On 2018-12-11 12:31 p.m., graham wrote:

>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>
>>
>>
> One of the age groups in ice hockey is "Midget". Now tiny people are
> asking for it to be changed as it offends them. Well, as Stephen Fry put
> it: "So ****ing what!"!

I am not a constitutional expert, but I am pretty sure that they is no
constitutional right to be offended. No one should expect to be able to
go out of their way to be odd and then object to people treating them as
if they are weird.

On 2018-12-11 12:37 p.m., Cheri wrote:
> "graham" > wrote in message
> news >
>> One of the age groups in ice hockey is "Midget". Now tiny people are
>> asking for it to be changed as it offends them. Well, as Stephen Fry
>> put it: "So ****ing what!"!
>
>
> Are you sure "tiny people" is OK to say? ;-)

Give it time to be accepted and then someone will object. They will go
to the bleeding heart media for a public pity party and then other
people will sympathize with them and we will have to come up with
another term that has not yet become a pejorative.

On 2018-12-11 1:01 p.m., Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> Midget was a weight clsss for many years. What do the "little
> people" expect it to be called? "Little Poeple" were called midgets
> by their own definition many decades ago.
>
> It's the same issue with "African-whatever" depending on what country
> they're from. I can't even reember all the self-proclaimed names
> that race has used over the decades. Grantede the "N" word was
> clearly derogatory, but they've adopted so many other names it's hard
> keep track. I try not address anyone of that race by any racial name
> to avoid mistakes or misconceptions.

The "N word" was not derogatory in its own right. It was just a
*******ization of the Portuguese Negro.... black. Not it is more
commonly by racist whites, and more commonly by black people.

>
> Political Correctness? What the hell does politics hav to do with
> it? IMHO, the term "PoliticalCorrectness should have ever been
> coined. However, I' an old fogey, so what do I know. :-)

Let's just call it group shaming.... a form of bullying.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:37:36 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>"graham" > wrote in message
>news >
>> One of the age groups in ice hockey is "Midget". Now tiny people are
>> asking for it to be changed as it offends them. Well, as Stephen Fry put
>> it: "So ****ing what!"!
>
>Are you sure "tiny people" is OK to say? ;-)
>
>Cheri

I just read this morning that anyone under 4' 10" is considered a
midget. I read that the Kardashion gals are all midgets because they
are under 4' 10" ... they sure don't have midget bods.
My ex SIL was only 4' 11" but she was built like the proverbial BSH,
36 24 36. Unfortunately she committed suicide at age 40, I really
don't know why except she was married to a violent ******* who beat
her so badly she needed hospitalization for broken bones. Occasionaly
she phoned me at work because he needed cigarettes when she was
hospitalized. I'd bring her a few packs of cigs but I had no knowlege
of her medical status. All I knew is that we got along fine, I could
never understand why she stayed with that 300 pound creep, she weighed
like 110 pounds and was a dancer, Sheryl was tiny but gorgeous. I
will always miss her.

On 12/11/2018 4:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:03:03 -0800 (PST), dsi1 >
>> I have heard this. Mostly our parents were put through the fire. I suspect that most generations would rise up when duty calls - but I could be wrong.
>
> Yes, when you have no choice, you have no choice.
>
My father had a choice.
He was offered a commission in the Navy, but his vision disqualified
him. So, he got contact lenses (not common at the time, and rather
expensive), wore them to pass the Army eye test, and flew dozens of
missions as a combat cameraman - wearing eyeglasses issued by the
military. Those lenses were extremely uncomfortable, and he couldn't
wear them for more than an hour at a time - they covered the entire eye,
not just the coloured bit in the middle. He never wore them again after
he passed the military eye test, but kept them as a souvenir, which is
how I got to see them.

Cheri wrote:

> "graham" > wrote in message
> news >
> > One of the age groups in ice hockey is "Midget". Now tiny people are
> > asking for it to be changed as it offends them. Well, as Stephen Fry put
> > it: "So ****ing what!"!
>
>
> Are you sure "tiny people" is OK to say? ;-)



Well, Steve Wertz is referred to as "dwarf"...

;-)

--
Best
Greg

wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:37:36 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> "graham" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>> One of the age groups in ice hockey is "Midget". Now tiny people are
>>> asking for it to be changed as it offends them. Well, as Stephen Fry put
>>> it: "So ****ing what!"!
>>
>> Are you sure "tiny people" is OK to say? ;-)
>>
>> Cheri
>
> I just read this morning that anyone under 4' 10" is considered a
> midget. I read that the Kardashion gals are all midgets because they
> are under 4' 10" ... they sure don't have midget bods.
> My ex SIL was only 4' 11" but she was built like the proverbial BSH,
> 36 24 36. Unfortunately she committed suicide at age 40, I really
> don't know why except she was married to a violent ******* who beat
> her so badly she needed hospitalization for broken bones. Occasionaly
> she phoned me at work because he needed cigarettes when she was
> hospitalized. I'd bring her a few packs of cigs but I had no knowlege
> of her medical status. All I knew is that we got along fine, I could
> never understand why she stayed with that 300 pound creep, she weighed
> like 110 pounds and was a dancer, Sheryl was tiny but gorgeous. I
> will always miss her.
>

How many times did she rape yoose Popeye?

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:05:38 PM UTC-6, Sheldon wrote:
>
> My ex SIL was only 4' 11" but she was built like the proverbial BSH,
> 36 24 36. she weighed like 110 pounds and was a dancer, Sheryl was
> tiny but gorgeous.
>
4' 11" and 36-24-36 is not tiny.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 16:18:32 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 5:05:38 PM UTC-6, Sheldon wrote:
>>
>> My ex SIL was only 4' 11" but she was built like the proverbial BSH,
>> 36 24 36. she weighed like 110 pounds and was a dancer, Sheryl was
>> tiny but gorgeous.
>>
>4' 11" and 36-24-36 is not tiny.

Isn't that the shape of a big ball?

On 12/11/2018 12:19 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:43:05 PM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
>>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 9:23:49 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point. I may give away all my wordly goods and go live in the
>>>>>> woods. I can eat wild berries and leaves.
>>>>>
>>>>> You could do that if you wish, it's not going to change the
>>>>> unfavorable write up the boomers are going to get. The reality is
>>>>> that you're not going to be able to view the actions of the boomers
>>>>> or the Gen Xes objectively. Mostly you see things from the view of a
>>>>> crotchety old geezer.
>>>>
>>>> You have issues....
>>>
>>> Why yes, I do have an issue with old fogies that believe that their generation was the best there ever was. That's just vanity talking.
>>
>> Bet you a quarter that we think our parents' generation was the best ever.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> Wadda ya mean "we."
>
She's counting me in. Maybe others too.

On 12/10/2018 2:58 PM, wrote:
>
> And for the most part those
> scientists truly lacked common sence.... I saw them walking about in a
> snowstorm in slippers and a bathrobe poring over a calculator, totally
> oblivious to their surroundings.
>
Hmmmm... sounds like you're describing teens glued to cell phones.

Jill

On 12/11/2018 7:37 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/11/2018 12:19 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:43:05 PM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
>>>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 9:23:49 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good point.Â* I may give away all my wordly goods and go live in the
>>>>>>> woods.Â* I can eat wild berries and leaves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could do that if you wish, it's not going to change the
>>>>>> unfavorable write up the boomers are going to get. The reality is
>>>>>> that you're not going to be able to view the actions of the boomers
>>>>>> or the Gen Xes objectively. Mostly you see things from the view of a
>>>>>> crotchety old geezer.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have issues....
>>>>
>>>> Why yes, I do have an issue with old fogies that believe that their
>>>> generation was the best there ever was. That's just vanity talking.
>>>
>>> Bet you a quarter that we think our parents' generation was the best
>>> ever.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Wadda ya mean "we."
>>
> She's counting me in.Â* Maybe others too.

Each generation since time immemorial has had its' own advances and made
changes. I *still* don't want a 3-D printer to manufacture food for me.

Jill

On 12/10/2018 8:40 PM, cshenk wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/2018 9:54 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2018 10:03 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 12/8/2018 5:08 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>>>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FWIW.... there are minimum wages for servers here. It is
>>>>>>>> lower for those serving alcohol, but it currently $12.20
>>>>>>>> /hr here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A waitress may only make 1.25 an hour and be expected to
>>>>>>> 'make of the rest in tips' which she then has to split with
>>>>>>> the cook and bus boy (cook and busboy make over minimum
>>>>>>> wage already).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Carol, FYI in Virginia the hourly wage for a waiter/waitress
>>>>>> is $2.13.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CA pays $9.00 per hour.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheri
>>>>
>>>> It does vary by state. I just checked, in CA it went up to $10.50
>>>> for establishments with less than 25 employees. $11.00 an hour if
>>>> they have more than 25 employees. Of course California is an
>>>> expensive state to live in.
>>>>
>>>> Both Virginia and South Carolina still only pay $2.13/hr. up to
>>>> the minimum *Federal wage* which is still stuck at $7.25/hour.
>>>> If a tipped employee doesn't earn enough in tips to make up the
>>>> difference the employer is expected to make up the difference,
>>>> which amounts to $5.12/hour.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>
>>> My experience is very dated but the employer never made up the
>>> difference. They may however send off a final statement that looked
>>> like they had so you owed taxes on money you never got.
>>>
>> Tipped employees fill out a form (IRS 4070A) once a month or at the
>> end of each payroll period declaring their tips. The Point of Sale
>> system usually keeps track of this information as well. I'm sure
>> plenty of employers encourage their servers to report at least the
>> $5.12/hour in tips so they can continue to get the tip credit, which
>> allows them to only pay the minimum base wage. They are supposed to
>> make up the difference if the employee doesn't earn enough in tips to
>> meet the Federal minimum wage.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Interesting. Either that was not in effect in 1978, or I had crooked
> employers. I never got one of those.
>
Of course it wasn't in effect in 1978. It wasn't in effect until the
1980's when the IRS suddently started realizing people were walking away
with unreported cash in their pockets. LOL

Jill

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 3:08:48 PM UTC-10, Jill McQuown wrote:
>
> Each generation since time immemorial has had its' own advances and made
> changes. I *still* don't want a 3-D printer to manufacture food for me.
>
> Jill

I understand that people do not want algae based, 3D printed food cubes. There's no need to keep repeating that which is obvious. Is it your belief that repeating stuff to yourself can change reality? That's psychotic.

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 2:37:26 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 12/11/2018 12:19 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:43:05 PM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> >>>> dsi1 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 9:23:49 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good point. I may give away all my wordly goods and go live in the
> >>>>>> woods. I can eat wild berries and leaves.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You could do that if you wish, it's not going to change the
> >>>>> unfavorable write up the boomers are going to get. The reality is
> >>>>> that you're not going to be able to view the actions of the boomers
> >>>>> or the Gen Xes objectively. Mostly you see things from the view of a
> >>>>> crotchety old geezer.
> >>>>
> >>>> You have issues....
> >>>
> >>> Why yes, I do have an issue with old fogies that believe that their generation was the best there ever was. That's just vanity talking.
> >>
> >> Bet you a quarter that we think our parents' generation was the best ever.
> >>
> >> Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > Wadda ya mean "we."
> >
> She's counting me in. Maybe others too.

Well, if she's counting me in, yoose guys owe me a quarter. The best generation should always be in the future.

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 11:44:39 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 2:37:26 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 12/11/2018 12:19 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:15:04 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:33:19 AM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:43:05 PM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> > >>>> dsi1 wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 9:23:49 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Good point. I may give away all my wordly goods and go live in the
> > >>>>>> woods. I can eat wild berries and leaves.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> You could do that if you wish, it's not going to change the
> > >>>>> unfavorable write up the boomers are going to get. The reality is
> > >>>>> that you're not going to be able to view the actions of the boomers
> > >>>>> or the Gen Xes objectively. Mostly you see things from the view of a
> > >>>>> crotchety old geezer.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You have issues....
> > >>>
> > >>> Why yes, I do have an issue with old fogies that believe that their generation was the best there ever was. That's just vanity talking.
> > >>
> > >> Bet you a quarter that we think our parents' generation was the best ever.
> > >>
> > >> Cindy Hamilton
> > >
> > > Wadda ya mean "we."
> > >
> > She's counting me in. Maybe others too.
>
> Well, if she's counting me in, yoose guys owe me a quarter. The best generation should always be in the future.

No, I'm not counting you in. "We" is "Baby Boomers". Wasn't that the
topic of the conversation?

Cindy Hamilton

On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>
I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
Fer cryin' out loud!

Jill

On 12/11/2018 5:21 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:37:36 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> "graham" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>> One of the age groups in ice hockey is "Midget". Now tiny people are
>>> asking for it to be changed as it offends them. Well, as Stephen Fry put
>>> it: "So ****ing what!"!
>>
>>
>> Are you sure "tiny people" is OK to say? ;-)
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Dwarf works.
>
Not if they're midgets.

Jill

"jmcquown" wrote in message ...

On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>
I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
Fer cryin' out loud!

Jill

==

lol

On 12/12/2018 8:48 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "jmcquown"Â* wrote in message ...
> On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>
> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
> Fer cryin' out loud!
>
> Jill
>
> ==
>
> lol

You laughed, I laughed. These people were serious!

Jill

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 10:58:01 AM UTC-10, wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:33:19 AM UTC-6, dsi1 wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:43:05 PM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You have issues....
> > >
> > > Why yes, I do have an issue with old fogies that believe that their generation was the best there ever was. That's just vanity talking.
> > >
> > The best generation were the people that fought in WW2. Most of us here are
> > the product of that generation.
>
> I have heard this. Mostly our parents were put through the fire.


>I suspect that most generations would rise up when duty calls - but I >
could be wrong.

Vietnam proved you wrong.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...trump-avoided-
the-draft-during-the-vietnam-war/

Janet UK

"jmcquown" wrote in message ...

On 12/12/2018 8:48 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "jmcquown" wrote in message ...
> On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>
> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
> Fer cryin' out loud!
>
> Jill
>
> ==
>
> lol

You laughed, I laughed. These people were serious!

Jill

==

I know!!!! PC is the new religion these days you know.

On 12/12/2018 8:39 AM, jmcquown wrote:

> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
> Fer cryin' out loud!

He was! It's kind of cringey, even Santa wanted nothing to do with
him and his shiny nose. But he overcame it and went on to greater
things, isn't that the whole moral of the story?

Now they want to ban Baby, It's Cold Outside because the guy is
trying to coerce the woman to stay at his place. Okaaay.

nancy

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>
> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
> Fer cryin' out loud!
>
> Jill


Yes, I was listening to a sports talk host talking about how he doesn't let
his 5 year old and 3 year old watch it because it's just full of terrible
messages. Geez. LOL

Cheri

On 12/12/2018 9:16 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 12/12/2018 8:39 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was
>> "bullied". Fer cryin' out loud!
>
> He was!Â* It's kind of cringey, even Santa wanted nothing to do with
> him and his shiny nose.Â* But he overcame it and went on to greater
> things, isn't that the whole moral of the story?
>
That is indeed the moral of the story!

> Now they want to ban Baby, It's Cold Outside because the guy is
> trying to coerce the woman to stay at his place.Â* Okaaay.
>
> nancy
>
I heard about that, too! They were both flirting. It's ridiculous to
think they should ban the song.

Aren't there more important things to worry about?

Jill

On 12/12/2018 9:17 AM, Cheri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>>
>> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was
>> "bullied". Fer cryin' out loud!
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> Yes, I was listening to a sports talk host talking about how he doesn't
> let his 5 year old and 3 year old watch it because it's just full of
> terrible messages. Geez. LOL
>
> Cheri

Terrible messages. LOL Rudolph gets to do an important job and the
"misfit toys" all find their place. Even the Abominable Snowman...
turns out he was only mean because he had a toothache. LOL

Jill

On 2018-12-12 9:05 a.m., jmcquown wrote:
> On 12/12/2018 8:48 AM, Ophelia wrote:

>> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was
>> "bullied". Fer cryin' out loud!
>>
>> Jill
>>
>> ==
>>
>> lol
>
> You laughed, I laughed.Â* These people were serious!


The character of Apu on the Simpsons was eliminated because some people
thought it reflected a negative racial stereotype. Well heck, there are
a lot of stereotyped characters in the show. Most of the characters are
white but subjects of cultural stereotypes. There is an Italian
character with a strong accent, and his voice is done by the same guy
who did Apu's.

On 2018-12-12 9:06 a.m., Janet wrote:
> In article >,

>> I suspect that most generations would rise up when duty calls - but I >
> could be wrong.
>
> Vietnam proved you wrong.
>
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...trump-avoided-
> the-draft-during-the-vietnam-war/
>



I knew a couple guys who enlisted to go to Vietnam, and they were
Canadian. A former neighbour's son was killed over there.

On 2018-12-12 8:33 a.m., Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-12-12 9:06 a.m., Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>
>>> I suspect that most generations would rise up when duty calls - but I >
>> could be wrong.
>>
>> Â*Â* Vietnam proved you wrong.
>>
>> Â*Â* https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...trump-avoided-
>> the-draft-during-the-vietnam-war/
>>
>
>
>
> I knew a couple guys who enlisted to go to Vietnam, and they were
> Canadian. A former neighbour's son was killed over there.
>
>
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote"!

On 2018-12-12 9:16 a.m., Nancy Young wrote:
> On 12/12/2018 8:39 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was
>> "bullied". Fer cryin' out loud!
>
> He was!Â* It's kind of cringey, even Santa wanted nothing to do with
> him and his shiny nose.Â* But he overcame it and went on to greater
> things, isn't that the whole moral of the story?

Indeed.They laughed at him and called him names.... and then they needed
his special ability. Some people can't see the bigger picture. I was
stunned a few years ago to hear someone complaining about All In the
Family being a racist show. You have to wonder how stupid people can
be. It was not racist. It mocked racism.

>
> Now they want to ban Baby, It's Cold Outside because the guy is
> trying to coerce the woman to stay at his place.Â* Okaaay.
>

Meanwhile, 50 Shades of Grey sold 60 million copies the year it was
released.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2018-12-12 9:06 a.m., Janet wrote:
> > In article >,
>
> >> I suspect that most generations would rise up when duty calls - but I >
> > could be wrong.
> >
> > Vietnam proved you wrong.
> >
> > https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...trump-avoided-
> > the-draft-during-the-vietnam-war/
> >
>
> I knew a couple guys who enlisted to go to Vietnam, and they were
> Canadian. A former neighbour's son was killed over there.

Comparing the records of rejection of conscription suggests a big
shift of attitude between the generation called up to WW2, and the one
conscripted to Vietnam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_evasion#Vietnam_War

Janet UK

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/12/2018 9:16 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 12/12/2018 8:39 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>>> classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
>>> Fer cryin' out loud!
>>
>> He was! It's kind of cringey, even Santa wanted nothing to do with
>> him and his shiny nose. But he overcame it and went on to greater
>> things, isn't that the whole moral of the story?
>>
> That is indeed the moral of the story!
>
>> Now they want to ban Baby, It's Cold Outside because the guy is
>> trying to coerce the woman to stay at his place. Okaaay.
>>
>> nancy
>>
> I heard about that, too! They were both flirting. It's ridiculous to
> think they should ban the song.
>
> Aren't there more important things to worry about?
>
> Jill


The explanation I heard was that the "me too" people thought it sounded like
a date rape scenario. Just crazy IMO.

Cheri

On 2018-12-12 11:28 a.m., Janet wrote:
> In article >,

>> I knew a couple guys who enlisted to go to Vietnam, and they were
>> Canadian. A former neighbour's son was killed over there.
>
> Comparing the records of rejection of conscription suggests a big
> shift of attitude between the generation called up to WW2, and the one
> conscripted to Vietnam.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_evasion#Vietnam_War

Conscription can be a political hot potato. My mother in law said that
conscription into a peace time army never did anyone any harm. A lot of
Americans did their time and have relatively good memories of it. It
wasn't so pleasant when the peace time army went to war.


Conscription was a major issue in Canada during both world wars. When
Britain went to war Canada went with them and men signed up. Actually,
it was English speaking men who signed up. French Canadians were not
interested joining the fight that they viewed as an English war.
Enlistment was about ten times higher in the rest of Canada than it was
in Quebec, and enlistment was mainly in Montreal and the eastern
townships, which were mainly English.

When the losses mounted in the early years of the war losses mounted and
we needed more replacements than were signing up, so the government
brought in conscription, which led to a political crisis. The scenario
was repeated in WW II.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:39:10 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>
>I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
>Fer cryin' out loud!

Besides, Red Nosed suggest alcohol consumption and that excludes
muslims, so this animation is not inclusive and therefore VERBOTEN!

On 2018-12-12 11:39 a.m., Cheri wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message

>> I heard about that, too!Â* They were both flirting.Â* It's ridiculous to
>> think they should ban the song.
>>
>> Aren't there more important things to worry about?
>>
>> Jill
>
>
> The explanation I heard was that the "me too" people thought it sounded
> like a date rape scenario. Just crazy IMO.


I think it is called seduction. It is part of the nonsense games that
goes on between couples, a back and forth yes, no, maybe. The song was
written decades ago when it was unlikely that she would stay and have
actual sex. Bear in mind that her objection to staying is about what her
family and neighbours will think, not about her wishes. People have
issues with the line where she asks what is in the drink, but that comes
right after her line that she will have another half a drink.

Check out the origins of the song. According to Wikipedia it was not
even a Christmas song. It is set in winter and was a routine that a
husband and wife did at a time when celebrities attending parties were
expected to entertain.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2018-12-12 11:39 a.m., Cheri wrote:
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>
>>> I heard about that, too! They were both flirting. It's ridiculous to
>>> think they should ban the song.
>>>
>>> Aren't there more important things to worry about?
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>>
>> The explanation I heard was that the "me too" people thought it sounded
>> like a date rape scenario. Just crazy IMO.
>
>
> I think it is called seduction. It is part of the nonsense games that goes
> on between couples, a back and forth yes, no, maybe. The song was written
> decades ago when it was unlikely that she would stay and have actual sex.
> Bear in mind that her objection to staying is about what her family and
> neighbours will think, not about her wishes. People have issues with the
> line where she asks what is in the drink, but that comes right after her
> line that she will have another half a drink.
>
> Check out the origins of the song. According to Wikipedia it was not even
> a Christmas song. It is set in winter and was a routine that a husband and
> wife did at a time when celebrities attending parties were expected to
> entertain.

I've always disliked the song, not for any of the lyric reasons, just don't
like it. Many people ask what's in a drink, especially when ordering
something they haven't had before.

Cheri

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:00:46 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:39:10 -0500, jmcquown >
>wrote:
>
>>On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>>
>>I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>>classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
>>Fer cryin' out loud!
>
>Besides, Red Nosed suggest alcohol consumption and that excludes
>muslims, so this animation is not inclusive and therefore VERBOTEN!

That's stupid, I have muslim friends who drink - and RC friends who
eat meat on Fridays - same difference.

On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 15:25:43 -0400, wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 05:00:46 +1100, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 08:39:10 -0500, jmcquown >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 12/11/2018 12:09 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>> Like many other things, political correctness has been carried way
>>>> too far, having practical obliterated true freedom of speech.
>>>>
>>>I heard last week some people were against the airing of the animated
>>>classic 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer' because Rudolph was "bullied".
>>>Fer cryin' out loud!
>>
>>Besides, Red Nosed suggest alcohol consumption and that excludes
>>muslims, so this animation is not inclusive and therefore VERBOTEN!
>
>That's stupid, I have muslim friends who drink - and RC friends who
>eat meat on Fridays - same difference.

Children of religiously tee-totalling muslims will still NOT be
included. The little tikes may feel hurt, excluded, overlooked!

On 12/12/2018 1:49 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> I've always disliked the song, not for any of the lyric reasons, just
> don't like it. Many people ask what's in a drink, especially when
> ordering something they haven't had before.
>
> Cheri
>
I don't particularly like the song, either. I wouldn't try to ban a
radio station from playing it, though.

Jill

jmcquown wrote:

> On 12/10/2018 8:40 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/9/2018 9:54 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > > > jmcquown wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 12/9/2018 10:03 AM, Cheri wrote:
> >>>>>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > On 12/8/2018 5:08 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > > > > > > > Dave Smith wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > FWIW.... there are minimum wages for servers here. It
> > > > > > > > > is lower for those serving alcohol, but it currently
> > > > > > > > > $12.20 /hr here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A waitress may only make 1.25 an hour and be expected to
> > > > > > > > 'make of the rest in tips' which she then has to split
> > > > > > > > with the cook and bus boy (cook and busboy make over
> > > > > > > > minimum wage already).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Carol, FYI in Virginia the hourly wage for a
> > > > > > > waiter/waitress is $2.13.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jill
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CA pays $9.00 per hour.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheri
> > > > >
> > > > > It does vary by state. I just checked, in CA it went up to
> > > > > $10.50 for establishments with less than 25 employees. $11.00
> > > > > an hour if they have more than 25 employees. Of course
> > > > > California is an expensive state to live in.
> > > > >
> > > > > Both Virginia and South Carolina still only pay $2.13/hr. up
> > > > > to the minimum *Federal wage* which is still stuck at
> > > > > $7.25/hour. If a tipped employee doesn't earn enough in tips
> > > > > to make up the difference the employer is expected to make up
> > > > > the difference, which amounts to $5.12/hour.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jill
> > > >
> > > > My experience is very dated but the employer never made up the
> > > > difference. They may however send off a final statement that
> > > > looked like they had so you owed taxes on money you never got.
> > > >
> > > Tipped employees fill out a form (IRS 4070A) once a month or at
> > > the end of each payroll period declaring their tips. The Point
> > > of Sale system usually keeps track of this information as well.
> > > I'm sure plenty of employers encourage their servers to report at
> > > least the $5.12/hour in tips so they can continue to get the tip
> > > credit, which allows them to only pay the minimum base wage.
> > > They are supposed to make up the difference if the employee
> > > doesn't earn enough in tips to meet the Federal minimum wage.
> > >
> > > Jill
> >
> > Interesting. Either that was not in effect in 1978, or I had
> > crooked employers. I never got one of those.
> >
> Of course it wasn't in effect in 1978. It wasn't in effect until the
> 1980's when the IRS suddently started realizing people were walking
> away with unreported cash in their pockets. LOL
>
> Jill

Actualy, I was more about the 'supposed to make up the diffeence'.
None of the jobs when I worked in a tip type job did that.