Friday's Wall Street Journal included this story:
Hot Item or Old Hat?
Von Dutch Caps, Once Big,
Now Are Passe, Hipsters Say;
But Nobody Told Consumers
... where we learn that "uber-urban hipsters" ceased to find the hats cool after the hoi polloi started to wear them:
That may have been the beginning of the end for uber-urban hipsters, who started to cool toward the caps by late winter.
It must be exhausting being an "uber-urban hipster" in constant dread of drowning in a sea change of fashion - the awful moment when uber-urban hip becomes uber-urbanality.
it
is a bitch...
But it is well worth the effort. We particularly enjoy the feeble attempts of hoi polloi to mock us.
All seriousness aside: living as I do on the outermost fringe of popular culture, I had to google this phenomenon. Here's a picture, if anyone's interested. Looks like your basic baseball cap with a little John Deere thrown in for that good-ol'-boy appeal. Apparently the designer is a 70-year-old pop artist/Harley type. I've learned all I want to know about this now, but thanks for the read, moss.
http://www.vondutch.com/store/ProductsList.aspx?CategoryID=33
ceased to find the hats cool after the hoi polloi started to wear them
"the hoi poloi" is redundant, in that it contains two articles where it needs only one.
"the hoi poloi" is redundant
We über-urbane know that.
we're so on top of that... all the way downtown...
Oops. My mistake. I had forgotten that the study of Greek was required for graduation from UUU -- Uber Urbane University.
Is it me, or are these just trucker hats and tuques?
Oh-oh, maybe I'm un-uber-cool and didn't know it.
"the hoi poloi" is redundant...indeed, as Faldage had pointed out in an über-subtle way:
We particularly enjoy the feeble attempts of hoi polloi to mock us.It's a mixed blessing, Father Steve. Now that you've reached addicthood, you're subject to the same anarchic roolz® [in this case, thou shalt not make of thy fellow AWADer chopped liver without running risk of being called on said mantling] as everyone else.
...on the outermost fringe of popular culture,I.... must... resist...... OW, I broke something.
************
Is it me, or are these just trucker hats and tuques?Just trucker hats, that's all. There's something slightly *suspicious about anything that uses the *prefix "uber" in its description.
In reply to:
Is it me, or are these just trucker hats and tuques?
What does this mean?
Anyone up for making an appropriate double-dactyl verse with "uber-urbanity"?
Excellent suggestion, wolfee! However, I'll leave it to some*one else to fulfill your request for "appropriateness"...
*************
Anna the strophic one
backs from the lookwards side
searching for samples of
hoi polloi style
googling phenomenon's
uberurbanity
finding results just a
reason to smile.
a tip 'o the glass to ye, musick!
"the hoi poloi" is redundant, in that it contains two articles where it needs only oneand
...indeed, as Faldage had pointed out in an über-subtle way ... thou shalt not make of thy fellow AWADer chopped liver without running risk of being called on said mantlingWho will assume the "mantling" position first?
Extract from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
"Since the Greek phrase includes an article, some critics have argued that the phrase the hoi polloi is redundant. But phrases borrowed from other languages are often reanalyzed in English as single words. For example, a number of Arabic noun phrases were borrowed into English as simple nouns. The Arabic element al- means “the,” and appears in English nouns such as alcohol and alchemy.
Thus, since no one would consider a phrase such as “the alcohol” to be redundant, criticizing the hoi polloi on similar grounds seems pedantic."
P.S. Who's "chopped liver" now?
criticizing the hoi polloi on similar grounds seems pedantic
How droll.
Assume the position [over the "mantling"]:
She did say "über-subtle"...
editSeems to lend a different perspective when one has "uber-time" on their side...
Right. Got it. I accept the mantle of pedant with as much grace as I can muster.
I accept the mantle of pedant with as much grace as I can muster.
Dear Father Steve:
I certainly would not call you a "pedant".
I simply took a sharp rebuke and sent it back to its rightful owner.
Truth is, I admire your scholarly familiarity with Greek.
I do not think it is necessarily the sine qua non of a proper education nowadays, but it is certainly knowledge admirably transmitted, like sunlight, to illuminate and not to impress.
That is your way, Father Steve, for which you are all the more esteemed by all who know you. It is not the way of a pedant.
Priest, judge, paid-up pedant - I think he can fend for himself and get away with it! He has all the necessary qualifications ...
I think he can fend for himself and get away with it!Agreed, he can "fend" for himself, were there any need for him to do so ... which there isn't.
BTW if there were any need for further proof that Father Steve is not a "pedant", we need only observe that Father Steve admitted to being a "pedant" which surely no true pedant would ever do.
*wonders how much the classes at UUU cost, what the entry prerequisites are, and if they have a nice catalog with snazzy pictures to send to inquisitive potentials*
Extra-ordín-ary!
That was beautiful music, musick. It even scanned and stuff.
Thanks...
... I wuz waitin' fer someone to claim there's three syllables in "googling", but.
I wuz waitin' fer someone to claim there's three syllables in "googling"
'Tis a pity that anyone should have to worry about such a quibble.
Personally, I don't see the connection between love of the language, which presumably draws us all to AWADtalk in the first place, and obsessiveness about formal rules and structure which draws attention away from substance.
An ounce of originality is worth a pound of pedantry, if not in AWADtalk, at least in the real world.
Interesting that originality seldom surfaces without breaking someone's time-honored conventions. No doubt, the first outbreak of originality is always a scandal to some.
So it was with the first person who used the phrase "the hoi polloi" because it sounded more right to the ordinary english ear than to the rule-bound ear of a scholar.
'Tis a pity that anyone should have to worry about such a quibble.Well, I wouldn't characterize it as a "worry", that seems tenfold intense than I was... another missing wink from my fingertips, I guess.
Personally, I don't see the connection between love of the language,(nor do I)
which presumably draws us all to AWADtalk in the first place, and obsessiveness about formal rules and structure which draws attention away from substance.Well, let's not get philosophical, but, whether or not the attention I pay to breaking formal rules and structure "proves the rule by it's exception", "obsessiveness"... I just don't see it reach anywhere near that level. From what I can tell silence seems to a better tool for critcism... but then, I'm used to silence.
An ounce of originality is worth a pound of pedantry, if not in AWADtalk, at least in the real world.
Interesting that originality seldom surfaces without breaking someone's time-honored conventions. Spoken like a true "Ron Obvious"
No doubt, the first outbreak of originality is always a scandal to some.I've never equated 'obsessiveness' with 'scandal', but lemme werk on that one fer awhile...
So it was with the first person who used the phrase "the hoi polloi" because it sounded more right to the ordinary english ear than to the rule-bound ear of a scholar.Hmmm... aside from a 'rule-bound ear' having as much (quite often more) claim on 'ordinary' than any other ear, something tells me there was no "right sound" in the ordinary ear to compare with when combining *English with a new, foreign word/word phrase.
Ya parbably had to be there...
Ya parbably had to be there…
Don't it just set your teeth on edge when people add unnecessary syllables to words?
I wuz just tryin' to keep from payin' a *royalty®.
unnecessary... 5
unrequired... 3.5
unneeded... 3
redundant... 3
;)
Disnecessary?
Izzat a theme park?
no, that's the rest room at the theme park...
This all reminds me of...
after The Simpson family killed all the animatrons who went bezerk at Itchy and Scratchyland...
Meyers: As Roger Meyers Jr., the owner of the park, I'd like to thank you for stopping the killer robots, and to show my appreciation, here are two free passes.
Homer: But there are five of us.
Meyers: [angry] Here are two free passes!
Homer: That's better.
Dr. Frink kneels over the inert body of a robot.
Frink: Man, if this is happening here, I'd hate to think of what's happening in Euro Itchy and Scratchy Land, n-hey.
[shot of empty parking lot in said park
Booth man: [French accent] Hello? Itchy and Scratchy Land open for business. Who are you to resist it, huh? Come on. My last paycheck bounced. My children need wine.
silence seems to be a better tool of criticism
Disagree, Musick.
Silence is not "a tool of criticism", especially in a forum or assembly of people. It is a tool of assent, as in "silence gives consent".
Silence only becomes "a tool of criticism" if it is practised by a group upon an individual. In that case, it is not "criticism" but ostracism.
As the passage below indicates, ostracism is employed not so much to censure opinion as to remove a threat to the established power structure.
A reconstruction of Themistocles' Ostracism, from The Greeks documentary:
The institution of ostracism, believed to have been created by Cleisthenes, was not actually used until 487 BC; some 20 years after his reforms.
Designed as a safeguard for protecting democracy, it was a harsh and unforgiving punishment, often meted out to individuals who were becoming too personally powerful, or who threatened the positions of those who already had great influence.
OK, works for me.
Silence is not "a tool of criticism", especially in a forum or assembly of people. It is a tool of assent Ok, I'm going to disagree with this--or at least put in a disclaimer. Speaking from personal experience, silence can also be the result of a decision that not saying something is better in a particular circumstance than saying something. It is a matter of priorities, and degrees--and I think we each set those for ourselves. I doubt that there is a single reader here (who has read more than just a handful of posts) who has not disagreed with something said. And I for one am very thankful that we have refrained from posting every little disagreement; if that were the case, I imagine that's about all we'd be reading. It, um, may have been rather obvious, of late, that I bristle right up when in my opinion my friends are attacked. At the other end of the spectrum, for ex., when various people disagree over whether a word came from Greek or Latin, I mentally yawn and move on: I have no vested interest in such a thing. And I feel sure that everybody has such things. Yet, even where I do have a vested interest, there are many reasons--for manners' sake, being one--that I refrain from voicing my disagreement. As to degrees: I believe we each have our "threshold" at which we will tolerate no more, and that this varies from person to person.
Edit: hmm, I was giving some thought to why I broke my silence and made this post. It is because I tend not to like generalisms, and particularly dislike having them applied to me. I have discovered, comparatively recently, that my anger is quickly aroused when someone presumes they know my entire motivation. Trust me: you (you, as in the world, not you in particular, moss) don't, unless I have specifically told you. It also makes me angry when I have laid out my entire motive with complete honesty, and someone still says, "Yeah, but what's your real agenda?"
E. Edit (like P.P.S., ya know): DubDub--you did a much better job than I!
What exactly works for you, AnnaS?
And, Moss, I disagree that silence is necessarily consent. By whose absolute measure is silence consent? And, even so, is this law infallible?
Silence is silence, and, so being silent, may be construed to be either critical silence or consensual silence. But we need the facts of the situation at hand to begin to construe whether the silence had been either critical or consensual--or could have been undecided silence that lay somewhere in between. There are times in which people could experience great disapproval of words spoken, yet would remain silent, not to consent to what had been spoken, but because of the inappropriateness of expression at the moment. Consider meetings at work--team meetings, board meetings, conferences--in which co-workers or colleagues publicly express views that one considers to be unprofessional. One may remain silent in the public format of the meeting, but in private would address those concerns later and in a less humiliating venue out of fairness and sensitivity. There must be countless examples in which participants in discussions remain silent, not out of consent, but out of sensitivity to the situation--and with full intention to act at a later time upon the disagreement in a different venue.
We have the silence of Sir Thomas Moore and Jesus writing in the sand among other other instances of silence on points. And we have the law itself trying to determine what silence could have meant.
But finally we cannot interpret silence unless we question it. And since this board isn't a court of law, writing one's meaning out is a possible course to explain silence, but it is not the only course.
I would argue that interpreting silence strictly as consent is making a limited and perhaps erroneous assumption about silence.
What exactly works for you, AnnaS?Good question, WW. I guess "ignoring" is the best term in this case.
I thought your post was great. Jackie's, too.
Check your E-mail
silence is powerful 'weapon' in a battle.. in the case of an arguement, if two people disagree, and one choices silence... the arguement is ended.
the party that continues to rail, or rant or rave hasn't won the arguement..but its ended all the less-- an arguement (whether polite, and reasoned, or wild and wooly) requires two (or more) --you can't fight with your self (effectively!)
parties outside the arguement can keep silent too, and this isn't taking sides. (and escalating it) ...Parents uses silence all the time with kids bickering.. when kids realize they can 'engage a parent' by bickering.. they will bicker and fight more... so a parent's ignoring the bickering, reduces it.
but long term, parents deal with childrens arguements, by teaching them tolerence, or ways to manage.. (the classic 'sharing' strategy of one person cut (the cake, the candy bar, what ever) and the other person get first choice.)
i think, one cause of problems, is someone, acting good naturedly, who 'comes to the defence' of a other, whom he/she feels has been wronged-PUBLICLY.
i was in a work situation, where an other employee, who i got along with, and felt very comfortable with, 'mock swatted' me (on the behind) with a single sheet of paper rolled loosely into a baton. --we had a bantering type relationship, and the 'swat' while unusual, was not out of the character of our relationship.(it was also barely perceptable)
a third person saw this, and told me, 'you know you don't have take that kind of abuse from him'. i explained, i wasn't abused, and i didn't take abuse..
she persued the matter-- she claimed it made her feel uncomfortable to see me abused.. and that this guy shouldn't be permitted to abuse female employees!(no one else had any complaints about him)
--the guy nearly lost his job.. (it ruined our friendship, even though he knew i was not part of the action-) and it made everyone in the office uncomfortable..
the person who complained had been working there less than 1 month, the guy, had been there for years, 1 had worked there for 18 months or so.
I am sure she felt she was 'looking out for my interest' and 'protecting me' from this abusive man...but i didn't need her protections. she saw one interaction--not the full scope of the relationship, and decided to become a hero.
--i have worked in hostile environments, and i know what they feel like..and i have made complaints to management about abuse, (fortunately it was verbal, and not physical) but this incident has always bothered me. this poor guy went through hell, not for just cause, but because someone, not in full knowledge of the facts(of the relationship) made a snap judgement based on one 10 second interaction.
her silence.. (and the passage of time) would have made it clear to her that there was no abuse. she would still be entitled to her own opinion about the guy, and it might effect her relationship with him. but she could have watched and waited, and (as any one who knows me,knows!) she would have seen i am not a shy, submissive person, who is likely to tolerate abuse.
we need the facts of the situation at hand to begin to construe whether the silence had been either critical or consensual
Well said, Wordwind.
"Silence gives consent" is a wise saying of general truth of no truth if used unwisely.
We give silent assent only to those who are doing our bidding, unbidden.
I'll check my email, too, AnnaS.
Ostracism will be sweet punishment if it lays bare the "power structure" hidden beneath the posts. :)
People who live in moss houses shouldn't roll stones.
People who live in moss houses shouldn't roll stones.Agreed. And people who roll stones shouldn't roll them over moss. :)
Regarding
ostrichisms. Very original. You've earned your ounce today, Faldage.
ounce or snow leopardThose fangs are familiar.
Fangs for the memory
Auld fang syne
Although the meaning implied by the saying "seems to be" is actually® "seems
to me to be" (sorry if that wuzn't clear enough), I continue here as understood as "giving personal perspective" ...which makes me wonder why you'd give historical reference...
A reconstruction... The institution of ostracism...... to show
me how "ostracism is employed".
Hey, but it does *seem to allow for its use all the times other than (as well as)"not so much".
Now, whether or not it's *better... well, knock yerself out trying to prove that, but don't be surprized if I don't answer...
he-he
Just a quick harkening back to the originating post [gasp]: moss, I like your word urbanality! Did you coin it? (I must have been really rushing, the first time through. In fact, I know I was: I remember wondering where on earth I-forgot-who came up with the ref. to Van Damme hats, or whatever they are!
did you coin it?
Thank you, Jackie. Yes I did. It got lost in the dust up over "the hoi polloi". :)
P.S. to Musick: Re: "A reconstruction... The institution of ostracism..."
I should have put this passage, including title, in quotes. Can't explain the author's construction. He/she sounds like a history prof.
did you coin it?
Thanks for link, Faldage. I see my coinage is not the first. Alas, fame is fleeting.
With only 784 hits, you're in the forefront.
With only 784 hits, you're in the forefront.You wear me out, Faldage. What's that supposed to mean?
Are you implying that I used a coinage at the top of this thread, and then waited for someone to ask me if I coined it 7 pages later so I could take illicit credit for coining it?
If that's what you are implying, Faldage, why not have the courage to come right out and say it?
I have no idea where you found those "784 hits" you mention, but I contributed to exactly one of those hits within seconds after you posted your Google link to "urbanality".
So that puts me at the rear end of those "784" hits, not exactly "in the forefront".
I was going to ignore your snide remark, Faldagger, but I'm an omegatist.
hey, i thought Faldage was complimenting you!
there are some of us, who are now just 'learning' what pasheema is (not me, but a 'uncool' friend of mine) and there are some (like you and my daughter) who always seem to know what the next trend will be, before the rest of us..
i knit.. early in the spring, i sent my daugther in law a package, and i includes a sampler, and directions for a half dozen 'semi fancy' stitches.. this fall, there are 3(three!) different knitting magazines that are featuring articles on the same subject! articles that no doubt got there start in the spring. -- did i start the 'trend'? hell no.. i just happened to 'have the same thought at the same time' and since three editors all thought it was 'a good idea', (read- something new--even though the stitches are old, they haven't been used/featured in knitted garments for a long while) they all selected to run similar articles..
the three writers, were they in cahoots? not with me, and i doubt with each other. they were all just quick to catch 'what was new' in the air.. as did you!
i don't see this as a race, where coming in a second or two ahead of someone else makes a difference.. but with under 1000 uses, the word is new, and you introduced it here. (and you are one of several people who 'pulled it out of the air' while the rest of us were sleeping!)good for you, and thanks!
I don't see this as a race, where coming in a second or two ahead of someone else makes a difference.. but with under 1000 uses, the word is new, and you introduced it here
You are too kind, de Troy.
But I can't take credit for introducing anyone to a new word thinking it was an emerging word.
I am no different than most of the other people who post here. I don't have time to track emerging words.
Google allows us to find emerging words once we know what they are, but as far as I know, it does not alert us to emerging words so that we can claim we have coined them for the first time.
No doubt, that service exists somewhere on the Net, but I am not really into that, personally.
A propos of that, I wonder how many people over the centuries have coined new words thinking their coinage was the first, without ever being disabused of the notion in their lifetime. Google makes it possible to debunk such delusions in seconds.
Actually, I don't think "urbanality" is such a terrific invention. It was just a play on words that seemed to work with the subject of this thread. That's all.
But, thanks for giving me undeserved credit for being in the vanguard of wordsmithing, de Troy. Wish I could lay claim to that.
If there was nothing snide implied in Faldage's remark, then he has my sincere apology.
Faldage created a certain tone when he suggested that I was "rolling stones" when I simply object to having stones rolled over me ... by Faldage or anyone else. In this, I am no different than anyone else, I believe.
Personally, I would hope that we can get beyond that, but someone has to make the first move. Or they can banish me, whatever "works" for them.
re:Faldage created a certain tone when he suggested that I was "rolling stones" when I simply object to having stones rolled over me
yeah, but...
Faldage is the Fool! (i haven't checked his profile of late, but he used to point it out in his profile.)
faldage pokes fun at everyone.. he has a silly looking septer, with bell and ribbons, (and a hidden sharp point!) and if you startle too much when jabbed, its a bit funny. (well funny for the rest of us!) and you're more likely to be jabbed again! --we've all be jabbed.. (and laughed at other too!) but his sharp point is pinprick, not a dagger! and he dance round and makes noise, and entertains us, and yup, every once in a while, the fool plays us. is it personal? yes, it damn well is! it wouldn't be funny to make a play on words about rolling stones with my name... but he has made word plays with all of us.
Faldage is not an authority, or anyone important, he is the Fool. enjoy the show, and enventually you'll even enjoy when you're the co-star in one of his word plays!(pinprick not withstanding!)
enventually you'll even enjoy when you're the co-star in one of his word plays!(pinprick not withstanding!
I can enjoy a "pin prick" just as much as anyone else, de Troy. But I do know when I have been slammed, unprovoked, with a blunt instrument.
omegatist?An "omegatist" is a particular strain of egotist. It is someone with a compulsion to have "the last word" in any argument.
It was the subject of a thread a long time ago.
P.S. If I was part of the cast, no doubt I would feel differently about "co-starring" with Faldage.
Not that I wish to be part of the "cast", mind you. It's just that when you are part of the cast, you know who your friends are, and who's running the show.
As AWADtalk is a public forum without membership fees (as far as I know), I don't think anyone, or any "cast", has the right to 'run the show'. That's what this is really all about, de Troy.
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=44141Thank you. Very helpful, Faldage. I will take that as the "first move" in restoring courtesy and civility to our exchanges.
P.S. I hope we are not going to duel to find out who is the most incorrigible "omegatist". 'Cause it's me, of course.
....and who's running the showWhat, you don't all just perform for me? we all part of the 'cast' and we're all running the show...
some day are great, others are so so.. but once you begin to post here, you're part... you make the play your own. its different, and reflects you, and your input, even if you just post a smiley!
you certainly seem bright enough, and fast enough on your feet (or is it fingertips?) to entertain and be entertaining.
we really are nice people... and i think you are too, i am just surprized again and again, (but then i have trouble with 'tone',too) that posts i see as fun, are seen differently by you. (and both our views/interpertations are valid!)
posts i see as fun, are seen differently by you. (and both our views/interpertations are valid!What is seen as "humorous" is often just a matter of perspective, de Troy, as you know. Depends on whether you are on the inside looking out, or on the outside looking in.
But I like your attitude. And it certainly would be great if AWADtalk is, or could become, the type of place you believe it is.
I offered no offence to anyone until offence was offered to me.
Those who occupy a position of influence should be more, not less, careful about disparaging 'humor' than outsiders like myself, I think, because they have a built-in cheering section.
In deference to your exemplary diplomacy, I cede the last post to you, de Troy.
[Just kidding.]
outsiders like myself
Sat Oct 20 17:11:03 2001
outsiders like myself
Sat Oct 20 17:11:03 2001Why am I not surprised at this response, Faldage?
Keep stirring it up. You might just wear me out. And, in the process, prove that you are more of an omegatist than I am.
OK, since I saw the views at this post totaled 666, I just
had to add this...
*****************************
But I do know when I have been slammed...It's quite clear that you don't, since you haven't been... but, then again, you're, of course, welcome to define 'slammed' anyway you'd like, as long as you acknowledge others' comfortableness with defining it as they do... (please don't ask what that is
).
That's what this is really all about, de Troy.For you *this may be the case, but the only evidence (oh my God , what did I just say
) to this lies in how frequent a single person posts... and then the person who is "running the show" in that respect is our dear Dr.Bill (aka. wwh)... not that there's anything (at all) wrong with that...
Depends on whether you are on the inside looking out, or on the outside looking in.As you've said (and we all agree) this is a public forum... this ain't the 'bourgeoisie -vs- the proletariat'.
But I like your attitude. And it certainly would be great if AWADtalk is, or could become, the type of place you believe it is.There's no place like home.... there's no place like home... there's no place like home... ...
I offered no offence to anyone until offence was offered to me.I think I've been insulted. I offered you offence but you didn't take it. Not good enough, I guess.
Hey, Faldage, I think he likes you...[giggle]Those who occupy a position of influence (Now I
know you're not talking about Faldage!)
should be more, not less, careful about disparaging 'humor' than outsiders like myself, I think, because they have a built-in cheering section. GO, Moss, GO! Go, Moss, GO! Go, Moss, GO!
Gimme an M... Gimme an O... Gimme an S... Gimme another S. What's it spell?!?
GooooooOOOOOOOO MOSS!
In deference to your exemplary diplomacy (call it what you want),
I cede the last post to you, de Troy. [Just kidding.] I knew that.
What is pasheema? Some sort of Indian food?
Bingley
http://www.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/conflict.htmlhappiness and light
happiness and light
joy joy jo-o-oy
happiness and light
Great resource! I'm stealing this for the social board I admin.
Thanks!
What is pasheema
A typo, Bingley; it is Pashmeena, a wool much in fashion at one time for its fineness of texture. The wool is obtained *only from the underbelly of a specific mountain goat unlike the Cashmere which is usually thicker and can be from any regular mountian goat. oftroy will certainly know more on this. The shahtoosh wool comes from a endangered goat (?antelope) called the Chiru. The poor thing has been mercilessly slaughtered for its wool and all for the sake of stupid human indulgence.
I offered you offence but you didn't take it.You're right. I don't find you offensive. [Maybe because I don't know who "Ron Obvious" is. Actually, I don't mind being "obvious" ... as long as I'm obviously right.
] Enjoy your sense of humor. Goooo Musick.
>I don't know who "Ron Obvious" is..
harrumph®; well, I never! you've obviously not been paying close attention over these two years.
ron obvious
you've obviously not been paying close attentionYou were not "Obvious" to me before.
For those following this soap opera, moss here has also posted as wordminstrel, plutarch (my favorite! a "securities trader in Vancouver"), semperon and vbq. Maybe other sock puppets, too, these are the ones that were obvious to me. You'll notice the link to the Omegatist thread has three of his personae prolonging a silly quid-pro-quo; yes, actually "talking" to each other.
So, while I appreciate your link, dody, and have been writing and talking about polarization in chat rooms & message boards for a long time, I feel that when you've got a group that comfortably discuss an array of topics vis-a-vis one (well, there have been a couple of others, but this one is classic) who comes in as any of half a dozen different screen names (many times just to stir things up), you gotta figure the playing field isn't exactly level.
you gotta figure the playing field isn't exactly levelOh, I think the playing field is pretty level, AnnaS. Faldage just wore me out and now it looks like your shift.
All those buried sock puppets can't "stir it up" half as much as one determined tag team.
I appreciate your link, dody, and have been writing and talking about polarization...
oi know miss, tis from you i learned all that i know, (and Jackie, for twas her link originally, many moons ago)
sorry for butting in, I left out of it for soooo long though, I thought my head was going to pop if I didn't say something, hey,[lightbulb-e] is there a word for that d'you reckon?
A pashmina is also a very wide scarf made from that wool? It is worn over a coat - like a shawl - but it is a long rectangle instead of the triangle of a shawl. I know it was very popular last winter.
Maybe other sock puppets tooMoss is going to put a sock in this sock puppet, for now, AnnaS.
But I might come back as a "Stranger" in typically innocent and respectful fashion, and, I think it goes without saying, if there is any unprovoked Falduggery directed my way, we shall pick up, Faldage and I, where we left off.
[If the apprehension of that benefits some other innocent "Stranger" in the meantime, so much the better.
]