>First Prize: > (N.B.: This is one for the ages. I mean, it's based on the >the Oscar Myer Weiner Song, with the last verse in >*Latin*! I propose it for the First Occational Richard >Harter Memorial Excellence in Obscure Humor Celestial >Achievement Award.)
>> In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
>> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> > That is what I truly want to be. >> > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
If I may quibble semantics...
I believe the 5 lines form a verse, and the last line is what is called a refrain.
Juvenal was a Roman poet who wrote the Satires. He also said,"Difficile est saturam non scribere." It was this line of which Louann Miller said, after an unsuccessful attempt at translation,
"Sorry. I remain a Juvenal deliquent ignorant of such things."
The last line is the negative of the refrain in this middle Scots/English ditty, "Lament For The Makars" by William Dunbar.
Dunbar has the curious distinction of having been responsible for the first printed use of the word "fuck": his 1503 poem "Brash of Wowing" [Collected Poems, ed. Mackenzie SEE 'In secret place this hyndir nycht'] includes the lines:
"Yit be his feirris he wald haif fukkit: Ye brek my hairt, my bony ane."
He thus established a long and noble tradition of which some critics of James Kelman or Irvine Welsh appear to be quite unaware. The powerful word which Dunbar put into print in 1508 was not decriminalised until 1960.
As to Harter, I've seen allusions to him in here, and I went walkabout and found this: .Harter, Richard [?-] T.o. regular, self-proclaimed "conscience of t.o.", and designated "anti-Chris" to the U. of E.
> On Nov 5, 1:14 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 5:10 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 2:47 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > > > > much more important election
> > > > You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> > > > (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and > > > > a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> > > Well, If you are going to take them serious I would be happy to keep > > > up with then in da future.
> > The problem is, even you don't seem to take them seriously. But if > > you do a little bit of work, put some time and effort into it, you may > > surprise us.
> > Jason
> well. Let's see how it goes. There has never been a second motion on a > Chezy Watt or a Crack Watt. Which is why I never took them that > serious.
> Perhaps no one sees the value in the "Chezy Watt". and a "Crack-Pot > Watt".
> I do see the value. Maybe you and a few others do.
> Now, I really do not want to upset the tradition of the Chez Watt at > TO though. That was never my intention Jason. The Chez Watt is what > makes TO a unique place to discuss a varity of topics that need to be > discussed today. However, if someone makes a second motion on a Chezy > Watt or a Crack Watt, then I'll be happy to submit it for yours and > the groups consideration.
> How is that?
It's really up to you. As it is your invention, it is up to you to develop the rules, if any, that apply to those two awards.
I think you'll have a much harder time with the Crack Watt. According to what you've written, only a Creationist can make Crack Watt nominations - you got rather indignant when someone who wasn't a creationist nominated something for both a Chez Watt and a Crack Watt. If you want the Crack Watt to catch on you'll have to get your fellow creationists to participate, or make many nominations yourself. Ray doesn't play with others. Perhaps spinny can help you. I haven't seen McCoy in a while. If NowhereMan were still here he'd probably want to help because he came up with the "Ape Awards". You really ought to look for that in the group archive.
As for the Cheezy Watt, you described it as a response to any Chez Watt nomination that you feel was cheezy. That means it can only be made in response to Chez Watts. That is a fairly limited pool, but I suppose it could be done. You never mentioned any restrictions on it other than that, so I suppose anyone could make a Cheezy Watt nomination.
The point between the two is that it really is up to you to make this happen if you want it to happen. You don't need me to hold your hand. The Chez Watt ballot is a volunteer gig I picked up when Ferrous Patella (the original vote counter) was having internet connection problems.
> On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 1:14 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 5:10 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 2:47 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > > > > > much more important election
> > > > > You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> > > > > (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and > > > > > a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> > > > Well, If you are going to take them serious I would be happy to keep > > > > up with then in da future.
> > > The problem is, even you don't seem to take them seriously. But if > > > you do a little bit of work, put some time and effort into it, you may > > > surprise us.
> > > Jason
> > well. Let's see how it goes. There has never been a second motion on a > > Chezy Watt or a Crack Watt. Which is why I never took them that > > serious.
> > Perhaps no one sees the value in the "Chezy Watt". and a "Crack-Pot > > Watt".
> > I do see the value. Maybe you and a few others do.
> > Now, I really do not want to upset the tradition of the Chez Watt at > > TO though. That was never my intention Jason. The Chez Watt is what > > makes TO a unique place to discuss a varity of topics that need to be > > discussed today. However, if someone makes a second motion on a Chezy > > Watt or a Crack Watt, then I'll be happy to submit it for yours and > > the groups consideration.
> > How is that?
> It's really up to you. As it is your invention, it is up to you to > develop the rules, if any, that apply to those two awards.
> I think you'll have a much harder time with the Crack Watt. According > to what you've written, only a Creationist can make Crack Watt > nominations - you got rather indignant when someone who wasn't a > creationist nominated something for both a Chez Watt and a Crack > Watt. If you want the Crack Watt to catch on you'll have to get your > fellow creationists to participate, or make many nominations > yourself. Ray doesn't play with others. Perhaps spinny can help > you. I haven't seen McCoy in a while. If NowhereMan were still here > he'd probably want to help because he came up with the "Ape Awards". > You really ought to look for that in the group archive.
> As for the Cheezy Watt, you described it as a response to any Chez > Watt nomination that you feel was cheezy. That means it can only be > made in response to Chez Watts. That is a fairly limited pool, but I > suppose it could be done. You never mentioned any restrictions on it > other than that, so I suppose anyone could make a Cheezy Watt > nomination.
> The point between the two is that it really is up to you to make this > happen if you want it to happen. You don't need me to hold your > hand. The Chez Watt ballot is a volunteer gig I picked up when > Ferrous Patella (the original vote counter) was having internet > connection problems.
> Jason- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
We'll leave things as they are. If anyone wants to mark a post as a Chezzy watt, that is okey-dokey with me
This was a very close vote. Seriously. The winner barely edged out the other two. It was almost a 3 way tie. As always, winning authors and nominators are invited to come forward for credit and / or blame.
> > > >>>>>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html > > > >>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still > > > >>>>> situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are > > > >>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at > > > >>>>> the > > > >>>>> older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws > > > >>>>> develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the > > > >>>>> morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what > > > >>>>> cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which > > > >>>>> the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny. " > > > >>>>> "Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a > > > >>>>> snout above water. " > > > >>>>> So what is the reason for this change?
> > > >>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was > > > >>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull.
> > > >>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils > > > >>> farther up on the skull?
> > > >> Because the air is *above* the water.
> > > > Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? > > > > Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top > > > > of the skull.
> > > It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air.
> > Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
> At first I thought he was joking, then I realised he was totally > serious.
And here's the tie for second.
> In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, > > That is what I truly want to be. > > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, > > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
Ok, what's that translate to?
The other second place
> In the "Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny" Category:
> >> Which makes me wonder -- when did hominids make the leap from using > >> tools for cracking nuts, cutting meat, etc., to using them as > >> defensive (or offensive) weapons?
> >Give a bunch of toddlers a plastic hammer each and ask me that question > >again.
Honorable mention
> In the 'So THAT'S what it is' department:
> > My girlfriend has been going through heliopause, and her disposition > > is anything but sunny!
Jason
On Nov 4, 12:47 pm, Harvest Dancer <harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yesterday there was a much less important election. Today there is a > much more important election
> You get to vote for the best Chez Watt.
> (If admonkey is reading this, you still owe us a Crack Watt ballot and > a Cheezy Watt balllot)
> Vote early, vote often, may the best Watt win.
> Jason
> ======
> In the category "We don' *need* no steenkin' capitalization, > sweetie!"
> >>It was actually in the thread titled something like, "The toe is > >>dying..."
> >A discussion of diabetes?
> ======
> ======
> In the category, can you detail every intermediate step from Lucario > to Arcanine?
> > I see your ideas of evolution are approximately at the pokemon stage.
> ======
> In the "I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member" > Category:
> > I find the best course is to stay away from people who want you in their > > presences.
> ======
> ======
> Under "Better perception through chemistry"
> > >> > > > > So... what supernatural thing / process / entity > > >> > > > > are you thinking about which others can see?
> > >> > > > Angels.
> > >> > > Ah. So... where can I go to see angels?
> > >> > > Do I need special imaginary film to take pictures?
> > >> > Sharpen your perception skills
> > >> In what way are angels detectable, specifically?
> > > I think he means you need to 'open the doors of your > > > perception', a la Huxley. I believe AdMan has broken the > > > hinges off his.
> > Praise the Lord and pass the mescaline.
> ======
> In the category "The usual suspects"
> > > What exactly happens in a 'community ravaged by Darwinism'? I'm just > > > glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.
> > It isn't a pretty sight. Teenagers drop out of med school in excellent > > universities to study theology in second rate institutions further > > south. Adults give up their day jobs to observe barnacles very > > closely, many of them disappear on long journeys doing "bird > > spotting". When they come back, they bring hundreds of stuffed > > specimen, and nobody knows where to put them.The mantelpieces are > > packed full with them already. They then become ill for a long time, > > nobody knows why.
> > Nobody has a cure, though the infection correlates closely with > > "curiosity", "high IQ" and "education" which is why a strong dose of > > religious fundamentalism is recommended as cure, as it attacks > > immediately all three of them, dealing with the root causes.
> > > > > "My client sees spiritual treatment as the proper medicine and I > > > > > suspect the people who want harsher punishment see Western medicine as > > > > > the proper medicine, I guess therein lies the difference," "My > > > > > clients just happen to have a belief that is very outside of our > > > > > social norm."
> > > > > Just ignore the whole concept of evidence, one "belief" guaranteed her > > > > > a painful death; the other "belief" would have saved her and allowed > > > > > her to live a long and normal life.
> > > > > Pitiful.
> > > > I am always confused by this sort of thing. I doubt that these people > > > > wanted their daughter to die, and toward that end probably do most of > > > > the things the rest of us do to protect our children. They give them > > > > food and water rather than pray that the Lord nourish them. If the > > > > child falls into a pool I'm sure they pull the child out rather than > > > > pray for the child to float. They keep their children away from fire > > > > and busy streets rather than praying for them to be flameproof and > > > > truck-proof. And I'll bet they bandage a bleeding wound much the same > > > > way as anyone else would.
> > > > The only difference I can see is the time factor. Things that kill > > > > quickly are treated with common-sense remedies. Things that kill > > > > slowly are treated with prayer.
> > > How does that joke go?
> > > A Christian hears a knock on the door. It is his neighbor, warning > > > him that a flood is coming and urging him to evacuate.
> > > "Never mind," said the Christian, "I will pray to God and he will > > > spare me."
> > > Later, the flood comes and the Christian has to climb onto his roof to > > > avoid being swept away. A man comes in a rowboat to save him.
> > > "Don't bother," said the Christian, "I will pray to God and he will > > > spare me."
> > > Later, the waters continue to rise and the man has to stand on his > > > chimney. A heliocopter comes by to rescue him. The Christian waves > > > him away.
> > > "God is just testing my faith. I will pray to Him and he will spare > > > me."
> > > The heliocopter leaves and the Christian drowns.
> > > Later, in heaven, the Chrisitan says to God "Why didn't you answer my > > > prayers?"
> > > God said "I sent your neighbor and a rowboat and a helicopter, what > > > more do you want?"
> > Does God let people who are that stupid into Heaven?
> >>I will show you its Haversian canals in due time.
> > There are no canals on Mars; Schiaparelli, Havers and Lowell all > > recanted on their deathbeds.
> Nice interdisciplinary gag.
> ======
> In the "what the hell did he say?" category:
> >The only one narrow minded and ignorant are those that cannot see the > >potiential for widespread misuse on an apocalyptic scale with this > >technology.
> ======
> Category: Irony is dead
> > Do you think people such as General Alexander Haig, Donald Rumsfeld > > and Henery Kissinger would lie?
> > WHY?
> ======
> In the "questionable faith" category:
> >> >What do you have faith in?
> >> That evidence means something.
> >Yes, if only we knew what,
> ======
> In the, 'astonishingly obvious garrulity' category:
> >since you obviously did not get the obvious drift (obvious > >because it is quite obvious that I did not mean it to be literally > >true; it is more a way that we humans say to get their point through).
> ======
> In the category of "King of Swing does the Carpenters":
> >> It has been claimed that the source was the Big Bang.
> > And the Big Band can never be nailed down. For one thing, what > > would you > > nail it to?
> ======
> ======
> >There were a lot of messianic prophets around at the time (presumably > >because all the events occurred around a millenium boundary).
> I presume that you were being facetious, but still ...
> ======
> In the stunning lack of imagination category
> >I never heard of a person write two books at one time...
> ======
> In the category of The Wild Hunt:
> > >I never heard of a person write two books at one time...
<harvestdan...@hotmail.com> wrote: >This was a very close vote. Seriously. The winner barely edged out >the other two. It was almost a 3 way tie. As always, winning authors >and nominators are invited to come forward for credit and / or blame.
>So here's first place.
>> > > >>>>>http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/whale-evolution.html >> > > >>>>> "At the earliest embryonic stages the nasal openings are still >> > > >>>>> situated at the rostra tip like those of land mammals; they are >> > > >>>>> gradually shifted more and more towards the vertex of the head at >> > > >>>>> the >> > > >>>>> older stages. At the same time, a long rost rum with narrow jaws >> > > >>>>> develops. Until recently, practically nothing was known about the >> > > >>>>> morphogenetic processes concealed in this metamorphosis, about what >> > > >>>>> cranial structures take part in it, and about the exact way in which >> > > >>>>> the cetacean skull becomes transformed during embryogeny. " >> > > >>>>> "Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a >> > > >>>>> snout above water. " >> > > >>>>> So what is the reason for this change?
>> > > >>>> Probably the whales became more fully aquatic, meaning that it was >> > > >>>> advantageous for them to have nostrils higher on the skull.
>> > > >>> How is simply being in water more advantageous to have nostrils >> > > >>> farther up on the skull?
>> > > >> Because the air is *above* the water.
>> > > > Is everybody is this newsgroup on drugs? >> > > > Simply being in water isn't advantageous to have nostrils on the top >> > > > of the skull.
>> > > It is if the top of the skull is the bit nearest the air.
>> > Then why don't fish have them on top of their heads?
>> At first I thought he was joking, then I realised he was totally >> serious.
>And here's the tie for second.
>> In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
>> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> > That is what I truly want to be. >> > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
> >It was stupid month, I had to go all the way down to a fifth prize.
> <regretful snippage>
> >First Prize: > > (N.B.: This is one for the ages. I mean, it's based on the > >the Oscar Myer Weiner Song, with the last verse in > >*Latin*! I propose it for the First Occational Richard > >Harter Memorial Excellence in Obscure Humor Celestial > >Achievement Award.)
> >> In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
> >> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, > >> > That is what I truly want to be. > >> > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, > >> > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
> If I may quibble semantics...
> I believe the 5 lines form a verse, and the last line is what is > called a refrain.
> Juvenal was a Roman poet who wrote the Satires. > He also said,"Difficile est saturam non scribere." > It was this line of which Louann Miller said, after an unsuccessful > attempt at translation,
> "Sorry. I remain a Juvenal deliquent ignorant of such things."
> The last line is the negative of the refrain in this middle > Scots/English ditty, "Lament For The Makars" by William Dunbar.
> Dunbar has the curious distinction of having been responsible for the > first printed use of the word "fuck": his 1503 poem "Brash of Wowing" > [Collected Poems, ed. Mackenzie SEE 'In secret place this hyndir > nycht'] includes the lines:
> "Yit be his feirris he wald haif fukkit: > Ye brek my hairt, my bony ane."
> He thus established a long and noble tradition of which some critics > of James Kelman or Irvine Welsh appear to be quite unaware. The > powerful word which Dunbar put into print in 1508 was not > decriminalised until 1960.
> As to Harter, I've seen allusions to him in here, and I went walkabout > and found this: > .Harter, Richard > [?-] T.o. regular, self-proclaimed "conscience of t.o.", and > designated "anti-Chris" to the U. of E.
> Obscure?
Thank you. Harter lives, at least in our hearts. I've never figured out how to make him appear, but an offer of money might do the trick. I hear he's partial to old, unmarked, non-consecutive 20s.
>> >It was stupid month, I had to go all the way down to a fifth prize.
>> <regretful snippage>
>> >First Prize: >> > (N.B.: This is one for the ages. I mean, it's based on the >> >the Oscar Myer Weiner Song, with the last verse in >> >*Latin*! I propose it for the First Occational Richard >> >Harter Memorial Excellence in Obscure Humor Celestial >> >Achievement Award.)
>> >> In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
>> >> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> >> > That is what I truly want to be. >> >> > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, >> >> > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
>> If I may quibble semantics...
>> I believe the 5 lines form a verse, and the last line is what is >> called a refrain.
>> Juvenal was a Roman poet who wrote the Satires. >> He also said,"Difficile est saturam non scribere." >> It was this line of which Louann Miller said, after an unsuccessful >> attempt at translation,
>> "Sorry. I remain a Juvenal deliquent ignorant of such things."
>> The last line is the negative of the refrain in this middle >> Scots/English ditty, "Lament For The Makars" by William Dunbar.
>> Dunbar has the curious distinction of having been responsible for the >> first printed use of the word "fuck": his 1503 poem "Brash of Wowing" >> [Collected Poems, ed. Mackenzie SEE 'In secret place this hyndir >> nycht'] includes the lines:
>> "Yit be his feirris he wald haif fukkit: >> Ye brek my hairt, my bony ane."
>> He thus established a long and noble tradition of which some critics >> of James Kelman or Irvine Welsh appear to be quite unaware. The >> powerful word which Dunbar put into print in 1508 was not >> decriminalised until 1960.
>> As to Harter, I've seen allusions to him in here, and I went walkabout >> and found this: >> .Harter, Richard >> [?-] T.o. regular, self-proclaimed "conscience of t.o.", and >> designated "anti-Chris" to the U. of E.
>> Obscure?
>Thank you. Harter lives, at least in our hearts. I've never figured >out how to make him appear, but an offer of money might do the trick. >I hear he's partial to old, unmarked, non-consecutive 20s.
....or young, unmarked 20-somethings?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
> >> >It was stupid month, I had to go all the way down to a fifth prize.
> >> <regretful snippage>
> >> >First Prize: > >> > (N.B.: This is one for the ages. I mean, it's based on the > >> >the Oscar Myer Weiner Song, with the last verse in > >> >*Latin*! I propose it for the First Occational Richard > >> >Harter Memorial Excellence in Obscure Humor Celestial > >> >Achievement Award.)
> >> >> In the Nothing Human is Alien dept...
> >> >> > Oh I wish I were a Juvenal delinquent, > >> >> > That is what I truly want to be. > >> >> > Cuz if I were a Juvenal delinquent, > >> >> > Timor mortis non conturbat me.
> >> If I may quibble semantics...
> >> I believe the 5 lines form a verse, and the last line is what is > >> called a refrain.
> >> Juvenal was a Roman poet who wrote the Satires. > >> He also said,"Difficile est saturam non scribere." > >> It was this line of which Louann Miller said, after an unsuccessful > >> attempt at translation,
> >> "Sorry. I remain a Juvenal deliquent ignorant of such things."
> >> The last line is the negative of the refrain in this middle > >> Scots/English ditty, "Lament For The Makars" by William Dunbar.
> >> Dunbar has the curious distinction of having been responsible for the > >> first printed use of the word "fuck": his 1503 poem "Brash of Wowing" > >> [Collected Poems, ed. Mackenzie SEE 'In secret place this hyndir > >> nycht'] includes the lines:
> >> "Yit be his feirris he wald haif fukkit: > >> Ye brek my hairt, my bony ane."
> >> He thus established a long and noble tradition of which some critics > >> of James Kelman or Irvine Welsh appear to be quite unaware. The > >> powerful word which Dunbar put into print in 1508 was not > >> decriminalised until 1960.
> >> As to Harter, I've seen allusions to him in here, and I went walkabout > >> and found this: > >> .Harter, Richard > >> [?-] T.o. regular, self-proclaimed "conscience of t.o.", and > >> designated "anti-Chris" to the U. of E.
> >> Obscure?
> >Thank you. Harter lives, at least in our hearts. I've never figured > >out how to make him appear, but an offer of money might do the trick. > >I hear he's partial to old, unmarked, non-consecutive 20s.
|
