if the world was run correctly, a visit from a social worker to inquire
>about neglect and perhaps abuse.
>
another good theory, but i've been out of grammar school some
forty-odd years. how about you?

>Your issue with capitalization is nothing but an affectation. I know you
>think it's AlL trEnDy & sHit, but it's not. It's stupid. There is no way to
>effectively argue with this absolute truth.
>
it's been trendy for fifteen years? the lack of caps doesn't make it
el33t speech. your powers of observation are failing you.

and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
grammar and spelling nazis are some of the most tiresome people on the
'net, in case no one ever told you.

your pal,
blake

FarmI wrote:

> You are the only one mentioning the word barbecoa. Hickeringill used
> the word barbacu'd. Barbacu'd existed and was used in Jamaica back
> then AND it was used in exactly the same sense it is today when we
> describe something as being barbequed.

My apologies for arguing the wrong issue. I agree with what you wrote. I had
thought that you were talking about the indian natives on Jamaica having the
word barbecue.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:02:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>
>>> if your reading skills are such that the lack of caps throws you so
>>> badly, i suggest the problem is yours, not mine.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>>
>>If a kid said that to a grammar teacher, the parent would get a phonecall,
>>and if the world was run correctly, a visit from a social worker to
>>inquire
>>about neglect and perhaps abuse.
>>
> another good theory, but i've been out of grammar school some
> forty-odd years. how about you?
>
>>Your issue with capitalization is nothing but an affectation. I know you
>>think it's AlL trEnDy & sHit, but it's not. It's stupid. There is no way
>>to
>>effectively argue with this absolute truth.
>>
> it's been trendy for fifteen years? the lack of caps doesn't make it
> el33t speech. your powers of observation are failing you.
>
> and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
> people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
> grammar and spelling nazis are some of the most tiresome people on the
> 'net, in case no one ever told you.
>
> your pal,
> blake


Loose standards for language are what gave us the pig who lives in the White
House at the moment. You think your affectation only affects this newsgroup,
but in fact, children may see it and think it's normal and acceptable. Then,
the disease spreads like a virus.

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:51:33 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
wrote:

>Dave Bugg wrote:
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>
>>> Show me where that specific word, 'barbecue' existed in the Tainto
>>> language. 'Barbecue' MAY have evolved (or not) from the word
>>> 'barbecoa', but the word 'barbecue' certainly did not.
>>
>> Big Oops. That should have been written ....'but the word 'barbecue'
>> certainly did not.' Sorry.
>
>Lets try this again, this time without my parrot hanging onto my shoulder
>demanding my attention.
>
>"....but the word 'barbecue' certainly did not exist there"

jesus, dave, you had me reading the first post five or six times.

your easily perplexed pal,
blake

blake murphy wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:51:33 -0800, "Dave Bugg" >
> wrote:
>
>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>> Dave Bugg wrote:
>>>
>>>> Show me where that specific word, 'barbecue' existed in the Tainto
>>>> language. 'Barbecue' MAY have evolved (or not) from the word
>>>> 'barbecoa', but the word 'barbecue' certainly did not.
>>>
>>> Big Oops. That should have been written ....'but the word 'barbecue'
>>> certainly did not.' Sorry.
>>
>> Lets try this again, this time without my parrot hanging onto my
>> shoulder demanding my attention.
>>
>> "....but the word 'barbecue' certainly did not exist there"
>
> jesus, dave, you had me reading the first post five or six times.

Sorry 'bout that, Blake. I have a parrotlet who loves to play when out of
the cage. If I happen to be on the computer when he's out, he'll gently nip
away at my ears, scramble down to the keyboard to 'fight' with my fingers as
I'm typing, and just make a clown of himself until I pay him some attention.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:17:06 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
>people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
>grammar and spelling nazis are some of the most tiresome people on the
>'net, in case no one ever told you.

LOL! I didn't even notice until he started making a big deal out of
it.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:23:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>Loose standards for language are what gave us the pig who lives in the White
>House at the moment. You think your affectation only affects this newsgroup,
>but in fact, children may see it and think it's normal and acceptable. Then,
>the disease spreads like a virus.

News flash: The virus spread years ago... so now we have that *and*
HIV/AIDS to contend with.

--
See return address to reply by email
remove the smiley face first

<sf> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:23:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > wrote:
>
>>Loose standards for language are what gave us the pig who lives in the
>>White
>>House at the moment. You think your affectation only affects this
>>newsgroup,
>>but in fact, children may see it and think it's normal and acceptable.
>>Then,
>>the disease spreads like a virus.
>
> News flash: The virus spread years ago... so now we have that *and*
> HIV/AIDS to contend with.


Then, we need to put a big friggin' condom on blank murphy.

One time on Usenet, (Charlotte L. Blackmer) said:
> In article
> >,
> Sheldon > wrote:
> >(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
> >>
> >> My Lucy-cat decided to gnaw on the sliced sourdough - I'm
> >> going to cut around her snacky efforts,
> >
> >Why?!?!?
>
> Why not?!?!
>
> It's a sliced boule, dude, not like it's wonder bread. Big loaf, small
> damage.

I wonder if he meant why cut around it?

> There were six slices or so in the bag and she only got parts of two of
> them. There was half a slice (==normal "small" piece of sliced bread)
> gnawed on each of those. I cut the undamaged half off and let the two
> damaged half-slices dry out and broke them up for the birds outside.
>
> Personally I think she was fascinated by the plastic bag but I think she
> might sense/smell the yeast.

Heh, cat's and bags -- I left the plastic bag from a 12 roll
pack of TP on the bedroom floor yesterday to remind me to put
it on "the list". Missy (cat) decided to climb in and turn around
so that only her head was sticking out. Then she lay down and
looked quite content. I wanted to get a photo, but as soon as
someone went for the camera, she got out...

--
Jani in WA

"Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
> FarmI wrote:
>
>> You are the only one mentioning the word barbecoa. Hickeringill used
>> the word barbacu'd. Barbacu'd existed and was used in Jamaica back
>> then AND it was used in exactly the same sense it is today when we
>> describe something as being barbequed.
>
> My apologies for arguing the wrong issue. I agree with what you wrote. I
> had > thought that you were talking about the indian natives on Jamaica
> having the word barbecue.

Thank you for your gracious apology. I was beginning to think that I was
having a conversation with someone who was completely doolal. I, in turn,
apologise being insulting to you about your possible substance abuse or
other reason for mental impairment, but truly I could come up with no other
explanation for what I saw as your odd behaviour that simply defied any
logic that I could think of.

But given your interest of over 30 years in finding the origin of the word,
you could save yourself a lot of effort by just doing a check every few
years whenever a new Oxford English Dictionary is produced to see if there
is any change under the entry for "barbecue". The lexicographers do their
job extremely well and there is no need to keep a dog and bark yourself. If
they can't find any new information as to the source then you are unlikely
to do so.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message

> and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
> people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.

It isn't necessarily readable with ease. When people read, they are used to
certain forms of usage and capitalisation is one of those forms. When our
eyes see something that is not expected it becomes an 'eye jag'. This means
that the reader stops reading and goes back to reread what is written to
make sure that they got it right. Reading doesn't flow and sometimes it is
difficult to easily follow what a person is writing about.

I know it's taken me years to be able to read text without the usual
conventions of capitalisation and I much prefer to read what people write if
it's correctly punctuated and capitalised.

> grammar and spelling nazis are some of the most tiresome people on the
> 'net, in case no one ever told you.

I haven't noticed anything really problemmatical with either your spelling
or grammar, just the lack of capitalisation.

FarmI wrote:
> "Dave Bugg" > wrote in message
>> FarmI wrote:
>>
>>> You are the only one mentioning the word barbecoa. Hickeringill
>>> used the word barbacu'd. Barbacu'd existed and was used in Jamaica
>>> back then AND it was used in exactly the same sense it is today
>>> when we describe something as being barbequed.
>>
>> My apologies for arguing the wrong issue. I agree with what you
>> wrote. I had > thought that you were talking about the indian
>> natives on Jamaica having the word barbecue.
>
> Thank you for your gracious apology. I was beginning to think that I
> was having a conversation with someone who was completely doolal. I,
> in turn, apologise being insulting to you about your possible
> substance abuse or other reason for mental impairment,

Apology accepted. Many things are said in the heat of argument. :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

"Little Malice" > wrote in message
...
> One time on Usenet, (Charlotte L. Blackmer) said:
>> In article
>> >,
>> Sheldon > wrote:
>> >(Charlotte L. Blackmer) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My Lucy-cat decided to gnaw on the sliced sourdough - I'm
>> >> going to cut around her snacky efforts,
>> >
>> >Why?!?!?
>>
>> Why not?!?!
>>
>> It's a sliced boule, dude, not like it's wonder bread. Big loaf, small
>> damage.
>
> I wonder if he meant why cut around it?
>
>> There were six slices or so in the bag and she only got parts of two of
>> them. There was half a slice (==normal "small" piece of sliced bread)
>> gnawed on each of those. I cut the undamaged half off and let the two
>> damaged half-slices dry out and broke them up for the birds outside.
>>
>> Personally I think she was fascinated by the plastic bag but I think she
>> might sense/smell the yeast.
>
> Heh, cat's and bags -- I left the plastic bag from a 12 roll
> pack of TP on the bedroom floor yesterday to remind me to put
> it on "the list". Missy (cat) decided to climb in and turn around
> so that only her head was sticking out. Then she lay down and
> looked quite content. I wanted to get a photo, but as soon as
> someone went for the camera, she got out...

Our older kitty will seek out plastic bags when we come home from a shopping
trip and try to grab one to sleep on underneath the kitchen table. She also
likes to sleep on homework papers, magazines, the newspaper and generally
anything that makes noise when she prances around on it before making her
nest

Cindi

>
> --
> Jani in WA

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:50:50 +1100, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given>
fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:

>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>
>> and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
>> people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
>
>It isn't necessarily readable with ease. When people read, they are used to
>certain forms of usage and capitalisation is one of those forms. When our
>eyes see something that is not expected it becomes an 'eye jag'. This means
>that the reader stops reading and goes back to reread what is written to
>make sure that they got it right. Reading doesn't flow and sometimes it is
>difficult to easily follow what a person is writing about.

OMG, I cannot believe I'm seeing a cogent argument in support of
literate prose. What a concept!

AFAICS, back in the day, a lot of [usenet] old timers (and I'm not far
off *that* mark) had to conserve bandwidth, which gave rise to such
things as acronyms and emoticons: ROTFL, LOL, :-) And using proper
capitalisation, proper grammer and punctuation was not a
consideration. In fact, if I were to draw a parallel it would be to
texting today. I am probably one of the few who tries to text the way
I would email or post. What I get from others is old usenet acronyms
and emoticons, with additions such as "c u @ home" and "when r u 4
dinner."

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines


To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

On Sun 13 Jan 2008 08:54:58p, Terry Pulliam Burd told us...

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:50:50 +1100, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given>
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>>> and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
>>> people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
>>
>>It isn't necessarily readable with ease. When people read, they are
>>used to certain forms of usage and capitalisation is one of those forms.
>> When our eyes see something that is not expected it becomes an 'eye
>>jag'. This means that the reader stops reading and goes back to reread
>>what is written to make sure that they got it right. Reading doesn't
>>flow and sometimes it is difficult to easily follow what a person is
>>writing about.
>
> OMG, I cannot believe I'm seeing a cogent argument in support of
> literate prose. What a concept!
>
> AFAICS, back in the day, a lot of [usenet] old timers (and I'm not far
> off *that* mark) had to conserve bandwidth, which gave rise to such
> things as acronyms and emoticons: ROTFL, LOL, :-) And using proper
> capitalisation, proper grammer and punctuation was not a
> consideration. In fact, if I were to draw a parallel it would be to
> texting today. I am probably one of the few who tries to text the way
> I would email or post. What I get from others is old usenet acronyms
> and emoticons, with additions such as "c u @ home" and "when r u 4
> dinner."

I'm also an old schooler with Usenet, back when it was 2600 baud dial-up
access to Cleveland FreeNet at the university. What I can't and won't get
into is texting. I just hate it. I have it inactivated on my cell.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/13(XIII)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
URA Redneck if your bother-in-law is
also your uncle.
*******************************************

On Sun 13 Jan 2008 10:38:35p, Sqwertz told us...

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:02:52 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> I'm also an old schooler with Usenet, back when it was 2600 baud dial-up
>> access to Cleveland FreeNet at the university.
>
> I think you're confusing your Atari 2600 with your 2400 baud
> modem ;-)
>
> -sw
>

No, it was a typ0. I never owned nor wanted an Atari anything. At that
pre-PC time I had a Kaypro 10 which had an internal 300 baud modem, but I
added a US Robotics external 2400 baud modem. I surfed Usednet and
belonged to several local and not so local BBSs, all individual dial-up
accesses.

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/13(XIII)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Falling is harmless. The abrupt stop
at the end is not.
*******************************************

On Sun 13 Jan 2008 10:42:49p, Wayne Boatwright told us...

> On Sun 13 Jan 2008 10:38:35p, Sqwertz told us...
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:02:52 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also an old schooler with Usenet, back when it was 2600 baud dial-
up
>>> access to Cleveland FreeNet at the university.
>>
>> I think you're confusing your Atari 2600 with your 2400 baud
>> modem ;-)
>>
>> -sw
>>
>
> No, it was a typ0. I never owned nor wanted an Atari anything. At that
> pre-PC time I had a Kaypro 10 which had an internal 300 baud modem, but I
> added a US Robotics external 2400 baud modem. I surfed Usednet and
> belonged to several local and not so local BBSs, all individual dial-up
> accesses.
>

Well, I see more typos in this response, too. Must be time for bed. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/13(XIII)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
If it weren't for the last minute,
nothing would get done.
*******************************************

On Sun 13 Jan 2008 10:54:17p, Sqwertz told us...

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:42:49 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> No, it was a typ0. I never owned nor wanted an Atari anything. At that
>> pre-PC time I had a Kaypro 10 which had an internal 300 baud modem, but
I
>> added a US Robotics external 2400 baud modem. I surfed Usednet and
>> belonged to several local and not so local BBSs, all individual dial-up
>> accesses.
>
> I had a Kaypro 10. And it turned out that was the computer the
> first company I worked used - the first machine I actually made
> money as a professional programmer.

The very same. It was the only computer our company would allow dial-up
call back connections into our mainframe.

> 10meg hard disk, running CP/M on a Z-80 I think, floppy drive (or
> two?), built in monitor, and it was portable, too! <snork>

Yep, the same. Mine had 2 5-1/2 inch floppy drives in addition to the
10meg hard drive. Protable, because it had a handle! The damned thing
weight in at nearly 50 lbs.

I worked in the largest mainframe shop in Ohio at the time, and they had
written a ton of CPM application software for the Kaypros that many of us
owned, which was nice to have on the machine, since there wasn't too much
commercial sotware available. At the time, all my own programming work was
concentrated on IBM and Sperry mainframes.

> ObFood: Smoked sausage on grilled pesto bread with sliced
> cucumber, manchego cheese, and ranch dressing.

Dinner tonight was minnestroni so thick you could almost stand a spoon up
in it, along with garlic toast made from day-old homemade Italian bread.

This morning I made fresh papaya and lime frozen yoghurt.



--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Sunday, 01(I)/13(XIII)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
If it were easy, everyone would be
doing it.
*******************************************

Sqwertz wrote:

>
> I had a Kaypro 10. And it turned out that was the computer the
> first company I worked used - the first machine I actually made
> money as a professional programmer.
>
> 10meg hard disk, running CP/M on a Z-80 I think, floppy drive (or
> two?), built in monitor, and it was portable, too! <snork>

Don't you mean 'lugable" <eg>
>
> ObFood: Smoked sausage on grilled pesto bread with sliced
> cucumber, manchego cheese, and ranch dressing.

That sounds good. Gonna have hamburgers tonight, with lettuce, tomato,
some onion rings, not sure which sauce yet, I'll see what I've got - but
I'll hold the avo.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Seize the moment. Think of all those women on the 'Titanic' who waved
off the dessert cart.
- Erma Bombeck

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:08:20 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 13 Jan 2008 10:54:17p, Sqwertz told us...
>
>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:42:49 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>> No, it was a typ0. I never owned nor wanted an Atari anything. At that
>>> pre-PC time I had a Kaypro 10 which had an internal 300 baud modem, but
>I
>>> added a US Robotics external 2400 baud modem. I surfed Usednet and
>>> belonged to several local and not so local BBSs, all individual dial-up
>>> accesses.
>>
>> I had a Kaypro 10. And it turned out that was the computer the
>> first company I worked used - the first machine I actually made
>> money as a professional programmer.
>
>The very same. It was the only computer our company would allow dial-up
>call back connections into our mainframe.
>
>> 10meg hard disk, running CP/M on a Z-80 I think, floppy drive (or
>> two?), built in monitor, and it was portable, too! <snork>
>
>Yep, the same. Mine had 2 5-1/2 inch floppy drives in addition to the
>10meg hard drive. Protable, because it had a handle! The damned thing
>weight in at nearly 50 lbs.

Any computer is portable if you have a big enough truck.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:50:50 +1100, "FarmI" <ask@itshall be given>
> fired up random neurons and synapses to opine:
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>
>>> and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
>>> people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
>>
>>It isn't necessarily readable with ease. When people read, they are used
>>to
>>certain forms of usage and capitalisation is one of those forms. When our
>>eyes see something that is not expected it becomes an 'eye jag'. This
>>means
>>that the reader stops reading and goes back to reread what is written to
>>make sure that they got it right. Reading doesn't flow and sometimes it
>>is
>>difficult to easily follow what a person is writing about.
>
> OMG, I cannot believe I'm seeing a cogent argument in support of
> literate prose. What a concept!

Oops! Do I have time to be able to slip in a retraction?
>
> AFAICS, back in the day, a lot of [usenet] old timers (and I'm not far
> off *that* mark) had to conserve bandwidth, which gave rise to such
> things as acronyms and emoticons: ROTFL, LOL, :-) And using proper
> capitalisation, proper grammer and punctuation was not a
> consideration. In fact, if I were to draw a parallel it would be to
> texting today. I am probably one of the few who tries to text the way
> I would email or post. What I get from others is old usenet acronyms
> and emoticons, with additions such as "c u @ home" and "when r u 4
> dinner."

I haven't even managed to figure out how to do text on my phone and I
certainly can't retrieve any messages anyone sends me. If I get any, I know
that it's from someone I can safely ignore as everyone important to me knows
I'm a mobile luddite.

"Sqwertz" > wrote

> 10meg hard disk, running CP/M on a Z-80 I think, floppy drive (or
> two?), built in monitor, and it was portable, too! <snork>

Oh, those laptops. We'd swap the Toshibas we'd use on call
in the parking lot, annoying the paper pushers to no end. Too
heavy to carry on. At least it had a smokin' 2400 baud modem.
I think maybe I'm giving it too much credit, speedwise. Maybe
Arnold S. could use it on his lap.

And we were damm happy to have them rather than drive in at
2am to fix a bomb.

nancy

On Mon 14 Jan 2008 05:02:58a, The Cook told us...

> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:08:20 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>On Sun 13 Jan 2008 10:54:17p, Sqwertz told us...
>>
>>> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:42:49 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>
>>>> No, it was a typ0. I never owned nor wanted an Atari anything. At
>>>> that pre-PC time I had a Kaypro 10 which had an internal 300 baud
>>>> modem, but I added a US Robotics external 2400 baud modem. I surfed
>>>> Usednet and belonged to several local and not so local BBSs, all
>>>> individual dial-up accesses.
>>>
>>> I had a Kaypro 10. And it turned out that was the computer the
>>> first company I worked used - the first machine I actually made money
>>> as a professional programmer.
>>
>>The very same. It was the only computer our company would allow dial-up
>>call back connections into our mainframe.
>>
>>> 10meg hard disk, running CP/M on a Z-80 I think, floppy drive (or
>>> two?), built in monitor, and it was portable, too! <snork>
>>
>>Yep, the same. Mine had 2 5-1/2 inch floppy drives in addition to the
>>10meg hard drive. Protable, because it had a handle! The damned thing
>>weight in at nearly 50 lbs.
>
> Any computer is portable if you have a big enough truck.

LOL!

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 01(I)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Lawyer: a cat who settles disputes
between mice.
*******************************************

On Mon 14 Jan 2008 05:22:40a, Nancy Young told us...

>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote
>
>> 10meg hard disk, running CP/M on a Z-80 I think, floppy drive (or
>> two?), built in monitor, and it was portable, too! <snork>
>
> Oh, those laptops. We'd swap the Toshibas we'd use on call
> in the parking lot, annoying the paper pushers to no end. Too
> heavy to carry on. At least it had a smokin' 2400 baud modem.
> I think maybe I'm giving it too much credit, speedwise. Maybe
> Arnold S. could use it on his lap.
>
> And we were damm happy to have them rather than drive in at
> 2am to fix a bomb.
>
> nancy
>
>
>

Exactly! I was on 24/7 call for 17 years, 12 of which I had to drive in
the 25 miles to the data center no matter what. Finally in the last 5 I
could dial in. Whew!

--
Wayne Boatwright

*******************************************
Date: Monday, 01(I)/14(XIV)/08(MMVIII)
*******************************************
Lawyer: a cat who settles disputes
between mice.
*******************************************

The Cook wrote:

>
> Any computer is portable if you have a big enough truck.

True. LOL! You should see some of the old 'dinosaurs' DH has brought home
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Seize the moment. Think of all those women on the 'Titanic' who waved
off the dessert cart.
- Erma Bombeck

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:17:06 GMT, blake murphy >
wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:02:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:
>
>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
>>>
>>>
>>> if your reading skills are such that the lack of caps throws you so
>>> badly, i suggest the problem is yours, not mine.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake
>>
>>
>>If a kid said that to a grammar teacher, the parent would get a phonecall,
>>and if the world was run correctly, a visit from a social worker to inquire
>>about neglect and perhaps abuse.
>>
>another good theory, but i've been out of grammar school some
>forty-odd years. how about you?
>
>>Your issue with capitalization is nothing but an affectation. I know you
>>think it's AlL trEnDy & sHit, but it's not. It's stupid. There is no way to
>>effectively argue with this absolute truth.
>>
>it's been trendy for fifteen years? the lack of caps doesn't make it
>el33t speech. your powers of observation are failing you.
>
>and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
>people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
>grammar and spelling nazis are some of the most tiresome people on the
>'net, in case no one ever told you.
>
>your pal,
>blake

I've never had a problem reading your posts Blake. I actually enjoy
them.

Lou

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:54:39 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 13:16:03 -0500, cybercat wrote:
>
>> He is, but Lou is a bigger asshole for claiming to get rid of the cat.
>
>The cat was probably beating up on his poodle.

I didn't "claim" to get rid of the cat. I did it. It's a fact! And
the dog was a total bad-ass that spent time in doggie jail because
until I came around the ladies couldn't control him. If he was a
poodle he'd have gone to the same place the cat went. If animal
lovers can't understand that some people can't stand sharing a home
with hairy creatures then they can all bite my ass.

Lou

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:23:22 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> wrote:

>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:02:57 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> if your reading skills are such that the lack of caps throws you so
>>>> badly, i suggest the problem is yours, not mine.
>>>>
>>>> your pal,
>>>> blake
>>>
>>>
>>>If a kid said that to a grammar teacher, the parent would get a phonecall,
>>>and if the world was run correctly, a visit from a social worker to
>>>inquire
>>>about neglect and perhaps abuse.
>>>
>> another good theory, but i've been out of grammar school some
>> forty-odd years. how about you?
>>
>>>Your issue with capitalization is nothing but an affectation. I know you
>>>think it's AlL trEnDy & sHit, but it's not. It's stupid. There is no way
>>>to
>>>effectively argue with this absolute truth.
>>>
>> it's been trendy for fifteen years? the lack of caps doesn't make it
>> el33t speech. your powers of observation are failing you.
>>
>> and if it is an affectation, so ****ing what? it's readable, and most
>> people of normal intelligence have no trouble divining what i write.
>> grammar and spelling nazis are some of the most tiresome people on the
>> 'net, in case no one ever told you.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>
>
>Loose standards for language are what gave us the pig who lives in the White
>House at the moment. You think your affectation only affects this newsgroup,
>but in fact, children may see it and think it's normal and acceptable. Then,
>the disease spreads like a virus.
>

wow, i've been accused of a lot of things, but never of helping put
bush in the white house. boo-yah!

your pal,
blake